While I believe statistics that violent crime is down, as a crime victim in my backyard this morning at 4:15am, I have trouble believing it is, and I've already had several neighbors over checking if I'm okay who are concerned about crime. Yes, I am okay, but tomorrow morning will have a shotgun by by side out there.
A homeless dude, who I've met several times and given coffee and food, scaled my 6 foot block wall, grabbed me by the hair and held a knife to my throat and demanded money as I sat in my wheelchair.
Fortunately Cleo, the standard poodle, sensed something was wrong and sunk her teeth into his left leg.
Police didn't get him this morning, but neighbors I've talked to know exactly who I'm talking about. I suspect he will get caught, and I absolutely will prosecute.
That's horrible, and I'm really sorry to hear this but glad your poodle protected you! I don't think it reflects on crime statistics in general, but that's no consolation for you.
From my standpoint, statistics that state violent crime is down mean nothing.
Crime can come in many forms and in different circumstances and contexts. You really can't eliminate crime but there can certainly be a proactive approach to reduce it to the degree where it's not pervasive and that you can feel safe being around your community & neighborhood.
I live in Berkeley and I know there's crime around the city but the advantage it has over cities like Oakland and San Francisco where it's unfortunately a bigger problem is that there's been a proactive effort to reduce homelessness without the lagging politics that get in the way. Thankfully, Mayor Jesse Arreguin has done a great job at helping the city become safer even while it's certainly not perfect.
No, that's not my argument. This has to do solely with the crime being down argument.
The issue I have when statistics are being used by police and mayors of cities to justify that crime is down say, "Violent crime is down 50% since a year ago" is that this doesn't always tell the full story. Sure, crime could be reported as "being down" but if I as a resident am being a victim of the same crimes that happened prior to them being down, then I have to wonder if enough is being done.
San Francisco City Government from the Board of Supervisors to Mayor London Breed were a few years back touting how crime really is down but that the truth was not being reported enough (this was in citing crime statistics). However, even a year ago and today there have been multiple reports of crime that have continued throughout various parts of the city and residents are still complaining.
It's never a good idea to be complacent when it comes to addressing crime.
All of what you are saying I agree with. However, the complacency I'm talking about has to do with city officials and police saying crime is down but then either don't acknowledge or don't effectively address concerns of residents who think otherwise.
Saying crime going down can be a start but it doesn't mean crime isn't going to continue.
For those freaking out about the NYT poll: bear in mind that this has been one of the most Trump-leaning pollsters out there, and that it flies in the face of more than a dozen high-quality national polls all showing a Harris with a modest lead. (Imho, Nate Cohn ought to take a sabbatical.)
GOOD POLLING NEWS: In the latest ABC/Ipsos poss, Harris leads Trump 50-46% among all adults and registered voters alike, and 52-46% among likely voters. That’s a six-point lead! Closer assessment shows movement to Harris in some groups when comparing all adults with likely voters.
NORTH CAROLINA: Any news on when the mail-in ballots are being sent out to voters? As we may recall, RFK Jr was suing to have his name removed – which would actually force the reprinting of more than 2300 local variants of the ballot!
Unfortunately the ABC/Ipsos poll was taken 2 weeks ago. I agree that there's something off about the NYT poll but until I see more contemporary data showing the same thing, I'll treat this as an outlier and keep my unskewing theories to myself.
There has not been a 7 point shift over the last 2 weeks. The NYT poll prior to yesterday's showed similar numbers when they were in the field immediately after Biden dropped out (he dropped out on the 21st and they were in the field the 22nd-24th) and the ABC/IPSOS Poll from 4 weeks ago showed similar numbers to the one from 2 weeks ago. Either they're getting different numbers or they're getting similar numbers and weighting them in a way to produce a different topline that's the explanation for the disparity not a real shift.
Agreed. The only major story that's happened since the convention that could change the tenor of the race was Trump's visit to Arlington and to put it mildly...that did not help him.
I merely pointed out that the ABC poll was dated to the OP because they were using it to refute the NYT findings.
As others have pointed out NYT/Siena seems to model an R+2 electorate and I have no idea what basis they are using to justify that, especially given that they are also finding an enthusiasm advantage for Harris.
Not to be pedantic, but using the poll's date as a way to refute it is only applicable if you believe that something has happened in the last 2 weeks to cause a change
The NYT poll is a very good poll and yesterday's poll had a bad result, but as you noted they've generally been one of the more pro-Trump pollsters out there and these are very similar numbers to the ones they had in late July immediately after Biden dropped out. And there's a reason why we say 'throw it on the pile' around here and and that ABC poll you showed is a good example of what you also noted that the general preponderance of polling has shown a small but real lead for her.
"Throw it on the pile" is fine; NYT/Siena should definitely be part of the aggregators’ polling averages. The problem is when NYT’s and Nate Cohn’s myopic analysis essentially asks us to ignore the picture painted by more than a dozen other polls, implying that those are not high-quality polls.
Actually, you and ArcticStones are saying almost the opposite, so your use of "in other words" is not accurate. The NYT/Cohn put out their own polls, in what I believe is an attempt to drive the narrative, and then (in an even further attempt to drive the narrative) engage in punditry telling us that their polling is right and anyone with a different finding is wrong. That's not ignoring competing polls. It's very much taking them into account.
Snootily and quite loudly (using your media machine) dismissing every other pollster's findings to the extent that they conflict with yours, while simultaneously making zero room for the possibility that you might be wrong? Even in an industry that is not exactly covered in glory, yes, I believe that's atypical behavior.
The NYT poll's results aren't so different from other ones that "Nate Cohn ought to take a sabbatical." It's not like any poll has shown big leads for either candidate.
NYT/Siena's modeled electorate is probably a bit to the right of reality, but not egregiously so. Ironically its model may have been more accurate when Biden was running, as there was a serious enthusiasm gap between the parties that made his prospects arguably worse than the close toplines indicated. But Harris appears to have solved that problem; by now Dems may have the edge in enthusiasm and thus likeliness to turn out.
Every major poll has shown movement toward Trump and we have to accept that the convention bounce was short and the swing states could go either way. It will not break away for either of them. You have to hand it to the right-wing echo chamber, they have cowered the MSM into both sides are the same reporting. They have normalized a criminal.
I don't know what we have to accept. Some healthy skepticism about all polls seems warranted. If we accept them uncritically when they're better, though, logically, we should accept them uncritically when they're worse.
NYT/Siena adjusted their models for what they deemed to be Trump’s overperfomance in 2016 and again in 2020.
What I would like to know is whether NYT/Siena and other pollsters have made model adjustments for Trump’s underperformance in just about every Republican primary this year, and for Democrats’ consistent overperformance in the 2022 Midterm Elections and just about ever special election since Dobbs? And if so, how?
On a side note: Why not think of each special election as "a very high-quality, extremely-large-sample poll"? (At the very least, these ought to influence who are believed to be Likely Voters.)
Answer to your last sentence: because they believe the presidential electorate will be very different from those who self-select to vote in special elections.
I know they do. But surely it is unscientific to utterly ignore the special elections, the midterms, and the abortion referenda? Moreover, the pundits and news media as a whole had surprisingly little commentary to Trump’s more-or-less-consistent underperformance in this year’s Republican primaries.
NYT/SIena assumes Republicans enjoy a 3-percent enthusiasm gap. That totally flies in the face of this evidence and the clear new enthusiasm released by Kamala Harris’ entry into the race after Biden’s withdrawal.
Polls measuring partisan enthusiasm indicate 15 percent more Democrats are very enthusiastic about voting! And yet NYT/Siena insists there is a 3-percent enthusiasm gap favoring Republicans.
A new IPSOS Washington Post poll shows 82% of Black voters supporting Harris, up from 74% who said they would support Biden. The poll also shows increased enthusiasm among Black voters. The poll contacted 1083 Black voters.
How did Obama's polling numbers look with black voters? Quick look I found says he got 93% of their votes in 2012. I'm curious how that might have compared to what the polls said.
I'd expect it's harder to get polling right as we get closer to these kind of strongly lopsided results.
Yes, Obama got 93-95%. Moreover, in 2022 exit polls, Blacks went for Democrats over 90% in PA and MI, and 89% in WI. Question is whether the current polls are off or if Blacks trending right.
Well, Trump does seem to be trying to recruit the Kanye West & Herschel Walker self-styled macho demographic. But somehow I doubt that’s going to pad his numbers much.
If I remember correctly back in 2012, Obama got around 45% of the votes in GA. At this time, the robust GOTV system that Stacey Abrams started was not in place. However, getting a sizeable portion like 45% couldn't have been possible without high turnout among black voters in the state.
Polling, even exit polling, tends to strongly underestimate the black support for Dems. I remember in 2020 exit polling suggested Trump got up to 15% of the black vote but precinct results indicated it was in mid single digits.
Not sure if these were from the last batch and covered or not previously. If so, sorry for duplicates. C-rated pollster.
Wisconsin Senate
Baldwin 50-44
Pennsylvania Senate
Casey 46-45
Multiple polls have found Casey's numbers falling several points and quickly. The last time Casey was up more than 2 was several weeks ago. This has been one race where Democrats have been even or actually outspent for some reason and now it seems to be showing.
This is not meant to shoot the messenger; so please don't take it as such, but Trafalgar is beyond trash(some very intelligent poll watchers on this site think they are actually faked)
Trafalgar (R) were the single WORST pollster of 2022; still Pennsylvania is the most endangered of the blue wall and it will require a TON of effort on the ground for Harris & Casey to be pulled over the line; get to work PA Dems!! 💙🇺🇲
You didn't mention the single most important Pennsylvania player; Governor Shapiro has a well oiled machine; I expect it's geared up with all the pistons firing(I do agree that Pennsylvania is the most important state; imo Trump cannot win without its EC votes)
We can only hope it's firing on all cylinders in the Philly suburbs, Pittsburgh suburbs as they're all critical to securing statewide victories; lots of effort required!! 💙🇺🇲
It is the PA Democratic Party machine, not just Shapiro. Here in Union County in Central PA it is firing on all 8 cylinders. In 3 hours on August 24 we registered 160 Bucknell students from out of state. Through campus affiliates, we continue to register out of state students at Bucknell and Susquehanna University. We have 2 shifts of canvassing crews going out every Saturday and Sunday.
It is said that the best union GOTV effort in the country is by the Culinary Workers in Las Vegas. The Teamsters in Philadelphia are a close second. The "Rendell Machine" is real.
Also, Trump has exactly ONE path to 270EVs involving exactly three swing states: PA+NC+GA. Without any one of those, he needs to win at least four swing states. Even then, NV is almost useless to him without PA. Harris wins with all four-state combinations except: NV+AZ+WI+NC or GA or MI
I agree that Trump putting all his eggs in the 2020+GA+PA basket. These states would give him exactly 270 electoral votes. Chris Hayes actually did a segment on this, which you can watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56SoDt_ft7o
At least he got that winner right. Cahaly put out polls showing Republicans winning in PA, MN and even NY. He just fusges whatever numbers he can to show Rpeublicams narrowly ahead everywhere.
The NYT poll also points to nothing has changed since their last poll in July was also Trump +1. It is a matter of the pollsters model of who the electorate is. If it is R+3 or D+1-2, it will affect who has the lead. The Washington state primary predicts about a D+4 popular vote margin.
There's an awful lot of data out there now that makes me think this is roughly a D+3 race, and roughly D+1 in the seven swing states (slightly better in MI/WI, worse in AZ/GA/NC). I see the likely electorate as D+ 1-2, similar to 2020.
(Yes, less of an EC-PV gap than 2020, due to some relative weaknesses for Ds versus 2020 in NY, CA, and FL.)
This is true, of course, but the data that we do have is around D+3. I do think the 538 aggregator is superior to the other options (Nate Silver, the Hill, and of course RCP), as it is harder to fool by flooding the zone a la 2022.
I wonder how much distance Trump can put between himself and some of these dismal R swing state candidates like Lake and Robinson. I would love some interviews with voters who back D candidates in those races but back Trump or are undecided at the top of the ticket to explain.
If you look at the Senate numbers on the Democratic side, they are close to Harris by a few points in absolute terms. It means Harris can still grow a little more support. The Republican candidates are the ones trailing Trump’s number so it’s either candidate quality or they are not very well known and they are not getting all the Republicans support yet. They may eventually match or get close to Trump’s numbers but the Democrats are close to 50% and need to just peel off some undecideds to hit 50%. I doubt there are many Rosen or Gallego and Trump and abortion right voters. It is probably mostly Republican leaners and some undecided in the Senate races.
TX-Sen - Allred is running an ad about the Ted Cruz sports curse (i.e., Cruz's attendance at big sports events for Texas-based teams being a curse on the Texas teams). The ad is in the third photo of this Instagram post. https://www.instagram.com/p/C_s91pWR2Qt/?igsh=MTdremE0aDFmeWgxaQ==
Harris +87 (93-6) with Biden 2020 voters. Trump +90 (94-4) with his own 2020 voters. That should shift the margin about 1.5 points in Trump's favor from 2020. Non-2020 voters favor Harris slightly.
That's the billion dollar question. Polling data shows low propensity voters and new voters favoring Trump. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen. It should be noted that it was true in 2016, so it's not without precedent.
If NC is blue for Kamala, don't see how it's mathematically possible for Donald to be anywhere close to 270. Gov. Cooper should run to flip Sen. Tillis' seat blue in 2026 as rumoured. Future swing states that are going to KEEP the Senate blue in years to come: Alaska, Kansas, North Carolina, Texas (current trends)!! 💙🇺🇲🙏🌊
I wrote a reply that I'm not seeing now: I think it looked like it had double-posted. Anyway, my reply is that the Democratic trend could end before all those states turn blue, let alone reliably blue.
NC: "There are wide gaps by gender and race. Men 56 - 38 percent back Trump, while women 60 - 37 percent back Harris. Black likely voters 85 - 13 percent support Harris, while white likely voters 56 - 41 percent support Trump"
Also Stein up by 10 in multi-candidate poll and up 12 in one-on-one.
It just doesn’t make sense to me that these states have so much divergence, and it is really making me doubt what the value of polling is currently. If anything, they are more likely to be very similar and very close.
This is probably the most clear example of why you should take the 'throw it on the pile' approach to polling. There's a minuscule chance there's a 7 point gap between NC and GA and if there was it would be the other way with Kamala winning GA relatively comfortably and NC being more favorable to Trump (GA did move to the left 3 points more than the country from 16 to 20).
While I believe statistics that violent crime is down, as a crime victim in my backyard this morning at 4:15am, I have trouble believing it is, and I've already had several neighbors over checking if I'm okay who are concerned about crime. Yes, I am okay, but tomorrow morning will have a shotgun by by side out there.
A homeless dude, who I've met several times and given coffee and food, scaled my 6 foot block wall, grabbed me by the hair and held a knife to my throat and demanded money as I sat in my wheelchair.
Fortunately Cleo, the standard poodle, sensed something was wrong and sunk her teeth into his left leg.
Police didn't get him this morning, but neighbors I've talked to know exactly who I'm talking about. I suspect he will get caught, and I absolutely will prosecute.
Very sorry to hear of this. I am glad that you were not harmed worse, though the damage to your sense of safety must be immense.
Thanks.
I'm old enough and been through enough that I'm not rattled by much of anything any more.
Stay well
That's horrible, and I'm really sorry to hear this but glad your poodle protected you! I don't think it reflects on crime statistics in general, but that's no consolation for you.
Glad to hear you made it in one piece!
From my standpoint, statistics that state violent crime is down mean nothing.
Crime can come in many forms and in different circumstances and contexts. You really can't eliminate crime but there can certainly be a proactive approach to reduce it to the degree where it's not pervasive and that you can feel safe being around your community & neighborhood.
I live in Berkeley and I know there's crime around the city but the advantage it has over cities like Oakland and San Francisco where it's unfortunately a bigger problem is that there's been a proactive effort to reduce homelessness without the lagging politics that get in the way. Thankfully, Mayor Jesse Arreguin has done a great job at helping the city become safer even while it's certainly not perfect.
"From my standpoint, statistics that state violent crime is down mean nothing."
Why do they mean nothing? If they stated crime was up, would you say the same thing, and why?
No, that's not my argument. This has to do solely with the crime being down argument.
The issue I have when statistics are being used by police and mayors of cities to justify that crime is down say, "Violent crime is down 50% since a year ago" is that this doesn't always tell the full story. Sure, crime could be reported as "being down" but if I as a resident am being a victim of the same crimes that happened prior to them being down, then I have to wonder if enough is being done.
San Francisco City Government from the Board of Supervisors to Mayor London Breed were a few years back touting how crime really is down but that the truth was not being reported enough (this was in citing crime statistics). However, even a year ago and today there have been multiple reports of crime that have continued throughout various parts of the city and residents are still complaining.
It's never a good idea to be complacent when it comes to addressing crime.
Acknowledging that crime is down does not constitute complacency. It would be idiotic to act like crime never goes down.
All of what you are saying I agree with. However, the complacency I'm talking about has to do with city officials and police saying crime is down but then either don't acknowledge or don't effectively address concerns of residents who think otherwise.
Saying crime going down can be a start but it doesn't mean crime isn't going to continue.
For those freaking out about the NYT poll: bear in mind that this has been one of the most Trump-leaning pollsters out there, and that it flies in the face of more than a dozen high-quality national polls all showing a Harris with a modest lead. (Imho, Nate Cohn ought to take a sabbatical.)
GOOD POLLING NEWS: In the latest ABC/Ipsos poss, Harris leads Trump 50-46% among all adults and registered voters alike, and 52-46% among likely voters. That’s a six-point lead! Closer assessment shows movement to Harris in some groups when comparing all adults with likely voters.
https://nitter.poast.org/ABC/status/1833089483408838992#m
NORTH CAROLINA: Any news on when the mail-in ballots are being sent out to voters? As we may recall, RFK Jr was suing to have his name removed – which would actually force the reprinting of more than 2300 local variants of the ballot!
Unfortunately the ABC/Ipsos poll was taken 2 weeks ago. I agree that there's something off about the NYT poll but until I see more contemporary data showing the same thing, I'll treat this as an outlier and keep my unskewing theories to myself.
There has not been a 7 point shift over the last 2 weeks. The NYT poll prior to yesterday's showed similar numbers when they were in the field immediately after Biden dropped out (he dropped out on the 21st and they were in the field the 22nd-24th) and the ABC/IPSOS Poll from 4 weeks ago showed similar numbers to the one from 2 weeks ago. Either they're getting different numbers or they're getting similar numbers and weighting them in a way to produce a different topline that's the explanation for the disparity not a real shift.
Agreed. The only major story that's happened since the convention that could change the tenor of the race was Trump's visit to Arlington and to put it mildly...that did not help him.
I merely pointed out that the ABC poll was dated to the OP because they were using it to refute the NYT findings.
As others have pointed out NYT/Siena seems to model an R+2 electorate and I have no idea what basis they are using to justify that, especially given that they are also finding an enthusiasm advantage for Harris.
Not to be pedantic, but using the poll's date as a way to refute it is only applicable if you believe that something has happened in the last 2 weeks to cause a change
That's not what I was doing. I'd explain more but I'm not a pedant.
Many of us are, though. :-) So perhaps you'd like to elaborate.
The NYT poll is a very good poll and yesterday's poll had a bad result, but as you noted they've generally been one of the more pro-Trump pollsters out there and these are very similar numbers to the ones they had in late July immediately after Biden dropped out. And there's a reason why we say 'throw it on the pile' around here and and that ABC poll you showed is a good example of what you also noted that the general preponderance of polling has shown a small but real lead for her.
"Throw it on the pile" is fine; NYT/Siena should definitely be part of the aggregators’ polling averages. The problem is when NYT’s and Nate Cohn’s myopic analysis essentially asks us to ignore the picture painted by more than a dozen other polls, implying that those are not high-quality polls.
In other words, their analysis ignores competing polls. Are there other pollsters that do not ignore competing polls in their analysis?
Actually, NYT & Nate Cohn are not ignoring competing polls – they are denigrating them.
Actually, you and ArcticStones are saying almost the opposite, so your use of "in other words" is not accurate. The NYT/Cohn put out their own polls, in what I believe is an attempt to drive the narrative, and then (in an even further attempt to drive the narrative) engage in punditry telling us that their polling is right and anyone with a different finding is wrong. That's not ignoring competing polls. It's very much taking them into account.
OK, is that atypical for a pollster?
Snootily and quite loudly (using your media machine) dismissing every other pollster's findings to the extent that they conflict with yours, while simultaneously making zero room for the possibility that you might be wrong? Even in an industry that is not exactly covered in glory, yes, I believe that's atypical behavior.
The NYT poll's results aren't so different from other ones that "Nate Cohn ought to take a sabbatical." It's not like any poll has shown big leads for either candidate.
NYT/Siena's modeled electorate is probably a bit to the right of reality, but not egregiously so. Ironically its model may have been more accurate when Biden was running, as there was a serious enthusiasm gap between the parties that made his prospects arguably worse than the close toplines indicated. But Harris appears to have solved that problem; by now Dems may have the edge in enthusiasm and thus likeliness to turn out.
Every major poll has shown movement toward Trump and we have to accept that the convention bounce was short and the swing states could go either way. It will not break away for either of them. You have to hand it to the right-wing echo chamber, they have cowered the MSM into both sides are the same reporting. They have normalized a criminal.
I don't know what we have to accept. Some healthy skepticism about all polls seems warranted. If we accept them uncritically when they're better, though, logically, we should accept them uncritically when they're worse.
NYT/Siena adjusted their models for what they deemed to be Trump’s overperfomance in 2016 and again in 2020.
What I would like to know is whether NYT/Siena and other pollsters have made model adjustments for Trump’s underperformance in just about every Republican primary this year, and for Democrats’ consistent overperformance in the 2022 Midterm Elections and just about ever special election since Dobbs? And if so, how?
On a side note: Why not think of each special election as "a very high-quality, extremely-large-sample poll"? (At the very least, these ought to influence who are believed to be Likely Voters.)
Answer to your last sentence: because they believe the presidential electorate will be very different from those who self-select to vote in special elections.
I know they do. But surely it is unscientific to utterly ignore the special elections, the midterms, and the abortion referenda? Moreover, the pundits and news media as a whole had surprisingly little commentary to Trump’s more-or-less-consistent underperformance in this year’s Republican primaries.
I agree with you. It's evidence. But it's not a presidential turnout poll.
NYT/SIena assumes Republicans enjoy a 3-percent enthusiasm gap. That totally flies in the face of this evidence and the clear new enthusiasm released by Kamala Harris’ entry into the race after Biden’s withdrawal.
Polls measuring partisan enthusiasm indicate 15 percent more Democrats are very enthusiastic about voting! And yet NYT/Siena insists there is a 3-percent enthusiasm gap favoring Republicans.
That is unsupported and unscientific.
Re NC Absentees: No news. Up to the extremely Republican supreme court. Board of Elections said if it must re-do all of the ballots, it will take two weeks. https://www.wbtv.com/2024/09/09/north-carolina-ballots-limbo-amid-rfk-jr-legal-battle-where-things-stand/
Thanks. That’s really outrageous. Could it be that truncating the voting period is the real objective of the RFK / Republican lawsuit?
A million reasons to not want Trump to ever return to power but the constant debate of is this incompetence or calculated evil is one of them.
A new IPSOS Washington Post poll shows 82% of Black voters supporting Harris, up from 74% who said they would support Biden. The poll also shows increased enthusiasm among Black voters. The poll contacted 1083 Black voters.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/09/harris-trump-biden-black-americans/
These are the numbers I like to see.
How did Obama's polling numbers look with black voters? Quick look I found says he got 93% of their votes in 2012. I'm curious how that might have compared to what the polls said.
I'd expect it's harder to get polling right as we get closer to these kind of strongly lopsided results.
Yes, Obama got 93-95%. Moreover, in 2022 exit polls, Blacks went for Democrats over 90% in PA and MI, and 89% in WI. Question is whether the current polls are off or if Blacks trending right.
Actually elections point to the polls being off(I am going to trust the actual election results)
Well, Trump does seem to be trying to recruit the Kanye West & Herschel Walker self-styled macho demographic. But somehow I doubt that’s going to pad his numbers much.
If I remember correctly back in 2012, Obama got around 45% of the votes in GA. At this time, the robust GOTV system that Stacey Abrams started was not in place. However, getting a sizeable portion like 45% couldn't have been possible without high turnout among black voters in the state.
Polling, even exit polling, tends to strongly underestimate the black support for Dems. I remember in 2020 exit polling suggested Trump got up to 15% of the black vote but precinct results indicated it was in mid single digits.
Trump better brace himself for GA and NC.
But he really can't; Pennsylvania is make or break
Of course.
NC I was saying in particular because I recall it was called for Trump before PA was even called for Biden.
Numbers from Trafalgar from 8/30. LVs 1,082
Not sure if these were from the last batch and covered or not previously. If so, sorry for duplicates. C-rated pollster.
Wisconsin Senate
Baldwin 50-44
Pennsylvania Senate
Casey 46-45
Multiple polls have found Casey's numbers falling several points and quickly. The last time Casey was up more than 2 was several weeks ago. This has been one race where Democrats have been even or actually outspent for some reason and now it seems to be showing.
Casey 46-45 8/28-8/30 not 46-54
Emerson had him up by +4 in their last poll. 8/25-8/28
This is not meant to shoot the messenger; so please don't take it as such, but Trafalgar is beyond trash(some very intelligent poll watchers on this site think they are actually faked)
I'm not concerned too much about the PA-SEN race. Casey is notoriously a difficult incumbent to unseat by the GOP.
Trafalgar (R) were the single WORST pollster of 2022; still Pennsylvania is the most endangered of the blue wall and it will require a TON of effort on the ground for Harris & Casey to be pulled over the line; get to work PA Dems!! 💙🇺🇲
You didn't mention the single most important Pennsylvania player; Governor Shapiro has a well oiled machine; I expect it's geared up with all the pistons firing(I do agree that Pennsylvania is the most important state; imo Trump cannot win without its EC votes)
We can only hope it's firing on all cylinders in the Philly suburbs, Pittsburgh suburbs as they're all critical to securing statewide victories; lots of effort required!! 💙🇺🇲
It is the PA Democratic Party machine, not just Shapiro. Here in Union County in Central PA it is firing on all 8 cylinders. In 3 hours on August 24 we registered 160 Bucknell students from out of state. Through campus affiliates, we continue to register out of state students at Bucknell and Susquehanna University. We have 2 shifts of canvassing crews going out every Saturday and Sunday.
Shapiro is head of the state party; we are talking about the exact same thing
It is said that the best union GOTV effort in the country is by the Culinary Workers in Las Vegas. The Teamsters in Philadelphia are a close second. The "Rendell Machine" is real.
Also, Trump has exactly ONE path to 270EVs involving exactly three swing states: PA+NC+GA. Without any one of those, he needs to win at least four swing states. Even then, NV is almost useless to him without PA. Harris wins with all four-state combinations except: NV+AZ+WI+NC or GA or MI
I agree that Trump putting all his eggs in the 2020+GA+PA basket. These states would give him exactly 270 electoral votes. Chris Hayes actually did a segment on this, which you can watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56SoDt_ft7o
Is he? He's been campaigning in WI, too, for example.
My favorite Trafalgar poll:
Oct 25-28, 2022 - WA Senate: Murray 49, Smiley 48
Murray won by 14.52.
At least he got that winner right. Cahaly put out polls showing Republicans winning in PA, MN and even NY. He just fusges whatever numbers he can to show Rpeublicams narrowly ahead everywhere.
I'm unconvinced PA will end up better for Trump than WI, though polling has been showing otherwise.
Can't wait to see your updated House tracker; in politics, always follow the money
Suburbs of small PA cities moving left.
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/harrisburg-suburbs-voting-trends-2024-election-trump-harris-20240909.html
The NYT poll also points to nothing has changed since their last poll in July was also Trump +1. It is a matter of the pollsters model of who the electorate is. If it is R+3 or D+1-2, it will affect who has the lead. The Washington state primary predicts about a D+4 popular vote margin.
There's an awful lot of data out there now that makes me think this is roughly a D+3 race, and roughly D+1 in the seven swing states (slightly better in MI/WI, worse in AZ/GA/NC). I see the likely electorate as D+ 1-2, similar to 2020.
(Yes, less of an EC-PV gap than 2020, due to some relative weaknesses for Ds versus 2020 in NY, CA, and FL.)
I believe Prof. Sam Wang and his Princeton Election Consortium estimates the current EC-PV gap to be equivalent to approx. 2%.
I thought Wang had been exploded?
??? Please explain. He ate a bug. His continue posts and analyses, and his correspondence with me, indicate Dr Wang is fully intact.
What data convince you that it's a D+3 race, rather than D+1, tied or whatever?
538 averages are right around there.
Remember: garbage in, garbage out. We have no idea how accurate polling is.
This is true, of course, but the data that we do have is around D+3. I do think the 538 aggregator is superior to the other options (Nate Silver, the Hill, and of course RCP), as it is harder to fool by flooding the zone a la 2022.
FAU NC & GA polls (Pres and Gov) https://x.com/Taniel/status/1833194141640958004
Can you link to the Gov numbers? Not seeing them in the tweet as I don’t have twitter.
It would be nice if folks linked to the actual poll results rather than tweets—give Elon less traffic.
Stein 50
Robinson 39
Like PA with Casey, KH will win NC if Stein is up by double digits!
Again, not necessarily. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I believe this is a soberer, more analytical site.
One person's opinion based on things I have read elsewhere....and not on Simon's page!!
Which things?
Agreed. NC likes to split tickets between Pres and Gov.
I've never felt like Casey was in any trouble; as long as the campaign keeps on keeping on
I wonder how much distance Trump can put between himself and some of these dismal R swing state candidates like Lake and Robinson. I would love some interviews with voters who back D candidates in those races but back Trump or are undecided at the top of the ticket to explain.
If you look at the Senate numbers on the Democratic side, they are close to Harris by a few points in absolute terms. It means Harris can still grow a little more support. The Republican candidates are the ones trailing Trump’s number so it’s either candidate quality or they are not very well known and they are not getting all the Republicans support yet. They may eventually match or get close to Trump’s numbers but the Democrats are close to 50% and need to just peel off some undecideds to hit 50%. I doubt there are many Rosen or Gallego and Trump and abortion right voters. It is probably mostly Republican leaners and some undecided in the Senate races.
Or if linking to Twitter post the poll top lines
TX-Sen - Allred is running an ad about the Ted Cruz sports curse (i.e., Cruz's attendance at big sports events for Texas-based teams being a curse on the Texas teams). The ad is in the third photo of this Instagram post. https://www.instagram.com/p/C_s91pWR2Qt/?igsh=MTdremE0aDFmeWgxaQ==
I'm not seeing it. Is it a funny ad?
This might be the ad.
X: https://twitter.com/ColinAllredTX/status/1830083242386411532
Threads: https://www.threads.net/@colinallred/post/C_XAWKeMoXF
Thanks. Yes, that's quite funny.
PEW Pres poll tied 49-49 RVS 8/26-9/2 https://x.com/umichvoter/status/1833215786086998239
Harris +87 (93-6) with Biden 2020 voters. Trump +90 (94-4) with his own 2020 voters. That should shift the margin about 1.5 points in Trump's favor from 2020. Non-2020 voters favor Harris slightly.
So how do they get a tie? Biden won by 4.5.
Underestimating Democratic turnout??
This is RVs, though. I don't understand.
I was only speculating; I am with you; seems a little screwy
My guess is most polls are underestimating Dem turnout....they just can't accept the difference in Dems with Harris rather than Biden.
Exactly
Those who didn't vote in 2020. That's a non-insignificant portion of the electorate.
True, but why would they favor Trump more?
That's the billion dollar question. Polling data shows low propensity voters and new voters favoring Trump. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen. It should be noted that it was true in 2016, so it's not without precedent.
Low-propensity voters, yes. But new, presumably disproportionately young voters?
But they have a category for this and it's Harris +4.
RFK is on the ballot in MI boo hoo for Trump https://x.com/charles_gaba/status/1833221167898902601
This is where I actually am going to for once say to RFK Jr, "Thank you for your service." /s
New Survey USA numbers.
North Carolina
Harris 49
Trump 46
900 lvs 9/6
Some notes: Trump leads Harris with men by only 3 points which seems screwy. Harris up with women by 9.
Harris up 3 with indeps.
https://www.wral.com/story/harris-has-slight-edge-in-neck-and-neck-race-with-trump-in-nc-wral-news-poll-shows/21616373/
Meanwhile BL strategies has
Harris 48
Trump 45
In Wisconsin. 600 lvs but this was from 8/21
If NC is blue for Kamala, don't see how it's mathematically possible for Donald to be anywhere close to 270. Gov. Cooper should run to flip Sen. Tillis' seat blue in 2026 as rumoured. Future swing states that are going to KEEP the Senate blue in years to come: Alaska, Kansas, North Carolina, Texas (current trends)!! 💙🇺🇲🙏🌊
Yeah. Both NC as well as GA represent sizeable electoral votes and happen to be states that are attractive for new residents to move in.
I'm also interested in seeing how TX is going to fare for Harris, even if she doesn't end up winning the state.
I'm unconvinced about your last sentence.
It's very long-term
I wrote a reply that I'm not seeing now: I think it looked like it had double-posted. Anyway, my reply is that the Democratic trend could end before all those states turn blue, let alone reliably blue.
Agreed
CBS Senate polls:
Baldwin +8
Casey and Slotkin +7
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin-senate-poll/
Really glad to see all of them. This should ease some of the concerns about Casey. Of note, all polls were of RVs and taken 9/3-9/6.
If Casey is up by 7 KH will win PA!
I don't think that's necessarily true.
OK, we will see on Nov. 6 :-)
I'm not making a prediction. I just think a large discrepancy between voting for Casey vs. Harris is possible, that's all.
yes, possible.
Quinnipiac Polls of LVs taken 9/4-9/8 https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3904
NC has Harris up 49%-46%.
GA has Trump up 49%-45%.
Either one makes sense to me but I cannot imagine NC being seven points better for Harris than GA. Both polls are w/in the M/E though.
NC: "There are wide gaps by gender and race. Men 56 - 38 percent back Trump, while women 60 - 37 percent back Harris. Black likely voters 85 - 13 percent support Harris, while white likely voters 56 - 41 percent support Trump"
Also Stein up by 10 in multi-candidate poll and up 12 in one-on-one.
It just doesn’t make sense to me that these states have so much divergence, and it is really making me doubt what the value of polling is currently. If anything, they are more likely to be very similar and very close.
This is probably the most clear example of why you should take the 'throw it on the pile' approach to polling. There's a minuscule chance there's a 7 point gap between NC and GA and if there was it would be the other way with Kamala winning GA relatively comfortably and NC being more favorable to Trump (GA did move to the left 3 points more than the country from 16 to 20).
Or throw it in the garbage
Morning Consult: Harris up by 3 in PA, MI and WI. Trump up by 2 in AZ. NV, GA and NC tied.
https://x.com/cameron_easley/status/1833260972309360705
fyi This link has a ton of polling updates