Seems pretty clear to me. Jt just doesn't match the narrative they are trying to paint to get the communist vote out before it's too late

Didn't see this posted earlier.

🇺🇲 Final National Poll: Leger/@nypost

🟥 Trump: 49%
🟦 Harris: 49%
🟪 Other: 2%

Last poll (9/27) - 🔵 Harris 51-47%
——
538 rank: #84 (2.0/3.0) | Likely voters https://t.co/4i0beWjjb4

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) November 3, 2024

If you look at what that pollster said after he dropped it, he bumped up the black voter estimate and some others (currently lagging in EV). Basically, he fudged his numbers.

I am not kidding. pic.twitter.com/oRn6tnqKp9

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 4, 2024

JDUB08AG said:

---

On simple terms, why is he applying a 2.1% national vote factor when his own polling aggregate is .9%?

---

Because the national polling averages do not contribute much to the model's output.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

JDUB08AG said:

---

On simple terms, why is he applying a 2.1% national vote factor when his own polling aggregate is .9%?

---

Because the national polling averages do not contribute much to the model's output.

---

Then why on his website would he attribute an 85% chance of a trump victory if national polling is between 0 and .9%? It's just pure hedging and a way for him to say, welp you see? I did have something there even thought it didn't factor into my model. It's a load of crap.

JDUB08AG said:

---

Then why on his website would he attribute an 85% chance of a trump victory if national polling is between 0 and .9%?

---

He didn't say that; he says that if the actual margin of the popular vote is between 0 and Harris +1, Trump has an 85% chance of victory.

Again, Daugherty is just misrepresenting what Silver says.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

JDUB08AG said:

---

Then why on his website would he attribute an 85% chance of a trump victory if national polling is between 0 and .9%?

---

He didn't say that; he says that if the actual margin of the popular vote is between 0 and Harris +1, Trump has an 85% chance of victory.

Again, Daugherty is just misrepresenting what Silver says.

---

I really must be missing something. How does his own aggregate polling have her at a .9% margin yet he is factoring in a 2.1% margin in his model?

JDUB08AG said:

---

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

JDUB08AG said:

---

Then why on his website would he attribute an 85% chance of a trump victory if national polling is between 0 and .9%?

---

He didn't say that; he says that if the actual margin of the popular vote is between 0 and Harris +1, Trump has an 85% chance of victory.

Again, Daugherty is just misrepresenting what Silver says.

---

I really must be missing something. How does his own aggregate polling have her at a .9% margin yet he is factoring in a 2.1% margin in his model?

---

Me too. I just looked at his website and he has Harris at +0.7 nationally.

Edit: Unless this idiot is saying two different things in different places. In which case, you cannot trust what he is saying because he is politicking.

And RCP has Trump up .1.

What think I'm hearing is that Bate has KH up by .9 on his free site, but 2+ on his pay site. Isn't that convenient?

JDUB08AG said:

---

I really must be missing something. How does his own aggregate polling have her at a .9% margin yet he is factoring in a 2.1% margin in his model?

---

I really don't know what to say other than to keep repeating the same point: the model is primarily based on state polls, not the aggregate of national polls.

There is no "factoring in"; the model's output is what it is: the peak/50th percentile of the distribution (composed of 40,000 Monte Carlo simulations) is Harris +2.

Tom Fox said:

---

Me too. I just looked at his website and he has Harris at +0.7 nationally.

---

The model is updated at least once per day; the numbers changed minimally from yesterday.

Just remember when people keep asking have they "fixed" the Trump under-polling, it's related directly to the social desirabilty bias. When people are polled over the phone they are more likely to state they are not voting for Trump in order to appease the poll interviewer. This is unique mainly to Trump (although I think you could make a case for Ted Cruz and Kari Lake as well).

There's also the fact that they aren't reaching the low propensity voters either so combine that with the above and just about every poll you're looking at will under-poll Trump.

As someone mentioned above, at this point the polls are 100% about influence and not accuracy. You're much better off on the early voting thread if you want more accuracy about election results.

I think the NYT said white democrats are 16% more likely to respond to polls compared to white republicans.

📊 Final WISCONSIN poll by Trafalgar

🟦 Harris: 48.2% (+1.2)
🟥 Trump: 47.0%
🟪 Other: 2.6%

Last poll (10/20) - 🔴 Trump +0.2
——
WI Senate
🟥 Hovde: 48.4% (+0.5)
🟦 Baldwin: 47.9%

#279 (0.7/3.0) | 1,086 LV | 11/1-3https://t.co/zA4LbU7zQ8 pic.twitter.com/OvnLkC3N9P

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) November 4, 2024

📊 Final MICHIGAN poll by Trafalgar

🟥 Trump: 47.8% (+0.4)
🟦 Harris: 47.4%
🟪 Other: 2.3%

Last poll (10/20) - Trump +1.8
——
MI Senate
🟥 Rogers: 47.4% (+0.1)
🟦 Slotkin: 47.3%

Last poll - 🔵 Slotkin +1.4
——
#279 (0.7/3.0) | 1,086 LV | 11/1-3https://t.co/D4j5xtMwnl pic.twitter.com/djyaYl5yor

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) November 4, 2024

As long as Republicans get out an vote on ED, it is looking good.

Decision Desk HQ/@thehill Battleground Poll Averages:

Florida - 31 polls
🟥 Donald Trump (R): 51.6% (+6.7)
🟦 Kamala Harris (D): 44.9%
[R+2.0 since last month]

Nevada - 54 polls
🟥 Donald Trump (R): 49.0% (+1.8)
🟦 Kamala Harris (D): 47.2%
[R+2.8 since last month]

Georgia - 65…

— Decision Desk HQ (@DecisionDeskHQ) November 4, 2024

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

JDUB08AG said:

---

I really must be missing something. How does his own aggregate polling have her at a .9% margin yet he is factoring in a 2.1% margin in his model?

---

I really don't know what to say other than to keep repeating the same point: the model is primarily based on state polls, not the aggregate of national polls.

There is no "factoring in"; the model's output is what it is: the peak/50th percentile of the distribution (composed of 40,000 Monte Carlo simulations) is Harris +2.

---

So you think it is perfectly reasonable for the nation to shift 5 points to the right nationally but the swing states will have less than 1 percent shift to the right. Yeah that math just doesn't add up. If someone isn't willing to reconcile those discrepancies then they shouldn't be taken seriously.

#Updated Nate Silver model - Electoral collage

Harris takes the lead

🔵 Harris 270 🏆
🔴 Trump 267

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) November 3, 2024

texagbeliever said:

---

So you think it is perfectly reasonable for the nation to shift 5 points to the right nationally but the swing states will have less than 1 percent shift to the right. Yeah that math just doesn't add up. If someone isn't willing to reconcile those discrepancies then they shouldn't be taken seriously.

---

It is true that the national polling suggests more of a movement toward Trump than swing state polling.

There are scenarios where that could be true (for example, Trump gaining a lot of votes in big states he is going to lose), but more likely either the national polls or the state polls are off. Silver's model, by design, puts more value on the aggregate of individual state polls. That is why the model "thinks" Harris is up by slightly more than national polling suggests.

Trump only needs to gain .2 percent from 2020 to win. He'll do that quite easily. Without covid to terrify voters Democrats don't have much of a message.

SIAP

BREAKING: NYT pollster Nate Cohn announces white Republicans were not answering their polls nearly as much as Democrats - and says the polling miss could be similar to 2020. pic.twitter.com/o2rfY9tvQE

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 3, 2024

PM update. A lot of polling in the afternoon, but most of the higher-quality polls fired earlier in the weekend. Declining lead in national polls getting a little bit bearish for Harris, although the model doesn’t care about national polls much.https://t.co/vsGVG18HHI

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 4, 2024

Silver goes bearish last second on Harris.

🇺🇲 Final National Poll: Leger/@nypost

🟥 Trump: 49%
🟦 Harris: 49%
🟪 Other: 2%

Last poll (9/27) - 🔵 Harris 51-47%
——
538 rank: #84 (2.0/3.0) | Likely voters https://t.co/4i0beWjjb4

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) November 3, 2024

📊 ME-2 POLL: @UNHSurveyCenter

🟦 Jared Golden (inc): 45%
🟥 Austin Theriault: 44%

ME-2 (Pres) - 🔴 Trump 48-44%
——
Fav/unfav
Theriault: 40-43 (-3)
Golden: 32-44 (-12)
——
#28 (2.6/3.0) | 683 LV | 10/29-11-2https://t.co/61OBVMMzjq pic.twitter.com/53qFaAVH2Y

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) November 3, 2024

NH is going to be razor tight, but I think it stays blue:

📊 Final NH Governor poll by UNH

🟥 Kelly Ayotte: 48% (+4)
🟦 Joyce Craig: 44%

Last poll - 🔵 Craig +1https://t.co/UstWuRhHVO https://t.co/cSgkRBcktw pic.twitter.com/CDyA0fLTER

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) November 3, 2024

Amazingly, over 76 million have already voted this am.

For whatever it's worth, the Vegas market moved Trump from -130 back up to -140 this morning (Electoral College, not Population)

(It's biggest margin of late was -200 3-4 days ago).

For those that don't understand Vegas (betting lines) ... basically +/-100 or +/-110 is 50/50 ('pickem') odds.

For those that think this is off-topic... it's not. It's predictive just like the polls are - where "the smart money is" on the election based on what people think of the polls and what will happen.

I watch Vegas more than I do the polls themselves...

satexas said:

---

For whatever it's worth, the Vegas market moved Trump from -130 back up to -140 this morning (Electoral College, not Population)

(It's biggest margin of late was -200 3-4 days ago).

For those that don't understand Vegas (betting lines) ... basically +/-100 or +/-110 is 50/50 ('pickem') odds.

For those that think this is off-topic... it's not. It's predictive just like the polls are - where "the smart money is" on the election based on what people think of the polls and what will happen.

I watch Vegas more than I do the polls themselves...

---

For you non gamblers, -140 is equal to about 58% chance Trump wins. It means you have to bet $140 dollars to net a $100 profit.

NH GOP may be able to flip a House seat with those numbers.

I like the poll, other than the Indy splits. Agreed, I opened the pdf just hoping to see if they polled the House race, disappointed they didn't. The most recent one stretched back into October and had her down over 10 (mostly pre-debate).

State of the Race T-1 day. Trump +0.1 boasts well. 2020 avg was biased for Biden by 2.4 pts and 2016 biased for Clinton by 1.1 pt. If the similar bias exists. It’d be Trump by +1 NPV at the minimum which will translate into 312+ EV win by Trump. Now or Never. Go vote!!! pic.twitter.com/tUCu4mMeqh

— au ng (@athein1) November 4, 2024

Those battlegrounds are so freaking tight!

Dude from Trafalgar said to keep an eye on New Hampshire election night. They report early and will tell where the electorate is breaking. Biden won by 7 in 2020

https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024?tid=1730730826795

Trump inching back to 60% on poly market

JUST IN: Donald Trump has reclaimed a 12% lead on Kalshi, just 24 hours before the election!https://t.co/97g5oM0y2a pic.twitter.com/KCxbwfZiKW

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) November 4, 2024

Who is Kalshi?

kgtg79 said:

---

Who is Kalshi?

---

Betting Market

WITH 1 DAY TO GO... TRUMP ODDS SURGE 13.8%

2024 Election (Odds to Win)
🟥Trump 61.1% (+23)
🟦Harris 38.6% pic.twitter.com/DiDdKq3P82

— Election Time (@ElectionTime_) November 4, 2024