I have no idea what Bloomberg will do in the end, but I'll just note that there's not necessarily much reason to assume that this is it.
The Bloomberg playbook in '18 often involved striking very late. Most of the time, they didn't show their hand until they played it. And why should they? There's plenty of evidence that late ads are most effective. Striking late means no opportunity to organize a counter.
That's quite different, of course, than the Bloomberg 20 primary: just blanket the ad for five months before Super Tuesday. And there's no reason they couldn't have done that in the general, and go on air in the big six in June or something
But there's also no reason they can't still do the 2018 move: identify the places where a) ad spending is most limited, b) where you think you think a push can get you over, and then strike overwhelmingly, as late as possible.
There's really no reason at this stage why Bloomberg couldn't do the 2020 equiv of 2018: pump 400m into TX/GA/OH/Miami media market or something over the final three weeks. And if he was going to do that, why would he say so now? That would be a colossal mistake
Anyway, I'm most certainly not saying he's going to do that. Who knows! But I do think it's quite keeping with what he's done in the past, and it wouldn't be ruled out by his inaction to this point--to the contrary, they'd have every reason not to move until the last second

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Nate_Cohn

24 Sep
I think it's fairly clear that our polling suggests that Biden's rebounded among northern white rural voters, whether in ME/MN/IA, but not at all in the South (not surprisingly):
Rural/exurban white voters:
TX: Trump 80, Biden 16
GA: Trump 82, Biden 14
IA: Trump 45, Biden 42
With Biden lagging a bit in PA compared to other Obama-Trump states in the polls, I think it's reasonable to theorize that the Appalachian white vote has been a bit more like the Southern rural white vote in this respect, or maybe even trended further Trump
This pattern has shown up in a number of recent primaries, including the GOP '16 primary. Trump swept the Southern/Appalachian white vote, including PA, while he struggled a bit in the more Midwestern/northern states
Read 9 tweets
24 Sep
New NYT/Siena polls find a close contest in three states Trump carried easily in 2016:
Georgia: 45-45
Iowa: Biden 45, Trump 42
Texas: Trump 46, Biden 43
nytimes.com/2020/09/24/us/…
Democrats also appear competitive in Senate races in all three states, with a lot of undecided voters:
TX: Cornyn 43, Hegar 37
GA: Perdue 41, Ossoff 38
GA special: Loeffler 23, Warnock/Collins 19
Iowa: Greenfield 42, Ernst 40
The Texas poll was a bit unusual for our surveys in two respects that are worth noting.
1) Biden and Trump were tied among voters who said they were almost certain or very likely to vote, which is a pretty common LV screen for other pollsters
Read 6 tweets
22 Sep
For some reason, I have a lot of tweets in my 'interactions' at the moment about party identification. In our seven battleground state polls this month:
Horserace: Biden 49, Trump 41
Party ID: R+1, 29 to 30
2016 vote: Trump 39, Clinton 38
Biden leads 48 to 42 among voters who participated in the 2016 election
This group of respondents is R+2, 32-30
2016 vote: Trump 45, Clinton 43
In our polling, a fairly small chunk of 2016 voters stay home (this is normal), and they're replaced by a somewhat larger chunk of new voters who either sat out last time, moved, or are newly registered. This is normal, and the amount of churn in the electorate is similar to '16
Read 4 tweets
21 Sep
It's interesting to look through the free response answers
on the 'race' question when our respondents volunteer something other than a listed option. Answers on our current slate of polls include "human," "American citizen" and "none."
Contrary to most of the replies: two of the three are Hispanic, and the group splits Biden 2, Trump 1
In general, the majority of 'some other race' answers are Hispanic. Once you assign them as such, you've mainly got multi-racial people, real but unlisted options (alaskan native-- no, we're not polling AK, sorry to disappoint), and a couple of interviewer miscodes
Read 4 tweets
20 Sep
There are plenty of places where the polls have been 'wrong' in recent cycles.
One place where they have not been wrong, in either 2016 or 2018, is Texas.
Now, there's no reason to assume that the distribution of poll error and bias will be the same in 2020 as it was in 2016/2018.
But that assumption is *usually* one of the better reasons to think Trump might be in better shape than polls suggest.
With Texas, we have a state where basically every poll for the last year shows a total tossup, where there's no history of systematic polling error during the Trump era, and where it is awfully hard to believe that the polls could be right without Biden being a heavy fav
Read 4 tweets
20 Sep
I'd be curious to read--from both sides--about a very simple topic when it comes to this Supreme Court debate: raw political power
Let's be honest, the Senate didn't act on Garland and might well act on Trump's selection for a simple reason: Republicans didn't want Obama's judge, they do want Trump's judge, and so they may act on one but not the other.
Under the constitution, this is well within their power! They control the Senate, the constitution gives the Senate the power to confirm nominees, and therefore the Senate confirmed the nominee it wanted but not the other.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!