To quote Monty Python;
In final polling from the key battleground state of Pennsylvania, Vice President Harris is surging among Latino voters ahead of tomorrow’s election. In new polling from Univision, Vice President Harris earns 64% of the vote among Latino voters in Pennsylvania, while former President Trump earns only 30%.
That number becomes an even greater disparity when polling Puerto Rican voters with 67% of voters breaking for Harris and just 27% breaking for former President Trump. Among those polled, more than 69% of voters said that the recent comments made about Puerto Rico at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally was “more racists than humorous.”
Which, if reflective of actual votes, is still a significant fall off from how Biden did: 69 to 27 per exit polls of Pennsylvanian Latino voters.
Not as bad as was thought the shift could be, but still 8 off.
The hope is that actually voting and turnout will be better as being insulted tends to motivate some.
This is actually WORSE than Biden did. How is this good news?
The 2024 election is not the 2020 election. The respective coalitions are going to differ from those of four years ago.
In any case, polling isn’t THAT exact. The latest Univision Pennsylvania poll results are close enough to say “pretty much the same”. Kind of the way 53-47 is “a coin flip”.
Reasonably true but the lede declaring that “surging” seems a bit odd.
Maybe if there was one from a month ago that was much worse? But can’t find any.
Accurately stated as Harris has not lost much Latino support in Pennsylvania I guess needed to be sexxed up?
The part that I see as hopeful is in the cross tabs, that 72% are very likely to vote. That would be even better than the historically good 2020 turnout for this D leaning demographic.
Maybe countering the narrative that Latino voters have been breaking towards Trump? Not sure.
Univision had done (commissioned?) other polls, but I was thinking their earlier polls were national as opposed to state-level,
Nate Silver’s final analysis is a coin flip as well :
"Last and final update: 12:30 a.m., Tuesday, November 5. Happy Election Day! At exactly midnight on Tuesday, we ran our simulation model for the final time in this election cycle.
Out of 80,000 simulations, Kamala Harris won in 40,012 (50.015%) cases. She did not win in 39,988 simulations (49.985%).
Of those, 39,718 were outright wins for Donald Trump and the remainder (270 simulations) were exact 269-269 Electoral College ties: these ties are likely to eventually result in Trump wins in the U.S. House of Representatives."
I stopped taking stock in Nate Silver when he hooked up with Polymarket. Of course the betting marketers want to say it’s even so they get bets on both sides. The last thing they want to do is say that Harris has a 75% chance to win, then all the money swings to her and they might pay out more than they take in.
I’m not impressed with the right-leaning pollsters flooding the zone with crap data. This election is not going to be particularly close.
But if they don’t flood the zone, they won’t have anything to point at as proof the election was stolen! “The polls said Trump was going to win!”
Just wanted to memorialize all these forecasts, as of 9:26 a.m. CST Tues Nov 5, 2024:
-
FiveThirtyEight - 50.3% Harris (503/1000 simulations)
-
Silver Bulletin - 50.015% Harris (40,012/80,000 simulations)
-
The Economist - 56% Harris
-
Carl Allen - 67% Harris (WI, MI, PA, and NV to Harris. Exceptionally bullish on PA and MI.)
-
Christopher Bouzy - 349 Electoral College votes for Harris (all seven battlegrounds plus Florida.)
For the heck of it – FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver, and The Economist appear on this list as well.
Ann Selzer spoke to MSNBC’s Morning Joe yesterday morning about the lack of weighing in her poll data. The entire video at the link below is 9:47. The meat of Selzer’s interview is between 0:32 and 4:10, though the entire 9+ minutes is worth it for anyone interested in political polling (my emphasis below).
MSNBC’s Willie Geist: Ann, obviously there have been other polls out of Iowa. We heard Donald Trump, of course, quickly criticize your poll and say, 'I am up by ten points in other polls, I am up double digits, how do you respond to that yours despite the track record we just laid out could be an outlier in Iowa?
Pollster Ann Selzer: I give credit to my method for my track record. I call my method, ‘Polling forward’, so I want to be in a place where my data can show me what’s likely to happen with the future electorate. So I just try to get out of the way of my data, saying this is what’s going to happen. A lot of other polls – and I will count Emerson among them – are including, in the way that they manipulate the data after it comes in, things that have happened in the past. So they’re taking into account exit polls, they’re taking into account what turnout was in past elections. I don’t make any assumptions like that, so in my way of thinking, it’s a cleaner way to forecast future electorate which nobody knows what that’s going to be. But we do know that our electorates change in terms of how many people are showing up, what the composition is, and so I don’t want to try to predict what that’s going to be. I want to be in a place for my data to show me.
Well, that aged badly.
The pollsters might well have slightly underestimated… Trump.
So far it’s looking like a great night for the pollsters. A very close race with everything hinging on PA, MI and WI. A small edge for Trump right now but there is still a lot of counting left.
For the sixth or seventh Presidential election in a row, the Nate Silvers of the world were right and the people predicting something totally different because of their hopes and subjective feelings were all wrong.
A terrible night for Ann Selzer though. A huge miss which drew enormous attention and will definitely hurt her reputation.
I don’t know … in the end, most prognosticators ended up not making a call at all. Hard to credit them for being right.
Actually, it looks like the Nate Silvers and other pollsters were significantly wrong. Trump is absolutely destroying the predictions; they dramatically underestimated him.
I think Trump is unique in that many of his voters are utterly and completely ashamed to be voting for him. They lie to pollsters, they lie to reporters, they lie to even the GOP’s internal pollsters. When asked why, they don’t come out and say that they’ll never, ever vote for a woman. That they don’t care a lick about any policies, they can’t offer any justification for their choice, so they just lie.
The only other realistic option is massive fraud.
Silver posted, in a free article, a while back that the most likely results were either a Harris landslide in the swing states or a Trump landslide in the swing states. Each was about 25% of the model results. If Trump wins them all, that’s well within the model.