2024 POTUS - polling only

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nate Silver is exactly right. You would think with all this media adulation and a highly rated DNC, Harris would be crushing in the national and swing state polls. She hasn’t even had a bounce at all in any national polling average or swing state polling average. Her momentum in late July and early August has stalled and reversed in some cases. That’s not good. Just look at the data and take off your ideological blinders.

Actually, I think she's done an amazing come back from Biden.

-Independent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nate Silver is exactly right. You would think with all this media adulation and a highly rated DNC, Harris would be crushing in the national and swing state polls. She hasn’t even had a bounce at all in any national polling average or swing state polling average. Her momentum in late July and early August has stalled and reversed in some cases. That’s not good. Just look at the data and take off your ideological blinders.

We are a deeply divided country that's about 50/50 split down party lines. You have to understand that when evaluating any national election. She's going great - she and Walz are doing fricking great. It's still close and it will always be close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nate Silver is exactly right. You would think with all this media adulation and a highly rated DNC, Harris would be crushing in the national and swing state polls. She hasn’t even had a bounce at all in any national polling average or swing state polling average. Her momentum in late July and early August has stalled and reversed in some cases. That’s not good. Just look at the data and take off your ideological blinders.

Actually, I think she's done an amazing come back from Biden.

-Independent.

She’s doing better than a candidate who probably had a 20% chance of winning in his current state. That’s not something to brag about.

She is polling way below Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020. That’s what should concern you. You shouldn’t be arrogant because she’s outperforming Biden in 2024, who would have been crushed in a landslide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nate Silver is exactly right. You would think with all this media adulation and a highly rated DNC, Harris would be crushing in the national and swing state polls. She hasn’t even had a bounce at all in any national polling average or swing state polling average. Her momentum in late July and early August has stalled and reversed in some cases. That’s not good. Just look at the data and take off your ideological blinders.

We are a deeply divided country that's about 50/50 split down party lines. You have to understand that when evaluating any national election. She's going great - she and Walz are doing fricking great. It's still close and it will always be close.

It is not a 50/50 split. The nation is now about 30% Republican (I think it's around 28%), about 35% Independent/Moderate and about 35% Democratic.

The key is that the Independent/Moderate vote is flexible. They take stands when polled, but they are not solidly dependable votes for either party and they may not make consistent stands from poll to poll. This middle ground is what the parties have to convince in every election. And sometimes this middle group will split tickets (like the thread on Harris/Hogan or those in Montana who will vote Trump/Tester and so on).

[Anonymous]

We're not a deeply split nation. Republicans are distinctly unpopular.

It's been 40 years since a majority has voted for a Republican President who wasn't a member of the Bush family. Even including the Bush family, Republicans have received more votes than Democrats in only one Presidential election in the last 36 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That’s a really sh|tty pollster for him to make that overall point with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

True to form, Nate Silver responded by referring to the authors of the paper as “boring academics who can't model for shit”. What an a$$hole.

And it's pretty clear this did happen in 2016. Plenty of Ds didn't love Hillary and thought it was ok to stay home because she would win anyway. That's what all the predictions were saying and how the messaging was publicized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nate Silver is exactly right. You would think with all this media adulation and a highly rated DNC, Harris would be crushing in the national and swing state polls. She hasn’t even had a bounce at all in any national polling average or swing state polling average. Her momentum in late July and early August has stalled and reversed in some cases. That’s not good. Just look at the data and take off your ideological blinders.

Actually, I think she's done an amazing come back from Biden.

-Independent.

She’s doing better than a candidate who probably had a 20% chance of winning in his current state. That’s not something to brag about.

She is polling way below Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020. That’s what should concern you. You shouldn’t be arrogant because she’s outperforming Biden in 2024, who would have been crushed in a landslide.

Literally no one is arrogant (except Trump). We are hopeful and feeling positive. That is different from feeling like it's all in the bag. No one with any sense believes it is all in the bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

True to form, Nate Silver responded by referring to the authors of the paper as “boring academics who can't model for shit”. What an a$$hole.

And it's pretty clear this did happen in 2016. Plenty of Ds didn't love Hillary and thought it was ok to stay home because she would win anyway. That's what all the predictions were saying and how the messaging was publicized.

Dems and Independents know there's much more at stake this time around. Don't look at the polls, which are just a snapshot, look at the trends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

True to form, Nate Silver responded by referring to the authors of the paper as “boring academics who can't model for shit”. What an a$$hole.

And it's pretty clear this did happen in 2016. Plenty of Ds didn't love Hillary and thought it was ok to stay home because she would win anyway. That's what all the predictions were saying and how the messaging was publicized.

Dems and Independents know there's much more at stake this time around. Don't look at the polls, which are just a snapshot, look at the trends.

Also, because of the dynamics 2016 and 2020, pollsters have their thumbs on the scale for Republicans - trying to adjust their models. Like military strategists, they're fighting the last war and will inevitably get the modeling wrong (look at the "Red Wave" of 2022 that never materialized) - we just don't know how.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kamala must not be doing well in NH since they’re bussing in people from NY to attend her rally.

Actually, Trum volunteers claim that the campaign has given up on NH as unwinnable. This was reported in a number of sources:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-campaign-ousts-volunteer-warning-new-hampshire-report-1947794

In an email, which was obtained by the Globe, Tom Mountain, a Massachusetts volunteer for the Trump campaign, wrote to other Trump volunteers in the state that "the campaign has determined that New Hampshire is no longer a battleground state," and instead directed supporters to focus on Pennsylvania, another battleground state.

Mountain continued in his email by stating that Trump was "sure to lose by an even higher margin" in New Hampshire than in 2016 and 2020, citing "campaign data/research."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kamala must not be doing well in NH since they’re bussing in people from NY to attend her rally.

Actually, Trum volunteers claim that the campaign has given up on NH as unwinnable. This was reported in a number of sources:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-campaign-ousts-volunteer-warning-new-hampshire-report-1947794

In an email, which was obtained by the Globe, Tom Mountain, a Massachusetts volunteer for the Trump campaign, wrote to other Trump volunteers in the state that "the campaign has determined that New Hampshire is no longer a battleground state," and instead directed supporters to focus on Pennsylvania, another battleground state.

Mountain continued in his email by stating that Trump was "sure to lose by an even higher margin" in New Hampshire than in 2016 and 2020, citing "campaign data/research."

Looks like Trump was wrong. Again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

True to form, Nate Silver responded by referring to the authors of the paper as “boring academics who can't model for shit”. What an a$$hole.

And it's pretty clear this did happen in 2016. Plenty of Ds didn't love Hillary and thought it was ok to stay home because she would win anyway. That's what all the predictions were saying and how the messaging was publicized.

I honestly thought the 2016 election result would be the end of the road for 538 and Nate Silver. But no. His main defense then was that 538's critics didn't understand probability (https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/03/nate-silver-says-conventional-wisdom-not-data-killed-2016-election-forecasts/). However, Trump won 304 electoral votes. The probability assigned by his model to Trump winning by such a large EC margin was tiny. A better defense for Nate would the argument you are presenting - that is, that the model's predictions would have been accurate had the model's predictions not caused a change in behavior.

[Anonymous]

If there were no Electoral College, the Dems would have a firm control on the White House. Instead of mitigating a Tyranny of the Majority, the EC and Senate are promoting a Tyranny of the Minority. That isn't how it was supposed to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there were no Electoral College, the Dems would have a firm control on the White House. Instead of mitigating a Tyranny of the Majority, the EC and Senate are promoting a Tyranny of the Minority. That isn't how it was supposed to work.

Yes. It is truly a misrepresentation.
Wyoming has 0.17% (one sixth of one percent) of the US population, but they have 0.55% of the electoral college. So each vote counts more than triple for the presidency.
Montana has 0.33% (one third of one percent) of the US population, but they have 0.75% of the electoral college, So each vote in Montana counts more than double.
Meanwhile California has 11.7% of the population and has 10% of the electoral college. So each vote in California counts as less than 1 vote.

16 of the 25 smallest states are Republican. These 16 states combined have less population than the state of California (35.2M to 39.1M) and yet they hold 78 EC votes to California's 54 EC votes (14.5% vs 10%)

Truly the tyranny of the minority.