Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

538 and Nate both have Harris at 55% winning.... too low for my liking.  I'm not suggesting they are wrong or anything... I haven't been paying too much attention other than what I see here and on twitter.

 

Posted
6 hours ago, oblong said:

538 and Nate both have Harris at 55% winning.... too low for my liking.  I'm not suggesting they are wrong or anything... I haven't been paying too much attention other than what I see here and on twitter.

 

Nobody will say it, but between the pollsters and the aggregators, there are many incentives not to underestimate Donald Trump's chances this year 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

In 1968 an immigrant named Sirhan Sirhan shot and killed the man who looked destined to by our 37th President. 

 

Kamala Harris' fault. 

It was in California. As D/A, she just let him go after he murdered an entire family and ate their dog. 

Posted
7 hours ago, oblong said:

538 and Nate both have Harris at 55% winning.... too low for my liking.  I'm not suggesting they are wrong or anything... I haven't been paying too much attention other than what I see here and on twitter.

 

Harris with a very slight edge is a consistent theme.  The gamblers give her a similar edge.  It's basically a toss up right now.  

Posted
13 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Nobody will say it, but between the pollsters and the aggregators, there are many incentives not to underestimate Donald Trump's chances this year 

I think we have seen from 2016 that the Trump campaign has some kind of stealth voter turnout capability.

Posted
8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think we have seen from 2016 that the Trump campaign has some kind of stealth voter turnout capability.

Without investigating it.... was it turnout for Trump or apathy towards Hillary?

I know going by gut feeling is bad but I can't help but feel there's real meaning in the crowds and enthusiasm I see for Kamala, which exceeded my what my expectations would have been prior to July 2024.  I think having a black woman is going to draw in voters that didn't participate previously and I don't know how pollsters can account for that.  But maybe they are.

To me 2020 is the baseline and I don't think dems lose any share, they only gain, and the GOP doesn't gain any, they lose share.  

 

Posted
Just now, oblong said:

Without investigating it.... was it turnout for Trump or apathy towards Hillary?

 

Without knowing for sure either way, i would hope Harris-Walz never lets their foot up off the gas even a touch.

Posted
4 hours ago, oblong said:

Without investigating it.... was it turnout for Trump or apathy towards Hillary?

Voter apathy, and it's just hard in this country for the same party to win the Presidency three elections in a row; Reagan-Reagan-Bush are the exception, not the norm.

2020 was a different ball of wax, but I don't think it was so much a secret stealth Trump voter more than it was COVID and how it impacted sampling. Along with the fact that the Democrats basically had zero ground game as well (which won't be the case this year).

Either way, pollsters aren't going to broadcast trade secrets, but there's little chance that they all sat around for the past four years without making modifications based on lessons learned from 2020. Especially given, again, the incentives strongly favor not underestimating Trump again.

Posted (edited)

With polling as well, discussing 2020, it's important to note that most national polling and state polling (Wisconsin being the exception) were pretty close on Biden's share of the vote.... for instance, he was generally pulling 51-52% in a lot of the national polling that year, but polls underestimated Trump's share. This is a big factor in the "miss"

Fast forward to four years, Harris has polls where she's pulling a similar share to Biden, but Trump's share is polling a lot higher in 2024 than it did four years ago. This doesn't mean that polling error isn't possible in 2024, but it does tell me that if it happens, it isn't going to happen exactly like 2020. And it's a possible data point to suggest that pollsters might be having a better time picking up Trump's support versus previous cycles.

Edited by mtutiger
Posted

Big for a few reasons... One, it's an important EC vote. But another reason is that the Omaha district may be most fitting avatar for a generic suburban district and suggests Trump will fall further in suburban areas this fall

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Cruz is stuck hoping Trump's margin in Texas is close to 2020... If she can draw closer, like into range of a Trump +3 or so, the Senate race will be a tossup. He's just a uniquely flawed politician

Edited by mtutiger
Posted
16 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Big for a few reasons... One, it's an important EC vote. But another reason is that the Omaha district may be most fitting avatar for a generic suburban district and suggests Trump will fall further in suburban areas this fall

If Harris is +9, I think Bacon may be toast. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

If Harris is +9, I think Bacon may be toast. 

Bacon tends to be served on toast with lettuce and tomato... Sometimes avocado (for the millennial crowd).

  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...