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: 5K
  • Views: 184K
  • Politics 
CFordUNC said:
I think that it would be very foolish from a policy standpoint for Harris to break too far from the Biden/Harris administration. The U.S. enjoyed by far the best economic recovery in the world post-pandemic; unemployment rates are at record lows; the stock market is returning record highs; wage are growing and inflation is receding; illegal border crossings are at a four-year low; rates of viollent crime are plummeting across the country to decades-lows; there has been immense investment in infrastructure, manufacturing, rural and underserved communities, etc.; consumer spending is at an all-time high; record numbers of people are traveling for vacation; our military and geopolitical alliances are stronger than they've been at any point over the last few decades; one of our primary foreign geopolitical foes has been crippled in large part by U.S. influence and aid to Ukraine.

Why in the world would Harris try to distance herself from any of that?
Click to expand...
Gore made that mistake in 2000. He didn't own the strong 90s economy he helped create.

There's some distance re: Gaza although it's modest.

Inflation is down, The stock market is high. Wages are now outgrowing inflation. Crud oil futures are $68/ga. Interest rates are being cut. Own it.
 
lawtig02 said:
Let’s just step back from the polling for a second. Nate’s model just gave Trump his highest odds of winning at any point in this campaign — EVER. Higher than after the catastrophic Biden debate. Higher than after Trump was almost assassinated. Higher than anytime in the following weeks when Biden was a dead man walking. Higher than at any point before Kamala’s recent surge.

What could possibly have happened in the last couple of weeks that would move the election so strongly in Trump’s favor? There’s literally nothing. If Kamala bombs tomorrow’s debate, that could do it. If Russia nukes Kiev, that could do it. If Covid 4.0 — The Reckoning, starts laying waste to our cities over the next couple of months, that could do it. But there’s just no reason a model should be swinging that much based on anything that has actually happened in real life.

I don’t have any beef against Silver. I agree he’s trying to do a good job. But whatever he’s picking up on now is almost certainly BS, and I don’t see any way around that.
Click to expand...
Obviously, the RFK endorsement is one thing.

But I think the answer is simpler. When Kamala got into the race, she got a lot of the “generic” democratic vote. Generic Democrat always does better than any specific Democrat. In other words, some of the initial polls were picking up the double hater vote who knew nothing about Harris.

Since then, Republicans have been running nonstop attack ads on Kamala in swing states. As a result, she is losing some of those Generic Democrat voters.

This was always going to happen. It is now up to Kamala to win back some of those voters over the next two months or do an even better negative campaign against Trump.
 
Calheel said:
Obviously, the RFK endorsement is one thing.

But I think the answer is simpler. When Kamala got into the race, she got a lot of the “generic” democratic vote. Generic Democrat always does better than any specific Democrat. In other words, some of the initial polls were picking up the double hater vote who knew nothing about Harris.

Since then, Republicans have been running nonstop attack ads on Kamala in swing states. As a result, she is losing some of those Generic Democrat voters.

This was always going to happen. It is now up to Kamala to win back some of those voters over the next two months or do an even better negative campaign against Trump.
Click to expand...
Not sure how you can win against a side that is allowed to make things up with absolutely no repercussions or accountability.
 
finesse said:
The assholes lost 2016 and played a major part in getting us here. If they had the cojones to step up and own it, people might be more forgiving. Their shit, in fact, does stink.
Click to expand...
This x100. If they’d just accepted that sometimes you have to vote the lesser of two “evils”, the Trump/MAGA movement could have died 8 years ago.
 
Paine said:
The same could be said for the smug attitude that you exude in this post. And I’d posit that this attitude was much more responsible for Hillary’s loss than Bernie Bros.

I’m glad people are still chirping about a cynical campaign tactic invented to silence any political disagreements with a seriously flawed candidate by portraying them as sexist. Clinton had the same line about “Obama Boys” in 2008.

I’m sure it will somehow be the fault of the darn Bernie Bros if Harris loses too.
Click to expand...
And I'd posit that is BS. I voted for Hillary. I actively and vehemently pointed out the importance the election had on the make up of SCOTUS. I even pointed out the dsinformation campaign that the GOP has run against Hillary since Bill first ran and called out for some situational awareness of what we faced. What did you do?
 
farce© said:
I bet if you asked that 47% which of Harris' policies they consider "too progressive" most of them couldn't do it. Or they would ascribe a position to her that is false because they get their news from liars.
Click to expand...
There is a fair criticism tied to her actual policy statements. The 2020 primary was a pretty liberal / progressive primary by all accounts. Harris took some positions out of political expediency that she now has to backtrack on.

It’s not absurd to look at her previously stated policy positions and argue that she (as a national candidate) was fairly progressive. What is absurd is the Donald has literally been all over the map himself in every issue under the sun…but it’s Harris who will get banged for changing her mind.

Some of this is the inevitable fact she is minority women with a “funny” name. Some of it is good messaging by Rs.

I mean the populists in this election are not the first-generation prosecutor and social studies teacher/football coach. It is the second generation real estate tycoon and made-good Yalie venture capitalist. So we are through the looking glass…
 
What the hell does 2008 have to do with anything?

Hell, I wanted someone besides Hillary, not because she was a bad candidate, but because she had been demonized by the right for so long that there was no way even her supporters didn't have a slightly jaundiced view of her.

I also don't know what universe you live in were a socialist campaigning for someone who, as usual was the most liberal candidate ever running for president, is an actual net gain.
 
Paine said:
if you’re still talking about this shit in the year of our lord 2024, I doubt I’m going to convince you otherwise. But I’d like to at least hear a shred of evidence to support this claim.

Hillary is much more at fault for her loss than the infinitesimal number of Bernie Sanders primary voters that didn’t vote for her in the general election. Did the Bernie Bros tell her not to campaign in the Blue Wall states?
Click to expand...
Let’s just look at the Blue Wall, which would have given Clinton enough EC votes to win.

In 2012 & 2020 about 1.3% of Michigan’s total vote went 3rd party. In 2016 it was 4.7%.

In Pennsylvania, 2012 & 2020 were 1.5%. In 2016 it was more than double that.

In Wisconsin, 2012 & 2020 were around 1.6%. In 2016 it was 4.6%.

Nothing about recent historical Republican voting patterns in those states would imply those 3rd party would normally go to Trump in 2016. It was a protest vote against Clinton…and which group within the Dem party was the most outspoken?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top