Can we have a thread dedicated to election polls? - Part 2

Mein Fuhrer.

Part 1

This is a duplicate thread started in error.

Please continue on OP's second thread.

PICK ONE!

Actually, I'm OP of the 1st thread, but you should continue on the first 2nd thread posted, which I did not see before making this one.

Actually, choose whichever second thread you please.

Thank you, such a mench.

Please post as below

Whoops, meant to post in this thread. Not the fake new thread.

I, for one, would like to know what's going on with Polymarket. Is it being flooded by crypto Trumpers?

When does the convention bump come??? Seriously, had it already been overshadowed by RFK's dropping out? Does it usually come a bit later? I was really hoping for at least a 6-point national lead.

Inside memo of the expected RFK bump. I think they're being VERY generous.

By the way, does anyone here actually use Polymarket or know someone who does? I wouldn't take it seriously at all except that it's results now regularly posted along with reputable pollsters and it could be swaying people.

Ring of Fire talking about how, yes, Texas COULD actually have a chance at flipping this year or at the very least, 2028. There is more than hope, there's SUPPORTING DATA.

R10 Tony Fabrizio, longterm MAGA slut.

Majority of RFK voters will more likely stay home or not vote...

Also, fuck RFK

Get your shit together PA!

Agreed, R13. I imagine the remaining RFK base is comprised of either right-leaning libertarian types who would be more likely to go with Chase Oliver, or left-leaning environmentalist types who would be more likely to go with Jill Stein. The remaining nitwits would just stay home.

R14 SERIOUSLY, I am a bit shocked we aren't seeing more of a lead in PA. I can't figure it out.

The biggest jump I'm seeing in the polls since the convention is related to unfavorability. Harris at an all time low of 1.9 and Trump at an all time high of 9.7.

Meidas Touch video on the now over 4 million strong PAC of Nikki Haley voters who are now backing Harris. The number of voters from that group that lives in each battleground state would put Harris WAY over the threshold needed to win each (hundreds of thousands in most).

[quote]I, for one, would like to know what's going on with Polymarket. Is it being flooded by crypto Trumpers?

Polymarket is a betting market that's updated every four hours. I tried following a betting market company over the weekend to see what the stock market would open at on Monday and it was notoriously wrong. Polymarket currently has Trump leading with 50% and Harris at 49%.

R19 Yes, that's what I thought. Also, since it's mostly comprised of Muskian crypto nerds, my guess is they're not throwing their bitcoins behind Harris easily. There are thousands of bot threats in the comment sections about how Harris is going to outlaw bitcoin.

How long has Polymarket been around? Has it ever correctly predicted an election?

There are a couple of essential things to note here. First, yes, Trump has gained slightly more than Harris from the change, although it’s pretty minor, a net gain of 0.3 percentage points. And second, we’re seeing the beginnings of a convention bounce for Harris. Even with the Kennedy change, She’s now ahead by 4.0 points in the national polling average versus 2.3 points when the DNC started. Our best guess is that her lead will increase further, especially given that almost none of the polling was done after her strong acceptance speech on Thursday.

First, sorry for my part in making the ask that prompted two dueling threads. I’ll stick with this one - thanks OP!

Current FiveThirtyEight polling averages for the battleground states, Sat 8/24:

Wisconsin: Harris +3.8% Michigan: Harris +3.4% Penn: Harris +1.8% Arizona: Harris +1.4% Nevada: Harris +0.6% North Carolina: Harris +0.1% Georgia: Trump +0.5%

Factors in Harris’ favor: Convention bounce incoming, she’s trouncing Trump in fundraising, bigger rallies and positive energy, much better likability rating, and she is drawing an Obama 2008 type coalition of younger and non-white voters who tend to be underrepresented in the polls.

Factors in Trump’s favor: RFK Jr endorsement, and the polls underrepresented him by 3-4% the last two times he was the nominee. That last part still gives me an uneasy feeling. But all in all Harris is in the stronger position.

Harris opens up a much wider lead.

Nate Silver sees a silver lining

R23 Thanks for the insight, Torta. What do you know about when convention bumps show up? I guess in my head I was expecting it to come right away. Does it normally take a week or two?

Ron Brownstein said the Democratic Party should pay to send Kennedy to the suburbs of Detroit & Philadelphia to campaign for Trump.

R26, usually a poll is taken over 2 to 4 days and published 1 to 2 days after that. So to include reaction to Harris’s speech on Thursday night, we’d want to wait for polls that will be published starting Monday.

I’m optimistic for at least a 2 to 3 pt bump — the convention was one of the Democrats’ best and she truly nailed her moment.

Thanks, Torta! Phew, that's good to know. I've been hand-wringing over the 3.6 national lead. I feel like I can't relax until we're at least 6 points ahead nationally and at least 4 points ahead in PA.

There’s no relaxing even with a 6 point national lead, R29. Clinton & Biden had bigger leads in their elections at this point.

R30 I mean "relaxed" to the point that poll-checking doesn't require a Xanax.

Is a convention bump usually temporary? Like it’ll go back down after the hype is over?

R32 I've heard quite a lot of language inferring that, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me unless something happens between the convention and election day to change people's mind. Frankly, unless Harris gets up at the podium on debate day and just farts over all of her lines that her DNC gains just dissolve. The fact is that Trump has a ceiling of support, and that ceiling appears to be 46%. As long as Harris can keep hers at 53% or more, there isn't much Trump can do to overtake her.

^Ack! That was meant to say: *Frankly, unless Harris gets up at the podium on debate day and just farts over all of her lines, I can't imagine that her DNC gains just dissolve.

[quote]Ron Brownstein said the Democratic Party should pay to send Kennedy to the suburbs of Detroit & Philadelphia to campaign for Trump.

And Vance with him.

R32, yes - historically the “Convention bump” is usually temporary. So many things about this contest are unusual, though. The Biden/Harris switch, most obviously. To say “Trump is polarizing” is a hell of an understatement, and we have never before had someone serve 1 term, lose their reelection bid and then doggedly try again the next time.

[quote] we have never before had someone serve 1 term, lose their reelection bid and then doggedly try again the next time

Well I'll be damned.

Ha, I forgot all about Grover Cleveland. Thanks!

What ever happened to Poll Troll?

I don’t know where to put this, this or the other part 2, but this poll has Kamala up nationally by 7, even more when they ask about race or gender. Hopefully Trump and Vance never shut up about her being a black woman.

(Spoiler: They won't because they can’t.)

Things are looking up!

I received this most cautionary email from The New Republic today:

[quote] The speeches have been given, and the convention parties are over. With just 72 days to go, we are now officially in the homestretch of this horse race.

[quote] As this week’s convention showed, the Democrats are fired up and ready to go. And things are looking good for the moment.

[quote] But pollsters admit that the last eight years have taught us the polls cannot be trusted, and this election can turn on a dime.

[quote] In 2016, polling told us the Democrats more or less had the election sewn up—which turned out to be one of the most infamous polling gaps in our nation’s history. And in 2020, the polls were even worse—the numbers predicted Biden would win the election handily, and they were off by a whopping average of 3.9 points nationally. While Dems were able to eke out a win for the presidency, they lost many seats in the House of Representatives, barely hanging on to a tiny majority.

[quote] If the polls we’re seeing this week are off by as much as they were in 2020, Trump will win. ​​And that’s just considering the polls that are public. Chauncey McLean, the president of a pro-Harris super PAC, said, "Our numbers are much less rosy than what you’re seeing in public."

[quote] We can’t afford to repeat the shocking results of 2016.

Cincy burbs back with an update.

I came home tonight to find some rethug had left a dump of propaganda on my door. I totally forgot I voted rethug in the primary to ratfuck.

Seems the orange fool is pushing EARLY VOTING now, after screeching against it and claiming it’s fraud.

So, someone has spent money on the printing and canvassing AND dump has now decided that early voting is ok (altho I hope the cult ignores him and stays home)

He's afraid that his base is sick of him and will stay home on election day, the day when his base votes.

R40, they reported that on the local news this morning. I was like wow….

The Rethugs are truly panicked.

[quote]The Rethugs are truly panicked.

But Ms. Lindsey said in his Sunday morning interview yesterday that anyone waiting for new polices from Kamala will die waiting!

NYT/Sienna / Marquette / Monmouth, get your asses moving on post-convention polling!! We're being drowned out by right-wing pollsters and it's dragging us down!

Key Takeaways:

No convention bump for Harris: Surveys conducted in the three days that followed the Democratic National Convention in Chicago show Harris leading Trump 48% to 44%, unchanged since last week and tying a record high set earlier this month. Harris has not trailed Trump in a single daily tracking survey since we first updated this page with their head-to-head matchup in late July.

But her media honeymoon continues: For the fifth week running, voters remain more likely to say they heard something positive (47%) than negative (32%) about Harris by a double-digit margin. That 15-percentage-point margin for Harris is the best net buzz rating she’s posted in surveys conducted on a weekly basis since November 2022. What voters hear about Trump, meanwhile, has trended slightly more positive over the past two weeks since dipping to 20 points underwater at the beginning of August.

Walz’s popularity grows: Following the DNC, 42% of voters hold favorable views of Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, up from 39% ahead of the weeklong gathering, while the share with unfavorable views (36%) went unchanged. It makes him the least-disliked name on the 2024 ticket, though he remains the least known.

Forecast breakdowns for 8/26

Kaplan poll with a +1 R sampling has her up nationally by 7. Now this is the kind of lead I was hoping to see post-convention.

Still too early to fully measure a "post-convention bump"... but given the momentum already emerging toward Harris my guess it won't be hugely significant.

One thing I've noticed about recent polls... even the ones that traditionally skew to R... Trump never crosses 50%, but Harris is above 50% in several now. No matter what else happens - October surprises, Harris interviews and press conferences, debates - I think Trump has a hard ceiling of support and Harris has a lot more potential support.

The co-writer of Game Change who is not John Heilemann is now saying that Trumpworld has gained in confidence in recent days, principally citing their private polling showing that the Sun Belt states are holding in their favor, leaving Kamala with winning the Blue Wall states (& Nebraska-2) as now her lone path to victory.

As a Nevadan, that is bullshit r55.

R55 Because "Trumpworld" is such an unimpeachable source of what's going on, and what will happen.

Only path? Let's see how much Trump spends now in North Carolina.

New poll from the Florida Atlantic University Political Communication and Public Opinion Research Lab ( PolCom Lab ) and Mainstreet Research USA:

Harris holds a 49% to 45% lead over Trump among likely voters.

She has gained strong support among women, with 53% backing her, while 45% of men favor her. Trump’s base remains predominantly male, with 47% support from men, compared to 41% from women.

Harris also holds substantial advantages among Black voters (73%), Hispanic voters (51%), and white college-educated voters (57%). Trump, however, continues to command strong support among white voters without a college degree, with 59% favoring him.

Great to see R58 (Florida Atlantic) get posted just now while I was putting the below post together. While feeling restless, I gathered a week to week analysis of small positive movement toward Harris in the battleground states, based on FiveThirtyEight's polling averages. In alphabetical order:

ARIZONA. Aug 27: Harris +1.0%. Aug 20: Harris +0.7%. Gain of 0.3% for Harris. With a difference of just 1%, Arizona is essentially tied.

GEORGIA. Aug 27: Trump +0.8%. Aug 20: Trump +1.2%. Gain of 0.4% for Harris. Same as AZ, Georgia is essentially tied.

MICHIGAN. Aug 27: Harris +3.1%. Aug 20: Harris +2.8%. Gain of 0.3% for Harris. She looks likely to win Michigan.

NEVADA. Aug 27: Harris +0.6%. Aug 20: Harris +0.4%. Gain of 0.2% for Harris. Nevada is looking tied.

NORTH CAROLINA. Aug 27: Harris +0.2%. Aug 20: Trump +0.1%. Gain of 0.3% for Harris. North Carolina is looking tied.

PENNSYLVANIA. Aug 27: Harris +1.6%. Aug 20: Harris +1.3%. Gain of 0.3% for Harris. Pennsylvania is looking tied but slightly more hopeful for Harris.

WISCONSIN. Aug 27: Harris +3.7%. Aug 20: Harris +3.2%. Gain of 0.5% for Harris. Wisconsin looks good for Harris.

The small week to week gains for Harris are remarkably consistent across all 7 battleground states. We'll see if she makes a few more incremental gains like this, week to week, or if things level off. All in all, she is in a far better position than Trump. It's not just the polling -- it's the fundraising, the volunteer energy, the size and enthusiasm of her campaign events, and the slowly rising trend line (so far). Good reasons to be optimistic.

[quote] Because "Trumpworld" is such an unimpeachable source of what's going on, and what will happen.

Noted, but, whatever his personal peccadillos, I find this writer to be pretty intellectually honest, with very good sources. And I've posted numerous comments of his that have been great succor to Harris & her chances.

Fair point R60, but in this case it's "I have sources who say they have secret math that you all don't see and they say Trump is doing better in Georgia and Arizona". Not exactly facts.

Is there any poll anywhere that shows trend TOWARD Trump? It's pretty universal that there is movement toward supporting Harris. If the election were held today it's likely that Harris would win the popular vote and probably the electoral college. But more important: the momentum is hers.

Week by week, we need to keep the momentum. So far I have faith that Harris and her campaign know how to win the news cycle....

Debate, Fed lowering interest rate, inflation lowering, Gaza ceasefire (I believe Biden will FORCE this to happen, crime rate data showing continued decline. border crossings continuing to lesson, Walz owning Vance.... it does seem like all the potential is with Harris. Time will tell. Can't let up our efforts. But the sun is rising....

Everything you listed, R62, plus I think the continued campaign-trail images and videos of Harris looking stronger and happier and younger than Trump, and getting bigger crowds who seem a lot more fired up. She will hurt him in the side by side comparisons every week.

Full court press!

Yeah, hasn’t orange stopped doing his stupid rallies?

Not like many people were showing up, but he’s been in hiding for months (not that I’m complaining. I wish he’d hide six feet under).

No bump in this post-convention poll.

Other factors pointing towards Harris…

pull quote:

Donald Trump's advantage over Kamala Harris on the economy and crime is eroding among U.S. voters, a sign the Democratic vice president's campaign is gathering momentum ahead of the Nov. 5 presidential election, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Let's check in on JD Vance as he crisscrosses the country on his charm offensive, shall we?

Keep at it, JD!

Trump’s very own brilliant Top of the line Ivy uni dumps all over his asswipe tax plans

In this just-released Fox poll of the so-called Sun Belt states, Harris is up in Arizona (+1), Georgia (+2) & Nevada (+2). And down by 1 in North Carolina.

[quote] In past Fox News surveys, Biden trailed Trump in each state: by 5 points in both Arizona and Nevada (June), by 6 in Georgia (April), and by 5 points in North Carolina (February).

[quote] The new surveys find Trump achieves his 2020 vote percentage in the head-to-head race in every state except Georgia, while Harris meets or exceeds Biden’s 2020 vote share across the states.

[quote] In 2020, Trump won North Carolina by just over 1 point, while Biden narrowly won the other three states (Arizona and Georgia by less than 1 point and Nevada by over 2 points).

[quote] Overall, in an average of the four states, Harris is ahead of Trump by a single point in the two-way match-up, 50% to 49%. That 1-point Harris edge also holds among the 7 in 10 voters who say they are extremely motivated to cast a ballot this year.

[quote] "These results show Harris has succeeded at expanding the electoral map. When Biden was at the top of the ticket, the only pathway to an electoral college victory for the Democrat ticket was a sweep of the blue wall states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania," says Democratic pollster Chris Anderson. "That’s no longer the case with these Sun Belt states in play." Anderson and Republican Daron Shaw makeup the bipartisan team that conducts Fox News surveys.

Spiralin JD

Not a poll, but certainly telling:

Voter registration among young Black women is up more than 175% compared to the same time in 2020.

I'm going to guess they're not voting for Trump.

Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump 45% to 41% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Thursday that showed the vice president sparking new enthusiasm among voters and shaking up the race ahead of the Nov. 5 election.

The 4 percentage point advantage among registered voters was wider than a 1 point lead Harris held over the former president in a late July Reuters/Ipsos poll. The new poll, which was conducted in the eight days ended Wednesday and had a 2 percentage point margin of error, showed Harris picking up support among women and Hispanics.

Harris led Trump by 49% to 36% - or 13 percentage points - among both women voters and Hispanic voters. Across four Reuters/Ipsos polls conducted in July, Harris had a 9 point lead among women and a 6 point lead among Hispanics...

MARVELOUS, R76!

The ketchup removal crew will be busy at Mar-a-Lago today.

That’s great. As long as Harris leads by at 4% nationally, she has a good shot to win the electoral votes needed.

..at least..

You understand that is within the margin of error? You do, don’t you? Still a toss-up

Yes, R81 - I think most everyone understands that this is going to be incredibly tight. But will you please indulge us and let us be hopeful? Is that possible?

Will I indulge people who don’t take into account the most elementary rules for understanding a poll? No, I shall not.

[bold]Exclusive: Kamala Harris surges ahead of Donald Trump in latest poll taken after DNC[/bold]

Democrat Kamala Harris has surged ahead of Republican Donald Trump, 48%-43%, a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll found.

The findings reflect an eight-point turnaround in the presidential race from late June, when Trump had led President Joe Biden in the survey by nearly four points.

The vice president's small lead was fueled by big shifts among some key demographic groups traditionally crucial for Democrats, including Hispanic and Black voters and young people. Among those with annual incomes of less than $20,000, in the biggest change, a three-point Trump edge over Biden in June has become a 23-point Harris advantage over Trump in August.

The poll of 1,000 likely voters, taken by landline and cell phone Sunday through Wednesday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. With the election approaching, the survey is now measuring likely voters; previous polls were of registered voters...

Within margin of error^

Trump advisers pin hopes on debate performance!

Now that’s outside the margin of error😎

R83 And with your superior expertise in reading polls, you understand that the real significance of polls are not the numbers representing a static quantity of support, but rather movement, trends, changes in support over time. And polls overwhelmingly, and really in an unprecedented way, show a shift of support to Harris in the last three weeks. ALL polls.

So, given your wisdom, you must delight in the movement (if you are a Harris supporter) despairing in it (if you are not).

Alas, poor idiot—I was replying to a post that made an absolutist argument that she had clearly moved ahead. Further, if the earlier and current polls both sit within the margin of error, then there may well be no actual “movement” at all. Why—because that’s how polling works.

I'd like to have access to the parties' private polls.

R89, me too. The reason Dump is trying to get more blocks of voters (like Libertarians) is that the private polling—which costs beaucoup bucks—is telling him his support has topped out in his traditional demos.

BLUE LANDSLIDE. If Harris wins all the mushy states by 1% in a final vote count, the EC Map will look like Reagan's.

A 1% win still gives all the votes to the winner. NC, GA, NV, PA, MI, WI and I am willing to wager that OHIO votes Blue.

Harris is exactly what TRANSITIONING America needed at a time when Trump does not understand how HATED he is.

This one is for r87

R91 flunked basic electoral history. Or he left school in the 5th grade. Even I won’t buy his bullshit.

489 in 1980

525 in 1984

Poor Nancy should have consulted her Astrologer, r93.

R90 His own private pollster runs a firm that just published public polls…

Trump is not trying to capture Libertarians—makes no sense, as that’s a very small pool of actual voters. His hope is to increase turnout in his base across the Blue Wall states, since without at least one of them he has no chance.

R88 So your informed opinion is that "there is no movement of support toward Harris" in the polls? Ahem.

My opinion is that is a toss up, because the polls cited in the most recent threads are within the margin of error.

As they need to be for the pollsters to not commit the sins of 2016.

Who needs a pollster who is wrong and as long as everything remains within the margin of error, they are safe and can bill with confidence.

We shall see what movement there is when Early Voting starts and real numbers roll in.

No, dummy. The margin of error is a fundamental concept of statistical probability. It applies well beyond the world of opinion polling.

Did any of you actual go to school?!

R95 there is no doubt one of his strategies—perhaps the most important—is to increase turnout among his base. However, there’s a reason he spoke to libertarians and black journalists. He can’t depend on just increasing turnout, he has to make inroads in other demos. He just doesn’t have enough base to win. Any campaign strategist will tell you that there are multiple approaches they take to win, not just one.

Oops meant to add at my post at r100…Dump doesn’t need to capture a whole demo, he can peel of pieces of them, which may make a difference in a race as close as this one appears to be.

No. His success relies on increased turnout of his base in those three states. It is how he won in 2016, and it is how Biden outdid him in 2020. There is no definable pool of libertarians, and good luck with minority voters. It’s down to brass tacks. Ride or die with the irregular voters already inclined to support you.

[quote] BLUE LANDSLIDE.

Not happening. Americans will vote with their wallets. Americans cannot afford shit.

r99, and have you ever taken a stats class? Have you ever understood how the QUESTION asked can skew a result? Have you ever had a pollster publish the actual question asked? Have you published push polling? All polling is not the empirical social science we are led to believe, even if they use statistical and probability controls. The reason there are so many pollsters is that they POLL FOR THE RESULTS THEY WANT. Right now, in this cycle, the polls must show "a tight race" otherwise voters may be lulled into not voting. THAT is what happened in 2016 with UNLIKABLE Hillary. And THAT is not going to happen again. Pollsters will keep polling until their N gives them the result they want. Oh, and they KNOW which sample groups give them the results they want. That is why the sample NOW is ALL VOTERS. They will move to likely voters, and after the deadlines to REGISTERED voters.

Polling is such a scam.

Again r102, I didn’t say that that wasn’t the case. Of course, his success relies on that. I’m simply stating that the campaign can’t just rely only on that, they should implement multiple efforts to get additional voters. My feeling is (and it’s just an opinion) that the campaign is getting data that his numbers are soft—that there isn’t enough enthusiasm from his base to put him over the top. Now, of course they’re going to focus their major efforts on getting out the vote. But there has to be a reason he’s going after other demos. Why would the campaign even waste their time on them? Again, he doesn’t need a lot, if the race is close. 10,000 here, 10,000 there, and who knows what might make a difference.

A statistical sampling of your post shows an unusual propensity for capital letters and excess verbiage, well outside the margin of error.

The rolling average indicates you are likely better off by learning to form paragraphs.

For R104^

r103: Not happening. Americans will vote with their wallets. Americans cannot afford shit.

Not being ripped off by Trump Co IS voting their wallets. Not having Trump rip off the middle class with MORE tax cuts for the rich IS voting their wallets. Voting to secure ObamaCare, Medicare and Social Security IS voting their wallets. You are right, Americans cannot afford shit like Trump and Vance.

Harris/Walz 2024/2028

r106/7, and history has shown that when Fascists lose of SUBSTANCE, they go after FORM.

G'fuck yasef.

You talk funny

[quote] Dump doesn’t need to capture a whole demo, he can peel of pieces of them, which may make a difference in a race as close as this one appears to be.

It's how Biden won. He increased Hillary's share of blue wave state whites by 5% & that made the difference there.

for r106:

[R99], and have you ever taken a stats class?

Have you ever understood how the QUESTION asked can skew a result?

Have you ever had a pollster publish the actual question asked?

Have you published push polling?

All polling is not the empirical social science we are led to believe, even if they use statistical and probability controls.

The reason there are so many pollsters is that they POLL FOR THE RESULTS THEY WANT.

Right now, in this cycle, the polls must show "a tight race" otherwise voters may be lulled into not voting. THAT is what happened in 2016 with UNLIKABLE Hillary. And THAT is not going to happen again.

Pollsters will keep polling until their N gives them the result they want.

Oh, and they KNOW which sample groups give them the results they want.

That is why the sample NOW is ALL VOTERS. They will move to likely voters, and after the deadlines to REGISTERED voters.

Polling is such a scam. =======================================

And those are EMPHASIS caps; raise you voice in your mind's just a little bit when you read them... for emphasis.

Emphasis caps are used by people who FUCK UP the BOLD CAPS feature.

R111 in other words, he won by increasing turnout among his base…those otherwise fairly disposed to support him.

Take a chILL pILL!

[quote] in other words, he won by increasing turnout among his base…those otherwise fairly disposed to support him.

Not at all. To their everlasting shame, whites have always been & continue to be part of Trump's base.

If you look at the voting patterns from 2020: he benefited from an increase in support from white voters compared to Hillary. He got more support from a larger pool of white voters…which is why he won 7 million more votes. The pattern was evident across several states…which is why they called it a pattern.

[quote]Not happening. Americans will vote with their wallets. Americans cannot afford shit.

"My finances are tight, so I'm going to vote for the candidate promising to put me even further in the hole!"

In 2016, Trump won whites - 70% of the electorate - 57-37; In 2020, Trump won whites - 67% of the electorate - 58-41.

[quote]If you look at the voting patterns from 2020: he benefited from an increase in support from white voters compared to Hillary.

Harris/Waltz reaching out to those voters:

r116, white racists. That is what his evangelical base is composed of. The Sons of The Plantation who now support Project 2025.

And those FEMALE white racists may vote for Harris because of Dobbs.

What do they say, the White Racist block is not a MONOLITH?

😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣😆😆😆😁

Let's have a thread dedicated to polls which we then disavow.

40k people registered to vote after Biden dropped out. Registrations among black women up 175 percent.

Good.

Now those newly registered voters need to VOTE.

Early voting totals aren’t counted until Election Day. Thank the thugs for that. Nor is mail in voting.

[quote] white racists.

Rhetoric like this is why people stopped voting for Democrats.

[quote] white racists.

[quote] Rhetoric like this is why people stopped voting for Democrats.

The truth hurts.

R112, do they not have Xanax where you live?

To ignore that White National Supremacists are racist is the German people ignoring the bad parts of Nazism.

The foundation of the White Heritage Foundation is racism. Unless you are headless.

R123, that data on new voter registrations is so encouraging, especially the details.

I believe most polling outfits try to replicate, demographically, what they believe the last presidential electorate looked like. But the demographics of the electorate are changing right now from new registrations, and changing in ways that will benefit Harris and hurt Trump, even by just 2% or so, that's significant.

Let's hope. Oh and somebody up above needs to switch to decaf.

For the first time since Aug. 3, Nate Silver now makes Trump the favorite - by a 52.4%-47.3 margin. But Harris has a 97% chance of winning if she takes North Carolina. And there's an 86% chance that North Carolina & Georgia will vote together.

[quote]Rhetoric like this is why people stopped voting for Democrats.

Oh, you mean the party that has consistently been winning the popular vote in presidential elections?

NC is going to go blue in the 2024 election. No, there's no abortion measure on the ballot, but NC has a very, very unpopular republican candidate for governor. He's a religious extremist who believes women shouldn't have the right to vote and the like. So I think Harris will win NC. Whether she will take Georgia remains to be seen, but I honestly think that she will. Trump is not popular with Georgia leadership, and if Harris can work that into her campaign, she'll win it easily.

The shift was as to the race for governor, not for President.😵‍💫

Georgia is already planning to steal it, r132. They have put election deniers in charge of vote counting.

They know they can't win, so they're cheating. AGAIN.

All of their gerrymandering, moving polling locations, throwing voters off the rolls, etc. is part of their plan to keep minority straight, white males in power despite rapidly changing demographics.

GOPigs can win with millions less votes and Dems have win by a complete and total landslide, which will still be contested.

[quote] According to Morning Consult’s August surveys for Bloomberg News, Vice President Kamala Harris leads former President Donald Trump among registered voters in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, while the two are tied in Arizona.

^Schwing pole!

R136 Do you have PRO access to the PDFs in report? I'd love to know the exact numbers--particularly in PA and NC.

^*in the report

AZ-even Ga-+2 Mich-+3 NC-+2 NV-+4 Pa-+4 Wisc-+8

Those numbers are amazing. PA +4?!?

HALLE-FREAKIN-LUJAH!

538 - the real one

Digesting all the recent polls: I think Harris will win both Georgia and NC. And NV. If she does, she can lose MI, WI, AZ.... and PA (and I do think PA might be shaky) and still win. Harris 276.

Silver's model is cranky... even he says some of its elements are questionable. I.e. Trump inched back ahead because the model takes a "convention bounce" rise as temporary. That may not be true in this cycle.

And don't be surprised when Ohio goes Blue.

New Bloomberg/Morning Consult polls (RVs here):

Wisconsin: Harris 52/44

Pennsylvania: Harris 51/47

Nevada: Harris 49/45

Michigan: Harris 49/46

[that's 270+]

Georgia: Harris 49/47

North Carolina: Harris 49/47

Arizona: 48/48

All but one (Wisconsin) within the margin of error

Link to the Morning consult for R138. It's 4320 pages.

r146, and that's where pollsters want to keep their audience until Early voting gets people...voting.

Bump here, bump there, here a bump, there a bump, everywhere a bump-bump, but Old Mc Polster within the error, E-I-E-I-O.

Not you again—shut up already…we know you don’t understand margin of error in calculating statistical probabilities.

You again? You do not know how data is manipulated in calculating statistical probabilities.

Thank you, R148

Trump does not invest much effort in persuading voters to join his team. His rhetoric is designed to mobilize the convinced, not to sway moderates and independents. The same tendency is visible in his selection of J.D. Vance as his running mate. Vance’s long-standing obsession with fertility, and his attacks on childless people, aren’t intended to appeal to persuadable women; they appeal, rather, to right-leaning men who fear they’ve lost ground as women advanced. It’s less clear whether his strategy, such as it is, can defeat Harris in a general election.

[quote] Trump does not invest much effort in persuading voters to join his team. His rhetoric is designed to mobilize the convinced, not to sway moderates and independents.

It's also to attract the many, many registered/unregistered people who don't vote.

That’s what the word “mobilize” means….

Harris edges Trump in key states—so says Bloomberg.

[quote]Trump does not invest much effort in persuading voters to join his team. His rhetoric is designed to mobilize the convinced, not to sway moderates and independents.

Seems to me his rhetoric is mostly designed to make his followers believe victory is inevitable and position them for another uprising if he loses.

I’m pretty sure he wants his followers to vote. First things first.

R158 But in his mishmash of illogic and mishmash of hucksterism he sends odd messaging: "Don't vote by mail!" "I don't need your vote" "You'll never have to vote again"

I agree w/the argument above that a central message for the MAGA faithful is: "There is no way we lose the election unless it gets stolen from us"... and we've seen the ramifications of "the Steal"... and this election MAGA has put in place officials, new protocols (e.g. the GA and AZ certification processes), observers, that will all add to their "evidence" about rigged election. Funny, he jokes about exile in Venezuela and what he's doing now is pretty much what Maduro did to assure the election result.

So, apropos to the topic of this thread: the best way to fight back against election results manipulation is to win in all the swing states by 4-5%.

He wants his followers to vote. I didn’t say he wanted anyone else to vote. Geez…it’s not that hard to understand.

Burn Kari burn.

Trump +1 in this new PA poll.

R162, that poll has them both at 49%.

Yeah, I see now that the the Trump +1 is in a 5-person race. It is tied in on one-on-one race. The pollster indicated that Pennsylvania is the toughest get of the Blue Wall states for Harris because it is the oldest of the three.

The poll also found that Harris was up 7 if Shapiro was her running mate. And Harris was up 2 if Haley was Trump's running mate.

Any guesses what the October surprise will be?

R166 According to extremely in-the-know Bulwark sources (including Kinzinger), it's going to be a number of big-name Republicans like Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Liz Cheney, and Jeb Bush stepping up to endorse and campaign for Harris. They're going to wait until the last possible moment to gauge whether or not it's safe for them.

That really would be a surprise, r167, especially if W Bush joins in, as I’ve heard is also rumored.

Not much of a surprise, R167, & certainly nothing that would be a game changer. Any voter who'd be swayed by the likes of a Harris endorsement by Republican stalwarts is likely already in her camp. I would love to see Gen. John Kelly cut a commercial talking about what he saw during the presidency, although that, too, might not have much effect, as who Trump is is so firmly baked in by now.

MAGAts see any non-MAGAt rethug as a heretic who should be burned at the stake.

Let them kill each other. Serves them all right.

Mitt Romney will not endorse Harris.

Mormons do not endorse working women.

The COLDS exists only for women to be functional vaginas for pleasure and uteri for reproduction.

The rest is upholstery.

COLDS?

Church Of Latter Day Saints

THEY use LDS, but COLDS is more accurate for us non-believers.

Of course, the RCP site leads its "Latest Battleground Polls" section today by highlighting the Trafalgar poll of the Blue Wall states showing Trump +2 in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan & up won in Wisconsin. Trafalgar, it should be noted, does not even merit a rating in 538's rankings & then there's this in its Wikipedia entry:

[quote] Trafalgar's polls for the 2022 midterms were inaccurate, predicting Republican wins or close races in multiple states where Republicans ended up losing by significant margins.

[quote] Trafalgar does not fully disclose its polling methodology, which has drawn criticism from conventional pollsters. FiveThirtyEight has found that Trafalgar typically overestimates Republican Party performance by two points.

Trafalgar may still be using the same methodology, but let's still act like their numbers in MI, WI, and PA are accurate and GOTV!

RCP's continued use of Republican-leaning, bad pollsters is why the continued citing of its average of polls in many arms of the media is journalistic malpractice.

I hate to admit it, because I geek out on this stuff obsessively, but... we're all in a cloud of unknowing.

If the polls are undercounting Trump by 3% to 4% like they did in 2016 and 2020, and they might be doing so again, then we're fucked.

If this time is different and voter reaction to the June 2022 SCOTUS Dobbs/abortion decision has changed things, and if Kamala Harris as our new nominee has changed everything and has caused a surge of younger voters, women voters, and black voters that is not being accounted for by the pollsters... then we win decisively.

I'll keep tracking and posting about it because obsessions are obsessions... but if you're out there feeling anxious about the election, that is a valid feeling.

64 days to go...

[quote] I'll keep tracking and posting about it because obsessions are obsessions... but if you're out there feeling anxious about the election, that is a valid feeling.

Yes, a much more valid feeling than those who somehow think this race is already in the bag for Harris.

May we vote like it’s 2020 and the polls are undercounting Trump voters by 4% and may the results mirror the Suozzi election and show the polls were undercounting Democratic votes by 10%.

too much math. go get a booster shot.

[quote] May we vote like it’s 2020 and the polls are undercounting Trump voters by 4% and may the results mirror the Suozzi election and show the polls were undercounting Democratic votes by 10%.

The problem is that special elections, even mid-term elections, are not the best gauge for predicting general elections. which attract a much bigger electorate.

I value these threads on the polls (though not sure why there are two), but it's also possible to feel a sense of joy and possibility and blessed relief AND work like hell because the election is close, and we might be a bit behind at this point.

I'd add a qualification to R182's sobering post: since Dobbs, abortion rights have been a strong motivator for the Democratic vote, and this year there are abortion referenda in some states that give the general election something of the character of a special election. It might even be true that Dobbs gives even a general election between a pro-choice candidate and an anti-choice candidate something of that extra boost.

No post-convention bounce in the ABC/Ipsos poll, but Harris retains up 6 nationally, 52-46, among likely voters.

R184, Dobbs has energized every Red State Senate race.

Every Red State Senator running for reelection voted TWICE to acquit Trump on Impeachment and also voted for all three of Trump's defective Supreme Court Justices.

Mitch McConnell knew that the way to corrupt the US Government was through the Senate and he didn't miss.

I cannot wait to piss on turtle’s grave.

And smear some shit for good measure

Well....the race is tightening? The polls are scaring me.

R189, you're right. The race is tightening... just a little.

Here's my weekly Tuesday to Tuesday roundup of the polling averages on FiveThirtyEight. Meant to show a broad sense of movement. And yeah... after three or four weeks of steady incremental gains, Harris slid back down just a little this past week, vs Trump. Not a cause for panic, but some unease* is justified. (*This site is vast-majority-Team Harris, and let's presume this thread is nearly 100% Harris)

Ok.... the data.

ARIZONA. Sept 3: Harris +0.2%. Aug 27: Harris +1.0%. Loss of 0.8%. AZ (11 EVs) remains tied.

GEORGIA. Sept 3: Harris +0.4%. Aug 27: Trump +0.8%. Gain of 1.2%. This is the bright spot in the update, amid a larger pattern of small setbacks. GA (16 EVs) remains tied.

MICHIGAN. Sept 3: Harris +2.3%. Aug 27: Harris +3.1%. Loss of 0.8%. MI (15 EVs) remains slight Harris lead but "tied" from a statistical, margin-of-error sense.

NEVADA. Sept 3: Harris +0.7%. Aug 27: Harris +0.6%. Gain of 0.1%. NV (6 EVs) remains tied.

NORTH CAROLINA. Sept 3: Trump +0.4%. Aug 27: Harris +0.2%. Loss of 0.6%. NC (16 EVs) remains tied.

PENNSYLVANIA. Sept 3: Harris +1.2%. Aug 27: Harris +1.6%. Loss of 0.4%. PA remains tied, statistically speaking.

WISCONSIN. Sept 3: Harris +3.1%. Aug 27: Harris +3.7%. Loss of 0.6%. WI remains a Harris slight lead, but within the statistical margin of error.

NATIONAL. Sept 3: Harris +3.2%. Aug 27: Harris +3.4%. Loss of 0.2%. This matches the average loss/gain of all 7 battleground states above.

Here's the reason to be uneasy (and that's an understatement), those of us who care a lot about the outcome. If the polls are off by just 2% in Harris's favor... just 2%... then Donald Trump wins all the battleground states except Wisconsin and *maybe* Michigan. He wins.

Conversely, if the polls are off by just 2% in Trump's favor.. Kamala Harris sweeps all 7 battleground states for 300+ EVs. Everything Biden won in 2020, plus North Carolina. She wins.

And we don't have any solid clue if the polls are off in either direction, and anyone who claims they do is deluded or bullshitting us. Stressed? Me too, a little. Maybe more than a little. Cue the "just smoke copious amounts of pot" troll.

Here's the 2024 Electoral Map if -- *if* -- the polls are bullseye accurate which they never are. It looks great! Harris 303, Trump 235.

.. but here's the 2024 Electoral Map if the polls are off by 2.5% in Harris's favor, i.e., undercounting Trump by 2.5%. Trump 302, Harris 236.

... and that's all imagining if the election were held today. We'll see what the debate does, a week from today. Debates don't usually change everything dramatically, but June 27 sure did.

Unless & until the pollsters have corrected their errors over the last two presidential elections, I think we need to take blue wall polling with a healthy dose of cynicism. It's these states - unlike, interestingly, the Sun Belt states - that have seriously undercounted Trump's ultimate vote.

Unless something weird happens at the debate, the current “lead” in polling will be the same until mid-late October, when any “shift” by late breakers. And early voting will have already been underway.

Short answer: expect little or zero change in these numbers over the next 45 days.

I truly believe that there's a blue wave coming, no matter what the polls say. The enthusiasm and new voter registarations are through the roof. And, remember, every single abortion law on the ballot, even in red states, passed. My worry is that it's got to be big enough to offset the disenfranchisments and crooked goings on in certain states. (Looking at you Georgia!)

On today's call, the co-writer of Game Change who is not John Heilemann cited the ranking of the seven states in order that Harris is most likely to win from one of his sources, "a very smart person who's kind of an objective analyst." From most likely to least likely, his order was, 1. Michigan, 2. Wisconsin, 3. Georgia, 4. Nevada, 5. Arizona, 6. Pennsylvania, & 7. North Carolina. The host said that, in this calculation, he would only flip Michigan & Wisconsin.

^ His two co-hosts, Democratic & Republican operatives, would both move Pennsylvania up to third. The host noted that they both thought the Blue Wall states were the most likely to go to Harris, with the host noting his belief that he wasn't so sure that the Harris campaign would agree with that assessment.

If she won 3, 4 and 5 she would not even need Pennsylvania.

A big if, R200, but yes. And she wouldn't even need Nebraska-2.

Pat McCrory, the former republican governor of North Carolina, later co-chair of No Labels, was later on the call & was asked if he agreed with the assessment that his state was the least of the seven battleground states to go to Harris. He said he did not, & would move the state closer to the middle of the pack, citing the "whole new group of people who've come in since Covid." He said they're primarily from the Northeast & their politics are just not known.

^ likely

It would be helpful to know the trend over time for what percentage of the people called don’t answer the phone.

r194, the Debate will be won by Harris with no bump.

The pollsters saw that Hillary won all her debates with Trump and she was going on to win, but we now have burned pollsters who have no balls, only old polling lists that they can manipulate.

No bump, and the only real information will be exit polls with early voting in three weeks.

Watch the rallies, listen to Trump's lies and stand back for AMERICA TO VOTE ON THE ERA.

While not scientific, here's my prediction.

R206, you first lost me with Florida. I’ll take that seriously when the Democrats invest their first dime there. But you irretrievably lost me with the inclusion of Montana. Montana?!

R207 Yeah, won't happen. But Dems are putting resources into FL.... just this morning Kobuchar had a rally right outside of Mar-a-Lago, focusing on the ballot initiative on reproductive rights.

^^ Klobuchar

If they’re sending people to FL. They must have some good polling numbers.

Legal weed AND abortion rights are on the ballot in Florida. Florida is in play.

Poll whores, rejoice! Dan Pfeiffer of Pod Save America has a new podcast called 'Pollercoaster' and the PSA YouTube channel released a sampler video from it. Very interesting, in-depth poll analysis with some new insights and perspectives you're not used to hearing.

A quick, Torta, thank you for your service post. R189

Meh —nothing very original …she rehashes the consensus, repeatedly.

R206 Now we know where the most stupid people live, in the middle of the country and the south.

[quote] Now we know where the most stupid people live, in the middle of the country and the south.

Now? We’ve known for a long time.

Nate Cohn:

Nationwide, Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump by three percentage points, 49 percent to 46 percent. Across the battleground states, the race is a dead heat. In every state and nationwide, the polling average is within 1.5 points of the result of the 2020 presidential election.”

“In short, the polls finally show the close election that analysts expected a year ago, before President Biden’s candidacy went off the rails.”

A couple of people I work with would respond to pollsters that they absolutely are going to vote and they're going to vote for Trump. I was shocked to find that they did not vote in 2020. It might come down to who is motivated to actually go vote. I'm hoping that people who are too lazy to see what a useless dick Trump is will also be too lazy to vote.

I think there's a good chance, as the show drags on, that Trump will have the effect of depressing the Republican vote because he's looking crazier all the time and really has nothing substantive to say.

[quote]and really has nothing substantive to say.

And that's on his good days, when he isn't howling like a crazed banshee.

The latest NYT/Siena College poll has Trump ahead 48% to 47% among likely voters. Clearly, not where we need to be.

The only thing I would remember about these NY times polls articles is who is writing them.

Maggie Haberman.

Remember who her family works for and remember the money she made writing a book on Trump and being an access journalist.

[quote] The only thing I would remember about these NY times polls articles is who is writing them.

[quote] Maggie Haberman.

Nope, it's Nate Cohn's handiwork.

Harris up 1 in Michigan, up 2 in Wisconsin and tied in Pennsylvania.

Does someone have a voodoo doll? If you do, can you please voodoo Dump?

He IS a fucking voodoo doll, r225.

One that has been repeatedly poked in the face and head.

It’s the only thing that accounts for his shriveled, leathery skin and straw hair.

Nate Silver:

[quote]This morning’s NYT/Siena poll contained a pair of questions on whether voters think Harris is too liberal/progressive and whether Trump is too conservative. The numbers were lopsided in Trump’s favor. Only 32 percent of voters said Trump was too conservative, while 47 said Harris was too liberal. The demographics on this question are about what you might expect. Harris is faring poorly among white voters without college degrees, rural voters, and older voters: the types of voters who are plentiful in Blue Wall states like Pennsylvania.

Will the "[f]uck Nate Silver ... [h]e needs another job that he's better at" from the Nate Silver thread give him any credit now?

r227, Trump is not conservative, he is a fascist dictator in the works. They asked the wrong question...AGAIN!

Right—I’m sure that’s what accounts for the poll. All the people who say Trump isn’t too conservative because he’s a would-be fascist dictator.

Trump doesn't suffer from a lack of identity. The "people" know who he is & apparently are primed to put him back in office. Brings to mind Mo Udall's quip after finishing second in several 1976 Democratic primaries:

[quote] The people have spoken — the bastards.

Yeah Jack, this is Faye Dunaway... Look I've raced some of the stuff from the O'Neill interview but I'm not really interested in Terry O'Neill - he's a BIG, BIG LIAR and I'm really not interested in in him and you know all and dilly-dallying and carrying over Mommie Dearest...I don't even want to discuss it in my interview or on this Lloyd-Webber thing: those are NEGATIVES and I notice that you have nothing in about Marlon Brando, you have nothing in about Johnny Depp which I did two films with, I don't expect you to get get him for an interview, but you could put some footage in of the of the Kusturica movie which I was BRILLIANT in and it was not well sold in this country you can talk about the Marlon Brando film that I was wonderful in. All the POSITIVE things along that that period, the Marlon Brando film was going on at the same time that the Lloyd-Webber STUPIDITY was going on and you all have to put in the Lloyd-Webber STUPIDITY, you can't put in that I worked with the wonderful Marlon Brando and talk to the director of that movie FOR CHRISTSAKE! And I'm not gonna approve it and I'm really upset now because that uh for two nights now tried to thread through that STUPID interview with a with a man that I will not even waste my time discussing. And and you know who, suffice it to say, stopped working when he married me and pretended to be my manager for a very long time so LET'S NOT EVEN GO THERE! It's very upsetting to me! And then to put my uh our child in JEOPARDY the way he has. So I'm not interested in these NEGATIVE things that you all are putting in there with me in! I don't want Llloys-Webber in, I'd like you to cut him out, and I'd like you to really trim down everything to do with that Mommie Dearest, I'm not gonna talk about it, maybe one thing I'm gonna say about it and THAT'S ALL. It's just like uh you know an obsession, why can't you be obsessed about POSITIVE THINGS?! About Marlon Brando? About the Kusturica movie that was THE HIT OF ALL THE EUROPE AND CANNES? About uh, the film I did with Brando and talk to that, YOU KNOW?!

Wrong thread, R232?

So maybe the Harris campaign may want to invest in Florida. Especially since Pennsylvania looks tough.

The latest Quinnipiac polls of NC & Georgia:

[quote] NORTH CAROLINA: Harris 49%, Trump 46%, Stein 1%

[quote] EORGIA: Trump 49%, Harris 45%, West 1%, De la Cruz 1%

R234 I think she actually has a better chance at Florida than PA. Same goes for Texas. Everyone has been insisting I'm out of my mind, but I am dying on this hill.

In addition to Florida, the newly-released Morning Consult poll has some more good news.

Tuesday weekly update. Here's the 7-day movement in the FiveThirtyEight polling averages for the 7 battleground states and National. Unfortunately it's the 2nd consecutive week where the race is tightening a little more, in Trump's favor, after the first 4 weeks of August were looking increasingly good for Harris. Hoping and praying that tonight's ABC debate damages him and helps Harris.

The data:

ARIZONA. Sept 10: Trump +0.6. Sept 3: Harris +0.2%. Loss of 0.6%. AZ (11 EVs) remains tied.

GEORGIA. Sept 10: Trump +0.5%. Sept 3: Harris +0.4%. Loss of 0.9%. GA (16 EVs) remains tied.

MICHIGAN. Sept 10: Harris +1.9%. Sept 3: Harris +2.3%. Loss of 0.4%. MI (15 EVs) remains a slight Harris lead but "tied" from a statistical, margin-of-error sense.

NEVADA. Sept 10: Harris +0.4%. Sept 3: Harris +0.7%. Loss of 0.3%. NV (6 EVs) remains tied.

NORTH CAROLINA. Sept 10: Harris +0.3%. Sept 3: Trump +0.4%. Gain of 0.9%. This is the one bright spot in this week's update, an improvement for Harris. NC (16 EVs) remains tied.

PENNSYLVANIA. Sept 10: Harris +1.0. Sept 3: Harris +1.2%. Loss of 0.2%. PA remains tied, statistically speaking.

WISCONSIN. Sept 10: Harris +2.8%. Sept 3: Harris +3.1%. Loss of 0.3%. WI remains a Harris slight lead, but within the statistical margin of error.

NATIONAL. Sept 10: Harris +2.8%. Sept 3: Harris +3.2%. Loss of 0.4%. This is in sync with the average loss/gain of all 7 battleground states above.

Things could change in Harris's favor, over the coming month. But right now it's looking extremely tight.. and trending just a little in a not-good way. Early voting starts around Oct 8 in Arizona and Wisconsin, and vote-by-mail will start to happen this month across several states as well. So we need to see some positive signs in the polls, 1 or 2 weeks from now.

(Correction: early voting starts around Oct 8 in Arizona and *Georgia.* It starts later in October for several other battleground states.

Thank you, Torta!

Torta, we just cannot overlook the fact that the Trump vote has been seriously undercounted in polling for the Blue Wall states in both '16 & '20. Maybe the polling has since been corrected, but - for this post only - I'm from Missouri, so show me. So these small leads there just don't give me grounds for much optimism.

I pay no attention to the polls. Why should I, if they show Kamala losing it will just piss me off. I think she's doing better than Trump no matter what the polls show.

R242 is a moron.

Right now, the pollsters are all fighting each other in order to keep this race tight. NOBODY will call it for Kamala until EXIT POLLING of actual voters.

R241 you’re absolutely correct. It is unnerving .. we don’t know whether the polls are undercounting Trump by 3-4% for the third time in a row, or if this time is different and the polls are missing some of Harris’s supporters especially brand new registered voters.

It’s going to be a stressful eight weeks no matter what happens tonight, unless Trump strokes out or has a grand mal meltdown.

So which was it, Torta, did he stroke out last night or have a grand mal meltdown? Or a little of each?

Curious to see some numbers.

R246 ha, well… not a grand mal meltdown exactly but Kamala really trounced him, bested him, manipulated him and he committed so many unforced errors.

Let’s hope she gets a 2%-3% rise out of this and keeps it. That feels reachable to me. I don’t know if we can realistically hope for better than that.

Are you kidding me r248? He was laughable: migrants eating pets, Dems demanding abortions at 9 months, "executing" full term babies, this country is terrible and awful, yadda yadda....he was an incoherent, angry lying mess.

[quote] Dems demanding abortions at 9 months

After nine months. :)

Right r250. When the baby is already born! Which is far outside the definition of abortion. He is nuts.

What he is really doing is confusing people over Evangelical Biology with personhood crap and abortion killing.

Evangelical Biology is as good as safe tobacco and climate hoaxing. Bullshit.

My dimwit mother asked me if I watched the debate, I said yeah she smoked him and she said she thought he did very well. You CANNOT make people think.

R253 The lesson that we keep on learning: how can anyone not see that the Emperor has no clothes. How is it possible that the race is still tied after a debate like we say last night where one person was a sentient human and the other was confused bully.

Because once you have swallowed the Kool-Aid, you will absolutely deny anything that your choice to ... um... swallow, was very, very mistaken.

Of course living in the rightwing media miasma (Fox et.al.) just confirms and intensifies the denial.

r253, is your mother a basic racist who would lose privilege if Trump loses?

R255 I've never heard her say racist stuff but she enjoyed watching The Apprentice. Her thinking reminds me of a young woman I work with who has an affinity for authoritarian figures. Also my mother and the young woman I work with are both from small towns and they both abhor complex or critical thinking. My mother is very old and she is NEVER sick, she never doubts or questions herself. I asked her once if she ever loved me and she said "Of course, you're so capable". A lot of mothers would be horrified by such a question but she never gave it another thought. We are surrounded by weirdos.

[quote]Dems demanding abortions at 9 months

Not a thing. I asked repeatedly.

[quote] I've never heard her say racist stuff but she enjoyed watching The Apprentice.

I enjoyed watching The Apprentice. too. But I never saw in its reality show host a future president. Jeff Probst ... maybe. But never Donald Trump.

And Probst has a cock Donald would kill for.

Reuters now has Harris up by 5 (47-42) among registered voters, one point more than her 45-41 lead in its last poll, two weeks ago.

Nice, R260. Thanks for sharing that one. So the pie-wedge of voters not choosing Harris or Trump has gotten smaller, from 14% two weeks ago to 11% now.

I am clicking on FiveThirtyEight's average every day, but so far no movement in the direction we want! Hopefully by the weekend.

Post-debate, Morning Consult also has Harris up by 5 (50-45). On the day of the debate, her lead was 50-46. Pre-debate, it was a 49-46 race.

We're at the stage now where all the 'big moments' we knew about in advance, have happened. The VP picks, the conventions, and now the debate. (It's not clear if there will be another, Trump is pussyfooting and indicating No)

Now it's just campaigning, and Harris will outwork Trump in the battleground states so that should help a little. I don't think the GOP has an October surprise.. they failed to have one on Biden the last time. And Harris is under no investigations (bogus or legit) like Hillary was in 2016. But you never know. And it's not impossible that Harris's camp has one on Trump.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's October Surprise is something to do with Melania. Like medical emergency or she's attacked like him being "shot at" in Pennsylvania.

Marquette poll of Wisconsin has Harris up by 4 (52-48) among registered voters.

I personally think Harris will win Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. She will also win Nevada and Arizona. She will lose all the southern states, including Florida, Georgia and North Carolina.

r266, and win OHIO.

I think she can get North Carolina.

I think she wins everything/anything by a whisker and that nothing will be clear clear (reading my Whoopi Style Guide this morning) until late November or possibly even early January... lawsuits and other craziness will follow election day.

I think so, too, R268 - but RFK has borked up NC ballots. It'll cut down on the time overseas soldiers/citizens have to vote and get their ballots back, as well as cut down on the amount of time they have for early voting. The bastard.

There is so much argument against Kamala's accomplishments as VP- has anybody brought up what Pence accomplished during his time? It would be interesting to hear Trump spin it, especially since he considers him not a good employee anymore.

Mark McKinnon believes Harris will win the presidency, while losing Pennsylvania. He sees her making up for the loss of Pennsylvania by winning North Carolina & either Georgia or Arizona.

I just can't see Georgia. Sorry, too many racists. For old white Biden, yes. For Harris, no. I think she can get NC and, because of abortion, possibly Arizona and maybe even Florida. Both have abortion on the ballot. But Biden lost by about 3.7m votes. Maybe that isn't recoverable. I don't know. I don't think she'll lose Florida by that margin.

R272, I feared Biden's 2024 chances in Georgia without Warnock on the ballot, but I think Kamala at the top of the ticket will be significant. Of course, at this point at least, it must be noted that her poll numbers are lagging behind Biden's among Black women.

It does occur to me that video was made for other cancer patients and survivors. I mean she says as much-she’s right there with them through the uncertainty.

Wrong thread sorry

C’mon! I find it really hard to believe that black women, a core constituency of the Democratic Party, are not backing Harris more than Biden, r273.

Maybe some of them are upset about the way Joe was forced out (yes, that still bothers me), but they should be all in on Harris.

Especially considering the alternative.

Those dogs the Haitians are hunting and eating are now attacking Trump. Apparently he wasn't fibbing.

R276 It's true...I've heard them on Sarah Longwell's focus groups. There are more self-loathing, colorist, crab-in-a-bucket black women out there than you'd think.

But it's very conceivable more Kamala-hesitant Black women will come back to the fold, increasing her likelihood of winning.

[quote] Mark McKinnon believes Harris will win the presidency, while losing Pennsylvania. He sees her making up for the loss of Pennsylvania by winning North Carolina & either Georgia or Arizona.

David Axelrod, who's consistently pointed to Harris's uphill battle, isn't so sanguine. He's "increasingly of the mind" that if Harris doesn't win Pennsylvania that there's not another path to victory. He also noted that it would be "unusual" for a Democrat to lose Pennsylvania but still be able to win Michigan & Wisconsin.

[quote] What he is really doing is confusing people over Evangelical Biology with personhood crap and abortion killing. Evangelical Biology is as good as safe tobacco and climate hoaxing. Bullshit.

Democrats don’t even know what a woman is, so they’re both dumb as shit.

I just don’t see PA going for Harris. Not only is she a woman, she’s black, and she’s liberal. That’s three strikes against her there. PA, and even Philly this year, has gone full MAGA.

[quote] But it's very conceivable more Kamala-hesitant Black women will come back to the fold, increasing her likelihood of winning.

Philly doesn’t win elections. There are only so many blacks in America, and most of them don’t vote for begin with.

[quote] C’mon! I find it really hard to believe that black women, a core constituency of the Democratic Party, are not backing Harris more than Biden

She’s not considered African-American in the black community and they hate her because she was a prosecutor and pro-police. They hated her back in 2020. They voted for Biden over her. The black community is very cultural conservative. A black woman running the country doesn’t sit well with black woman and black men support Trump by a pretty significant margin.

[quote] For Harris, no. I think she can get NC and, because of abortion, possibly Arizona and maybe even Florida.

Florida?! Honey, put down the pipe.

[quote] There is so much argument against Kamala's accomplishments as VP- has anybody brought up what Pence accomplished during his time?

Pence isn’t running for president and he had governing experience.

In the first post-debate poll - by Yahoo News/YouGov, a A+-rated pollster - to show more than a point increase, Harris, in a 4 point uptick since August, is up 5 (50-45) among registered voters & up 4 (49-45) among likely voters.

The co-writer of Game Change who is not John Heilemann today said today on his platform that, when looking at polling, "All I care about is if Donald Trump is able to define Kamala Harris outside the mainstream." Trump, he said, probably wins if he does, loses if he does not. "Every poll I look at I look through that prism." He then pivoted to two new polls, the Des Moines Register poll of Iowa & the Financial Times (FT). With respect to the former, he noted that, with the exception of abortion, Trump leads on every trait, yet the poll is "very close" in a state Trump has handily won the last two cycles. This, he said, is a "[g]reat sign for Kamala Harris [as] it means she doesn't have to cut the gap completely on these issues." The FT poll shows Harris doing better - albeit within the margin of error - on the economy. "If I'm right," he concluded, "and the whole thing is binary, can [Trump] define her or not, the answer, in these two polls, is he's not defining her with fifty days left to do it and [Harris] is doing a great job, mostly, of playing defense."

R288 Agreed that the info from that Iowa poll is more encouraging than any of the recent polls that show Harris up by 4-5% nationally. It suggests that she'll have a shot at PA. This race is winnable.

In terms of the comment at r288, why is it that the election hinges on what Donald Trump is able to do vis a vis Harris - defining her in his terms, defining her views - rather than what Harris is able to do to define herself, and bring her own unique charisma and youthful energy (yes, it matters in this election) to the table.

Trump is crazier than ever, old, and just looks and sounds just plain worn out. Harris in contrast has a youthful spiritedness that translates very well on tv and in speeches/rallies. This stuff matters, and I believe it matters greatly in this election in terms of the swing voters. Stances on the issues are always relevant, but not primary this time, IMO. And even if so, Harris is doing fine on defining her own stances.

Trump of course is the better-known candidate in terms of his views, so maybe that's what not-Heilemann is referring to.

He’s too busy dodging billets from his own crazy base, r289, to do anything else.

Besides golf. And scream about Hannibal Lecter, cats and dogs being eat, sharks jumping batteries, windmills, solar panel radiation and God knows what else incoherent babble.

[quote] why is it that the election hinges on what Donald Trump is able to do vis a vis Harris - defining her in his terms, defining her views - rather than what Harris is able to do to define herself, and bring her own unique charisma and youthful energy (yes, it matters in this election) to the table.

One, there's the real Electoral College structural advantage Republicans enjoy. Two, Harris is the vice president to a(n) (undeservedly) unpopular president.

I think the observations is (and it's good, if not definitive) is that there is a mixed race, child of black and Indian immigrants, a woman, from the dreaded "liberal" failed city (per the obnoxious navel-smelling MAGA bleaters), a CA progressive, attached at the hip to the dreaded old man Biden and his "inflation"... Trump's adds (mainstream and targeted) drive home the idea she's The Other. This is the argument that can shift voters who don't really like Trump (for instance, the vaunted suburban women in the Philly suburbs) to vote for him anyway. This attack has infinite funding from Musk's "lemme suck Trump's dick" PAC.

The Iowa poll suggests he's not having great success with this angle.

Sometimes really different isn’t as problematic as slightly different.

Another good poll result!

And yet another!

R295 and R296 - bad links.

Sorry about that.

R295 link:

Morning Consult's new national poll:

Harris leads Trump 51% to 45%.

Morning Consult polls weekly, and this is a Democrat's biggest lead over Trump dating to early 2023.

R296 link:

Suffolk just released 3 polls from Pennsylvania that each paints similar picture:

—Statewide: Harris up 49% to 46%

—just Erie County: Harris up 48% to 44%. (Erie went for Biden by 1% in 2020.)

—just Northampton County: Harris up 50% to 45% (Also went for Biden by 1% in 2020.)

Big Village poll has Harris up by 8 points among likely voters. Not one of the gold standard polls, but not biased.

Another Tuesday, another FiveThirtyEight roundup. Comparing the battleground states and the national, polling averages, week to week (Sept 17 vs Sept 10). Summary: very little movement and Harris maintains a small lead overall. Since the Sept 10 debate she is no longer sliding backward slightly, like she was last week.

The data:

ARIZONA. Sept 17: Trump +0.4%. Sept 10: Trump +0.6. A net gain of +0.2% for Harris. AZ (11 EVs) remains tied.

GEORGIA. Sept 17: Trump +0.4%. Sept 10: Trump +0.5%. A net gain of +0.1% for Harris. GA (16 EVs) remains tied.

MICHIGAN. Sept 17: Harris +1.8%. Sept 10: Harris +1.9%.. A net gain of +0.1% for Trump. MI (15 EVs) remains a slight Harris lead but "tied" in a statistical, margin-of-error sense.

NEVADA. Sept 17: Harris +0.6%. Sept 10: Harris +0.4%. A net gain of +0.2% for Harris. NV (6 EVs) remains tied.

NORTH CAROLINA. Sept 17: Trump +0.2%. Sept 10: Harris +0.3%. A net gain of +0.5% for Trump. NC (16 EVs) remains tied.

PENNSYLVANIA. Sept 17: Harris +0.7%. Sept 10: Harris +1.0. A net gain of +0.3% for Trump. PA (20 EVs) remains tied, statistically speaking.

WISCONSIN. Sept 17: Harris +2.9%. Sept 10: Harris +2.8%. A net gain of +0.1% for Harris. WI (10 EVs) remains a Harris slight lead, but within the statistical margin of error.

NATIONAL. Sept 17: Harris +2.9%. Sept 10: Harris +2.8%. A net gain of 0.1% for Harris.

Remarkably little change, despite the Sept 10 debate in which a clear majority of observers (and nearly all impartial observers) thought Harris beat Trump. But here is the thing to notice, if you look at the FiveThirtyEight tracker nationally. See the trend line from July 21 to today. Harris's % of the vote has been very very slowly climbing... climbing... climbing. It's at 48.5% of the vote now. Trump's % of the vote was climbing too but it has dipped just a little in the past week.

That difference is small but it is significant and good to see. She is only 1.5% away from 50% of the vote. He is 4.4% away from it. Let's stay hopeful. Anyone running for President would rather be showing her poll results than his. Plus all those new voter registrations since July 21 are breaking strongly for Harris, and pollsters are not building a polling sample that reflects that (because they can't, really). So there is reason to believe that while Trump did 3% better than the polls in 2016 and in 2020, maybe that won't be the case this time. Maybe we really are looking at a 2008 repeat where Obama won on a wave of excited new voters and he matched the polls very accurately with a lead of 7%. I think we might be! (Harris won't get a 7% lead, but she will have enough of a lead to win both electoral and popular.)

Thank you, Torta!

I'm hopeful!

Me too, R302, but we need to keep our collective foot on the gas pedal. Volunteer for Dem campaign/GOTV efforts and vote, vote, vote. Don’t get complacent.

Seven weeks to go! Politically speaking, at long last, DIE TRUMP DIE!

Also, one week until VP nominee Tim Walz goes up against VP nominee JD Vance on the national stage. That ought to be good. Tuesday evening Sept 24.

I thought the debate was Oct 1?

Oops you're right, R305. Correction, it's Tuesday Oct 1. Two weeks from tonight. Thanks!

It would be great if it was a landslide for Harris and only the basic bottom feeders go for Trump. In other words the only people who vote for him are the people he can't stand to look at. Put him in an old t-shirt and coveralls, slick his hair into a ponytail and he's one of them.

R307 unfortunately there seem to be a vast number of superficially "nice people" who will choose Trump vs Harris when it is their moment to cast a vote. I'm predicting Harris will win... but it will be close.

On the other hand. The most recent poll (9/11-9/12) from AtlasIntel, a good pollster, has Trump up 2.9 nationally, 50.9-48.

R310, thankfully no other polls (and there are lots) are showing a Trump lead. FiveThirtyEight has the full list and only this one AtlasIntel polling result has Trump ahead in this way. If two more and then four more pollsters started to show this, then I'd get worried.

There's another pollster Big Village that published yesterday, saying Harris +7. That, too, is an outlier.

r312, is Big Village an outlier or is it a leading indicator?

AtlasIntel is more likely left behind until it, too, changes.

How AtlasIntel has such a high rating is absolutely beyond me.

They are a libertarian online polling company from Brazil whose methodology is absolute garbage (they strictly use opt-in web polling via banner ads). They mostly do polling in other countries and have made some MASSIVELY bad calls--for instance, they had Sheinbaum down in Mexico by 18 points just before the election.

They did exactly ONE GE election poll in the US in 2020 and oopsed their way into accuracy, but that is because ALL the R-leaning pollsters got closer to accurate results in 2020 since dems were hugely oversampled (Covid had more educated, work-from-home dem types suddenly home during the day, bored, and available to respond to pollsters). This is why all the polls that oversampled Republicans in 2020 accidentally made better calls. It was this reason that all pollsters went ahead and did the same in the 2022 midterms (thinking that they ought to keep oversampling R's like they should have done in 2020) and this is why they flubbed those results--because more people were back in the office by then. AtlasIntel polled only one state in 2022 and that was Georgia and they had Herschel winning by 2.8%.

Basically, they've got a diamond rating based on exactly ONE GE poll that they accidentally got right. Just take a look at the crosstabs for their latest poll to see how absolutely bonkers insane these results are:

They have Walz with a -15 favorability rating (lower than Vance), which is a 20-point swing from literally every other poll. They have Trump ahead on protecting democracy, education, and Ukraine. They have Harris only 2 points ahead on abortion rights. They have more women who thought Trump performed better in the debate and more men who thought Harris did. They have Trump tarrifs as 20% more popular than legalized weed.

Seriously, throw this INSANE outlier nonsense poll in the trash where it belongs.

^OH! Forgot to add...that AtlasIntel poll also had Trump +5 on healthcare. HEALTHCARE!

If that characterization of Atlasintel is accurate, R314/315, it's remarkable that they have Trump up by less than 3% now.

AtlasIntel let me vote many times for Trump from St.Petersburg just using a VPN telling them I was from either Denver or Salt Lake City. We need more polls like AI. I mean AtlasIntel.

Thanks for the deep dive, R314!

Harry Enten is reporting that Kamala is still losing the electoral college to Trump.

Kamala will be losing the EC up til the closing of polls on 11/5.

Then she will miraculously eek out 51% of all individual state votes and the map will be a field of blue.

[quote] PENNSYLVANIA: Harris 51%, Trump 45%, Stein 1%, Oliver 1%

[quote] MICHIGAN: Harris 50%, Trump 45%, Stein 2%

[quote] WISCONSIN: Harris 48%, Trump 47%, Stein 1%

As is their wont, the RCP site cannot report a favorable poll - in this case the Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania - without also dutifully informing their Trump-supporting audience how off on Pennsylvania this pollster was the last two elections.

Wow, interesting day of polling!

Some good national stuff has come in, bringing the FiveThirtyEight average up to Harris +3.3. That is excellent!

And Quinnipiac at R321 posted some surprises. Harris up by 6 in Penn, up by 5 in Michigan, but only up by 1 in Wisconsin? Quinnipiac is one of our more reputed pollsters so maybe they just got some slightly wonky results this time. It can happen. Kamala Harris is having another Wisconsin rally this Friday, in Madison, so that might help the WI numbers a little.

R314 / R315 , big thanks for looking into AtlasIntel. Sounds more than a little suspect.

There was a time when Real Clear Politics at least tried to be impartial.

Now it feels as though it only shows stuff that Peter Thiel will approve.

That must’ve predated the Trump era, R324. Because since then they’ve taken quite the turn. Both in their posted columns - many of the left-leaning columns linked are ones that are self-critical - & in their much-quoted poll averages, which include many inferior, right-leaning pollsters, tipping the balance in favor of their preferred candidates.

I wish Ann Selzer, whose Des Moines Register polls are the gold standard, would extend her polling to at least the Blue Wall states. Sarah Longwell said she is the best at measuring the political leanings of white people.

I should add that many political professionals are saying that Selzer’s recent poll of Iowa, showing Harris cutting Trump’s lead down from 18 to 4 points, is the one they find most compelling, insofar at least as it represents the current disposition of white Midwesterners.

[quote] There was a time when Real Clear Politics at least tried to be impartial.

Chuck Todd says he ignores both the RCP & 538 average of polls because they rely on a lot of "crappy polls." I do likewise.

Toad needs to go back to his warm rock.

So glad to find this thread. I swear I searched for it but still couldn't find it. Oh well, this comment should truly mark it (along with clicking on the eye).

[quote] As is their wont, the RCP site cannot report a favorable poll - in this case the Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania - without also dutifully informing their Trump-supporting audience how off on Pennsylvania this pollster was the last two elections.

And were they?

[quote] Chuck Todd says he ignores both the RCP & 538 average of polls because they rely on a lot of "crappy polls." I do likewise.

Chuck Todd is consider an idiot. He didn’t even finish school.

Even a broken clock works twice a day, R332. I don't know of a single political professional of any note who places any credence in averaging polls.

Get out of this thread, r333.

I'll be staying, R334. And continue my practice of posting favorable polls for Harris.

Morning Consult poll released today actually has Cruz a point behind Allred (44% to 45%). Link below.

They had Harris 4 points behind Trump (46% to 50%).

To clarify, Morning Consult's poll today has Harris 4 points behind Trump in TX (sorry, I don't have the link).

I cannot tell you what joy would fill the land if Cruz loses.

If nothing else, Rick Scott and Ted Cruz are going down. DOWN. Florida and Texas may not go fully blue this cycle, but these two rat fuckers are history.

From your tablet, to the eyeball of the Almighty, r339