Journalism is in trouble, and we need to be more upfront with you about how hard it is keeping Mother Jones afloat. We also need to raise $253,000 in donations quickly. This is a legitimately urgent moment, and we unpack why as matter-of-factly as we can because readers told us to. We can't come up short again. Please help keep Mother Jones charging hard with a donation of any amount today.
There’s a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll out today. Their polling method prompted a lot of skepticism during the 2016 election, and in the end it turned out to be too favorable toward Donald Trump. Still, they employed a unique approach that showed promise if they fixed some of the methodological mistakes they made. That makes it worth paying attention to:
Democrats had a 14-point margin, 55% to 41%, when likely voters were asked which party’s candidate they would cast a ballot for if the election were held now. If that advantage holds up until election day, just less than six weeks away, it would almost surely be large enough to sweep a Democratic majority into the House.
A 14-point margin in the generic congressional poll is huge. And yet, thanks to Republican gerrymandering, the Times is careful to say only that it would “almost surely” be enough to lead to a Democratic victory. I sure hope they’re just being ultra-cautious out there in their new digs in El Segundo. And check this out:
Women, who already leaned significantly toward the Democrats, have shifted further in their direction, widening a large gender gap. The poll found women now favor the Democrats by 28 percentage points, 62% to 34%, among likely voters.
Twenty-eight points! And this poll was “largely completed” before Brett Kavanaugh hit the news. If Republicans keep up their “fuck the women, we’re confirming Brett” attitude for much longer, I figure they’ll be down to a crazification factor 27 percent among women who are likely to vote. Hell, maybe even some of the crazy ones will defect.
UPDATE: I originally called the LAT poll “pretty accurate” in the 2016 race, which isn’t really true. It did predict a Trump win, but only by projecting a 3-point victory in the popular vote, which was off by nearly six points. I’ve changed the first paragraph of the post to reflect this.
Can you pitch in a few bucks to help fund Mother Jones' investigative journalism? We're a nonprofit (so it's tax-deductible), and reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget.
We noticed you have an ad blocker on. Can you pitch in a few bucks to help fund Mother Jones' investigative journalism?