This year's polls would have been *way* worse than 2016 with a 2016 methodology
Some early theories on went went wrong with the pre-election polling this
This year's polls would have been *way* worse than 2016 with a 2016 methodology
Since 2016, pollsters got better at the adjustments, but the underlying sample got worse
In 2016, the polls *did* show Trump doing way better among those voters.
In 2020, they did not. And they were dead wrong.
Same story with seniors.
At this stage, it's really just speculation. We'll know more later--it's too early for an autopsy.
But here's some early speculation
He thinks it's the pandemic: Dems took it seriously, stayed home and started responding to polls more. GOP did not.
Remember those studies that said Biden does better in a COVID hotspot?
Well, Biden didn't do better in COVID hotspots.
So maybe... that just means the polls were biased by COVID
Our 10/19 battleground polls were... pretty accurate!
So were the state polls conducted from Jan-Mar 20.
Now, maybe these polls were just as bad--and Trump actually led big back then!
Or maybe... the bias started since then


It's possible that four more years of Trump did four more years worth of damage to the credibility of media/polls, creating a 'hidden Trump' vote that didn't really exist in 2016
There were a lot of polls showing no LV/RV gap or even a D turnout edge. Not sure that will hold up with final data.
It certainly didn't hold up in FL, where we have great data already.
More from Nate Cohn
One question I keep getting about the Georgia early voting is about age: isn't the electorate older, and how much does it hurt the Democrats?
So far the answer is 'not really' and 'not at all.'
The first question is easy enough. As of today, youth turnout is basically keeping pace with the general, controlling for the slightly reduced opportunities to vote. This augurs for an unusually young
The second question is more interesting: are the Democrats hurt by lower youth turnout? So far the answer is no, and there are two reasons.
One reason: there's not a *huge* gen. gap. Maybe young voters are D+20 while >65 are R+15. You need a big gap for modest changes to matter.
The second reason is maybe more interesting: the young voters who have voted are just a lot more Democratic than the young voters who turned out at this stage of the general election
By party primary vote history, the 18-29 year olds who have voted so far are D 38, R 12. They were D 33, R 14 in the general at this stage.
So far the answer is 'not really' and 'not at all.'
The first question is easy enough. As of today, youth turnout is basically keeping pace with the general, controlling for the slightly reduced opportunities to vote. This augurs for an unusually young
it's not a very material difference pic.twitter.com/ygdD3hb8b7
— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) December 29, 2020
The second question is more interesting: are the Democrats hurt by lower youth turnout? So far the answer is no, and there are two reasons.
One reason: there's not a *huge* gen. gap. Maybe young voters are D+20 while >65 are R+15. You need a big gap for modest changes to matter.
The second reason is maybe more interesting: the young voters who have voted are just a lot more Democratic than the young voters who turned out at this stage of the general election
By party primary vote history, the 18-29 year olds who have voted so far are D 38, R 12. They were D 33, R 14 in the general at this stage.