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

[BlueSmoke]

Polling margin of error vs. the poll's expected voter turnout model.

Maybe someone can explain the difference? I tend to think that if the poll's turnout model is wrong then the margin of error doesn't mean anything. But I could be wrong.

 

[treblkickd]

Polling margin of error vs. the poll's expected voter turnout model.

Maybe someone can explain the difference? I tend to think that if the poll's turnout model is wrong then the margin of error doesn't mean anything. But I could be wrong.

Depends on how they compute margin of error, but my understanding is that's usually a purely statistical estimate of the uncertainty. An uncertainty due to turnout model would be an additional, systematic (i.e., this uncertainty does not average down if they do the poll over and over) source of uncertainty (that they probably aren't reporting).

 

[aGDevil2k]

Polling margin of error vs. the poll's expected voter turnout model.

Maybe someone can explain the difference? I tend to think that if the poll's turnout model is wrong then the margin of error doesn't mean anything. But I could be wrong.

if their turnout model is significantly wrong (see 2016) then the whole poll doesnt mean anything. I think they have overcorrected since then.

 

[rodoheel]

Yeah I'm not concerned about the red wave polls, more about the non-red-wave polls that have had concerning results (like NBC national poll showing a tie).

 

[aGDevil2k]

Yeah I'm not concerned about the red wave polls, more about the non-red-wave polls that have had concerning results (like NBC national poll showing a tie).

NBC said this morning that if dems come out strong, then it changes their model to like Harris +3. They admitted (of course) that turnout is the complete unknown.

If Dems (and dem independents) come out and vote, she will win

 

[lawtig02]

NBC said this morning that if dems come out strong, then it changes their model to like Harris +3. They admitted (of course) that turnout is the complete unknown.

If Dems (and dem independents) come out and vote, she will win

Modeling is inexact by definition, but I’m really not sure why anyone would expect anything less than high Dem turnout. Since 2016, Trump in the news, and especially Trump on the ballot, has always resulted in strong Dem turnout.

 

[heelinhell]

internal GQP senate race polling

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/13/senate-republican-poll-memo-00183570

 

[aGDevil2k]

Modeling is inexact by definition, but I’m really not sure why anyone would expect anything less than high Dem turnout. Since 2016, Trump in the news, and especially Trump on the ballot, has always resulted in strong Dem turnout.

especially post-dobbs

I think they are just scared of repeating 2016

 

[aGDevil2k]

Sign Game:
Already been noted that there are way more Harris signs than Biden in 2020 (Honestly this shocks me - I thought more dems would be too wary to put things out, given the insanity of MAGA...I mean I have been). There are been noticeably fewer Trump signs than 2020 and 2016....I admit I thought the sign stuff was a weak measure of enthusiasm, but the turnout proved me wrong.

But in my drive this morning through rural Orange County (yes a very blue county...but the rural areas are still fairly reddish): 17 Harris - 6 Trump (2 Trumps were on these two homes side-by-side that have about 50 signs total between them...but they get 1 vote each). Inside the town limits it was 8-0 Harris (so 9-6 in the rural stretch)

 

[Igs149]

1. Can we avoid the cock-based rhetoric, please. It's really not OK.
2. I understand where you're coming from, and when I was younger, I used to feel this way. But let me offer a different perspective, one that isn't necessarily a challenge to your view point so much as a mollifying complement.

It's important for US presidents to maintain some continuity in foreign policy, for a number of reasons. When I say "continuity" I don't mean exactly the same; I mean that the policy should gradually change instead of radically swinging depending on the administration. And one reason for this is that we can't have effective foreign policy if other countries can't trust us to do what we say we are going to do, because the administration might change and everything gets dismantled. A substantial amount of foreign policy goes to treaties, agreements, protocols and the like.

Because of Trump, our credibility is almost shot. For instance, It was a calamity when Trump withdrew us from the Trans Pacific Partnership. That treaty was a dozen years in the making, and required the US to do a lot of cajoling of some of the included nations. It was no small ask for Malaysia or Singapore, for instance, to join a trade partnership that excluded Beijing. And yet with lots of diplomacy, they finally came on board . . . and then it vanished. Those countries gave China a small middle finger and for what end? I doubt they will ever trust the US again. It shouldn't really matter whether you think the TPP is good or bad; the point is that the sudden withdrawal was damaging to the United States long term, and that damage is considerably greater than whatever harms might have come from the treaty (editor's note: opposition to the treaty was rarely based in fact, because it was not what the far left and far right depicted it as).

And of course, what Trump did to the TPP, he also did to the Paris Accords and the Iranian nuclear treaty. And he could do to NATO. Or the UN. Or any other agreement, and then what will happen to our standing in the world?

I think sometimes people don't really understand what international cooperation does for us. For instance, the US has been able to cajole most offshore tax havens into policies that make it much harder for tax cheats and money launderers to stash new money there. We got Switzerland to open its banks to US law enforcement after decades of cajoling and diplomacy. It's not in Switzerland's interests to do so, but the US was able to use carrots and sticks to make progress on that front. Not just the US, but you get the point. Banking regulations are coordinated between international countries, and financial policy in particular. One of the reasons for the 2008 financial crisis is that Bush basically stopped caring about regulatory harmonization, and thus so did Europe, and thus the financial crisis was largely birthed out of a UK subsidiary of AIG that was following UK law but engaging in ridiculously risky practices.

So broadly speaking, our foreign policy needs to be predictable. It doesn't necessarily have to be fixed, but it can't be a thing where a new president takes office and does for foreign policy what s/he typically does for domestic policy. That's something to consider when evaluating Obama.

3. Now I understand that I'm talking about concerns that don't necessarily get to the heart of your complaint. After all, I take you not to be talking about the WTO but rather Allende and Mobutu, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. And those situations do present more of a challenge to the continuity I outlined above. The cost benefit is different. And where there's no real risk to America's reputation, quick shifts aren't as dangerous. There are still other reasons why continuity should be the norm, but let's stay with this one and analyze the Vietnam War. Would it have been a problem if Nixon had decreed in 1969, we were pulling out of Vietnam immediately? I don't think so. We didn't have war partners to speak of. Nobody except the SV kleptocrats wanted us there. The spectrum of world opinion there ranged from "you should get out" to "we don't give a fuck really," but nobody wanted us in.

Let's also take the second Iraq War. Bush 43 did assemble an international coalition, but other than the UK, I don't think anyone really wanted to participate. It was more of a "if you insist, we will grudgingly contribute." Some of the "assistance" offered by some allies was comically symbolic. There were countries, IIRC, that sent less than 10 soldiers as their "contribution." So if Kerry had won in 04 and stopped the Iraq War, nobody would have minded about the reversal (which is different from a decision as to whether a sudden reversal would have been a good idea on the merits, given that we broke it and thus had a responsibility to "fix it", which of course we didn't).

But on other issues, where our national interest more closely dovetails with those of our allies and thus our allies (and non-allies for that matter) rely on us, sharp deviations from policy are highly suboptimal. Yes, if you evaluate individual policies on their own merits, some of them were gross -- but that's not the same thing as saying we should just reverse them. In foreign relations as in law, sometimes consistency is more important than getting it right.

Super - can you explain the point on the AIG subsidiary re the 2008 crisis. Not super familiar with that and if you got color, would appreciate it. (If we can do so without derailing the thread).

 

[CFordUNC]

Yeah I'm not concerned about the red wave polls, more about the non-red-wave polls that have had concerning results (like NBC national poll showing a tie).

Oh yeah I hear you. Definitely understandable to be concerned. But I think it’s important to not pay attention to any individual polls, even ones that are good news for Harris. Like last week, the New York Times/Siena poll, which has not been the best one for Harris/Democrats, was really good for Harris. But it’s only one poll. The NBC one is only one poll (I know you know all of this, I’m not preaching at you or anything!). Overall in the aggregate, polling is favoring Harris, and as I said yesterday, virtually every single possible fundamental intangible is significantly in her favor and significantly against Trump. Of course, that does not guarantee that she will win or that he will lose, but it’s just to say that right now she is a solid favorite, and you would much, much rather be the Harris campaign than the Trump campaign right now, which was not the case back when it was the Biden campaign versus the Trump campaign.

 

[heelinhell]

Sign Game:
Already been noted that there are way more Harris signs than Biden in 2020 (Honestly this shocks me - I thought more dems would be too wary to put things out, given the insanity of MAGA...I mean I have been). There are been noticeably fewer Trump signs than 2020 and 2016....I admit I thought the sign stuff was a weak measure of enthusiasm, but the turnout proved me wrong.

But in my drive this morning through rural Orange County (yes a very blue county...but the rural areas are still fairly reddish): 17 Harris - 6 Trump (2 Trumps were on these two homes side-by-side that have about 50 signs total between them...but they get 1 vote each). Inside the town limits it was 8-0 Harris (so 9-6 in the rural stretch)

Northern Orange County is very red...

 

[CFordUNC]

 

[CFordUNC]

"Trump lost by more than 7 million votes or 4.45% in 2020. That was…
-before he staged a coup to overthrow the election.
-before he got caught stealing classified documents
-before he had multiple conversations with Putin
-before his SCOTUS took away women’s right to control their bodies.
-before he became a 4x indicted, convicted felon.

Many Republicans are endorsing Harris. No Democrats are endorsing Trump.

90% of Trump’s former Cabinet won’t endorse him.

Trump is cratering from dementia and has become incoherent.

Harris crushed Trump in their debate. Stay positive and encourage everyone you know to vote. Harris will beat his ass."

 

[hedge]

Kamala needs to win pop vote by 10 million and the electoral college by at least the same 306 to 232. Need to make this a landslide to remove all doubt.

Actually it seems like a big Kamala win would play into their "see, they HAD to have cheated" narrative more than a close victory would. Big popular vote win means nothing, that's expected, they'll just point to California and New York and say it all came from the big liberal states and doesn't matter...

 

[Icky Mettle]

There’s been talk on this thread about “red polls” inflating the polling numbers for Trump in an effort to cast doubt if he loses. It seems that dems have been utilizing a contrasting strategy. It’s not that dems are manipulating poll numbers, but they seem to be highlighting and exploiting unfavorable polling numbers to gain financial contributions. I get about a hundred emails a day from democratic candidates’ campaigns, which take on an ominous and sometimes panicky tone, telling me that they are trailing or tied in the polls, or that their opponent is narrowing the margin, and therefore imploring me (or the email recipient) to donate to the campaign.

It seems that democratic candidates have taken on the strategy of trying to make the people who will likely vote for them feel that they are behind or that they’re losing ground in order to get campaign donations and motivate those people to get out and vote.

 

[Icky Mettle]

Actually it seems like a big Kamala win would play into their "see, they HAD to have cheated" narrative more than a close victory would. Big popular vote win means nothing, that's expected, they'll just point to California and New York and say it all came from the big liberal states and doesn't matter...

Of course Trump will never even concede that he lost the popular vote.

 

[Paine]

There’s been talk on this thread about “red polls” inflating the polling numbers for Trump in an effort to cast doubt if he loses. It seems that dems have been utilizing a contrasting strategy. It’s not that dems are manipulating poll numbers, but they seem to be highlighting and exploiting unfavorable polling numbers to gain financial contributions. I get about a hundred emails a day from democratic candidates’ campaigns, which take on an ominous and sometimes panicky tone, telling me that they are trailing or tied in the polls, or that their opponent is narrowing the margin, and therefore imploring me (or the email recipient) to donate to the campaign.

It seems that democratic candidates have taken on the strategy of trying to make the people who will likely vote for them feel that they are behind or that they’re losing ground in order to get campaign donations and motivate those people to get out and vote.

Dem campaigns have been doing that for a while now. As far back as I can remember at least. They know Dem voters are prone to panicking apparently lol

 

[SnoopRob]

Actually it seems like a big Kamala win would play into their "see, they HAD to have cheated" narrative more than a close victory would. Big popular vote win means nothing, that's expected, they'll just point to California and New York and say it all came from the big liberal states and doesn't matter...

Unless Trump wins a "Reagan in '84" style victory, Trump and Co will claim that the Dems cheated. It's a feature, not a bug, for Pubs to claim that the election is rigged against Trump.

The outcome doesn't matter to their claims because facts don't matter to their claims, they'll bend whatever facts they can find and the "alternative facts" they can manufacture to fit the narrative they want to claim. It's not about truth or logic, it's about creating a narrative that fits their worldview and allows them to (a) try to steal the election if Trump doesn't win and (b) reinforces the overarching narrative that Dems are evil.

 

[SnoopRob]

Dem campaigns have been doing that for a while now. As far back as I can remember at least. They know Dem voters are prone to panicking apparently lol

It's not that Dems are prone to panicking, those Dems are almost certainly going to the polls no matter what.

The real basis behind this is that as the Dem tent is large and quite varied, the conventional wisdom is that Dems need higher turnout to win. They need to ensure that the Dem-leaning but unreliable voter feels the need to go to the polls to ensure the Dem wins and to ensure that the progressives at the margins of the party don't fall off to 3rd party votes because they think the Dem doesn't need their vote.

Now, this conventional wisdom concerning higher turnout has been turned on its ear a bit by Trump bringing some Pub-leaning unreliable voters to the polls more consistently than previous Pub nominees. So now it not only matters how high turnout is, but whose unreliable voters turn out. But being behind in the polls is still reasonably effective in attempting to turn our Dem unreliable voters and Dem-leans who could go 3rd party, so Dems still focus on it where they can.