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:
So, a bit dicey to do this, but what the heck.

Per VoteHub, through yesterday, 2,197,855 people have already voted in Michigan. IF that poll is right, that would mean the total banked votes so far should look like this:

Harris 1,340,692
Trump. 769,249
Others 87,914

In 2020, 5,547,186 Michiganders voted in the presidential election, representing turnout of 74% of registered voters that year.

In 2016, Michigan turnout was only 64.59%.

In 2024, there are 7,263,931 registered voters. If we see 2020 turnout again, a modern record, we would expect 5,375,308 votes to be cast. In that case, the early votes to date would represent 40.9% of the total.

If we have 2016 turnout, we would get 4,691,773 total votes. In that case, the early votes so far would represent 46.8% of the total votes have already been cast and Trump would need a larger margin in the remaining votes cast today through Election Day than in a 2020 turnout to come back and win.

It’s obvious but the question we won’t know until the polls close is the total turnout and without knowing the total turnout we don’t know exactly how substantial Kamala’s early vote lead really is (assuming the polling about banked votes is accurate and still subject to the margin of error if so).
​
Click to expand...
By the way, that poll is, I think, quite dated at this point. I've seen that graphic many times.
 
The key sentences from that Politico article, at least to me. I'm all in on this theory now

The implications for next week’s election results are unclear; among registered Republicans, women are voting early more than men, too. But the high female turnout is encouraging to Democratic strategists, who expected that a surge in Republican turnout would result in more gender parity among early voters.
 
IMG_3404.jpeg


CNN North Carolina cross-tabs:

IMG_3405.jpegIMG_3406.jpeg

Gender gap seems much more prevalent in NC than Georgia for some reason.
 
“As of noon Tuesday, nearly 3.2 million voters had cast ballots in the 2024 general election in North Carolina, a turnout of 40.7 percent of registered voters, according to preliminary State Board of Elections data.

North Carolina has about 7.8 million registered voters.

… Through the end of the day Monday, more than 2.9 million voters had cast ballots in person during the first 12 days of the early voting period. That’s an increase of 11.9 percent over 2020, when more than 2.6 million voters had cast ballots after 12 days of in-person voting. Factoring in increases in registered voters between 2020 and 2024, in-person early voting is up 2.1 percent over 2020.

… Additionally, turnout in the 25 Western North Carolina counties affected by Hurricane Helene continues to outpace statewide turnout. …”

North Carolina Tops 3 Million Ballots Cast

As of noon Tuesday, nearly 3.2 million voters had cast ballots in the 2024 general election in North Carolina.
www.ncsbe.gov www.ncsbe.gov
 
So PA is a state with mostly R or D voters. About 10% of early ballots have been cast by unaffiliated.

For the back of an envelope, let's discount those 10%. If the state is tied, then we'd assume that about 50% of the voters would be Dems and 50% Pubs. "Nearly a third" might mean 30%. So if that's the case, then you'd expect 25% of those votes to be Dem women. Add the UAs back in and maybe the number shrinks a bit, to 22, 23%. So this is not a massive outperformance. And I don't know how big that block of "non 2020 voters" actually is.

I don't see this as big news. Certainly not the best news Dems have had in weeks.

Here's how I see the relevance: Dems won PA by a little over a point. So if we use 2020 as the baseline, that baseline is Dem +80K votes or so. Pubs need to make up that ground somewhere. If the non 2020 vote is coming in with a plurality of Dem women, that suggests maybe they won't make it up so much from non 2020 voters.

BUT BUT BUT all of this data is still self-selected. And there are two sources of "voters who didn't vote in PA in 2020" -- people who were living there, and people who relocated there. Relocated people tend to be educated. They are going to be Dem. And because they are educated, they are also more likely to vote early. So without crunching numbers too much, you'd expect there to be some Dem overperformance among new early voters. Trump isn't focused on relocating people. He's focused on low propensity voters. I don't think this data point tells us all that much about how well the low-propensity voting turnout is going.
 
nycfan said:
IMG_3404.jpeg


CNN North Carolina cross-tabs:

IMG_3405.jpegIMG_3406.jpeg

Gender gap seems much more prevalent in NC than Georgia for some reason.
Click to expand...
I don't know about Georgia, but 49% of registered voters in NC are women, compared to 41% for men. There's not just a turnout gap; there's a sizeable registration gap as well.
 
nycfan said:
“As of noon Tuesday, nearly 3.2 million voters had cast ballots in the 2024 general election in North Carolina, a turnout of 40.7 percent of registered voters, according to preliminary State Board of Elections data.

North Carolina has about 7.8 million registered voters.

… Through the end of the day Monday, more than 2.9 million voters had cast ballots in person during the first 12 days of the early voting period. That’s an increase of 11.9 percent over 2020, when more than 2.6 million voters had cast ballots after 12 days of in-person voting. Factoring in increases in registered voters between 2020 and 2024, in-person early voting is up 2.1 percent over 2020.

… Additionally, turnout in the 25 Western North Carolina counties affected by Hurricane Helene continues to outpace statewide turnout. …”

North Carolina Tops 3 Million Ballots Cast

As of noon Tuesday, nearly 3.2 million voters had cast ballots in the 2024 general election in North Carolina.
www.ncsbe.gov www.ncsbe.gov
Click to expand...
This is the difference between Rs and Ds. Rs would have been happy for Helene to ruin the Dems' party. Dems, by contrast, were reaching out to help those largely conservative voters vote.

If I was on the BOE, I would have said, "Hand of God, what can you do?"
 
This new Gallup data measuring enthusiasm is fantastic news and aligns well with all the other voter enthusiasm indicators that we've been talking about (grassroots volunteers, small donor donations, campaign field offices, etc.) Pollsters use Gallup enthusiasm data to craft their LV models. Gallup's data is showing Democratic voter enthusiasm at or exceeding 2008 levels.

My biggest complaint with polling is you need to be very precise and accurate to be meaningful in our polarized FPTP voting system combined with the Electoral College. This works well in non-competitive states where 2-5% polling miss doesn’t really matter. But the presidential election is decided by a handful of competitive states. The difference in a few points can swing the election dramatically from blue to red. I just don't think that polling can deliver an accurate prediction on these tighter races. Voter enthusiasm is going to make a major difference in the battleground states, and it's great to see that the Democrats have a sizable advantage on that front.
 
Ultimately, I think early vote numbers are not as meaningless as last week. Part of that is because there have been more cast, but more importantly, Trump is closing so badly. There's no enthusiasm from him, from his campaign, from his supporters. Maybe that won't matter and his folks will turn out on election day anyway, but he's not doing much that would inspire his supporters. Hell, they leave his rallies early, and when they are there, they are not enthused at all.
 
This does not give me warm fuzzies

IMG_3407.jpeg

That disproportionate white/Republican vote early seems very pro-Trump. The CNN cross-tabs didn’t include a subset for those who already voted.

Also, I think the undesignated by gender is warping perception of a gender gap in voting. I think most of the undesignated are probably people who suck at completing forms, and could well be disproportionately men based on the gender gap in registration generally. NC demographics are that just under 49% of the total population are men.
 
Last edited:
CFordUNC said:
This new Gallup data measuring enthusiasm is fantastic news and aligns well with all the other voter enthusiasm indicators that we've been talking about (grassroots volunteers, small donor donations, campaign field offices, etc.) My biggest complaint with polling is you need to be very precise and accurate to be meaningful in our polarized FPTP voting system combined with the Electoral College. This works well in non-competitive states where 2-5% polling miss doesn’t really matter. But the presidential election is decided by a handful of competitive states. The difference in a few points can swing the election dramatically from blue to red. I just don't think that polling can deliver an accurate prediction on these tighter races. Voter enthusiasm is going to make a major difference in the battleground states, and it's great to see that the Democrats have a sizable advantage on that front.
Click to expand...
Enthusiasm doesn't vote. The vote counts the same whether you sprint with excitement to the polling booth, or trudge with reservations. I've never seen good data linking enthusiasm to turnout, though it's also true I haven't looked.

But in this election, I think this is going to be important given Trump's emphasis on turning out low-propensity voters. Almost by definition, you have to get them excited. That doesn't seem to be what is happening now.

Part of this, I think, is that Trump and his crew are projecting (I know, surprise). They think, "it gets us excited to assert dominance over women," and so that becomes their closing message to the bro vote. But does the bro vote really get excited about that? Obviously they have some connection to dominance over women; in large measure, that's what they are seeking to preserve. But does it motivate them in such an explicit way? How many people see Trump say, "whether they like it or not" and think, "yeah! That's right. Shove our protection down our ladies' throats. I'll run through a brick wall for that guy." How many of those people will actually vote? And how many are voting because of that? I would guess very few.
 


Maybe the people who happily voted for a guy openly promising to kick their middle class ass at the kitchen table and in the wallet aren't garbage. Maybe they're just unimaginable morons?
 
nycfan said:
This does not give me warm fuzzies

IMG_3407.jpeg

That disproportionate white/Republican vote early seems very pro-Trump. The CNN cross-tabs didn’t include a subset for those who already voted.
Click to expand...
How do you know that white/Republican vote is going to be pro-Trump? I mean, it's obviously going to be pro-Trump on average, but on the margins? I'm not worried about the party turnout. Dems will turn out on election day if they aren't turning out now.

I'm worried about the race turnout. I suspect, though I do not know, that registered Dems in NC are less actual Dem than black voters in NC. And in the past couple of elections, black turnout has been low. So this is a continuation of a trend, which makes me skeptical that it will reverse all that much.

On the flip side, the gender turnout numbers are great. Not only are there way more women, but they are turning out in higher %s than men. And again, that's despite the GOP turnout. This is the story I keep pumping. I hope it's right, in part because it means we win and to a lesser but not trivial extent, it would make me prescient. But it's data like this that suggests a silent Kamala vote among Republican women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top