Think the big difference here is Hillary felt above campaigning. That she was entitled to the Presidency or something.
Kamala seems to love campaigning and appears to be hitting the bricks hard.
More Fake News polls coming out tomorrow
- Thread starter Funky Bunch
- Start date
Kamala seems to love campaigning and appears to be hitting the bricks hard.
We had a lot of the same friends in high school/college - I had quite a few North Scott friends - but I don't remember if I met her or not.
Harris so far seems to have learned from the mistakes she made in ‘20 as well.
Hillary might have been the worst campaigner I’ve ever seen.
She also had decades of bad press and a FBI investigation against her dropped just days before the election. And she still beat Trump by 3 million votes.
Yup, had she simply been a generic candidate she wins comfortably imo.
She also had health problems on the campaign trail. The footage of her stumbling and needing to be helped into the SUV was particularly embarrassing. Now Trump is the geezer with no energy and needing assistance. He's not the Trump of 2016. This current Trump is a "broken down piece of crap" that should be retired. And people are starting to see this.
She doesn't have to win Florida, Trump does.
And if it forces Trump to spend ANY time and $$$, it's time and $$$ not spent somewhere else.
These posts are correct. Sorry, @Huey Grey, but the data shows that @Rifler is correct. Trump has always done better on Election Day than polls indicate. There are plenty of sad, brain washed, insulated and isolated little people that come crawling out of the nations trailer parks, bunkers, and safe dens for Trump.
Bit but bit the pathways for Trump keep narrowing. First, it was him possibly winning the popular vote. That's completely out the window. Then it was him solidly holding onto the sun belt and only needing to fight for the rust belt. Now that's out the window. His rallies are shells of their former selves. It's likely his yard signs will be way down this year. He beat the polls in 16 and 20. But there's nothing saying he will this year. All signs point to him underperforming if nothing else. Even the way pollsters accept responses has changed. In the past they wouldn't accept flat out, "I'm voting for Trump," and then hang up. Now they are. Pollsters s have changed their methodology to compensate for the weirdness of Trump supporters.
These polls can't be right, our legendary Harvard-educated poster has the real polls that all show trump up double-digits (tbh).
My wife is a registered Republican and has told me she won't vote this cycle.
Granted, we live in Mississippi North, but I doubt she's alone in that regard.
BTW...I'm voting for her, so that's two votes for Harris!
Pollsters don't want to get it wrong. They've adapted their models to accommodate Trump. It's a pain in the ass but they've made the effort. It's why we've seeing just a fraction of the number of polls we did in 16. Trying to get it right takes more time. They're trying hard to compensate for the Trump effect. Which is why it's far less likely they're missing actual Trump support this time around.
For the first time since 2012 I think there is more palpable enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate. I don’t think Hillary or Joe motivated young voters like Harris and I’m not sure there are as many motivated Trump voters. I think there are more “I’m a Republican and I’m voting for the Republican” Trump voters.
Pretty silly considering the Presidential voting rolls never seem to total 91% for the two main candidates. Closer to 98-99%.
Polling like this is deceptive at worst and flawed at best.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,051
- 200,975
- 113
I stand by my contention. I know people who know her personally.
So, given the potential volatility associated with the change of candidates, the normal convention bump, the whalehead chainsaw massacre-er, and the impending labor day holiday, I'd largely refrained from looking at polls the last couple of weeks. Today I took a peek, even though I still think next Friday may give a little more realistic portrait, and a few observations...
1. First the caveats - I really don't care about national polls much, just the state ones. Because that's how we elect presidents. No matter how much some hold their breath.
2. To be sure, Kamala seems to have closed and reversed some gaps (at least relative to the worst of the Biden trough), and in some important states.
3. That said, the most noticeable and stable gap closing/reversal has occurred in states that should more presumptively be in her column to begin with (eg, MI), and in the ones that will ultimately matter, there's some closure but not as consistent a pattern of reversal.
4. My earlier view had been that victory was pretty much a binary proposition, ie, whoever won PA would win, on the assumption that Trump was likely fairly solid in NC and GA. I think there are more feasible mathematical combinations now.
5. While my gut tells me that these two will still eventually lean to Trump, some recent polls suggest otherwise, Kamala is spending a fair bit of time there, and there are other noise elements in those states (eg, NC governor) that can be force multipliers for her. But oddly, some polls suggest that, again, if Trump wins the tossup in PA, he might actually have other pathways (eg, a combination of WI-AZ replacing NC, per today's Hill/Emerson poll).
6. VA, seems to be remaining stubbornly and surprisingly close, though perhaps more stable in its Kamala lean. As a longtime denizen of the Commonwealth, I've always been intrigued at how much the humble yard sign seems to be a pretty good indicator and predictor of where things stand. This year, I can't read those tea leaves very well though -- on the one hand, in my new western VA region, there are a very noticeable number of democratic candidate signs, and not just within the borders of the college towns, yet in some of the "border" counties of the northern exurbs, the republican signs have probably been more prevalent than Ive seen even in the distant past.
Buckle your seat belts I guess.
1. First the caveats - I really don't care about national polls much, just the state ones. Because that's how we elect presidents. No matter how much some hold their breath.
2. To be sure, Kamala seems to have closed and reversed some gaps (at least relative to the worst of the Biden trough), and in some important states.
3. That said, the most noticeable and stable gap closing/reversal has occurred in states that should more presumptively be in her column to begin with (eg, MI), and in the ones that will ultimately matter, there's some closure but not as consistent a pattern of reversal.
4. My earlier view had been that victory was pretty much a binary proposition, ie, whoever won PA would win, on the assumption that Trump was likely fairly solid in NC and GA. I think there are more feasible mathematical combinations now.
5. While my gut tells me that these two will still eventually lean to Trump, some recent polls suggest otherwise, Kamala is spending a fair bit of time there, and there are other noise elements in those states (eg, NC governor) that can be force multipliers for her. But oddly, some polls suggest that, again, if Trump wins the tossup in PA, he might actually have other pathways (eg, a combination of WI-AZ replacing NC, per today's Hill/Emerson poll).
6. VA, seems to be remaining stubbornly and surprisingly close, though perhaps more stable in its Kamala lean. As a longtime denizen of the Commonwealth, I've always been intrigued at how much the humble yard sign seems to be a pretty good indicator and predictor of where things stand. This year, I can't read those tea leaves very well though -- on the one hand, in my new western VA region, there are a very noticeable number of democratic candidate signs, and not just within the borders of the college towns, yet in some of the "border" counties of the northern exurbs, the republican signs have probably been more prevalent than Ive seen even in the distant past.
Buckle your seat belts I guess.
not hard to be toast when you started out as stale bread to begin with.
I think the race really takes off after the dust from the debate settles. Is Trump able to find an attack against Kamala that connects. Will Kamala look presidential and dismiss him as an unserious danger.
Or will none of it matter?
Last edited:
Not necessarily. He could still pick up a few points from RFK Jr. now that he's no longer available. The conspiracy theorists don't really have anybody else to turn to.
I expect that to be minimal, and not making up for the ground he lost.
Minimal in a razor close election can be all that's necessary to change the result.
I also believe a lot of people who intend to vote Democratic run into issues trying to vote, such as long lines, challenges, etc. so that people who honestly said they would vote don’t actually cast a ballot. Remember a significant part of GOP election strategy is suppressing the vote.
Sure, but I don’t think Harris’ numbers have leveled off yet. With or without RFK, we have a pretty good idea what trumps ceiling is.
That’s hilarious. How can anyone take this guy seriously? Wonder what whis will say?
Interesting. I think you're right that we know trump's ceiling in terms of popular and electoral votes (though who really cares what his national poll ceiling is). But even if KH hasn't completely plateaued, I don't think the national poll upside is materially different from where it is now given voter intransigence (again, who cares), and on the electoral vote front, it seems to me like there's enough wobble to suggest she has plateaued (and that her best case is around 288).
Yes she did, In fact she beat him by 4.4 million votes in California alone. Wait, what? So the rest of the country? Wow...
Naturally. God he's such a baby man. How anyone could vote for this dogcrap human is beyond me. No redeemable qualities at all.
Yeah, all depends on how much wiggle room there’s for her. Some of the recent polling for the statewide races for senate (AZ and PA), and I think it was North Carolina gubernatorial race showing Dems in those races with substantial leads; these aren’t guarantees, but hard to believe there’s that wide of a gap between the downballot races and the presidential race.
NC has teased Dems for several years so I’m not taking that for granted, but that’s a good sign imo there. Nevada also looks like it’s moving back to the lean democrat column as well.
I won’t begin to guess until we get deeper into September what the ceiling is. I think the ceiling can ultimately be whatever Bidens margin was in ‘20, depending on whether or not NC is flippable and if Harris can keep GA - I’m not confident she can.
May I ask why you would discount the votes in one state? I mean, it’s a state. Those votes count. Your argument is silly. I guess if would be silly if you actually had any kind of point to make.
the population of the 20 least populated states don't equal the population of california
I think she got overconfident and overestimated the electorate, assuming they'd reject this con man and horrible human being. Especially after the access Hollywood tape came out. Lots of people were overconfident and I was one of them. There were also a lot of Bernie Bros who pouted and voted 3rd party, didn't vote, or voted for Trump to give the DNC the middle finger. Then of course that turd Comey tampered with the election by re opening the investigation just before it. That was straight up negligence on his part
Add the Russian interference and misinformation campaign and it was a perfect storm that went Trump's way. I think a lot of lessons were learned and those mistakes won't be repeated.
Admittedly, I do believe without the Comey letter she eeks out the victory.
Also not factored in is all the new people registering. Those people aren't showing up in polls because they aren't likely voters. I've seen several stories lately of big jumps in new registered voters so the fact she is up a little and you are seeing high levels of new registered voters is a pretty good sign. Still need to get everyone to the voter booths though if turn out is high it's over for DonOld.
