This reminds me of when Reagan was running against Jimmy Carter. The national polls had Carter winning up until about 3 weeks prior to the election...and Reagan won 45+ states in a blowout.
Early polls attempt to shape the message that the electorate experiences, polls closer to the election tend to be more accurate since their reputation is now at stake.
Of course we all like to see light at the end of the tunnel, and I share Mr Morten scepticism about polls. The book makers are far more reliable - they reflect where the money is going. But I have searched far and wide for an answer to the following question. Why are the Democratic revolutionaries "doubling down" on their widely unpopular agenda if they are not absolutely confident of winning the mid terms?
This reminds me of when Reagan was running against Jimmy Carter. The national polls had Carter winning up until about 3 weeks prior to the election...and Reagan won 45+ states in a blowout.
Early polls attempt to shape the message that the electorate experiences, polls closer to the election tend to be more accurate since their reputation is now at stake.
Of course we all like to see light at the end of the tunnel, and I share Mr Morten scepticism about polls. The book makers are far more reliable - they reflect where the money is going. But I have searched far and wide for an answer to the following question. Why are the Democratic revolutionaries "doubling down" on their widely unpopular agenda if they are not absolutely confident of winning the mid terms?