2024 Pre-Election Political Polls | POLL - Trump would have had 7 point lead over Biden

[rodoheel]

Of the current "swing states," this is how I would rank them with respect to my confidence that Harris carries them:

1. Wisconsin - feel pretty confident here
2. Michigan - you could flip this with Wisconsin and I wouldn't argue
3. Arizona - not sure this aligns with the data but I think Kari Lake is going to lose by several points and be a big anchor on Trump here
4. Pennsylvania - the likely tipping point state; I'm really nervous about the polling
5. Georgia - only four letters that matter here: G-O-T-V. If Dems can get their urban voters to the polls (and get their votes in over all the likely Republican vote-suppressing shenanigans) they can win here.
6. Nevada - see my post above, I think this one is trending away from Dems in a macro sense
7. NC - I'll believe it when I see it

 

[Icky Mettle]

I think Nevada has been trending more conservative and right-wing, especially Vegas, which is where Democrats have always counted on getting the votes they needed to win. IMO it won't even be considered a battleground state in another cycle or two.

Yeah. I’m surprised Nevada still goes blue. It generally seems like a microcosm of contemporary Republican politics: grifting, extremely resistant to regulation, catering to the wealthy, putting on a show, lacking in genuineness, etc.

 

[aGDevil2k]

Democrats are showing almost 20 pts higher in voter enthusiasm. That will show on election day.

That part!!

That's the shit polls miss because they aren't designed to capture the casual voter that isn't likely every cycle. But then when they wake up, the things on the ground are just missed by polls

It's what Trump had in 16. And Harris seems to have it now

 

[HeelInTheOzarks]

I understand the nervousness about Pennsylvania but if you had told me 2 of the 3 blue wall states would have stabilized as Dem leads by now at the point the nominees switched, I would’ve taken it in a heartbeat.

 

[GoHeelsweeeehoooo]

I expect North Carolina to elect several Democrats in statewide races but still go Republican in the presidential election

 

[Bigs23]

I think people who identify abortion rights as the most important issue to them are people who have always been at least fairly politically aware and would come to the polls anyway. And they have been historically pro-Democrat. It’s that small group of undecideds for whom this provides an out. I was listening to a segment on NPR this morning where they were talking to undecided voters. One woman leaned Trump, but she was torn because she also wanted to protect abortion rights. I don’t know where she was from, but if she lived in Arizona, for example, she can have it both ways in the voting booth. If she lives somewhere where abortion rights are not on the ballot, then that very well could be what pulls her from Trump to Harris. If anyone is undecided simply because they are okay with Trump but also want to protect abortion rights (and there are such people, as crazy and counterintuitive as that may sound), then putting it on the ballot a la carte favors Trump in those situations.

Recent election results don’t support your theory.

Abortion is a losing topic for trump and the GOP.

 

[mpaer]

I expect North Carolina to elect several Democrats in statewide races but still go Republican in the presidential election

Thank you Pubs for running some real buffons for State offices

 

[Bigs23]

That part!!

That's the shit polls miss because they aren't designed to capture the casual voter that isn't likely every cycle. But then when they wake up, the things on the ground are just missed by polls

It's what Trump had in 16. And Harris seems to have it now

It really is a lot about Big Mo.

 

[lawtig02]

At a macro level, I think we’re now to the point where the election comes down to one question — can Kamala avoid a major mistake? If she can, she wins. Trump’s support is capped. He’s not even trying to win new voters now. He’ll be doing everything he can to drive down Dem enthusiasm, but realistically, the only way that happens is if Kamala says something really stupid, a new (legitimate) scandal emerges, etc.

The biggest problem for Trump, though, is that Kamala’s support is not yet capped. She’s still not universally known, and even many of those who know her don’t know what she really stands for. She can still bring people off the sideline. Trump can’t.

Get ready for the ugliest, most negative two months in the recent history of presidential politics. Trump and his sycophants will be doing everything they can to make Kamala trip. She just needs to stay on her feet and shrug off the muck that will be thrown her way. I think she can do it.

 

[CFordUNC]

 

[Icky Mettle]

Recent election results don’t support your theory.

Abortion is a losing topic for trump and the GOP.

I 100% agree it’s a losing topic for them. Which is why I have some concern that placing that issue on the ballot separately may benefit them.

I am aware that ballot measures regarding abortion have yielded overwhelmingly favorable results with regard to protecting abortion rights. But I am not sure that all those people who have turned out to vote in favor of abortion rights/against abortion bans in places like Kansas, for example, wouldn’t otherwise vote Republican. Are there results showing that where abortion rights have been placed on the ballot, there was a notable shift in votes favoring democrats compared to prior elections?

By the way, what I am discussing here is not my hypothesis; just a concern.

 

[BurtoniumAD]

At a macro level, I think we’re now to the point where the election comes down to one question — can Kamala avoid a major mistake? If she can, she wins. Trump’s support is capped. He’s not even trying to win new voters now. He’ll be doing everything he can to drive down Dem enthusiasm, but realistically, the only way that happens is if Kamala says something really stupid, a new (legitimate) scandal emerges, etc.

The biggest problem for Trump, though, is that Kamala’s support is not yet capped. She’s still not universally known, and even many of those who know her don’t know what she really stands for. She can still bring people off the sideline. Trump can’t.

Get ready for the ugliest, most negative two months in the recent history of presidential politics. Trump and his sycophants will be doing everything they can to make Kamala trip. She just needs to stay on her feet and shrug off the muck that will be thrown her way. I think she can do it.

I think this is right and I also think it's fairly unlikely there will be a major mistake. I think her campaign has been incredibly smart, including not doing press with a disingenuous media, which has really only downside (even if it's minor).

I do not expect a scandal as she has been running for office forever and the vetting has already occurred (unlike JD Vance). I think she needs to hold serve on the debate, but even if she doesn't do great, I don't think it really impacts her except on the margins for people who were most likely not going to vote for her anyway.

I do think it will get darker from the Trump side for the remainder of the cycle namely because nothing they are doing is sticking on her right now. She is brushing him off and not engaging directly with anything from him, which is his only hope.

If she pummels him in the debate, I think this thing is over, because A) he will melt down for the remainder of the cycle B) Early voting will be weeks after it and C) she will continue to pick up new voters.

My take: 25% chance Trump ekes out a win; 25% chance Harris ekes out a win; 50% chance Harris wins big.

This is not 2016 or 2020 - since then, Dobbs has been overturned, January 6th has occurred and despite polling, Trump's appeal has waned considerably and if you read through the focus group info, most people are just tired of his act and he really has no other game to play. The fact that both she and Walz have positive net favorability and both Trump and Vance are very net unpopular just furthers this.

 

[nycfan]

Sure looks like Pennsylvania is in real danger. Extremely dispiriting.

I also don't understand what has happened in Nevada. Even Clinton won Nevada.

Very easy to feel hopeless

Harry Reid died.

 

[superrific]

I 100% agree it’s a losing topic for them. Which is why I have some concern that placing that issue on the ballot separately may benefit them.

I am aware that ballot measures regarding abortion have yielded overwhelmingly favorable results with regard to protecting abortion rights. But I am not sure that all those people who have turned out to vote in favor of abortion rights/against abortion bans in places like Kansas, for example, wouldn’t otherwise vote Republican. Are there results showing that where abortion rights have been placed on the ballot, there was a notable shift in votes favoring democrats compared to prior elections?

By the way, what I am discussing here is not my hypothesis; just a concern.

538 did a piece on this topic a few weeks ago. Their conclusion was that there is very little evidence that ballot measures have much impact on the other races at all.

It could be this factor (i.e. pro-choice voters feeling less guilt) cancelling out the increase in turnout from the pro-choice voters. Or it could be that neither factor makes much of a difference.

The problem with the idea you advanced above -- which is an idea I have also advanced a few times -- is that it assumes a sort of irrationality on the part of the voter, or perhaps the better word is naivete. A state constitutional amendment, of course, does not protect abortion rights against a federal ban. So if protecting your abortion right is important, and you're in the ballot box, why would the presence of the ballot initiative affect the way you vote for president, when one of the two candidates is responsible for the necessity of the ballot initiative? Don't get me wrong: this doesn't mean the hypothesis is false, as there is plenty of irrationality in politics (as we well know). But it should be a consideration. Presumably the people who get turned out to vote because of the abortion issue have been reached by the pro-choice campaign. If so, those people would also have pointed out that Trump is anti-choice.

Another problem with the idea is the assumption that the voters mobilized by the initiative will vote liberal. An initiative that passes by 60% doesn't necessarily have 60% support among the marginal voters. It could be that the voters who only show up because of the abortion issue are split down the middle, and that an anti-choice person will be as inspired to vote no as a pro-choice person will be to vote yes.

That said, I think there is some merit in the idea (as I wouldn't have advanced it otherwise). We aren't necessarily talking about the most sophisticated group of voters. They might just go with what is directly in front of their face on the ballot, and the second-order considerations just aren't interesting to them.

Ultimately, all such debates really depend on understanding non-voters, and also the voters who get mobilized by a ballot initiative. ASAIK people don't know enough about the psychology of non-voters, because they are hard to study.

 

[CFordUNC]

 

[duluoz]

I 100% agree it’s a losing topic for them. Which is why I have some concern that placing that issue on the ballot separately may benefit them.

I am aware that ballot measures regarding abortion have yielded overwhelmingly favorable results with regard to protecting abortion rights. But I am not sure that all those people who have turned out to vote in favor of abortion rights/against abortion bans in places like Kansas, for example, wouldn’t otherwise vote Republican. Are there results showing that where abortion rights have been placed on the ballot, there was a notable shift in votes favoring democrats compared to prior elections?

By the way, what I am discussing here is not my hypothesis; just a concern.

This line of thinking is losing the forest for the trees, IMO.

It’s a huge turnout issue. It clearly, strongly, hugely favors Dems. Sure there will be edge cases of voters turning out for this issue who still vote trump, or don’t vote Dem or at all.

But there has been a concerted effort to firmly tie republicans as a whole, and trump especially, to anti-choice and restricting reproductive rights. The Harris campaign especially has been draping the idea of a federal abortion ban around trump’s neck, and he lies so much that it doesn’t matter if he tries to deny it.

This will all net out to big dividends across the board, for turnout, for Harris, and down-ballot.

 

[superrific]

Harry Reid died.

I don't know if that makes much difference. I suspect that Nevada polling is biased against from Dems ever so slightly, given that sex workers are a) likely to vote blue and b) are not likely to answer phone calls from strangers. I think also the unions do a great job of turnout.

The polling in NV is always unfavorable to Dems. I think both CCM and Rosen were down in the polls ever so slightly on election day, but they won.

 

[superrific]

This line of thinking is losing the forest for the trees, IMO.

It’s a huge turnout issue. It clearly, strongly, hugely favors Dems. Sure there will be edge cases of voters turning out for this issue who still vote trump, or don’t vote Dem or at all.

But there has been a concerted effort to firmly tie republicans as a whole, and trump especially, to anti-choice and restricting reproductive rights. The Harris campaign especially has been draping the idea of a federal abortion ban around trump’s neck, and he lies so much that it doesn’t matter if he tries to deny it.

This will all net out to big dividends across the board, for turnout, for Harris, and down-ballot.

It hasn't had that effect so far. And you don't know whether it strongly or hugely favors Dems. All we know is that the measures typically pass with large margins. But it's possible that the initiative pass by even more (in percentage terms at least) among the voters who typically vote in elections.

This idea that the initiatives will provide big dividends to Harris is just an intuition. Which is fine, but behind that intuition there are several assumptions that could be wrong. It's fair to say that the intuition that the ballot initiatives will do little on net are as firmly grounded.

 

[aGDevil2k]

I don't know if that makes much difference. I suspect that Nevada polling is biased against from Dems ever so slightly, given that sex workers are a) likely to vote blue and b) are not likely to answer phone calls from strangers. I think also the unions do a great job of turnout.

The polling in NV is always unfavorable to Dems. I think both CCM and Rosen were down in the polls ever so slightly on election day, but they won.

Correct. Ralston is the one to seek for NV "ears to the ground" advice.

 

[nycfan]

I don't know if that makes much difference. I suspect that Nevada polling is biased against from Dems ever so slightly, given that sex workers are a) likely to vote blue and b) are not likely to answer phone calls from strangers. I think also the unions do a great job of turnout.

The polling in NV is always unfavorable to Dems. I think both CCM and Rosen were down in the polls ever so slightly on election day, but they won.

There was a bruising battle between Harry Reid’s Democratic Machine and Bernie Bros in Nevada in 2016 and 2020. Soon after Reid died in 2021, Team Bernie managed to take over most key elected positions in the Nevada Democratic Party.

But it turned out that Team Bernie was good at firing up Progressive but incompetent at running a party apparatus. They were voted back out in 2023 and Reid Moderates took back control of the party. But that left deep wounds in the coalition (who already hated Reid and his moderates for changing rules to undermine Bernie’s chances there in 2020) and a lot of progressives consider themselves not part of the Democratic Party now. That schism has been aggravated by the progressive rejection of the Biden policy toward the Israel-Hamas war, moving progressives even further from supporting Democrats.

Trump’s no tax on tips proposal really spoke to the young progressives in Vegas, many of whom live off tips. They figured if the GOP and Dems have basically the same policy on Gaza, why not go with the better tax policy for their state, which was particularly hammered during the pandemic and still holds a grudge about liberal positions on pandemic safety requirements that really hurt Vegas tourism.

Which is why the local unions reportedly told Harris it was vital that she adopt the no tax on tips proposal to have a shot in Nevada. But that hasn’t fixed the progressive disgruntlement and it is not clear how much support Dems can claw back from still angry progressives. And most of the rest of the state is dead red.