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: 144K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
(cont'd)

"... Bonier also said that based on his firm’s modeling, he was seeing bright spots for Democrats in Michigan and Wisconsin—states that don’t break down early voting totals by party.

In North Carolina, where early voting started Thursday, the partisan split among voters so far has been evenly divided. Democrats had more of an advantage in 2020. The state is seen as a must-win for Trump, but Harris’s campaign has invested heavily there.

“Looking at who is showing up, I would say Republicans should feel good and Democrats may have some work to do,” said Michael Bitzer, a professor at Catawba College who closely tracks early voting.

... So far, those voting early have skewed heavily to older voters. Nearly half of early votes so far are from voters older than 65, according to the University of Florida’s Election Lab. Only 5% of voters ages 18 to 25 have cast early ballots, the data show.

A new Suffolk University/USA Today national poll of 1,000 likely voters found that of those respondents who had already voted, Harris leads Trump by 63% to 34%. "

NOBODY KNOWS and everyone is trying to extrapolate from available data and past polling errors.
Click to expand...
Agreed. 2020 was different in that we had a global pandemic and so obviously the number of people voting early, and more importantly, the types of people voting early, was likely quite different from what it would have been without covid. So trying to use 2020 as a baseline for this year's election just doesn't work, as we no longer have a pandemic and so the types of people voting this year is likely going to be different. Also, early voting seems to be growing in popularity, so more Republicans may choose to vote early than in 2020. I don't think anybody, except maybe for those inside each campaign, really knows where this election is going. And the rest of us are left reading early voting returns and polls like tea leaves for clues, and some are getting more anxious/depressed/nervous by the day. It's going to be a long two weeks until the election.
 
Last edited:
tallheel95 said:
Some of the freakout comes from the fact that +2 may not get the job done in electoral college math.
lawtig02 said:
Not to speak for super but I don't think that's his point. If +2 isn't enough under the revised polling models, then it's not enough and Kamala will lose. But it's not going to move to +4 or to +1 in the next two weeks. The spread has been shockingly steady for months now, which indicates everyone who will decide has already done so.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, that's correct. If you're freaking out about +2 because of stupid EC, fine -- but why subject yourself to that same +2 freakout every day?
 
If major programs like that are at risk at every election, you could never make a long term deal in good faith. I don't know jack about that sort of thing except it would seem difficult to get any kind of deal or have any kind of efficiency. I'd think start up costs would start high and get higher every time you burn up your leadership pool.

Not doubt that there could be some adjustments but having something to take the impetuosity out of running government programs seem necessary.
 
finesse said:
If major programs like that are at risk at every election, you could never make a long term deal in good faith. I don't know jack about that sort of thing except it would seem difficult to get any kind of deal or have any kind of efficiency. I'd think start up costs would start high and get higher every time you burn up your leadership pool.

Not doubt that there could be some adjustments but having something to take the impetuosity out of running government programs seem necessary.
Click to expand...
Every other country in the world manages to deal with that impetuosity.

I'm not going to go into the theory at the moment, but there are many reasons to believe that the scenario you posit wouldn't come to pass. What would happen is there would be many fewer situations like the Obamacare thing, where the Republicans absolutely refused to play ball and thus it had to be a Dem only bill. So that meant the Pubs were all-in on Obamacare failing, and they tried their best to make that happen. That's the ping-ponging you're discussing. By contrast, if the Pubs had to own their failure to come to the bargaining table, they would probably take a more cooperative approach.

And we know this to be true, at least in part, because of our history. The filibuster was rarely used in the late 20th century after the Civil Rights Movement. It started back up again in the early 2000s and then went into overdrive in 2008, which is when today's world of a 60 vote requirement for pretty much everything took hold. And surprise, surprise, we've had more partisanship, more conflict, more absolutism, more need to scrap the prior administration's stuff and start over.

Now, maybe you could argue that filibuster is symptom of polarization rather than cause (I think it's a doom loop), but either way, I don't think it protects against discontinuity. In the long run, it promotes it.
 
FYI, there's a Suffolk poll out showing Kamala to be winning among already-voted people 63-37%. That's potentially significant, because the ballots sent out have had a lesser Kamala skew. So either it shows that she's winning independents or she's taking more Pub votes than Trump is taking Dem votes.

But it's also true that good statisticians will warn against drawing conclusions about a sample from a self-selected subsample. And of course, I don't know about the accuracy of that poll.

The other interesting thing is that the early voters have been disproportionately elderly. That makes a lot of sense, of course. So if Kamala is really leading 63-37%, then she's doing well in a demo normally thought to favor Trump. That said, Trump's best demo is 50-65. I think Kamala does pretty well among people 65+ -- better than Dems in the past. Old people are more fearful, but in our country in 2024, they are also more likely to remember that fascism is bad and Russia is not our friend.
 
Well, I reckon we probably only have to deal with the Electoral College for another election cycle or two until Texas goes blue, and Republicans retreat from the EC faster than Albert Sydney Johnston at Shiloh.
 
superrific said:
FYI, there's a Suffolk poll out showing Kamala to be winning among already-voted people 63-37%. That's potentially significant, because the ballots sent out have had a lesser Kamala skew. So either it shows that she's winning independents or she's taking more Pub votes than Trump is taking Dem votes.

But it's also true that good statisticians will warn against drawing conclusions about a sample from a self-selected subsample. And of course, I don't know about the accuracy of that poll.

The other interesting thing is that the early voters have been disproportionately elderly. That makes a lot of sense, of course. So if Kamala is really leading 63-37%, then she's doing well in a demo normally thought to favor Trump. That said, Trump's best demo is 50-65. I think Kamala does pretty well among people 65+ -- better than Dems in the past. Old people are more fearful, but in our country in 2024, they are also more likely to remember that fascism is bad and Russia is not our friend.
Click to expand...
Watch the campaign - there's a reason they are doing the Cheney stuff. They test this shit out and I bet they have found they are doing very very well with some GOP voters of the past....non MAGA GOP. That + the women surge could well be things that might really end up being "oh damn" moments in the post-mortem.
 
nycfan said:

Republicans Eat Into Democrats’ Early Voting Advantage​

More than 15 million Americans have already voted, as both parties scour data for clues on turnout​


"Democrats have a clear edge in early voting so far, but Republicans are embracing the practice of casting their ballots before Election Day more than they have in past election cycles, despite former President Donald Trump sending mixed signals on the issue.

... Democrats also account for 49% of returned ballots compared with 31% for GOP voters. That is a smaller margin than around the same time four years ago—in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic—when Democrats made up nearly 52% of returned mail-in ballots compared with 24% for Republicans. ...

... Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida who maintains the early voting numbers for Election Lab, said the data so far shows more of a shift in how Republicans are casting their ballot rather than an indication of how the party is performing.

McDonald said the Republicans who have voted are likely high-propensity voters who had already made up their minds and decided not to wait until Election Day this year. “This appears to be a shuffling of the furniture,” McDonald said. ..."
Click to expand...
I would say it’s also a shift in Democrats because there’s not, you know, a deadly global pandemic happening, so more Dems are willing to vote in person on Election Day than in 2020.
 
Macksbrownies said:
I look at it as the more republicans voting early the less voting on Election Day. You cannot convince me that McFascist will end up with more votes than he did in 2020.
Click to expand...
He almost certainly will. Every Presidential election pretty much has a record number for each side due to population growth. So he’ll get more than the 74 million he got in 2024, and Kamala will probably get more than the 81 million Biden got.
 
superrific said:
FYI, there's a Suffolk poll out showing Kamala to be winning among already-voted people 63-37%. That's potentially significant, because the ballots sent out have had a lesser Kamala skew. So either it shows that she's winning independents or she's taking more Pub votes than Trump is taking Dem votes.

But it's also true that good statisticians will warn against drawing conclusions about a sample from a self-selected subsample. And of course, I don't know about the accuracy of that poll.

The other interesting thing is that the early voters have been disproportionately elderly. That makes a lot of sense, of course. So if Kamala is really leading 63-37%, then she's doing well in a demo normally thought to favor Trump. That said, Trump's best demo is 50-65. I think Kamala does pretty well among people 65+ -- better than Dems in the past. Old people are more fearful, but in our country in 2024, they are also more likely to remember that fascism is bad and Russia is not our friend.
Click to expand...
I am surprised elderly are doing early voting in large numbers. Not questioning the assertion. I thought elderly would be more likely to vote on election dsy. That said, i am 67 and I voted day 1 of early voting. Those numbers bode well for Harris.
 
ZenMode said:
Probably already posted...

Millions of church-going Christians expected to skip voting in November

www.washingtontimes.com

Millions of church-going Christians expected to skip voting in November

Around 32 million Christians who regularly attend church are ready to sit out the 2024 presidential election, according to a new survey.
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe I am too cynical, but not sure I buy the top line polling data — there is a definite agenda expressed by the authors of the poll to chastise ministers who are not using their pulpit to encourage their parishioners to vote.

“… Evangelical pollster George Barna, who led the study, said the millions of nonvoting Christians hold the key to shaping the election. However, many churches distance themselves from the election and refrain from encouraging congregants to vote.

“The 32 million Christians sitting in the pews each week who refuse to vote are a game-changer,” he said in a statement. “It’s low-hanging fruit for pastors as they try to motivate those congregants to carry out their civic duty and honor God through their influence on issues that matter in our culture.”

Mr. Barna said that in “a society where a huge majority of people want their lives to make a difference, and millions of Americans lament the lack of options for making their life count, what a sterling opportunity Nov. 5 represents.” …”
 
CFordUNC said:
Well, I reckon we probably only have to deal with the Electoral College for another election cycle or two until Texas goes blue, and Republicans retreat from the EC faster than Albert Sydney Johnston at Shiloh.
Click to expand...

Not with the way things have trended with Latino voters this cycle. Might need a few more.
 
superrific said:
FYI, there's a Suffolk poll out showing Kamala to be winning among already-voted people 63-37%. That's potentially significant, because the ballots sent out have had a lesser Kamala skew. So either it shows that she's winning independents or she's taking more Pub votes than Trump is taking Dem votes.

But it's also true that good statisticians will warn against drawing conclusions about a sample from a self-selected subsample. And of course, I don't know about the accuracy of that poll.

The other interesting thing is that the early voters have been disproportionately elderly. That makes a lot of sense, of course. So if Kamala is really leading 63-37%, then she's doing well in a demo normally thought to favor Trump. That said, Trump's best demo is 50-65. I think Kamala does pretty well among people 65+ -- better than Dems in the past. Old people are more fearful, but in our country in 2024, they are also more likely to remember that fascism is bad and Russia is not our friend.
Click to expand...

Older people also typically have more to lose (more assets), and Kamala is the safe pick. My assumption is that Trump will outperform among those with little to lose (they are more likely to want to blow up the whole thing), and he will underperform among those with more to lose. Fortunately, I suspect the latter will signifantly erode his base.
 
nycfan said:
Yeah, maybe I am too cynical, but not sure I buy the top line polling data — there is a definite agenda expressed by the authors of the poll to chastise ministers who are not using their pulpit to encourage their parishioners to vote.

“… Evangelical pollster George Barna, who led the study, said the millions of nonvoting Christians hold the key to shaping the election. However, many churches distance themselves from the election and refrain from encouraging congregants to vote.

“The 32 million Christians sitting in the pews each week who refuse to vote are a game-changer,” he said in a statement. “It’s low-hanging fruit for pastors as they try to motivate those congregants to carry out their civic duty and honor God through their influence on issues that matter in our culture.”

Mr. Barna said that in “a society where a huge majority of people want their lives to make a difference, and millions of Americans lament the lack of options for making their life count, what a sterling opportunity Nov. 5 represents.” …”
Click to expand...
A meaningful decrease in voter turnout would renew my faith in humanity.
 
The non-voters are younger, less informed, often live in a state where the polls aren't close, but a coin flip on who they would vote for. Tik-Tok is the best way to gather a few in the battleground states. And that sentence is why many don't vote. they live in states where their vote won't really matter.
 
heel79 said:
I am surprised elderly are doing early voting in large numbers. Not questioning the assertion. I thought elderly would be more likely to vote on election dsy. That said, i am 67 and I voted day 1 of early voting. Those numbers bode well for Harris.
Click to expand...
The assertion is based on one poll and one article I read, so it's not exactly a well established fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top