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: 5K
  • Views: 184K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
So this internal GOP Senate election polling on the POTUS race in states with close senate races + the current lead in the Senate race

State … Trump v Harris (Senate race margin)
AZ 47-47 (D + 5)
MD 31-62 (D+7)
MI 42-45 (D+8)
MT 57-40 (R+4)
NV 46-46 (D+7)
OH 47-43 (D+6)
PA 48-49 (D+2)
TX 50-45 (R+1)
WI 46-45 (D+1)
Click to expand...
Ah, I see who leaked it now. Ted Cruz. And a bunch of Republicans who want the Dems to throw money into the void in TX.

One thing people forget: the Dems can keep pumping money into MT to support Tester, even in a losing cause, because MT is cheap. TX, by contrast, is not.
 
superrific said:
In this scenario, are you assuming Fischer loses NE and the other guy caucuses with Dems?

Because otherwise, it's 51-49 GOP. It's easy to forget that we've already lost WV.

And what we can do if we get all three is . . . watch helplessly as Fetterman turns into Manchin 2.0. No, seriously, though, we would need our whole caucus to vote to get rid of the filibuster or the difference between 51 and 55 won't matter. And after 2020, I'm just going to assume that there's going to be at least one fuckup who does the wrong thing for the country because it's the right thing to maximize his political power. Fetterman, LOL.
Click to expand...
I’ve been writing off the senate, so when I say it’s 50-50, I’m accounting for a weird upset. The takeaway for me is that if the Pubs really think the senate is that close, we’re WAY closer to a Dem sweep than we are to Trump winning the presidency.
 
lawtig02 said:
I’ve been writing off the senate, so when I say it’s 50-50, I’m accounting for a weird upset. The takeaway for me is that if the Pubs really think the senate is that close, we’re WAY closer to a Dem sweep than we are to Trump winning the presidency.
Click to expand...
I don't think that optimism is warranted. The whole point of that memo is that Trump is running ahead of the down-ballot candidates. Which is what you'd expect given that 1) Trump dominates the airwaves; 2) the GOP is a Trump cult; 3) Trump has co-opted the GOP's internals for his own benefit; and 4) enjoys free media that covers for his lack of money in a way that Senate candidates just don't.

I mean, this isn't even a difference between polls. You see Trump running, say, 7 or 8 points ahead of Sam Brown in NV in the exact same poll. That's been a pattern replicated over and over again.
 
superrific said:
I don't think that optimism is warranted. The whole point of that memo is that Trump is running ahead of the down-ballot candidates. Which is what you'd expect given that 1) Trump dominates the airwaves; 2) the GOP is a Trump cult; 3) Trump has co-opted the GOP's internals for his own benefit; and 4) enjoys free media that covers for his lack of money in a way that Senate candidates just don't.

I mean, this isn't even a difference between polls. You see Trump running, say, 7 or 8 points ahead of Sam Brown in NV in the exact same poll. That's been a pattern replicated over and over again.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with that. But as I read the poll, Trump isn’t running far enough ahead of the senate candidates to win the election. It will be close, but he’s behind.
 
superrific said:
Being right once is meaningless. How did he do in 2020, 2018 or 2016?

Regardless of his track record, that analysis above is shit. Objectively.
Click to expand...
Not to mention he completely failed in 2022. Said the Dems would win the House. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
336Heel said:
Only problem is the former President Harris is running against has convinced 1/2 the country that the economy is shit. It doesn't matter what economists say. What matters is the electorate's impression of the economy.
Click to expand...
This is 100% true. And your average rural Trumper has no retirement account at all time highs or anything in the stock market. This is no exaggeration - they measure the economy by the price of groceries and gasoline.
 
Last edited:
Calheel said:
Not to mention he completely failed in 2022. Said the Dems would win the House. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, that's not a complete failure. IIRC he was so strident about it that it made him look foolish, but the election turned out better for us than many or most of us feared. Political forecasting isn't necessarily about who wins. A forecast that gets 50 states right but misses the % in every one by 5 points isn't as good as one that nearly nails all the %s but gets two tossup states wrong.

Regardless, I suspect that you and I would have similar opinions about this man if I bothered to learn more about him.
 
superrific said:
Political forecasting isn't necessarily about who wins. A forecast that gets 50 states right but misses the % in every one by 5 points isn't as good as one that nearly nails all the %s but gets two tossup states wrong.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a quote straight from Nate Silver. But I agree.

Speaking of Mr. Silver, he came up in John Oliver's show last night. There is no bootleg video available yet, but here is the quote:

Clearly, we don’t know what’s ahead on Election Night, though I can confidently predict a few things. First: a little khaki nerd armed with a touchscreen will inspire some of the most depraved thirst tweets the internet’s ever seen. Second, regardless of the results, Nate Silver will tweet, “Actually, this is exactly what I said could happen,” in a heated argument with a 14-year-old with a Spongebob avatar who only tweets, “Nate Silver pees upside down.” And finally: if Trump loses, he will not concede gracefully. He’s already said he’ll only accept the results “if it’s a fair and legal and good election.” And he’s been laying the groundwork to cry foul if he loses.
 
lawtig02 said:
I don’t disagree with that. But as I read the poll, Trump isn’t running far enough ahead of the senate candidates to win the election. It will be close, but he’s behind.
Click to expand...
One way we fail ourselves by obsessing about polls is that we convince ourselves that there are a whole bunch of ways to look at an election, when there is really only one. All the rest is repackaging.

You see it with Latino support. It's bad news for Dems that they are only getting 58% of Latino vote now instead of 66%. Dems can't win with 58%, they say. Why not? Look at the polls. They've got Harris leading with Latinos at 58%, because Harris is doing better with white college grads than ever before. The cross-section might be useful for understanding why something is happening, but not the what.

It's bad news for the Dems that Trump is leading on handling the economy and the economy is the most important issue. OK, so look at the polls. They've got Harris leading even with voters saying the economy is the most important issue. It just means that actually, people care about a mix of issues and not just the most important one.

It's bad news for Trump that the Senate candidates are trailing. But look at the polls. Despite these Senators trailing badly, Trump is only 2 points down. That's all baked in. It just means there are people telling pollsters that they will split ticket. Maybe people don't do that as much now . . . unless they start doing it, which is what these polls are telling us. There's no reason to think it can't happen.

All of these cross-sections and different angles are just the same thing sliced differently. The polls might not be accurate (probably aren't completely accurate) but why privilege the Senate polls? The proposition that "Trump isn't doing as well as his polls suggest, because the Senate candidates' polling is so bad" doesn't seem to be superior, in any way, as the proposition that "Trump is running unusually far ahead of the Senate candidates." Either way, we're seeing something different than in the recent past. We don't know if it means that the Senate candidates are being underestimated, Trump overestimated, or more people splitting.
 
Calheel said:
That sounds like a quote straight from Nate Silver. But I agree.

Speaking of Mr. Silver, he came up in John Oliver's show last night. There is no bootleg video available yet, but here is the quote:

Clearly, we don’t know what’s ahead on Election Night, though I can confidently predict a few things. First: a little khaki nerd armed with a touchscreen will inspire some of the most depraved thirst tweets the internet’s ever seen. Second, regardless of the results, Nate Silver will tweet, “Actually, this is exactly what I said could happen,” in a heated argument with a 14-year-old with a Spongebob avatar who only tweets, “Nate Silver pees upside down.” And finally: if Trump loses, he will not concede gracefully. He’s already said he’ll only accept the results “if it’s a fair and legal and good election.” And he’s been laying the groundwork to cry foul if he loses.
Click to expand...
I've been saying that since before I knew who Nate Silver was. That is pretty funny btw from John Oliver.
 
superrific said:
I've been saying that since before I knew who Nate Silver was. That is pretty funny btw from John Oliver.
Click to expand...
I wasn't suggesting a copyright violation -- more a great minds think alike kinda point.

But if 538 says there will be 227 Republicans and Bouzy says there will be 213 Republicans and there ends up being 219 Republicans, I'd say 538 was more right than Bouzy. When the deltas are that close, the prognosticator that picks the actual winner is entitled to a significant credibility bump.
 
Calheel said:
I wasn't suggesting a copyright violation -- more a great minds think alike kinda point.

But if 538 says there will be 227 Republicans and Bouzy says there will be 213 Republicans and there ends up being 219 Republicans, I'd say 538 was more right than Bouzy. When the deltas are that close, the prognosticator that picks the actual winner is entitled to a significant credibility bump.
Click to expand...
Fine, but it's not the horrible fail you made it out to be originally.

Unlike what will happen if Bouzy actually goes to the mat on Florida going blue.
 
superrific said:
Fine, but it's not the horrible fail you made it out to be originally.

Unlike what will happen if Bouzy actually goes to the mat on Florida going blue.
Click to expand...
I've never made it out to be a "horrible" fail, just refuting it as evidence of Bouzy's supposed savant status per @theel4life (and to a lesser degree @aGDevil2k).

Bouzy is not horrible because he missed on the 2022 election. He is horrible because he is a scammer, and he has glommed onto the "tell liberals that his secret sauce analysis predicts much rosier outcomes than the mainstream press is reporting" schtick in order to induce such panicky liberals to boost his algorithms, which he in turn uses to scam and grift.
 
Calheel said:
I've never made it out to be a "horrible" fail, just refuting it as evidence of Bouzy's supposed savant status per @theel4life (and to a lesser degree @aGDevil2k).

Bouzy is not horrible because he missed on the 2022 election. He is horrible because he is a scammer, and he has glommed onto the "tell liberals that his secret sauce analysis predicts much rosier outcomes than the mainstream press is reporting" schtick in order to induce such panicky liberals to boost his algorithms, which he in turn uses to scam and grift.
Click to expand...
"Not to mention he completely failed in 2022. "

I guess a complete failure isn't actually the same as a horrible failure, but I did conflate them in my mind. Anyway, I suspect we would agree about Bouzy, again if I bothered to look for what you've seen.
 
Can we really just not get into the Bouzy shit? It's been debated about 50 pages by now.

Meanwhile:

www.dailykos.com

Media Polls are Garbage. Good News Edition

I am going to make this quick. Politico just received an internal memo from the Senate Republicans that can be politely described as putting lipstick on a pig. This was released to possible donors to induce them to donate to Senate Republican...
www.dailykos.com

Interesting POV. I do imagine if she only loses by Ohio by 4, she's winning the race.
 
Last edited:
I think it is true, we don't really know and won't until election night or even a few days after as absentee and provisionals are counted in some places. I just really feel Trump's support is overstated in the polls. I think because it was understated in 2016 and 2020, I think they are trying to adjust methodology. I think Harris will win the national popular vote by 5% or better and win 300+ electoral votes. I really believe that.
 
EhringhausSouth said:
I think it is true, we don't really know and won't until election night or even a few days after as absentee and provisionals are counted in some places. I just really feel Trump's support is overstated in the polls. I think because it was understated in 2016 and 2020, I think they are trying to adjust methodology. I think Harris will win the national popular vote by 5% or better and win 300+ electoral votes. I really believe that.
Click to expand...
I could see her with a smaller popular vote win just from some softening in New York etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top