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

[dsgb]

I dunno. The big difference in 2008 was that we were coming off of 8 straight years of a Republican administration that ended in a disastrous recession. In this election there's already a Dem president. Now, that should be a benefit because the economy is doing well and there is every reason to believe we're on the right track, but half the country is convinced things are going badly for mostly made-up reasons and can't be persuaded otherwise. So I just can't see 2008 as a model. 2012 would probably be a better comparison.

I agree with you! Obama won states like Florida, NC, Ohio, Indiana and Iowa. I don’t know if Harris can do that, but I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Macksbrownies]

I think this election will be decided by women; old and young. They are a problem for Trump. If they turn out in large numbers, he is sunk. JMO

They have most certainly turned out in large numbers so far.

 

[CHAMTRAIN]

Reagan dealt with worse inflation during his first term and won in a landslide in ‘84

He largely got elected due to run away inflation. It then fell from 12% to ~4% by the end of his first term. I don't think Harris and Biden are getting any credit for tamping down inflation but all of the blame for higher prices at the grocery store. I really do think that without inflation this race would not even be close, it's the only reason this won't be a legendary curb stomping.

 

[dukeman92]

Trump isn't even running on inflation or the economy. He's all in on Immigrant migrant invasions and mass deportations.

 

[nycfan]

 

[Focker]

The betting markets are so distracting.

 

[Focker]

 

[rodoheel]

I agree with you! Obama won states like Florida, NC, Ohio, Indiana and Iowa. I don’t know if Harris can do that, but I hope I'm wrong.

To be clear I don't really think Kamala will end up with an electoral map like Obama's in 2012. I don't buy into Kamala actually winning places like Texas, Iowa, or Florida; I think her realistic ceiling is winning all the consensus swing states, or maybe all of them except Arizona. I just think 2012 is a better comparison of underlying election fundamentals than 2008, given that we were coming off of 4 years of a successful Dem administration that Republicans were repeatedly insisting was somehow not doing as well as all objective data would suggest, along with a divided Congress that was holding the admin back.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Trump isn't even running on inflation or the economy. He's all in on Immigrant migrant invasions and mass deportations.

It's been the GOP go-to strategy for so long - when you're really in trouble and fighting for even a narrow win, focus on the culture wars and ignore the economic issues. Because in the end most of their base doesn't really care as much about tax cuts or inflation as they do with nightmares of transgenders using girl's restrooms and NFL players kneeling during the national anthem or some East Coast liberal politician calling them deplorable or garbage or whatever. That's what gets them out of bed in the morning, so that's what Republicans focus on now.

 

[aGDevil2k]

Folks if that is even close to right, this election is not close.

 

[superrific]

Look at what Selzer says for why hers works (and is different). She does not use the past to predict the future, as the electorate shifts. She doesn't use past voting history, recalled vote, etc. She uses what people say for their likelihood to vote and the current intent.

Sorry but young males coming out to vote way more than young females that have a chance of dying if they have on unviable pregnancy??? Dont see it. I just dont

I'm extremely optimistic right now, but there is one possibility that nobody is really talking about. What if Iowa is doing its own thing this election? It's possible for Iowa to be a tie AND Wisky to be a tie, as unlikely as that would seem in the abstract. After all, there are a few things about Iowa that distinguish it from other midwest states. One of them is that it's literally wedged between Tim Walz's childhood home and his political career. Walz is uniquely appealing in Iowa, I would think. Also, I would like to know how much money Trump is spending in NE-1, because Kamala has been spending money there and NE-1 ad spending bleeds into IA. It's possible that Kamala had a massive ad spending advantage in IA almost by accident.

Also, Selzer's technique isn't necessarily replicable. She has been doing this, and virtually nothing else political, for decades. She knows Iowa inside and out the way no national polling firm ever could. And it's a knowable state, because it's small in population, not diverse, not geographically cramped. It's not like trying to make sense out of South Florida or New York City (which, if NY was competitive, NYC would drive everyone mad), or Texas or even North Carolina.

 

[superrific]

Folks if that is even close to right, this election is not close.

I never understand how this works. This poll puts Kamala +4. That in itself is likely enough to make it not close. But if you think Kamala +4 doesn't do it, then how does a subset of that data move the needle? If Kamala +4 is right, you don't need the cross-tabs. If Kamala +4 isn't right, then why trust the cross-tabs? I mean, it's the same data, no matter how it's sliced or diced. There's no way to look at the data to make it look better than the top line.

 

[aGDevil2k]

I'm extremely optimistic right now, but there is one possibility that nobody is really talking about. What if Iowa is doing its own thing this election? It's possible for Iowa to be a tie AND Wisky to be a tie, as unlikely as that would seem in the abstract. After all, there are a few things about Iowa that distinguish it from other midwest states. One of them is that it's literally wedged between Tim Walz's childhood home and his political career. Walz is uniquely appealing in Iowa, I would think. Also, I would like to know how much money Trump is spending in NE-1, because Kamala has been spending money there and NE-1 ad spending bleeds into IA. It's possible that Kamala had a massive ad spending advantage in IA almost by accident.

Also, Selzer's technique isn't necessarily replicable. She has been doing this, and virtually nothing else political, for decades. She knows Iowa inside and out the way no national polling firm ever could. And it's a knowable state, because it's small in population, not diverse, not geographically cramped. It's not like trying to make sense out of South Florida or New York City (which, if NY was competitive, NYC would drive everyone mad), or Texas or even North Carolina.

Could be. But your 2nd paragraph is why I think Iowa could be unique but in a way that bodes even less well for Trump in Wisconsin and Michigan and even PA....the old white folks arent in his corner

 

[superrific]

Could be. But your 2nd paragraph is why I think Iowa could be unique but in a way that bodes even less well for Trump in Wisconsin and Michigan and even PA....the old white folks arent in his corner

To be clear: I don't believe that the possibilities I raised are in fact the case. It's more of a "this could be the case, don't dismiss the possibility" thing than a "I think this is the case."

But the old white folks in IA might not be the same old white folks in WI and PA. For one thing, they haven't been targeted non-stop with horror ads for the last two years. The old white folks might be better educated there. Iowa used to be a leader in education (as was Wisky to be fair).

Again, I believe that the IA poll is bad news for Trump if remotely accurate, but I'm just offering up a couple of ponderables.

 

[rodoheel]

I'm extremely optimistic right now, but there is one possibility that nobody is really talking about. What if Iowa is doing its own thing this election? It's possible for Iowa to be a tie AND Wisky to be a tie, as unlikely as that would seem in the abstract. After all, there are a few things about Iowa that distinguish it from other midwest states. One of them is that it's literally wedged between Tim Walz's childhood home and his political career. Walz is uniquely appealing in Iowa, I would think. Also, I would like to know how much money Trump is spending in NE-1, because Kamala has been spending money there and NE-1 ad spending bleeds into IA. It's possible that Kamala had a massive ad spending advantage in IA almost by accident.

Also, Selzer's technique isn't necessarily replicable. She has been doing this, and virtually nothing else political, for decades. She knows Iowa inside and out the way no national polling firm ever could. And it's a knowable state, because it's small in population, not diverse, not geographically cramped. It's not like trying to make sense out of South Florida or New York City (which, if NY was competitive, NYC would drive everyone mad), or Texas or even North Carolina.

Another big difference between WI and IA is that Iowa's state legislature passed a six-week abortion ban over the summer, something Selzer identified as a reason that women of all ages had drifted left (at least in her polling) over the last several weeks. That could have driven home the real danger on abortion in a way that women in WI haven't directly felt yet.

 

[tallheel95]

I'm extremely optimistic right now, but there is one possibility that nobody is really talking about. What if Iowa is doing its own thing this election? It's possible for Iowa to be a tie AND Wisky to be a tie, as unlikely as that would seem in the abstract. After all, there are a few things about Iowa that distinguish it from other midwest states. One of them is that it's literally wedged between Tim Walz's childhood home and his political career. Walz is uniquely appealing in Iowa, I would think. Also, I would like to know how much money Trump is spending in NE-1, because Kamala has been spending money there and NE-1 ad spending bleeds into IA. It's possible that Kamala had a massive ad spending advantage in IA almost by accident.

Also, Selzer's technique isn't necessarily replicable. She has been doing this, and virtually nothing else political, for decades. She knows Iowa inside and out the way no national polling firm ever could. And it's a knowable state, because it's small in population, not diverse, not geographically cramped. It's not like trying to make sense out of South Florida or New York City (which, if NY was competitive, NYC would drive everyone mad), or Texas or even North Carolina.

One thing that could also make Iowa unique is that they have a large number of soybean farmers in the state. Those farmers in particular were hurt by the tariffs that Trump enacted in his first presidency. Perhaps they are listening when he says he will get back on the tariff train and don't like the message...

 

[superrific]

Another big difference between WI and IA is that Iowa's state legislature passed a six-week abortion ban over the summer, something Selzer identified as a reason that women of all ages had drifted left (at least in her polling) over the last several weeks. That could have driven home the real danger on abortion in a way that women in WI haven't directly felt yet.

True, but one would imagine that women in WI understand the danger. According to Selzer, the shift has come from older women who aren't personally affected by the ban but who see it for what it is. Same could be true in WI.

 

[nycfan]

 

[rodoheel]

True, but one would imagine that women in WI understand the danger. According to Selzer, the shift has come from older women who aren't personally affected by the ban but who see it for what it is. Same could be true in WI.

I hear you but it's one thing to hear about a thing in theory and another thing to experience it in practice. In any event I'm not really offering my own opinion, just agreeing with you that Iowa could have movement towards Harris for reasons that don't translate to other states and offering the theory that Selzer herself discussed.

 

[Ddseddse]

I'm extremely optimistic right now, but there is one possibility that nobody is really talking about. What if Iowa is doing its own thing this election?

My uneducated guess is that it is the mainstream Protestant vote breaking for Kamala in a way that won't be reflected among evangelicals. These are the old school church ladies and not the new school holly roller/prosperity gospel types. If that's true I expect to see this break the along the same geographical divide (i.e. more in the mid-west, less in the south). I have nothing but raw instinct to back this up. But that's my suspicion.

ETA: With all that being said, if true, that's still ridonkulous good news for Kamala and spells victory anyway, I think.