after the debate Trump has a rally in Chesapeake Virginia down in the southeast of the commonwealth - appearing with the Virginia Governor.

I would be very happy if Youngkin is the VP nominee.

Wow. I could see it happening based on the timing. Thx.

Youngkin would be an excellent VP pick. Probably the only candidate that could pick up a blue state.

He also has an actual record of governing that would play well with independent voters and suburban housewives.

SA68AG said:

---

Youngkin would be an excellent VP pick. Probably the only candidate that could pick up a blue state.

He also has an actual record of governing that would play well with independent voters and suburban housewives.

---

100% agree

plus while he is not wildly charismatic, he speaks well and seems non-threatening to suburban moms.

that could really help Trump as well.

Is there any historical data that shows that VP choices have any impact whatsoever?

Not likely, but considering the top of the ticket is old as dirt for both parties, they are very important this time. Hopefully at least a little bit of the electorate is thinking about that.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Not likely, but considering the top of the ticket is old as dirt for both parties, they are very important this time. Hopefully at least a little bit of the electorate is thinking about that.

---

You may be giving the electorate, particularly the undecideds, way too much credit.

As a PolSci professor, I'm a poll addict.

I use these websites for balanced, average-based polls:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

and

https://www.270towin.com/

Thoughts?

Jabin said:

---

Is there any historical data that shows that VP choices have any impact whatsoever?

---

Abraham Lincoln's choice of Tennessee's Andrew Johnson, for sure.

Jabin said:

---

Is there any historical data that shows that VP choices have any impact whatsoever?

---

George Bush, Dick Cheney, LBJ.

I'm too lazy to produce data, but trust me.

nortex97 said:

---

RNC investing in Arizona, Nevada and Michigan (senate) races is encouraging;

Quote:

---

I know that is a lot, but if you want Trump to win here and have a chance at electing a United States senator with an R after their name for the first time in 30 years, it is time for us to be honest with the past.
So I'm pleased that it is looking hopeful in Michigan.[url=https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/06/21/senate-gop-reserves-nearly-10m-for-ads-in-michigan-race/74163318007/][/url]

Quote:

---

Ahead of the fall election, Senate Republicans' political arm is making nearly $10 million in TV and digital ad reservations in Michigan, where it's supporting former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers of Brighton for U.S. Senate, according to a GOP source familiar with the total.

The sum is part of the first round of independent expenditures by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which said it begin placing the reservations Thursday in four states: Michigan, Ohio, Nevada and Arizona. The ads would begin running in August, the source said.The move is another signal national Republicans are serious about investing in Michigan's Senate race this fall, even though the state isn't considered a top-tier contest. Earlier this month, the NRSC announced it's spending a seven-figure sum of money on a field programin the state to knock doors.

---

This is better news than I was hoping for as I was looking at the landscape six months ago. Usually, money promised to candidates in Michigan running for statewide office fails to materialize and the Republican candidate winds up losing by between five to seven points. That they are already reserving $10 million worth of ads for the fall is promising, given that is more than we typically get in the Great Lake State.

---

---

They allocated 70 million to Montana race

That is how much each competitive state should get. 10 million is weak, they need to do better than that, the Dem will probably get 100 million

TexasAggie81 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Is there any historical data that shows that VP choices have any impact whatsoever?

---

Abraham Lincoln's choice of Tennessee's Andrew Johnson, for sure.

---

Thanks for that historical information!

Any evidence from the last 100 years? One reason I ask is that an article from several years ago did an in-depth analysis and concluded that the choice had zero impact.

Jabin said:

---

Is there any historical data that shows that VP choices have any impact whatsoever?

---

LBJ helped Kennedy win Texas in 1960 and the national election

The Democratic Party candidate John F. Kennedy, narrowly won the state of Texas with 50.52 percent of the vote to the Republican candidate Vice President Richard Nixon's 48.52%, a margin of two percent, giving him the state's 24 electoral votes.

Dan Quayle solidified the spelling of potatoe.

I stole this off the internet:

Many folks seem to think that Johnson helped in the deep south and Kennedy likely picked him for that reason but there is no clear evidence for that in the numbers.

Let's look at a state that was very close in 1960: Johnson's home state of Texas. In 1952, Democrats got 44.3% of the total vote and 46.69 in Texas. In 1956, it was 42% and 43.98% in Texas. In 1960, it was 49.72% and 50.52% in Texas. And in 1964, it was 61.1 and 63.32 in Texas;

Democrat vote in Texas - Total Democrat vote
1952: 2.39
1956: 1.98
1960: 0.8
1964: 2.22

Johnson doesn't appear to have helped. The vote in Texas in 1960 was slightly less Democratic that it had been compared to the total in other elections near that time.

We can do the same analysis with Georgia:

Democrat vote in Georgia - Total Democrat vote

1952: 25.36
1956: 24.48
1960: 12.8
1964: -15.23

Goldwater won the deep south. No help from Johnson seems apparent. The numbers seem to indicate the the opposite. Opposition to Johnson and his civil rights agenda seems at work.

Louisiana is all over the map:

Democrat vote in Louisiana- Total Democrat vote

1952: 8.62
1956: -2.49
1960: 0.7
1964: -17.91

Exit polls didn't start until after the 1960 election so it is hard to quantify the impact of Johnson on the ticket, but it was likely quite small.

we'd be in such good shape if misspelling potato was the worst thing about any of our last several VPs

you also leave out that John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic to become President.

you don't think having Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas helped Kennedy win Texas by less than 2% ?

LMCane said:

---

you also leave out that John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic to become President.

you don't think having Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas helped Kennedy win Texas by less than 2% ?

---

I'm open on the issue, but need to see the hard data to be convinced.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/polling-guru-gives-donald-trump-66-chance-winning-presidential-election

Silver thinks it will be Trump

2023NCAggies said:

---

https://www.foxnews.com/media/polling-guru-gives-donald-trump-66-chance-winning-presidential-election

Silver thinks it will be Trump

---

Thats a big change. Two weeks ago he was like 51-49 Biden.

I think what we are seeing is as we get closer to November the modeling starts relying more on current polling and less on historical data. I suspect if the polling doesn't change much his modeling will show Trump even more likely.

I can't remember exactly where Silver was in 2016, maybe 75-25 Clinton. He and Cook both knew that Trump had a real if narrow shot and even spelled out where. Funny thing is he got roasted for saying it by the Dems before the election and the Republicans for some stupid reason after.

I don't think Silver is affiliated with 538 anymore, even though 538 sort of pretends he does.

This is Silver's first model of the season.

Drahknor03 said:

---

I don't think Silver is affiliated with 538 anymore, even though 538 sort of pretends he does.

This is Silver's first model of the season.

---

Your right. My mistake.

He owned that for so long that I can't get it out of my head.

Drahknor03 said:

---

I don't think Silver is affiliated with 538 anymore, even though 538 sort of pretends he does.

This is Silver's first model of the season.

---

Notice they took off the poll grades. He use to rate them A~D I think

2023NCAggies said:

---

https://www.foxnews.com/media/polling-guru-gives-donald-trump-66-chance-winning-presidential-election

Silver thinks it will be Trump

---

https://nypost.com/2024/06/26/us-news/famed-polling-expert-nate-silver-makes-trump-heavy-favorite-to-beat-biden-in-november-not-a-toss-up/

To God's ears.

Breitbart headline; Trump pulling ahead.

📊 NATIONAL POLL: Quinnipiac

🟥 Trump: 49% [+2]
🟦 Biden: 45% [-3]
---
🟥 Trump: 43% [+5]
🟦 Biden: 37% [-4]
🟨 RFK Jr: 11% [-3]
🟩 Stein: 2% [=]
🟨 West: 2% [=]
🟪 Oliver: 1% [new]

[+/- change vs May]
—
538: #19 (2.8/3.0) | 1,405 RV| 6/20-24https://t.co/4zsteM2lPe pic.twitter.com/ZIRQBiTzJ5

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) June 26, 2024

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump is pulling ahead of President Joe Biden in the national race for the White House, a Quinnipiac University poll found.

Trump is leading Biden in a matchup ahead of Thursday's presidential debate. According to the poll's results, Trump leads Biden by four percentage points 49 percent support to 45 percent support. This represents a change from Quinnipiac's May poll, in which Biden had the edge, with 48 percent to Trump's 47 percent support. In other words, the Manhattan jury's controversial guilty verdict in Trump's business records trial has had no negative effect on him. Rather, Biden appears to be the one suffering.

Trump also leads among independents, with 51 percent support ten percent higher than Biden's 41 percent support.

In a matchup with third-party candidates, Trump still leads Biden with 43 percent support six points higher than Biden's 37 percent support. That represents a five-point boost for Trump and a four-point loss for Biden since May's survey.

---

Wow, I didn't really believe this was Quinnipiac numbers in your post.

But they are.

Quinnipiac has a historical Dem bias and had Biden +6 in January. May they had Biden +1. That's a ridiculous swing.

agsalaska said:

---

2023NCAggies said:

---

https://www.foxnews.com/media/polling-guru-gives-donald-trump-66-chance-winning-presidential-election

Silver thinks it will be Trump

---

Thats a big change. Two weeks ago he was like 51-49 Biden.

I think what we are seeing is as we get closer to November the modeling starts relying more on current polling and less on historical data. I suspect if the polling doesn't change much his modeling will show Trump even more likely.

I can't remember exactly where Silver was in 2016, maybe 75-25 Clinton. He and Cook both knew that Trump had a real if narrow shot and even spelled out where. Funny thing is he got roasted for saying it by the Dems before the election and the Republicans for some stupid reason after.

---

He isn't with 538 anymore. But, same general model (aggregate polls, weight them by ranking, account for bias, factor fundamentals and Monte Carlo all the paths to >=270 and publish probabilities).

Individual States in '16 he was pretty close, but when tight wins are within the MOE, there's only so much you can do on a electoral forecast. He had Trump at 1/3 and HRC and 2/3, i.e., Hillary had more paths to 270, but Trump still had some paths to 270 in their models.

From Nate's post,

Quote:

---

This is less of a concern for him, though conditional on winning Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania, Biden wins the Electoral College about 97 percent of the time in our simulations.

---

Boils down to the rustbelt.

Biden will "win" all 3 states, and the EC

The polls, even if they're accurate in opinion, don't matter. It's all about who's counting the votes.

The End…

Well I guess Karl Rove was wrong, he was all giddy the other day on Fox showing Trumps average numerical lead shrinking. Boy he loved that Fox poll lol. Back up to 1.5 average lead for Trump

God I hope Trump isn't an ass and complete blowhard tonight.

I have my doubts, I always expect him to dismantle the opponent yet he is terrible most debates. And Rallies does not get you prepared, so he has not changed his debate prep, which is a bad sign.

Quote:

---

I always expect him to dismantle the opponent yet he is terrible most debates. And Rallies does not get you prepared, so he has not changed his debate prep, which is a bad sign.

---

Agree completely. Trump has no self-discipline which makes him not only a bad debater but also a poor President. I'll still vote for him as a vote against Biden, but I continually wonder how we got to the point that those are our only two choices.

[Calling out moderation won't get you anywhere but a ban. This thread is about current polls. A one-off comment about fraud isn't necessarily a problem, but a multi-X post about fraud in the past is a derail, and we removed it. If you want an in depth conversation about election fraud, start a new thread on it -- Staff]

Barnyard96 said:

---

---

Came here to post this. Trump and Republicans need to reach the registered voters that are taken out on the Likely voter poll.

They have a terrible ground game and that is bad news for Trump. You have to reach those registered voters that might stay home

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/

Well?

A 29% chance that Biden drops out via @Polymarket https://t.co/X95VbfTk9R pic.twitter.com/G7aZYmx8ON

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) June 28, 2024

Okay the last time I saw a chart like this was at 4am on Nov 4th 2020

Except there are no mail-in ballots or burst pipes here https://t.co/LFu1AB8nKZ

— Arynne Wexler (@ArynneWexler) June 28, 2024

Too soon?

CNN Directly jumping onto the "Biden needs to step down" rhetoric…

Saw this coming.