Joe Biden leads Donald Trump in Pennsylvania and Florida, according to new Times/Siena polls taken after the first debate.
Biden leads in Pennsylvania, 49 to 42 percent among likely voters. He leads in Florida, 47 to

A lot for Democrats to like in the early voting data over the last few days, as they are now running ahead of where they stood at a similar point of the general election--thanks to a stronger Black turnout

The Black share of in-person early voters was basically identical to the general election over the first few days of voting, but that began to diverge late last week--and even more so over the weekend, which is typically a strong period for Black turnout in Georgia

As most of you know, the Black turnout in Georgia (and nationwide) was relatively weak v. other groups in the general election. That's been a matter of some consternation for progressives who wish it weren't so, but it's also the big source of upside for Democrats in this runoff

At the moment, the higher Black share of in person early voting is enough to cancel out the smaller share of mail-in absentee voters, who were overwhelmingly Democratic in the general--giving Democrats, in my view, a slightly more favorable electorate at this stage of voting

Looking ahead, we're about to lose a certain amount of clarity in our day-by-day comparison, since the holidays will dampen (and outright eliminate) turnout on GOP-friendly days. We'll probably watch the Dems expand their lead v. the general, and then the GOP try and claw it back

Another day of strong early voting in Georgia, with another 154k voters turning out in person yesterday. That's similar to but slightly behind the fourth day of early voting in the general, which was at 164k

Cumulatively, we're still running ahead of the general election on in-person early voting, but I don't think anyone expects that to last--and there's a very long time left for that flip to happen

As I've said, the big takeaway is that the turnout looks like it will be healthy and high, and it's not obvious who it will help v. the general. As I've mentioned, there are crosscutting patterns at play that make it difficult to sort out where we'll end up. Let's look at a few

One is that there are fewer absentee votes--and those are heavily Democratic.
This is expected: far fewer realistic opportunities for voters to request a ballot for this special than the general. And some counties may be behind

Now, of course, if in-person and election day voting drop just as much (or more), then this isn't actually an issue for Democrats at all. That would have been a very reasonable assumption before early voting. Now I'm not totally sure! We'll have to wait and see

Georgia early voting took a few days off over the holidays, like most everything else, but it was back near general election levels on Monday

As we've expected from the start, this creates a challenge for comparing where we stand now v. the general election.
Day 11-13 were fairly good days for the GOP in Oct.; they run farther behind without those days, but we have no reason to think that's for a meaningful reason

I'll offer two ways of trying to account for this. It's not perfect, but there are many circumstances in which it still permits useful analysis. 1) Remove those same days of in-person voting (not mail) from the advanced vote in October; 2) A direct day-to-day comparison

That first comparison--removing ipev from GE holiday-equiv. --will be represented with a dotted line, shown here.
This isn't perfect: one could imagine, for ex., that someone who would have voted on day 12 will now vote on day 18, boosting later tallies. But still useful context

With that in mind, it still seems Democrats continue to show a lot of strength. Yesterday, they continued to run well ahead of the general election, including excluding holiday equiv. days

Some early theories on went went wrong with the pre-election polling this

Before we go into what went wrong, let's just call a spade a spade here: this was a bad polling error. It's comparable to 2016 in size, but pollsters don't have the excuses they did last time.
This year's polls would have been *way* worse than 2016 with a 2016 methodology

There are really two halves of polling: the quality of the sample you get, and the adjustments you take to improve the representativeness of your sample.
Since 2016, pollsters got better at the adjustments, but the underlying sample got worse

To my mind, the easiest way to see it: the crosstabs on white voters nationwide, particularly whites without a degree
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.

So what happened? How did the samples get that much worse over the last four years, especially among white voters without a degree and 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

Jacob Rees-Mogg has admitted the Tory leadership coup looks like being delayed to December - after the 'meaningful vote' on the PM's Brexit deal.

Speaking on his @ConHome 'Moggcast': "Some people don't want a leadership vote now, they would like it when the meaningful vote comes up and think that is the time to put in letters."

JRM: "I think the strength of feeling against the meaningful vote is much stronger than the number of letters that has gone in. If there are letters in, very few of those letters will be withdrawn - so the hurdle is much lower when the meaningful vote comes."

He tells @ConHome the apparent failure of the coup could be a blessing in disguise: "In a way it is better that there has been this delay, though I can't pretend that there has been some cunning plan, because we have allowed time for people to see the failures of the policy."

Full report on the delayed coup from @NatashaC on @TheSun now:

1. @SidneyPowell1, @LLinWood and any others who are digging into 2020 election fraud, you might want to look at Ryan Macias. He's the former acting director of the Federal Election Assistance Commission. He tested and certified Dominion systems, then profited from their failure.

Strongly endorse everything in this @OsitaNwanevu piece. One of the key mistakes I see among Dems, both online & in the real world, is thinking that people believe right-wing nonsense because they are unintelligent or uneducated.

In the area I know best, climate change, it's been found repeatedly that climate denialists & skeptics have, on average, MORE higher education than those who accept the science. They know MORE about climate science. They have, on average, HIGHER verbal intelligence.

What they do is adopt the conclusion that best serves their social tribe and then use their intelligence & education to build a case for it. It's called "motivated reasoning" & everyone is subject to it, very much including the smartest people.

1. (On politics) I was once in a conversation with an elderly friend of mine who is American. He is deeply involved in politics in the States and I asked about what he had learnt. He said, "our movement pushed and mobilised and we got (.........) into the white house."

2. "However, we saw that our interests were not executed by him then we realised in a democratic setting sometimes its the people that surround the president or anyone in executive positions that really matter. Those he speaks to first and last.
We therefore changed our strategy"

3. We do support but now with the intent of placing people around the elected officers.
There is a lot of space for influence in positions that are non elective. Every executive leader leans on people to help in developing ideas and in executing them.

4. The young folks should be looking here. Elective positions like Governorship etc can be very expensive. Legitimate costs will run into hundreds of millions but there are positions for assistants, tech advisers, etc that wield alot of influence in shaping policy and direction.

5. If you want to change things you must get your foot into the room and have a seat at the table. The least position there will wield more power than being an critic on the outside. In positions like this skill, loyalty and confidentiality are the requirements and not money.