Harris beating Trump in Iowa

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol if you believe this. Have you been to Iowa? I grew up there. The Democrats are dead to those people. I have family members that were Democrats for years, but are now loyal Trump supporters. No chance those people are backing Kamala Harris.

Did you see the post above yours? Ann Seltzer polls are usually very accurate.

Ok. Everyone is wrong sometimes, and here, direct experience strongly indicates this poll is very wrong. It is also an outlier among polls. For all I know, Ann Seltzer got a huge payday to sacrifice some credibility to put out good numbers for Harris. In any event, I do not believe it is accurate. This is based on the experience of having grown up there and having watched people abandon the Democrats first hand.

A Democrat got 47.5% of the vote for Iowa governor in 2018.

That’s a lot different than a national democrat. And kamala harris is a bottom of the barrel national democrat at that. No chance there has been a huge swing in her favor.

Copium

Like i said, you’re free to think whatever you want. Experience tells me you are wrong and Seltzer is wrong.

Except Seltzer has been spot on for the last 12+ years, even as she’s contrasted other polls. I tend to lean on her reliability as a good indicator of where things are vs. your gut.

That’s your choice. I believe she is wrong. I would not even be surprised to learn she got paid big money to put out a poll like this. I fully expect these types of organizations to throw out some last minute polls purporting to show that Kamala Harris is riding high as a last ditch effort to try to push her across the line. It is all BS by a very partisan set at this point.

NP. Was she wrong when she called Iowa for the obese orange man in 2016 and 2020?

She is now claiming there has been an astronomic 11 point shift leftward in one election cycle. That doesn’t happen with the political polarization in the country. Nothing in the 2022 midterms showed that Democrats were gaining ground in Iowa.

Post-Dobbs, new Democratic candidate, post J6, and voters have had 4 more years to "get to know" Donald Trump.

Plus it might not be an 11 point shift. Her margin for error is 3.4%. So it could be 5-8 point shift which is not actually weird. A lot of places saw a similar swing between Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016.

Voters outside of DC don’t give a shit about J6, and Trump’s favorability is higher than it has been.

Are you kidding? That is the one thing independents are unable to put aside in considering a vote for Trump. J6 was an appalling attack on democracy.

Poll after poll shows you are wrong.

Selzer had Trump leading Biden by 18 points in Iowa. That doesn’t happen with Iowa independents “unable to put aside” Jan 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emerson poll has Trump +10 in Iowa. But feel free to cling to whatever poll makes you happier.

Yes but Selzer is THE Iowa pollster. Emerson polls nationally and is parachuting in.

I'm really struggling with this because the gulf is so wide, but I trust Selzer on Iowa over anyone else.

Her result is still within a standard margin of error, making them effectively tied. But if true, that is a huge swing. Iowa should not be in play if Trump is winning.

Also I'm still reviewing details of the poll but the most interesting result: it has women 65+ voting Harris 2-1. That's a huge deal because that's a very reliable voting bloc-- older people vote at high rates and older women vote more reliably than men.

You can trust Selzer and still recognize the margin of error in her own poll could have Trump winning Iowa by 3.4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol if you believe this. Have you been to Iowa? I grew up there. The Democrats are dead to those people. I have family members that were Democrats for years, but are now loyal Trump supporters. No chance those people are backing Kamala Harris.

Did you see the post above yours? Ann Seltzer polls are usually very accurate.

Ok. Everyone is wrong sometimes, and here, direct experience strongly indicates this poll is very wrong. It is also an outlier among polls. For all I know, Ann Seltzer got a huge payday to sacrifice some credibility to put out good numbers for Harris. In any event, I do not believe it is accurate. This is based on the experience of having grown up there and having watched people abandon the Democrats first hand.

A Democrat got 47.5% of the vote for Iowa governor in 2018.

That’s a lot different than a national democrat. And kamala harris is a bottom of the barrel national democrat at that. No chance there has been a huge swing in her favor.

Copium

Like i said, you’re free to think whatever you want. Experience tells me you are wrong and Seltzer is wrong.

Except Seltzer has been spot on for the last 12+ years, even as she’s contrasted other polls. I tend to lean on her reliability as a good indicator of where things are vs. your gut.

That’s your choice. I believe she is wrong. I would not even be surprised to learn she got paid big money to put out a poll like this. I fully expect these types of organizations to throw out some last minute polls purporting to show that Kamala Harris is riding high as a last ditch effort to try to push her across the line. It is all BS by a very partisan set at this point.

NP. Was she wrong when she called Iowa for the obese orange man in 2016 and 2020?

She is now claiming there has been an astronomic 11 point shift leftward in one election cycle. That doesn’t happen with the political polarization in the country. Nothing in the 2022 midterms showed that Democrats were gaining ground in Iowa.

Post-Dobbs, new Democratic candidate, post J6, and voters have had 4 more years to "get to know" Donald Trump.

Plus it might not be an 11 point shift. Her margin for error is 3.4%. So it could be 5-8 point shift which is not actually weird. A lot of places saw a similar swing between Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016.

Voters outside of DC don’t give a shit about J6, and Trump’s favorability is higher than it has been.

Are you kidding? That is the one thing independents are unable to put aside in considering a vote for Trump. J6 was an appalling attack on democracy.

Poll after poll shows you are wrong.

Can you show your citation? What you say is *very* different than the data I’ve seen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emerson poll has Trump +10 in Iowa. But feel free to cling to whatever poll makes you happier.

Yes but Selzer is THE Iowa pollster. Emerson polls nationally and is parachuting in.

I'm really struggling with this because the gulf is so wide, but I trust Selzer on Iowa over anyone else.

Her result is still within a standard margin of error, making them effectively tied. But if true, that is a huge swing. Iowa should not be in play if Trump is winning.

Also I'm still reviewing details of the poll but the most interesting result: it has women 65+ voting Harris 2-1. That's a huge deal because that's a very reliable voting bloc-- older people vote at high rates and older women vote more reliably than men.

You can trust Selzer and still recognize the margin of error in her own poll could have Trump winning Iowa by 3.4.

Which would be a horrible result for Trump. It means he loses the election and goes to prison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emerson poll has Trump +10 in Iowa. But feel free to cling to whatever poll makes you happier.

Yes but Selzer is THE Iowa pollster. Emerson polls nationally and is parachuting in.

I'm really struggling with this because the gulf is so wide, but I trust Selzer on Iowa over anyone else.

Her result is still within a standard margin of error, making them effectively tied. But if true, that is a huge swing. Iowa should not be in play if Trump is winning.

Also I'm still reviewing details of the poll but the most interesting result: it has women 65+ voting Harris 2-1. That's a huge deal because that's a very reliable voting bloc-- older people vote at high rates and older women vote more reliably than men.

You can trust Selzer and still recognize the margin of error in her own poll could have Trump winning Iowa by 3.4.

Which would be a horrible result for Trump. It means he loses the election and goes to prison.

Yep. This. If Trump narrowly wins Iowa it means the other swing states go to Harris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emerson poll has Trump +10 in Iowa. But feel free to cling to whatever poll makes you happier.

Yes but Selzer is THE Iowa pollster. Emerson polls nationally and is parachuting in.

I'm really struggling with this because the gulf is so wide, but I trust Selzer on Iowa over anyone else.

Her result is still within a standard margin of error, making them effectively tied. But if true, that is a huge swing. Iowa should not be in play if Trump is winning.

Also I'm still reviewing details of the poll but the most interesting result: it has women 65+ voting Harris 2-1. That's a huge deal because that's a very reliable voting bloc-- older people vote at high rates and older women vote more reliably than men.

You can trust Selzer and still recognize the margin of error in her own poll could have Trump winning Iowa by 3.4.

Which would be a horrible result for Trump. It means he loses the election and goes to prison.

Huh? How would Trump winning Iowa send him to prison?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emerson poll has Trump +10 in Iowa. But feel free to cling to whatever poll makes you happier.

Yes but Selzer is THE Iowa pollster. Emerson polls nationally and is parachuting in.

I'm really struggling with this because the gulf is so wide, but I trust Selzer on Iowa over anyone else.

Her result is still within a standard margin of error, making them effectively tied. But if true, that is a huge swing. Iowa should not be in play if Trump is winning.

Also I'm still reviewing details of the poll but the most interesting result: it has women 65+ voting Harris 2-1. That's a huge deal because that's a very reliable voting bloc-- older people vote at high rates and older women vote more reliably than men.

You can trust Selzer and still recognize the margin of error in her own poll could have Trump winning Iowa by 3.4.

Which would be a horrible result for Trump. It means he loses the election and goes to prison.

Yep. This. If Trump narrowly wins Iowa it means the other swing states go to Harris.

Uh no, it doesn’t. What a bizarre argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol if you believe this. Have you been to Iowa? I grew up there. The Democrats are dead to those people. I have family members that were Democrats for years, but are now loyal Trump supporters. No chance those people are backing Kamala Harris.

Did you see the post above yours? Ann Seltzer polls are usually very accurate.

Ok. Everyone is wrong sometimes, and here, direct experience strongly indicates this poll is very wrong. It is also an outlier among polls. For all I know, Ann Seltzer got a huge payday to sacrifice some credibility to put out good numbers for Harris. In any event, I do not believe it is accurate. This is based on the experience of having grown up there and having watched people abandon the Democrats first hand.

A Democrat got 47.5% of the vote for Iowa governor in 2018.

That’s a lot different than a national democrat. And kamala harris is a bottom of the barrel national democrat at that. No chance there has been a huge swing in her favor.

Copium

Like i said, you’re free to think whatever you want. Experience tells me you are wrong and Seltzer is wrong.

Except Seltzer has been spot on for the last 12+ years, even as she’s contrasted other polls. I tend to lean on her reliability as a good indicator of where things are vs. your gut.

That’s your choice. I believe she is wrong. I would not even be surprised to learn she got paid big money to put out a poll like this. I fully expect these types of organizations to throw out some last minute polls purporting to show that Kamala Harris is riding high as a last ditch effort to try to push her across the line. It is all BS by a very partisan set at this point.

NP. Was she wrong when she called Iowa for the obese orange man in 2016 and 2020?

She is now claiming there has been an astronomic 11 point shift leftward in one election cycle. That doesn’t happen with the political polarization in the country. Nothing in the 2022 midterms showed that Democrats were gaining ground in Iowa.

Post-Dobbs, new Democratic candidate, post J6, and voters have had 4 more years to "get to know" Donald Trump.

Plus it might not be an 11 point shift. Her margin for error is 3.4%. So it could be 5-8 point shift which is not actually weird. A lot of places saw a similar swing between Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016.

Voters outside of DC don’t give a shit about J6, and Trump’s favorability is higher than it has been.

Are you kidding? That is the one thing independents are unable to put aside in considering a vote for Trump. J6 was an appalling attack on democracy.

Poll after poll shows you are wrong.

Can you show your citation? What you say is *very* different than the data I’ve seen

Polls of leading voter concerns stratified by party have been posted here numerous times. Inflation and immigration are the top concerns and J6 doesn’t make the top ten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emerson poll has Trump +10 in Iowa. But feel free to cling to whatever poll makes you happier.

Yes but Selzer is THE Iowa pollster. Emerson polls nationally and is parachuting in.

I'm really struggling with this because the gulf is so wide, but I trust Selzer on Iowa over anyone else.

Her result is still within a standard margin of error, making them effectively tied. But if true, that is a huge swing. Iowa should not be in play if Trump is winning.

Also I'm still reviewing details of the poll but the most interesting result: it has women 65+ voting Harris 2-1. That's a huge deal because that's a very reliable voting bloc-- older people vote at high rates and older women vote more reliably than men.

You can trust Selzer and still recognize the margin of error in her own poll could have Trump winning Iowa by 3.4.

Which would be a horrible result for Trump. It means he loses the election and goes to prison.

Yep. This. If Trump narrowly wins Iowa it means the other swing states go to Harris.

Uh no, it doesn’t. What a bizarre argument.

Okay let me try to explain more to get through your MAGA head. Of course it’s not causal. But it means that the polls suggesting it’s close in the other states are far off, too. It means that older white women will be coming out in droves for Harris. Iowa being this close is beacon for the rest of the Midwest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emerson poll has Trump +10 in Iowa. But feel free to cling to whatever poll makes you happier.

Yes but Selzer is THE Iowa pollster. Emerson polls nationally and is parachuting in.

I'm really struggling with this because the gulf is so wide, but I trust Selzer on Iowa over anyone else.

Her result is still within a standard margin of error, making them effectively tied. But if true, that is a huge swing. Iowa should not be in play if Trump is winning.

Also I'm still reviewing details of the poll but the most interesting result: it has women 65+ voting Harris 2-1. That's a huge deal because that's a very reliable voting bloc-- older people vote at high rates and older women vote more reliably than men.

You can trust Selzer and still recognize the margin of error in her own poll could have Trump winning Iowa by 3.4.

Which would be a horrible result for Trump. It means he loses the election and goes to prison.

Yep. This. If Trump narrowly wins Iowa it means the other swing states go to Harris.

Uh no, it doesn’t. What a bizarre argument.

Interpolation is your friend. Look it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening people! Thank goodness.

Trump beat Biden in Iowa by 8 pts in 2020. Harris has overtaken him.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/

Wow. If this comes to pass, Harris will have a Reaganesque victory.

My Magic 8 Ball has predicted all along that Harris wins BIGLY!

[Anonymous]

Latest Reuters has Harris ahead in Iowa.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-tops-trump-latest-iowa-poll-marking-turnaround-des-moines-register-survey-2024-11-03/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Latest Reuters has Harris ahead in Iowa.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-tops-trump-latest-iowa-poll-marking-turnaround-des-moines-register-survey-2024-11-03/

That's the Selzer poll

[Anonymous]

Nate Silver on the Selzer poll

As you’ve probably heard if you follow polling closely, Ann Selzer — our highest-rated pollster — just came out with a survey showing Kamala Harris leading by 3 points in Iowa! Before you get your hopes up too much, another Iowa poll today from Emerson College had Trump ahead by 9 points instead. Still, Harris’s chances in Iowa roughly doubled from 9 percent to 17 percent.

However, the poll had little effect on our topline Electoral College numbers because Iowa has only a 1 percent chance of being the tipping-point state. In the world where Harris wins Iowa, she is probably also cleaning up elsewhere in the Midwest, particularly in Michigan and Wisconsin, in which case she’s already almost certain to win the Electoral College. So most of the time, it would be redundant.

Still, to have a prominent, high-quality pollster like this at a time when most other pollsters are herding toward the consensus suggests the possibility that other pollsters could be lowballing Harris.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is where I am, too.