Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

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: 183K
  • Politics 
Mulberry Heel said:
I keep seeing polls where he's ahead. I guess the question is if he does win will he caucus with Senate Democrats or Senate Republicans? Because if he simply sides with the Republicans and votes with them the vast majority of the time I don't see how that helps Democrats any. Will he be an improvement over Fischer, or just a consistent GOP-voting independent?
Click to expand...
The Democrats didn’t run a candidate because Osborne is expected to caucus with them. He isn’t going to say it in the lead up to the election, but that’s what I’d expect. Watch what they do not what they say type situation.

He’s got to be an improvement over Fischer, if on labor issues alone (that’s what he’s centering his candidacy on, more or less).

I don’t see what the point for him would be to run as an independent and then just vote with the Republicans on every issue. I don’t think he’d be long for Washington if he was elected and did that.

Take a look at his platform. A hell of a lot better than Deb Fischer.

 
FFS, the pollsters are just working for Prozac ...



 
Last edited:
SnoopRob said:
I think that the big difference in a lot of polls these days (excluding the red polls that are intentionally biased) is that modeling turnout has gotten much, much tougher than it used to be.

It's hard to get people to respond, but if you try hard enough you can weight by demographics to counter that issue. But uncertainty in turnout means that different polls will create different models and my hunch is that the different turnout models/assumptions are to blame for the majority of the differences we see in (unbiased) polling.
Click to expand...
According to Nate Cohn of the NYT, the biggest systematic difference between polls is that some of them are weighting on the basis of recalled 2020 vote and some are not. The ones weighting on the former basis are showing a larger national lead for Kamala but smaller state leads. In other words, recalled 2020 vote weights are making this election look more like the last one, whereas the polls not weighting in that fashion are showing a smaller national lead for Kamala but better swing state performance.

Methodologically, weighting on the basis of recalled vote is bad. It just is. That's why it hasn't been used for a long time. It's being pulled out this year because 1) the assumption that the 2024 election is going to more resemble the 2020 election than perhaps any other pair of elections in recent history; and 2) they've got to find some way of reaching the Trumpers. It's a kludge. We will find out if it's a useful one, but in theory it should be worse for a number of reasons.

I suspect that the use of recalled vote weighting will be overkill. In 2016 there was concern over the "shy Trump voter." Well, those voters aren't so shy any more. Maybe there still are some quiet ones who don't go to rally or put up signs or post BSC craziness to social media, and who would also be reluctant to admit to another person that they are Trumpers. It's also possible that the Trump voters, distrustful as they are, are still harder to reach than other voters, but I'm skeptical. I think Trump voters now pay more attention to polls than they did before, in part because Trump has made "being up in the polls" such a central part of his victimization campaign that people are eager to boost his poll numbers. So recalled vote is a correction to a problem that might not exist.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
If anyone actually believes that Trump has a 13-point lead in Florida then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them. There's no way that Trump just suddenly gained 5 to 10 points in the polls there. Just more evidence that the polling on this election is all over the place and thus deep skepticism is justified. Trump will likely win Florida, but he's not going to win it by 13 points, or even close to that amount. In 2016 he won it by 1.3% and in 2020 by 3.4%.
Click to expand...
Nate Cohn acknowledged that 13 was probably an outlier, but he thinks 4 is ridiculously low. Trump is probably going to win Florida by 7-8 points, I suspect.

And that's good news for Kamala. Remember: every vote cast in excess of 50%+1 is wasted. If Trump is down nationally by 2.5 but is up by 8 in Florida, then he must be doing worse somewhere else. He's also doing better than he was in CA and NY. Again, these are positive developments. So when we see national polls of Kamala +2 and PA polls of Kamala +2 -- well, those are often interpreted to be inconsistent. After all, isn't PA to the right of the U.S.? It has been. But if Trump is up 8 in Florida and only down 8 in CA, then maybe PA is no longer to the right of the US.
 
kickazzz2000 said:
Tl;dr all the crazies have moved to FL
Click to expand...
That's one of the effects, but it's not necessarily crazies. The demographic most supportive of Trump is white men 55+. Well, who are the people who retire to Florida? Crazy or not, the migration is going to end up funneling Trump support to Florida.
 
superrific said:
That's one of the effects, but it's not necessarily crazies. The demographic most supportive of Trump is white men 55+. Well, who are the people who retire to Florida? Crazy or not, the migration is going to end up funneling Trump support to Florida.
Click to expand...
FLA has been a lost cause.
 
On the substantial Quinnipiac swings this election cycle:



"... Generally this indicates that something about the methodology is producing more noise than you'd expect based only on the sample size of the poll. And the answer is that they are using random digit dialing and doing a lot of weighting, so the MOE is about 30% higher than it would normally be per their own disclosure, and the low response rates and representativeness are also probably causing some sort of non-response that isn't captured by these statistics.

None of this is to say that Q polls are inaccurate, but they are seemingly less reliable than other methods that do more work to equalize response rates on the sampling end or use other design approaches to decrease effects of weighting and other non-sampling biases."
 
Bigs23 said:
FLA has been a lost cause.
Click to expand...
The main reason it was a swing state was that it was a retirement haven primarily for liberal Jews from the Northeast (NY and NYC in particular). They were the core liberal constituency there. Well, those original transplants have been dying off, and their replacements haven't been liberal. It's expensive as hell now in the Jewish-friendly areas and hard to retire to, and lots of people from the Northeast are going to have little interest in relocating to Osceola.

Otherwise, why would we think Florida should be different from any of the other Confederate states?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top