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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 6K
  • Views: 183K
  • Politics 
Igs149 said:
While I love the enthusiasm, I think this is looking through very blue colored glasses.

Harris is working through a headwind of 4 years of inflation. Obama had the benefit of a massively unpopular incumbent and then an economic collapse under his R predecessor immediately prior to the election. Atop being a generationally strong politician.

Folks vote their wallet.

Harris has a chance to use this debate to capture hesitant Dems and independents and grab back some momentum. But make no mistake. If she wins - it will be likely be atop an absolutely razor thin win in PA that will be too close to call on election night.

Biden won the national popular vote by 4.5 points and headed into election day with an 8%(ish) lead in national polls and 5% (ish) leads in many swing states.

Kamala has never even touched a 4.5% plus polling advantage. While Biden ultimately finished with a comfortable EC margin, it was across multiple super close states that took days to sort out and which, as of now, Kamala will not be able to duplicate.

Fantasizing Kamala has a hidden 2/3% in support is difficult to support. We know Trump has at least that.

Good money is on Trump right now. But perhaps…perhaps Kamala can finish strong and bump turnout. But make no mistake - she is the underdog here.
Click to expand...
No we don't know at all that trump has that

This isn't 2016 anymore. If anything, the quiet voters support Harris... Too nervous to put out signs because of the insanity of MAGAs
 
Igs149 said:
Harris is working through a headwind of 4 years of inflation. Obama had the benefit of a massively unpopular incumbent and then an economic collapse under his R predecessor immediately prior to the election. Atop being a generationally strong politician.
Click to expand...
At the Al Smith dinner before the 2008 election, Obama said "One of McCain's top advisors told him that if we keep talking about the economy, McCain is going to lose. So tonight I'd like to talk about the economy"..
 
Igs149 said:
While I love the enthusiasm, I think this is looking through very blue colored glasses.

Harris is working through a headwind of 4 years of inflation. Obama had the benefit of a massively unpopular incumbent and then an economic collapse under his R predecessor immediately prior to the election. Atop being a generationally strong politician.

Folks vote their wallet.

Harris has a chance to use this debate to capture hesitant Dems and independents and grab back some momentum. But make no mistake. If she wins - it will be likely be atop an absolutely razor thin win in PA that will be too close to call on election night.

Biden won the national popular vote by 4.5 points and headed into election day with an 8%(ish) lead in national polls and 5% (ish) leads in many swing states.

Kamala has never even touched a 4.5% plus polling advantage. While Biden ultimately finished with a comfortable EC margin, it was across multiple super close states that took days to sort out and which, as of now, Kamala will not be able to duplicate.

Fantasizing Kamala has a hidden 2/3% in support is difficult to support. We know Trump has at least that.

Good money is on Trump right now. But perhaps…perhaps Kamala can finish strong and bump turnout. But make no mistake - she is the underdog here.
Click to expand...
I don't believe she's the underdog. I'm fine with her campaigning like she's the underdog, but I don't believe she is. And you're making an awful lot of assumptions on this hidden Trump element that's most likely already been baked into the new modelling.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
I don't believe she's the underdog. I'm fine with her campaigning like she's the underdog, but I don't believe she is. And you're making an awful lot of assumptions on this hidden Trump element that's most likely already been baked into the new modelling.
Click to expand...
Respectfully. We are all making assumptions. As the polls relation to the actual vote turnout is functionally prognostication.

We have now seen Trump as a candidate in 2 elections. Where he has outperformed national polls (and key swing state polls) by 3-5 pts. This idea the “polls” will correct for this was the mantra in 2020.

And instead, the only actual difference was Biden’s polling lead pre-election was much larger. So he survived a 4 pt polling error. Where Hillary with a much smaller national polling lead could not.

Right now, my assumption seems far more grounded in what has actually been shown to be true about Trump’s coalition than the assumption polls “will account for this”

If you have a compelling and specific reason to understand why let’s say 5-10 national polling companies have solved the problem, I’m all ears. If instead, you merely assume they’ve been fixed, you are making an assumption you have a very good reason *not to make*.

I’d argue you are on the wrong side of the data driven prognostication argument.

Ultimately, there is what folks want to be true. And what is true. If the election was held today, she’d lose. She has time to make inroads in key demographics. I hope she does.
 
Last edited:
lawtig02 said:
We don’t know Trump has that at all. You’re assuming polling methodology hasn’t changed since 2020. It’s certainly possible that will prove to be the case, but it’s far more likely the variance between polling and final results will be quite a bit different this time.
Click to expand...
Why? Wasn’t this the same argument 2016 to 2020? Harris has either small or vanishly small polling leads in key blue wall states.

I don’t mean to be an ass. Because I am not a statistician.

How have the polls variance to actual results been solved? Can anyone answer that with specificity. Until then, I’ll continue to assume that polls consistently underpoll Trump support. Because they have in 2 consecutive elections.

Why isn’t that a much more rational assumption than the idea “they’ve been fixed” without a single piece of information on how they have been fixed.
 
Paine said:
Take it from a young man in that demographic, there are a lot of angry young men under 30 who are going to vote for Trump. And of lot of their girlfriends and wives have been radicalized by the same garbage that they consume.
Click to expand...
Lots of angry young men, but a very unreliable voting bloc still.
 
Igs149 said:
Why? Wasn’t this the same argument 2016 to 2020? Harris has either small or vanishly small polling leads in key blue wall states.

I don’t mean to be an ass. Because I am not a statistician.

How have the polls variance to actual results been solved? Can anyone answer that with specificity. Until then, I’ll continue to assume that polls consistently underpoll Trump support. Because they have in 2 consecutive elections.

Why isn’t that a much more rational assumption than the idea “they’ve been fixed” without a single piece of information on how they have been fixed.
Click to expand...
This is a good summary of how polling is continuing to evolve.

www.pewresearch.org

Key things to know about U.S. election polling in 2024

Polls are more useful to the public if people have realistic expectations about what surveys can do well – and what they cannot.
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org

We won’t know until after the election if they “fixed” the issues from 2016 and 2020. It’s possible the underestimation of the Trump vote could be even worse this time around. But they’re not using the same methodology as in prior cycles, and many of the changes are intended to correct the problems from 2016 and 2020. These people are not infallible, but they are pros, and they want to get it right. That’s why I don’t think the good money would be on this being a repeat of 2020 as far as polling is concerned.
 
aGDevil2k said:



Also the MAGA celebration of the NYT poll is really interesting. They are celebrating like it's all over
Click to expand...

I've been skeptical of polls since the 2016 disaster, and they've been off in at least one area in pretty much every election since then. In 2018 they failed to see Democrats gaining 40 House seats, in 2020 they overestimated Biden's victory margin, and in 2022 they predicted a red wave that never really materialized. And since Roe v. Wade has been overturned they have also been underestimating the pro-choice vote by significant margins in many states. Even in 2012 Romney's internal polls showed him winning the election right up to election day, apparently. My own belief is that Democrats should run flat-out right until election day and should run as if they are behind the whole way. I don't think anyone in either party has any real idea of what is going to happen in this election, especially since Biden dropped out and Kamala became the candidate. The only thing I am fairly certain of is that the Democrats will likely win the national popular vote again, but of course that doesn't decide presidential elections, the Electoral College does. Just keep running flat-out until the election and campaign like your life depended on it, because maybe it does.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top