2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

UnrelatedPsuedo said:
The link you provide has a Vox article linked that suggests she doesn’t exist?
Click to expand...
Yeah, Emily Shugerman (Daily Beast) is the only journalist to get a phone interview with 'Katie Johnson'. Years on, she now thinks that it was a right-wing ploy to make journalists latch on to the story, run with it, then pull the rug and reveal that Katie Johnson doesn't exist. All the other journalists I've read think it was more straightforward and that Steve Baer set it up as a personal vendetta against Trump. It's a genuinely wild story if you read into it. It'd make for an interesting investigative podcast or doc.

Johnson had a team of supporters behind her—a motley crew that included anti-abortion conservative donor Steve Baer and a man who calls himself “Al Taylor,” a mysterious foul-mouthed ex-producer of The Jerry Springer Show, the two unified by one common passion: a blinding hatred for Donald Trump.

For a time, it seemed like a perfect marriage between a #NeverTrump Republican with money to spend, a penniless woman and her handler who allegedly had the ammunition to sink the Republican nominee.

But in less than a month, the strange alliance has ended.

Baer and Taylor, both eccentric in their own right, have turned on each other in a war of escalating all-caps emails. Baer now claims he is withholding additional financial support for Johnson. He and Taylor are threatening to sue one another. And Baer’s antics—which include delivering an unpixelated tape, of a woman he claims to be Katie Johnson, to GOP presidential hopefuls and House Speaker Paul Ryan—allegedly brought the FBI and the police to his door.

Far from derailing the Trump train, Katie Johnson and her supporters seem to be in an out-of-control clown car whose wheels just came off.
Click to expand...

From this article which covers the main points.

If anyone wants to circle the rabbit hole further, Vox wrote a good piece. The Guardian and Jezebel also had some nutty interactions with Baer and co.
 
Last edited:
InfiniteBoredom said:
If you are only into polling averages, then there’s nothing to be gained from following 538 since other averages exist and they were all off in 16, 20 and 22. Polls got 16 wrong, they compensated by weighting by education, got a pretty good 18 result, then off in 20 as well, compensated by inflating R lean and taking more R based pollsters and got a horrendous 22 when they predicted a ‘red wave’ and got a trickle instead.

The logical reasoning here isn’t ‘polls underestimated Trump and they always will so we should just automatically deduct however much point from past discrepancies to guesstimate the real number’. If we are doing that with other current averages like DDHQ/The Hill, RCP as well as 538 then Trump is winning 350+ EVs, which doesn’t jive with reality when his campaign pulled out of NH today and only spending to get a narrow 270-268 win (PA + NC + GA). The lesson from past polling errors is that polls in general are becoming a lot less reliable due to response bias, struggle to reach low propensity voters as well as accounting for them, and bad faith actors providing bad data due to partisanship. In that environment, hard data like actual results from primaries, specials, ballot initiatives etc become more valuable in predicting trends and they are pretty good for Democrats.

Also, 2 polling errors in presidential don’t make ‘historical statistics’, that’s not how stats work. I get being apprehensive in this case, because the risk is enormous, but we don’t go about life fearing the worst that can possibly happen will repeat itself ad infinitum in every single scenario and the same applies for political forecast.
Click to expand...

I did extensive posts in several pages with numbers predicted in average polls and real results and i will not do it again. But on national averages 16 and 20 snd midterms and governors and senate races for the battleground states and is absolutely not true. The polls were around 2-3% error for the national averages and most of the BG states. Which is acceptable as margin of error. I think yo remember there were a couple of states only maybe 3 that were around 5%?

So as much as the oppoditeis repeated without numvers backing it up, so far, the average polls are in the acceptable margin of error

And for POTUS races it was always understimating trump in BG states and nationals

That fox news were hammering with a red wave and other BS doesnt mean anything as they didnt back it up. It was wishful thinking

I understand gut feeling. I have it to more often than not. But numbers dont lie and if everything is like 16 and 20 and the margin of error of 18 and 22, Trump will be POTUS

Sice 2016 might not be historic but is since trump is candidate and the most recent elections with more similar issues and same voters and polling methods. It is 8 years of a lit of data and a historical elections in the 30s would have 0 validity in comparing them nowadays
 
Last edited:
InfiniteBoredom said:
If you are only into polling averages, then there’s nothing to be gained from following 538 since other averages exist and they were all off in 16, 20 and 22. Polls got 16 wrong, they compensated by weighting by education, got a pretty good 18 result, then off in 20 as well, compensated by inflating R lean and taking more R based pollsters and got a horrendous 22 when they predicted a ‘red wave’ and got a trickle instead.

The logical reasoning here isn’t ‘polls underestimated Trump and they always will so we should just automatically deduct however much point from past discrepancies to guesstimate the real number’. If we are doing that with other current averages like DDHQ/The Hill, RCP as well as 538 then Trump is winning 350+ EVs, which doesn’t jive with reality when his campaign pulled out of NH today and only spending to get a narrow 270-268 win (PA + NC + GA). The lesson from past polling errors is that polls in general are becoming a lot less reliable due to response bias, struggle to reach low propensity voters as well as accounting for them, and bad faith actors providing bad data due to partisanship. In that environment, hard data like actual results from primaries, specials, ballot initiatives etc become more valuable in predicting trends and they are pretty good for Democrats.

Also, 2 polling errors in presidential don’t make ‘historical statistics’, that’s not how stats work. I get being apprehensive in this case, because the risk is enormous, but we don’t go about life fearing the worst that can possibly happen will repeat itself ad infinitum in every single scenario and the same applies for political forecast.
Click to expand...
Good post. Polls are notoriously unreliable. The only truly accurate data sets are from exit polls, i.e., after they vote they generally tell the truth about their vote.

For what it's worth, I have not seen a Democratic ground game like this one since Obama. They are not making the same mistakes HRC made. Trump is getting more and more desperate, as the Arlington stunt demonstrated, and his flip-flopping on abortion and recreational marijuana and IVF also attest. He's throwing everything at the wall hoping something will stick and no one will remember what he promised.

Meanwhile, we still have the Sept. 18 sentencing to look forward to. That should bear some interesting fruit.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
Good post. Polls are notoriously unreliable. The only truly accurate data sets are from exit polls, i.e., after they vote they generally tell the truth about their vote.

For what it's worth, I have not seen a Democratic ground game like this one since Obama. They are not making the same mistakes HRC made. Trump is getting more and more desperate, as the Arlington stunt demonstrated, and his flip-flopping on abortion and recreational marijuana and IVF also attest. He's throwing everything at the wall hoping something will stick and no one will remember what he promised.

Meanwhile, we still have the Sept. 18 sentencing to look forward to. That should bear some interesting fruit.
Click to expand...

I guess I ended posting it again

Notoriously unreliable?

Clinton vs Trump

3.9 vs 2.1

Biden vs Trump

8.4 vs 4.5

Some BG states

Michigan: 2.8 vs 7.9 (Biden)

Pennsylvania: 1.2 vs 4.7 (Biden)

Nevada: 2.4 vs 5.3 (Biden)

Arizona: 0.4 vs 2.6 (Biden)

Georgia: 0.3 vs 1.2 (Biden)

Wisconsin: 0.6 vs 8.4 (Biden)

2022

Midterms

The house had many individual races. But the popular vote poll was 4.0 (R) vs 2.8 (R) reality

Most of these polls (I remember that is a huge mix and not the most prestigious) are in between of 0. to 3. something. Hardly broken IMO

Governor

Nevada: 1.7 (R) vs 1.5 (R)
Arizona: 2.2 (R) vs 0.7 (D)
Georgia: 8.2 (R) vs 6.5 (R)
Pennsylvania: 9.8 (D) vs 14.8 (D)
Wisconsin: 0.4 (R) vs 3.3 (D)
Michigan: 5.8 (D) vs 10.6 (D)

Senate

Nevada: 0.2 (R) vs 0.8 (D)
Arizona: 2.2 (D) vs 4.9 (D)
Georgia: 1.2 (R) vs 2.8 (D)
Pennsylvania: 1 (R) vs 4.9 (D)
Wisconsin: 4.8 (R) vs 1.0 (R)
Michigan: No race



Pennsylvania had 5.0 governor and 5.9 in Senate difference
Michigan 4.8

Considering that that the typical margin of error is 3%. It varies depends on the sample, Most of these numbers are inside these and id not 1-2% over. Hardly notoriously unreliable. And on the presidential Popular vote and BG states were underestimating Trump


I doubt that in 2-4 years, things has changed so much to have a radical change on polls vs election day, so going against the cold numbers, is, as I said, wishful thinking
 
According to Nate Silver, Harris gained 1.5 points last week in Georgia. But, she also lost 1.3 in Michigan and 0.9 points in North Carolina.

I have a hard time believing that. Sorry, Nate.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
According to Nate Silver, Harris gained 1.5 points last week in Georgia. But, she also lost 1.3 in Michigan and 0.9 points in North Carolina.

I have a hard time believing that. Sorry, Nate.
Click to expand...

She dropped in every single swing state except GA last week.
 
Raoul said:
She dropped in every single swing state except GA last week.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that. Nor do I believe that she gained in GA, FL and TX, according to Silver while losing in others.

Why would she gain in these states but not in others? Why drop 2 points in AZ but gain in TX?
 
ManUtd1999 said:
I don’t believe that. Nor do I believe that she gained in GA, FL and TX, according to Silver while losing in others.

Why would she gain in these states but not in others? Why drop 2 points in AZ but gain in TX?
Click to expand...

Because the polling averages fluctuate from day to day. Some days she gains in them, others she doesn't.
 
Raoul said:
Because the polling averages fluctuate from day to day. Some days she gains in them, others she doesn't.
Click to expand...
That’s why a weekly change is not good. Do a four-week moving average or something like that.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
That’s why a weekly change is not good. Do a four-week moving average or something like that.
Click to expand...

That wouldn’t work in a condensed election cycle where early voting starts in a couple weeks and campaigns are constantly deploying new resources and strategies in swing states. Best to roll with the polls and evaluate daily trends. Harris’ initial surge has clearly lost steam and Trump has managed to claw back some of his losses which renders the race completely even at the moment.
 
Raoul said:
That wouldn’t work in a condensed election cycle where early voting starts in a couple weeks and campaigns are constantly deploying new resources and strategies in swing states. Best to roll with the polls and evaluate daily trends. Harris’ initial surge has clearly lost steam and Trump has managed to claw back some of his losses which renders the race completely even at the moment.
Click to expand...
For me, the race has always been 50-50.
 
4bars said:
I guess I ended posting it again

Notoriously unreliable?

Clinton vs Trump

3.9 vs 2.1

Biden vs Trump

8.4 vs 4.5

Some BG states

Michigan: 2.8 vs 7.9 (Biden)

Pennsylvania: 1.2 vs 4.7 (Biden)

Nevada: 2.4 vs 5.3 (Biden)

Arizona: 0.4 vs 2.6 (Biden)

Georgia: 0.3 vs 1.2 (Biden)

Wisconsin: 0.6 vs 8.4 (Biden)

2022

Midterms

The house had many individual races. But the popular vote poll was 4.0 (R) vs 2.8 (R) reality

Most of these polls (I remember that is a huge mix and not the most prestigious) are in between of 0. to 3. something. Hardly broken IMO

Governor

Nevada: 1.7 (R) vs 1.5 (R)
Arizona: 2.2 (R) vs 0.7 (D)
Georgia: 8.2 (R) vs 6.5 (R)
Pennsylvania: 9.8 (D) vs 14.8 (D)
Wisconsin: 0.4 (R) vs 3.3 (D)
Michigan: 5.8 (D) vs 10.6 (D)

Senate

Nevada: 0.2 (R) vs 0.8 (D)
Arizona: 2.2 (D) vs 4.9 (D)
Georgia: 1.2 (R) vs 2.8 (D)
Pennsylvania: 1 (R) vs 4.9 (D)
Wisconsin: 4.8 (R) vs 1.0 (R)
Michigan: No race



Pennsylvania had 5.0 governor and 5.9 in Senate difference
Michigan 4.8

Considering that that the typical margin of error is 3%. It varies depends on the sample, Most of these numbers are inside these and id not 1-2% over. Hardly notoriously unreliable. And on the presidential Popular vote and BG states were underestimating Trump


I doubt that in 2-4 years, things has changed so much to have a radical change on polls vs election day, so going against the cold numbers, is, as I said, wishful thinking
Click to expand...
5 points swing in Trump favour in 2020 - OMG it’s baked in now, polls will always be off that way

5 points swing in D favour in 2022 - totally not out of the ordinary at all, just (almost double) the typical polling error.

You see the problem with your analysis here? Does it not bother you one bit that Midwestern polling swung an average of 10 points in the other direction in 2022 due to a deluge of right wing polls or polls from pollsters of dubious quality? And Congressional election forecast were horrendously off, a R+2.8 electorate shouldn’t yield a change of 9 seats gained, when the average for Democratic control is D+2. Most election forecasters were predicting a 30-40 seats gain for GOP, example:

https://www.270towin.com/2022-house-election/crystal-ball-2022-house-forecast

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/
 
Last edited:
Not liking the polls to be honest. Biden's lead over Trump at this stage in 2020 was bigger and he only narrowly beat Trump. Trump is the favourite unless Harris can increase her lead by November.
 
Blood Mage said:
Not liking the polls to be honest. Biden's lead over Trump at this stage in 2020 was bigger and he only narrowly beat Trump. Trump is the favourite unless Harris can increase her lead by November.
Click to expand...
One would assume that polling has been adjusted to reflect this…

I’m also not sure trump will get the same turn out as last time. Republicans were energised due to covid, blm etc but I have reservations they’ll turn out… I have zero doubt the dems will turn out.
 
mariachi-19 said:
One would assume that polling has been adjusted to reflect this…

I’m also not sure trump will get the same turn out as last time. Republicans were energised due to covid, blm etc but I have reservations they’ll turn out… I have zero doubt the dems will turn out.
Click to expand...

I think turnout for both parties benefited from the pandemic. Without that, we’re probably more likely to see a reversion to a bit lower turnout. Not as low as 2016, but not as high as last time.
 
Raoul said:
Harris’ initial surge has clearly lost steam and Trump has managed to claw back some of his losses which renders the race completely even at the moment.
Click to expand...
Isn't it still the undecided/independent/swing voters who will decide this? And taking Biden out of the mix means that Trump's insanity will be the bigget factor for them on average?

Or is that just wishful thinking?
 
Wibble said:
Isn't it still the undecided/independent/swing voters who will decide this? And taking Biden out of the mix means that Trump's insanity will be the bigget factor for them on average?

Or is that just wishful thinking?
Click to expand...

Yep. It is independents who comprise most of the tiny sliver of still undecideds. Another factor of who wins also depends entirely on which side gets more people to actually vote. That’s what got the job done for Biden last time and it’s also what cost Hilary in 2016.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
5 points swing in Trump favour in 2020 - OMG it’s baked in now, polls will always be off that way

5 points swing in D favour in 2022 - totally not out of the ordinary at all, just (almost double) the typical polling error.

You see the problem with your analysis here? Does it not bother you one bit that Midwestern polling swung an average of 10 points in the other direction in 2022 due to a deluge of right wing polls or polls from pollsters of dubious quality? And Congressional election forecast were horrendously off, a R+2.8 electorate shouldn’t yield a change of 9 seats gained, when the average for Democratic control is D+2. Most election forecasters were predicting a 30-40 seats gain for GOP, example:

https://www.270towin.com/2022-house-election/crystal-ball-2022-house-forecast

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2-election-forecast/house/
Click to expand...

I don't know what to do with your first link, to be honest, but on your second link, it says a prediction of 4% for R and ended with 2.8%. just 1.2% error well insight the margin of error 3%

I don't understand what you say about the 10 points swing. The numbers that I posted from many elections. Nationals, midterms, governors and senates in swing states do, at worse 5% (i think while most of them are below 3%.

The polls are compared from the average to the reality. not from polls from 2020 to polls of 2022 because the intention of vote changes. And as far as it shows, the average polls compared to the reality of its elections shows a decent accuracy. And with that premises and that Kamala should win the Popular Vote by 2-4%, it is not enough for now
 
How did Trump regain the upper hand or at least upended Harris's steam?

Trump's ceiling is at 45%, thus he can't win more voters. His campaigning over the last weeks was weak. Low energy, full of dumb insults, usual whining. On top the Arlington gaffe, flip flopping on abortion. On the hand Harris made no major mistakes.

So how could he turn the momentum into his favor again. Honestly I don't get it.
Especially, in Germany every says it only depends on Harris to motivate her base enough as over 50% will never vote for the orange clown. She just needs to get them to vote and Trump is done and dusted.
 
Not sure how I feel about Lex having him on, and certainly blown away by how ridiculous the questions are, but hey at least Trump is putting himself out there: https://pca.st/podcast/78c58610-9061-0136-7b92-27f978dac4db

Answers as you expect, except he for the first time I've heard says he lost the 2020 election by a whisker. Kinda shocked.
 
Beachryan said:
Not sure how I feel about Lex having him on, and certainly blown away by how ridiculous the questions are, but hey at least Trump is putting himself out there: https://pca.st/podcast/78c58610-9061-0136-7b92-27f978dac4db

Answers as you expect, except he for the first time I've heard says he lost the 2020 election by a whisker. Kinda shocked.

Edit: oh wait he's now on immigration and voter fraud. Also 100% he thinks that asylum seekers come from mental asylums, as he's going on about that now.

How anyone can listen to this husk of a human and vote for him....wow. you can tell he genuinely doesn't understand nuanced questions but plows ahead with so the gusto of an expert.
Click to expand...
 
4bars said:
I don't know what to do with your first link, to be honest, but on your second link, it says a prediction of 4% for R and ended with 2.8%. just 1.2% error well insight the margin of error 3%

I don't understand what you say about the 10 points swing. The numbers that I posted from many elections. Nationals, midterms, governors and senates in swing states do, at worse 5% (i think while most of them are below 3%.

The polls are compared from the average to the reality. not from polls from 2020 to polls of 2022 because the intention of vote changes. And as far as it shows, the average polls compared to the reality of its elections shows a decent accuracy. And with that premises and that Kamala should win the Popular Vote by 2-4%, it is not enough for now
Click to expand...
They predicted 30-40 seats changes with that 4%, at the actual congressional district level they got it horrendously wrong, it doesn’t reflect the new voting behaviour where Ds held or pick up seats in suburban districts with ex-GOP demographics like professionals/high income/high education swung to them.

The 10 points swing is a direct comparison between the polling errors of 20 vs 22. Sun Belt polling is and has been largely accurate (with the notable exception of AZ Sen having Lake up). Midwest polling is hot trash and the main reason for this ‘Trump beats the polls’ phenomenon. From your own post:

WI: off by 7.8 for R/2020, off by 3.7 for D/2022, net swing 11.5
MI: off by 5.1 for R/2020, off by 4.8 for D/2022, net swing 9.9
PA: off by 3.4 for R/2020, off by 5.9 for D/2022, net swing 9.3

‘Trump wasn’t on the ballot’ doesn’t explain the discrepancy, because he wasn’t in 2018 and pollsters had a stellar year that election. So when a change that big happens, you can’t pick 2020 presidential results that favored Republicans, while dismissing 2022 results that favored Democrats, when a polling error of similar magnitude happened in both direction. The fact of the matter is, while national polling/generic ballot is still relatively accurate, Midwestern battleground states polling has been a mess for a long while and we can’t say ‘any error will favor Trump’ based on empirical evidence. It’s not a cope, it’s not ‘gut feeling’ or ‘wishful thinking’, it’s a fact.
 
Having finished that 'interview' few thoughts:
1. I was initially pro having him on as it's important to speak to candidates. But even knowing his PR team would control everything, I'm still disgusted by level of 'questioning'. He asks about Project 2025, Trump says he has absolutely no knoweldge of it, and despite Lex knowing that 27 of the 32 people in the recent Project 2025 videos WORK FOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, he just leaves it. Similar with most of the 'questions'. I understand the economics of Lex's business model, his desire to platform both sides but this was utterly disgraceful. It was like the recent Dechambeau golf video where you'd think Trump was a scratch golfer. Asks point blank how he would have Putin give up territory in a peace plan, let's Trump resond with 'well there wouldn't have been a war if I was in' never follows up or pushes back.

2. This interview proves that Trump is working hard for the debate. I guarantee that at least 3 of his responses will basically be verbatim on the 10th, he did the politican moving of responding with his canned talking point regardless of question. At the debate, we will hear the following:
a. Afghanistan was a disaster, all on Harris, 13 dead. 13 beautiful dead. Disgraceful. I would have done it better.
b. There would be no wars if I was President, and I'd end the two that are on on day 1. I can't tell you how, that would ruin it. I also can't tell you how I would have prevented them, but I would have.
c. Immigration, immigration, immigration. Crime. Immigration. Mental. Crime. Rapist. Immigration. Immigration.

3. The mans an idiot, who can barely stick to his talking points, and is prone to just ramble when he forgets things. I think they desparately want him to talk about inflation, but he can't quite sort it out in his head, so he just says the word over and over again.

4. Harris' campaign is too trusting of old 'wisdom'. Trying to avoid interviews like this for fear of the limited upside and high-downside isn't good enough. She should jump at the chance to show contrast between herself and Trump in forums like this. I really worry that the campaign is too stuck on the old ways and will lose because of not embracing opportunities like these podcast hosts. Get her on Rogan. She's going to have to negotiate with f*cking Putin and Xi one day, if she can't handle a Joe Rogan interview she shouldn't be running.
 
B. Munich said:
How did Trump regain the upper hand or at least upended Harris's steam?

Trump's ceiling is at 45%, thus he can't win more voters. His campaigning over the last weeks was weak. Low energy, full of dumb insults, usual whining. On top the Arlington gaffe, flip flopping on abortion. On the hand Harris made no major mistakes.

So how could he turn the momentum into his favor again. Honestly I don't get it.
Especially, in Germany every says it only depends on Harris to motivate her base enough as over 50% will never vote for the orange clown. She just needs to get them to vote and Trump is done and dusted.
Click to expand...

The truth is, there hasn't been much swing state polling as of late from highly rated pollsters, so Trump gaining "momentum" is essentially Trafalgar having him in the lead in Pennsylvania by a couple of points.

National polls, which has more polling has essentially had no change in over a week now, i'd say the race is pretty stagnant.
 
Krakenzero said:
As an observation, the last time PA, MI and WI went to different candidates was in 1988. Their 44 electoral votes are very likely the kingmaker.

If they are effectively 226-219 with 7 toss ups as 270towin shows, Harris needs the Rust Belt and nothing more; and Trump wins with the Rust Belt plus one additional state. Only if the Rust Belt gets divided (which hasn't happened in 36 years) the other states become decisive.
Click to expand...


Sure, but everything is the rule, until it isn't, Ohio used to predict the winner for the longest time, now the state is barely relevant anymore.

Looking at the margins across the rust-belt in the last couple of election cycles, its merely by chance that all 3 went together both times, it may not be the case this election.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
They predicted 30-40 seats changes with that 4%, at the actual congressional district level they got it horrendously wrong, it doesn’t reflect the new voting behaviour where Ds held or pick up seats in suburban districts with ex-GOP demographics like professionals/high income/high education swung to them.

The 10 points swing is a direct comparison between the polling errors of 20 vs 22. Sun Belt polling is and has been largely accurate (with the notable exception of AZ Sen having Lake up). Midwest polling is hot trash and the main reason for this ‘Trump beats the polls’ phenomenon. From your own post:

WI: off by 7.8 for R/2020, off by 3.7 for D/2022, net swing 11.5
MI: off by 5.1 for R/2020, off by 4.8 for D/2022, net swing 9.9
PA: off by 3.4 for R/2020, off by 5.9 for D/2022, net swing 9.3

‘Trump wasn’t on the ballot’ doesn’t explain the discrepancy, because he wasn’t in 2018 and pollsters had a stellar year that election. So when a change that big happens, you can’t pick 2020 presidential results that favored Republicans, while dismissing 2022 results that favored Democrats, when a polling error of similar magnitude happened in both direction. The fact of the matter is, while national polling/generic ballot is still relatively accurate, Midwestern battleground states polling has been a mess for a long while and we can’t say ‘any error will favor Trump’ based on empirical evidence. It’s not a cope, it’s not ‘gut feeling’ or ‘wishful thinking’, it’s a fact.
Click to expand...

3 results vs +20 i gave you. Alright

And yes, the seats goes by margins tilt it a bit and you have the percentage of dispparities on seats and that is why EC vs PV

Also, the states and races that has more saying have many more polls than safe seats bc they have less interests. And again, the majority of the results are inside the 3% error margin. That is far a way for the claim that the polls are broken. Results are there
 
There seems to be less difference between RCP and 538 this time around, compared to 2020, at least in some of the battleground states.
The models getting results that are more close to each other should be a good sign, though obviously we can't know right now.
 
Morty_ said:
There seems to be less difference between RCP and 538 this time around, compared to 2020, at least in some of the battleground states.
The models getting results that are more close to each other should be a good sign, though obviously we can't know right now.
Click to expand...
There’s always the danger of herding.

My hunch is the margin will be very similar to 2020, with maybe NC result swapped with GA. Mark Robinson is absolutely odious, he’s probably even worse than Trump, and I can see him dragging down top of the ticket by half a percentage point. In 2020 Biden only needed to flip about 40k votes to win the state.
 
Some of the states with the biggest polling errors in 2020, where not just rust-belt states, but also states like Ohio and Montana, not talked about much, since they don't really matter for presidential election, but it happened all the same.

This time around, polling there is more or less the same as the actual 2020 result, but for the sake of argument that Trump can only be underestimated, that means he neccessarily has to be up by around 25 points in Montana, and up by around 15 in Ohio.

It may not make much sense in my head, but it could happen i guess.
 
Last edited:
Mike Smalling said:
That's far too rosy to be true. Also, who the hell is Oliver?
Click to expand...

Libertarian candidate, good for dems to at least have one spoiler candidate that might work in their favor, and i doubt he will sell out like the others.

Consult is an okay pollster, but not the highest rated one either, so its just another one in the mix, Wisconsin doesn't make any sense though, might as well ignore that one.
 
Wisconsin polls this cycle definitely feels more like they didn't correct for 2020, it shouldn't be the bluest out of the swing-states, no election results in recent years backs that up.
 
Where do these huge spreads in the polls come from?
In elections in Germany this weekend, polling was pretty accurate. +/-2% max mostly only +/- 1%.
In the US the some of the polls differ by 7 or 8%. Also a margin of error of +/-4% is huge. That's 8%!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.