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

[nycfan]

“…
In the wake of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. suspending his presidential campaign as an independent candidate and endorsing Donald Trump, a majority of likely voters (64 percent) say RFK Jr.'s endorsement does not have an impact on their view of Trump, while 19 percent say it makes them think more favorably of Trump and 15 percent say it makes them think less favorably of Trump.

When asked their opinion of RFK Jr., 42 percent of likely voters say unfavorable, while 32 percent say favorable and 24 percent say they haven't heard enough about him. …”

 

[superrific]

Here is the explanation:

FINAL Silver Bulletin 2024 presidential election forecast

All the numbers for Trump vs. Harris.

www.natesilver.net

“Although we wouldn’t advise worrying too much about the difference between a 52/48 race one way versus a 48/52 race the other way — it’s not a big difference — this wasn’t a good day for Kamala Harris in our model, as Donald Trump is the slight favorite for the first time since August 3.

There’s one big reason for that — Pennsylvania, which is the tipping-point state more than one-third of the time and where it’s been quite a while since we’ve seen a poll showing Harris leading (including two new polls today).

The model is also applying a convention bounce adjustment to Harris’s recent numbers, who has made gains in national polls, and you could argue about whether that’s the right assumption. But the bottom line is that the model has the Electoral College/popular vote gap opening up again, a concern for Harris all along. There’s now a 17 percent chance she wins the popular vote but not the Electoral College, the model estimates.”

I am skeptical that there will be a convention bounce this year, because of the odd circumstances of Kamala's ascendance to the nomination. I think the convention bounce is actually just voters getting to know her.

Of course, Nate's model doesn't know that. We don't know it either. We won't know it until later, when it will be a moot point. But certainly the case for a convention bounce adjustment is weaker this year than in the past.

Whether or not there is a convention bounce doesn't really matter. It will be sorted out in the polls in a couple of weeks.

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[aGDevil2k]

When Texas starts to turn blue (and it will happen), that's when the National Popular Vote compact will pick up steam. the GOP will be FUBAR without NY, Texas and California, so then they will want to act to go to the popular vote

 

[Enigma94]

Here is the explanation:

FINAL Silver Bulletin 2024 presidential election forecast

All the numbers for Trump vs. Harris.

www.natesilver.net

“Although we wouldn’t advise worrying too much about the difference between a 52/48 race one way versus a 48/52 race the other way — it’s not a big difference — this wasn’t a good day for Kamala Harris in our model, as Donald Trump is the slight favorite for the first time since August 3.

There’s one big reason for that — Pennsylvania, which is the tipping-point state more than one-third of the time and where it’s been quite a while since we’ve seen a poll showing Harris leading (including two new polls today).

The model is also applying a convention bounce adjustment to Harris’s recent numbers, who has made gains in national polls, and you could argue about whether that’s the right assumption. But the bottom line is that the model has the Electoral College/popular vote gap opening up again, a concern for Harris all along. There’s now a 17 percent chance she wins the popular vote but not the Electoral College, the model estimates.”

It seems counterintuitive that Trump is favored in their current model but it gives Harris a 17% chance of winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college. I thought it was a virtual certainty Harris will win the popular vote, so how can she only have a 17% chance of winning that while losing the election and at the same time Trump be favored?

 

[aGDevil2k]

It seems counterintuitive that Trump is favored in their current model but it gives Harris a 17% chance of winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college. I thought it was a virtual certainty Harris will win the popular vote, so how can she only have a 17% chance of winning that while losing the election and at the same time Trump be favored?

Because Nate's model is wonky as Hell and this year, with 1 month into her campaign vs many months, he can't really adjust it to match up with a 3.5 month long campaign season

 

[lawtig02]

47% for Trump is right on the line. He wins at 48%. He loses at 46%. At 47%, it’s truly a toss up.

 

[aGDevil2k]

We are in the season where the fears and pits in stomachs return

 

[lawtig02]

God, those mental fitness numbers . . .

 

[altmin]

God, those mental fitness numbers . . .

and yet so many people who think he is mentally unfit still say they will vote for him. They just hate Democrats that much.

 

[Enigma94]

Because Nate's model is wonky as Hell and this year, with 1 month into her campaign vs many months, he can't really adjust it to match up with a 3.5 month long campaign season

I get that but common sense tells me if Harris has like a 95% chance of winning the popular vote and a 17% chance of winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college then her chances of losing the EC is really low.

 

[uncjhodges]

47% for a malignant narcissist suffering from early dementia who tried to lead a coup 4 years ago makes me so depressed

 

[nycfan]

Missouri Voters Poised to Overturn Abortion Ban

A new Saint Louis University/YouGov poll in Missouri found that 52% of voters supported the proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the state's abortion ban while 34% disagreed. The remaining 14% said they were not sure.However, the results also showed every Republican candidate, from Sen.

politicalwire.com

“A new Saint Louis University/YouGov pollin Missouri found that 52% of voters supported the proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the state’s abortion ban while 34% disagreed. The remaining 14% said they were not sure.

However, the results also showed every Republican candidate, from Sen. Josh Hawley to Attorney General Andrew Bailey, with double-digit leads over their Democratic opponents ahead of the November election.”

 

[uncjhodges]

Missouri Voters Poised to Overturn Abortion Ban

A new Saint Louis University/YouGov poll in Missouri found that 52% of voters supported the proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the state's abortion ban while 34% disagreed. The remaining 14% said they were not sure.However, the results also showed every Republican candidate, from Sen.

politicalwire.com

“A new Saint Louis University/YouGov pollin Missouri found that 52% of voters supported the proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the state’s abortion ban while 34% disagreed. The remaining 14% said they were not sure.

However, the results also showed every Republican candidate, from Sen. Josh Hawley to Attorney General Andrew Bailey, with double-digit leads over their Democratic opponents ahead of the November election.”

Fox news did an absolute bang up job in destroying the country. Made these rural voters identify as Republican first, no matter what would actually help them or what they even believe

 

[superrific]

It seems counterintuitive that Trump is favored in their current model but it gives Harris a 17% chance of winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college. I thought it was a virtual certainty Harris will win the popular vote, so how can she only have a 17% chance of winning that while losing the election and at the same time Trump be favored?

It is not a virtual certainty that she wins the popular vote. The predictive models don't assign "virtual certainty" to anything but the most rock-solid scenarios at this stage in the cycle. It is accounting for contingencies, like the polls being wrong, or the polls moving unfavorably for Kamala, etc.

Part of the problem in our whole political discourse is that the phrase "Kamala [or Trump] is winning right now" is more or less meaningless. This isn't a football game; no points have been scored by either team. Fluctuation in the polls really doesn't mean all that much (which isn't the same thing as polls not meaning much). What we really mean by "candidate X is winning," is "if the election were held today, candidate X would likely win." But that doesn't really matter.

 

[Zoo_View]

Chris Bouzy’s updated maps.

Those maps are akin to picking the Heels to go 11-1, win the ACCCG, and win Round 1 in the College Football Play-offs.

 

[superrific]

Missouri Voters Poised to Overturn Abortion Ban

A new Saint Louis University/YouGov poll in Missouri found that 52% of voters supported the proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the state's abortion ban while 34% disagreed. The remaining 14% said they were not sure.However, the results also showed every Republican candidate, from Sen.

politicalwire.com

“A new Saint Louis University/YouGov pollin Missouri found that 52% of voters supported the proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the state’s abortion ban while 34% disagreed. The remaining 14% said they were not sure.

However, the results also showed every Republican candidate, from Sen. Josh Hawley to Attorney General Andrew Bailey, with double-digit leads over their Democratic opponents ahead of the November election.”

This is one reason, I think, that the ballot initiatives don't really make much difference for electoral outcomes. Essentially, the ballot initiative allows voters to strip off the part of the GOP candidates they don't like -- i.e. the crazed anti-abortion shit. So while the initiatives might drive turnout, they might also encourage some swing voters to flip -- feeling as though it's safe to vote for Bailey because Bailey can't f with their reproductive rights.

Of course, the problem is that these voters (most of them low-info) don't realize that their constitutional amendment will make no difference at all if there's a federal ban. They think they are securing their reproductive rights. We know they are not.

 

[CallMeTyler]

Those maps are akin to picking the Heels to go 11-1, win the ACCCG, and win Round 1 in the College Football Play-offs.

Chris’s prior work speaks for itself.

 

[Enigma94]

It is not a virtual certainty that she wins the popular vote. The predictive models don't assign "virtual certainty" to anything but the most rock-solid scenarios at this stage in the cycle. It is accounting for contingencies, like the polls being wrong, or the polls moving unfavorably for Kamala, etc.

Part of the problem in our whole political discourse is that the phrase "Kamala [or Trump] is winning right now" is more or less meaningless. This isn't a football game; no points have been scored by either team. Fluctuation in the polls really doesn't mean all that much (which isn't the same thing as polls not meaning much). What we really mean by "candidate X is winning," is "if the election were held today, candidate X would likely win." But that doesn't really matter.

So does the model provide a statistical chance that Harris wins the popular vote? I understand virtual certainty isn't precise language. It just seems overwhelmingly likely that Harris wins the popular vote, so any model that gives her a 17% chance of winning it while losing the EC would naturally mean it's unlikely she loses the EC. But then he has Trump as the favorite to win the EC. Maybe I'm overestimating the chance Harris wins the PV?