If Harris nabs just half of the last voters to choose, she’d sail in with an outright majority and a 2.6-point win, probably landing her clear of the swing state shift.
You are leaving out by far the largest variable-turn out. there are millions and millions of nominal supporters on both sides who don't vote. If you are undecided at this point you are likely a low information irrational voter, it is difficult to concoct a strategy to convince those people of something. I am glad a handful of elite Republicans have the backbone to stand against Trump, but I don't know if they bring many voters with them. The whole non-partisan security apparatus are signing dire warnings about Trump's unfitness, leaners and undecideds seem impervious to what once would have been disqualifying. Hopefully, Trump is depressing his own turnout with his incoherent rambling, and Harris has the get-out-the-vote infrastructure in high gear- but I don't know how many minds will get changed.
David--If you saw my post in July ("Do we need a civics test before voting?") I speculated that maybe we shouldn't be encouraging these low information undecideds to vote, regardless of which side they would come down on. That said, in the breakdown I cite from Chris Stirewalt, the vast majority of late deciders broke for Trump last two elections. So "get out the vote" drives for the Democrats need to be very targeted.
I agree with your re-visited analysis, especially the vibes. David Dinklage makes a good point about the potential wild card of how occasional voters will actually show up. But I think he's right that the Democrats' ground game will over-perform and Trump will continue to subvert his potential support.
the parties typically do very targeted get out the vote drives, these are often not undecided or low information, but rather low motivation so you have to make it easy and exciting for them. With Hillary for all the analysis to explain trumps success, if she had turned out typical numbers of black voters in Detroit, Milwaukie , and Philadelphia she would have won and trump would have disappeared.
You are leaving out by far the largest variable-turn out. there are millions and millions of nominal supporters on both sides who don't vote. If you are undecided at this point you are likely a low information irrational voter, it is difficult to concoct a strategy to convince those people of something. I am glad a handful of elite Republicans have the backbone to stand against Trump, but I don't know if they bring many voters with them. The whole non-partisan security apparatus are signing dire warnings about Trump's unfitness, leaners and undecideds seem impervious to what once would have been disqualifying. Hopefully, Trump is depressing his own turnout with his incoherent rambling, and Harris has the get-out-the-vote infrastructure in high gear- but I don't know how many minds will get changed.
David--If you saw my post in July ("Do we need a civics test before voting?") I speculated that maybe we shouldn't be encouraging these low information undecideds to vote, regardless of which side they would come down on. That said, in the breakdown I cite from Chris Stirewalt, the vast majority of late deciders broke for Trump last two elections. So "get out the vote" drives for the Democrats need to be very targeted.
I'm hoping you are correct.
I agree with your re-visited analysis, especially the vibes. David Dinklage makes a good point about the potential wild card of how occasional voters will actually show up. But I think he's right that the Democrats' ground game will over-perform and Trump will continue to subvert his potential support.
the parties typically do very targeted get out the vote drives, these are often not undecided or low information, but rather low motivation so you have to make it easy and exciting for them. With Hillary for all the analysis to explain trumps success, if she had turned out typical numbers of black voters in Detroit, Milwaukie , and Philadelphia she would have won and trump would have disappeared.