Allan Lichtman seems to be onto something when looking at several races. I'm not sure closing arguments matter at all.

[Quixote1818]

Either polls are not reaching certain groups or a lot of people make a shift generally in the direction Lichtman predicts in a lot of elections, in the last few days. This occurred with Reagan vs Carter and Obama vs Romney and probably some others. What strikes me is that once people start to actually vote things can swing very dramatically in the last few days. Regardless of what dip shits like Frank Luntz say as far as it being about closing arguments, it seems to have more to do with some underlying human nature / decision making process that is more subconscious than anything the campaigns are saying.

For example, I just don't believe 5 million people shifted from Romney to Obama the last week because of some sort of campaign messaging in the last few days. It was voters who voted for Obama the first time then for some sub-conscious reason shifted back to him probably because the economy and other things things that impacted them were doing fine. Things like Lichtman point out, are in peoples subconscious.

Guys like Luntz will say Harris should have been doing "such and such" and that is why her support flat-lined for a bit. I'm just not buying this. I think swing voters engage a bit for things like conventions and debates, then stop paying as much attention and then when it's time to vote they go through some sort of decision making process and come to their final decision or perhaps it's the last few days they may dig a little deeper on the issues but I think it has more to do with something innate than anything the candidates are saying in the final couple of weeks.

[TwilightZone]

1. Romney made some serious errors toward the end of his campaign

47% being the obvious one, binders full of women, and so on.

Momentum was shifting toward Obama at the end, so a shift vs. the polls is not as unlikely as it might appear.

Those kinds of shifts were never likely in this cycle because Trump's support is historically stable, if also historically low. His approval ratings haven't moved much at all in months, contrary to what one would guess, considering the onslaught of negative press.

Those who were going to be swayed on Trump were swayed long ago. At this point, I think it's more about whether or not likely voters actually show up. The closing arguments could indeed make an impact there, though perhaps not a significant one.

[Quixote1818]

5. The binders full of women comment was made in mid October. The polls were virtually tied

going into election day then Obama won by 4 points. I'm not understanding how that comment sunk him in November but didn't impact polling in October?

Romney was up by 3 points 10 days after that comment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/10/25/post-abc-tracking-poll-romney-50-percent-obama-47/

[TwilightZone]

8. That's just one poll.

Look at the trend:



Obama's upward swing started October 16th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2012_United_States_presidential_election

[yardwork]

2. It's puzzling to me because I follow politics so closely.

However, I know that many people aren't as interested in politics; in fact, many people don't really like politics, so they avoid it. But they do vote, and I think they make their decision in the final days, and their decisions are often based on an eclectic set of things.

I think a lot of people do "go with their gut."

My instinct is that a lot of people are getting tired of the extreme MAGA behavior and hysteria.

[Sympthsical]

4. That is what I'm waiting for

I'm looking at polls, I see the closeness. But at the end of the day, it takes a little bit of intuition to surmise what large groups are thinking and doing.

My intuition says enough people are tired of the circus that we might see a one to two point shift towards Harris in the swing states in the end. The people who affirmatively support Trump are always there. But how many voters who have voted for him in the past are sitting there this time and feeling like they just can't be bothered?

The man is exhausting, and I feel some of that exhaustion when I read and listen to some of his supporters. We don't need millions of them to tap out either. Just a few tens of thousands here and there.

Right now, I think those people exist.

[lapfog_1]

3. None of the polls matter now.

Polls are always always looking back in time... it can take days to get polling results that have an statistical merit. You have to get X number of people from representative demographics to formulate a result that might be "within the margin of error", and a LOT of people simply don't want to be polled or even be contacted... land lines are nearly extinct at this point and some people are so fed up with polling that they will answer but LIE to the poll takers just to "f" with the system.

To get a more accurate poll you need a lot of responses ( reducing that margin of error ), thousands... and by the time the 100 phone bank people get the required responses... something else has happened in the news cycles that can change opinions ( like General Kelly telling people that Trump is a fascist, for example ), so by the end of the polling period the poll is almost worthless. After early voting starts... you really can count only on exit polls... but the majority of people haven't voted yet.

Democrats vote early, repukes vote on election day ( mostly ). But some states are prevented from counting mail in votes until election day ( big dumps Trump would call them... trying to claim that those are frauds ).

We need to wait until a week from Thursday for some of the tight races in battleground states... unless this is a blowout one way or another.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. Agree, emotion as a closer has power to it

Harris' Ellipse speech will be important. She needs to counter the emotional vague appeal of Trump's speeches. He's playing angelic music? To jive with Turning Point canvassers and literature. His campaign will deliver a strong close. We have to be stronger.

[ret5hd]

7. My totally anecdotal experience:

i am in my mid 60s, paying close attention to politics since 20 or so.

i don’t know, nor have ever known, anyone that pays close attention to politics that says “hmmm…well, THIS issue switched me to THAT guy…well, now THAT issue switched me back…well, now i’m back to the other guy…”

i’ve just never seen it…i’ve seen minds made up because someone got pissed at an ex who happened to be of some party, i’ve seen some switched by real-life experiences (health care) etc

but a careful, thoughtful, non-biased, back-and-forth analysis of issues and platforms…hell, anybody i’ve known that does that kind of thinking goes for the Democratic Party…AND STAYS THERE.

[hlthe2b]

9. I agree. Big things matter (like dichotomous "doing media vs not" or "getting out there to do rallies vs. not" )

So they can't just go "silent," but small things like any given interview or appearance or comment or whatever, just can't make the ultimate difference.

[Karadeniz]

10. Subconscious reasoning: I find it often helpful to evaluate behavior by using

Christian Psychology rather than our Western attempts at understanding Mind. CP includes soul in the Mind composition, as well as the physical component. "Don't hide your light under a basket." This helps explain all the paranormal powers of Mind such as those elucidated in Your Eternal Self, an excellent reference. Scripture uses light to describe spiritual energy and places the soul's origin as the Source (father) and thus is of the same composition as "God," but just a chip off the block, tiny. The soul's purpose is to incarnate in a material "basket" to bring its godly nature to earth and raise our standards of ethics, morality. BUT, as scripture explains, not every soul is equal. The number of previous incarnations varies, the quality of each experience varies, the ungodly qualities (swine) we have vary. So, CPsy gives us the "something innate" you mention and it is soul energy influence!

We can sort of evaluate the development of soul energy by a person's behavior. Trump, zero empathy, using and abusing others, does not display any godly traits at all, so we assume soul energy the size of a thimble, incapable of rising above the physical level of development. Khzir Khan's son who ran to a suspicious vehicle in Afghanistan, and willingly gave his life to save his fellow soldiers, displayed a through the roof developed soul because he completely ignored the brain's primary purpose of self preservation. At that moment, his thinking was completely governed by soul.

BUT... there's a catch! We know from NDEs and past life regressions that sometimes a soul's purpose is to incarnate as the bad cop in order to help others develop spiritually. Thus, "don't judge!" What if Trump's purpose was to manifest such a deplorable nature on a grand scale that millions of people could have to choose between morality and immorality? Or just to warn people to use their power for the Good? It's not as cut and dried as it seems!!!

[Dem4life1970]

11. Lichtman is the gold standard.

[rubbersole]

12. Maybe that sammich the ladies were supposed to make...

...went further up Frank Luntz's ass than he first thought. Doesn't taste like a Big Mac - does it, Frank?

[moniss]

13. For what it's worth about polls

it is not enough to just say "likely voters" or "registered voters" without the ones conducting the polls giving more information about how that list of people to query was determined. Were the lists drawn equally from Red and Blue voters or registrations? Were voters who had gone back and forth in their voting on the list? Were the lists taken from strongholds or from swing areas that had gone a little one way or the other in the last few elections? Were the lists chosen using criteria that don't account for new voters/registrations?

So many of the polls are now constructed in order to "drive" a conclusion or direction.

I can guarantee that the results of a poll of 1000 likely voters each with 500 Red and 500 Blue recent voters will give one result if the 500 Red come from a stronghold and the 500 Blue from a swing/soft area compared to a poll that is stronghold/stronghold or swing area/swing area.

The way polling lists are generated is seldom closely investigated or disclosed. But it is critical to evaluating the validity of any results presented.

[AZ8theist]

14. "dip shits like Frank Luntz".....................

SPOT ON.

[Warpy]

15. He's right, there's a significant group who don't make up their minds

until they get into that voting booth all by themselves and realize nobody else can see them or who they mark down on the ballot.

These people don't think like we do, and that's OK. The more diverse a group is, the likelier it will arrive at the correct answer for everything. That's why Republicans spend so much time and money trying to suppress the Democratic vote.

Let's hope their butts are the ones glued to the couch a week from Tuesday, when they all like to vote 'cause it's traditional. The non political and shallow thinkers are more likely to get it right than Republicans are.

[Tweedy]

16. Frank Luntz is a lifelong GOP spin doctor

and psychological manipulator. He is the one who convinced the gop to speak in lockstep like a herd of lemmings while insulting the “democrat”* party in every public GOP comment. Ignore him is my humble advice.

* Frank Luntz invented that insult because the sound “democrat party” bothered people who otherwise liked the “democratic party.”

If you cannot win, start calling names like a 7 year old is one of Frank Luntz’ contributions to our current state of affairs.

[GiqueCee]

17. As you say...

... Luntz is a Republican. And in my experience, that means he is a liar. I wouldn't trust a word that came out of his face any further than I could throw my truck.

[Cirsium]

18. Go to some diner somewhere

Isn't there a greasy spoon somewhere in rural Wisconsin where we can visit and take an impromptu poll to find out what "real Americans" are "thinking"? Maybe with Katy Tur, Andrea Mitchell or Dana Bash doing "analysis" for us?