Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ElectProject @rp_griffin @RachelBitecofer @gelliottmorris yeah, our universe is RVs — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@rp_griffin @RachelBitecofer @ElectProject @gelliottmorris forgot to ditch people who dropped off the file since '18 https://t.co/QjswN5GteT — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@rp_griffin @RachelBitecofer @ElectProject @gelliottmorris our 2018 turnout rates are very close to the CPS https://t.co/wKcmlQcTtA — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @PollsterPatrick: Very early returns right now, but the @WHOhd “Cast Your Kernel” spread is looking an awful lot like today’s Iowa @Monm… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I agree on this calendar change point, fwiw SC is in danger of being too close to Super Tuesday (it's the Saturday before) to single handled sling-shot a candidate, especially in an era of early voting https://t.co/4AkzhjMwca — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@hdgwhite you're right. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Correction: I saw Booker at 4% in the second choices, not first choices. He is at a mere 1% there Going to delete the tweet. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I am struck, for instance, that Booker/Harris have spent more days in SC than IA, per Fox data. It would be hard to survive to SC if they lose IA. And many of the attacks on Biden in the debates--criminal justice, busing, Obama policies--do not seem like IA-focused moves — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

One thing I'm struck by so far: --Biden's biggest weakness is clearly Iowa --Yet some of his top rivals aren't as focused on the state as you'd guess, and their big attacks on Biden center on issues that seem peripheral there https://t.co/Ch9lfGp2fG — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Monmouth has Biden at 28 in Iowa Booker at 4%, though not listed here Steyer at 3%, so that does seem to confirm that there's at least some uptick--even if not like Morning Consult https://t.co/PzNZ6gJ1Pp — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @jaslow: Listen to @Nate_Cohn —> https://t.co/5RPyr9FafZ — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

A good point. This has Democratic primary implications now, as well https://t.co/Ny6Fpl7emH — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@RachelBitecofer i do not believe there is a debate on this matter — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

CXN: the '18 exit poll was 39% col+ in PA, not 41%. And again, RVs are likely less educated since they turnout at lower rates — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The exit polls adopted a new methodology in '18 to address their persistent bias on education. In '18, the col+ share of the PA electorate was 41%, and that's much higher than all RVs. It's too bad the NEP won't update data from past elections. It would help stuff like this. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

It's troubling that there are still pollsters that aren't properly weighting by education. This time, it's an F&M poll in Pennsylvania. Says it's weighted to the exit poll, though clearly using the biased pre-18 data Still has 48% col+ among RVs https://t.co/TY3dlr80Gx — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Kind of fun: SurveyUSA polled Oprah and Obama, Michelle in NC v. Trump Also, their recent round of polling (incl. CA) has been online only with pretty large N, which is at least somewhat new for them https://t.co/nyD2WSiN9J — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

This isn't exactly what's used in the piece. I keep the polls of adults and adjust them to LVs, for instance. But let's not pretend like there's a meaningful difference in estimation-methods — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

For no reason whatsoever, I thought I ought to do the analysis for my piece today using an algorithm that's basically modeled off of the one on FiveThirtyEight. I wouldn't claim to have outsmarted it, of course https://t.co/1V7vIEqF9H — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @kjhealy: What is the secret to living to be well over 100 years old? It seems that in the US the trick is to have been born just a few… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

And since this is maybe a little clearer, here is how Trump's relative advantage in online polls has faded and ultimately reversed since '17 https://t.co/sVEUjKaiLG https://t.co/EfLY4vw3ED — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@askaphysicist check again — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@danpfeiffer If you want to know how a Democrat can win, I would say that you can't use Trump '16 as the baseline because we plainly know there are more people who like Trump today than before, many of whom did not vote and could vote in 2020 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@danpfeiffer I think it depends on the question you want to address. If you want to simply predict his chances if an election where held today, I'd just look at his straight approval rating, say it's in the low/mid 40s and say he'd probably lose. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

If you're convinced that Trump can't win over additional supporters, I'd caution that it sure seems like he's done quite a bit of it already. IDK if he can keep going, but it's hard to say he can't — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

If you're a GOPer who thinks Trump can count on a hidden Trump vote, I'd note that the case for it is basically gone at this point. Trump now does better in the live polls. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

If you're a Dem, for instance, who thinks all you need to do is boost black turnout to something closer to '12, I would caution that this may no longer be what it takes to win. It's not '16 anymore. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@dznyc not included — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

And again, none of this means Trump is favored. His ratings are well under 50. He'll probably lose if he's at 45/55 with RVs and I'm pretty agonistic on his chances over the long term. But all of this strikes me as pretty important for the way to think about his position — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I often see a 2016-based view of 2020 in my replies. They take Trump '16 support, and then say Dems can win with incremental changes like higher black turnout or a better candidate. I don't think that assumption works, in part bc Trump is also stronger than he was in '16 — PolitiTweet.org