It was Montana apparently not Arizona
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
It’s Montana, understandable mistake, they are all square-ish
Sorry, corrected.
Well, that ain't nice, i guess NC is okay.
How has Arizona swung 10 points in favor of Trump, in the span of a month though? I saw their latest poll mentioned a lot.
Last edited:
I’d say “represents change” is a poor choice of words for an Ad in support of the technical incumbent.
Yeah NC is looking the most likely out of those three.
I know their rating, but NYT/Siena seems out of step this cycle. It's weird.
I'm cynical, but my working theory is that they need the election coverage to get as many clicks as humanly possible, and are somehow creating that.
Cue a week of panic and bed wetting with prognosticators saying that Harris was always an unlikable candidate, despite her now being in positive numbers in her favorability polls.
And may not account for the Mark Robinson fall out.
The NYT Sienna poll had Harris +5 in Arizona and +2 in NC on 17th Aug...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/17/us/elections/kamala-harris-trump-az-nc-ga-nv.html
Fast forward to the 21st September and they have Trump +5 in Arizona and +3 in NC.
So despite just about every other poll showing a post debate bump for Harris, apparently she has lost 10 points to Trump in AZ and 5 in NC ???
Something seems off here.
They put out poor Nate Cohn to explain it in a 'column' and he basically says: yeah I don't get it either, polls are weird.
Which to be honest is probably the best explanation.
That’s a weird theory. First of all, the election is plenty close if you go by all the other pollsters. Second, NYT might be the one US newspaper that does not desperately need clicks. Third, surely you don’t actually believe NYT would manufacture artificially tight polls.
It is interesting, though, how much of an outlier they are this cycle.
Agree. I think it is largely on who is included in the sample.
When you look at the crosstabs for each poll....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/17/us/elections/times-siena-poll-arizona-toplines.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/09/23/us/elections/times-siena-arizona-toplines.html
In August, when asked for party affinity the respondents were...
| Democrat | 31% |
| Republican | 29% |
| Independent | 32% |
| Another party | 4% |
| [VOL] Don't know/Refused | 3% |
In September....
| Democrat | 28% |
| Republican | 31% |
| Independent | 35% |
| Another party | 4% |
| [VOL] Don't know/Refused | 2% |
Arizona at +5 Trump would mean that Texas, according to some polls, is currently further to the left than Arizona.
Looking like Nevada is a must now for Harris with Georgia and Arizona slipping away.
It's enough to win MI, WI and PA but that is obviously risky as PA is going to be close as hell. She should definitely work on Nevada, but if PA fails then she will need NC in addition to Nevada to get over the line (assuming Trump wins GA and AZ).
The amount of money that gets wasted on so many of these polls in the States is wild to me.
MI, WI and PA plus Nebraska 2nd district gets her to 270. That is if the Republicans don't manage to change the state to winner takes all...
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wir...-change-nebraskas-electoral-college-113915518
I think I read that Nate Silver only had the one vote from Nebraska 2nd being critical in less than 2% of scenarios. In reality, I have to think that is higher given that Trump is favorite for NC, GA, AZ and maybe NV.
GA may go to Trump. I expect AZ to go to Harris.
Yeah, Nebraska 2nd is critical in that scenario, but I'm choosing to bank on it as of today at least
Vibes based projection: Harris will win the EC very comfortably, but with several narrow state wins.
Again, not been called myself or anyone I know for a poll.. I don't think polling which is probably still in a traditional means of calling people from an unknown number is the best way to engage real numbers
What's happened to Georgia slipping back to the Republicans after going for Biden and Democrat in the senate races recently? Isn't that a state that would be expected to respond well to a black female candidate, or is that more localised to cities like Atlanta that would be more likely to vote Democrat anyway?
Seems like I've not heard much talk about Georgia at all this election - is it just a case of the gerrymandering having the desired effect for the GOP?
Seems like I've not heard much talk about Georgia at all this election - is it just a case of the gerrymandering having the desired effect for the GOP?
GA and AZ going red would be a bit of blow to the Dems as they were tending blue for a couple of last elections.
Obviously, but I also do think Trump is fizzling out a bit. Low energy, doesn't want to debate, dragged down in NC, sad crypto grift, etc.Sounds like more of a result you would like to see than anything else.
But it's a gut-based analysis, for sure.
GA is very much a purple state, so Trump will always have the advantage there. Trump has come out ahead in the past 8 GA polls, so at this point, it would be a big surprise if Harris wins the state.
This is what GA polls have looked like in the month of September.
That’s a village
Yeah but we’re an odd little island. Towns literally go cap in hand to The Queen and say ‘Pretty please can you give us a big boy name’.
They’ve created a sub-industry inside an already unnecessary political commentary industry. ‘murica!
That's what it feels like alright. A different way to funnel money into an industry that doesn't need it.
Some People read polls to reinforce on what they perceive to be the reality. If the polls doesnt support their views they'll say it's bogus
And i think personally land line calling is a myth. It's 2024 and if it's indeed using land lines we probably wont see much of them voting for Democrats.
It is what it is and will be tight regardless of what polls says.
What i also find funny is that polls can swing 5% on weekly basis which is rather bullcrap, especially with not much nrw going on.
Polls has become like WWE. It has stop being a serious indicators along time ago.
And i think personally land line calling is a myth. It's 2024 and if it's indeed using land lines we probably wont see much of them voting for Democrats.
It is what it is and will be tight regardless of what polls says.
What i also find funny is that polls can swing 5% on weekly basis which is rather bullcrap, especially with not much nrw going on.
Polls has become like WWE. It has stop being a serious indicators along time ago.
Yes, and that's the fundamental problem. People are somehow incapable of looking at polls as a mere snap shot in time and instead meltdown about a pollster or model if it doesn't reinforce the result they want.
Do you believe a 10 point swing in Arizona for Trump, in the span of a month? Yes, Siena is highly rated and all that, but does it make sense to you?
I don't find these kind of arguments convincing. I'm gonna assume that reputable pollsters have taken the landline argument into account.
Polls are not as unreliable as people suggest. If I recall correctly, polls didn't indicate a "red wave" in the last midterms.
It doesnt. Just as Harris suddenly surging 5% in the span of a month, you cant have it bothways. At this rate i dont even think there's alot of undecided voters. There's only 2 options : D or R, and being Americans they already knew which side they're on
An honest question : how many of you know personally an American who changes votes? I bet it's a very small percentage.
Sure enough is the rust-belt the more likely path, but i can't help but feel that Wisconsin in particular, is overestimating Harris.