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 
I’ll say it again. 2022 was a much worse position for Democrats. And they out performed every poll. Everyone was expecting a red wave that didn’t happen.

You have to pay attention to early voting and campaign contributions. Signs point to a record turnout, which favors Democrats. We show up, we win.
1. Dems didn't outperform polls, to my knowledge. They outperformed expectations. But it doesn't really matter. 2022 is a different polling universe.
2. A record turnout doesn't necessarily favor Dems. It used to favor Dems, back when the Pubs had relatively more support from affluent voters who are high propensity voters. Thus could Dems only win by turning out lower propensity voters. But now the high propensity voters are Dems. The lower propensity voters tend to support Trump, for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying that a record turnout will hurt Dems or won't help them. I don't know about that. But the days of "record turnout always helps Dems" are over, at least for now.
 
1. Dems didn't outperform polls, to my knowledge. They outperformed expectations. But it doesn't really matter. 2022 is a different polling universe.
2. A record turnout doesn't necessarily favor Dems. It used to favor Dems, back when the Pubs had relatively more support from affluent voters who are high propensity voters. Thus could Dems only win by turning out lower propensity voters. But now the high propensity voters are Dems. The lower propensity voters tend to support Trump, for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying that a record turnout will hurt Dems or won't help them. I don't know about that. But the days of "record turnout always helps Dems" are over, at least for now.
You think it's over just for now. That's all based on the polls of voter information.

And totally disagree on 22. Red wave polls are a term because of that
 
1. Dems didn't outperform polls, to my knowledge. They outperformed expectations. But it doesn't really matter. 2022 is a different polling universe.
2. A record turnout doesn't necessarily favor Dems. It used to favor Dems, back when the Pubs had relatively more support from affluent voters who are high propensity voters. Thus could Dems only win by turning out lower propensity voters. But now the high propensity voters are Dems. The lower propensity voters tend to support Trump, for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying that a record turnout will hurt Dems or won't help them. I don't know about that. But the days of "record turnout always helps Dems" are over, at least for now.
#2 is a good point. I was certainly shocked when Trump won the 2016 election, and I was at least equally as shocked when he managed to get more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. While it would make no sense to me that he could possibly get more votes in 2024 than he did in 2020, perhaps I should no longer be shocked.
 
That sounds like a little bit of hopium to me. Its the US presidential election. There are enough people following it to provide the accuracy.

And there's money to be made. If those markets were manipulated, a bettor would be getting some very good odds to bet for Harris.
1. The total amount of money bet on those sites is something like $2B. That's nothing. It's not nearly enough liquidity to capture the wisdom of crowds.
2. Do you understand hedging? I doubt it, so I will explain. People sometimes buy securities to protect against unfavorable outcomes, regardless of their probability.

For instance, I've thought about trying to get into sports betting in order to bet against Carolina. Why? Because that way, if Carolina loses, I will be sad but at least I will make some money. And if I lose the bet because Carolina wins, that's fine. It would be like paying $100 to guarantee a Carolina victory. For most basketball games, that would be worth it for me.

Anyway, people are almost certainly using these betting sites to hedge. I would if it were legal in the US.

3. You are familiar with DJT,. yes? The stock markets have become incredibly irrational (game stop is another example). Their predictive power, especially for meme stocks, is considerably less than in years past. The betting markets have a total cap less than DJT. If you think DJT is priced correctly, then your position on the betting markets would be consistent. If, however, you admit that DJT is a vastly overvalued stock, then there's no reason to think prediction markets are any better.

4. One of the sites has an $850 position limit. While that discourages large bets from moving the market, it also dramatically caps the upside for anyone to profit from those Kamala odds. In other words, the position limit impedes price discovery by eliminating the mechanism by which price discovery can proceed. The whole reason that the stock market "works" as a predictor is that the pool of capital is unlimited. Someone who makes a big bet can make a bigger bet if the stock continues to trend away from that trader's predictions. That's not so for these markets.

5. Again, there is no substitute for understanding. If you don't know how any of this stuff works -- including the wisdom of crowds theory -- then you probably should sit this out. But you wouldn't be you if you let your ignorance get in the way of your posting.
 
#2 is a good point. I was certainly shocked when Trump won the 2016 election, and I was at least equally as shocked when he managed to get more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. While it would make no sense to me that he could possibly get more votes in 2024 than he did in 2020, perhaps I should no longer be shocked.
I think he will get more votes. I think he does better in some blue states... Because also folks there the votes don't really matter... Not as much gravity.

I still think he's in trouble in Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and NC
 
The crowd size phenomenon is interesting. That's what I ignorantly discounted in 2016.

If it still has merit, why are his crowds so sparse (Pitt yesterday) where hers are more packed? We just don't know but it's interesting.

And the small dollar donations used to be a bigger GOP thing and now she's crushing that.
 
You think it's over just for now. That's all based on the polls of voter information.

And totally disagree on 22. Red wave polls are a term because of that
It's not only based on polls of voter information. It's also based on history. The constituencies that were most likely to vote now support Dems in great numbers. If turnout is low in this election, and turnout patterns stay the same, the Dems would win.

I haven't actually looked at the 22 polling. I've read in multiple places that the 22 polls were quite good. Normally I look to the source when possible, but I haven't cared enough to do it about that. I also know that the forecast models, by the end, predicted a tight house race and I think they were predicting the Dems to hold the Senate or at least to have very good odds to hold the Senate.
 
My point is demographics that don't vote as much are not necessarily Trump favorable. So maybe he is better with Black voters, he still gets crushed. And Black turnout is usually very very poor
 
The crowd size phenomenon is interesting. That's what I ignorantly discounted in 2016.

If it still has merit, why are his crowds so sparse (Pitt yesterday) where hers are more packed? We just don't know but it's interesting.

And the small dollar donations used to be a bigger GOP thing and now she's crushing that.
It wasn't ignorant. There was no recent evidence of crowd sizes as having a strong predictive role. And let's be honest, we still don't know that. The 2016 election was turned on its head by an October surprise (Comey) and vote suppression efforts (to a lesser extent). Trump was getting huge crowds when the polls said he was losing badly.
 
It wasn't ignorant. There was no recent evidence of crowd sizes as having a strong predictive role. And let's be honest, we still don't know that. The 2016 election was turned on its head by an October surprise (Comey) and vote suppression efforts (to a lesser extent). Trump was getting huge crowds when the polls said he was losing badly.
But in short they are indicative of enthusiasm. And that is a metric that can usually give some doubt that polls could be slightly off to one side. That's one thing she's got more of this cycle

All in all, polls could well just be in more trouble than they even were in 2020 and 16.

Phone Spam detection and flagging is way better for calls and texts in just 4 years and definitely 8. I have to imagine people engaging in phone calls is down. Texts from random #s way down and responding to unknown email in the phishing day and age? Absolutely plummeted. That's one I know from work and it's way way way worse to get engagement via email than 4 years ago
 
How the hell does any of that PREVENT a trump win?

Good grief do you read what you write? Go play with some crypto and doom scroll Twitter
Are you arguing semantics? If it really bothers you, there are many things that could change and Trump could still lose despite the betting markets currently favoring him.
 
I do not wish to make people feel hopeless. I just try to cull and share possibly relevant information as it becomes available.

I could discontinue the poll and turnout data posting here — it’s not like you can’t all find it easily enough if you want to do so.
 
Are you arguing semantics? If it really bothers you, there are many things that could change and Trump could still lose despite the betting markets currently favoring him.
It's not semantics. You literally said betting markets changing could PREVENT a trump win.

How is that possible?
 
But in short they are indicative of enthusiasm. And that is a metric that can usually give some doubt that polls could be slightly off to one side. That's one thing she's got more of this cycle

All in all, polls could well just be in more trouble than they even were in 2020 and 16.

Phone Spam detection and flagging is way better for calls and texts in just 4 years and definitely 8. I have to imagine people engaging in phone calls is down. Texts from random #s way down and responding to unknown email in the phishing day and age? Absolutely plummeted. That's one I know from work and it's way way way worse to get engagement via email than 4 years ago
To add some additional input here:

Email click rates at 1.5% is considered “reasonable” engagement these days. That’s roughly 10 participants in 1,000.

It’s just not an effective way to market but email campaigns are cheap, like penny’s on the dollar cheap.

Text click rates are just slightly above, at roughly 2%.

All that to say, Harris has the superlative ground game - that’s door to door engagement. Canvassing is THE most effective way to market and her campaign exceeds Trump’s in spades.

It WILL be reflected in the voter turnout.
 
To add some additional input here:

Email click rates at 1.5% is considered “reasonable” engagement these days. That’s roughly 10 participants in 1,000.

It’s just not an effective way to market but email campaigns are cheap, like penny’s on the dollar cheap.

Text click rates are just slightly above, at roughly 2%.

All that to say, Harris has the superlative ground game - that’s door to door engagement. Canvassing is THE most effective way to market and her campaign exceeds Trump’s in spades.

It WILL be reflected in the voter turnout.
Exactly. It's hard to describe how low engagement in comms has gotten. And how is changed so much in 4 years... And more in 8.

I am suspicious if rates are higher with lower education. No basis... Just curious. And if so... Well then I bet polls are off
 
It's not semantics. You literally said betting markets changing could PREVENT a trump win.

How is that possible?
Oh good Lord. Find something else to argue about.

You're correct. The betting markets will not technically prevent Trump from winning. Trump may not win despite the betting markets currently favoring him. Embrace your victory.
 
Back
Top