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 
I hate issue based polling like that because such a big part of it is just allegiance to the individual. If they listed the actual policies, specifically with Russia and Ukraine, it wouldn’t be close. But Trump cultists will always select Trump if he’s an option.
 
The challenge right now is the pollsters are (rightly) scared of undercounting the Trump vote...again.

But there is something happening with registrations (ridiculously hard to model in polls because these arent typical likely voters) and small $$ donations. Could it all be missed? Are they missing the "something going on" like they missed in 2016? In 2016 we kept hearing something was happening....and it really was with the MAGAs. Maybe what we all feel happening over the last month (also hard to model when you have never had a 3.5 month campaign for president) is really confounding the pollsters?

That's very possible. That's one thing Bouzy (and Wasserman for that matter) are talking about that you dont see so much from Nate SIlver
 
HeelInTheOzarks said:
Laughing at Nate’s state by state probabilities basically saying Kamala wins and then still putting Trump to win on the top line.
Click to expand...
Look, I'm not a big Nate fan, but they aren't "his" state-by-state probabilities. He built a model. He puts the inputs into the model and reports what comes out. The model is almost assuredly better than your eyeball test.

I suspect that you're not taking account of correlation. Which would be almost impossible for you to do. Which is why we build models.
 
superrific said:
Look, I'm not a big Nate fan, but they aren't "his" state-by-state probabilities. He built a model. He puts the inputs into the model and reports what comes out. The model is almost assuredly better than your eyeball test.

I suspect that you're not taking account of correlation. Which would be almost impossible for you to do. Which is why we build models.
Click to expand...
100% true. The challenge Nate has, and why he's "lost" so many people that respected him, is that he is the classic narcissist that won't admit when he is deficient. I see him try to do it more but it's usually wrapped in wonky over-explanation. Never "my model wasn't build for a 3.5 month race, so it's going to be all over the place and we will see how it pans out"
 
superrific said:
1. It depends on why she loses PA. If it's a state specific thing, then arguably she might be able to offset that loss with NC or GA. There's no inherent reason why she can't win either of those states. They have a bigger R partisan lean than PA, but again, if the PA thing is state-specific (i.e. fracking), then it's not game over.

2. If she wins PA, she's very likely to take MI and WI and that's pretty much all she needs.

3. And we get another idiocy of the electoral college. AZ + NV is enough to make up the loss of MI. It's not enough to make up the loss of PA. Does that make sense? I mean, I guess PA has more people than MI but it's not really about the population. It's about the arithmetic. It just so happens that the 4 EVs make a difference this go round, primarily because the Dems are winning VA instead of NC and because Utah just barely squeezed ahead of MN for the last EV.

And all of this, even though the vote margin would probably be the same in Michigan as Pennsylvania -- and proportionally bigger in MI. So it's better for Kamala to do better in PA than MI, even if she does worse in the two put together. It is so frustrating.

4. I still can't believe that there is no appetite in half the country to get rid of the EC. I get it -- ideology. But there's no reason that the GOP can't win in a non-EC world. They might need to tweak their policies a bit, and make more of an effort in CA, but it's doable. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the citizens in this country actually have no say at all about the next president, because only PA, MI, WI, NC and AZ matter (and not all of them do).

Every election boils down to four or five swing states. A constitutional amendment can pass with 38 states approving. It would undoubtedly be better for the 45 non-swing states to get rid of the EC and make their votes matter. And yet. And yet.
Click to expand...
My suspicion is if she loses PA, the reasons will not be sufficiently state specific. And frankly the math gets very difficult from there.

NC going blue is, to me, a bit of a pipe dream. It took 8 years of Bush, an economic collapse and a generational talent in Obama to flip NC blue. And he managed that by 0.3%. And went 1 for 2 (losing the state to Romney in 2012). With Kamala trailing slightly in polling…it’s hard to see her winning here especially when I think she needs to stay so locked in on Michigan, Wisconsin and PA.

GA did surprise me last election though. But if I was her, I’d spend all that political capital and ground game in PA and Wisconsin. I think NC is likely a fools errand unless she was reliably outpolling Trump here.

The EC isn’t going away anytime soon so Democrats have to consider how to fine tune their messaging to make the Democratic coalition stronger in the Electoral College.
 
theel4life said:
I knew that bump was coming.
Click to expand...
What don you think of MAGAs comparing the same day polls in ‘16 and ‘20 polls to extrapolate what will happen ‘24?

This is an election like none other we’ve ever seen. I don’t believe that this historical data is very pertinent.
 
Bigs23 said:
This is an election like none other we’ve ever seen. I don’t believe that this historical data is very pertinent.
Click to expand...
Yea
weird times for looking back and projecting. Now I still think , la could win in a blowout..But who knows
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top