Official Election Poll Thread: Part 5

Carry on.

10/22 Harris holds 46%-43% lead over Trump amid voter gloom, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

Thanks, R2. Even with the cautionary language that Harris's lead, even if it holds, might not be enough to win the Electoral College, this somewhat buoys my spirits. I've been pretty much resigned to doom of late.

Optimistic take by CNBC analyst, Lew Lukens of Signum Global Advisors:

"Harris is expected to win both the popular and electoral votes: Advisory firm"

Advisory firm?

Posted from the end of the last thread:

Listening to the evening call of the co-writer of Game Change who is not John Heilemann & he said, obliquely, that he's been pitched a story for the last week that, IF true, would end Trump's campaign.

Let the guessing begin!

I can’t think of a single fucking thing, r6, that would derail Dump’s campaign with MAGA. And even if there were (he’s secretly trans? A cross dresser?) he’d just deny it.

From Forbes:

Harris leads by four points, 50% to 46%, in Morning Consult’s weekly poll released Tuesday, consistent with last week’s results, but down from her 51%-45% lead in the two polls prior to last week.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll, also released Tuesday, found Harris with a three-point lead, 46% to 43% (but two points when using rounded figures, within the poll’s two-point margin of error); last week’s Reuters/Ipsos poll also found her with a three-point lead, 45% to 42%.

Harris is up one point, 45% to 44%, in a USA Today/Suffolk University poll of likely voters taken Oct. 14-18 (margin of error 3.1), as Trump has narrowed the margins since the groups’ last poll taken in August that found Harris ahead by five points.

Harris also led Trump by just one point—49%-48%—in Emerson College’s poll of likely voters published Friday, after Harris posted two-point leads in September and early October and a four-point lead in August.

Trump regained a lead over Harris in a Fox News poll released Wednesday that found him up 50%-48% among likely voters—a change from Harris’ 50%-48% edge in September, after Trump led her 50%-49% in August.

Harris leads in two other surveys published Wednesday: She has a five-point advantage (52%-47%) in a Marist College poll of likely voters, up from Harris’ two-point edge in the closely watched pollster’s September survey, and a four-point (49%-45%) lead in an Economist/YouGov likely voter poll, equal to Harris’ lead last week.

That’s what I would’ve expected to hear from the host, R7, who’s more sympathetic to Trump than he lets on. But he was unequivocal in his statement that this story, if true, would end his campaign. I’ve ruled out the emergence of the Golden Shower tape. But maybe a dead girl or a live boy.

R6, why next week? Is he gaming for effect?

R10, not for next week. He meant he’s been pitched this story since last week. Others have been, too, he said.

Is this Mark Halperin? Didn’t he just predict a Dump win?

R6, sorry, I'm clinging to hope there's something out there... did he sound like he might or was it too hard to prove?

Yes, Halperin, R12. And he didn’t predict a Trump win, but did say he couldn’t not win IF the early vote continued in the battleground states at the current pace. That there wouldn’t be enough Democratic votes available on Election Day for Harris to win.

We've got to accept that nothing new about Trump will "shock voters" enough to make him lose the election. I mean his own Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called him dangerous and unstable. His own Chief of Staff today reported that Trump wanted have generals like Hitler and that "Hitler did some good things." All this while Trump is saying explicitly on the campaign that he wants to use the military to put people in camps and that he will go after "enemies of the people" like Pelosi et. al. And we are numb, nothing surprises, even just reporting what he says is perceived "oh, Trump is bad, yeah, what's new?"

The banality of evil has completely desensitized us to the peril.

That said... I'm starting to feel like Harris will win. I'm betting over 300 electors.

And lots of folks are saying that Halperin’s take is bullshit. The early vote is leaning in Harris’s direction in most swing states.

R13, he didn’t get into anything beyond what I noted. Just said this story is being peddled & would end the campaign if true. He didn’t address whether he thought it was true or not. At least not in the early part of the call when he raised it, then moved on. I didn’t watch the rest of the call to know if he revisited the subject.

Link please R16.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case, R16. Not all states release early vote data broken down by partisanship, so we have a small sample size. But where we do, in Nevada & Arizona, Republicans are outpacing Democrats in early voting. That’s particularly true in Arizona, where Democrats are well behind their early 2020 pace.

To carry over my point from the previous thread, we don’t know WHO all these early Republicans are voting for, just that they’re voting. Not all registered Republicans are MAGAts.

[quote] That’s particularly true in Arizona, where Democrats are well behind their early 2020 pace.

So confusing given choice is on the ballot in Az.

Point taken, R20, but polls are suggesting that only about 9% of registered Republicans are voting for Harris. And we know, at least in Arizona, that registered Democrats are not voting early in numbers comparable to 2020.

Sigh, I'm just going to resign myself to a loss and be pleasantly surprised if Harris wins.

That’s where I am, R23. I don’t want to experience another 2016 election night shock to my system.

When did it dawn on you about 2016? I remember feeling uneasy by Florida, but I wouldn't believe it.

I can’t remember exactly when, but I was literally shaking when he was declared the winner. And although alone, I blurted out loud, “God help us.” And as bad as I imagined Trump would be, my imagination couldn’t extend to how much worse he actually was. I thought this horror story was over with his defeat, & certainly after J6, but this monstrous clown will not die.

My husband is in media and he was on the floor of the Javitz Center that night. Hillary’s election night party. He says he will never forget the entire room’s slow morph from celebration to hesitant unease to anxiety to shock and despair. We were texting throughout and I was home online watching the smarter people on DailyKos comments come to the same realization.

I guess the minor upside today is this won’t be such a shock if it happens again. But it’s a horrible feeling to fully consider what will happen. Both domestic and global. Hug any Ukrainians in your life, that’s for sure.

Consider Trump winning in 2020 and this would be the last year of his 8 year term in office.

I worry he won't go.

[quote] Sigh, I'm just going to resign myself to a loss and be pleasantly surprised if Harris wins.

[quote] That’s where I am, [R23]. I don’t want to experience another 2016 election night shock to my system.

This is what I'm doing as well.

In the fall of 2016, I was going through a difficult time in my life. I had been wrongfully terminated by an employer which was tied to discrimination and i was dealing with lawyers and the labor department in my state. My cat died of an illness a week before the election. Election Night 2016 was a shock to my system and the next day I had to go to meeting with my lawyer and her paralegal. I hadn't slept much the night before and I rode the bus to her office because I didn't want to drive. Halfway through the meeting she and the paralegal had to step out to take a call from another client. While they were gone I broke down crying and when they came back into the room, I tried to regain my composure. They were sympathetic to me and said they were also upset about the election. I told them that I felt that the other shit going on in my life was adding to the sadness. 2017 was a turnaround year for me. The legal action I had taken against my former employer was successful. I got a remote job that paid well. But, I still was pissed about Trump being in office. I started to follow political news more closely and in 2019 I watched the Dem debates and spent a lot of time researching all of the candidates running.

When the 2020 election rolled around, I took the approach of being prepared for Trump to win and just shaking it off. At the time, I was telling myself that at least I was in a better place in my life compared to 2016. But, given what was going with the covid I was still worried for other people and the future of the country. I voted absentee ballot a couple of weeks before and dropped my ballot off at the county clerk's office. The day of the election, I did a few video meetings with colleagues and then listened to podcasts for the rest of my workday. That night I called my parents and a friend on the phone just to chat. I watched a couple of movies that I DVR'd from TCM. I would occasionally check election returns on my iPad. Over the next few days (Wednesday,Thursday, and Friday, I just did my work and avoided watching cable news. I just kept checking various news sites on election results. When that Saturday morning rolled around, I decided to tune into CNN and votes were still being counted in PA. I have a friend who has MS and is immunocompromised and she had covid concerns. She has vision loss related to the MS and stopped driving years ago. Another friend and I were taking turns picking up her grocery orders and dropping them off at her house. My friend lives 30 minutes away from me, but I didn't mind the drives to take her stuff because it got me out of the house and we usually chatted through an open window when I would drop stuff off. When I was about 15 minutes away from her house, one of the DJs on the radio station I was listening to announced that the race was called for Biden. I pulled over and checked news sites on my phone and a great sense of relief came over me. I got back on the road and drove to my friend's house and we chatted through one of her front windows. She was excited about the win. In the moment I really wanted to hug her and celebrate. I went back home and celebrated with a few glasses of wine and watched TV footage people celebrating on the streets.

Now in 2024, I'm disgusted with the idiots who have continued to support Trump after the January 6th insurrection and the evidence about the election interference. If Trump wins again, I can myself being very down due to people ignoring J6 and the election lie crap which is unforgivable imo. But, I'm trying to get myself into the headspace of just trying to be ok with Trump win. But, if Harris wins I can see myself crying tears of happiness because it will be good to know that enough Americans want Trump out of office.

r30--you handled the 2020 election better than me.

In 2015, I quit smoking; I started again when Trump said he didn't accept the results in 2020. I didn't stop again until after the Biden inauguration.

Look, there is absolutely fucking nothing on God’s green earth that will get through to the cult.

He killed a million of them with his Covid lies. They still worship him.

He stole top secret military documents and sold them to Putin and they make excuses for him.

He’s deteriorating right before their eyes and they deny his dementia and mental illness.

It’s a fucking cult.

[quote] He stole top secret military documents and sold them to Putin

Link.

R31 I was surprised with myself because the day of the election and the few days that I followed I didn't have tons of anxiety. I think just checking election news online and avoiding TV coverage was key in keeping my anxiety down. When I woke up that Saturday morning, something told me to finally watch news coverage which I did before heading off to pick up my friend's groceries.

Lately, I have been having moments of optimism and then moments of pessimism because I know that too many people still support Trump and I know misogyny is still a major issue here. This link is to an IG reel of Congresswoman Haley Stevens at Harris/Walz rally in Detroit and there's a part where she says "we're going to vote for the little girls who dare to dream". I don't want to be heartbroken for the young girls in this country. If Harris loses, the Democrats need to start working right away to limit any damage Trump can do as POTUS and I wish that midwestern moderate Democratic women like Haley Stevens or Elissa Slotkin would be embraced more by the DNC instead of people like AOC and other popular Dems from NY or CA. Slotkin has a background in the CIA and intelligence and Stevens served on Obama's US auto rescue task force staff in 2009. Both women are intelligent but have down-to-earth and humble attitudes. If Slotkin wasn't overweight and if Stevens didn't have that very thick accent and odd physical mannerisms, you would see them more in the media and being promoted by the Dems. Again if Harris loses, the Dems need to start giving focus and a bit of attention to some Dem women from states who aren't from New York, California, or Texas.

I'm in Europe, so I am grateful I can orchestrate a total media blackout until I wake up for results on 6 November. This is excruciating.

You pussies need to get outside and get some sunshine. Harris is going to win!

Still not holding my breath, R37. I've seen this movie too many times.

I agree, R38, I don't think there's any way Cruz loses this race. But I think we get closer and closer every election cycle.

Does anybody have the latest news/polling out of Michigan?

I’m seeing on Twitter predictions of Kamal losing the EC because of just losing Michigan. Is it really predicted to go to Trump at this point?

At the 2:00 mark, here is Halperin's very brief reference to the amorphous campaign-killing story. I've watched him enough to know that he typically has some wry, bemused expression if there's some wild claim being circulated. He seems stone cold dead serious about this story.

R40, there are all kinds of combinations that will support a Kamala win. The simplest is she wins the three blue wall states. With the Maine and Nebraska electoral votes split, that gives her a win. But she doesn’t need Michigan if she wins Arizona and Nevada. And there are other combinations where she doesn’t need Michigan, go to fivethirtyeight.com to try the different combos.

Arizona, R42, has typically been Harris's weakest link.

I still can’t imagine a scenario where something would derail MAGA. His idiot followers will claim the story is fake. But I’ll take a guess it’s something like Alzheimer’s and his doctors confirm it? I don’t know.

Halperin is a kind of a major troll. Why not just spew it? Why all the drama?

It's hard to read Halperin on that story pitch. Part of me thinks he dismissed it, because why draw attention if you're working on it (and know others have been pitched too.) But why mention it with no context at all about the credibility of the pitch. He just says it and moves on. Was he trying to fuel it? I can't figure that out. If he thinks it's true, or credible enough to pursue, why not say that much if you're going to mention it at all? Then again, maybe he was conditioning the ground in advance of it. I cannot read him.

Are there term limits for Cruz?

[quote] I still can’t imagine a scenario where something would derail MAGA.

Halperin's no shrinking violent about MAGAts. And, notwithstanding his objective reporter pose, I've certainly noticed some tells to indicate somewhat of a Trump bias. So if he's so certain this would be a campaign killer, I believe him.

R43, yes it has but there are other combinations of swing states that will give her the win. That was just an example. Just a reminder though, Dump only needs PA and Georgia in addition to his 2020 states to win. He’s pouring all his money into those states.

Members of Congress, R47, are not subject to term limits.

[quote] Does anybody have the latest news/polling out of Michigan?

Listening to Michigan native Mike Murphy on his Hacks on Tap podcast. He's seen internal polling & says it's all about turnout. If, he said, there's a robust turnout with infrequent voters, Harris wins by 3. If a lower turnout, he added, Trump wins by 4.

So let me get this straight. Gallego is up 7 points in the senate race, and abortion is on the ballot, but it's looking bad for Kamala in AZ? Sorry, don't buy it.

[quote] Arizona ballot data compiled by Uplift, a Democratic group that Mr. Almy works for, and reviewed by the Times, suggested that Republican ballots surged in the initial days of early voting and have tapered off to a 2020 pace more recently. Democrats, though, are well behind their 2020 early voting pace, suggesting a realignment reminiscent of the pre-Trump era in Arizona, when the state was a Republican stronghold and G.O.P. mail voters outpaced Democrats in early returns. (Mr. Biden was the first Democratic presidential candidate to win the state since President Bill Clinton in 1996.)

I don't accept early voting trends necessarily mean a ton about turnout in the end.

2020 was a COVID election - it is a natural early voting would be more popular because it was a way to limit your exposure to other people. Focus group of one, but, typically, I vote on election day because... that's election day. This election is not a COVID election.

[quote] Trump's doing much better with independents than in 2020. Harris leads them by a smidge nationally. Trump ahead a little in MI, PA & WI.

[quote] Only Nixon 60, Ford 76 & Kerry 04 have won indies & lost.

[quote] Remember: voters are more likely to see Harris 2024 as too liberal vs. Biden 2020.

Early voting in Arizona remains a problem.

[quote] Another huge day for GOP in in-person early voting today: +10,000

53 percent to 26 percent.

Still waiting for mail numbers.

More from Ralston:

[quote] The early voting blog is updated!

[quote] Out: Clark D firewall

[quote] In: Rural R firewall.

[quote] It's real: 16,500 votes because of massive landslides so far and higher than urban turnout percentage.

[quote] Dems need more mail, lots of indies, or big trouble in NV.

And his most recent post:

[quote] More Clark mail came in after I went to sleep, Dems cut into GOP lead a bit (not a lot).

For those like me who have become gloomy about Harris's prospects, I recommend the most recent Hacks on Tap podcast. Axelrod, Heilemann & Murphy offer some reason for optimism, albeit not unbridled optimism.

They need a bunch of :15 spots with all the disaffected Republicans and staff they can get:

"I'm John Kelly. I'm a retired general, a Republican and I was Donald Trump's chief of staff. I know this man and I am asking you not to vote for him on Nov. He is a danger to this country. No one can be as bad for America as Donald Trump. Please, if you love this country, don't vote for Donald Trump. He's a danger. I saw it up close."

[quote] His analysis of polling data in four key battleground states reveals razor-thin margins, with Trump holding a lead of less than one point in North Carolina and Harris narrowly ahead in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

[quote] Based on current projections, Enten suggested that Harris could secure 276 electoral votes to Trump’s 262, just above the 270 required to win. But he issued a caution: if Pennsylvania flips, Trump could emerge victorious with 281 electoral votes. Given the slim polling margins in that state, Enten noted, it’s not such a “long shot” scenario.

Folks, y'all are looking for data to confirm your worst fears (or secret hopes, if you are trolling). It's too close to call, although Harris is in a better position than Trump both nationally and in 4 of the seven battleground states. This election more than most there are polling services that are trying not to underestimate the Trump vote, as well as trying to figure out how to reach voters in ways more effective in the past (DMs replacing 'landline' calls, e.g.).

Early turnout? Dems destroyed Reps in early turnout in 2020 (COVID and Dem GOTV strategies). Reps are "correcting" that this time. And, NO ONE knows how Reps will vote... especially older women.

It's too close to call. We won't know until the day after the election. It looks better for Harris than for Trump. So breathe, and enjoy your day.

For all the anxiety about PA at the start of this, it's the one place I feel least anxiety about.

Torta, is your husband someone of whom a political junkie would be aware? Does he share your assessment of the state of the race?

R63 Yeah, I don't have anxiety about PA. For me it's Michigan.

No anxiety about Pennsylvania?! The polls are all within the MOE. And we don’t even know if, unlike in the past, they have a good model of Trump voters.

I just think PA has been consistent for her in terms of the polls (even if the polls aren't especially comforting.) Michigan, on the other hand, feels to me like it's eroding.

[quote] So let me get this straight. Gallego is up 7 points in the senate race, and abortion is on the ballot, but it's looking bad for Kamala in AZ? Sorry, don't buy it.

Believe it. It’s all about illegals. Immigration hurts her.

Losing Michigan over Israel is pretty historic.

I see that Halperin - adding now that he doesn't believe it - followed up this morning on the candidacy-killing "story."

[quote] Speaking on his "Morning Meeting" show on YouTube, Halperin shared that although he does not believe the story is accurate, its impact—if it were—would be the October Surprise the political media has been waiting for.

[quote] "I know of one story... I don't believe it is true. But if it's true, it would end Donald Trump's campaign," Halperin said, adding that he's aware of various efforts to influence the race's outcome with less than two weeks until Election Day.

Could it be that he raped children with Jeffrey Epstein?

^ This has now gotten the attention of Drudge.

In an election where the seven battleground states are all polling within a percentage point or two, 50-50 is the only responsible forecast. Since the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, that is more or less exactly where my model has had it.

Yet when I deliver this unsatisfying news, I inevitably get a question: “C’mon, Nate, what’s your gut say?”

So OK, I’ll tell you. My gut says Donald Trump. And my guess is that it is true for many anxious Democrats.

But I don’t think you should put any value whatsoever on anyone’s gut — including mine. Instead, you should resign yourself to the fact that a 50-50 forecast really does mean 50-50. And you should be open to the possibility that those forecasts are wrong, and that could be the case equally in the direction of Mr. Trump or Ms. Harris.

It’s not that I’m inherently against intuition. In poker, for example, it plays a large role. Most of the expert players I have spoken with over the years will say it gives you a little something extra. You’re never certain, but your intuition might tilt the odds to 60-40 in your favor by picking up patterns of when a competitor is bluffing.

But poker players base that little something on thousands of hands of experience. There are presidential elections only every four years. When asked who will win, most people say Mr. Trump because of recency bias — he won in 2016, when he wasn’t expected to, and then almost won in 2020 despite being well behind in the polls. But we might not remember 2012, when Barack Obama not only won but beat his polls. It’s extremely hard to predict the direction of polling errors.

Why Trump could beat his polls The people whose gut tells them Mr. Trump will win frequently invoke the notion of “shy Trump voters.” The theory, adopted from the term “shy Tories” for the tendency of British polls to underestimate Conservatives, is that people do not want to admit to voting for conservative parties because of the social stigma attached to them.

But there’s not much evidence for the shy-voter theory — nor has there been any persistent tendency in elections worldwide for right-wing parties to outperform their polls. (Case in point: Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party underachieved its polls in this summer’s French legislative elections.) There’s even a certain snobbery to the theory. Many people are proud to admit their support for Mr. Trump, and if anything, there’s less stigma to voting for him than ever.

Instead, the likely problem is what pollsters call nonresponse bias. It’s not that Trump voters are lying to pollsters; it’s that in 2016 and 2020, pollsters weren’t reaching enough of them.

Nonresponse bias can be a hard problem to solve. Response rates to even the best telephone polls are in the single digits — in some sense, the people who choose to respond to polls are unusual. Trump supporters often have lower civic engagement and social trust, so they can be less inclined to complete a survey from a news organization. Pollsters are attempting to correct for this problem with increasingly aggressive data-massaging techniques, like weighing by educational attainment (college-educated voters are more likely to respond to surveys) or even by how people say they voted in the past. There’s no guarantee any of this will work.

If Mr. Trump does beat his polling, there will have been at least one clear sign of it: Democrats no longer have a consistent edge in party identification — about as many people now identify as Republicans.

There’s also the fact that Ms. Harris is running to become the first female president and the second Black one. The so-called Bradley effect — named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who underperformed his polls in the 1982 California governor’s race, for the supposed tendency of voters to say they’re undecided rather than admit they won’t vote for a Black candidate — wasn’t a problem for Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012. Still, the only other time a woman was her party’s nominee, undecided voters tilted heavily against her. So perhaps Ms. Harris should have some concerns about a “Hillary effect.”

Why Harris could beat her polls A surprise in polling that underestimates Ms. Harris isn’t necessarily less likely than one for Mr. Trump. On average, polls miss by three or four points. If Ms. Harris does that, she will win by the largest margin in both the popular vote and the Electoral College since Mr. Obama in 2008.

How might that happen? It could be because of something like what happened in Britain in 2017, related to the “shy Tories” theory. Expected to be a Tory sweep, the election instead resulted in Conservatives losing their majority. There was a lot of disagreement among pollsters, and some did nail the outcome. But others made the mistake of not trusting their data, making ad hoc adjustments after years of being worried about “shy Tories.”

Polls are increasingly like mini-models, with pollsters facing many decision points about how to translate nonrepresentative raw data into an accurate representation of the electorate. If pollsters are terrified of missing low on Mr. Trump again, they may consciously or unconsciously make assumptions that favor him.

For instance, the new techniques that pollsters are applying could be overkill. One problem with using one of those — “weighting on recalled vote,” or trying to account for how voters report their pick in the last election — is that people often misremember or misstate whom they voted for and are more likely to say they voted for the winner (in 2020, Mr. Biden).

That could plausibly bias the polls against Ms. Harris because people who say they voted for Mr. Biden but actually voted for Mr. Trump will get flagged as new Trump voters when they aren’t. There’s also a credible case that 2020 polling errors were partly because of Covid restrictions: Democrats were more likely to stay at home and therefore had more time on their hands to answer phone calls. If pollsters are correcting for what was a once-in-a-century occurrence, they may be overdoing it this time.

Last, there is Democrats’ persistently strong performance over the past two years — since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — in special elections, ballot referendums and the 2022 midterms. Democrats shouldn’t hang their hopes on this one: High-quality surveys like the New York Times/Siena College polls can replicate these results by showing Democrats polling strongly among the most motivated voters who show up in these low-turnout elections — but Mr. Trump making up for it by winning most of the marginal voters. So Democrats may be rooting for lower turnout. If those marginal voters don’t show up, Ms. Harris could overperform; if they do, Mr. Trump could.

Or maybe pollsters are herding toward a false consensus Here’s another counterintuitive finding: It’s surprisingly likely that the election won’t be a photo finish.

With polling averages so close, even a small systematic polling error like the one the industry experienced in 2016 or 2020 could produce a comfortable Electoral College victory for Ms. Harris or Mr. Trump. According to my model, there’s about a 60 percent chance that one candidate will sweep at least six of seven battleground states.

Polling firms are pilloried on social media whenever they publish a result deemed an “outlier” — so most of them don’t, instead herding toward a consensus and matching what polling averages (and people’s instincts) show. The Times/Siena polls are one of the few regular exceptions, and they depict a much different electorate than others, with Mr. Trump making significant gains with Black and Hispanic voters but lagging in the blue-wall states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Don’t be surprised if a relatively decisive win for one of the candidates is in the cards — or if there are bigger shifts from 2020 than most people’s guts might tell them.

It's funny how the polls tell one story - it's super duper tight - and the rallies tell quite another story according to which enthusiasm and engagement is mostly on Harris's side. I'm sorry, but I'm going to ignore the polls and will keep watching highlights of Trump's rallies with their spotty leaking crowds.

Not a bad guess, R71.

I’m fully confident that Kamala will win due to women and others being scared of Trump. But it will be close and we will have to sit through all the various legal and emotional that Trump will cause. I can’t think for a second that he will win. If he does, then Americans are doomed.

Bob Casey is losing in PA to a crazy anti-abortion MAGA cunt.

R76, I'm old enough to remember the large, excited, late election crowds for George McGovern ... who then proceeded to lose 49 states to Nixon.

This Halpern dude is smoking crack if he thinks anything is enough to break through to the cult.

Has he never heard of Jonestown? Koresh? That Hale-Bopp group of nutters?

The maggots will literally DIE before they turn against him.

I totally believe Dump is capable of that, r71, but he will just deny it and claim he’s being persecuted. Maybe if the actual victims came forward? There would have to be a bunch of them. Even then, I just don’t think the MAGA idiots would buy it.

R81, I don't know if he's thinking about the cultists. I think he's probably more thinking about the many non-MAGA Trump voters. Yes, they really do exist. It's why the Harris campaign is relying so much on Liz Cheney in hopes of peeling some of them off.

[quote ] Trump leads Harris by two points, 51% to 49%, nationally among likely voters, including those who are leaning toward one candidate, according to a HarrisX/Forbes survey released Wednesday (margin of error 2.5), and he’s up one point, 49% to 48%, without so-called leaners.

[quote] Trump leads 49%-48% with leaners, and is tied at 47% without leaners, if respondents can select third-party candidates, according to HarrisX.

[quote] In a Monmouth University poll of 802 registered voters taken Oct. 17-21 and also released Wednesday, Harris has a three-point advantage, 47% to 44%, over Trump among respondents who said they “definitely” or “probably” planned to vote for one of the candidates, while 4% chose “other” and 5% chose no candidate.

[quote] Trump regained a lead over Harris in a Fox News poll released Wednesday that found him up 50%-48% among likely voters—a change from Harris’ 50%-48% edge in September, after Trump led her 50%-49% in August.

[quote] Harris leads in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin, while Trump is ahead in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. That means Trump would win the election if the state-level polling proves to be exactly right—but all seven swing states are within low single digits, and most have margins of less than a percentage point.

New Quinnipiac poll of Michigan & Wisconsin.

MICHIGAN: Harris 49%, Trump 46%, other candidates 2%

WISCONSIN: Harris 48%, Trump 48%

More from Quinnipiac:

[quote] In Michigan, Harris receives 49 percent support among likely voters, Trump receives 46 percent support, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein and independent candidate Cornel West each receive 1 percent support.

[quote] This compares to Quinnipiac University's October 9 poll when Trump received 50 percent support, Harris received 47 percent support, and Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver and West each received 1 percent support.

[quote] In Wisconsin, the presidential race is tied, with Harris receiving 48 percent support among likely voters and Trump receiving 48 percent support in a multi-candidate race with all listed third-party candidates each receiving less than 1 percent support.

[quote] This compares to Quinnipiac University's October 9 poll when Trump received 48 percent support, Harris received 46 percent support, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver each received 1 percent support.

[quote] In the U.S. Senate race in Michigan, Democratic Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin holds a lead, with 52 percent support among likely voters and former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers receiving 44 percent support.

[quote] This compares to Quinnipiac University's October 9 poll when Slotkin and Rogers were tied, with each receiving 48 percent support among likely voters.

[quote] In the U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin, incumbent Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin receives 49 percent support among likely voters and Republican challenger Eric Hovde receives 48 percent support, making the race too close to call.

[quote] This compares to Quinnipiac University's October 9 poll when Baldwin received 50 percent support and Hovde received 46 percent support.

God, is it time to turn the page. Tired of Trump. Tired of Nate Silver. Tired of Ted Cruz. Tired of Lindsey Graham. Tired of Matt Gaetz. Tired of a government controlling women's bodies and threatening to tell me my marriage is illegal.

R89 As I recommend to myself to stop watching the polls I just keep trying to kick the football hoping that for once Lucy won't pull it away and Harris sails through the goal posts. (Yeah, yeah, cranky metaphors...)

But these public polls aren't good for much other than showing "trends", and Q, which is a high quality poll, is showing movement TOWARD Harris. I'll take it.

[quote]Again if Harris loses, the Dems need to start giving focus and a bit of attention to some Dem women from states who aren't from New York, California, or Texas.

R34 You are speaking to the choir. White women and men with moderate attitudes from the flyover states must be identified and promoted. I know this is politically incorrect, but there can be too many black faces in an Administration, too many progressive faces, too many minority women, etc.

Damn, it felt good to block, R90.

There is a problem of many Democratic politicians from flyover states being ignored. Tim Walz was pretty much ignored and under the radar before being selected as Kamala's running because the Midwestern governors who were getting the attention in recent years were Pritzker and Whitmer. Tony Evers of Wisconsin is ignored. In Western flyover states, Dem governors like Michelle Lujan Grisham, and Jared Polis are mostly ignored. Most of the media attention Grisham gets is often tied to the Texas abortion bans because many women go into New Mexico to get abortions and clog up the system there. It drives me nuts how some pro-choice activists aren't giving Grisham credit for leading a state that is a reproductive freedom haven and has welcomed in some OB/GYNs who have fled from TX to NM.

There are Democratic Congresspeople and Senators of different races and backgrounds from flyover states who are also being ignored and pretty much cast aside because the media likes to prop up New York senators like Gillibrand and Schumer, NY congresswoman pretty girl AOC, and then add in Californians like Eric Swalwell, Pelosi, Adam Schiff etc. Swalwell and AOC are both smug as fuck like Gavin Newsom and Kathy Hochul are. If Swalwell attempts another presidential run, he's not going to appeal to people in the flyover states and it would be the same with AOC if she attempted a presidential run.

Is there a CNN Tow. Hall thread?

[quote] Today's update. Pretty good polling day for HARRIS after a good day for Trump yesterday. The model isn't that impressed by any of this and thinks that you're all overthinking what remains basically a 50/50 race.

From The GenForward survey, which ran from Sept. 26 to Oct. 6 by the University of Chicago and included 2,359 eligible voters 18 to 40 years old:

A quarter of young Black men are supporting Trump. (Black men overall backed President Joe Biden nearly nine to one in 2020.)

44 percent of young Latino men said they'd back Trump, an improvement over the roughly 38 percent who backed him in 2020.

Harris is at 58 percent with Black men, 37 percent with Latinos and 57 percent with Asian American and Pacific Islander men.

A majority of Black (63 percent), Asian American and Pacific Islander (60 percent) and Latina (55 percent) women say they will vote for Harris.

White women are nearly evenly split between Harris (44 percent) and Trump (40 percent).

R95, since white women far outnumber in the electorate the other groups in your cited survey, especially in the key Blue Wall states & Nebraska-2, Harris winning them, something neither Hillary nor Biden was able to do, augurs well for her chances of eking out a victory in the Electoral College.

[quote] In Arizona, Trump earns 50 percent to Harris’ 49 percent. North Carolina also has Trump at 50 percent, while Harris is at 48 percent. The two are tied at 49 percent in Georgia.

[quote] GOP statewide lead is 18,500, or 5 percent.

[quote] Rural landslide/high turnout is responsible. Suddenly Republicans have discovered the benefits of voting early and by mail.

Married white women care more about their pocketbooks and their kids (crime and trans crap) than abortion. That’s why there’s a split. Don’t expect women to save the day.