Harris holds 7-point lead over Trump in national survey

[Inderpland]

Vice President Harris now holds a 7-point lead over former President Trump, according to a new national survey.

[Danderman123]

"The Reuters/Ipsos survey was conducted Sept. 11-12 among 1,029 adults and had a margin of error of about 4 percentage points."

 

Old poll.

[Inderpland]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

"The Reuters/Ipsos survey was conducted Sept. 11-12 among 1,029 adults and had a margin of error of about 4 percentage points."

 

Old poll.

Ooops. Mods, please close the thread if you like.

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, Inderpland said:

Ooops. Mods, please close the thread if you like.

No. The wording of The Hill article is misleading. The September 11-12 poll showed a lead of 5 points.

 

The new September 24-25 poll has a lead of 7 points.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-builds-lead-over-trump-voters-see-her-debate-winner-reutersipsos-poll-2024-09-12/

[Inderpland]

12 minutes ago, Inderpland said:

Ooops. Mods, please close the thread if you like.

So ignore this request please.

[spidermike007]

Considering how many times Trump and Vance have shot themselves in the foot, she should be up by 18 points at this time. 

 

They're eating the dogs. 

They're eating the cats. 

They're taking the pets. 

Those illegal Haitians (all legal immigrants).

 

All these guys know how to do is lie and spread this disinformation. They wouldn't know truth if it bit them on the ankles. Both Trump and Vance are morally bankrupt to the farthest reaches of the imagination. 

 

 

[theblether]

Read the link and the next article says "Harris and Trump separated by one point". 

 

Utterly useless thread, utterly useless poll. 

 

[Inderpland]

Exclusive: Harris widens lead over Trump to 47%-40%, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

[Danderman123]

6 minutes ago, theblether said:

Read the link and the next article says "Harris and Trump separated by one point". 

 

Utterly useless thread, utterly useless poll. 

 

We are soon going to be in October when Republican polls will flood the zone. Some will be offered by Republican SuperPACs precisely to confuse low information voters.

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, theblether said:

Read the link and the next article says "Harris and Trump separated by one point". 

 

Utterly useless thread, utterly useless poll. 

 

The CNN poll you referred to has some interesting cross tabs. It shows under 35 voters giving Kamala Harris a 52% - 40% edge.

 

A new poll of young voters shows Harris with a commanding 31 point lead over Trump

 

Other polls disagree with CNN.

 

[Inderpland]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

We are soon going to be in October when Republican polls will flood the zone. Some will be offered by Republican SuperPACs precisely to confuse low information voters.

Low information voters - love it!🤣

[theblether]

44 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

We are soon going to be in October when Republican polls will flood the zone. Some will be offered by Republican SuperPACs precisely to confuse low information voters.

 

You'd need to be touched in the head to believe any poll, ESPECIALLY national polls, which are totally irrelevant. 

 

The only poll of ( some ) relevance was the Teamsters poll, that had Trump on 56%. The reason it had ( some ) relevance was that the sample size was gigantic, over 20,000 targeted respondents. At that point pollsters accept that the statistical variation vanishes. Only organisations such as the Teamsters could run a poll of that magnitude, regular pollsters can't afford the manpower required. 

 

Here's the downside - it samples only a certain category of American society. The Teamsters are working class dominated so that skews results. 

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

You'd need to be touched in the head to believe any poll, ESPECIALLY national polls, which are totally irrelevant. 

 

The only poll of ( some ) relevance was the Teamsters poll, that had Trump on 56%. The reason it had ( some ) relevance was that the sample size was gigantic, over 20,000 targeted respondents. At that point pollsters accept that the statistical variation vanishes. Only organisations such as the Teamsters could run a poll of that magnitude, regular pollsters can't afford the manpower required. 

 

Here's the downside - it samples only a certain category of American society. The Teamsters are working class dominated so that skews results. 

 

Somewhat odd, is it not that the Teamster poll has Trump ahead 60% to  34%, and all the mainstream media polls have Trump behind or tied.

 

How strange is that?

[Danderman123]

5 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

You'd need to be touched in the head to believe any poll, ESPECIALLY national polls, which are totally irrelevant. 

 

The only poll of ( some ) relevance was the Teamsters poll, that had Trump on 56%. The reason it had ( some ) relevance was that the sample size was gigantic, over 20,000 targeted respondents. At that point pollsters accept that the statistical variation vanishes. Only organisations such as the Teamsters could run a poll of that magnitude, regular pollsters can't afford the manpower required. 

 

Here's the downside - it samples only a certain category of American society. The Teamsters are working class dominated so that skews results. 

This tells us you don't understand the concept of a random sample. Which is why you don't trust polls.

 

Can you explain why the top national polls were so accurate in 2020, 2016 and 2012?

[Danderman123]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Somewhat odd, is it not that the Teamster poll has Trump ahead 60% to  34%, and all the mainstream media polls have Trump behind or tied.

 

How strange is that?

Not strange at all. The Teamsters poll was not a random sample.

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

This tells us you don't understand the concept of a random sample. Which is why you don't trust polls.

 

Can you explain why the top national polls were so accurate in 2020, 2016 and 2012?

 

The polls were accurate in 2016....hahahahahaha....

 

You're funny at least.

[connda]

Of course she does...unless she doesn't. Heck, Hillery Clinton was beating the pants off of Trump according to the polls in 2016.  "She's beating Trump by a landslide!"  Ah-huh.
I've decided that I'd like to see Trump win for no other reason that to watch a whole bunch of unstable people triggered.

  "I Hate you MAGA people."

I'm not voting for either Trump or Harris.  But I find the hysterics around Trump to be really tiresome.

[Captain Monday]

Why does a national poll matter when the election comes down to a few hundred thousand votes in 5 or 6 swing states? 

 

A ludicrous system no longer fit hat for purpose at should be banned.

 

Trump would lose in a real democracy by millions

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

The polls were accurate in 2016....hahahahahaha....

 

You're funny at least.

Remember that that the national polls are about the popular vote, not the electoral college.

 

The top national polls were fairly accurate in 2016.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, connda said:

Of course she does...unless she doesn't. Heck, Hillery Clinton was beating the pants off of Trump according to the polls in 2016.  "She's beating Trump by a landslide!"  Ah-huh.
 

Actual Reality does not agree with you

 

Of course you want Trump to win, because reality gives you a sad.

[Danderman123]

Fox News Poll: Harris is ahead of Trump by 3 points in Georgia

 

Harris receives 51% support to Trump’s 48% among both registered and likely voters. While her advantage may be narrow (inside the margin of error), it is steady.  Last month, she was up 50-48% among registered voters.

[Danderman123]

Kamala Harris is expanding her national lead over Trump, but, more importantly, her lead in swing states is slowly growing.

 

Another trend is a reduction in undecided voters as the election nears. This has the effect of raising the numbers of both candidates, but it's better to be up 51-49 than 47-45.

 

 

[bamnutsak]

Polls are more reliable in the DPRK than in the U.S.

 

Fewer and fewer States and voters wield control over the national election and the pool of likely/undecided voters is reduced to several million, so the hunt for poll 'valid' poll participants leads to highly unreliable results, IMO.

 

Half the likely/undecided may not choose until after they pull the curtain closed. And half of them will probably, accidentally. tick the wrong box.

 

Even focus group interviews can be unreliable as people lie to get into them.

 

 

 

 

 

[Danderman123]

38 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

Polls are more reliable in the DPRK than in the U.S.

 

Fewer and fewer States and voters wield control over the national election and the pool of likely/undecided voters is reduced to several million, so the hunt for poll 'valid' poll participants leads to highly unreliable results, IMO.

 

Half the likely/undecided may not choose until after they pull the curtain closed. And half of them will probably, accidentally. tick the wrong box.

 

Even focus group interviews can be unreliable as people lie to get into them.

 

And yet, the top national polls pretty much get it right, at least within the margin of error.

 

 

Edited September 27 by Danderman123

[bamnutsak]

43 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

And yet, the top national polls pretty much get it right, at least within the margin of error.

 

 

 

Hmm.

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/  

 

Clinton +4, actual LOST

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2021/03/02/what-2020s-election-poll-errors-tell-us-about-the-accuracy-of-issue-polling/

 

Biden +12, actual +4  WON

 

Margin of error on the national poll is meaning ess, as the popular vote is meaningless.

 

 

Harris would have to win the popular vote by eight (+) points to overcome the Electoral College bias.

 

Fewer than 20,000 people in Pennsylvania may/will/could decide the election. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HappyExpat57]

12 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The CNN poll you referred to has some interesting cross tabs. It shows under 35 voters giving Kamala Harris a 52% - 40% edge.

 

A new poll of young voters shows Harris with a commanding 31 point lead over Trump

 

Other polls disagree with CNN.

 

Between the Republicans getting caught making HORRIBLE laws regarding women and Taylor Swift and the such encouraging registration/blue votes, young voters have had enough. They are registering to vote in numbers never seen before and you generally can't poll them. They don't have land lines and don't answer calls from "unknown caller."

 

The sleeping giant got poked with a stick one too many times.

[Hanaguma]

According to the RCP average, Harris is up 2% nationally. In the swing states, Harris is up in 4 and TRump in 3, but the biggest margin is only 2%, in Michigan (for Harris). This point in 2020, Biden was 6% in the lead.

[mdr224]

4 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Between the Republicans getting caught making HORRIBLE laws regarding women and Taylor Swift and the such encouraging registration/blue votes, young voters have had enough. They are registering to vote in numbers never seen before and you generally can't poll them. They don't have land lines and don't answer calls from "unknown caller."

 

The sleeping giant got poked with a stick one too many times.

How the <deleted> would you know. Do you even know any young people?

[HappyExpat57]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

According to the RCP average, Harris is up 2% nationally. In the swing states, Harris is up in 4 and TRump in 3, but the biggest margin is only 2%, in Michigan (for Harris). This point in 2020, Biden was 6% in the lead.

Win by a little, win by a lot - doesn't matter as long as she wins.

[Brian Hull]

i am not American and so won't be voting but on the balance of experience, capabilities, track record, and what's on offer, the margin should be much greater. In any other western democracy it would be Harris 75%, Trump 25%.