NYT/Siena has not run polls in WI in that timeframe. Onlt Rasmussen and pals. She is not going to lose WI. 2024 Wisconsin: Trump vs. Harris | RealClearPolling
Pedantry sidenote #2: it’s Jon Lovitz.
This initially excited me but less so after I’ve done some digging.
It seems like a fair amount of the increase is indeed the result of the GOP embracing and pushing early voting this time instead of demonizing it.
Small poll but still Trump leads among early voters in battleground states in it.
https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article293999689.html
And while in Georgia early voters are more often women they also lean to over 65 and white.
Assuming past ratios among early voters is likely not justifiable.
Thank you. This Trump bounceback had been pure artifice. But without the almighty poll results to offer up … I just have to swallow bile for a few weeks until the actual election.
I’m frustrated that high-profile posters are now in a position where “they nailed it!” no matter what happens. Disillusioned with polling now, that’s all.
Well, and Morning Consult, which usually is slightly D ward, having Trump up by one.
Just a poll just a poll just a poll … cleansing breath … I’ll be okay.
Everything about Georgia screams blue at the moment. It seems to be the next Virginia, like we had the other thread about - a state that flips from red to blue without ever having a purple phase.
I do hear Blue screams right now. One in the back of my head that I’m telling to chill out. But can you please share what is so screaming Blue to you that is y’know fact based?
Older voters probably skew female because women live longer. I did not work the numbers, but I think the higher female voting in Georgia might be totally explained by that.
Heavy early voting tells me almost nothing except that early voting is getting more popular.
However, speculation on this couldn’t be more harmless. As said before, if the election is close enough, everything matters.
I’ve never heard Meidas reference Huffpost.
Have you ever met a retirement-aged Georgia woman? 95% Republicans. If that’s who’s standing in these early voting lines, that is not good news for Harris.
I voted early today in Indianerrr. Straight D. Won’t mean much, perhaps, but there you go…
But butt buttt 538 has it Harris 51, Trump 49.
Why? Because Trump is RESURGENT. I mean, c’mon guys. Meltdowns like the kind he’s doing recently (every day) are totally going to convince “independents” to vote for him. Plus his nazi rhetoric. Meanwhile, Kamala’s many media appearances are, you know, total FAIL territory, am I right?! Brett Baier was da BEAR (rawr, 501 time!). So Trump, absolutely, the 40-minute dance-off and just all the FUN, making the GOP big tent like SO BIG. There are totes reezuns why he’s BACK. The polls prove it!!! Even though they showed the opposite like two days ago. No problum!!!
In Georgia, all the early voting is old ladies with red Terminator eyes, RUNNING to the polls for TRUMP. Dobs (one B or two?!) is so YESTERDAY, yo! Remember the Red Wave of 2022? Well, what’s bigger than a tidal wave? Oh, OK, call it by that Japanese word–tsunami–fine. No wait, that’s not big enough. Kaiju ‘n’ Jaeger MECHA-WAVE? Not fucking big enough.
Hai, dōzo, prepare for the Chicxulub Bolide Impact Mega MAGA ULTIMATE RED Fuck You すごいすごい WAVE of 2024!!! It’s COMING!!!
Because that is totally realistic based on how Trump IS and how Kamala ISN’T–and it just makes sense! Plus, those POLLS! Plus, we’re Democrats, so we gotta be afraid all the time. Yeah. Mmm hmm. Yeah!
Tampon Tim will stop the Red Wave.
Quoted for emphasis.
Never going to win the popular vote.
Afraid.
You GOT it!!!
Yeah, I’m not seeing it either. I tried sussing out some sort of justification backed by evidence from him earlier, and I got nothin’.
Best I can tell is it’s the same “unicorns and rainbows, pie in the sky” prognostication on his part that gave us such gems as Hillary would get 358 EV’s and that Biden would breeze across the finish line with 400 EV’s.
I suppose if he’s gonna keep firing up these half-court shots then so be it (I assume his end-game is that when one of them finally goes in, he can say “see, told ya”). For the sake of this country, I certainly hope this is his year.
The problem is that huge swaths of the public won’t see these meltdowns. Sometimes because they’re in a bubble, but otherwise just due to how fractured and hyper-specialized all media have become. Nobody’s watching anymore.
And additionally, I suspect that many who do see his meltdowns just think that it’s a display of passion for the cause. And remember, his base doesn’t do any critical thinking or analysis, whether he’s melting down or not.
I hear you. When polls truly average out to 50-50 – a rare occurrence, but it’s where we’re at this time – they’re essentially giving us no information (in one sense, but an important one), and of course what we crave IS information. (Yes, this does also mean that pollsters can’t be “wrong” this time about who becomes president – but they can still be “wrong” about margins of victory.)
I don’t blame the pollsters for this, any more than I blame the Yankees and Guardians for going into extra innings, tied, delaying a satisfying resolution and stubbornly refusing to give us a hint of the eventual outcome.
When it comes to polling, there is a wide variety of issues of epistemological interest.
We all agree that the polls show a 50/50 race, more or less. Some here, therefore, call the race itself 50/50, a tie, a coin flip, etc., and some of us don’t. I do not, based on the following reasoning:
If, on election day (or days afterward, as needed), it turns out that, per the polls, each of the swing state races is a squeaker and the candidate who wins barely does so, then we will all say that the polls were right and offered an accurate picture of the race all along. In such a case, I think it will be fair to say that the race really was a “coin flip.”
If, however, one candidate does much better in most or all of the swing states and wins by a healthy margin and/or wins a state unexpectedly (Florida, Texas, etc.), we won’t say that. We will say that the polls never really reflected the state of the race with sufficient accuracy; i.e., they were “wrong.”
Of course, such rightness and wrongness is a matter of degree, itself subject to debate. There can be both ambiguous (e.g., a candidate wins a little above the margin of error across the board; i.e., “beating” the polls consistently but not a lot) and unambiguous (e.g., one candidate simply blows the other away).
And again of epistemological interest, all along the way, we are not limited to trusting the polls but can ourselves, with varying levels of experience, expertise, insight, and intuition (professional or amateur), doubt the polls themselves or attempt to combine them with such other information as we can glean so as to improve on them. Obviously, the aggregators are trying to use the polls to make something better than the individual polls.
And yet again of epistemological interest, all along the way, the media and we ourselves can create narratives to explain the polling data: so and so got a “convention bounce,” or this candidate is “resurgent,” or that candidate is “finally connecting with voters,” ad infinitum. And we can then debate whether these narratives are correct or not, as indeed we have in this thread at multiple moments on the timeline.
So all that being said, my own position has been that Harris will outperform the polls and win by a healthy but not mind-blowing margin. I have called this my “right brain model.” I will call myself “wrong” if Trump wins by any margin or if Harris wins but the election is truly a squeaker. Again, with respect to the latter possibility, there can be ambiguous and unambiguous cases.
CNN’s Harry Enten illustrates the thread title all too well:
This being true, after Trump’s repeated talk of “poisoning the blood,” is depressing.