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

[Duke Mu]

I don't know if she can really lean into the economy, but Trump is sure as hell running away from the economy. He's all in on immigration and racism as we head to the line. Their polling must be showing the economy is no longer a great argument for Pubs, even if it's also difficult for Dems.

Shouldn't Dems point out that
1. Two of Trump's 3 wives are immigrants

2. Trump ran an underage, undocumented Eastern Euro (white) "modeling agency."

4. Melania's father was a REAL registered communist, and a chain migration benefactor.

Just to show the obvious hypocrisy. Trump really is racist, but it's also a TOOL

 

[nycfan]

I didn't see that point earlier. Is this an intuition or is it backed by something?

Turnout in 2020 -- the highest turnout election of our lives -- was 66%. So "high turnout election" is a relative term. As a percentage of RVs, turnout was higher -- 91%. But again, that was a crazy year (I doubt we get there this year), and even so, there was a significant gap. Because parties are doing such extensive registration outreach efforts, one imagines that turnout as a % of RVs will be lower this year.

Meanwhile, according to Pew, only 37% of voters eligible to vote in 2018, 2020 and 2022 did so. So those 37% are doing something different than the other 63% and it's important to capture that in a poll.

By contrast, I don't see what advantages an RV poll would have over an LV. In the past, an LV screen was considerably more involved than a RV one. But today, even our RV polls are subject to all sorts of weighting and self-selection corrections that LV doesn't seem to me to add much complexity or bias.

Mainly b/c for the big national pollsters (and a number of Red Wave pollsters, too), their RV polls ended up being closer to the outcome than LV polls in 2020 and some evidence of that again in 2022. I’m speculating that is because LV models were built for around 50% participation in a presidential election, but those adjustments tend to overstate older and frequent voters once you get to 2/3 or more participation of registered voters.

 

[lawtig02]

Shouldn't Dems point out that
1. Two of Trump's 3 wives are immigrants

2. Trump ran an underage, undocumented Eastern Euro (white) "modeling agency."

4. Melania's father was a REAL registered communist, and a chain migration benefactor.

Just to show the obvious hypocrisy. Trump really is racist, but it's also a TOOL

People who are still considering voting for Trump couldn't give a flying fuck about any facts regarding Trump. So no, I don't think there's any reason for that to be part of the Dems' closing pitch.

 

[superrific]

Mainly b/c for the big national pollsters (and a number of Red Wave pollsters, too), their RV polls ended up being closer to the outcome than LV polls in 2020 and some evidence of that again in 2022. I’m speculating that is because LV models were built for around 50% participation in a presidential election, but those adjustments tend to overstate older and frequent voters once you get to 2/3 or more participation of registered voters.

One election doesn't a trend make. Of all the things that need to be fixed, the LV screen should be the easiest -- especially if, as you say, the participation rate is a critical variable in the model. It's literally one line of code that needs to be changed. (CONST PARTICIPATION = X).

 

[superrific]

Shouldn't Dems point out that
1. Two of Trump's 3 wives are immigrants

2. Trump ran an underage, undocumented Eastern Euro (white) "modeling agency."

4. Melania's father was a REAL registered communist, and a chain migration benefactor.

Just to show the obvious hypocrisy. Trump really is racist, but it's also a TOOL

Hypocrisy doesn't function the same way for potential Trump voters that it does for liberals. For liberals, hypocrisy is a sign of bullshit, or insincerity. In MAGA world, hypocrisy is prerogative. It's something to be proud of.

 

[nycfan]

Leaked internal polling memo

 

[aGDevil2k]

Leaked internal polling memo

NBC was saying if it ends up D+3 she wins. Interesting

 

[lawtig02]

Leaked internal polling memo

After reading the memo, that’s a freaking catastrophe for the Pubs if it holds. Still a long way to go, but in this scenario, Kamala is president, Dems control the House, and the Senate is 50/50. Can you imagine what we could do if we get all three?

 

[nycfan]

Leaked internal polling memo

So this internal GOP Senate election polling on the POTUS race in states with close senate races + the current lead in the Senate race

State … Trump v Harris (Senate race margin)
AZ 47-47 (D + 5)
MD 31-62 (D+7)
MI 42-45 (D+8)
MT 57-40 (R+4)
NV 46-46 (D+7)
OH 47-43 (D+6)
PA 48-49 (D+2)
TX 50-45 (R+1)
WI 46-45 (D+1)

 

[superrific]

After reading the memo, that’s a freaking catastrophe for the Pubs if it holds. Still a long way to go, but in this scenario, Kamala is president, Dems control the House, and the Senate is 50/50. Can you imagine what we could do if we get all three?

In this scenario, are you assuming Fischer loses NE and the other guy caucuses with Dems?

Because otherwise, it's 51-49 GOP. It's easy to forget that we've already lost WV.

And what we can do if we get all three is . . . watch helplessly as Fetterman turns into Manchin 2.0. No, seriously, though, we would need our whole caucus to vote to get rid of the filibuster or the difference between 51 and 55 won't matter. And after 2020, I'm just going to assume that there's going to be at least one fuckup who does the wrong thing for the country because it's the right thing to maximize his political power. Fetterman, LOL.

 

[superrific]

So this internal GOP Senate election polling on the POTUS race in states with close senate races + the current lead in the Senate race

State … Trump v Harris (Senate race margin)
AZ 47-47 (D + 5)
MD 31-62 (D+7)
MI 42-45 (D+8)
MT 57-40 (R+4)
NV 46-46 (D+7)
OH 47-43 (D+6)
PA 48-49 (D+2)
TX 50-45 (R+1)
WI 46-45 (D+1)

Ah, I see who leaked it now. Ted Cruz. And a bunch of Republicans who want the Dems to throw money into the void in TX.

One thing people forget: the Dems can keep pumping money into MT to support Tester, even in a losing cause, because MT is cheap. TX, by contrast, is not.

 

[lawtig02]

In this scenario, are you assuming Fischer loses NE and the other guy caucuses with Dems?

Because otherwise, it's 51-49 GOP. It's easy to forget that we've already lost WV.

And what we can do if we get all three is . . . watch helplessly as Fetterman turns into Manchin 2.0. No, seriously, though, we would need our whole caucus to vote to get rid of the filibuster or the difference between 51 and 55 won't matter. And after 2020, I'm just going to assume that there's going to be at least one fuckup who does the wrong thing for the country because it's the right thing to maximize his political power. Fetterman, LOL.

I’ve been writing off the senate, so when I say it’s 50-50, I’m accounting for a weird upset. The takeaway for me is that if the Pubs really think the senate is that close, we’re WAY closer to a Dem sweep than we are to Trump winning the presidency.

 

[heelfan108]

It’s not just polls they’re manipulating the media lol

Honestly I think it'll hurt them more than help them. I know of never-trumpers that also rarely vote that will only vote for Kamala if they think Trump is 50/50 or better to win.

 

[superrific]

I’ve been writing off the senate, so when I say it’s 50-50, I’m accounting for a weird upset. The takeaway for me is that if the Pubs really think the senate is that close, we’re WAY closer to a Dem sweep than we are to Trump winning the presidency.

I don't think that optimism is warranted. The whole point of that memo is that Trump is running ahead of the down-ballot candidates. Which is what you'd expect given that 1) Trump dominates the airwaves; 2) the GOP is a Trump cult; 3) Trump has co-opted the GOP's internals for his own benefit; and 4) enjoys free media that covers for his lack of money in a way that Senate candidates just don't.

I mean, this isn't even a difference between polls. You see Trump running, say, 7 or 8 points ahead of Sam Brown in NV in the exact same poll. That's been a pattern replicated over and over again.

 

[lawtig02]

I don't think that optimism is warranted. The whole point of that memo is that Trump is running ahead of the down-ballot candidates. Which is what you'd expect given that 1) Trump dominates the airwaves; 2) the GOP is a Trump cult; 3) Trump has co-opted the GOP's internals for his own benefit; and 4) enjoys free media that covers for his lack of money in a way that Senate candidates just don't.

I mean, this isn't even a difference between polls. You see Trump running, say, 7 or 8 points ahead of Sam Brown in NV in the exact same poll. That's been a pattern replicated over and over again.

I don’t disagree with that. But as I read the poll, Trump isn’t running far enough ahead of the senate candidates to win the election. It will be close, but he’s behind.

 

[Calheel]

Being right once is meaningless. How did he do in 2020, 2018 or 2016?

Regardless of his track record, that analysis above is shit. Objectively.

Not to mention he completely failed in 2022. Said the Dems would win the House. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[LosPollosHermanos]

Only problem is the former President Harris is running against has convinced 1/2 the country that the economy is shit. It doesn't matter what economists say. What matters is the electorate's impression of the economy.

This is 100% true. And your average rural Trumper has no retirement account at all time highs or anything in the stock market. This is no exaggeration - they measure the economy by the price of groceries and gasoline.

 

[superrific]

Not to mention he completely failed in 2022. Said the Dems would win the House. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Well, that's not a complete failure. IIRC he was so strident about it that it made him look foolish, but the election turned out better for us than many or most of us feared. Political forecasting isn't necessarily about who wins. A forecast that gets 50 states right but misses the % in every one by 5 points isn't as good as one that nearly nails all the %s but gets two tossup states wrong.

Regardless, I suspect that you and I would have similar opinions about this man if I bothered to learn more about him.

 

[Calheel]

Political forecasting isn't necessarily about who wins. A forecast that gets 50 states right but misses the % in every one by 5 points isn't as good as one that nearly nails all the %s but gets two tossup states wrong.

That sounds like a quote straight from Nate Silver. But I agree.

Speaking of Mr. Silver, he came up in John Oliver's show last night. There is no bootleg video available yet, but here is the quote:

Clearly, we don’t know what’s ahead on Election Night, though I can confidently predict a few things. First: a little khaki nerd armed with a touchscreen will inspire some of the most depraved thirst tweets the internet’s ever seen. Second, regardless of the results, Nate Silver will tweet, “Actually, this is exactly what I said could happen,” in a heated argument with a 14-year-old with a Spongebob avatar who only tweets, “Nate Silver pees upside down.” And finally: if Trump loses, he will not concede gracefully. He’s already said he’ll only accept the results “if it’s a fair and legal and good election.” And he’s been laying the groundwork to cry foul if he loses.

 

[superrific]

I don’t disagree with that. But as I read the poll, Trump isn’t running far enough ahead of the senate candidates to win the election. It will be close, but he’s behind.

One way we fail ourselves by obsessing about polls is that we convince ourselves that there are a whole bunch of ways to look at an election, when there is really only one. All the rest is repackaging.

You see it with Latino support. It's bad news for Dems that they are only getting 58% of Latino vote now instead of 66%. Dems can't win with 58%, they say. Why not? Look at the polls. They've got Harris leading with Latinos at 58%, because Harris is doing better with white college grads than ever before. The cross-section might be useful for understanding why something is happening, but not the what.

It's bad news for the Dems that Trump is leading on handling the economy and the economy is the most important issue. OK, so look at the polls. They've got Harris leading even with voters saying the economy is the most important issue. It just means that actually, people care about a mix of issues and not just the most important one.

It's bad news for Trump that the Senate candidates are trailing. But look at the polls. Despite these Senators trailing badly, Trump is only 2 points down. That's all baked in. It just means there are people telling pollsters that they will split ticket. Maybe people don't do that as much now . . . unless they start doing it, which is what these polls are telling us. There's no reason to think it can't happen.

All of these cross-sections and different angles are just the same thing sliced differently. The polls might not be accurate (probably aren't completely accurate) but why privilege the Senate polls? The proposition that "Trump isn't doing as well as his polls suggest, because the Senate candidates' polling is so bad" doesn't seem to be superior, in any way, as the proposition that "Trump is running unusually far ahead of the Senate candidates." Either way, we're seeing something different than in the recent past. We don't know if it means that the Senate candidates are being underestimated, Trump overestimated, or more people splitting.