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

[Icky Mettle]

Recent election results don’t support your theory.

Abortion is a losing topic for trump and the GOP.

I 100% agree it’s a losing topic for them. Which is why I have some concern that placing that issue on the ballot separately may benefit them.

I am aware that ballot measures regarding abortion have yielded overwhelmingly favorable results with regard to protecting abortion rights. But I am not sure that all those people who have turned out to vote in favor of abortion rights/against abortion bans in places like Kansas, for example, wouldn’t otherwise vote Republican. Are there results showing that where abortion rights have been placed on the ballot, there was a notable shift in votes favoring democrats compared to prior elections?

By the way, what I am discussing here is not my hypothesis; just a concern.

 

[BurtoniumAD]

At a macro level, I think we’re now to the point where the election comes down to one question — can Kamala avoid a major mistake? If she can, she wins. Trump’s support is capped. He’s not even trying to win new voters now. He’ll be doing everything he can to drive down Dem enthusiasm, but realistically, the only way that happens is if Kamala says something really stupid, a new (legitimate) scandal emerges, etc.

The biggest problem for Trump, though, is that Kamala’s support is not yet capped. She’s still not universally known, and even many of those who know her don’t know what she really stands for. She can still bring people off the sideline. Trump can’t.

Get ready for the ugliest, most negative two months in the recent history of presidential politics. Trump and his sycophants will be doing everything they can to make Kamala trip. She just needs to stay on her feet and shrug off the muck that will be thrown her way. I think she can do it.

I think this is right and I also think it's fairly unlikely there will be a major mistake. I think her campaign has been incredibly smart, including not doing press with a disingenuous media, which has really only downside (even if it's minor).

I do not expect a scandal as she has been running for office forever and the vetting has already occurred (unlike JD Vance). I think she needs to hold serve on the debate, but even if she doesn't do great, I don't think it really impacts her except on the margins for people who were most likely not going to vote for her anyway.

I do think it will get darker from the Trump side for the remainder of the cycle namely because nothing they are doing is sticking on her right now. She is brushing him off and not engaging directly with anything from him, which is his only hope.

If she pummels him in the debate, I think this thing is over, because A) he will melt down for the remainder of the cycle B) Early voting will be weeks after it and C) she will continue to pick up new voters.

My take: 25% chance Trump ekes out a win; 25% chance Harris ekes out a win; 50% chance Harris wins big.

This is not 2016 or 2020 - since then, Dobbs has been overturned, January 6th has occurred and despite polling, Trump's appeal has waned considerably and if you read through the focus group info, most people are just tired of his act and he really has no other game to play. The fact that both she and Walz have positive net favorability and both Trump and Vance are very net unpopular just furthers this.

 

[nycfan]

Sure looks like Pennsylvania is in real danger. Extremely dispiriting.

I also don't understand what has happened in Nevada. Even Clinton won Nevada.

Very easy to feel hopeless

Harry Reid died.

 

[superrific]

I 100% agree it’s a losing topic for them. Which is why I have some concern that placing that issue on the ballot separately may benefit them.

I am aware that ballot measures regarding abortion have yielded overwhelmingly favorable results with regard to protecting abortion rights. But I am not sure that all those people who have turned out to vote in favor of abortion rights/against abortion bans in places like Kansas, for example, wouldn’t otherwise vote Republican. Are there results showing that where abortion rights have been placed on the ballot, there was a notable shift in votes favoring democrats compared to prior elections?

By the way, what I am discussing here is not my hypothesis; just a concern.

538 did a piece on this topic a few weeks ago. Their conclusion was that there is very little evidence that ballot measures have much impact on the other races at all.

It could be this factor (i.e. pro-choice voters feeling less guilt) cancelling out the increase in turnout from the pro-choice voters. Or it could be that neither factor makes much of a difference.

The problem with the idea you advanced above -- which is an idea I have also advanced a few times -- is that it assumes a sort of irrationality on the part of the voter, or perhaps the better word is naivete. A state constitutional amendment, of course, does not protect abortion rights against a federal ban. So if protecting your abortion right is important, and you're in the ballot box, why would the presence of the ballot initiative affect the way you vote for president, when one of the two candidates is responsible for the necessity of the ballot initiative? Don't get me wrong: this doesn't mean the hypothesis is false, as there is plenty of irrationality in politics (as we well know). But it should be a consideration. Presumably the people who get turned out to vote because of the abortion issue have been reached by the pro-choice campaign. If so, those people would also have pointed out that Trump is anti-choice.

Another problem with the idea is the assumption that the voters mobilized by the initiative will vote liberal. An initiative that passes by 60% doesn't necessarily have 60% support among the marginal voters. It could be that the voters who only show up because of the abortion issue are split down the middle, and that an anti-choice person will be as inspired to vote no as a pro-choice person will be to vote yes.

That said, I think there is some merit in the idea (as I wouldn't have advanced it otherwise). We aren't necessarily talking about the most sophisticated group of voters. They might just go with what is directly in front of their face on the ballot, and the second-order considerations just aren't interesting to them.

Ultimately, all such debates really depend on understanding non-voters, and also the voters who get mobilized by a ballot initiative. ASAIK people don't know enough about the psychology of non-voters, because they are hard to study.

 

[CFordUNC]

 

[duluoz]

I 100% agree it’s a losing topic for them. Which is why I have some concern that placing that issue on the ballot separately may benefit them.

I am aware that ballot measures regarding abortion have yielded overwhelmingly favorable results with regard to protecting abortion rights. But I am not sure that all those people who have turned out to vote in favor of abortion rights/against abortion bans in places like Kansas, for example, wouldn’t otherwise vote Republican. Are there results showing that where abortion rights have been placed on the ballot, there was a notable shift in votes favoring democrats compared to prior elections?

By the way, what I am discussing here is not my hypothesis; just a concern.

This line of thinking is losing the forest for the trees, IMO.

It’s a huge turnout issue. It clearly, strongly, hugely favors Dems. Sure there will be edge cases of voters turning out for this issue who still vote trump, or don’t vote Dem or at all.

But there has been a concerted effort to firmly tie republicans as a whole, and trump especially, to anti-choice and restricting reproductive rights. The Harris campaign especially has been draping the idea of a federal abortion ban around trump’s neck, and he lies so much that it doesn’t matter if he tries to deny it.

This will all net out to big dividends across the board, for turnout, for Harris, and down-ballot.

 

[superrific]

Harry Reid died.

I don't know if that makes much difference. I suspect that Nevada polling is biased against from Dems ever so slightly, given that sex workers are a) likely to vote blue and b) are not likely to answer phone calls from strangers. I think also the unions do a great job of turnout.

The polling in NV is always unfavorable to Dems. I think both CCM and Rosen were down in the polls ever so slightly on election day, but they won.

 

[superrific]

This line of thinking is losing the forest for the trees, IMO.

It’s a huge turnout issue. It clearly, strongly, hugely favors Dems. Sure there will be edge cases of voters turning out for this issue who still vote trump, or don’t vote Dem or at all.

But there has been a concerted effort to firmly tie republicans as a whole, and trump especially, to anti-choice and restricting reproductive rights. The Harris campaign especially has been draping the idea of a federal abortion ban around trump’s neck, and he lies so much that it doesn’t matter if he tries to deny it.

This will all net out to big dividends across the board, for turnout, for Harris, and down-ballot.

It hasn't had that effect so far. And you don't know whether it strongly or hugely favors Dems. All we know is that the measures typically pass with large margins. But it's possible that the initiative pass by even more (in percentage terms at least) among the voters who typically vote in elections.

This idea that the initiatives will provide big dividends to Harris is just an intuition. Which is fine, but behind that intuition there are several assumptions that could be wrong. It's fair to say that the intuition that the ballot initiatives will do little on net are as firmly grounded.

 

[aGDevil2k]

I don't know if that makes much difference. I suspect that Nevada polling is biased against from Dems ever so slightly, given that sex workers are a) likely to vote blue and b) are not likely to answer phone calls from strangers. I think also the unions do a great job of turnout.

The polling in NV is always unfavorable to Dems. I think both CCM and Rosen were down in the polls ever so slightly on election day, but they won.

Correct. Ralston is the one to seek for NV "ears to the ground" advice.

 

[nycfan]

I don't know if that makes much difference. I suspect that Nevada polling is biased against from Dems ever so slightly, given that sex workers are a) likely to vote blue and b) are not likely to answer phone calls from strangers. I think also the unions do a great job of turnout.

The polling in NV is always unfavorable to Dems. I think both CCM and Rosen were down in the polls ever so slightly on election day, but they won.

There was a bruising battle between Harry Reid’s Democratic Machine and Bernie Bros in Nevada in 2016 and 2020. Soon after Reid died in 2021, Team Bernie managed to take over most key elected positions in the Nevada Democratic Party.

But it turned out that Team Bernie was good at firing up Progressive but incompetent at running a party apparatus. They were voted back out in 2023 and Reid Moderates took back control of the party. But that left deep wounds in the coalition (who already hated Reid and his moderates for changing rules to undermine Bernie’s chances there in 2020) and a lot of progressives consider themselves not part of the Democratic Party now. That schism has been aggravated by the progressive rejection of the Biden policy toward the Israel-Hamas war, moving progressives even further from supporting Democrats.

Trump’s no tax on tips proposal really spoke to the young progressives in Vegas, many of whom live off tips. They figured if the GOP and Dems have basically the same policy on Gaza, why not go with the better tax policy for their state, which was particularly hammered during the pandemic and still holds a grudge about liberal positions on pandemic safety requirements that really hurt Vegas tourism.

Which is why the local unions reportedly told Harris it was vital that she adopt the no tax on tips proposal to have a shot in Nevada. But that hasn’t fixed the progressive disgruntlement and it is not clear how much support Dems can claw back from still angry progressives. And most of the rest of the state is dead red.

 

[SnoopRob]

My take: 25% chance Trump ekes out a win; 25% chance Harris ekes out a win; 50% chance Harris wins big.

I'm curious what your definition of "win big" is here. Would you mind sharing?

 

[superrific]

There was a bruising battle between Harry Reid’s Democratic Machine and Bernie Bros in Nevada in 2016 and 2020. Soon after Reid died in 2021, Team Bernie managed to take over most key elected positions in the Nevada Democratic Party.

But it turned out that Team Bernie was good at firing up Progressive but incompetent at running a party apparatus. They were voted back out in 2023 and Reid Moderates took back control of the party. But that left deep wounds in the coalition (who already hated Reid and his moderates for changing rules to undermine Bernie’s chances there in 2020) and a lot of progressives consider themselves not part of the Democratic Party now. That schism has been aggravated by the progressive rejection of the Biden policy toward the Israel-Hamas war, moving progressives even further from supporting Democrats.

Trump’s no tax on tips proposal really spoke to the young progressives in Vegas, many of whom live off tips. They figured if the GOP and Dems have basically the same policy on Gaza, why not go with the better tax policy for their state, which was particularly hammered during the pandemic and still holds a grudge about liberal positions on pandemic safety requirements that really hurt Vegas tourism.

Which is why the local unions reportedly told Harris it was vital that she adopt the no tax on tips proposal to have a shot in Nevada. But that hasn’t fixed the progressive disgruntlement and it is not clear how much support Dems can claw back from still angry progressives. And most of the rest of the state is dead red.

And yet CCM won in 2022.

Anyone who supports "no tax on tips" and is even considering voting GOP is not a progressive. Of course, a lot of Bernie Bros weren't progressives. A lot of them were just resentful of women, which is why they had never heard of Bernie Sanders before 2016.

 

[nycfan]

And yet CCM won in 2022.

Anyone who supports "no tax on tips" and is even considering voting GOP is not a progressive. Of course, a lot of Bernie Bros weren't progressives. A lot of them were just resentful of women, which is why they had never heard of Bernie Sanders before 2016.

CCM won by 2 points in 2016 and less than half a point in 2022. Also, incumbent Dems lost the Governor’s race and Lt Governor’s race (mostly due to COVID restrictions) and the GOP took some other spots that were open but formerly Democratic. There has been a slow red shift in Nevada and polling suggests that drift continues.

 

[aGDevil2k]

CCM won by 2 points in 2016 and less than half a point in 2022. Also, incumbent Dems lost the Governor’s race and Lt Governor’s race (mostly due to COVID restrictions) and the GOP took some other spots that were open but formerly Democratic. There has been a slow red shift in Nevada and polling suggests that drift continues.

POLLING SUCKS IN NEVADA.

Ask John Ralston about it.

 

[uncgriff]

I want Jimmy Carter to cast the deciding vote in Georgia.

 

[duluoz]

It hasn't had that effect so far. And you don't know whether it strongly or hugely favors Dems. All we know is that the measures typically pass with large margins. But it's possible that the initiative pass by even more (in percentage terms at least) among the voters who typically vote in elections.

This idea that the initiatives will provide big dividends to Harris is just an intuition. Which is fine, but behind that intuition there are several assumptions that could be wrong. It's fair to say that the intuition that the ballot initiatives will do little on net are as firmly grounded.

It has absolutely had the effect of surging the turnout numbers. If it hasn't had a demonstrated causal effect yet on the candidates/down-ballot, it's only because of sample size and the other point I mentioned -- there *has now been* a concerted effort to anchor republicans to the losing side of this issue. For KS, OH, KY and the rest of the initiatives/measures/special elections from the last couple years, the Dem strategy had not yet coalesced in the way it has over the last year, and especially since Harris. Since then, the messaging has not only gotten stronger and more pointed squarely at republicans, but part of the Dem strategy was to get as many of these on states' ballots as possible.

Anyone who truly believes it's a coin-flip as to whether reproductive rights will provide dividends (big or otherwise), or a coin-flip as to whether the reproductive rights issue even hugely favors the Dems... is outsmarting themselves. The writing is on the wall, even if the data is still trailing behind.

 

[superrific]

It has absolutely had the effect of surging the turnout numbers. If it hasn't had a demonstrated causal effect yet on the candidates/down-ballot, it's only because of sample size and the other point I mentioned -- there *has now been* a concerted effort to anchor republicans to the losing side of this issue. For KS, OH, KY and the rest of the initiatives/measures/special elections from the last couple years, the Dem strategy had not yet coalesced in the way it has over the last year, and especially since Harris. Since then, the messaging has not only gotten stronger and more pointed squarely at republicans, but part of the Dem strategy was to get as many of these on states' ballots as possible.

Anyone who truly believes it's a coin-flip as to whether reproductive rights will provide dividends (big or otherwise), or a coin-flip as to whether the reproductive rights issue even hugely favors the Dems... is outsmarting themselves. The writing is on the wall, even if the data is still trailing behind.

Yeah, so I'm wary of "the data is still trailing" behind narratives in politics. It's basically the position of everyone whose theories are unsupported by data. Sometimes the data trailing behind story is accurate, so I'm not going to say that you're wrong. I'm simply going to say that it's not persuasive to me.

Reproductive rights issues favor Dems for sure. That's a different question from whether reproductive rights ballot amendments favor Dems.

 

[nycfan]

POLLING SUCKS IN NEVADA.

Ask John Ralston about it.

Not denying that Nevada polling sucks, just that the outcomes have become dicier there for Democrats over the past 4+ years.

 

[superrific]

CCM won by 2 points in 2016 and less than half a point in 2022. Also, incumbent Dems lost the Governor’s race and Lt Governor’s race (mostly due to COVID restrictions) and the GOP took some other spots that were open but formerly Democratic. There has been a slow red shift in Nevada and polling suggests that drift continues.

I don't think this is a correct analysis:

1. 2022 was a midterm election. It was supposed to be closer. And indeed the GOP took the majority of votes cast for the House (even excluding one-candidate races). So CCM's margin of half a point in 2022 doesn't seem like an underperformance relative to 2016. It was a different environment. Also, Dems won 3 of 4 house seats in 2022.

2. True, the GOP won the governor's race. This was no anomaly -- Sisolak was Nevada's only Democratic governor this century. Prior to 2022, the GOP had won 6 of the previous 6 gubernatorial elections.

3. Prior to 2018, the Dems had controlled both Senate seats in NV for a decade in the 1990s, and before that you have to go back to the early 1970s. The Dems have now won three straight Senate races, which is the most since they won 5 straight with Reid and Bryan.

4. At the presidential level, Dems have won NV four straight elections. Before that, the GOP won NV in 8 of the 10 presidential elections, with only Bill winning between LBJ and Obama. The margin in 2020 was about what it was in 2016 (correcting for national environment), maybe slightly better. True, neither HRC nor Biden approached Obama's 2012 performance, but that might have been an outlier.

IOW I'm not seeing any red shift here. I've thought of Nevada as trending slowly blue. At most, I think, you could say that Nevada is about 50/50 and the recent Dem dominance is more blip than a new reality -- meaning we'd expect the GOP to start winning some federal races at some point.

 

[nycfan]