64ish is literally the third highest since 1900, only behind 1960(similar range) and 2020(65ish). It was 54% in 2000. This stuff tends to eb and flow. There was a steady decline from 1960 until 2000 and it’s been rising since. 1920-1960 was steady growth, 1870s to 1920s was a decline. Prior to that it was growth more or less since the start

Also voters died. Old age, COVID, random accidents

63 and a half percent. Third highest since 1900, only behind 2020(65.8%) and 1960(high 64s to low 65s depending on source). For context, 2008 was 61.6, 2016 was 59.2, and 2000 was 54.3.

The VEP is the third highest since 1900, only behind 2020 and 1960. This is an extremely high turnout election

This is literally the third highest turnout since 1900 by VEP, only behind 2020 and 1960. This is hardly a low turnout election. The last ‘low turnout’ election was 2000, most of the ones since have been average or slightly above.

This is literally the third highest turnout since 1900 by VEP, only behind 2020 and 1960. This is hardly a low turnout election. The last ‘low turnout’ election was 2000, most of the ones since have been average or slightly above.

How do you know they were Democrats and not independents?

3rd highest turnout since 1900 is a bronze metal and absolutely one for the record books.

always has been

Frick it here’s my prediction. SOMEHOW…the original swing states returned.

(Note: I checked this. Virginia is solid blue like just Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and New Mexico is a weaker blue like Michigan, but New Hampshire is as tight as Iowa is and is tight enough it’s meeting the definition for Swing State in polling as of late. Imagine a scenario where Trump loses the Rust Belt badly and suffers massive decline in Iowa, but manages to hold Iowa and pick up New Hampshire. That’s 272-266 for Trump)

Going into next election with two extra swing states is kinda cool tho I guess. Maybe all that rhetoric about changing how primaries and causcuses work and killing their first dibs thing as of late scared em and now they gotta be too important to risk pissing off again so they’re turning themselves into swing states. Not an actual theory, but then again, those are THE two early states…hmmmm…crackpot time

It IS a good sign for Harris, but like I said, trying to interpret this nation wide is a bad move. If you did the same thing for Nevada(bluest swing state in 2016 only one Hillary held, second bluest in 2020 only behind Michigan) which is by far the reddest in Early Voting you’d assume Harris was about to get red waved.

All this truly tells us is that the North and Great Lakes region is getting bluer and the Sunbelt is getting redder. Iowa was the reddest of the 4/5 weak red states(People thought Alaska was more gettable than it) and now it might be the bluest. Nevada was the bluest swing state until a month ago and it’s suddenly on track to be the reddest. Arizona was the tightest swing state and now it’s gone hard red, Georgia was safe red until it was dead tight. Trends can break locally without nessacrily indicating a nation swing. Like I said, if you used the ‘Iowa going blue/being close means Kamala sweeps everything’ argument for Nevada you’d be dooming hard.

The early voting data suggests Iowa is alone in this at least on the blue side, and it’s narrow enough the red favored election day would likely take it back. It’s actually about as blue as New Hampshire which…is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you expect election day to turnout. (both are less blue percentage wise than the rust belt swing states and both would be swing states by their current ratios if it wasn’t too late to add them).

HOWEVER, I also heed a potential warning sign here. If the Democrats can flip a weak red state(‘weak’, 7 and a half points last time and polling 10 point average prior to this) or even come close, while still losing the Sun Belt(which is what the early voting data points to, and that hinted at Iowa days before this. It’s a bit more blue than final, but way less than 2020, same with election day in reverse) what’s stopping the reverse happening on Election Day(when the republicans are stronger)?

Like, New Mexico or Virginia or New Hampshire or something. If fucking Iowa can go competitive out of nowhere due to a combination of local factors and being ignored by the main party as safe, whilst Sunbelt swingstates hold red(IE: No huge nationwide shift, this is more regional), the reverse is perfectly plausible too. New Mexico is a border state with a ton of overlap with Arizona which has swung to the reddest swing state, Virginia has the most Anti-Democrat third party spread in the entire country(All the left wingers made it and the Libertarians are more left than usual, but no RFK and no Cornell West/Constitution Party to counterbalance) and went more red than expected in 2021. Neither of them have Abortion on the ballot.

Not to fearmonger or anything ,the Iowa data is great news for the Democrats, just, keep this is mind. This year has been an utter rollercoaster of surprises, both sides have been ‘guaranteed’ to win like 3 times each at this point and something else pops up. Iowa going blue only to be undone by Virginia going red wouldn’t surprise me at this point with what a psychotic roller coaster of an election it’s been.

I will say I noticed a couple days ago on Reddit(zero clue the method used tho) that Iowa was the ONLY outlier among Early Voting/Mail In Voting results. All the blue states had blue leanings, all the red states had red leanings, swing states were split: Rust Belt Blue, Sun Belt Red, except for Georgia which was too close to call due to their lack of transparency and overall closeness. Iowa was more blue thanks to early voting. Only outlier.

On the one hand, this poll suggests that wasn’t an outlier. It FEELS weird because Iowa was considered the right most of the ‘weak red’ bloc, Florida and Ohio and Texas were discussed WAY more as potential pickups and got way more polling, Iowa got the least attention of them.

However I also note on the other hand the early voting data suggests Iowa is an outlier and this isn’t suggestive of a Kamala sweep. This could be because-

1. Iowa has some of the harshest Anti-Abortion laws in the country and isn’t deep deep red like the comparable ones. That’s on the ballot.
2. Iowa is right next to Minnesota and Tim Walz is jacking up the numbers, Iowa is old white country and Tim Walz is perfect for that.
3. RFK Jr couldn’t get off the ballot in Iowa and there isn’t a strong left wing 3rd Party outside the norm like Claudia or Cornel to counterbalance either. Ohio/Texas/Florida don’t have RFK on the ballot and neither do most of the swing states, and the Rust Belt has those other two to counterweight it.
4. Due to the lack of Democrat investment that Ohio and Texas and Florida saw there was also less Republican counter investment, so it trickled left and both sides missed it with so little polling there.

If you think Iowa indicates that nationwide trends are super wrong then you also have to ignore the early voting data that hinted at a bluer Iowa days ago because everything else on that chart is falling to expectation. That data still has Texas/Florida/Ohio Red and suggests the sun belt is going Red outside of maaaaaaybe Georgia which is tight. There are also a few other Iowa polls all showing it still safely red so it could just be super close/future swing state rather than blue this time.

Maybe it is a nationwide trend, maybe it is, but my gut says it’s a mix of lack of red investment and lack of blue polling interest as it wasn’t as seemingly close as places like Florida or Texas, and two huge Iowa specific factors being extreme anti-abortion laws nearly unrivaled nationally and Tim Walz being from right next door and appealing to the Iowa bloc massively.

What it would signal otherwise is that Tim Walz is doing a great job shoring up the white vote in the Rust Belt and that probably secures Wisconsin which ALSO borders Minnesota and has a lot of the same factors as Iowa. The early voting data says they’re losing the Sun Belt so they need to hold the Rust Belt. Iowa going blue and everything else going to plan would funnily enough make Nevada actually matter again. They’re both worth 6 points so Nevada going red(which otherwise was useless in basically any scenario, Republicans would either win without it or NV wouldn’t save them otherwise) would neutralize Iowa being lost and turn a couple scenarios from narrow losses to narrow wins.

I will say this debate is inherently riskier than the last one simply because JD Vance is already at his floor. He’s the most unpopular VP or VP candidate in history. Worse than Sarah Palin, worse than Spiro Agnew, worse than Aaron Burr.
He loses, nothing changes, he cannot go lower barring Mark Robinson tier revelations and even then I have doubts. He wins, Walz slips a point or two, Harris by extension maybe 1/4th of a point.

Really anything that can stop the bleed for the Republicans is a win for them, October is critical. Harris rode a 6 week high after getting in at the end of July, spent the first two weeks undoing the pit Biden had dug, then got boosts from the VP pick and convention that lasted until early September. Trump finally had trends on his side and the debate utterly wrecked that. That’s finally fading again so they really are seeking a win, a screw up here could be too late to wait out and Vance getting some good press could bury stuff like the Uncle Robinson(no relation) disaster.

The other problem is that he’s young, really young, Teddy young. JD Vance is young enough he can fake it for a little bit in a way Trump is just too old to do these days. He’s baitable, but not to the level of Trump or even Biden in this environment. Young Narcissists can put on a face for a while in a controlled space like this, 80s Trump did it all the time and I’d argue Vance might be sharper than him.

I don’t think it’s a bad matchup, Walz is very wholesome and more experienced(and the reverse would be very unideal for the Democrats. Vance would be better at avoiding the massive tangents Harris baited Trump into, meanwhile Walz isn’t as high energy or effective on the pursuit against Trump as Harris is) , but he definitely ‘looks’ and ‘sounds’ older than he is, especially compared to Harris. So Walz is walking in with that already there.

The last thing anybody wants is Trump pulling it out and calling all the headlines lies. Surprised Biden never did actually

(also wild beard on that guy

Just FYI so you don’t get ‘gotchaed’, Trump isn’t the oldest nominee ever. Neither was Biden. Record is still held by Peter Cooper from the reconstruction era who was 84 when nominated.