Overpolled plus maybe an enthusiasm gap since Trump wasn't actually on the ballot?IDaggie06 said:rononeill said:
Is it unpossible the pollsters with bad records corrected or improved their methodology? I love the idea that poll XYZ is always off by 4pts, but wouldn't they be trying to better that between election cycles? I can't help but be skeptical about assuming they'll keep being so wrong.
If it was one election, maybe, but both 2016 and 2020 were both off quite a bit. The point has been, that even if they are off half of what they were, with current polls, Trump wins in a landslide. It's very hard to poll Trump supporters.
2022 polls however was grossly over polled for republican senate seats so one could argue that on the other side, but polling off year elections and without Trump is way different.
Muh Polls
789,874 Views |
5744 Replies |
Last: 2 days ago by ts5641
The trend will continue. Usually, the Democrat ground game is far better than the Republican one. Not this time.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 17, 2024
What’s amazing is that Democrats:
1. Are massively outspending Republicans in swing states.
2. Have the “mainstream” aka legacy media almost completely on their… https://t.co/vswOnzaxfy
Is the cake pretty much baked at this point? We're two weeks out essentially. How much poll movement can we expect?
LMCane said:the thing about Silver is that he took a LOT of grief from the leftists about 3 months ago when he was showing Trump winning.Captn_Ag05 said:
Can we please stop giving Nate silver and his "model" legitimacy? He's a fraud and deeply partisan.
then he had the biggest lead for Harris. I do really want his tool to continue to show a growing lead for Trump- he does do 7000 simulations every few days so the better our numbers, the better the Silver Tool will look.
I think his model (and others) is unnecessarily complicated. It just means he lags the simple RCP average in the trending. At least that's what I notice…
4stringAg said:
Is the cake pretty much baked at this point? We're two weeks out essentially. How much poll movement can we expect?
Early voting has started in many states. I would guess 20% of total votes will already be cast 7 days from now.
[We'll remind you this is a thread for a discussion on polls and not derails with your personal opinions. Keep it up and earn another timeout -- Staff]
NC polling and Dem surrogates hitting the region (including Georgia) has been tight, with some 'hope' on the left of depressed rural turnout in Trump areas hit by the hurricane.
So, there's that. Some optimism in NC in the numbers:
Polls support stronger turnout (LV) broadly for Trump voters than among RV:
Emerson is one of the most pro-Democrat 'university' pollsters:
🚨 BREAKING: DEEP RED county in North Carolina has just received a RECORD turnout today - the first day of early voting in the state.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 17, 2024
Yancey County voted for Trump by 33 points in 2020. It also got hit VERY HARD by the hurricane - but that didn't stop voters from coming out.… pic.twitter.com/f6p6ajQPBe
So, there's that. Some optimism in NC in the numbers:
My prediction for North Carolina
— Seth Keshel (@RealSKeshel) October 18, 2024
Trump +350,344
Roughly +6.3% if turnout equals 2020 pic.twitter.com/HCdaCDrnDL
Polls support stronger turnout (LV) broadly for Trump voters than among RV:
This and more coming tomorrow on #InsideTheNumbers
— Rich Baris The People's Pundit (@Peoples_Pundit) October 17, 2024
Registered voters in Pennsylvania trust Donald Trump over Kamala Harris to handle Immigration and Border Security (Rank 3) by a massive margin, 55.8% to 35.0%.
Among likely voters, it's 58.0% to 35.8%.
Emerson is one of the most pro-Democrat 'university' pollsters:
#NEW NATIONAL poll
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 18, 2024
🔵 Harris: 49.5% (+0.3)
🔴 Trump: 49.2%
Last poll: Harris+1.6
Emerson | 10/14-16 | N=1,000LV
Good thread by seemingly non partisan poling wonk
🧵1/The State of Early Voting Post: 10/17
— CA ET Nerd (@earlyvotedata) October 17, 2024
As we are getting into the thick of IPEV, a note of caution for Rs and a dire siren warning for Ds. I want to make this a more in depth thread so it lessens partisanship/bias and just provides facts as they are.
So here we go:
This feels like it should be moved to early voting thread.
Reading the thread it's clear that CA ET Nerd is Republican so I'd take it with a grain of salt.Quo Vadis? said:
Good thread by seemingly non partisan poling wonk🧵1/The State of Early Voting Post: 10/17
— CA ET Nerd (@earlyvotedata) October 17, 2024
As we are getting into the thick of IPEV, a note of caution for Rs and a dire siren warning for Ds. I want to make this a more in depth thread so it lessens partisanship/bias and just provides facts as they are.
So here we go:
New ad from Bob Casey in #PASen hugs Trump. For the first time. I think his polling must say the same thing our polling says. #McCormickMomentum pic.twitter.com/DUKVwJClFA
— Brad Todd (@BradOnMessage) October 18, 2024
This is polling related because apparently a Democrat (Bob Casey) is running pro-Trump ads in Pennsylvania which very likely means his polling is showing he needs to side with Trump for re-election. There really is no other explanation.
lead said:
Senate Prediction Updates (10/1)
Cook Political Report:
Lean D: AZ, NV, PA, WI
Toss Up: MI, OH
Lean R: MT, TX
Results in 51R, 47D, 2 unknown
FiveThirtyEight (% spread for D shown):
Lean D : WI (+5%), MI (+5%), PA (+6%), AZ (+7%)
Toss Up: OH (+2.7%)
Lean R: TX (-3%), FL (-4%), MT (-4%)
Results in 51R, 48D, 1 unknown
RealClearPolling:
Lean D: OH (+4%), PA (+4%), MI (+5%), WI (+3%), AZ (+6%), NV (+8%), MD (+8%)
Lean R: MT (-6%), FL (-4%), TX (-5%)
Results in 51R, 49D
PolyMarket:
By State: MT - R (-56%), OH-tossup (+1%), PA-D (+64%), FL-R (-63%), NV-D (+74%), MI-D (+61%), TX-R (+64%), WI-D (+63%). Results in 51R, 48D, 1 unknown
Number of R seats: <50-11% chance, 50-16%, 51-23%, 52-36%, 53-8%
Democrat Senate Control: 27% chance
Update 10/18: No bad news for the GOP. Biggest change is with Senate polls in Presidential swing states (or "blue wall" states) moving decidedly in the Republican direction and Montana looking like a solid flip. TX/FL/AZ seem unchanged.
Cook
Lean D: AZ, NV, PA
Toss Up: MI, OH, WI
Lean R: MT (TX not shown?)
538
Lean D: WI (+4%), MI (+4%), PA (+5%), AZ (+7%)
Toss Up: OH (+1.7%)
Lean R: TX(-4%), FL(-5%), MT (-5%)
RCP
Lean D: OH (+3%), PA (+4%), MI (+2%), WI (+3%), AZ (+7%), NV (+6%)
Lean R: MT (-7%), FL (-6%), TX (-4%)
PolyMarket:
By State: MT - R (-61%), OH-tossup (-14%), PA-D (+36%), FL-R (-80%), NV-D (+74%), MI-D (+44%), TX-R (+64%), WI-D (+30%), AZ-D (+65%).
Number of R seats: <50- 8% chance, 50-15%, 51-21%, 52-29%, 53-11%
Democrat Senate Control: 21% chance
Thank you.
POTUS-wise Trump is up around 5-8 where it matters vs. 2020.
Baldwin, Brown, Slotkin and Casey must not love their positions at this point:
Democrats have known (even if not all the sheeple):
POTUS-wise Trump is up around 5-8 where it matters vs. 2020.
Baldwin, Brown, Slotkin and Casey must not love their positions at this point:
Democrats have known (even if not all the sheeple):
So those big pro-Harris poll leads were all fake? Oh the horror! https://t.co/u9LpLLswlj
— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 18, 2024
Not to put too fine a point on this but David Plouffe is the Obama digital guru starting from the 2008 election. Remember after 2008 when Maxine Waters was touting the database of voters that Obama had? That was Plouffe. On a granular basis, he has analyzed the electorate down to the precinct level.
Plouffe also wrote a book before 2020 on how to beat Trump on a granular level, went to hi former boss Zuckerberg, to get over 400 million dollars to target again on a granular level, with grants that required those applying for and accepting the money that it be spent exactly as directed, or the money would be owed back.
So when Plouffe says the public polling is fake, it is because he's the one who either directed or knows who directed that to happen. Given hi extensive past behavior, that sounds like an admission against interests to me.
Plouffe also wrote a book before 2020 on how to beat Trump on a granular level, went to hi former boss Zuckerberg, to get over 400 million dollars to target again on a granular level, with grants that required those applying for and accepting the money that it be spent exactly as directed, or the money would be owed back.
So when Plouffe says the public polling is fake, it is because he's the one who either directed or knows who directed that to happen. Given hi extensive past behavior, that sounds like an admission against interests to me.
📊 TIPP Daily Tracking Poll
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) October 18, 2024
🟦 Harris: 49% [=]
🟥 Trump: 47% [+1]
[+/- change vs 10/16]
——
Last 3 polls
10/15 - Harris +4
10/16 - Harris +3
10/17 - Harris +2
——
#115 (1.8/3.0) | 10/15-17 | 1,257 LV | ±2.8https://t.co/teBTPss5Jo pic.twitter.com/CekDs6PKrt
I'm drawing a blank. What is the background on that TIPP pollster?
TIPP was partnered the last few cycles with Investor's Business Daily and was a fairly accurate daily tracker. They are no longer partners with IBD and just started doing their tracker again vs. months long like in prior cycles. I'm not sure if they have the same methodology or people doing the poll or not this cycle, so not sure how much stock to put in them sadly.
Even the slightest underread of Trump voters or, just as likely, lack of Dem enthusiasm depressing their vote will lead to some big Trump wins. I'd be very interested to see how enthusiasm factors into the polling but I don't think I've ever seen it discussed. That could mean it's either too closely guarded, too arcane for the masses or it could mean that it's not factored.
#NEW NATIONAL poll
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 18, 2024
🔴 Trump: 51.1% (+2.2)
🔵 Harris: 48.9%
ActiVote | 10/9-17 | N=1,000LV
TIPP is an "A+" rated pollster, fwiw. They are aligned with Issues and Insights this time, which is very pro-GOP but still their site overall and polls provide excellent insight (pun intended, sorry).
to me this is the biggest news yet-
pray that they have the exact same .5% miss in favor of the democrats in 2024 as they did in 2020. That would even mean an actual Trump popular vote victory
pray that they have the exact same .5% miss in favor of the democrats in 2024 as they did in 2020. That would even mean an actual Trump popular vote victory
In 2020, Emerson was accurate on the national popular vote, being off only 0.5%. They had Biden +5% and the official was Biden 4.5%.
— PollWatch (@PollWatch2020) October 18, 2024
That they have Harris +0.3% points to a likely Trump electoral win and Trump being right there in the popular vote. https://t.co/E4JcSzyHAA
aezmvp said:
Even the slightest underread of Trump voters or, just as likely, lack of Dem enthusiasm depressing their vote will lead to some big Trump wins. I'd be very interested to see how enthusiasm factors into the polling but I don't think I've ever seen it discussed. That could mean it's either too closely guarded, too arcane for the masses or it could mean that it's not factored.
well that is the "likey voter" versus "registered voter" model trying to pinpoint who is actually going to submit ballots
it has always been that the GOP did better in likely voter over registered voter
especially when it's Trump and people who support him are paranoid of anyone asking what they believe
that could really help
LOL, not my favorite pollster but they show DJT getting 29% of the black vote, which of course even if off by a third would be game, set, match:
Thanks. Why I was drawing a blank.Captn_Ag05 said:
TIPP was partnered the last few cycles with Investor's Business Daily and was a fairly accurate daily tracker. They are no longer partners with IBD and just started doing their tracker again vs. months long like in prior cycles. I'm not sure if they have the same methodology or people doing the poll or not this cycle, so not sure how much stock to put in them sadly.
Casey based on these polls
just put out an ad today "hugging" Trump claiming that Casey supports Trump on tariffs and trade
just put out an ad today "hugging" Trump claiming that Casey supports Trump on tariffs and trade
Now that voting is coming in, you can really tell that the Dems are having an issue with enthusiasm. From registrations to actual votes, they are doing both in lower numbers compared to 2020.aezmvp said:
Even the slightest underread of Trump voters or, just as likely, lack of Dem enthusiasm depressing their vote will lead to some big Trump wins. I'd be very interested to see how enthusiasm factors into the polling but I don't think I've ever seen it discussed. That could mean it's either too closely guarded, too arcane for the masses or it could mean that it's not factored.
Now could Dems be waiting til election day to vote? Could be, but unlikely. Seems likely that it is an enthusiasm issue.
let's pray Emerson is extremely accurate but undercounting the popular vote for Trump by .5%nortex97 said:
NC polling and Dem surrogates hitting the region (including Georgia) has been tight, with some 'hope' on the left of depressed rural turnout in Trump areas hit by the hurricane.🚨 BREAKING: DEEP RED county in North Carolina has just received a RECORD turnout today - the first day of early voting in the state.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 17, 2024
Yancey County voted for Trump by 33 points in 2020. It also got hit VERY HARD by the hurricane - but that didn't stop voters from coming out.… pic.twitter.com/f6p6ajQPBe
So, there's that. Some optimism in NC in the numbers:My prediction for North Carolina
— Seth Keshel (@RealSKeshel) October 18, 2024
Trump +350,344
Roughly +6.3% if turnout equals 2020 pic.twitter.com/HCdaCDrnDL
Polls support stronger turnout (LV) broadly for Trump voters than among RV:This and more coming tomorrow on #InsideTheNumbers
— Rich Baris The People's Pundit (@Peoples_Pundit) October 17, 2024
Registered voters in Pennsylvania trust Donald Trump over Kamala Harris to handle Immigration and Border Security (Rank 3) by a massive margin, 55.8% to 35.0%.
Among likely voters, it's 58.0% to 35.8%.
Emerson is one of the most pro-Democrat 'university' pollsters:#NEW NATIONAL poll
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 18, 2024
🔵 Harris: 49.5% (+0.3)
🔴 Trump: 49.2%
Last poll: Harris+1.6
Emerson | 10/14-16 | N=1,000LV
a Trump popular vote win would be literally unbelievable
Agreed. The House is the best barometer of the popular vote, too. Oh, btw:
Republicans are now favorites to win the Presidency, Senate, and House. pic.twitter.com/tbfrrgFHII
— Polymarket (@Polymarket) October 17, 2024
will25u said:Now that voting is coming in, you can really tell that the Dems are having an issue with enthusiasm. From registrations to actual votes, they are doing both in lower numbers compared to 2020.aezmvp said:
Even the slightest underread of Trump voters or, just as likely, lack of Dem enthusiasm depressing their vote will lead to some big Trump wins. I'd be very interested to see how enthusiasm factors into the polling but I don't think I've ever seen it discussed. That could mean it's either too closely guarded, too arcane for the masses or it could mean that it's not factored.
Now could Dems be waiting til election day to vote? Could be, but unlikely. Seems likely that it is an enthusiasm issue.
This is giving me Mondale vibes
Quote:
Now that voting is coming in, you can really tell that the Dems are having an issue with enthusiasm. From registrations to actual votes, they are doing both in lower numbers compared to 2020.
Yep, I've been thinking it for a long time while watching the polls. The '16 polls (which heavily favored Hillary) may have been accurate based on the answers people gave them ... but when push came to shove, people just did NOT show up to pull the lever for her.
I think Harris will have similar issues compared to what current polls suggest... the problem is, the current polls already look bad for her.
Maybe. IIRC likely voter usually just a filter for voting in the last 3-4 elections in most cases. I don't think, or at least I would appreciate it if you would point me towards anything that discusses it I would appreciate it. I'm genuinely curious on the subject.
To me, this reads like Plouffe trying to talk down the dem-biased polling to avoid dem overconfidence...both from a voter turnout standpoint, but also to minimize the "what happened?" questions afterward if Trump wins. If the polls all showed Kamala ahead comfortably, dems might not make the effort to go vote. So he is out there highlighting that their internals show it very close (which is probably still a lie), as a way to convince people that every vote is needed. Not surprising to see that message with what is showing up over on the early voting thread.aggiehawg said:
Not to put too fine a point on this but David Plouffe is the Obama digital guru starting from the 2008 election. Remember after 2008 when Maxine Waters was touting the database of voters that Obama had? That was Plouffe. On a granular basis, he has analyzed the electorate down to the precinct level.
Plouffe also wrote a book before 2020 on how to beat Trump on a granular level, went to hi former boss Zuckerberg, to get over 400 million dollars to target again on a granular level, with grants that required those applying for and accepting the money that it be spent exactly as directed, or the money would be owed back.
So when Plouffe says the public polling is fake, it is because he's the one who either directed or knows who directed that to happen. Given hi extensive past behavior, that sounds like an admission against interests to me.
I think most of the pollsters include a "How like are you to vote in the election?" question, and those who answer very likely or somewhat likely are LVs, everybody else is RV.aezmvp said:
Maybe. IIRC likely voter usually just a filter for voting in the last 3-4 elections in most cases. I don't think, or at least I would appreciate it if you would point me towards anything that discusses it I would appreciate it. I'm genuinely curious on the subject.
NM.
#NEW Nate Silver 2024 election forecast update
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 18, 2024
🔴 Trump: 51.6% [+3.9]
🔵 Harris: 48.1% [-3.9]
[+/- over the last week] pic.twitter.com/fakwCWWn1y
So is that a trend, Nate? Or still "statistical noise"?
Featured Stories
See All
Predictability leads to disappointment in A&M's 17-7 loss to Texas
by Olin Buchanan
27:34
7h ago
8.2k
21:58
6h ago
7.9k
Photo Gallery: No. 3 Texas 17, No. 20 Texas A&M 7
by Zoe Kelton
No. 20 Aggies finish Players Era with a 81-77 victory over Rutgers
by Luke Evangelist