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: 144K
  • Politics 
HeelingAg said:
This poll result is the epitome of what triggers my "nothing fucking matters" impulse. The idea ttump is this close to a second, and unquestionable humanitarian disaster, term fans my misanthropy. It's a real energy diversion effort to fully activate my executive function and tell myself "This is one data point. The NYT has gone all in on bosiding. Polling appears more erratic this year than ever. You don't have to be a prisoner of your amygdala and hypothalamus."
Click to expand...
Don’t let the polls get you down. They don’t mean that much.
 
CallMeTyler said:
I assumed we already dispensed with the notion the NYT is a non-partisan source?

I mean, they’re a meme at this point with the NYT Pitchbot.
Click to expand...
1. If the NYT has a partisan lean, it's definitely not for the Pubs. Maybe you're thinking of a rooting interest, ideology or sour grapes? All of which (save possibly the latter) are also implausible, but it defies belief that the paper that has pretty much defined centrist Democrat for generations has suddenly gone MAGA.
2. NYT Pitchbot is a meme. The NYT isn't. The NYTimes pitchbot is taking aim at a subset of the paper's articles. It's ignoring the articles that are much more objectively critical of Trump
 
superrific said:
1. If the NYT has a partisan lean, it's definitely not for the Pubs. Maybe you're thinking of a rooting interest, ideology or sour grapes? All of which (save possibly the latter) are also implausible, but it defies belief that the paper that has pretty much defined centrist Democrat for generations has suddenly gone MAGA.
2. NYT Pitchbot is a meme. The NYT isn't. The NYTimes pitchbot is taking aim at a subset of the paper's articles. It's ignoring the articles that are much more objectively critical of Trump
Click to expand...
Doesn’t the NYT have a beef with Biden/Harris?
 
superrific said:
1. If the NYT has a partisan lean, it's definitely not for the Pubs. Maybe you're thinking of a rooting interest, ideology or sour grapes? All of which (save possibly the latter) are also implausible, but it defies belief that the paper that has pretty much defined centrist Democrat for generations has suddenly gone MAGA.
2. NYT Pitchbot is a meme. The NYT isn't. The NYTimes pitchbot is taking aim at a subset of the paper's articles. It's ignoring the articles that are much more objectively critical of Trump
Click to expand...
While no one would call them MAGA partisan, they boside the Hell out of things. Their own Nate Cohn has admitted questions in their polling strategy and basically leaves at as a "we will see how it all pans out" - largely that they have no clue (nor would they) into electoral makeup. Some of that is refreshing. But some of their stuff leaves them more open to some big errors.
 
aGDevil2k said:
If she wins, the NYT has lost all (remaining sliver of) credibility
Click to expand...
How? Because its polls are saying something different than what you want to hear?

Being wrong in polling isn't the same thing as being bad at polling. All pollsters are guessing about certain factors. That's why different polls have different leans. If the Times is consistently pro-Trump, it's not on purpose -- at least not unless you think Nate Cohn is in the process of destroying a great deal of professional credibility that he has spent years and years building. The Needle is really great technology. Plus, the polls are conducted by Siena, which also has no obvious reason to be biased.

Polling is like poker. Over a lot of cycles, the better pollsters will rise to the top -- but that doesn't mean they are going to get every specific example correct, any more than the best poker player is going to win every hand. If I play at a poker table with pros, I will very likely get rolled. But consider this situation: on the first hand, a player gets the nut full house and puts me all-in. I have a straight flush draw. And then on the river I hit it. I win, pro player is out. Pro player played it correctly, I would imagine. It's just that he modeled me as a rational player when I turned out not even to be that, and also got a bad beat.

[By the way, I've described the poker scene in Casino Royale, which was humorous and improbable but also required Bond to play like an idiot]

If you have a reason to think the Times is doing something wrong, then the criticism is fair game. But if it's just that the results aren't correct, that doesn't mean much.
 
aGDevil2k said:
While no one would call them MAGA partisan, they boside the Hell out of things. Their own Nate Cohn has admitted questions in their polling strategy and basically leaves at as a "we will see how it all pans out" - largely that they have no clue (nor would they) into electoral makeup. Some of that is refreshing. But some of their stuff leaves them more open to some big errors.
Click to expand...
Where did Cohn admit to that? Show me the link, please. I've not seen that. Unless you're referring to his column today, which I think you have not fairly characterized.
 
My view, for the very little it’s worth —

Now is about the time in the campaign where we can stop focusing on margins. Start looking at the top line numbers for Trump and Kamala with credible pollsters. Trump at 47% or less is great. Kamala at 51% or more is great. Trump at 48% and Kamala at 50% is scary, but still probably ok for Kamala. The last Economist has Kamala at 49 and Trump at 45. That’s ok. The last CBS has Kamala at 52 and Trump at 48. That’s excellent. We’re in good shape. No need to freak out unless we start seeing Trump tied or ahead of Kamala in high quality polls where he has 49 or 50. Just keep plugging along unless we start seeing those types of numbers.
 
Centerpiece said:
Are there such things as Maga Deadheads? Conservative Deadheads? Trumper Deadheads? Any hardcore Deadheads registered as Republican? Evangelical, Christian Nationalist Deadheads?

Didn’t think so….
Click to expand...
I know several.

Born-again Christo-Nationalist MAGA Deadheads.
 
lawtig02 said:
My view, for the very little it’s worth —

Now is about the time in the campaign where we can stop focusing on margins. Start looking at the top line numbers for Trump and Kamala with credible pollsters. Trump at 47% or less is great. Kamala at 51% or more is great. Trump at 48% and Kamala at 50% is scary, but still probably ok for Kamala. The last Economist has Kamala at 49 and Trump at 45. That’s ok. The last CBS has Kamala at 52 and Trump at 48. That’s excellent. We’re in good shape. No need to freak out unless we start seeing Trump tied or ahead of Kamala in high quality polls where he has 49 or 50. Just keep plugging along unless we start seeing those types of numbers
Click to expand...
I don't understand the logic. Looking at top line numbers and looking at margins are the same thing. Remember: not all likely voters vote. So if you have a poll with Trump and Kamala both at 47 -- well, maybe the other 6 just doesn't vote. Or some % of the Trump and Kamala cohorts don't vote. Even if you have a perfectly accurate poll on Monday before the election showing Trump at 46, it doesn't mean he can't get a majority of actual votes cast.
 
Centerpiece said:
Are there such things as Maga Deadheads? Conservative Deadheads? Trumper Deadheads? Any hardcore Deadheads registered as Republican? Evangelical, Christian Nationalist Deadheads?

Didn’t think so….
Click to expand...
There are actually quite a few, sadly. A lot of hippies became right-wing libertarian types.

www.huffpost.com

Why Do Conservatives Love The Grateful Dead? We Ask Tucker Carlson.

Why Do Conservatives Love The Grateful Dead? We Ask Tucker Carlson.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com

www.billboard.com

Ann Coulter: I’m A Grateful Dead Fan For Life (Exclusive)

Ann Coulter writes about why she's a devoted Grateful Dead fan.
www.billboard.com www.billboard.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top