One thing that I've noticed lately is that Civiqs polling on BLM support *appears* to be correlated the presidential polling.
Stating the obvious perhaps, but to be clear about what I'm thinking, all parties *have* to hold all their initial winnings and *try* to expand their base to win, and the Dems are not in danger in *any* of their 2016 states, especially NH, where they won by a hair, so the question is have the Dems expanded their base enough to flip any of Trump's 2016 states?
To me the only battlegrounds are PA, MI, and WI, with AZ as a godsend, and the BLM support in all of these appear to proportional to their current polling.
But NH, which has tightened relative to MI, is *still* far above the 2016 sliver victory margin but its Civiqs BLM numbers are hugely *dis*proportional (Sup-Opp:54-31(NH), 39-48(MI)),
Also there is a huge gender gap (along with age and racial gaps) on this issue that complicates things.
Long story short, does my idea of a meaningful correlation stand up to scrutiny?
I’m not sure whether the media or the voters have an awareness of democratic norms being violated. In previous times, a President attempting and holding a political convention at the White House would simply not be tolerated. We have become so polarized and divided that we cannot agree whether a President or Presidential candidates is violating democratic norms.
I personally thought Trump was Nixon in 1968, but you are correct that Trump fits the comparison of LBJ better. For months, the voters have given Trump poor marks on race relations, protests, and violence. Perhaps the voters and the media need to reexamine our assumptions.
One thing that I've noticed lately is that Civiqs polling on BLM support *appears* to be correlated the presidential polling.
Stating the obvious perhaps, but to be clear about what I'm thinking, all parties *have* to hold all their initial winnings and *try* to expand their base to win, and the Dems are not in danger in *any* of their 2016 states, especially NH, where they won by a hair, so the question is have the Dems expanded their base enough to flip any of Trump's 2016 states?
To me the only battlegrounds are PA, MI, and WI, with AZ as a godsend, and the BLM support in all of these appear to proportional to their current polling.
But NH, which has tightened relative to MI, is *still* far above the 2016 sliver victory margin but its Civiqs BLM numbers are hugely *dis*proportional (Sup-Opp:54-31(NH), 39-48(MI)),
Also there is a huge gender gap (along with age and racial gaps) on this issue that complicates things.
Long story short, does my idea of a meaningful correlation stand up to scrutiny?
Thanks
I’m not sure whether the media or the voters have an awareness of democratic norms being violated. In previous times, a President attempting and holding a political convention at the White House would simply not be tolerated. We have become so polarized and divided that we cannot agree whether a President or Presidential candidates is violating democratic norms.
I personally thought Trump was Nixon in 1968, but you are correct that Trump fits the comparison of LBJ better. For months, the voters have given Trump poor marks on race relations, protests, and violence. Perhaps the voters and the media need to reexamine our assumptions.
thank you. i needed this reminder
Thank you, Elliott. Your clarity is welcome, bracing, and needed.