Independents Only- Trump: 51% (+12) Harris: 39% Someone Else: 3% Not Sure: 7%
:clap
Printable View
Independents Only- Trump: 51% (+12) Harris: 39% Someone Else: 3% Not Sure: 7%
:clap
tgull lost (TDS..) lmao..
https://x.com/YahooNews/status/1834944938691219501
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrett
You gov come on man that’s like touting Rasmussen those two are super biased
win or lose i think we can all agree that its finally obvious why vance's mom traded him for some percs.
https://x.com/atlas_intel/status/1835070367310004405
From the most accurate pollster in 2020.
They called the race as Biden +4.7, final margin was Biden +4.5. The average error in all of their polls for any race in the cycle was around 2 points, which is what made them the most accurate. Prior to the few fake, partisan polls released to influence public perception after the debate, the RCP average was +1.1 Harris. In 2020 this ended at +8 Biden. Kamala's team admitted again two days ago to CNN that her internals are horrible.
Are we seeing a polling error similar to 2020 confirmed by the pollsters who spend the money on extra effort to reach hidden Trump voters? Or are the most accurate pollsters like Siena and AtlasIntel off with their Trump +2 and +2.8 methodology? If these Trump polls are anywhere close to accurate he will win every swing state and be extremely competitive in Minnesota and probably even more so in Virginia.
And people keep shitting on Rasmussen, they called the race exactly in 2016 and were top 5 on accuracy in 2020. They stick out by being one of the few whose errors trend Republican. The difference is their errors are not as egregious as the 20 other pollsters who all skew Democrat. Their latest national poll has Trump at +2. Their daily survey has averaged to around Trump +3 for the past couple weeks.
Not going to waste time posting it, but it appears the Taylor Swift endorsement is completely backfiring.
A week before the 2020 election ABC-Washington Post had Biden up 17 points in Wisconsin. Yes 17 points. He won by .07, less than a percentage point. It's really why I am sticking to Nate Sliver this go around. He is about as left as left can get but is a straight shooter when it comes to inputting the data in his model, which is why the left is now attacking him. Even he is like WTF? They literally are smearing him for saying Trump is ahead in the EC.Quote:
Originally Posted by VaughnP
https://x.com/onpointpolitics/status...97672669446658
It's much easier, cheaper, and likely to get the results wanted for Dem partisan pollsters than it is to put in the work to get accurate results.
Quote:
If the November election was held today, public polling would drastically underestimate Trump’s performance and, to a lesser extent, the Republican Party’s as a whole.
I’m not a poll truther. On the contrary, I’m a Republican campaign consultant and pollster who has consumed thousands of pages of data. My biggest takeaway? The survey environment is plagued by a large response bias problem that low-budget public surveys refuse to fix.
The basic science behind a poll is simple: if we interview 800 Pennsylvania voters, each answer should be within three points of the whole universe 95 percent of the time. For example, if a survey of 800 Pennsylvania voters showed Trump at 48%, then his actual support could be as low as 45% or as high as 51%.
But this foundation assumes every respondent is equally likely to take a given survey, which is false. Pollsters have two tools to help them adjust for this reality.
The first is quotas. Pollsters dictate how many individuals of a certain group they want in their survey. I want X percent men and Y% women. I want X percent white people and Y% Black. Nearly every pollster uses quotas for geography, age, and race. The major debate is about setting quotas for things like education level and, most controversially, political party affiliation.
The argument in favor of quotas relies on historical voter turnout to model future turnout. Opponents of restrictive quotas argue that a poll may miss changes in group dynamics or the collapse of a particular group. This debate was less of an issue 20 years ago when everyone had landlines and response rates across all groups were fairly high. Today, with extremely low response rates, the response bias has become very pronounced.
For example, in a recent internal statewide survey in a large state, people with a graduate degree were five and half times more likely to answer the survey than those without a degree, while people with a bachelor’s degree were three times more likely.
This doesn’t take into account a fascinating response bias developing around population density. Pollsters often divide geography into urban, suburban, and rural segments by population density. In recent surveys, there has been a pronounced drop-off in rural, white, working-class responses, with some of the quotas being filled in by suburban and urban white working-class voters who are much more likely to be Democratic in orientation.
Requiring quotas on education helped to fix the polling challenges that arose in 2016 and made public polls more reliable. But Kamala Harris’s appointment to the Democratic nomination has supercharged a key group of voters that can have a big impact on polling: wealthy, educated, white Democratic voters. These voters are crawling across broken glass to respond to political surveys.
In the past, top-level quotas set for the whole survey might help to mitigate this problem but many public pollsters cannot afford to set stratification quotas for all the necessary subgroups. For example, top-level quotas will produce a survey group with 43% Democrats and 40% with a college degree, but you really need to set quotas for how many college-educated people are in the Democratic subgroup or you will not fix the response bias problem. This sort of nuanced stratification is very expensive and most public pollsters aren’t willing or able to pony up.
With Kamala Harris as the nominee, politically engaged, wealthy, educated, white voters are taking up too many spots in the Democratic quotas, pushing out downscale, lower-turnout Democrats who are much more likely to be undecided or Trump voters. Whereas a college-educated Democrat might be 95% for Harris, a non-college one might be 88%. That seven-point gap matters and is not reflected in public polling.
Don’t take just my word for it. POLITICO reported that even Democratic pollsters are admitting their internal (read expensive) surveys are much less optimistic than public polling, and they are also worried about this blue mirage.
Fixing this problem is not easy or cheap, but one possible solution is to look at vote history. Looking at prior high-turnout elections, we can estimate how much of the electorate will be made up of reliable voters who have voted in 100 percent of the last four general elections. For example, in Pennsylvania, we might expect 52 percent of the electorate to be composed of these voters, but polling samples following the Biden-Harris switcheroo show an electorate with 60 percent-plus of these high-frequency voters.
This matters because of an oddity in party and vote history. Right now, support for Harris has a slight correlation to prior vote history where high-turnout Democrats have a higher incidence rate of support for her than low-turnout Democrats. Conversely, the correlation on the GOP side for Trump support is somewhat flat if not the inverse. Very reliable and consistent voters (who tend to be more educated Republicans) are less likely to support Trump while less reliable voters are more likely.
This trend existed previously, but it was supercharged after Joe Biden dropped out and Kamala Harris assumed the Democratic mantle. The result is a blue polling mirage that is more Democratic than Election Day will be.
This brings us to the second tool pollsters use, which is weighting a survey. When you weight a survey you treat interviews unequally to make the data more representative of the expected electorate. For example, if the survey electorate contains only 40 percent of people without a college degree but you expect likely turnout at 51%, you can increase the value of the non-college responses and decrease the value of the college responses to accommodate the disparity.
While weighting can be useful on the margins, it has significant limitations because you are using a very small group to extrapolate to a larger group. The classic example of this is Black voters. African Americans tend to be underrepresented in Pennsylvania statewide surveys if quotas are not used. If you weight 50 Black interviews with a margin of error of 13.5 percent to equal 80 interviews, you end up with a lot of risk and an unreliable result.
Many public polls right now are likely oversampling highly educated Democrats, and very high likelihood to turnout voters. They are not capturing the full electorate and while this may fix itself with rising response rates throughout the fall as we approach the election, it is a real problem for the polling industry to address.
So as the fall progresses, keep an eye on the public polling because it is likely once again to significantly understate the support for President Trump and Republicans.
https://coldspark.com/public-polling...l-wrong-again/
hey vaughn? calm down nerd theres like 15 california plates a day i see on the 10 east going home shout out Ahwatukee foothiils these faggots are flooding in here its awful he loses arizona
Rasmussen now +6 for Harris
Yeah…they are great, 12 point swing in a few days
That's not their official poll. It's a daily survey meant to show trends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Texter
https://x.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1835504861217185983
nate silver has trump at 65% to win the ec
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
He could be 100% right though? I mean he’s completely opposite every market, every good bookmaker in the world, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
If you think the election and polling errors are similar to 2016 and 2020, his estimates are realistic.
But atlas and Trafalgar and all those polls were so far off during the mid terms, having Herschel Walker up 4 and other laughable results, that it becomes about has abortion ruling changed the playing field permanently or is Trump a unique thing on Election Day.
Thiel spent millions over a personal grudge with Hulk Hogan. If he gave me $50 million to lie I’d take it. So it’s possible he’s getting so rich lying that he no longer cares about credibility or will change it drastically at last minute?
Or he can be right?
I feel like we truly aren’t going to know until the actual election.
The whole burn him at the cross because he’s saying shit we don’t like part is going to look really dumb if he’s right. I hope he’s getting really mega paid by Thiel if he’s wrong though, because if he sticks with those numbers, they’ll set the narrative for the it got stolen crowd and all kinds of bad shit
Or he’ll be the only liberal who was telling the truth about the probabilities and expectations and a hero.
One of the more interesting stories going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
He could be 100% right though? I mean he’s completely opposite every market, every good bookmaker in the world, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
If you think the election and polling errors are similar to 2016 and 2020, his estimates are realistic.
But atlas and Trafalgar and all those polls were so far off during the mid terms, having Herschel Walker up 4 and other laughable results, that it becomes about has abortion ruling changed the playing field permanently or is Trump a unique thing on Election Day.
Thiel spent millions over a personal grudge with Hulk Hogan. If he gave me $50 million to lie I’d take it. So it’s possible he’s getting so rich lying that he no longer cares about credibility or will change it drastically at last minute?
Or he can be right?
I feel like we truly aren’t going to know until the actual election.
The whole burn him at the cross because he’s saying shit we don’t like part is going to look really dumb if he’s right. I hope he’s getting really mega paid by Thiel if he’s wrong though, because if he sticks with those numbers, they’ll set the narrative for the it got stolen crowd and all kinds of bad shit
Or he’ll be the only liberal who was telling the truth about the probabilities and expectations and a hero.
One of the more interesting stories going on.
america electing a black woman to be president seems borderline impossible against any stable normal white republican male. factor in trump's darkly comedic failings and kamala at 35% seems realistic tbh.
I agree. I think it’s going to fall somewhere in the middle. Like if she’s polling ahead 3, this shit is going to take a month to sort out. Her number is where Biden was in these polls. Like 49% in most. His number is much higher. The whole embarrassed to admit they are Trump voters thing isn’t what it once was is my guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by BCR
america electing a black woman to be president seems borderline impossible against any stable normal white republican male. factor in trump's darkly comedic failings and kamala at 35% seems realistic tbh.
But I think he’s like 55/45 to win. 65 feels a bit high because he’s playing so badly atm, but I’d still rather have Trump ticket than Kamala for even money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRI agree. I think it’s going to fall somewhere in the middle. Like if she’s polling ahead 3, this shit is going to take a month to sort out. Her number is where Biden was in these polls. Like 49% in most. His number is much higher. The whole embarrassed to admit they are Trump voters thing isn’t what it once was is my guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
But I think he’s like 55/45 to win. 65 feels a bit high because he’s playing so badly atm, but I’d still rather have Trump ticket than Kamala for even money.
i expect smarter minds than mine are looking at rate hikes, return-to-office mandates vs corporate real estate value, housing markets, etc and coming up with the broader strokes.
wonder what lines for newsom '28 are looking like.
Remember when the Republicans screwed up the economy so bad we elected a black man from Kenya president?Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by BCR
i expect smarter minds than mine are looking at rate hikes, return-to-office mandates vs corporate real estate value, housing markets, etc and coming up with the broader strokes.
wonder what lines for newsom '28 are looking like.
If she loses, I don’t know about the appetite for another Bay Area Dem.
Is plop really that bullish on Kamala? That’s a super sharp kid. I looked for that election betting podcast he recommended last time that was dead on. I thought it was called something like Red White Blue election pod or something but don’t see it. Maybe my recollection is off.
Here is today's polling. Basically nothing really moved post debate. Nate has basically said if either candidate is at 40% come election day its basically a tossup. So at Trump 60-40 today both candidates are probably 'who gets their base out' at this point.
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Harris InsiderAdvantage
Trump 50, Harris 48
Trump +2
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Harris USA Today/Suffolk*
Trump 46, Harris 49
Harris +3
Georgia: Trump vs. Harris Trafalgar Group (R)
Trump 46, Harris 45
Trump +1
Missouri: Trump vs. Harris The Hill/Emerson
Trump 53, Harris 43
Trump +10
Indiana: Trump vs. Harris The Hill/Emerson
Trump 57, Harris 40
Trump +17
Maryland: Trump vs. Harris The Hill/Emerson
Harris 63, Trump 32
Harris +31
National: Trump vs. Harris Forbes/HarrisX
Harris 52, Trump 48
Harris +4
One more thing, internal polls candidates have are much more reliable, because they in essence have unlimited money and can poll non stop every day. PA was considered safe for Clinton in 2016, like a 5 point lead the week before the election. Everyone thought it was a done deal, then 5 days before the election she began having rallys in PA with Jay Z and Beyonce on stage. Everyone was WTF, why is she in PA? And Trump was down by 7 in MI and began campaigning the weekend before the election in MI. Why was he there if he was down by 7?
Bottom line if you see Harris camping out in say WI or Trump doing the same in NC, close to the election, you know who is going to win.
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1836350800236367969
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1836345753008013325
Back to national polling, there are two sets of polls producing wildly different results. These keep being discussed without people looking into why. Literally every single one of these Harris +4, +5, or more "polls" are conducted using opt-in online survey panels, almost all of which too are revealed to be heavily Dem weighted when data is available. TIPP too switched to this cost cutting method. Feel free to do your own research.
The polls paying the extra money and putting in the extra effort to work around the response bias problems and conduct live interviews are floating between Harris +1 to Trump +3. We've had a couple instances of internal polling leaks or known insiders openly discussing data they are privy to, both sides show a race completely different than what the biased media is trying to convey. Internal polling is not done with opt-in survey panels and is not weighted to get the results they want. These polls are conducted literally daily. Think back to Hilldawg having to cancel her victory fireworks show.
Campaign ad spending data is all publicly available. The Kamala campaign is spending 40% more money in Michigan than in Georgia, nearly as much as in Georgia in Wisconsin, and less than all of these states in North Carolina - this alone should be eye opening. It's not hard to infer what the internal polling is guiding all to do. When you break this down per capita on population size, the problems in Wisconsin become more apparent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
If she loses, I don’t know about the appetite for another Bay Area Dem.
Is plop really that bullish on Kamala? That’s a super sharp kid. I looked for that election betting podcast he recommended last time that was dead on. I thought it was called something like Red White Blue election pod or something but don’t see it. Maybe my recollection is off.
hes on a bit of a walkabout at the moment but said he has light action on kamala, which felt like value more than conviction.
Not any more. As of today, Trump is down to 52%. Essentially a toss up.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1836463729934025099
Quinnipiac polls. ROFLQuote:
Originally Posted by vpbobNot any more. As of today, Trump is down to 52%. Essentially a toss up.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1836463729934025099
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1836446883314626745Quote:
Last update: 1:45 p.m., Wednesday, September 18. Another very good day of polling for Kamala Harris, especially in a trio of polls of Blue Wall states by Quinnipiac, including one that had her up by 5 or 6 points in Pennsylvania (depending on whether you use the version with or without minor candidates). One caution is that Quinnipiac polls have been Democratic-leaning in recent years. With that said, they retain a good pollster rating. And this follows on some strong national polls for Harris since the debate.
The race is really a tossup: The model gives Harris a 49 percent chance of winning Pennsylvania, a 54 percent chance in Wisconsin, and a 56 percent chance in Michigan. Nevada is also 50/50. She’s had some disappointing polling recently in Georgia and Arizona, however.
The Suffolk Pennsylvania poll released yesterday has Harris +3. They had Biden +7 in 2020. He's essentially knowingly allowing his model to be pozzed.
BS. Trump is devoting more resources to WI than Harris.Quote:
Originally Posted by VaughnP
https://x.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1834604207514542377
Per electoral vote, Trump is spending the second most per electoral vote in WI, whereas Harris is spending the fourth most.
https://x.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1836096702912303591
All that money wasted.
Our corporate overlords don’t change with who is in office.
classic biased libtards fox news at it again
https://x.com/DeItaone/status/1836530947971301457
This BOL line caught me by surprise
If Americans had better marksmanship the +5000 might be worth a sprinkle. Even I can’t bet that now that ballots are being mailed.
https://youtu.be/Nbce4uKjXG0?si=84vs1Qr7KuHe9kUl
Looking good for Harris
Even bum hole Florida is gettin on board
Cleatus everyone knows Kamala will win popular vote….oh this is tine posting this…did he hit his head?Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
What even is your argument? Does her spending in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada look to be that of the candidate supposedly ahead? Trump is spending significantly less, and the media would have one believe that the current states most on the line for either candidate besides the obvious Pennsylvania are Georgia and North Carolina.Quote:
Originally Posted by vpbobBS. Trump is devoting more resources to WI than Harris.Quote:
Originally Posted by VaughnP
https://x.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1834604207514542377
Per electoral vote, Trump is spending the second most per electoral vote in WI, whereas Harris is spending the fourth most.
https://x.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1836096702912303591
Ads target individuals, not electoral votes. Basing the ad spending on electoral votes is obviously a gross oversimplification. Wisconsin has a population of 5.9 million, Georgia has a population of 10.9 million, and North Carolina has 10.7 million. When you break this down by eligible voting population it gets crazier. WI 4.5 million, GA 7.8 million, NC 8.1 million.
Her campaign is spending $7.5 per eligible voter in Wisconsin, $5 per in GA, $3.70 per person in NC. Feel free to pull the eligible voter data yourself. This was based off the totals from the last election and rounded up.
Go back and look at the spending from the month before, Trump's campaign spent considerably less than this month. One candidate is in a countering and holding pattern, the other is in a desperation pattern. What's your explanation for her extreme spending in Nevada? Kamala's campaign has more money, but this doesn't mean they will just waste it.
Nevada is their hope to counter Trump winning Pennsylvania while planning for more Georgia shenanigans. They've been campaigning in North Carolina and testing the ad effectiveness to see if they can move the needle at all for this same scenario.
Though a less likely scenario, her winning Nevada guards against Trump losing every blue wall state and still winning. High quality public polls for New Hampshire would be interesting. RFK was doing better there than any state, and remember Kamala campaigned there after he dropped out while simultaneously forcing stories about the "pathetic", "sad", "sorry" state of Trump's NH campaign.
When you understand the desperation and that the mainstream media is essentially the propaganda arm of the DNC, how they've covered GA and NC makes much more sense.
Obviously they hope to ballot stuff/harvest enough to win in Pennsylvania, but here's a visualization of why the Nevada spending is so extreme. Flip Trump to losing PA and winning NV and GA then you will see the importance of WI.
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1836538039692038501Quote:
Originally Posted by TexterCleatus everyone knows Kamala will win popular vote….oh this is tine posting this…did he hit his head?Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine