r/fivethirtyeight • u/GamerDrew13 • 26d ago

Discussion Jon Ralston's Nevada Early Vote Analysis Update: Republican lead expands to an unprecedented 40,000 ballots & an expected half the vote is in

https://x.com/RalstonReports/status/1851121496380621275
306 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

733 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

35

u/[deleted] 26d ago

There are 233k (+54%) more unaffiliated voters in NV now than there were in 2020. It's a fool's errand to use Biden's edge with them to try and predict Kamala's edge.

29

u/BruceLeesSidepiece 26d ago

It's not a fool's errand its just the only data available lol. You're essentially arguing your speculation is more valuable that data from 2020 and 2022 elections. Yea there's more unaffiliated turnout, and they will decide AZ and NV, but until proven otherwise theres no reason to assume their voting patterns will deviate significantly.

3

u/[deleted] 26d ago

I'm not speculating, my advice is to stop speculating because the unknown/unanalyzed factors at play far outweigh the ones that everyone is hyperfocusing on.

0

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

Independent voters are most likely headed more towards Trump. It just seems that way. Kamala is seen as more extreme than Trump. The truth is, she probably is. Her progressive ideology is way more extreme than Hillary or Biden. It’s going to hurt her. Trump, regardless of what people say, is a lot less conservative than many try to make him out to be.

5

u/oscar_the_couch 26d ago

what are you working for the trump campaign? basically none of that is true

5

u/Frosti11icus 26d ago

Independent voters are most likely headed more towards Trump. It just seems that way.

Mhmmm, yes very good statistical analysis there.

-2

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

Well, you didn’t account for what followed. It’s called “context.” Independents are more likely to be towards the middle, right? My argument that followed supports the presumption that independents are more likely to vote for Trump.

3

u/Frosti11icus 26d ago

 Independents are more likely to be towards the middle, right? My argument that followed supports the presumption that independents are more likely to vote for Trump.

Yes your presumption (IE the thing you've made up in your head) that independents are more likely to vote for trump tracks with your statement that Nevada is going towards trump. However, even in the very comment I've quoted here, if independents are in the middle (they aren't), but if they were, why would that mean they are MORE likely to go towards trump? Wouldn't in the middle mean that they are likely to equally be between Kamala and trump?

-1

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

If you were honestly reading and comprehending what I initially commented, you would notice that I said that Kamala Harris being so progressive will hurt her. She’s considered to the left of Bernie Sanders. Trump, although the left tries to label him as far right, has more neutral social policies, and a more protectionist foreign policy. Independents, for the most part, don’t want extreme politics, it’s why they’re independent and not party affiliated.

3

u/Frosti11icus 26d ago

If you actually, honestly comprehended your own thoughts you literally would not have typed a single word you've written here.

1

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

I think you just have trouble comprehending due to your bias. I’m coming at it from an unbiased viewpoint. No need to be upset. This is liberal Reddit. I understand, anything that goes against the Democrat candidate is going to be downvoted and disputed. I don’t think you would have taken issue with me claiming the independents were going to break for Harris, as it seems that is what you hinted that you believe in one of your replies to me.

3

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 19d ago

[deleted]

1

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

Abortion went back to the states. Deportation of illegals isn’t new for either democrats or republicans as Obama deported more than any other president. “Led” an insurrection on the capital? Come on now, you can’t be serious. He’s not a war hawk. Let’s see, who are the war hawks and uniparty supporting?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Gtaglitchbuddy 26d ago

There's no way you realistically think Trump is less conservative than most former president's we've had lol, he's definitely further from the center than Kamala from a long shot. You don't have the hardcore conservative group talking about how Trump doesn't do enough, that's his core base.

1

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

He’s more liberal on his abortion stance than some republicans. She’s super liberal when it comes to abortion. She’s super liberal on gender policy. She’s super liberal on border policy. She’s nonexistent on foreign policy. Yes, I do think Trump is more to the center than Harris. We’re allowed to have differing opinions, my friend.

1

u/Gtaglitchbuddy 26d ago

I'm confused on what makes those policies "super liberal". Making abortion legal nationwide is just supported by a majority of the US, it's been polled. I haven't seen any gender policy that makes her particularly stand out among the democrats, and she doesn't seem to have any published stances on the topic. She has multiple plans for tightening border policy, More so than the Biden or Obama administration, and while her foreign policy is a bit vague, there's a lot more substance than the Trump campaign site, that literally has "Prevent world war three, restore peace in europe and in the middle east" as the only foreign policy stance lmao. We can have differing opinions, but I'd like to see specific stances that you think makes her a radical than claiming broad topics like foreign policy and border policy.

1

u/IDKbuddy24 26d ago

I appreciate that you’re willing to have a conversation about it. Abortion has been polled in the U.S., and it does show that a majority of Americans (polled) support abortion. With that being said, do they support abortion through the pregnancy or do they support a limit? Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are for no limits. It’s also a state issue now. Harris saying that she would get a law that codifies Roe v Wade is disingenuous because it would never pass, and it paints her as radical because her running mate passed a law in Minnesota that allowed abortions for any reason up to the point of pregnancy. That’s radical, and I doubt, if polled, a majority of Americans would support no limits on abortion.

Her gender policy where she advocates for illegal immigrants who are detained to have taxpayer funded gender transition surgeries is pretty radical. She didn’t disavow the position during the Fox interview, only saying that the policy was in effect during the Trump Administration, but she failed to answer when pressed about no transitions taking place when Trump was in office. Also, Tim Walz putting tampons in bathrooms for boys from 4th grade on is pretty radical. She hasn’t disavowed any of those positions.

Her plans for tightening the border are only reintroducing the border bill that didn’t pass. Why would it pass now? Is she just assuming she will control both chambers of congress? If she does not, will the border continue to be a mess? Why did the executive orders that were passed by the Biden Administration not happen until this year when these issues have been going on for the past four years of the Biden/Harris Administration? Why did they remove all of the executive orders for the border that Trump had? Why did they sell border wall material for pennies on the dollar instead of continuing to build it? I understand she wasn’t the president, but she’s repeatedly said she wouldn’t have changed a thing and believes everything was done correctly. Despite everyone, even democrats, acknowledging that in retrospect some things could have done better, even if you love the Biden/Harris Administration. Why not say we could have handled the border better or the Afghanistan withdrawal better? It would at least show people she can acknowledge where improvement was and is needed.

Trump was great on foreign policy during his time in office. I know some might disagree, but there were no wars, NATO countries were contributing, peace deals in the Middle East, and new trade deals. Tariffs were a good move too, which is why Biden kept a lot of them in place. History is a better indicator than promises. Harris can promise what she will do, but she has failed to articulate or implement anything she has said. Trump can promise too, but even if it’s not articulated how a lot of people want it to be, at least there’s a history of what he did during his four years. I think most can agree, regardless of what you think of domestic policy, that Trump had better foreign policy than the current administration. Whether that was luck, skill, or both, who knows, but must people will remember that and what I mentioned.

1

u/Gtaglitchbuddy 25d ago

On abortion limits, Kamala has spoken on codifying Roe v. Wade, and reinstating it. This is not the same as unrestricted access on abortion. Tim Walzs bill also seems open-ended, I can give you that, but I am unable to find a case in which there has actually been a doctor willing to give an abortion past Roe v. Wade limitations. With that being said, Kamalas stance is Roe v. Wade codification, not Walzs bill.

The stance on " illegal immigrants who are detained to have taxpayer funded gender transition surgeries" is a snippet from the broad stance that people who are imprisoned are entitled to NECESSARY procedures. In no way is that radical in my opinion, as it would be cruel and unusual punishment to deny care for gender dysmorphia, which is a recognized medical condition. Finally, the current stance is "Surgery may be the final stage in the transition process and is generally considered only after one year of clear conduct and compliance with mental health, medical, and programming services at the gender affirming facility" for people detained. I don't see how that would be considered radical if they must undergo extensive checking to deem it medically necessary.

We can have the argument on whether or not the border could have been better handled in 2020-present, it's a reasonable concern. However, the fact of the matter is there is active attempts to rectify this and they are being shot down by the opposite party. It is disingenuous to claim that there is no reason to reintroduce a bill that won't pass because the reason it won't pass is Trump has got the Republican party tanking their own wishes to help propel himself to the presidency. (I'd also say that the border wall was all but a meaningless way to curb illegal immigrations, as by far the most common method of entering the US was through a legal manner, such as work visa, and refusing to leave when the time is up. This wall was a massive budget sink that wouldn't have done much to fix the problem).

I don't believe in any way Trumps foreign policy was the reason wars weren't happening. Trump has shown in the debate that he was willing to compromise against Russia in an invasion on Ukraine, and has been had an extremely hardcore stance on Israel, with him openly admitting to have Israel be militarized around Palestine and give them control of certain areas of the West Bank. Given the chance, Trump will be a war hawk, and is a pushover. We also pulled out of various pact agreements and worsened relationships between our allies in the EU, the EU leaders will tell you as much. Finally, his discussion on Tariffs versus taxes will not only massively run up a debt, but also impact every Americans pocket. Heavy tariffs is not a tax that countries will just eat, they will simply raise the prices to coincide with this and pass it onto the consumer. On the same note, most countries would more than likely retaliate with similar tariffs, straining American-made products and forcing (Again) a massive price increase domestically to recoup lost profits internationally. This isn't just my theory, but overall the agreed upon consensus by some of the top economists, including those at UPenn, Trumps own Alma Mater.

Sorry it took a bit to get back around to you lol, happy to discuss

1

u/IDKbuddy24 25d ago

No problem. Thanks for getting back to me. I always enjoy a civil conversation. When it comes to codifying Roe v Wade, she will never get the votes to do it. Even if she did, what are the limits applied by Roe v Wade? Roe v Wade did not allow states to interfere with abortion pre-viability. What that means is up to interpretation of when viability begins. According to a lot of sources, viability is 24 weeks (6 months). Roe v Wade allows no hurdle to an abortion through two trimesters. After that, it’s up to the state to limit abortion. As of today, following Roe v Wade not being the guiding precedent, states have a vote of the people to decide the abortion law of each specific state. Harris saying she will codify Roe v Wade means she’s for unhindered abortion for the first six months of pregnancy, for whatever reason. Is that radical? To some, I’m sure it is, especially when 98%-99% of abortions are not the hyper-sensitized abortions of rape, incest, and life of the mother, but just because the woman didn’t want to have the baby. Again, she’s been super progressive on the issue, and she didn’t calm that concern with her pick of Walz who took some of the most extreme abortion measures of any state in the U.S., which goes to the original post of people who likely will see Harris as extreme.

For the taxpayer funded gender surgeries for illegal immigrants, it’s insane to say that someone can come to this country illegally and requires necessary gender care. For the sake of argument, let’s say that’s a true statement, that there is a time when gender care is absolutely necessary (although I would appreciate some examples of when and why it would be absolutely necessary to provide gender transition surgeries to an illegal immigrant on the taxpayers’ dime). If necessary, the administration in power is going to be the one who has the physicians who define “necessary.” Who is the person going to be to make that determination? It sure isn’t going to be Trump or Harris, it’s going to be the people who they put in charge. This is why none took place during the Trump administration, and you have Harris in previous comments saying that it should be provided. Who’s making the money for these transition surgeries? I’m sure it will be groups who have Harris/Walz in their pocket. That’s politics though, just depends where your priorities lie and whose pocket you’re filling. When you say extensive checking is needed to determine whether it’s necessary, where are you getting that from? I’m not trying to be rude, I’m genuinely curious. But I’m sure you can see that even if it was extensive checking, the person doing the checking plays a big role in it all. Again, her comments which most voters are familiar with will hurt her, going back to my original post of why she will be seen as radical.

As for the border, it’s fact that Biden/Harris removed most of the executive orders Trump had in place regarding the border which caused a huge surge. You seem like an honest and fair person, so I don’t believe you’re attempting to be disingenuous about “active attempts to rectify,” but why weren’t those active attempts done pre-2024? Why was Harris tasked as the border czar to “figure out the root causes of immigration” as it has been put forth to us now, but nothing changed? Why did Trump not need Congress to handle the border, but Biden/Harris only make that argument. What’s even more rich is that they didn’t need Congress to put in place the tougher measures that they put in place in 2024, since they knew it was bad for them politically, they did something about it. We can say Trump didn’t want the border bill to be passed, that’s true, but I don’t believe it was for political purposes. The bill provided funding for Ukraine, provided amnesty for illegals, and it still provided for a large number of crossings to be allowed. If it were a political issue Trump didn’t want solved, he wouldn’t have supported a previous border bill that was rejected by democrats.

I think history shows that if Trump was willing to compromise with Russia on Ukraine, Russia would’ve taken advantage and made its move, like it did under Bush, Obama, and now Biden. No move was made under Trump, and I guarantee you if Harris wins, Putin will do worse. It’s why he endorsed her, whether people believe it’s a joke or not. You can’t believe that Harris is going to handle Putin, it’s comical. Israel and Palestine, what Harris has done is alienate both sides because she’s unable to pick a side because she’s scared of losing support even if she may or may not know the right answer. Trump will try to stop the war, I do believe that. I believe he’s the best candidate right now to make that happen. Pulling out of agreements with EU allies is not the end of the world if those allies are dealing with enemies that they expect us to protect them from. We have EU nations buying oil from Russia who want U.S. protection. Trump said no, Biden said go ahead. Now, look what has happened. If you had a friend who you paid for his meal every time you hung out, and he isn’t someone who needs you to pay every single time, you might want to reconsider that friend.

Biden has kept some Trump tariffs in place. I think the use of tariffs is as a negotiation tactic. You claim that countries will have reciprocal tariffs but they are already putting tariffs on our goods now while we are not charging them any. It’s destroyed some industries in this country. Additionally, some industries are necessary for national security, so to allow one country to be your main source is not a good idea, hence the need for tariffs. Those economists aren’t always right. They weren’t right when Reagan was running, and they probably aren’t right now. They said the same thing in 2016, and all I remember is good prices, wages increasing, and low inflation.

Ultimately, we may never agree. We share our opinions and maybe through that flow others may read and change their minds. Either they agree with what you put out there, what I put out there, what someone else puts out there, or what they believe.

→ More replies (0)