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

[superrific]

Yes, that was my point earlier — in such a high turnout election RV seems to be a better approach.

I didn't see that point earlier. Is this an intuition or is it backed by something?

Turnout in 2020 -- the highest turnout election of our lives -- was 66%. So "high turnout election" is a relative term. As a percentage of RVs, turnout was higher -- 91%. But again, that was a crazy year (I doubt we get there this year), and even so, there was a significant gap. Because parties are doing such extensive registration outreach efforts, one imagines that turnout as a % of RVs will be lower this year.

Meanwhile, according to Pew, only 37% of voters eligible to vote in 2018, 2020 and 2022 did so. So those 37% are doing something different than the other 63% and it's important to capture that in a poll.

By contrast, I don't see what advantages an RV poll would have over an LV. In the past, an LV screen was considerably more involved than a RV one. But today, even our RV polls are subject to all sorts of weighting and self-selection corrections that LV doesn't seem to me to add much complexity or bias.

 

[Duke Mu]

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.

Trump targets low information, low motivation voters. He gets enough...hopefully not enough to win.

 

[Duke Mu]

I don't know if she can really lean into the economy, but Trump is sure as hell running away from the economy. He's all in on immigration and racism as we head to the line. Their polling must be showing the economy is no longer a great argument for Pubs, even if it's also difficult for Dems.

Shouldn't Dems point out that
1. Two of Trump's 3 wives are immigrants

2. Trump ran an underage, undocumented Eastern Euro (white) "modeling agency."

4. Melania's father was a REAL registered communist, and a chain migration benefactor.

Just to show the obvious hypocrisy. Trump really is racist, but it's also a TOOL

 

[nycfan]

I didn't see that point earlier. Is this an intuition or is it backed by something?

Turnout in 2020 -- the highest turnout election of our lives -- was 66%. So "high turnout election" is a relative term. As a percentage of RVs, turnout was higher -- 91%. But again, that was a crazy year (I doubt we get there this year), and even so, there was a significant gap. Because parties are doing such extensive registration outreach efforts, one imagines that turnout as a % of RVs will be lower this year.

Meanwhile, according to Pew, only 37% of voters eligible to vote in 2018, 2020 and 2022 did so. So those 37% are doing something different than the other 63% and it's important to capture that in a poll.

By contrast, I don't see what advantages an RV poll would have over an LV. In the past, an LV screen was considerably more involved than a RV one. But today, even our RV polls are subject to all sorts of weighting and self-selection corrections that LV doesn't seem to me to add much complexity or bias.

Mainly b/c for the big national pollsters (and a number of Red Wave pollsters, too), their RV polls ended up being closer to the outcome than LV polls in 2020 and some evidence of that again in 2022. I’m speculating that is because LV models were built for around 50% participation in a presidential election, but those adjustments tend to overstate older and frequent voters once you get to 2/3 or more participation of registered voters.

 

[lawtig02]

Shouldn't Dems point out that
1. Two of Trump's 3 wives are immigrants

2. Trump ran an underage, undocumented Eastern Euro (white) "modeling agency."

4. Melania's father was a REAL registered communist, and a chain migration benefactor.

Just to show the obvious hypocrisy. Trump really is racist, but it's also a TOOL

People who are still considering voting for Trump couldn't give a flying fuck about any facts regarding Trump. So no, I don't think there's any reason for that to be part of the Dems' closing pitch.

 

[superrific]

Mainly b/c for the big national pollsters (and a number of Red Wave pollsters, too), their RV polls ended up being closer to the outcome than LV polls in 2020 and some evidence of that again in 2022. I’m speculating that is because LV models were built for around 50% participation in a presidential election, but those adjustments tend to overstate older and frequent voters once you get to 2/3 or more participation of registered voters.

One election doesn't a trend make. Of all the things that need to be fixed, the LV screen should be the easiest -- especially if, as you say, the participation rate is a critical variable in the model. It's literally one line of code that needs to be changed. (CONST PARTICIPATION = X).

 

[superrific]

Shouldn't Dems point out that
1. Two of Trump's 3 wives are immigrants

2. Trump ran an underage, undocumented Eastern Euro (white) "modeling agency."

4. Melania's father was a REAL registered communist, and a chain migration benefactor.

Just to show the obvious hypocrisy. Trump really is racist, but it's also a TOOL

Hypocrisy doesn't function the same way for potential Trump voters that it does for liberals. For liberals, hypocrisy is a sign of bullshit, or insincerity. In MAGA world, hypocrisy is prerogative. It's something to be proud of.

 

[nycfan]

Leaked internal polling memo

 

[aGDevil2k]

Leaked internal polling memo

NBC was saying if it ends up D+3 she wins. Interesting

 

[lawtig02]

Leaked internal polling memo

After reading the memo, that’s a freaking catastrophe for the Pubs if it holds. Still a long way to go, but in this scenario, Kamala is president, Dems control the House, and the Senate is 50/50. Can you imagine what we could do if we get all three?

 

[nycfan]

Leaked internal polling memo

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)

 

[superrific]

After reading the memo, that’s a freaking catastrophe for the Pubs if it holds. Still a long way to go, but in this scenario, Kamala is president, Dems control the House, and the Senate is 50/50. Can you imagine what we could do if we get all three?

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.

 

[superrific]

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)

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.

 

[lawtig02]

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.

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.

 

[heelfan108]

It’s not just polls they’re manipulating the media lol

Honestly I think it'll hurt them more than help them. I know of never-trumpers that also rarely vote that will only vote for Kamala if they think Trump is 50/50 or better to win.

 

[superrific]

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.

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.

 

[lawtig02]

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.

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.

 

[Calheel]

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.

Not to mention he completely failed in 2022. Said the Dems would win the House. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[LosPollosHermanos]

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.

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.

 

[superrific]

Not to mention he completely failed in 2022. Said the Dems would win the House. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

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.