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

[JCTarheel82]

Is the strategy of Pubs gaming the polls in swing states an attempt at making Dems think: “wow! I thought we should be way ahead, and we’re not! Perhaps, it’s a lost cause and we should just stay home and not bother to vote”?

Or is it to give Pub voters a sense of “it’s close folks, we got this! we need to show up and vote!”

To me, if no one really pays close attention, and simply sees the polls as “gee, it’s really close, I guess we should go vote”, then that sense may indeed work - at turning out the vote - on both sides.

In my mind, I’d rather see a tie in polls, or our side being slightly behind in the polls, increasing our motivation to get out the vote. Numbers, we need massive numbers.

Clinton won popular vote by close to 3 million votes. Correct?
Biden won by 6 million votes.

Kamala needs to win pop vote by 10 million and the electoral college by at least the same 306 to 232. Need to make this a landslide to remove all doubt.

The GQP is going to reference these polls as "evidence" when they try to steal the election should Kamala win.

 

[Centerpiece]

The purpose of flooding the polls with right-leaning trash polls is to justify violence after Trump loses. Trump was ahead in the polls, but Kamala won? Must have been fraud, since the election was stolen violence is justified.

Ouch.

Makes sense in some goose-stepping sort of way. But with Biden in the WhiteHouse, and Kamala the current VP charged with over-seeing the certification… another J6 uprising gets squashed fairly quickly, no?

If the real threat is GQP State legislators throwing wrenches into their State by State certifications (before it ever gets to DC Jan 6 certification) then that could happen anyway, regardless of what polls say, no?

But at this point it’s all optics I guess. If it “looks close” now, but Kamala wins - in a close one - then trump “got screwed again”… thereby giving GQP Governors justification to “find those 11,000 votes” miraculously. And for Arizona and Wisconsin to “stop the steal” and to get the whole thing thrown to SCOTUS.

But that brings us back to winning so enormously that even bad polling in October won’t matter in November. The optics won’t matter with a landslide both popular and electoral. Seems the only way forward.

 

[Centerpiece]

2022 was also big in quiet ways. Dems control more state legislatures and governor’s mansions in crucial states than they did in 2020. That should hopefully prevent some amount of fuckery.

Good lord willing and the creek don’t rise. And I say that in all seriousness, living in WNC still dealing with Helene aftermath…

 

[ole howard1]

I think Rosenberg's theory is likely on target. That said, the NBC poll today makes me worried and despondent.

 

[Centerpiece]

So is there a reason why the Dems - with that billion $ war chest - isn’t ALSO FLOODING THE POLLSTER LANDSCAPE by “dropping dozens of polls into the battleground States” to skew the polling averages back to where they obviously are in reality?

 

[finesse]

So is there a reason why the Dems - with that billion $ war chest - isn’t ALSO FLOODING THE POLLSTER LANDSCAPE by “dropping dozens of polls into the battleground States” to skew the polling averages back to where they obviously are in reality?

Old fashioned ideas about winning on merit, I suspect. That and not having to worry about their candidate throwing a total tantrum in public if the candidate realized what a buffoon he was being.

 

[lightbluenc]

So is there a reason why the Dems - with that billion $ war chest - isn’t ALSO FLOODING THE POLLSTER LANDSCAPE by “dropping dozens of polls into the battleground States” to skew the polling averages back to where they obviously are in reality?

I’d guess because the strategy for Dems isn’t to convince anyone after the election of foul play. We will accept the results, but pubs won’t and they need a reason to have a grievance.

 

[SnoopRob]

So is there a reason why the Dems - with that billion $ war chest - isn’t ALSO FLOODING THE POLLSTER LANDSCAPE by “dropping dozens of polls into the battleground States” to skew the polling averages back to where they obviously are in reality?

If a poll is paid for by campaign funds, then that has to be disclosed when the poll is released.

What Pubs are doing isn't coming from the campaign, it's from party supporters who are willing to work for party success but outside the party structure.

It's really part of the bigger issue in that Dems have taken on the task of both trying to win elections while also upholding the overarching rules and norms of elections. Pubs aren't constrained in that way in that they've created an entire ecosystem built to convince their base of whatever alt-reality they're pushing and they also don't care about a functioning government or electoral process itself.

Pubs gain from pushing false narratives in ways that generally don't benefit Dems to nearly the same amount, so Pubs do so in ways that Dems don't.

 

[superrific]

Rosenberg's calm and confidence helps to keep me somewhat sane -- only somewhat.

I doubt he's right. The reason the Pubs are dumping polls into PA isn't because they think they are losing there. They were going to do it anyway.

Stop worrying about one poll here or one poll there. The NBC poll was just that -- one poll, and I think it was even registered voters.

The poll did have quite an effect on the 538 forecast, though. It went from 53-46 in favor of Kamala to 53-47 in favor of Kamala.

 

[Carolina Fever]

Is it better to follow the polls or the number of individual contributions to the campaigns?

 

[TarHeeledTexan]

About 4 years ago I cut back on Facebook posting and that was highly beneficial. It's still helpful as a way to connect with friends but removing it from my home screen helped

I never post on Instagram so that's not an issue.

Twitter is toxic. I haven't deleted it but I don't post

LinkedIn is a necessary evil. But my God of the apps that give me heartburn it's the worst

I have never done ticket ticks or snap chat.

I feel in a way social media is going through some things as people are becoming very aware of the toxicity

I’ve been able to curate my FB feed so that I only really get soccer stuff, comedy stuff, generic non-political junk, and 99% innocuous stuff from friends. I have seen a somewhat political post from a couple of right wing friends maybe twice in the last year.

Reddit is also easy to curate. Favorite only non-political topics you like and never visit political forums. Easy.

LinkedIn, for any vaguely political post I just use the feedback to say I don’t want to see topics like that. Keeps my feed very apolitical.

I’ve never done Instagram so no idea about that.

 

[Centerpiece]

If a poll is paid for by campaign funds, then that has to be disclosed when the poll is released.

What Pubs are doing isn't coming from the campaign, it's from party supporters who are willing to work for party success but outside the party structure.

It's really part of the bigger issue in that Dems have taken on the task of both trying to win elections while also upholding the overarching rules and norms of elections. Pubs aren't constrained in that way in that they've created an entire ecosystem built to convince their base of whatever alt-reality they're pushing and they also don't care about a functioning government or electoral process itself.

Pubs gain from pushing false narratives in ways that generally don't benefit Dems to nearly the same amount, so Pubs do so in ways that Dems don't.

Et voilà merci beaucoup.
Exactly the same way Dems eat their own (hello Al Franken) but pubs push dickheads like trump down our collective American throats… claiming all things being equal.

 

[aGDevil2k]

I doubt he's right. The reason the Pubs are dumping polls into PA isn't because they think they are losing there. They were going to do it anyway.

Stop worrying about one poll here or one poll there. The NBC poll was just that -- one poll, and I think it was even registered voters.

The poll did have quite an effect on the 538 forecast, though. It went from 53-46 in favor of Kamala to 53-47 in favor of Kamala.

He's partially right

They increase them when they are concerned. They would have done them... Just way fewer

 

[CFordUNC]

 

[BlueSmoke]

Polling margin of error vs. the poll's expected voter turnout model.

Maybe someone can explain the difference? I tend to think that if the poll's turnout model is wrong then the margin of error doesn't mean anything. But I could be wrong.

 

[treblkickd]

Polling margin of error vs. the poll's expected voter turnout model.

Maybe someone can explain the difference? I tend to think that if the poll's turnout model is wrong then the margin of error doesn't mean anything. But I could be wrong.

Depends on how they compute margin of error, but my understanding is that's usually a purely statistical estimate of the uncertainty. An uncertainty due to turnout model would be an additional, systematic (i.e., this uncertainty does not average down if they do the poll over and over) source of uncertainty (that they probably aren't reporting).

 

[aGDevil2k]

Polling margin of error vs. the poll's expected voter turnout model.

Maybe someone can explain the difference? I tend to think that if the poll's turnout model is wrong then the margin of error doesn't mean anything. But I could be wrong.

if their turnout model is significantly wrong (see 2016) then the whole poll doesnt mean anything. I think they have overcorrected since then.

 

[rodoheel]

Yeah I'm not concerned about the red wave polls, more about the non-red-wave polls that have had concerning results (like NBC national poll showing a tie).

 

[aGDevil2k]

Yeah I'm not concerned about the red wave polls, more about the non-red-wave polls that have had concerning results (like NBC national poll showing a tie).

NBC said this morning that if dems come out strong, then it changes their model to like Harris +3. They admitted (of course) that turnout is the complete unknown.

If Dems (and dem independents) come out and vote, she will win

 

[lawtig02]

NBC said this morning that if dems come out strong, then it changes their model to like Harris +3. They admitted (of course) that turnout is the complete unknown.

If Dems (and dem independents) come out and vote, she will win

Modeling is inexact by definition, but I’m really not sure why anyone would expect anything less than high Dem turnout. Since 2016, Trump in the news, and especially Trump on the ballot, has always resulted in strong Dem turnout.