Nathaniel Rakich: “There are already a lot of things that a smart poll-watcher has to account for when comparing surveys. Were they done by the same pollster? Did they query the same type of population (likely voters, registered voters, all adults)? To this list, the volatile 2020 Democratic primary field has added one more: Do they ask about the same candidates?”

“With upwards of 20 candidates and potential candidates, pollsters are forced to make editorial decisions about whom to ask about. And with new candidates still popping up out of nowhere, the field is enough in flux that it looks different every month.”

Politico: “The logjam of nearly two dozen declared or likely Democratic presidential candidates is overwhelming public pollsters trying to measure the 2020 primary. New surveys are cramming up to 23 Democrats into their questionnaires after the [DNC] set a low, 1 percent polling threshold to gain admittance into the party’s first primary debates.”

“The miles-long list of candidates has created an unusual set of methodological challenges for pollsters already battling declining engagement with their surveys. But pollsters say the criteria also put them in a no-win situation: A pollster’s decision about whether to include a candidate or not could be a make-or-break choice for that campaign, especially the lesser-known and first-time White House hopefuls hoping to make the debate stage.”

“Warning: exit polls are like online dating profiles. Things may not be as they appear. And they may break your heart.”

— 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, on Twitter.

For those looking for the latest midterm election polls, there are almost no good quality polls of the most competitive races in these final days.

Nate Silver: “The fundraising numbers are so good for Democrats — and so bad for Republicans — that it’s hard to know quite what to make of them. From a modeling standpoint, we’re extrapolating from years in which fundraising was relatively even, or from when one party had a modest edge, into an environment where Democrats suddenly have a 2-1 advantage in fundraising in competitive races. Moreover, this edge comes despite the fact that a large number of these competitive races feature Republican incumbents (incumbents usually have an easier time raising money than challengers) and that most of them are in red terrain.”

“If Democrats beat their projections on Nov. 6 — say, they win 63 House seats, equalling the number that Republicans won in 2010, an unlikely-but-not-impossible scenario — we may look back on these fundraising numbers as the canary in the coal mine.”

“That data, plus Democrats’ very strong performances in special elections, could look like tangible signs of a Democratic turnout surge that pollsters and pundits perhaps won’t have paid enough attention to. Right now, in fact, the polls are not showing a Democratic turnout advantage.”

Harry Enten: “What’s important to keep in mind is that district polls at this point in the cycle can underestimate the party benefiting from a wave election.”

“I went back since the 2006 election and looked at how much the polls from roughly within a month of this point in the cycle performed. (That is, polls completed from about 52 to 82 days before the election.)”

“The immediate thing that jumps out is the side that has won the national House popular vote has always done better on Election Day than the polls indicate right now. The average overperformance was a little over 3 points.”

The New York Times is polling dozens of competitive House districts over the next two months and releasing the results in real time.

Just fascinating.

Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball and Ipsos have joined forced to launch the 2018 Political Atlas, combining race ratings and polling to track the battle for control of the House of Representatives.