Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

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 
superrific said:
The main reason it was a swing state was that it was a retirement haven primarily for liberal Jews from the Northeast (NY and NYC in particular). They were the core liberal constituency there. Well, those original transplants have been dying off, and their replacements haven't been liberal. It's expensive as hell now in the Jewish-friendly areas and hard to retire to, and lots of people from the Northeast are going to have little interest in relocating to Osceola.

Otherwise, why would we think Florida should be different from any of the other Confederate states?
Click to expand...
Northern and Central Florida has always been South Alabama.

It is South Florida that has changed so much - in part for the reasons you state and in part because the Latino population (especially the non-Cuban Latino population) has trended more red over the last decade.
 
Calheel said:
Northern and Central Florida has always been South Alabama.

It is South Florida that has changed so much - in part for the reasons you state and in part because the Latino population (especially the non-Cuban Latino population) has trended more red over the last decade.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong, but I think a lot of the Cuban population swings red and has for some time. This is not to say what you mentioned is not true, it very well could be “(especially the non-Cuban Latino population)”
 
Centerpiece said:
I may be wrong, but I think a lot of the Cuban population swings red and has for some time. This is not to say what you mentioned is not true, it very well could be “(especially the non-Cuban Latino population)”
Click to expand...
Right. Cubans have been steadfast Republicans voters since the 1980s. It is the non-Cuban Latino population that has changed voting patterns.
 
dukeman92 said:
Those are not good numbers for Harris. I just refuse to believe this election will be that close.
Click to expand...
Harris is leading in the polls in all the states she needs to win. Moreover, she's leading in the polls there by more than Trump is winning in his must-wins of NC and GA.

Sure, a systemic polling error could mean Trump wins, but a few things. First, there's no a priori reason why polls should favor the Dem over Trump. That has been the case in the last two elections, but the effect has been attributed to factors that pollsters can adjust to and which depend on malleable human behavior being constant. Second, the proliferation of red wave polls, factored into the polling averages, makes it less likely that the polls will be tilted in Harris' favor. Third, if there has been meaningful change in the electorate, then it could disrupt polling accuracy.

I keep thinking about all the people who died from Covid post-election in 2020. They were predominantly Republican. They were also disproportionately anti-vaxx, pro-conspiracy people -- exactly the sort of person who didn't really vote much but Trump turned out. Well, Covid caused a lot of death, but not that much as a % of the population. Still, in a state like WI, 10,000 missing Trump votes could make a difference.

I also suspect that sorting will be a factor. States like MI, PA and NC had more "liberal" masking/Covid policies. I would imagine that people offended by that would be more likely to move out of state than people with more balanced views, and if they did leave, it would have been to freedumb states like Florida or the like.
 
superrific said:
Harris is leading in the polls in all the states she needs to win. Moreover, she's leading in the polls there by more than Trump is winning in his must-wins of NC and GA.

Sure, a systemic polling error could mean Trump wins, but a few things. First, there's no a priori reason why polls should favor the Dem over Trump. That has been the case in the last two elections, but the effect has been attributed to factors that pollsters can adjust to and which depend on malleable human behavior being constant. Second, the proliferation of red wave polls, factored into the polling averages, makes it less likely that the polls will be tilted in Harris' favor. Third, if there has been meaningful change in the electorate, then it could disrupt polling accuracy.

I keep thinking about all the people who died from Covid post-election in 2020. They were predominantly Republican. They were also disproportionately anti-vaxx, pro-conspiracy people -- exactly the sort of person who didn't really vote much but Trump turned out. Well, Covid caused a lot of death, but not that much as a % of the population. Still, in a state like WI, 10,000 missing Trump votes could make a difference.

I also suspect that sorting will be a factor. States like MI, PA and NC had more "liberal" masking/Covid policies. I would imagine that people offended by that would be more likely to move out of state than people with more balanced views, and if they did leave, it would have been to freedumb states like Florida or the like.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we should take these poll numbers to be the gospel... but if she loses one of the blue wall states, it's my prediction she will not be our next president.

I still have a strong belief that there is a silent majority waiting to vote for her.
 
dukeman92 said:
I'm not saying we should take these poll numbers to be the gospel... but if she loses one of the blue wall states, it's my prediction she will not be our next president.

I still have a strong belief that there is a silent majority waiting to vote for her.
Click to expand...
Well, according to the forecasting models, if Trump wins PA, he's going to win the election 85% of the time. For Mi and WI it's more like 75%. Still formidable numbers.

BUT that's taking into account correlation. That is, of those scenarios in which Trump wins PA and wins the election, the majority of them would have him taking other states as well.

It's not clear what you're predicting here. Are you talking about "if Trump wins a blue wall state, then he will likely overperform his polls in NC and AZ as well and take them"? Or are you talking about "all else equal, if Trump wins a blue wall state, he will win"? Because I don't agree with that. WI is not that valuable a prize. If Kamala loses WI, she can make that up by winning GA, AZ or NC. I think that's true for MI as well for NC and GA. So if you're not talking about correlation, then Kamala losing WI in a coin flip would result in her winning the presidency about 65-75% of the time because she would be unlikely to lose GA, NC AND AZ in coin flips.

PA is the biggest issue because it can't be replaced by another state. Losing PA means Kamala has to win NV plus one of the other states.
 
Do the polls tell us anything about voter turnout ?

Early voting begins next week in NC. I hope to be the first voter in my precinct.

I think early voting will be a pretty good indicator of voter enthusiasm and a pretty good predictor of what turnout will be .

When voters vote, Dems win. Here's hoping the GQP voter suppression/nullification strategies fail to thwart the will of the people.
 
Obviously is he were to win one of those blue wall states there would be correlation. I thought that went without saying. Either way, I stand by my statement. If she loses one of those states, she's likely toast.
 
dukeman92 said:
Obviously is he were to win one of those blue wall states there would be correlation. I thought that went without saying. Either way, I stand by my statement. If she loses one of those states, she's likely toast.
Click to expand...
Well, it depends on what you were asking. You know that game people play with the "interactive maps" that allow you to mark states as red or blue? That's not correlative. That's one possible interpretation of what your point. The other is a Bayesian inquiry of "what is the probability of Kamala winning given she loses a blue wall state?" I only asked for clarification.

Remember, though: correlation can work both ways. The fact that Kamala appears to be in the lead in all three of those states means that the states aren't truly coin flips. She has the lead there. So her chances of losing one of the three is not all that high, and would probably require a systemic polling miss. The winning scenarios for Trump are 1) the polls are wrong (and if so, then polls shouldn't give you heartburn) or 2) Michigan, PA, and WI are all super-close, with margins of victory that are essentially just noise (which would be closer than in 2020 in those states), and also NC and GA are not that close.
 
superrific said:
Well, according to the forecasting models, if Trump wins PA, he's going to win the election 85% of the time. For Mi and WI it's more like 75%. Still formidable numbers.

BUT that's taking into account correlation. That is, of those scenarios in which Trump wins PA and wins the election, the majority of them would have him taking other states as well.

It's not clear what you're predicting here. Are you talking about "if Trump wins a blue wall state, then he will likely overperform his polls in NC and AZ as well and take them"? Or are you talking about "all else equal, if Trump wins a blue wall state, he will win"? Because I don't agree with that. WI is not that valuable a prize. If Kamala loses WI, she can make that up by winning GA, AZ or NC. I think that's true for MI as well for NC and GA. So if you're not talking about correlation, then Kamala losing WI in a coin flip would result in her winning the presidency about 65-75% of the time because she would be unlikely to lose GA, NC AND AZ in coin flips.

PA is the biggest issue because it can't be replaced by another state. Losing PA means Kamala has to win NV plus one of the other states.
Click to expand...
My 1970s kid self would be astonished to know I am saying this in 2024, but I’m relying on Polish (and Ukrainian and Baltic) descended PA voters to save us there this cycle.
 
I tend to think that Agdevilk gets it....hmmm, agreeing with a Dookie...meaning that voter enthusiasm and turnout are key and it's not clear that the polls are accurately capturing that sentiment.
 
Last edited:
Calheel said:
Right. Cubans have been steadfast Republicans voters since the 1980s. It is the non-Cuban Latino population that has changed voting patterns.
Click to expand...
Univision is the main cable TV and it skews way right. And it’s really all about the Catholic Church and stances against abortion, contraception, etc… they are anti LGBTQ, and pro” family values” and all of that. It’s not surprising at all and very predictable. Of course the Cubans here are simply anti Castro and anti anything to do with Socialism, communism, etc. And the Cubans are huge racists. God forbid you “mistake” a Cubano for a Mexican or Dominican…. Or any other Latin American for that matter. Argentina is the same way.
There’s also a significant portion of the African American community which is the same way. (Anti abortion/LGBTQ) Not Catholic of course, but just the same. Loads of folks just can’t get past that stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top