Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

This was way too interesting and relevant for me not to post, and quite frankly all the poll talk is boring.

ezra Klein's take on #Gamergate, and the politicization of everything.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/1/7136343/gamergate-and-the-politicization-of-absolutely-everything

Ezra can be so adorable sometimes.

 

[Metaphoreus]

quite frankly all the poll talk is boring.

It had to be said.

 

[benjipwns]

It had to be said.

Oh sure, you'd probably want to discuss garbage like court cases or policy or philosophy or something boring and stupid instead of grasping on every individual number release as whether to dismiss it or believe it and speculating over and over about each race, the grand narrative of the election outcome, and its impact on future elections and speculative future candidates.

The funny part is that everyone's missing the actually important thing.

Just who is going to sit at the Candy Desk?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Just to be clear, I find the discussion of polls and likely election outcomes quite interesting, and am constantly impressed at how knowledgeable so many of the posters in this thread are about the likely outcomes of even the most obscure races for federal office. It's just not a discussion I'm interested in participating in.

Speaking of discussions I'm interested in participating in, did you all know that the Supreme Court yesterday considered whether to grant certiorari in King v. Burwell, the Fourth Circuit counterpart to Halbig? SCOTUSBlog thinks we'll know Monday the results of that conference. Fingers crossed.

 

[benjipwns]

You're ignoring the bigger court news, half-uncle/half-niece marriage now allowed in New York: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...half-niece-marriages-are-valid-under-n-y-law/

This one was an amusing trivia point: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...4/11/01/abortion-law-upheld-by-minority-vote/

I noticed this case from the Supreme Court of North Dakota that struck me as particularly noteworthy. The court upheld a state abortion law against a federal constitutional challenge by a 2-3 vote. That is, two justices in favor, three against, and the two won. (Original link, and more links, all via Howard Bashman.)

Apparently North Dakota has a constitutional rule that requires a supermajority to invalidate a statute, and it applies that rule not only to state constitutional claims to federal constitutional claims.

But to get to King/Halbig: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...was-health-care-reform-authored-in-the-house/

Friday the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the petition for certiorari in King v. Burwell. Friday’s Post also features an op-ed defending the IRS rule authorizing tax credits for the purchase of health insurance in exchanges established by the federal government at issue in King and several other pending cases. The op-ed is authored by Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Ron Wyden, and Representatives Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), George Miller (D-Calif.) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). As the accompanying byline notes, all five were heavily involved in the efforts to enacted health care reform and the eventual passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. So if anyone knows how the law was passed, it should be these gentlemen. That makes the substance of their essay all the more odd.

The point of their op-ed is to suggest that it is fanciful to suggest (as I and others have argued) that the PPACA only authorizes tax credits in exchanges established by the states, even though that is what the law repeatedly says. I won’t rehearse all of the arguments here.

...

In this post, I want to focus on this curious passage from the Harkin, et al., op-ed:

None of us contemplated that the bill as enacted could be misconstrued to limit financial help only to people in states opting to directly run health insurance marketplaces. In fact, as chairs of the three House committees that collectively authored the health-care reform legislation (Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and the Workforce), three of us issued a joint fact sheet in March 2010 reflecting our intention that financial help would be available to consumers in the state marketplaces, whether the state were to run it directly or via the federal government. (Emphasis added.)

I literally had to read this paragraph three times to make sure I was reading it correctly. “The health care reform legislation” – that is, the PPACA - was “authored” in the Senate, not the House. There was not even a House-Senate conference to reconcile the competing bills because the election of Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts deprived Senate Democrats of the 60th vote necessary to invoke cloture. This meant that the only health reform that could be enacted was that Senate bill. This bill was subsequently amended through the reconciliation process, but the heart of the bill — and the provisions relevant to the whether tax credits are available in federal exchanges — are from the Senate bill.

Now it is true that there was “health-care reform legislation” passed by the House, but it was not “the health care reform legislation” at issue. The House legislation never became law and was not, in any meaningful sense, incorporated in the PPACA. Indeed, this is why some House members had serious reservations about the Senate bill (including its exchange provisions) and why leading health care reform advocates had to argue vociferously that the Senate bill, for all its flaws, was still better than no bill at all. The health care reform proposals developed in the House may have been preferred by most reform advocates, but that’s not what became law. What House leaders “intended” to do with legislation that was never enacted is irrelevant to the meaning of the PPACA because they didn’t have the votes to enact their intentions into law.

Emphasis Adler's.

 

[cooljeanius]

This was way too interesting and relevant for me not to post, and quite frankly all the poll talk is boring.

ezra Klein's take on #Gamergate, and the politicization of everything.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/1/7136343/gamergate-and-the-politicization-of-absolutely-everything

Thanks, I thought that captured pretty accurately a lot of the conflicting feelings I've been having surrounding the politics of all that...

 

[Jack Remington]

Speaking of discussions I'm interested in participating in, did you all know that the Supreme Court yesterday considered whether to grant certiorari in King v. Burwell, the Fourth Circuit counterpart to Halbig? SCOTUSBlog thinks we'll know Monday the results of that conference. Fingers crossed.

It'll be interesting if we get to the point where you get to actually cheer for millions of people losing their health coverage.

Adler is a massive scumbag, btw. Only slightly surpassed by the sheer evil of Michael Cannon.

 

[Amir0x]

Welp I got on my hazmat suit for the radioactive disaster Tuesday is set to be.

 

[Diablos]

Welp I got on my hazmat suit for the radioactive disaster Tuesday is set to be.

Corbett is going to lose at least...

edit: If what Adler states is valid, then why did the SCOTUS still acknowledge that Congress had a backup plan for when states refused to set up an exchange? I know it wasn't about the case at hand (NFIB v. Sebelius), but they still seemed to have an understanding of how the exchanges worked. Given the tenacity of all but one of the right-leaning Justices to ensure PPACA was stopped right then and there, I would assume they'd have added their grievances with inaccuracies in how subsidies are to be doled out with little to no hesitation whatsoever. Scalia wanted this law struck down. They were furious with Roberts for switching sides.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Turn those frowns upside down kids. Colorado's electorate is finally returning back to normal after having a big GOP edge the first couple of weeks. We're doing no worse than we did in 2010 when we, you know, won.

And North Carolina early voting has finished. Democrats turned in 25% more early votes than they did in 2010, but the GOP only 5%. And unaffiliated voters turned in a whopping 45% more!

Florida early voting saw GOP lead evaporate to just 4.3% with 3 million votes in. When Scott won by a hair in 2010, the GOP's early vote advantage was in the double digits.

Michigan Dem state chair says Democrats have banked an over 100,000 vote edge on Republicans in early voting, and that Schauer only needs to win 37% of the election day vote to cross 50%.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Corbett is going to lose at least...

edit: If what Adler states is valid, then why did the SCOTUS still acknowledge that Congress had a backup plan for when states refused to set up an exchange? I know it wasn't about the case at hand (NFIB v. Sebelius), but they still seemed to have an understanding of how the exchanges worked. Given the tenacity of all but one of the right-leaning Justices to ensure PPACA was stopped right then and there, I would assume they'd have added their grievances with inaccuracies in how subsidies are to be doled out with little to no hesitation whatsoever. Scalia wanted this law struck down. They were furious with Roberts for switching sides.

Short answer: judges work with what the parties give them. If the parties don't raise an argument, the judges have no reason to be aware of it.

Longer answer here and in subsequent posts.

 

[ivysaur12]

Turn those frowns upside down kids. Colorado's electorate is finally returning back to normal after having a big GOP edge the first couple of weeks. We're doing no worse than we did in 2010 when we, you know, won.

And North Carolina early voting has finished. Democrats turned in 25% more early votes than they did in 2010, but the GOP only 5%. And unaffiliated voters turned in a whopping 45% more!

Florida early voting saw GOP lead evaporate to just 4.3% with 3 million votes in. When Scott won by a hair in 2010, the GOP's early vote advantage was in the double digits.

Michigan Dem state chair says Democrats have banked an over 100,000 vote edge on Republicans in early voting, and that Schauer only needs to win 37% of the election day vote to cross 50%.

Serious question: have you ever thought about working in elections?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Serious question: have you ever thought about working in elections?

Possibly. I'm currently a theater major which means most of my knowledge is stuff I've picked up independently, although I have given serious thought to and most likely will be double majoring in poli sci which would only take a year to complete (which is how long it will take me to complete my theater degree anyway).

I've worked for a few local elections and they were fun albeit stressful, and were also quixotic candidacies that we all knew wouldn't go anywhere. Knowing that there's no realistic chance of winning sort of sucks the fun out of it but it creates a more casual environment so it's give and take.

I don't really have a concrete plan for a career so we'll see where I end up I guess.

 

[Averon]

Rick Scott still on track to lose, right?

 

[Wilsongt]

Oh shitty release of anal sex, you so stupid.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) this week warned that while it seems unlikely, religious freedom in the United States could eventually erode into something similar to Nazi Germany.

In an interview with the Christian Post, Santorum said that religious freedom in America is "under direct assault."

"The government wants to tell you how to live your life," he said. "They’re going to tell you what your values will be, and they’re not going to be tolerant of any dissent."

Santorum acknowledged that persecution in the U.S. is "fairly mild" compared to other regions in the world.

But he then launched into a comparison to Nazi Germany. He noted that before the Nazis took over, Germany was a tolerant country and such persecution was "unfathomable."

"Germany prior to the Nazis getting there was a very religious country, was a Christian country. It was a very sophisticated country," he said.

"Same thing here," Santorum continued. "You think it’s just impossible for that to happen in America. And maybe it is, but maybe it isn’t."

Please run in 2016. We need more of these gems stated publicly.

 

[Diablos]

Short answer: judges work with what the parties give them. If the parties don't raise an argument, the judges have no reason to be aware of it.

Longer answer here and in subsequent posts.

Is there no consequence for a Judge going on record saying with no hesitation that Congress had a backup plan for states that refused to comply with establishing an exchange?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Rick Scott still on track to lose, right?

It's close enough that he could win but I'd call Crist the definite favorite. Dems are killing it with early voting.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Is there no consequence for a Judge going on record saying with no hesitation that Congress had a backup plan for states that refused to comply with establishing an exchange?

First, let me clarify something: nobody disputes that federal exchanges were to be established in states that failed or refused to establish their own. The issue in Halbig, King, and a couple of other similar cases around the country is whether tax credits authorized by the ACA can be offered to purchasers of health insurance from the federal exchange. On that question, as I said in my lengthy discussion with Black Mamba a few months back, I don't think the justices have made a definitive statement. But, even if they have, I don't think there should be any consequences for having done so, a point I also discussed with Black Mamba.

 

[Diablos]

Nevermind, I misread.

Still, you don't think there should be any consequence for the SCOTUS saying that Congress had a backup plan that works when states don't refuse to set up exchanges with subsidies?
Forget what you think, what could really happen?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Nevermind, I misread.

Still, you don't think there should be any consequence for the SCOTUS saying that Congress had a backup plan that works when states don't refuse to set up exchanges with subsidies?
Forget what you think, what could really happen?

I don't understand your questions. I think--but I may be wrong--that I fully addressed what you're asking in my responses to Black Mamba. If, after looking through those, you still have questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

 

[Diablos]

Anyone thinking the GOP will change Senate rules and get rid of the filibuster?

 

[B-Dubs]

Anyone thinking the GOP will change Senate rules and get rid of the filibuster?

No reason for it since they'd still have to deal with the veto.

 

[Diablos]

No reason for it since they'd still have to deal with the veto.

True.

I think we are all underestimating the GOP. If they win I'm fully anticipating a shutdown contingent on the Government reopening only with an Obamacare repeal.

 

[B-Dubs]

True.

I think we are all underestimating the GOP. If they win I'm fully anticipating a shutdown contingent on the Government reopening only with an Obamacare repeal.

They'd lose that showdown. The public would see it as sour grapes, it could very well tank 2016 for them.

 

[Diablos]

They'd lose that showdown. The public would see it as sour grapes, it could very well tank 2016 for them.

I am sure they'd be snarky about it -- i.e. anyone currently with an Obamacare plan, so long as they continue to pay their premiums, won't lost their coverage (grandfathered plans).

That takes away Obama's ability to say "I will not take health coverage away from 8.1 million people, so I will veto this legislation" and win the PR battle.

Republicans have single-handedly ruined this country. It was bad enough during the Bush years. They basically extorted the President for 6 of his 8 years and will now do so as a majority for his final two. They made a younger, impressionable generation who know very little about politics equate their arbirtary dysfunction with the President instead, causing a rift in the youth vote that is disturbingly libertarian. Honestly, this election is a big deal.

When I think about demographics changes, it means fuck all politically if you cannot equate that to meaningful policy. The GOP made damn sure we got very little meaningful policy post-Obamacare. People need to see legislation that reflects their values or voters will just grow impatient. We cannot gerrymander until 2020 and that's assuming Dems can win a majority. The GOP was intent on playing a very, very long game the moment Obama took office, a game that will go beyond an entire ten years, in a ploy to drown out the voice of a majority who spoke loudly in 2008 and 2012. That's what people forget -- THIS WAS OUR MOMENT. We got that moment for two years, only to have it snatched away by right-wing lunacy, fear-mongering, and other tactics that would have no place in other westernized countries. You can't expect to just move the goalpost to 2016 and think Hillary will be able to get that back.

I think the long-term consequences of a GOP dominated Congress have shifted the ideals that this country is in desperate need of to another generation -- one that may not be as liberal as we were in our teens/early 20's. Again, there's an undeniable libertarian streak in the youth today.

 

[RustyNails]

Turn those frowns upside down kids. Colorado's electorate is finally returning back to normal after having a big GOP edge the first couple of weeks. We're doing no worse than we did in 2010 when we, you know, won.

And North Carolina early voting has finished. Democrats turned in 25% more early votes than they did in 2010, but the GOP only 5%. And unaffiliated voters turned in a whopping 45% more!

Florida early voting saw GOP lead evaporate to just 4.3% with 3 million votes in. When Scott won by a hair in 2010, the GOP's early vote advantage was in the double digits.

Michigan Dem state chair says Democrats have banked an over 100,000 vote edge on Republicans in early voting, and that Schauer only needs to win 37% of the election day vote to cross 50%.

Nothing ever dampens your spirits, does it, Sam?

 

[Diablos]

I think Aaron is banking too much on early voting... the subsequent turnout is what's going to be very, very important on election day.

At best we're 50-50 with Biden as the tiebreaker at this point. I honestly want this; always nice to see Joe kicking ass. He was so right, too. They didn't plan for shit, and here we are.

 

[Averon]

Why would the GOP get rid of the filibuster when they have a very good chance of losing the Senate in 2016?

I can see them getting rid of the filibuster if they can retain control of the Senate in 2016, knowing that 2018 will be a good year for them.

 

[Manmademan]

Corbett is going to lose at least...
.

By record margins, bank on it. People loathe that dude like no one else I've ever seen holding office in this state.

I'm at the Wolf/Obama rally in Philly now, with fantastic seats. Life is good brah

 

[Squirrel Killer]

I think Aaron is banking too much on early voting... the subsequent turnout is what's going to be very, very important on election day.

The thing to remember about early voting is that, barring a major weather event, disaster, or October Surprise, it's all just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The people who are going to vote, vote, those who weren't, won't. Academic studies have shown little turnout gains from early voting, and that whatever gains you do see erode over time as the novelty of the new voting option wears off.

It's just an extended version of watching election results come in on Election Night. As a matter of fact, I think some of the fascination with early voting comes from those late night sessions of watching results roll in in real time.

I'd be in a county courthouse watching precinct results slowly come in projected on a wall by some MS-DOS computer. My candidate might be up by 10 votes with precinct A in, now down 25 with precinct B, but it's okay because we know we should be up 50 when precinct Z reports, etc..., and at some point the early vote tabulation is completed and comes in as a separate result and all of the sudden, we're down 250 votes. Maybe we eek out 10-20 vote margins in enough precincts to win, maybe we don't. If only we hadn't lost "Precinct Abs" by so much... goes the thinking. But the whole watching results roll in experience was a lie. By the time we saw the results trickle in, all the polls in the precincts were closed. It's just Schrödinger Ballot Box. Those votes were going to be cast in their respective precinct anyway. It's not that early voter don't have a skew in who they vote for, it's that they don't skew in their likelihood to vote.

Now, that equation does change a bit when you have 30-50-100% of the electorate voting early/absentee. Again, I don't think the raw preferences change all that much, but it does mean that larger and larger percentages of the votes are locked in earlier and earlier, reducing the effects of October surprises, weather, etc..., but that's more an issue for pollsters trying to gauge the electorate in real time and forcing campaigns to spend more money for longer periods of time.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It matters when Democrats are using early voting to turn out unlikely voters. Look at the numbers, voters who didn't vote in 2010 but are voting now are hugely stacked in favor of the Democrats. Iowa, NC, Georgia, there's a clear trend of Democrats turning out more voters who haven't voted in previous elections.

You'll see on election night I tells ya! You'll all see!

 

[Wilsongt]

With the terrible weather in the northeast, I expect we will have a GOP deluge instead of a wave. Only determined Republicans will get out and vote. Democrats will be too lazy an are too weak willed to get out into the cold. Scott brown to win.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

It matters when Democrats are using early voting to turn out unlikely voters. Look at the numbers, voters who didn't vote in 2010 but are voting now are hugely stacked in favor of the Democrats. Iowa, NC, Georgia, there's a clear trend of Democrats turning out more voters who haven't voted in previous elections.

If you're going to turn them out, turn them out. It doesn't matter when they vote as long as they vote. Focusing on when they vote is missing the forest for the trees. It's why I think the GOP push to increase early voting isn't going to amount to much - they're focusing on turnout, but not changing who they're targeting to turn out.

With the terrible weather in the northeast, I expect we will have a GOP deluge instead of a wave. Only determined Republicans will get out and vote. Democrats will be too lazy an are too weak willed to get out into the cold. Scott brown to win.

Is there a polar vortex I'm unaware of?

 

[thefro]

Chuck Todd just had a new national NBC/WSJ poll (da gold standard) on NBC Nightly News. He said the Democrats have momentum and their enthusiasm numbers have spiked up. It's going to be closer than people think on Tuesday.

Party who you wanted in control of Congress was Republicans 46% Democrats 45%, top 2 issues were Economy & Gridlock.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Chuck Todd just had a new national NBC/WSJ poll (da gold standard) on NBC Nightly News. He said the Democrats have momentum and their enthusiasm numbers have spiked up. It's going to be closer than people think on Tuesday.

Party who you wanted in control of Congress was Republicans 46% Democrats 45%, top 2 issues were Economy & Gridlock.

I seriously doubt it.

 

[Ecotic]

It's so frustrating, Nunn could've really used a 3 stop tour with Hillary Clinton this weekend, like Hillary promised she would a long time ago. Polls show Nunn has lost her big edge with women voters and that's why she's now down a few points. Hillary was instead stumping for Grimes for the umpteenth time, a candidate who is beyond saving and shouldn't even be a priority now.

 

[ivysaur12]

It's so frustrating, Nunn could've really used a 3 stop tour with Hillary Clinton this weekend, like Hillary promised she would a long time ago. Polls show Nunn has lost her big edge with women voters and that's why she's now down a few points. Hillary was instead stumping for Grimes for the umpteenth time, a candidate who is beyond saving and shouldn't even be a priority now.

There's a pretty obvious reason for this, though: Nunn and Perdue are most likely headed to a runoff, while Grimes would have to win this election.

But yes, you're right.

 

[speculawyer]

No reason for it since they'd still have to deal with the veto.

Never underestimate their spite.

 

[Aaron Strife]

If you're going to turn them out, turn them out. It doesn't matter when they vote as long as they vote. Focusing on when they vote is missing the forest for the trees. It's why I think the GOP push to increase early voting isn't going to amount to much - they're focusing on turnout, but not changing who they're targeting to turn out.

Exactly - and this works to Democrats' advantage. They're basically reusing the playbook from 2012 that worked well for Obama's re-election campaign but applying it to states he didn't target. Will it be enough? I'm hoping so. (obviously)

PPP's last poll of Michigan has Snyder leading by 1, but with leaners pushed it turns into a tie. Hoping Schauer can pull this one out with turnout.

Their last poll of Florida has Crist leading by a stunning .2%. Normally they don't report to the decimal but they make exceptions when it's a tie on their final poll.

And someone on kos said they goofed on their twitter and accidentally leaked their Colorado result which is a tie between Udall and Gardner which would be good news for Udall I think.

So many close races this year.


PPP still has polls coming from CO, IL, AK and WI coming later

 

[kingkitty]

You're ignoring the bigger court news, half-uncle/half-niece marriage now allowed in New York: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...half-niece-marriages-are-valid-under-n-y-law/

Score!

 

[ivysaur12]

PPP still has polls coming from CO, IL, AK and WI coming later

Tonight?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Tonight?

Yes

6-7 more states tomorrow

This is what I appreciate about PPP, they have no problem putting their reputation on the line.

Btw Nate Silver said if Democrats hold Colorado their odds of holding the Senate increase from 27% to 40%. Good to know. So many pundits tripping over themselves trying to call it Lean R even while acknowledging past polling issues.

Fake fake edit: Oh look their Illinois poll is out! Quinn up by 2.

 

[WayneMorse]

No Durbin implosion in IL so that's good.

Damn Rauner must be a new level of shit if he loses to a guy with a 34% approval rating.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Sorry Aaron but we are going to get our clocks cleaned on Tuesday. Prepare for the unfortunate tsunami. Its over...........................................

When we gain FL, MI, WI, PA, ME etc

beat ernst, gardner, send roberts and brownback packing. Defy the odds in alaska, get over 50 in GA, beat cassidy in December. Shaheen sends the carpetbagger into political oblivion.

 

[thepotatoman]

It matters when Democrats are using early voting to turn out unlikely voters. Look at the numbers, voters who didn't vote in 2010 but are voting now are hugely stacked in favor of the Democrats. Iowa, NC, Georgia, there's a clear trend of Democrats turning out more voters who haven't voted in previous elections.

You'll see on election night I tells ya! You'll all see!

Honestly, I don't think "voters who didn't vote in 2010" is that important. As far as we can tell it's just a sign of high turnover rate and nothing else. I don't know what that stat can tell us that the simple overall voter party registration ratio can't.

Only thing I can think of is that the R.B.S. polls that enforce extreme likely voter screens are likely wrong, but we already know that and most R.B.S. polls simply require participation in one of the last four elections to get around that.

But the voter party registration is looking pretty good too. Democrats actually outvoted republicans in Colorado yesterday by 3 points (again, a state that republicans outvoted democrats by 7.8 points in 2010 when they lost), and I don't know why that momentum would all of a sudden reverse going into election day.

 

[WayneMorse]

Looks like Pam Bondi is getting a second term as AG!!

 

[B-Dubs]

Never underestimate their spite.

Unless Turtle Soup loses and someone truly insane takes his place, no way does it happen. Getting rid of the filibuster without controlling a veto-proof majority can very easily turn into a self-inflicted wound, especially when it comes to their base. They'll control all of Congress and will get nothing done, the GOP will need some kind of excuse for it and the filibuster is the perfect scapegoat.

 

[thepotatoman]

If democrats are going to get rid of the filibuster if/when they get the senate and house anyway why not just get rid of the filibuster now?

You can get a lot more done than you would otherwise by only having to compromise with Obama than including the senate dems, and they can both push the numbers of passed bills way up while also pushing Obama's veto numbers way up to use politically, proving themselves as the party to get things done and the other party as the obstructionists.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they're expecting Obama approval ratings and a 2014 win to translate into a 2016 win too.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Honestly, I don't think "voters who didn't vote in 2010" is that important. As far as we can tell it's just a sign of high turnover rate and nothing else. I don't know what that stat can tell us that the simple overall voter party registration ratio can't.

Only thing I can think of is that the R.B.S. polls that enforce extreme likely voter screens are likely wrong, but we already know that and most R.B.S. polls simply require participation in one of the last four elections to get around that.

But the voter party registration is looking pretty good too. Democrats actually outvoted republicans in Colorado yesterday by 3 points (again, a state that republicans outvoted democrats by 7.8 points in 2010 when they lost), and I don't know why that momentum would all of a sudden reverse going into election day.

There are pollsters (like SurveyUSA) who automatically discount anyone who didn't show up in 2010 as unlikely voters. In fact a few of SUSA's Colorado polls do that and then add another likely voter screen on top of that. I think there are a lot of polls that undersample youth/minorities who tend to drop off in midterms but are being turned out by a robust GOTV campaign. We've seen significant polling bias against the Democrats in both 2010 (a bad year for them) and 2012 (a good year) based on these mistakes being made previously and pollsters have done nothing to account for that.

You're right that the composition of the total electorate will be the most important statistic, but keeping tabs on early voting can give us an idea of what that will look like.

 

[Averon]

~48 hours away before no more PoliGAF Kay Hagan jokes/memes.