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

Bump

If you block the OP of this thread she constitutes the majority of the posts.

The thread for those who wish to plant a flag against anarchism.

I'm here for it!

Let’s see more posters striking a blow for all that is right & decent in this crazy world!

[quote] Of the three states, Georgia is the one where the balance of polling is most clearly favorable to Mr. Trump. Ms. Harris hasn’t led a poll of Georgia taken in September, and Mr. Trump has led in several high-quality polls, like a three-point lead in a University of Georgia poll last week.

[quote] North Carolina, on the other hand, is arguably the one where the Times/Siena data most starkly departs from the most recent data. Our poll average previously gave Ms. Harris a narrow lead, as she’s had strong results from multiple high-quality polls — including our last Times/Siena poll of the state in August. This one is a very different result even if it’s also a return to normalcy in a way: Mr. Trump won the state narrowly in 2020.

[quote] Arizona is the murkiest. There hasn’t been as much polling of the state, period, and there’s never been a time when the polls there have strung together a consistent story. That goes for the last Times/Siena poll, which had Ms. Harris up five in August but now has Mr. Trump up five today. This is our biggest poll-to-poll swing of the year, and it’s hard to believe the race has really moved so much. It’s a helpful reminder that polls of this size (about 700 respondents) are subject to meaningful random sampling error. Nonetheless, Ms. Harris has led only two of the 18 Arizona polls fielded since that last Times/Siena poll; it was hard to make the case for a Harris lead even before this survey.

Why are NY Times polls always the worst for Harris?

Is the Times trying to spin the election?

Another Emerson poll of battleground states released today, with Trump either tied or narrowly leading in all but one of the seven states. The race is deadlocked in Nevada, with Trump +1 in Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin. He's up 3 in Georgia. Only Michigan, my home state, has Harris up, by 2.

Spotlight PA/MassINC poll just out today has Harris up by in PA. 49% to 45%

Polls are showing many different results. Important not to react to any single poll.

I forget who it was in the Harris campaign that said it, but "the polls are going to keep changing and we need to just keep working like we were behind. Don't get too happy or too depressed by any poll."

^^ Up by 5, 49 to 44.

Are the good polls for Harris the reason behind the crash of $DJT or is Trump trying to discreetly milk what's left of his value before it turns into a penny stock?

Times/Sienna poll has Trump up by 5 in AZ, but has Gallego beating Lake by 6. That's an 11 pt difference. Polls are all over the place.

R352 on the other thread, someone said that the Times/Sienna was comprised of 54% men. Which is really stupid of them to do. That's why the polling numbers are so skewered for Trump.

In reality, women vote more than men in general AND we all know women are overwhelmingly voting for Harris.

Men will NOT be voting at a rate of 54% of the electorate.

The men has forced us to stay home and do the dishes, so they think it'll be mostly men voting. But they don't know we secretly sent in our mail in ballots for Kamala!

Yikes... the new polls are bad. I'm starting to lose hope. I actually think Trump will win now. Gaining so much in the battleground states is not good news. I thought Kamala would win Nevada and Arizona, but it looks bad now, especially Arizona. I know she can still win, but she needs to win Pennsylvania. Hopefully she will.

Women, African Americans and intelligent men can get Kamala elected. If not, then there are too many assholes in this country and they need to move out.

Non-racist whites will save Kamala.

If only they voted ...

R355, links please. From everything I’ve seen, Kamala is doing fairly well?

[quote] From everything I’ve seen, Kamala is doing fairly well?

Just curious. What are your news sources?

Another Tuesday, another FiveThirtyEight roundup. Just SIX weeks to go until Election Day. Comparing polling averages for the battleground states and the national vote, week to week (Sept 24 vs Sept 17). Summary: a slightly worrisome backslide in Wisconsin and Georgia, but that’s mainly due to just a few polls. Need another week to see what seems real.

The data:

ARIZONA. Sept 24: Trump +1.0%. Sept 17: Trump +0.4%. Sept 10: A net gain of 0.6% for Trump. AZ (11 EVs) remains tied with Trump slightly favored.

GEORGIA. Sept 24: Trump +1.3%. Sept 17: Trump +0.4%. A net gain of 0.9% for Trump. GA (16 EVs) remains tied with Trump slightly favored.

MICHIGAN. Sept 24: Harris +2.4%. Sept 17: Harris +1.8%. A net gain of +0.6% for Harris. MI (15 EVs) remains a slight Harris lead but close to the statistical margin-of-error.

NEVADA. Sept 24: Harris +0.6%. Sept 17: Harris +0.6%. No change week to week. NV (6 EVs) remains tied.

NORTH CAROLINA. Sept 24: Trump +0.4%. Sept 17: Trump +0.2%. A net gain of +0.2% for Trump. NC (16 EVs) remains tied.

PENNSYLVANIA. Sept 24: Harris +1.3%. Sept 17: Harris +0.7%. A net gain of +0.6% for Harris. PA (20 EVs) remains tied, statistically speaking, with Harris slightly favored. WISCONSIN. Sept 24: Harris +2.0%. Sept 17: Harris +2.9%. A net gain of +0.9% for Trump. WI (10 EVs) remains a Harris slight lead, but within the statistical margin of error.

NATIONAL. Sept 24: Harris +2.7%. Sept 17: Harris +2.9%. A net loss of 0.2% for Harris.

Like I mentioned last week, at this point we also want to look at Harris's % of the vote vs Trump’s. She is at 48.3% of the vote now. Trump is at 45.6%. Put a more optimistic way, she’s only 1.7% away from 50%. He is 4.4% away from 50%.

But that’s nationally. It’s all about the battleground states, obviously. I’m 50/50 nervous and optimistic, still thinking a stack of factors will help Harris and hurt Trump (she is crushing him in fundraising and she has a vastly superior volunteer and staff organization working on the ground in PA, WI, MI; she is driving an increase in younger voter registrations and they aren’t being counted in the polls; etc). The Sept 10 debate came and went; we’ll see if next Tuesday night’s VP debate (Walz vs Vance) changes anything in the polls but it probably won’t.

This is stressful but the truth is, Trump/Vance 2025-2028 would be a nightmare and we were so fucking doomed when Joe Biden was our nominee. Trump was on track to beat him badly and retake the US presidency. We have a real chance of victory here with Kamala. So.. high stakes, hopeful uncertainty! It is better than certain defeat.

p.s. sorry about the lack of a line return -- Wisconsin is in there, stuck in same paragraph as Penn.

Thank you, Torta, for the data, and for your perspective!

As always, thank you, Torta. You are a treasure.

Most welcome, xo. Folks seem to be migrating to the Part 3 thread so I'll copy this there and post there next week

R359 He was gaining ground in many of the battleground states, especially in the South.

[Quote]Another Emerson poll of battleground states released today, with Trump either tied or narrowly leading in all but one of the seven states. The race is deadlocked in Nevada, with Trump +1 in Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin. He's up 3 in Georgia. Only Michigan, my home state, has Harris up, by 2.

[Quote]Times/Sienna poll has Trump up by 5 in AZ, but has Gallego beating Lake by 6. That's an 11 pt difference. Polls are all over the place.

[quote] Times/Sienna poll has Trump up by 5 in AZ, but has Gallego beating Lake by 6. That's an 11 pt difference. Polls are all over the place.

Well, we know that voters don't tie Trump to his worst MAGA acolytes, e.g. Mastriano & Lake, so the huge gulf in the polls shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

In what I take as good news, strongly right-leaning Rasmussen has both the presidential & Senate races in Pennsylvania deadlocked.

We are now seeing the pollsters breaking into leading and lagging indicators.

The last of the "Trump ahead" are now tied/neck and neck.

The movement is all toward Harris/Walz.

Because of 2016, no pollster will be wrong this year even if some are LATE.

It will be a glacial landslide. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It’s not just 2016, the pollsters were wrong about the Blue Wall states in 2020, too. So I will remain skeptical that they have finally unlocked the key to successfully determining the extent of the Trump voter in these states.

Of course, you will until you understand that pollsters no longer want to make BAD predictions, nor do they want to be late with their "postdictions", but are satisfied in making today's dictions, which are no predictions at all.

The trends are all Harris/Walz up.

From your thumbs to God’s ears, R371.

How were they wrong re the blue wall states in 2020, r370? From what I remember, they had Biden ahead (albeit by different ranges), and he won all three.

I agree r371. I also think there’s a variable in this race that’s very hard to quantify. The pollsters will try but it’s difficult. That’s the young voters (especially female) who are perhaps first time voters. They might be incredibly enthusiastic due to a lot of things, or they might fizzle. There is no way of knowing. I think it’s dangerous to go against past data because the end of Roe v Wade and the threat of Dump are factors we haven’t seen before.

r373, and now the electorate has changed.

Yes, Biden won all three, R373, but by a considerably smaller margin than the polls predicted. For some reason, these polling problems were isolated to these states.

Any Harris supporter who saw Alex Wagner’s focus group of Michigan voters should be alarmed. Not one was concerned about J6 & none had heard of Dobbs!

R370 there’s been a ton of debate over on DailyKos about this exact thing.

There are arguments to be made for “bur this time is different!” and arguments to be made for “no it’s not — and that’s what you said in 2020.”

The optimists are pointing to a surge in new voters registered since Kamala stepped up in late July. And to Democrats’ successes in 2022 and in random special elections since June 2022 (when Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs/abortion).

I geek out deeply on this stuff and even I have no confidence as to what will happen on Election Night. I’m kind of averaging the two opinions and thinking Harris wins.. narrowly though, and Trump/MAGA fight it hard.

All Americans know is that they can’t afford food. That’s what it comes down to. Well, that, and crime, which is ironic considering Trump is a convicted felon.

This is OT, but can someone explain why this may happen? I have the anti-Dem, anti-Biden troll here on ignore. I think a lot of people do, he posts inane stuff and no one replies. But when I look at my Ignored list, he shows up as Ignored poster 5 and ALSO Ignored poster 6. And underneath both 5 and 6 are identical posts. Does that mean he has a sock puppet? This has been occurring for a long time btw, I don’t think it’s cache or anything like that.

Most likely, yes. One of those people that needs help that has multiple accounts and duplicates replies or generates conversations between the two accounts to make it seem like multiple people are conversing when it's really just 1 troll. Keep them on ignore.

[quote]All Americans know is that they can’t afford food.

Yes, like the woman who just came back from a lavish two-week trip to Europe and was complaining to me about grocery prices.

R381 is suffering from a brain tumor.

R381, staples such as eggs and milk have seen a decrease and stabilization of prices. Your friend is probably seeing a crazy, unwarranted increase in the price of Chanel bags. For the life of me, I will never understand the designer bag craze. They are nothing special, and to spend 5k to 10k on this stuff is nuts.

My feeling is that the Blue Wall has a cultural expectation of decency and non-racism so people will lie about not voting for Trump since they know he is racist scum. OTOH in the south women may lie about not voting for Harris since there is a cultural expectation of church related antagonism to reproductive rights.

R384, I’m not surprised about the confidence in the economy. . The stock market is doing great, prices have dropped and stabilized, crime is down and the job market might have slowed a bit but it’s still good. People aren’t stupid, they can see what’s in front of them. Except for Dumpees, who are blind stupid and dumb.

I'm waiting for the polls for people who are sending grandma a plane ticket because the whole family can't travel to see HER.

[quote] The stock market is doing great, prices have dropped and stabilized

They have not, Mary!

You are right r388, they are still dropping.

I find it amazing that Biden/Harris do not get credit for what they have done, like unfuck Trump's supply chain and distribution fuckup that had dozens of container ships on hold off the ports of California (thank you, Secretary Pete), but people are bitching about the price of heavily subsidized eggs?

There has not been a problem that can be solved with federal intervention that HASN'T been solved.

Even the sale of expensive reserve gasoline released from the strategic reserve has been replaced with cheaper gas after it lowered the price creating a profit for the government.

Trump up 51-49 in CBS News/YouGov poll of Georgia released this afternoon.

It’s too fucking close for comfort. Ugh

WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump 47% to 40% in the race to win the Nov. 5 U.S. presidential election, as she appeared to blunt Trump's edge on the economy and jobs, a Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Tuesday found. Harris had a lead of six percentage points based on unrounded figures - which showed her with support from 46.61% of registered voters while Trump was backed by 40.48%, according to the three-day poll that closed on Monday. The Democrat's lead was slightly higher than her five-point advantage over Trump in a Sept 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Asked which candidate had the better approach on the "economy, unemployment and jobs," some 43% of voters responding to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll picked Trump and 41% selected Harris. Trump's two-point advantage on the topic compares to his three-point lead in an August Reuters/Ipsos poll and an 11 point lead over Harris in late July shortly after she launched her campaign.

What the fuck is up with Georgia? Nothing about its demographics makes sense of a flip from blue back to red.

That Raphael Warnock is not on the ballot, R394, might inform why that flip might occur.

Let's hope so.

Battleground states, with third-party candidates: Arizona - Harris +3 (50-47); Georgia - Trump +1 (48-47); Michigan - Harris +3 (49-46); Nevada - Harris +1 (48-47); North Carolina - Harris +3 (49-46); Pennsylvania - Harris +2 (49-47); Wisconsin - Harris +2 (48-46)

Battleground states, head-to-head Arizona - Harris +1 (49-48); Georgia - Trump +2 (49-47); Michigan - Harris +3 (51-48); Nevada - Harris +1 (48-47); North Carolina - tied (49-49); Pennsylvania - Harris +1 (50-49); Wisconsin - Harris +2 (49-47)

[quote]Let's hope so.

The media also has an interest in making it seem as close as possible.

I've brought this up before, but in the 2022 MI governor's race, the Detroit Free Press had polling showing Whitmer was up by about 9 points. Her Republican opponent had some internal polls that showed it closer...and so they ignored their own data and put out a series of articles about how the race had tightened considerably.

PS. she won by ten points.

What is the point of looking at polls with just two candidates when there will be third parties on the ballot? Is the idea that some people saying they are supporting a third party will ultimately switch to a major party?

R401 Most, if not all, of the polls I see have different results, "with two candidates" and "with third party candidates"... I've been taken by the amount of third party candidates - with RFK out, the libertarian, green, and other (i.e. West) total only 2-3%

Huh? Polling is done head to head and with third parties where indicated. Read.

But what is the point of taking them out if they are going to be on the ballot?

R403–polls at r399 are done both ways.

Don’t be dense r404

Oh, it’s you. Should have recognized your stench.

How about just answering the question to demonstrate your keen intelligence?

Ok—for you: they aren’t being taken out. Third party polling is included in the key states with third party candidates. ¿Comprende?

ALL the states are shown both with and without third party candidates, so no. No comprende.

Az... I used to do work in Az... I think this pollster is reliable.

George Stephanopoulos this morning, condensing the reporting of NYT political reporter Adam Nagourney:

If the polls are wrong in the way they were wrong in 2020, Trump's going to win big. If they're wrong in the way they were wrong in 2022, Harris will win big.

BTW, it got rather heated between Donna Brazile and Reince Priebus on the panel portion of the show.

That’s not Adam’s reporting, fyi

I don't know what we did to piss off Poll Troll, but damn, his resolve is strong. He's giving us nothing.

Respect, but I sure miss you, Poll Troll.

[quote] If the polls are wrong in the way they were wrong in 2020, Trump's going to win big. If they're wrong in the way they were wrong in 2022, Harris will win big.

Ugh. I'd rather be Trump in this instance. A general election electorate looks much different than a midterm election electorate.

[quote]That’s not Adam’s reporting, fyi

Yes, George said, "Your paper has done a good job -- Nate Cohen -- showing people how if the polls are wrong the way they were in 2020 ..."

Nagourney said, "If we were meeting a month from now and it turned out that Trump won by six points or she won by six points, I wouldn't be shocked."

R415 2020 - pre-Dobbs, pre-Jan 6

2022 - post-Dobbs, post-Jan 6

Conventional wisdom is useless this election. It's a mystery.

How did Arizona vote in 2020. Why do they vote for Republican cunts regionally?

I hope you're right, R418, but I fear you could be wrong.

This week's polling has just left me crestfallen. I feel that Helene may have made North Carolina unwinnable by essentially wiping heavily blue Asheville off the map.

R421, Helene wiped out a tin of red areas too.

Interesting column by Michael Moore.

Moore's column gives me hope.

test

Moore has been wrong the last three elections.

[quote] Helene wiped out a tin of red areas too.

She let Trump take over. She blew it. She should have been out there immediately talking to people. Trump has everyone believing that they sent all the FEMA money to illegals. It’s like when she said that she didn’t have to visit the border. It was beneath her.

Lol, R425. It doesn't bite.

R426 He's not our best analyst... but he said Trump was going to win in 2016, when most said Hillary had a lock on it.

And Moore got the Biden/Trump race right, too.

Regarding yard signs- where I grew up in rural Ohio is papered in the fucking things.

Where I live now in the burbs, I’ve seen more than I care to, BUT they’re always in front of old white people’s houses.

The family houses have either Harris/Walz signs, yes in Issue 1 signs or no signs at all.

[quote] Oh, whoops! I don't know how that happened. Yes, meant to link to yours.

Thanks, R598 from the other thread, but I have no claim of ownership of this thread. Just a natural instinct to stick up for redheaded stepchildren.

[quote] He's not our best analyst... but he said Trump was going to win in 2016, when most said Hillary had a lock on it.

Ahem.

That was from Dec. 2019, R433. I remember him singing a different tune as the election drew nearer.

[quote] they’re always in front of old white people’s houses.

Where I am they are in front of the houses of old white people who are retired on golden pensions that no longer exists. So many houses where the husband worked a job that he got with no education or skills. He did it for 30 years, retired at 55 and now they have an RV, a truck, a boat and a Trump sign. Those same jobs now want a degree and the pension is gutted. I feel like knocking on the doors and saying 'what the fuck is your problem? How did life disappoint you exactly?'

R436's link should be required viewing for anyone who still doubts that Trump ushered in a major party realignment.

R437 Meh. So did Nixon. So did Reagan. What Trump did importantly to the American Public Sphere and our future isn't a change of what demographics have what allegiance to what parties. What has happened is a Supreme Court (and federal judiciary) which is infinitely more political and regressive. a complete lack in faith in news sources and an acceptance of "alternative facts" and conspiracies, an assumption that guardrails separating personal advantage and civic duty no longer matter, and an utter loss of comity.

R439, Nixon & Reagan were 50 & 40 years ago, respectively, with Nixon being a one-off. The last eight years have seen an exodus of the college-educated away from the Republican Party, while more & more of the less educated - the so-called working class - have migrated away from the Democratic Party,

R440 Meh, part II.

Nixon's "silent majority, southern strategy" changed the south from democrat to republican. That was solidified by Reagan. That was a much more significant shift that the last few elections with Trump.

The change beginning with Nixon was hardly a "one off".... it completely altered the parties.

That change, R441, was informed by JFK & then LBJ making the Democratic Party the party of civil rights. Nixon was the “beneficiary” of that seismic transformation.

Hon, I was alive and kicking in those elections. LBJ destroyed Goldwater in the south AFTER the Civil Rights Bill was passed. Nixon was much more than "the beneficiary" of what started with LBJ, JFK... and (guess what?) what FDR started. A very calculated "silent majority" played on much more than civil rights - it was a reaction to the counter-cultural revolutions and anti-Vietnam protests... and fed on the disruption of Wallace running as a third party.

My point is that Trump has not "realigned" the parties any more than has happened several times in the last 150 years.

[quote] LBJ destroyed Goldwater in the south AFTER the Civil Rights Bill was passed.

Huh?! Although winning the '64 election with 61.1% of the vote, LBJ lost Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi & South Carolina.

[quote] At Polymarket, where I serve as an advisor, Trump’s odds are up to 53.6 percent, reversing a small Harris lead from a week ago.

^ Oops.

The timing of this could be helpful in Georgia.

R444 In 1964 LBJ won OK, TX, MI, AR, TN, KY, VA, NC. But back to the thread:

Harris campaign staff are concerned that the polls aren't moving at all -- the debate, Trump's dementia, Taylor Swift, heavy advertising - everything that one could hope would continue to Harris Joy Joy momentum didn't do a thing. If anything the internal polls look like a settling in Trump's favor. That's why they are getting out to media of all forms this week.

I think Harris will win. I think we are going to see some surprises from her.... maybe standing outside of Mar-a-Lago with a boombox on her shoulders playing that old hit, "debate me again, you cowardly dotard."

I got my sample ballot today!

I can't conceive of the fact that there are people who will vote for Trump.

R450, while I cannot either, I know they exist. In great numbers. I take in a daily show, ostensibly non-partisan, that has lately become overrun by Trump supporters, even newly-minted ones. So I see the real threat with open eyes. So, lest I be blindsided as I was in ‘16, I am girding myself to the very real prospect, perhaps likelihood, that he will win again. But that’s just me.

NY Times begrudgingly admits Harris has moved ahead of Trump in their latest poll.

At 49% to 46%, considering that 3% is the amount of the national vote that is the California excess votes, this would indicate that the two are tied in the rest of the country. Harris would have to do better than 3% margin to be “ahead”.

Yes, begrudgingly, R452 ... after just giving her a ringing editorial endorsement.

We have three new New York Times/Siena College polls this morning. Only two look “normal.”

The national poll is one of the normal-looking results: It finds Kamala Harris ahead by four percentage points nationwide, 49 percent to 46 percent (these are rounded figures), compared with her three-point lead in The New York Times’s polling average. It’s her best national Times/Siena poll of the cycle.

Our first Texas poll of the cycle also looks “normal.” Donald J. Trump leads by six points, 50 percent to 44 percent, another tally that’s right in line with the polling average and close to the 2020 result.

And then there’s Florida.

Our first poll of the state this cycle finds Mr. Trump ahead by a staggering 13 points, 55 percent to 41 percent (again, rounded figures). This looks nothing like the other polls of the state. Heading into today, Mr. Trump led Florida in the Times average of all polls by just four points. None of the 11 polls fielded in September or October put him ahead by more than six points.

If you’re a longtime reader of this newsletter, you might be expecting me to hem and haw about whether this Florida result might be an outlier — a statistical fluke. Often, the smartest thing to do with the result of any one poll is simply to add it to the average and move on.

I’m not going to do that this time.

We’ve interviewed nearly 1,000 Floridians as part of our national polls over the last year, and Mr. Trump has had a considerable lead among Florida’s voters all along. As we’ve noted before, our national polling shows Mr. Trump excelling in states where Republicans performed well in the 2022 midterm elections — as they did in Florida (and New York, too).

As a result, this poll is not the usual outlier. It’s certainly an outlier compared with other polls, but it probably isn’t a fluke simply attributable to random chance. If we polled Florida again tomorrow, it’s certainly possible that Mr. Trump wouldn’t lead by 13 points (the accumulated national poll subsamples, for instance, have a larger sample and show him up by nine). But it’s hard to imagine his lead would finish at a mere four points, like yesterday’s polling average.

In a key respect, a big lead for Mr. Trump in Florida doesn’t affect the presidential election much. The state had already drifted off most analysts’ lists of core battleground states; Florida voted for Mr. Trump by more than three percentage points in 2020. And in the winner-take-all Electoral College, it doesn’t matter if you win Florida by four points or 13 points — either way, you get all the state’s 30 electoral votes.

So if a big lead in Florida doesn’t affect the election much, why should it change the way you think about it, as suggested in the headline?

It’s because this Florida result helps clarify both what’s happening in the race — and what’s happening in the polls.

The pandemic’s lasting effect

If Florida becomes more solidly Republican in 2024, it suggests that the upheaval during and after the pandemic has had a lasting effect on American politics.

This poll, after all, is far from the first indication of Republican strength in the Sunshine State. Republicans won a landslide victory here in the 2022 midterms, as the state was ground zero for the conservative reaction against lockdowns, vaccine mandates and “woke.”

These same issues didn’t do nearly as much to help Republicans elsewhere in the country. In fact, there were other states — like Michigan, Kansas and Pennsylvania — where the backlash against Mr. Trump’s stop-the-steal campaign and the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade seemed to outweigh them and propelled decisive Democratic victories.

What’s telling, though, is that the basic political pattern from the midterms still seems evident in the polling today. If the poll is right, Florida really has gone on a different path from Pennsylvania and Michigan. And since the paths diverged several years ago, the most straightforward explanation is that the fights over the pandemic, “woke,” abortion rights, crime, Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn the election and so on left a lasting mark on the electoral map.

Importantly, the pattern is consistent with the idea that Mr. Trump’s edge in the Electoral College relative to the popular vote has shrunk somewhat since 2020.

A 10-point gain for Mr. Trump in Florida and New York — where Siena College also shows enduring Republican strength, though the state remains safely Democratic — would be enough to shave about one (inefficient) point off Vice President Harris’s lead in the popular vote.

The state of the polls, and polling

There’s another reason the Florida result is important: It says a lot about the state of the polls.

As mentioned earlier, there have been 11 polls of Florida fielded in September or October, and they show Mr. Trump with leads between one and six percentage points — nothing resembling a 13-point lead.

Obviously, it’s possible that the Times/Siena poll will differ wildly from the result in November and that the other 11 polls will come closer. That said, these 11 recent polls aren’t traditional “gold standard” surveys. And there’s a very plausible explanation for why they’re producing such different results: They usually employ a methodological choice called “weighting on recall vote” and we do not.

If you missed our detailed analysis on this choice this weekend, “weighting on recall vote” is a technique in which pollsters ask respondents how they voted in the last election, and then weight the number of Biden ’20 or Trump ’20 voters to match the outcome of that election. In this case, the pollster would ensure that there were about three percentage points more Trump ’20 voters than Biden ’20 voters, because Trump won the state by about three points in 2020. Many pollsters believe the technique might help them avoid underestimating Mr. Trump yet again.

As I explained, there are a lot of challenges with this approach. But the Florida poll reveals an entirely separate problem: What happens if the makeup of the electorate changes?

Over the last four years, Florida’s party registration has shifted significantly, going from D+ 0.7 to R+ 7.5. According to L2, a nonpartisan political data vendor, people who moved to Florida since January 2021 have registered as Republicans by a margin of more than two to one, 49 percent to 22 percent. The broader group of new registrants, which includes young people who probably didn’t vote in the last election, registered Republican by a smaller but still significant margin, 39 percent to 22 percent.

The bottom line: This is probably not a Trump +3 electorate anymore, even if the recall vote measure itself was accurate. That doesn’t mean the Times/Siena poll is “right” — it’s an inherently imprecise measurement — but it does make it harder to discount it based on the other polls.

In the past, almost every poll would have had a chance to capture this kind of shift. In fact, that’s the whole point of polling. Now, many polls are designed to ensure they don’t show it at all.

The Florida poll was done after Helene. The hurricane response has hurt Harris a lot in Florida. On the other hand, Florida was already in the Trump column, so it hasn’t changed anything.

Looking at the cross-tabs of the Florida poll, there are several interesting things. One is that a whopping 79% of the Florida electorate believe that Biden’s policies have hurt them personally or not made much of a difference. For Trump, 47% believe that his policies have helped them personally. That’s going to figure into the margin.

Nate Cohn providing more of his theory of the case that the rule that Harris has to win the popular vote by at least 3% to also win the EC likely no longer applies. Now if we can just have more confidence that polling in the Blue Wall states is no longer significantly undercounting Trump support.

R453 So, the newly expanded margin for Trump in FL erases your speculations about the CA votes that mean the race is too tight nationally for Harris to win. Given this anomaly in FL the national average is likely 4% not 3% for Harris. 4% has been the metric nationally that most experts have said would guarantee a win for Harris.

Or said another way... no one fucking knows. Yet.

Interestingly enough, much of Florida is cratering, and none of it has to do with Biden policies. Look in the mirror Floridians.

[quote] Harris campaign staff are concerned that the polls aren't moving at all -- the debate, Trump's dementia, Taylor Swift, heavy advertising - everything that one could hope would continue to Harris Joy Joy momentum didn't do a thing. If anything the internal polls look like a settling in Trump's favor. That's why they are getting out to media of all forms this week.

r448, please provide a source and a link confirming ^^^^^

Adam Nagourney's take on the latest NYT/Siena College poll:

[quote] The most remarkable finding ... is that Harris, a sitting vice president, is now seen more as the candidate representing change. If this continues, it's a big deal. There are few forces more powerful in presidential elections than voters' desire for change.

Another Tuesday, another FiveThirtyEight roundup. Just FOUR(!) weeks to go until Election Day. Comparing polling averages for the battleground states and the national vote, week to week (Oct 8 vs Oct 1). Summary: Things continue to tighten just a little in Trump's favor, the past few weeks, which ain't great. This election will likely be very close and it will likely be stressful.

The data:

ARIZONA. Oct 8: Trump +1.3%. Oct 1: Trump +1.0%. A net gain of 0.3% for Trump. AZ (11 EVs) remains statistically tied with Trump slightly favored.

GEORGIA. Oct 8: Trump +1.1%. Oct 1: Trump +0.6%. A net gain of 0.5% for Trump. GA (16 EVs) remains statistically tied with Trump slightly favored.

MICHIGAN. Oct 8: Harris +1.8%. Oct 1: Harris +1.9%. A net gain of +0.1% for Trump. MI (15 EVs) remains a slight Harris lead but close to the statistical margin of error.

NEVADA. Oct 8: Harris +0.9%. Oct 1: Harris +1.1%. A net gain of +0.2% for Trump. NV (6 EVs) remains statistically tied with a slight edge to Harris.

NORTH CAROLINA. Oct 8: Trump +0.9%. Oct 1: Trump +0.4%. A net gain of 0.5% for Trump. NC (16 EVs) remains statistically tied but Trump is taking a slight lead.

PENNSYLVANIA. Oct 8: Harris +0.7%. Oct 1: Harris 0.8%. A net gain of +0.1% for Trump. PA (20 EVs) remains tied, statistically speaking, with Harris slightly favored.

WISCONSIN. Oct 8: Harris +1.6%. Oct 1: Harris +1.8%. A net gain of +0.2% for Trump. WI (10 EVs) remains a Harris slight lead, but within the statistical margin of error.

NATIONAL. Oct 8: Harris +2.6%. Oct 1: Harris +2.8%. Sept 24: Harris +2.7%. A net gain of 0.2% for Trump.

Nate Silver described it well the other day -- I know he's become persona non grata in here but I think he's correct on this one:

"And what will the final four weeks of the campaign look like? Well, maybe pretty much the same as this.... In other words, most of the uncertainty in the race now reflects the possibility of a polling error — not the chance that things will dramatically change between now and Nov. 5."

In other words, this is an unusually steady race, there is not much movement. Is Trump really gaining a little, or are there reasons the polls have leaned that way a little? (either polling error, or Trumpy pollsters flooding the zone with Trumpy polls, or a bit of both) Hard to really know. But I agree with Nate that we will likely have not much movement in the polling between now and Nov 5, and we'll have to watch on Election Night after four more weeks of polling that might look more or less like the status quo.

I'm staying hopeful. Harris has a superior field organization, and she's doing more media this week (though the coming Tampa apocalypse is likely to take center stage), and new voter registration seems to favor the Democrats. But still. Tight and stressful is how it all looks.

[quote] I'm staying hopeful. Harris has a superior field organization, and she's doing more media this week

[quote] On Tuesday, she’s slated to appear on The View on ABC, The Howard Stern Show and The Late Show With Stephen Colbert on CBS. On Thursday, she will take part in a Univision Town Hall in Nevada.

She’s only willing to do safe media, watched by people who are already going to vote for her. It doesn’t gain her anything.

Andrea Mitchell posting at r467. The whole thing now is get your base out to vote. People know who Dump is, they will either vote for him or against him. And Kamala has her own supporters, who are enthusiastic about her and excited to vote for her.

Pray tell, what is unsafe media? And what do you suppose she will achieve by doing it? And how many voters do you think she will, sway?

[quote]She’s only willing to do safe media, watched by people who are already going to vote for her. It doesn’t gain her anything.

On the ISSUES (favorability, trustworthiness) improve for Harris the more people see her. She's closing the gap on the economy and immigration. Internal polls, the polls the campaigns closely follow., are much more issue oriented than the polls we see reflect.

The Kumquat Po Pot, patron saint of the cognitively challenged, can't even survive an interview with Laura Fucking Ingram without failing to convince anyone outside the NEVER expanding base of support. He's frozen like Birdseye and hasn't and can't grow his base.

see if you can spot the trying hard to be stealth Dump supporters. Hint: They've evolved to including Dump bashing in their posts as cover while they spread doom and gloom about Harris

Thanks for the analysis - esp the parts from NYT. I got pissed at them for normalizing the buffoon and unsubbed, but I'm already starting to miss it.

R467 and Trump going on Fox relentlessly with Hannity and Ingram sucking his balls gains him SO much.

Harris's 60 Minutes interview, with the biggest audience of any of these interviews, was not soft ball. Whitaker was aggressive, challenging her pretty strongly. And she did well.

Ha, I would not describe that 60 Minutes interview as "friendly" all the way through. Harris really got interrogated on the flood of undocumenteds who came over during the first few Biden years. She held it together well enough but there was an intense effort to try to get her to say in so many words, "Yes OK that was a fuckup on our part." That was tense and it was not softball. Trump could NEVER.

[quote] see if you can spot the trying hard to be stealth Dump supporters. Hint: They've evolved to including Dump bashing in their posts as cover while they spread doom and gloom about Harris

R470, I don't know if you're referring to me, but, while a fervent Harris supporter (I voted for her yesterday, in a battleground state, no less) & contributor, I'm certainly one whose optimism ebbs & flows (today, I'm feeling much better, btw). But being one who truly believes Trump IS an existential thread does not blind me to the fact that he does have a real chance of winning, especially if the polling in the Blue Wall states continues to undercount his support in these states, as it did in both '16 & '20 (by 9% & 5%, respectively). But if you only want to read posts that blow smoke up your ass, leaving you in the same mystified bubble we found ourselves in '16, maybe you should block me (if you haven't already, that is).

For the first time since Harris took over, I am changing my present view as a Trump win.

Odds are hat the anti-female/anti-Clinton voters, the anti-black/anti-Obama voters, with an assist from the know-nothing/destroy-it-all pack will kill both the Southwest and Upper Midwest/Pennsylvania routes for Harris.

And if this doesn't change we will require - require - a civil war.

R476 I know it feels that way but remember Obama won twice and he slightly outperformed the polls in 2012. And they called him Barack HUSSEIN Obama the entire time.

I don’t know what’s going to happen either but there are valid reasons for Harris supporters to stay hopeful. This could truly go either way. That said, if the final result is in dispute and it gets elevated to the Supreme Court, the SC has never been more right-wing partisan (at least in our lifetimes) than it is today. So Harris has to win … and win enough to put that tactic out of Trump’s reach.

[quote] New @CookPolitical rating change: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D) moves from Lean D to Toss Up as Eric Hovde (R) gains ground w/ Republicans and independents.

That surprises me. She’s one of those incumbents of both parties who people automatically vote for with no thought put into it, an incumbency advantage.

Harris with momentum in Michigan. She now has a 2.6% lead among likely voters.

I’m the first one to rag on The View, and the Veep’s sometime cagey “talk-speak”, but this pull quote is so good…on point:

Donald Trump prefers to run on problems instead of fixing problems,” Harris said. “He’s not solution-oriented. He spends full time engaged in grievance about what has happened to him. He spends full time perpetuating lies and misinformation. He spends full time talking about fictional characters. Calling and demeaning people, belittling people. But what he does not talk about is you. He does not talk about what you need. He does not talk about what your parents need, or what your children need.”

In case you missed it, Michael Moore is certain of the outcome.

And this happened yesterday…

“ ‼️BREAKING: In a major upset, Democrat Grier Hopkins has defeated Republican John Coghill Jr. in the race for mayor of Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska — which voted for Trump by 15 points!”

Anecdotal but interesting.

And here comes the usual riund of second guessing from unnamed Democrats…

The election is stuck at too close to call. Both sides are going to be second-guessing the campaigns. Neither campaign is moving the needle.

CNN only has a month more to monetize clicks. Btw, who in either party is not anxious?

[quote] BREAKING: In a major upset, Democrat Grier Hopkins has defeated Republican John Coghill Jr. in the race for mayor of Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska

There it is. As Fairbanks North Star Borough goes, so goes the nation. Major!

r487 😂😂

R485 The NYT/Sienna poll last month was 47-47 - this week, Harris 49, Trump 46. While not enough to have every relax and agree it will be a Harris blow-out, that's movement.

Nationally - Harris is slowing moving to a 3-4 point win. The question is whether that "movement" can assure PA and MI to fall in her favor.

If I'm betting money, I'm betting on Harris.

“ In Pa’s hotly contested 10th Congressional District, our poll out later today shows Harris leading Trump in this GOP-leaning district 46:41. Trump won this district +4 in ‘20. This is not a good trajectory for GOP incumbent Con. Scott Perry. More tweets to follow shortly.”

Wow r490 that is music to my ears. Scott Perry is a cockroach.

You know better than to get excited by one poll, r489. Right?

HOW DARE YOU COMPARE US TO SCOTT PERRY r491

R482 Excited? Just looking at the data. The point was "there is no movement!"... and NYT/Sienna is probably among the most respected polls and it shows a 3 pt change in the last several weeks. Yes aggregators like 538 show a tightening race, but, in part, because of garbage polls.

There is movement in all kinds of directions... i.e. NV, that was lost to Biden, now looks pretty secure for Masto and Harris. GA, that looked like was tipping to Harris, looks like it's moving to Trump. I think it all comes down to MI and PA... and there are polls for those that can assure us, or scare us.

We are are own worst enemies. We panic and act like losers when we're not behind. If Trump had Kamala's numbers he'd be announcing his cabinet and buying drapes.

R495 Yes, but that's what gets dems out to vote. It's worth the 2-3 months of ulcers and insomnia if it leads to an historical turnout.

Maybe, as has been reported, R495, his private polling tells a different story. It might help to explain why he punted on a second debate, as well as the 60 Minutes interview.

Agreeing with R496. Everyone older than 40 remembers Election 2000 and how it all hung in the balance of those few hundred votes in Florida, and then finally the Bush-friendly Supreme Court's finger on the scale. We don't know how accurate the polls are. No one does. And it's highly possible that it is an "every vote counts" situation.

[quote] Nationally - Harris is slowing moving to a 3-4 point win.

You win the presidency with electoral votes, not points.

Is Milton going to be the October Surprise?

R499, really??? I did not know that!

Seriously, read through the thread and see why that data point may be significant.

For sure, we don't want to get smug and act like she has this. That would depress turn out. But so would acting like we're defeated already. Ugh, it shouldn't be this hard. She had to give a pitch perfect DNC speech, a pitch perfect debate performance and the orange sack can call Putin and not lose a point. It's frustrating and I think we're doing our best under very strange circumstances.

R499 New to the party? The conventional wisdom has asserted that Harris needs to have a 4 point lead nationally in order to WIN the electoral college. Of course there are variables that could have her with a four pt lead and lost PA, GA, NC and lose the election... or have a 2 pt lead nationally and win PA and win the election.

I wish there was at least one reputable aggregator out there that omitted every one of those MAGA vanity polls so we could actually get an accurate read on the pulse of the electorate.

R502 I so agree with you. It is damning, the vast double standard and what it says about the American people.

ps. for you, R504. Someone on DailyKos nerded out a few days ago and compiled what you’re seeking. It looks good for Harris.

[quote] The conventional wisdom has asserted that Harris needs to have a 4 point lead nationally in order to WIN the electoral college.

That "conventional wisdom" has at least been dented by Nate Cohn's theory of the case, one he first posited in Sept. 2023 & has recently reiterated. That there are now fewer "wasted" Democratic votes in California & NY, & now more "wasted" Republican votes in Florida. So under this theory, Harris probably would only need a 1% popular vote advantage to win the Electoral College.

R506 !!!!

You are a prince, Torta.

1% may be a bit generous…but point taken.

I see “Quinnipiac” is trending on X because Trump has taken the lead in Michigan and Wisconsin in their polling and Quinnipiac is not favorable to Trump.

Just saw that R510. WTF is even happening?

[quote] WTF is even happening?

Although Harris had a lot of pressure to speak publicly, she probably would have been better off not doing that and relying strictly on carefully crafted commercials.

How was Kamal up several points in Michigan earlier today and now below Trump? WTF

Like r479 just posted yesterday she had a several point lead in Michigan and now she is losing Michigan?

Fuck. Quinnipiac is a longtimer in polling and has a decent reputation. If that’s what they are saying, we do have to add it into the soup.

I just can't fucking understand it. Since before the VP debate some of THE most hideous, disqualifying news has been surfacing at least twice a week about Trump, but it's only seemed to help his numbers.

I'm genuinely getting terrified.

R513 missed a dose

And the fact that he’s a traitor to the United States of America seems to be no big deal to a lot of voters is really stunning. But they think it’s all fake news generated by the deep state and whatnot.

Slotkin stated previously that her internal polling was showing Harris losing Michigan. It looks like Quinnipiac is catching up to the internal polling.

With you, R516. Temperamentally I don’t do terrified but the insomnia is ratcheting up. There is a very real chance that Trump wins.

I think it's time to bring in the big guns: CELEBRITIES.

There needs to be a blockbuster Rock the Vote type concert with Taylor, Beyonce, Bruce, Billie, etc.

She need a vibes boost. She needs to make people think they won't be cool unless they vote for her (like with Obama). People really ARE that shallow. And she needs to stop repeating the same freaking four lines over and over AND OVER again. Her comms director is fumbling.

R519 you misread the tea leaves, and the forest for the trees. There are millions of semi-regular or irregular baiters—oops, voters, who don’t pay attention to any of this. They do pay attention to “prices”…that’s all. It’s a large group more inclined to vote for Trump. This is irrational to you, to me and to millions of others, but we are just as irrelevant to them as they are to us.

[quote] I just can't fucking understand it. Since before the VP debate some of THE most hideous, disqualifying news has been surfacing at least twice a week about Trump, but it's only seemed to help his numbers.

That’s an easy one. The news you are referring to, like the Covid tests sent to Putin, is just masturbation material for Democrats. It’s content that is created and targeted for Democrats to click on. The rest of the country isn’t paying any attention to it.

You are so correct, R524. I say this all the time and people look at me like I'm nuts. There are two realities in this country right now. Two complete realities, and each group thinks the other is evil. So it's stalemate. No meeting in the middle.

This is Putin and his ilk's doing. Divide us.

Vibes alone don’t seem to be doing it though. She does need new hard-hitting lines and YES more rallies. (She did zero thid past weekend which made me uneasy) And each rally should be the debut of two or three NEW hard hits, oratory-wise, nailing Trump. Zingers that turn your head. And then pump those clips out to the media. That’s how it works and I’m not seeing that work in action lately.

There are literally 100 potential ways to hurt Trump with a well crafted zinger… and less than 4 weeks left.

The Blue Wall has been inundated with MAGA advertising... not just cable and radio, but online and social media. "Kamala who wants to give free sex-change operations to immigrant criminals in prison" ads - and that's not a clever summation of the ads, it's verbatim. I think these ads are having some impact.

Yes, Quinnipiac is not Rasmussen. But remember NYT/Sienna just showed Harris ahead in all three Blue Wall states. The race is tight, but we are NOT losing, we just have to keep pushing hard and keep winning.

[quote] Like [R479] just posted yesterday she had a several point lead in Michigan and now she is losing Michigan?

Not several points. Just 2.6. Within the MOE. As is this latest poll.

[quote] There are literally 100 potential ways to hurt Trump with a well crafted zinger… and less than 4 weeks left.

She needs the kind of audience perhaps only a debate can provide. And it's why Trump won't agree to another one. It's a general rule of thumb that it's the trailing party that wants more debates.

She beat him to a pulp and didn’t see any big bounce in polls. A second debate wouldn’t do anything. I also don’t believe he turned it down because he didn’t want to benefit her. He turned it down because he didn’t want to look like a deranged fool again.

[quote] She beat him to a pulp and didn’t see any big bounce in polls.

Not a big bounce, but she did get a small bounce. In a coin flip election - if that's what this is - a small bounce at the end of the election may be enough.

If she loses Michigan it’s game over.

It truly is 2016 again, only this stone so much worse

America gets the leader it deserves

From Political Wire

Why Trump Is Holding Rallies in Blue States

By Taegan Goddard

Donald Trump is embarking on an unorthodox strategy by holding large campaign rallies in solidly Democratic states, such as California, Colorado, Illinois and New York. It’s odd because he has little chance of winning any of these states.

Here’s what I think is going on:

Trump knows he can only win by turning out low-propensity voters. A new poll backs this up: He leads Kamala Harris among infrequent voters, 52% to 45%. Among voters who always show up, Harris leads by 51% to 47%. It’s very hard to reach voters who aren’t really paying attention. There’s not enough time to hold enough rallies in rural areas of battleground states to effectively connect with these voters. Trump’s best bet is to hold massive rallies in places that might garner national media attention. He hopes these rallies will expand the reach of his message across the country — including the key battlegrounds. The rallies might even convey momentum (even if there isn’t any) and create enthusiasm among his base. In the end, Trump has decided that all politics is now national.

More evidence of the Great Realignment. Unfortunately, there's a flip side to this.

That strategy seems to be bearing fruit in Michigan & Wisconsin, R533.

[quote] There’s not enough time to hold enough rallies in rural areas of battleground states to effectively connect with these voters.

Plus he doesn’t have the stamina .

[quote]I just can't fucking understand it. Since before the VP debate some of THE most hideous, disqualifying news has been surfacing at least twice a week about Trump, but it's only seemed to help his numbers.

Where it comes to Michigan, according to Rolling Stone, Harris's Arab American support there is crashing:

I don’t buy it, r537. This group is not voting for Dump, who is much more militant for Israel.

R538 You'd be surprised how many of them are. While Harris and Trump's ME policies aren't glaringly different, Trump offers them the anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-choice, anti-woman policies they love.

Plus, Trump works for Putin, which means he also works for Iran.

[quote] This group is not voting for Dump, who is much more militant for Israel.

If they voted for Biden, not voting is a plus for Trump.

20+ Muslim leaders have directed American Muslims to vote for Harris and explicitly direct Muslims NOT to vote for 3rd party spoiler canididates.

[quote] The Blue Wall has been inundated with MAGA advertising... not just cable and radio, but online and social media. "Kamala who wants to give free sex-change operations to immigrant criminals in prison" ads - and that's not a clever summation of the ads, it's verbatim. I think these ads are having some impact.

If Trump wins, it will be because of the ads. That's where the Trump campaign has chosen to fight this battle. I'm in Pennsylvania, and the Trump ads are everywhere -- Harris wants to give free sex-change operations to prisoners, Harris will ban fracking and destroy thousands of jobs, Harris wants a huge tax increase, Harris has let illegal immigrants rape and murder children. None of it is true, but I imagine it's working with some voters. Harris has a few good ads, but none that are truly memorable. I keep waiting for the Harris campaign to step up its ad campaign.

It’s not like she doesn’t have the money to run Lincoln Project ads in MI, WI and PA all day, every day for the next four weeks, either.

R544 Here's the deal (no, I'm not Joe Biden), all the negative and TRUE information about Trump (his lies, his narcissism, his rejection of norms and reason, his rejection of constitutional democracy, his racism, his corruption, his romance with dictators and especially his submission to Putin, etc. etc.) matter little. Everyone knows about Trump and either they have ingested the red pills or they don't care.... ideas about Harris are forming, subject to negative ads. Ideas about Trump are etched in stone, impervious to the truth.

The Arabs may not be voting for Trump, but they think denying Harris a win is some kind of victory for them. They’re playing one-dimensional chess.

R546 Tribalism. It's like 1968 and those who opposed the Vietnam War: "no, no, I will NEVER vote for Humphrey who represents Johnson the war criminal!!" And so voted for Nixon (or didn't vote and let Nixon run) and Humprey would have gotten out of Vietnam so much earlier.

So many vote from their irrational anger (c.f. MAGA) not their enlightened, reasoned, self-interest.

It’s something beyond anger. The idea that in “deposing” the leader of a superpower, they are demonstrating their own relevance is deeply childish. All they are going to do is betray those who might have some sympathy for their cause and empower those who wish them harm.

And Jill Stein’s presence indicates they are being led around like cattle by Putin.

Arabs are their own worst enemy in the Middle East, with their constant anti-productive, self-harm actions. Why would they be any different in the U.S.? Logic, practicality, reason don’t apply to them.

The Susquehanna poll teased by R490's link shows Harris up 46-41 in Pennsylvania.

Hey you^ that polling is of the 10th district

No, r551 - the poll is for the 10th district. The Democrat is leading for the House seat as well. This district went for Trump by 4 points in 2020. If the poll is accurate, that’s great news.

^ I was right about to correct myself. You both beat me to the punch.

The Hill/Emerson poll shows Trump now up by 1 in Pennsylvania.

The polls show the top issue in all the battleground states except Arizona is the economy. There’s not anything Harris can do to change that.

Emerson is another one with long history and a decent reputation. I'm sorry to say it but, together with Quinnipiac yesterday, it is possible that the race is actually tightening in Trump's favor.

Almost every incumbent who has had significant inflation in the past 50 years has lost re-election. Reagan was the exception because people blamed Carter.

It's a small sample size, R558, we really haven't had much appreciable inflation in the last 40+ years.

The Emerson poll.

[quote] It's a small sample size, [R558], we really haven't had much appreciable inflation in the last 40+ years.

Thus isn’t a poll. It’s history. I grew up in the inflation era and it’s not a coincidence that one-termers were so common then, but rare before and after. Three of the four Presidents in the era were not re-elected .

Great, something else for me to lose sleep about.

[quote] Thus isn’t a poll. It’s history. I grew up in the inflation era and it’s not a coincidence that one-termers were so common then, but rare before and after. Three of the four Presidents in the era were not re-elected .

Who are the three? Yes, Carter. But Ford was never elected. And the senior Bush's problem was recession-related.

[quote] Great, something else for me to lose sleep about.

There are people with real problems like disease, poverty, and natural disasters, who would love to be able to trade their anxieties for yours.

[quote] There are people with real problems like disease, poverty, and natural disasters, who would love to be able to trade their anxieties for yours.

so you will be voting for Harris/Walz in solidarity with those people suffering from diseases Republicans think they should lose their houses to pay for, natural disasters that are indisputably, quantumly made worse because Republicans refused to accept the reality of climate change and poverty, a circumstance that Republicans believe is caused by laziness rather than the blistering inequities of wealth and opportunity in our country?

Thanks for reminding who is really paying the price.

The new Economist/YouGov Poll has Harris up nationally 4 points.

Here’s an interesting take by Heather Cox Richardson. Sorry I don’t have a better video, someone reposted it.

r546, Arabs play tiddly winks. I flick you, you flick me.

It doesn’t matter that Ford was never elected. He ran for a second term and lost. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that every President who experienced inflation in their first term in our lifetimes (except Reagan) did not get a second term and perhaps it’s just a coincidence that Harris is in danger of losing now, but I don’t think so.

[quote]The new Economist/YouGov Poll has Harris up nationally 4 points.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if she's up by many points nationally. It's about Michigan and Pennsylvania at this point. It's all that matters.

I think if Harris were running against any other Republican, she’d be toast. They only reason it’s close is so many Republicans won’t vote for Trump.

r571 That is patently false. Why do you think Nikki Haley lost the primary?

Only about 9% of self-described Republicans are voting for Harris. The remaining majority of the GOP are no longer conservatives--they're MAGA (which resembles Republicanism of yore only in their enduring affinity for supply-side economics and white purity). The "Republican" party as we've known it for the last 60 years is dead. It's been slowly dying since 2008, but Trump was the final nail in the coffin.

[quote] Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if she's up by many points nationally. It's about Michigan and Pennsylvania at this point. It's all that matters.

See Nate Cohn's theory of the case. And she's polling better of late in Pennsylvania, where she's ahead, than in Michigan.

[quote] I think if Harris were running against any other Republican, she’d be toast. They only reason it’s close is so many Republicans won’t vote for Trump.

I couldn't disagree more. Sure, Trump loses many old guard Republicans, but he offsets those losses through gains in many untraditional voters. Also, no other Republican would me making such inroads into other demographics, like Latinos, Black men & working class whites.

If I give you Ford, R569, whose the third president who lost an election due to inflation?

[quote] R571] That is patently false. Why do you think Nikki Haley lost the primary?

Why do you think she continued to get 30% of the vote after she dropped out of the primary.

Ford, Carter and Bush 41

R576 30% of the GOP vote ain't winning elections.

Not Bush, R577. As already pointed out, 41's problem was a deep recession, not inflation.

[quote] R576] 30% of the GOP vote ain't winning elections.

If Trump were to actually lose 30% of the GOP, he would lose.

There was inflation in Bush 41’s term. Not as high as Carter or early Reagan, but over 5%.

Those Arabs are too stupid to realize Gaza will be wiped off the map and beach front high-rises installed in its place?

Because that’s exactly what’s going to happen if their orange god wins.

I swear, some of these cunts are just too stupid to be believed.

Harris overtakes Trump among suburban voters, Reuters/Ipsos polling shows

Our follow-up thread is up & running.

She has the better chance of grabbing the extra percentage point or two needed to win this thing

[quote] There was inflation in Bush 41’s term. Not as high as Carter or early Reagan, but over 5%.

It was only above 5% (5.4%) in '90, falling to 4.21% in '91, when his poll numbers were so great than many ambitious Democrats chose not to challenge him for reelection. It was down to 3.0% in '92, when he lost. Because of a deep recession.

[quote]She has the better chance of grabbing the extra percentage point or two needed to win this thing

It's true that there will always be someone, somewhere promoting a theory that supports what someone wants to hear. That will continue through to election day.

[quote]He ran for a second term and lost.

r569, technically, he ran for his first term. He completed Nixon's second term.

Inflation and "re-electing" Presidents: Ford was "an incumbent" who was that because he replaced the only President who (on the verge of impeachment and removal) resigned because of his established crimes. Yes, the energy crisis of 1979 didn't help... but no Republican was going to win in the election after Nixon quit.

Bush Sr. lost because of Ross Perot, plain and simple. Not inflation. Inflation in 1992 was 3%.

In 1972 it was 3.4% and Nixon won. In 1984 it was 3.9% and Reagan won. In 1988 it was 4.4% and Bush (sort of representing a Reagan third term) won. In 1996 it was 3.3% and Clinton won.

Current inflation rate is 2.5% Lower than when Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton won re-election.

^^ Sorry, energy crisis and its aftermath of 1973 (Nixon won re-election)

“no Republican was going to win in the election after Nixon quit”

Sure Jan, that’s why the final result was the closest result of any election between 1972 and 1992.

Electoral college: Carter 297, Ford 240. This after Nixon crushed McGovern among predictions that the Dem Party was dead. Nixon 520, McGovern 17.

It was also the first presidential election since 1932 in which the incumbent was defeated, I def think Dems were going to win no matter what in 1976.

I prefer the term sitting president to describe Jerry Ford in 1976. Incumbent denotes something different. And although I don't agree, Ford always ascribed the pardon for his defeat.

[quote] R569], technically, he ran for his first term. He completed Nixon's second term.

That’s not “technically “ true. By that argument, there was no Ford term at all. Most people consider Truman in 48, Johnson in 64 and Ford in 76 to have been running for second terms even though they became President without being elected.

Not sure it's true - but I've heard that the reason George W Bush was determined to invade Iraq is because he believed his father lost because after Desert Storm, they stopped before toppling Saddam (the W was the campaign manager for his father).

My point is not that there has to be high inflation on Election Day. High inflation at any point in a first term has been followed by no second term 3 out of 4 times. Obviously, no can say for sure that inflation caused the losses, but I think it’s a good bet. The Bush 41 recession was over in March 1991, but he still lost almost a year and a half later because once prices go up, they tend to stay up.

But weren't his approval ratings around 90% in March 1991?

Johnson thought he was running in "64 for his OWN term in office.

You can argue it both ways, But you can’t say one is “technically correct.” There is no right answer.

Tools you can use: a recession and inflation are not the same thing.

[quote]Great, something else for me to lose sleep about.

r565, maybe it would be good for you to have one of those of things like disease, poverty, or natural disaster, so that you would know what a real reason to lose sleep over feels like.