LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Just the Polls

I saw an article today predicting an "electoral college blowout" -- without predicting the winner. The import was, either Trump or Harris will win by an EV landslide.

That's one more thing wrong with the EC, if it can inflate a president's perceived mandate so far beyond what is warranted.
 
richmondman said:
The national polls really don't mean much of anything. The foundations of the polls are expected turnouts among any number of demographics and geographics, and are always (they have to be) backwards looking. It is difficult if not impossible to fill all the buckets with live responses, so there is weighting performed and that is where you find polling errors and one error compounds the next. That's different from the overall margin of error, so in other words there is a double whammy in poll accuracy. That is exactly what happened in 2016. There were voters who weren't in the models, and there you go.

While national polls get the media attention, the real campaign polls are much more focused, in particular in the battleground states, and even more particularly in key districts. You might be surprised how few voting districts actually signal outcomes, but you've heard of some of them like Bucks County, PA and Maricopa County, Ariz. Many are suburban areas where even though the lean might be towards one party or another generally or in a past election, from one cycle to the next you see movement based on the current dynamics. None of that polling is made public. And then there is turnout/vote intensity even among more easily predictable areas/groups.

So nobody knows. I doubt we'll know on election night, as well. The next week will be interesting.
Click to expand...
This thread is to post polls (specifically to provide sources to those polls)

It is not meant for analysis or opinion
 
BabyBoomer50s said:
Silver’s latest forecast. His national polling average has Harris up by 1.2.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1850233675809800242
Click to expand...
Nate Silver calls Marist ‘blue wall’ polls ‘reassuring’ for Harris
by Joanne Haner - 11/01/24 11:26 AM

Veteran pollster Nate Silver said Friday’s Marist poll bodes well for Vice President Harris’s campaign, with just days until the election.

Silver, the founder of ABC’s 538, took to social media to share his opinion, suggesting the lead in the “blue wall” states — or those that went for former President Trump in 2016 and flipped to President Biden in 2020 — could be encouraging for Harris.

“Reassuring polls for Harris in the sense that the race is likely to remain toss-up-ish,” he posted on social platform X. “Unless the final NYT/Siena state polls all tilt in the same direction I guess.”
 
Rotadom said:
View attachment 2419627
Click to expand...

If this election follows the trends from 2018 onward, then there is cause for optimism about an "unexpectedly" large margin of victory for Kamala and down ticket Democrats. There are definitely some unique factors to consider in this election (high prices, immigrants, and Gaza, etc) but DonOld and the MAGAt "republicans" don’t really dominate on those issues.

Fingers crossed that trends continue the way they have been going for the last several elections.

👍

🇺🇸
 
Final Marist Presidential Poll released: Harris leads Trump by 4 percent, OUTSIDE the margin-of-error of 3.5%

Final demographics show an unusual anomaly: Women who support Harris have DECLINED almost 4 percent in the past 30 days, but men who support Harris have actually INCREASED 6 percent in the past 30 days.

Wow...we live in strange times!

Drudge Report front page is full of Doom and Gloom Links, with NPR/Maris Poll the lead headline.
https://i.imgur.com/myGXnZI.png

Pissed off Trump takes time off from speaking schedule to snark Drudge:
https://i.imgur.com/svagHNa.png

Speaking of "not seen in years", Michael Moore says teh media is now coming around to his own proprietary election polling model, which predicts Kamala Harris will win.
 
Now that the elections are over, I’m making a rare departure from my practice of adhering to the “just the polls” rule. For anyone interested in following polls, this article about Wikipedia is well worth reading.

In the context of poll averages, it seems even a track record of accuracy did not “end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be.” The ostensibly crowdsourced online encyclopedia kept a high-profile page, “Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election,” which showed an EZ-access chart with results from all the major aggregators, from 270toWin to Silver’s old 538 site to Silver’s new “Silver Bulletin.”

Every major aggregate, that is, but RCP. McIntyre’s site was removed on October 11th, after Wikipedia editors decided it had a “strong Republican bias” that made it “suspect,” even though it didn’t conduct any polls itself, merely listing surveys and averaging them. One editor snootily insisted, “Pollsters should have a pretty spotless reputation. I say leave them out.” After last week’s election, when RCP for the third presidential cycle in a row proved among the most accurate of the averages, Wikipedia quietly restored RCP.

https://www.racket.news/p/how-americas-accurate-election-polls?utm_campaign=post
 
BabyBoomer50s said:
Now that the elections are over, I’m making a rare departure from my practice of adhering to the “just the polls” rule. For anyone interested in following polls, this article about Wikipedia is well worth reading.

In the context of poll averages, it seems even a track record of accuracy did not “end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be.” The ostensibly crowdsourced online encyclopedia kept a high-profile page, “Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election,” which showed an EZ-access chart with results from all the major aggregators, from 270toWin to Silver’s old 538 site to Silver’s new “Silver Bulletin.”

Every major aggregate, that is, but RCP. McIntyre’s site was removed on October 11th, after Wikipedia editors decided it had a “strong Republican bias” that made it “suspect,” even though it didn’t conduct any polls itself, merely listing surveys and averaging them. One editor snootily insisted, “Pollsters should have a pretty spotless reputation. I say leave them out.” After last week’s election, when RCP for the third presidential cycle in a row proved among the most accurate of the averages, Wikipedia quietly restored RCP.

https://www.racket.news/p/how-americas-accurate-election-polls?utm_campaign=post
Click to expand...
I find it odd how angry people get over polls. I didn't realize wikipedia had a site.
 
Oh, now you’re mad that a Fox News poll gave you over 50% on the border? That’s what losing looks like to you?

Let’s recap: You claim you “won by more than they said,” which actually proves their polls underestimated you—not that they were rigged. Then you bash a new poll that’s actually favorable because it didn’t worship you enough?

Sounds like the only poll you trust is the one you dream up at 6 a.m.

You don’t hate fake pollsters—you just hate reality when it refuses to kiss your ring.
 
Trump looks to be a lame duck in 2026.....

All I can say is, I voted for Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024, along with a straight GOP ticket and you all know how noisily pro-Trump I've been.

When I vote Democrat, which I will in 2026, you know hell's frozen over and it's a landslide coming.....

1750464958499.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Trump demands pollsters be investigated for "election fraud"
Replies
16
Views
421
SluttyTheresa
S
JohnEngelman
Donald Trump embarrassed by historic poll figures as he blasts 'cheats'
2 3
Replies
59
Views
1K
eric_erosfan
eric_erosfan
P
Swing state polls
Replies
8
Views
373
rainsol
rainsol
Rightguide
Bad News For John Cornyn
Replies
4
Views
165
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
Rightguide
Poll; Liberal Women Are Lonely
3 4 5
Replies
107
Views
2K
Rightguide
Rightguide
Back
Top