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 
Paine said:
www.thebullfinchgroup.com

Your Election Guide for the Midrust Battlegrounds

In this final stretch of the 2024 campaign, we’d like to do things a little differently, and share our Fully Unweighted, Completely Transparent (F.U.C.T.) data. Below you’ll find our toplines, crosstabs, and raw data.Why raw data, you ask? Think of this as March Madness. As pollsters and...
www.thebullfinchgroup.com www.thebullfinchgroup.com

I assumed it was RV and LV, but it looks like they just did two different LV samples maybe? Both +8
Click to expand...
This poll is just different from anything I've seen. They aren't weighting their respondents. Rather, they set targets for the demographics they wanted, and kept calling people until the quotas were filled (there was some margin of error). It's not clear what they did with excess respondents -- i.e. if they already had all the white men they wanted, if they reached another white man, did they just drop it out? -- but anyway, the idea is to avoid trying to weight respondents. I'm not sure it's as different in practice as they try to make it sound; there's still some weighting going on through the quota approach, but I guess it could reduce some sort of errors. As for details/observations:

1. the topline reported results appear to be RVs only. They do ask some LV screen questions, apparently with the idea that people can download the data and apply their own LV screen. But the +8 in MI appears to be RVs.

2. The poll isn't nearly as good for Kamala in WI and PA. It's as close to tied as possible in PA, and she's up 3 in WI. That said, if you put them all together, the aggregate result is Kamala +4 (and this is using 600 voters from each state, not weighting by population), which is really good. Except it's somewhat hard to compare because it's different.

3. Interesting to look at the "recalled vote" questions. In MI, for instance, the sample recalled voting for Biden 47-44. That's pretty close to what it was. It's a slightly D skewed sample, but very slight. PA appears to be slightly skewed R (it reported Biden/Trump tied, when Biden actually won by a point) and WI looks on the nose.

But they also asked about recalled 2016 vote. Here, Trump led in sample by 6-8 in all three states. So that could mean a few things. One is that it simply reflects the problems with recalled vote weighting -- namely, that people don't report their past votes correctly. If so, that's good for Kamala since she's been doing better in the non-recalled weighted surveys.

4. The poll in all three states slightly oversampled the 50-64 demographic, relative to the target. That's Trump's strongest demo, though the oversampling was 1% in each case and not really all that significant. They also slightly undersampled 18-29, as would be expected.

5. As for race, this could provide a bit of explanatory power for the Michigan outlier. They were looking for 80% white; they got 78%. In WI, they were looking for 86%; they got 88. In PA, they were looking for 80, and got 81.

All told, I think it's a pretty good poll for Kamala, but the MI result does seem to be an outlier. Still, +4 overall across the three states seems good.
 
BillOfRights said:
What makes you think Harris is in great shape? I need some good news.
Click to expand...
More money, probably a better ground game, indications that Trump's EV advantage from 16 and 20 is fading, better results in methodologically superior polls, hopefully effects yet to be seen from Trump's dementia, and so forth.
 
Calheel said:
Where is this 7 pm thing coming from? Pretty sure you just need to be alive at 12:01 AM.
Click to expand...
7pm, as in when the polls close.

Point is, there's no obvious reason why an in-person election day voter who dies that day should have the vote count when absentee voters don't. There's an empirically correct answer, which I don't know, but it's not dictated by logic. Not worth arguing.
 
lawtig02 said:
I know this is reductionist, but we're now at the point where the polls can be ignored. Watch what the candidates are doing. Kamala's in GREAT shape. As is my prediction of her winning NC by 4+ points.
Click to expand...
I want to believe. But honestly don't understand what your source of optimism is on this. If you're the type who just needs to project optimism, then all good. I just can't share it without some objective basis. I would be pleasantly surprised if Kamala wins NC at all, and absolutely shocked if it's by more than a razor-thin margin.
 
superrific said:
7pm, as in when the polls close.

Point is, there's no obvious reason why an in-person election day voter who dies that day should have the vote count when absentee voters don't. There's an empirically correct answer, which I don't know, but it's not dictated by logic. Not worth arguing.
Click to expand...
Not trying to argue, just understand.

As I understand it, some states disqualify early voters if they die before Election Day. That rule makes perfect sense (if hard to enforce). It gives parity to those who vote on Election Day who also have to be alive to vote.
 
Calheel said:
Not trying to argue, just understand.

As I understand it, some states disqualify early voters if they die before Election Day. That rule makes perfect sense (if hard to enforce). It gives parity to those who vote on Election Day who also have to be alive to vote.
Click to expand...
I've mentioned before perhaps on IC. My mom passed after mailing in and before 2015 election day. A few weeks after election day there was a letter addressed to her from NC Board of elections stating her "ballot was disqualified because she was deceased" before election day.

We were like really? Addressed to the deceased person? Either very thorough or very dumb.
 
superrific said:
7pm, as in when the polls close.

Point is, there's no obvious reason why an in-person election day voter who dies that day should have the vote count when absentee voters don't. There's an empirically correct answer, which I don't know, but it's not dictated by logic. Not worth arguing.
Click to expand...
You won’t know which ballot belongs to which voter on Election Day. The ballot doesn’t contain any personal information.

Absentee ballots have voter’s names on them.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

ttump gonna dominate in GA but lose NC, Quinnipiac?
rodoheel said:
I want to believe. But honestly don't understand what your source of optimism is on this. If you're the type who just needs to project optimism, then all good. I just can't share it without some objective basis. I would be pleasantly surprised if Kamala wins NC at all, and absolutely shocked if it's by more than a razor-thin margin.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if she wins NC by 4pts she’s winning the EC with something like 320+, and I just don’t see her sweeping the swing states.

Also, my “Z” icon in the upper left corner is purple and gold. Did we get hacked by tigerdroppings?
 
I don't feel good about the election but I also feel like UNC is going to lose every tight game they are in, I'm a serial pessimist.

One positive anecdote though, comments on yahoo political articles used to get brigaded by mouth breathers. Now, it's completely different, almost every articles comments are full of anti-trumpers who are pro democracy and realize the threat he poses to our country. It's quite the contrast to even 2-3 years ago.
 
superrific said:
Well, that would be great but does this extreme optimism have any basis? I mean, Obama won NC by half a point, in a much better overall environment. And then Dems have lost every statewide federal office election. 4+ seems crazy to me.
Click to expand...

I’m not backing the +4 but I will say… 2022 was a much worse environment for democrats WRT the polls and elections. Everyone expected a red wave and it didn’t happen. Dems were underrepresented in the polls and performed much better across the board.

I think the early voting numbers and campaign donations are a strong indication that Harris is going to turn out the vote like never before. And that will have an impact on down ballot races.
 
superrific said:
Which doesn't necessarily mean much. It's true that the poll is likely to be biased the same way, but margin of error still applies.

The polls are tightening a bit. I don't know why. What about Trump's behavior the last two weeks is causing people to like him more?

It's mind-boggling that the election could be decided by a) people who don't understand economics at all and thus b) think the president controls the economy and c) forget that the economy wasn't actually particularly good under Trump.
Click to expand...
Pretty much every single election in the history of the country (or at least its modern history) has been decided by people who don’t understand economics at all.
 
rodoheel said:
Pretty much every single election in the history of the country (or at least its modern history) has been decided by people who don’t understand economics at all.
Click to expand...
True but not sure how meaningful that is. You could say the same about politics in general, racism, climate change, etc. More to the point, I'd be leery of a society that demanded an "educated" voter considering the state and dependability of the education system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top