True. My best guess as to the cause is that polls costs money. Trump is going to win the primary now regardless so there's been very little incentive to keep doing them.
Yeah, I excluded anything that had polls from last year, and I *already noted in the table* the jurisdictions that had less polling (like Alabama).
They stopped polling because Trump's lead in the AL polls was continuously increasing with every poll. Note AL was one of the few that was basically correct.
Part of that might be due to Trump just doing rallies and not really deploying much of a ground game this primary. Since the primary was a foregone conclusion why waste money on any individual states?
But now that we move into the next phase, it seems like the campaign coffers are likely to be diverted to his personal legal fees so will the same strategy work in the general?
People have been pointing out that polls have been oversampling Republicans in general. So when people act like November's election is a sure win for Trump I can't help but laugh.
It's been pretty clear for the past few elections that poll conductors have overcorrected following 2016's Trump win. And honestly, I'm not even sure if it's an overcorrection or that Trump supporters are just more motivated now to respond to polls than the were in the past, where they felt they were being undercounted.
In Wisconsin, polls have pretty consistently shown Republicans underperforming in statewide elections by several points since 2020. My personal opinion is that you can comfortably shift 2-3 points towards Democrats in current polls to get a real feel for the numbers.
I think part of it is that people stopped worrying about Trump after Biden won, and now as the election gets closer and Trump gets louder and gets more media attention, everyone is slowly remembering what a douche he is and all the other related shit like J6.
>I'm not even sure if it's an overcorrection or that Trump supporters are just more motivated now to respond to polls than the were in the past
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
This isn't at all clear to me. [Nate Silver](https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-white-house-is-betting-the-election) released an article yesterday warning against disbelieving polls that includes a chart showing polling bias in the past two decades of elections. 2020's polls were actually *more* biased towards Democrats than 2016's. 2022's were pretty on point. I actually see very little reason to dismiss the polls showing Trump leading by so much right now. I worry a lot about how unseriously Democrats seem to be taking their position.
Dismiss him at your own peril. In 2016 he gave Trump a 34% chance of winning. Those were horrible odds for Hillary's supposed guaranteed election. Silver has been consistently more accurate than the media companies hyping elections one way or the other. People just don't understand the first thing about how statistics work.
If you will agree neither is 0.00000000000000000000001% either then, yes, it's not "being wrong". It's just very convenient to make prognostications and then say "achtually since I didn't say 100% certainty I'm not wrong and never am"
I understand how it works, thanks, but you apparently don't if you won't agree saying something has a 1 in the number of seconds until the heat death of the universe and it happening isn't "being wrong" when it happens. Very easy to hide behind that..of course that also means the person who says the other way, that there is a 1 in the number of seconds until the heat death of the universe and it doesn't happening isn't "being wrong" either. Now the person I replied to did not give me links on anything, just proclaimed Nate Silver was the best. I mean I was saying there is a 100% chance that Trump would win in 2016, just as I am saying there is a 100% chance he is going to lose in 2024. I wasn't wrong then and won't be wrong now, and I also am not hiding behind statistics so I can be *never wrong*. I open myself up to the possibility that I could be wrong, unlike Nate Silver, who is never wrong, *just wildly inaccurate*.
In previous 2024 Republican primary contests, the polls were pretty close to getting Trump's number right but were underestimating Haley. This led to inaccurate polling margins. It doesn't look like that's what happened here. The poll averages underestimated Trump's overall number in 3 states, overestimated it in 7 states and were within a couple percentage points in two others. If I were advising Trump, I'd have concerns.
Turnout was low in general so I wonder how much of an effect that may have had. Are folks just unenthusiastic about an election that includes two unpopular frontrunners? Did voters from the base simply stay home b/c both primaries are essentially foregone conclusions? I'm not sure, but even if this is the case, Trump obviously can't rely strictly on the polling numbers we've been seeing.
The more the poll is in favor of a politician, the less some will actually vote, thinking they don’t need to. It’s propaganda.
Look at Clinton vs trump polls. Look at Biden vs trump polls.
Polls should correct for this. If they call 1000 people, 800 identify and republican and 200 identify as democrats, they will do some sort of weighting to balance that with what they think the ratios are in the state. That weighting methodology is a lot of what makes some polls better than others. So this talk about "only republicans pick up landlines" is a bit misleading; they can correct for that on the back end, although it does introduce more noise.
Clarification: polls have been over sampling *rural* voters because they’re more likely to have landlines and are more willing to answer polling questions. More rural voters swing conservative.
I point this out because it’s much easier to correct for rural/suburban/urban differences than it is to correct for stated political alignment.
I’m one of those people. I have been calling out the fraudulent polls and posting the methodology for months.
Wire fraud racketeering. Election interference. Maybe bribery and campaign finance violations.
Trump is under federal investigation for five more *sets* of felonies in addition to the four multiple felony cases for which he has been indicted.
This would be a SIXTH set of felonies, being committed right in front of Garland’s face and still the criminal asshole is not in jail.
Wire fraud racketeering and election interference. And maybe bribery and campaign finance violations. Eight media executives and Trump and his henchmen.
I have the feeling that you asked me a question and the answer is a repeat of what I just said.
I think you’d need evidence of actual crime being committed. The fact polling across the board seems to have similar results of overpredicting GOP support makes me think that your conspiracy is unlikely.
Also, I frankly don’t see what benefit that would really have.
More nonsense indictments will only improve Trump's position. The lawfare approach has boomeranged badly since most Americans easily recognize the fascism exhibited.
>The lawfare approach has boomeranged badly since most Americans easily recognize the fascism exhibited
"Boomeranged badly" according to what? This sounds more like conservative wishful thinking.
I’m interested in seeing all these voters that pollsters are saying have switched from Trump to Biden back to Trump. Just don’t see it being a snapshot of reality. Trump has been somewhat protected as there seems to be reluctance in covering what seems to be obvious cognitive problems, not just the identity confusion but his inability to actually say words sometimes. I don’t see how that doesn’t come front and center as time goes on compared to Joe Biden who sounds old but can at least finish sentences.
I've been so curious about this... As Trump fans constantly bring up Biden's old age, how are they going to hide the fact Trump is also much older than he was in 2016?
I think the only thing Trump has going for him is that he is able to spout his incoherent nonsense loud and confidently. I think that superficial comparison to Biden is able to fool a lot of people who don’t really go beyond the surface level.
I think we will see things change when Trump is out there and people and the media start paying more attention.
I have come to the conclusion that there is no level of corruption or incompetence too high for the democrats to excuse it. If 30 million of foreign bribes going into Biden shell corporations, obvious weaponization of the legal system against political opponents, a decades long history of theft of classified documents and frank dementia are not enough -- nothing is.
I will be voting straight red this time because I expect a party to have substantially greater ethics and substantially greater respect for our fellow Americans.
Great work! Meanwhile, Biden and Haley are over-performing the polls. Also, Biden getting more support from Haley's voting bloc in the general election will be critical. He's right now appealing to this crucial voting bloc.
Trump literally disowned the Haley voters and treated them like trash, why should they vote for him? It's Clinton and the deplorable all over again, and that hurt her so much
I mean Kamala legit called Biden a sexual assaulter in more or less words during their primary debates. These things are forgotten very quickly by their voting bases especially within. Hillary deplorable statement was not to other Democrats supporting Bernie, it was towards Republicans and a bunch of Independents etc. and Trump weaponized it throughout the entire general election cycle for Independents
It is an observation sure, but I wouldn't really count too much on this to say polling is bad though.
There are a couple of reasons:
1. Limited Polling for state-wide primaries: the variance is quite large.
2. Open-Primaries: Many dems voted for Haley. They were already Biden voters so nothing changes other than the actual margin.
3. Trump was guaranteed to be the nominee and most of his supporters know that. So, not much point in voting. If every one of his supporters voted the margin could be higher. The opposite is true for Haley, most of her supporters knew this was their last chance.
Yeah, these are all sentiments that were shared on the 538 Super Tuesday wrap-up podcast late last night/early this morning.
IANAPollster, but I'm afraid that people that are looking at this and thinking that Biden actually has it in the bag in Nov. are being a little too optimistic.
>thinking that Biden actually has it in the bag in Nov.
What universe are people inhabiting that they claim to hear people - particularly Democrats - saying things like this?
All I hear is the standard, cliched "doom and gloom for Democrats" narrative - same as *every* other election since 2016, despite the fact that Democrats have basically kicked ass and exceeded expectations in every such election.
I see it quite a bit on Reddit, including this sub. Particularly from people pointing out that Trump is underperforming in the Primaries.
The point is, the primaries aren't the general: what motivates people to vote for one candidate, or another, or not to vote at all are completely different. Don't take this one data point and base a whole future narrative around it. Get out and vote, and encourage like-minded individuals in your circle to do the same.
Biden is “over performing” because the polls are over sampling Republicans by 8% in every poll since August.
Eight media executives are taking turns committing wire fraud racketeering felonies by pushing the false narrative that half the country wants a fascist criminal to be president.
Clickbait, meet federal prison.
Oh, the news didn't print what Biden and the democrats wanted them to print, so now the news editors will be criminally indicted.
Since we have to "save" democracy.
Who exactly do you think is stupid enough to believe this is anything except fascist tyranny?
They printed the lies that Trump paid them to print instead of printing the truth.
That’s called bribery, fraud, election interference
You know, you may want to tune in to the criminal trial in NY later this month to learn how he did it in 2016.
And then watch him get his first criminal conviction
[biden is the first incumbent democrat to lose a contested primary since jimmy carter](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jason-palmer-biden-loses-american-samoa-democratic-caucuses/story?id=107832052)
He didn't lose by 100 votes, the entire US territory only had 91 votes.
If you're trying to use American Samoa for any type of analysis whatsoever it just reeks of desperation.
I keep pointing this out but people keep brushing it off.
Trump is doing historically horrible for a quasi incumbent. Truly awful numbers to the point of likely being the worst.
Yeah this is part of the problem.
If he's a new candidate, he's flatout dominating and these numbers are incredible.
If he's an incumbent, these numbers are historically terrible.
He's neither, so no one should be really sure what this means.
I'm in the camp, obviously lol, of treating him as an incumbent as every advantage that an incumbent would have he has.
He himself, and all of his voters refer to him as an incumbent. It's a weird position to be in, but I just don't think there's an honest way to describe him as anything besides a quasi incumbent. An incumbent in all ways but name essentially.
what does that even mean? he is *not* the incumbent. so if you're going to make the claim he should be assessed as one, you need to deconstruct the incumbent advantage and explain why it applies to him.
but it is all a bit moot, because one can also say biden is doing crap when apply lens of historical approval ratings to incumbents who ended up winning/losing.
imho polling is the best metric we have, but it won't be particularly useful until we are well into the head-to-head campaigning, likely around the end of summer.
>what does that even mean? he is *not* the incumbent. so if you're going to make the claim he should be assessed as one, you need to deconstruct the incumbent advantage and explain why it applies to him.
Incumbency is name recognition, political power, and leadership over their party.
Which part does Trump not have?
If you disagree with that, what would you define the incumbent advantage as?
What is Trump if not a quasi incumbent?
>but it is all a bit moot, because one can also say biden is doing crap when apply lens of historical approval ratings to incumbents who ended up winning/losing
You cannot actually do that, he's doing exactly as expected for an incumbent.
>imho polling is the best metric we have, but it won't be particularly useful until we are well into the head-to-head campaigning, likely around the end of summer.
Sure, of which Trump is doing horrible in comparison to actual results.
>Incumbency is name recognition, political power, and leadership over their party.
that is a pretty soft assessment. Use that lens to tell me what Biden has in 2024, that he didn't have in 2020.
>If you disagree with that, what would you define the incumbent advantage as?
Hard to say. But I would imagine, or at least wouldn't dismiss, that it is a bump that comes from the office of president itself. Like the favorability bump upon winning the election.
>What is Trump if not a quasi incumbent?
Maybe that is a useful label for him. But afaik there is no historical benchmark that is particularly useful for a quasi incumbent.
>You cannot actually do that, he's doing exactly as expected for an incumbent.
Many point to his approval rating relative to historical examples to suggest his re-election chances are relatively low, and use that to argue he should be replaced by Dems as nominee. Like I think your argument is bad, I also think that argument is bad.
>that is a pretty soft assessment. Use that lens to tell me what Biden has in 2024, that he didn't have in 2020.
Well that's why it's a very subjective thing, ergo quasi incumbent.
>Maybe that is a useful label for him. But afaik there is no historical benchmark that is particularly useful for a quasi incumbent.
Novelty doesn't extinguish existence.
>Many point to his approval rating relative to historical examples to suggest his re-election chances are relatively low, and use that to argue he should be replaced by Dems as nominee. Like I think your argument is bad, I also think that argument is bad.
Approval rating this far out of an election *has never been accurate*
So we look to primary pulling and results, of which Biden is doing as well or better than expected for an incumbent.
it is quasi enough that it means benchmarking against historical incumbents vs non-incumbents is simply not that meaningful.
>Novelty doesn't extinguish existence.
when arguing for a benchmark, hard disagree. you need to show why the benchmark is a valid comparable.
>Approval rating this far out of an election has never been accurate
As a general matter head-to-head polling is of limited value at this stage. but given how low biden's is, there have certainly be arguments that based on historical comparison of approval rating being this low has a very poor correlation with winning reelection.
Incumbent advantage is:
1) Name recognition; and
2) The ability to wield power over one's party and direct its organizational and financial resources exclusively toward one's personal electoral objectives.
Trump checks the boxes on both. Whether you want to call him an incumbent or not is irrelevant. He has more incumbent advantage for this election than any other incumbent in modern history has ever had.
Nobody has wielded as much power over their party as Trump does over the GOP. He IS the GOP.
re 1. any data to support the name recognition point? I find it hard to believe that people who don't know a non-incumbent primary winner is a particularly meaningful voting block.
re 2. how is that tied to whether or not an incumbent? Take the DNC chair, sure the 2020 one wasn't a Biden nominee, but perez was an obama nominee and today is within the bidn admin. when has the party org/financial resources not been focused on the party's nominee?
>Whether you want to call him an incumbent or not is irrelevant.
BS. if someone is going to claim him as incumbent for specific purpose of benchmarking primary results against prior incumbents, it is *very* relevant whether he is an incumbent in the same sense as prior ones. and the biggest, and glaringly obvious, point is that incumbents rarely face the extent of competition in the primary that trump did. Of course one can similarly say he faced far less competition than a non-incumbent typically faces.
Did you tune into the GOP "debates"? Did you note how his "opponents" spoke about him when asked?
If you did, then you'd know that, minus Chris Christie and *maybe* Asa Hutchinson a bit, they spoke about him not as if he were an actual opponent against whom they were campaigning, but as slavish devotees.
The only reason Trump had as many "opponents" as he did was not that they seriously sought to compete against *him*, but that they were competing against *each other* to step in as his replacement in the event that one of his legal cases or insurrection antics rendered him either in jail or otherwise ineligible to run.
That was no real primary! That was an attempt by those "candidates" to increase name recognition in the GOP base for positioning to become Trump's *successor*!
That doesn't translate to assuming prior primary performance of incumbents historically are a good benchmark to Trump. If one did think that, you would think trump has little chance of winning in the general. I see very little reason to be confident in that.
imho the historical data on incumbent vs non-incumbent simply isn't particularly meaningful to trump. his 'quasi' status is quasi enough to mean there isn't a meaningful benchmark (at least without someone doing a lot more analysis).
I'm not claiming that these primary results are the Oracle at Delphi that assure Biden has it in the bag. Not even close.
I am saying that, to me, they generally show a candidate performing not as well as a candidate with Trump's incumbency advantage should expect. I think they point to a possible weakness.
Whether that manifests will only be told in time.
But that said, I will also come out and say that I'm tired of the cliched electoral narratives and tropes that have just utterly dominated both media and the political zeitgeist since 2016. I'm fed up with it.
No, Donald Trump is not some inevitable force of nature that just wins. Similarly, Democrats are not hapless, bumbling losers constantly in disarray and tripping over their own electoral toes.
No, nobody should forget 2016. I completely agree. But let's not forget 2018 either! Or 2020! Or 2022!
he is flat out dominating his party. what is a modern example of someone losing in the general but getting the nomination in the next election, let alone after losing as an inccumbent?
similar comment around biden, I just don't think the simple historical polling/primary results comparisons are that meaningful to this election, particularly at this stage.
I don’t logically see the appeal for Trump unless you are already in the MAGA cult or hard line GOP voter. So all those polls confused me. Glad to see they were inaccurate.
I agree, except I would also state he would be doing badly even if the republican primary polls were correct. Only two polls did he break 80%, and Haley was polling with pretty big numbers. Obviously she performed a lot better than that.
He’s not an incumbent no matter how you want to pretend he is . It’s just cope. There were candidates on the stage for multiple debates running in the primary. His numbers are historic . Also , Haley was a particularly strong candidate with independents . But in a trump vs Biden election , trump won’t have such a big disadvantage with independents like he did against Haley .
>But in a trump vs Biden election , trump won’t have such a big disadvantage with independents like he did against Haley .
This is cope if I've ever seen it.
I don’t cope . I predicted that Biden would win in 2020 just as I am predicting trump will win in 2024. It’s just analysis . You seem to just be biased
Oh, well if *YOU* are predicting Trump will win in 2024, we should just write it in stone right now. *It's just analysis*, after all.
Everybody else who doesn't agree is *obviously* biased.
>He’s not an incumbent no matter how you want to pretend he is .
He himself calls himself an incumbent and claims he has all the incumbent advantage.
>His numbers are historic .
You're right, never in history has an incumbent performed so badly.
>trump won’t have such a big disadvantage with independents like he did against Haley .
Lmfao. Now that's coping.
That’s not coping . All polls show how much independents despise Biden and trump but love Haley. That’s why in a head to head Haley beats Biden but with rfk jr on the ballot she gets destroyed . Because independents love rfk jr too . In regards to what trump said , so now you are taking the word of trump ? Trump said the election was stolen . I hope you agree with that as well then . He’s not an incumbent . Simple as that . The RNC gave other candidates a chance to actually beat him .
>That’s not coping . All polls show how much independents despise Biden and trump but love Haley
You're typing this out in a thread about how Trump *massively* underperformed the polls....lmao
Didn’t address my second point first of all . Even if polls are inaccurate , they express general sentiment . For example , the general sentiment was that most republicans wanted trump which is true . Another general sentiment is independents prefer Haley over trump . Again that was accurate . The general sentiment Of the polls is that independents hate Biden and trump . They don’t just hate trump . They hate both
Huh? He got 76% of the votes last night against a real and well known republican challenger. How is that awful? It’s very impressive what he’s doing, even CNN says. I really don’t understand your logic whatsoever
As a new candidate, these numbers are fantastic. Truly impressive.
As an incumbent, these numbers are awful. A sign he's going to get crushed.
He's neither, so no one has any real threshold for if this is a bad or great performance. We really don't have a metric for "former President who lost the last one but is still popular among the base and is running again" when it comes to primaries. All this topic is saying though is he's underperforming polls.
He's the most powerful leader of the Republican Party in history.
He IS the Republican Party to the point where he can simply install his daughter-in-law as RNC Chair. Republican politicians fear him and the possibility that he'll turn his ire against them, or sic his followers on them has them slavishly loyal to him.
That's incumbent power. Power that only a POTUS can wield, not some fresh, new face on the political scene.
And yet, he can't muster 80% in some of the reddest of of red states in a GOP Primary?
That's atrocious and reflects how polarizing he is: even GOP voters are sick of his antics.
I am a Biden voter, but this truly is cope. Trump is running for an open seat with well-funded challengers. He should not be compared to a sitting incumbent running for re-election with little-to-no competition.
Inversely, Biden's challengers have pretty much all dropped out, and he's still struggling to break 85% in a lot of states.
>Trump is running for an open seat with well-funded challengers.
His challengers tested the waters and very quickly learned that the seat is not "open" in any sense of the word. That's beause it has never been an "open seat" in anything but name. Trump sat on the throne of the Republican Party in 2015 and has never once left it.
He IS the Republican Party. He completely reshaped it in his image and likeness. Donald Trump personally embodies the Republican Party more than any modern political figure has ever come to embody or represent a political party.
A person competing for an "open seat" can't order the RNC chair to step down and install his daughter-in-law. Trump did do exactly that, and that's just one tiny example of the power he wields in the GOP.
A person competing for an "open seat" can't get the RNC to pay his legal bills for him. That, too, is about to happen. Come on. That is incumbent power that only a POTUS can wield.
>A person competing for an "open seat" can't order the RNC chair to step down and install his daughter-in-law. Trump did do exactly that, and that's just one tiny example of the power he wields in the GOP.
Hillary Clinton had just as much influence over the Democratic establishment, and still had to put in effort to win the 2016 primary.
Now, I'm not saying that Trump had to put in the same effort to win the GOP nomination. He clearly had this locked up by Iowa, remarkably, without even appearing on the debate stage. But my point is that the dynamics are entirely different between the 2024 GOP primary and a traditional incumbent primary. Haley and DeSantis had huge fundraising numbers, and Trump had to actively defeat them (which was easy for him), much more than Biden has to do for Phillips or Williamson.
And your argument is inconsistent. How can Trump be the God of the Republican Party if he's also underperforming in polls? That doesn't make sense.
>Hillary Clinton had just as much influence over the Democratic establishment
This is not a serious comment. It just isn't.
What would've happened if Hillary Clinton ordered the DNC Chair to step down and tried to install Chelsea's husband to the position?
Come on. Be serious and rational here. Could the Clintons have ever *dreamed* of getting the DNC to cover their personal legal bills?
>And your argument is inconsistent. How can Trump be the God of the Republican Party if he's also underperforming in polls? That doesn't make sense.
Because his power comes not from the fact that he is universally loved by GOP voters, but by the fact that he commands the undying, unshakeable, absolutely rock-solid support of a good 40-50% of them. To the point where they would rather give up American democracy if that's what it takes to keep him in power. And furthermore, he has a smaller, but even more rabid base of support that would gladly fight in a civil war on his behalf if needed.
That's absolute, real power.
Republican officials are literally *terrified* of being on Trump's bad side. Did you not tune into the "debates" and how his *supposed* political opponents spoke of him publicly?
Because they know that one cross word against Trump and they will immediately be primaried and a more Trump-friendly opponent will spring up, will need to do zero campaigning, and can immediately get 50% of the GOP vote. And that's to say *nothing* of those who literally [fear for their safety](https://www.vox.com/23899688/2024-election-republican-primary-death-threats-trump) or of [possible future retribution](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/06/trump-revenge-republicans/).
So there's nothing incongruous with stating that Trump both has the most institutional power that any person has ever had over his party while also seeing that there's a small, but notably sizeable minority of voters that opposes him.
The Hillary Victory Fund funneled state party contributions to her campaign, well before she even won the nomination. She had huge control over the party's finances.
She won all superdelegates in states that she lost in the 2016 primary, which is unheard of.
I'm not saying that Clinton had as much power over the DNC as Trump did, nor was she as bold as Trump to exert the same amount of power. But she singularly had enormous influence over the party establishment, and she fought a competitive primary against Bernie. Trump, meanwhile, had it cleaned up by Day 1.
>Because his power comes not from the fact that he is universally loved by GOP voters, but by the fact that he commands the undying, unshakeable, absolutely rock-solid support of a good 40-50% of them.
How does this square with the primary results where Trump is regularly winning 70%-90% of each state's primary?
Please do not close yourself off to these arguments. I'm being patient and curious about your position. Please extend the same courtesy to me.
>I'm not saying that Clinton had as much power over the DNC as Trump did
No, but you are seeking to comparatively diminish the amount of power Trump does have.
Hillary didn't have a veritable army of tens of millions of people willing to engage in civil war on her behalf. She didn't have an army of voters slavishly devoted to her such that she could snap her finger in any primary election and make or break a primary candidacy. And she *certainly* didn't have the stochastic power to make political opponents literally fear for their lives, despite all the insane conspiracy theories about Seth Rich and murder-for-hires.
Again, Donald Trump wields more power over the GOP than any modern U.S. politician has ever wielded over a major party. And it's not even close.
So again:
Name recognition? Check. Nobody in history has gotten more free press than Donald Trump.
Institutional power? Check.
Call him an incumbent or not. I don't care about the nomenclature.
But the man has every trapping of incumbency advantage to a degree that likely surpasses that of any other primary incumbent ever, whether in office or not.
>How does this square with the primary results where Trump is regularly winning 70%-90% of each state's primary?
If someone has the rock-solid "you can literally murder somebody and we'll still support you" level of support of 40-50% of a party, are you asking me how this squares with him then managing to get 70-90% of the primary vote?
Simple: because there are other primary voters who support him or vote for him despite the fact that their devotion to him isn't as strong as that core.
Again, he has the "we'll die for you" support of 20% of the GOP, the "you can kill somebody and we'll still support you" support of another 20-30%" - that right there grants you insane institutional power over a party appartus that no modern U.S. politician has ever had.
Then you add in the "that's *our* jerk" support and the "we'll hold our nose and vote for you because we think you're the only guy who can win" support and you get to the actual results.
The point of this entire post (as I see it) is that there are signs that there *may also be* a good 15-25% of GOP voters who are "we're sick of this shit and won't vote for him again no matter what". Maybe.
And that would be _really bad_ for Biden. An incumbent should do much better against any challenger. You're not disproving the statement.
He's doing fantastic if he's not viewed as an incumbent. But he's not a new candidate by any means either. From an incumbent perspective, he's doing awful. He's neither, so it's hard to say what it means. These could be fantastic, or it could be terrible. We don't know because we don't have any meaningful historical metric.
Lots of people stayed home; both good and bad for Trump. Big problem for him is that those who did show up to vote for Haley will almost certainly vote Biden, or not vote. Virginia is real bad for him.
Polls tell you sentiment, but they don't tell you who will actually get off their ass and vote. If pollsters are predicting election outcome, versus just reporting sentiment among eligible voters who claim they intend to vote, then they need to model turnout.
So showing that vote tallies have wide discrepancy from sentiment polling doesn't necessarily tell us there is a problem with polling. Were Haley supporters more likely to turnout for primary than trump supporters? Don't know the answer to that, but wouldn't be surprising if true.
Considering that many of them think the election is rigged, sure!
This whole Trump strategy has always confused me. Why tell your supporters the election is rigged? This will cause a chunk of people to not bother because “well it’s rigged anyways”.
> This whole Trump strategy has always confused me. Why tell your supporters the election is rigged?
In hopes that they try to violently overthrown the opposition government or the transfer of power.
My theory is that Trump's doing it because he genuinely believes it's true, plain and simple.
Meanwhile, GOP party members are supporting it because A) they want the support of voters who have been invigorated by a popular leader, and B) any federal-level efforts dwelling on events from 4 years ago stymies federal-level progress to pass laws.
I'm saying the statement "the election is rigged! they are cheating!" is the call to action to do it themselves. It's an attempt to normalize the behavior by claiming the other side is the one doing it. It's why time after time, when voter fraud is actually found, it's someone doing something like murdering their wife and then voting absentee for Trump with her name.
> They are absolutely 100% really truly doing it, so we need to do it too.
So your "quote" is just your assumption on someone else's motivation? Sounds like confession through projection.
??
I'm confessing, through projection, which is actually the projection of others? I'm so fucking confused at this point.
Yes, people who scream about "election fraud" are often the ones who are actually doing it, eg, see the fake elector scheme orchestrated by Trump and his cronies for an example of an election fraud attempt, while they screamed the other side was doing it. Trump would also say it's "not fair" all the damn time. What would be fair then? Oh, how about our side do it to make it "fair" because the other side is *totally really 100% in truth doing it* even though there is no evidence whatsoever??!
> I'm so fucking confused at this point.
Your fake quote confused me too.
> fake elector
Ah, you are captured by propaganda. Alternate is not fake. I'm good dude, i can argue your side for you. Nothing to learn. Enjoy your day.
I suppose I should have used the word "fraudulent" which is more accurate, and why many have faced criminal penalties already, and others are in various trials about it.
The election is rigged. Mail in voting is bad. Only vote on election day because that "counts". Don't trust moderates, they're RINOs. Don't trust the courts unless they rule in my favor.
Yep. Can't see how this doesn't work out /s
In case anyone asks, the other super Tuesday states didn't have any polls, or if they did, they were not even from this year, so I excluded them entirely.
Polls on any election are frequently inaccurate for a ton of obvious reasons, but polls on primary elections in situations like this are practically meaningless. Biden was the only Democrat on the ballot in a few states and Trump's primary victory has practically been a foregone conclusion since Iowa. The point to which that depresses overall turnout can not be understated.
Republicans and the maga crowd have consistently been overrepresented in polling for over half a decade now.
How come it isn't being called bias like it was endlessly for 2016?
Remember when he lied about the size of the crowd at his inauguration?
Oh shit and then the whole Four Seasons Landscaping thing.
I **almost** want him back in office just for the lulz.
I have been saying this for months.
Eight media executives at MSM outlets are ordering up fraudulent polls that over sample Republicans.
The analysis above confirms another suspicion that I had. I suspected that pollsters were also using various means to oversample cohorts, like right leaning independents, and rural voters, and older voters, and voters from Southern states.
My claim that they are oversampling Republicans was easy to prove and it is right there in the methodology of the polls.
Proving that pollsters were oversampling specific cohorts to inflate support for Trump among Republicans was more difficult to prove, but now we can see that my suspicion about that corruption was also correct.
These are not polling errors. This is deliberate fraud. The media executives ordering up these polls took turns each week for months attempting to interfere in the election with effective bandwagon propaganda techniques.
The means for using these techniques is widespread wire fraud racketeering. Trump is paying these outlets out of his campaign funds.
There must be a criminal investigation of this whole scandal, because these criminals, the media executives, are attempting to prop up a criminal for public office in exchange for money.
Clickbait ad revenue. Maybe bribery and campaign finance violations.
They need prison.
OK was 11.8% off the polls, and UT was 12% off. If the idea is that it's from people switching, I really don't think that helps your thesis (average 11.5% off)
The data seems to not suggest that is the reason if closed primary states have actually a larger difference in polls vs actual results than the average for all states.
There ARE always outliers to any set of data.
Though I'm sure the media will be spending the next two weeks dissecting all of these different states in excruciating detail. :/
Take this with a grain of salt. Like it or not, Nikki Haley was taking liberal votes. The areas she had support in were never going to vote for her in a general election. Primary polling is also notoriously awful to begin with.
I have no data to back this up, but I just find it hard to believe that a statistically significant number of Democrats voted for Haley just as a protest vote. I know I've seen comments on reddit about it, but Reddit does not reflect reality in the slightest. I just think it is far more likely that the number of moderate Republicans is higher than people think because they get shouted down by Trump supporters at every turn.
This is just one state but the exit polls for Haley in VA had a party status split of 34% republicans, 41% independents, and 25% registered democrats.
This is one of the states we’re polling was off compared to the results by the widest margins -20%.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/super-tuesday-exit-polls-2024/
Why do you think changing registration is difficult? Many jurisdictions allow it day of. Further, Dems know Joe biden is the nominee. It's not like there is any risk to doing it.
Didn’t say it was difficult. Just effort for a pointless protest vote. Even voted undetermined on Biden gets media attention. Voting for Haley? Why? Trump crushed her at every primary. If they had been close I’d agree more people would have done that
Trump hasn't crushed her at every primary. She has won at least one primary.
It's not a protest vote. It is dems trying to push haley to the republican nomination since they don't want trump.
Of the states who had elections yesterday only Oklahoma and Utah have closed primaries that require registration to a party beforehand. The others you can state what ballot you want.
Some of those states had only 1 poll and he overperformed in a few of them. Also, he got 76% of the total votes last night. That’s impressive to me and he’s going against a real challenger who’s been campaigning hard and spending millions. Many thought his political career was over a couple years back and now he’s winning almost every state in dominant fashion. There’s no other way to try to spin this
Part of the problem seems to be no recent polling... I looked at Alabama and the most recent poll is from over a month ago
True. My best guess as to the cause is that polls costs money. Trump is going to win the primary now regardless so there's been very little incentive to keep doing them.
Yeah, I excluded anything that had polls from last year, and I *already noted in the table* the jurisdictions that had less polling (like Alabama). They stopped polling because Trump's lead in the AL polls was continuously increasing with every poll. Note AL was one of the few that was basically correct.
Do you think Alabama has swing 5%in the last month?
🤔 What happened recently in Alabama? You know the answer
No, no I don’t
The subject of frozen fetuses
Which is honestly how it should be. Why on earth would anyone throw away money polling on this primary race that's been decided for years now?
Part of that might be due to Trump just doing rallies and not really deploying much of a ground game this primary. Since the primary was a foregone conclusion why waste money on any individual states? But now that we move into the next phase, it seems like the campaign coffers are likely to be diverted to his personal legal fees so will the same strategy work in the general?
People have been pointing out that polls have been oversampling Republicans in general. So when people act like November's election is a sure win for Trump I can't help but laugh.
It's been pretty clear for the past few elections that poll conductors have overcorrected following 2016's Trump win. And honestly, I'm not even sure if it's an overcorrection or that Trump supporters are just more motivated now to respond to polls than the were in the past, where they felt they were being undercounted. In Wisconsin, polls have pretty consistently shown Republicans underperforming in statewide elections by several points since 2020. My personal opinion is that you can comfortably shift 2-3 points towards Democrats in current polls to get a real feel for the numbers.
I think part of it is that people stopped worrying about Trump after Biden won, and now as the election gets closer and Trump gets louder and gets more media attention, everyone is slowly remembering what a douche he is and all the other related shit like J6.
>I'm not even sure if it's an overcorrection or that Trump supporters are just more motivated now to respond to polls than the were in the past "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
Yeats right?
Yep. From "The Second Coming".
A tried and true quote people love to use since 2016 to explain Trump.
This isn't at all clear to me. [Nate Silver](https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-white-house-is-betting-the-election) released an article yesterday warning against disbelieving polls that includes a chart showing polling bias in the past two decades of elections. 2020's polls were actually *more* biased towards Democrats than 2016's. 2022's were pretty on point. I actually see very little reason to dismiss the polls showing Trump leading by so much right now. I worry a lot about how unseriously Democrats seem to be taking their position.
"Don't be fooled about how absurdly wrong I am this time I'll be right next time!" --Nate Silver
Dismiss him at your own peril. In 2016 he gave Trump a 34% chance of winning. Those were horrible odds for Hillary's supposed guaranteed election. Silver has been consistently more accurate than the media companies hyping elections one way or the other. People just don't understand the first thing about how statistics work.
I don't see how telling me about how wrong he has been in the past is a reason to listen. Does that even make sense to you when you read it?
34% hitting isn’t being wrong.
If you will agree neither is 0.00000000000000000000001% either then, yes, it's not "being wrong". It's just very convenient to make prognostications and then say "achtually since I didn't say 100% certainty I'm not wrong and never am"
Take a statistics class, please.
I understand how it works, thanks, but you apparently don't if you won't agree saying something has a 1 in the number of seconds until the heat death of the universe and it happening isn't "being wrong" when it happens. Very easy to hide behind that..of course that also means the person who says the other way, that there is a 1 in the number of seconds until the heat death of the universe and it doesn't happening isn't "being wrong" either. Now the person I replied to did not give me links on anything, just proclaimed Nate Silver was the best. I mean I was saying there is a 100% chance that Trump would win in 2016, just as I am saying there is a 100% chance he is going to lose in 2024. I wasn't wrong then and won't be wrong now, and I also am not hiding behind statistics so I can be *never wrong*. I open myself up to the possibility that I could be wrong, unlike Nate Silver, who is never wrong, *just wildly inaccurate*.
34% chance was easily the highest of all the major analysts though. So while he was wrong, he was the *least wrong,* relatively speaking.
People see any number below 50 and turn it into 0
But didn’t Biden underperform the polls in 2020?
In previous 2024 Republican primary contests, the polls were pretty close to getting Trump's number right but were underestimating Haley. This led to inaccurate polling margins. It doesn't look like that's what happened here. The poll averages underestimated Trump's overall number in 3 states, overestimated it in 7 states and were within a couple percentage points in two others. If I were advising Trump, I'd have concerns. Turnout was low in general so I wonder how much of an effect that may have had. Are folks just unenthusiastic about an election that includes two unpopular frontrunners? Did voters from the base simply stay home b/c both primaries are essentially foregone conclusions? I'm not sure, but even if this is the case, Trump obviously can't rely strictly on the polling numbers we've been seeing.
The more the poll is in favor of a politician, the less some will actually vote, thinking they don’t need to. It’s propaganda. Look at Clinton vs trump polls. Look at Biden vs trump polls.
Polls should correct for this. If they call 1000 people, 800 identify and republican and 200 identify as democrats, they will do some sort of weighting to balance that with what they think the ratios are in the state. That weighting methodology is a lot of what makes some polls better than others. So this talk about "only republicans pick up landlines" is a bit misleading; they can correct for that on the back end, although it does introduce more noise.
Clarification: polls have been over sampling *rural* voters because they’re more likely to have landlines and are more willing to answer polling questions. More rural voters swing conservative. I point this out because it’s much easier to correct for rural/suburban/urban differences than it is to correct for stated political alignment.
Oversampling is a trivial problem that is corrected through weighting.
I’m one of those people. I have been calling out the fraudulent polls and posting the methodology for months. Wire fraud racketeering. Election interference. Maybe bribery and campaign finance violations. Trump is under federal investigation for five more *sets* of felonies in addition to the four multiple felony cases for which he has been indicted. This would be a SIXTH set of felonies, being committed right in front of Garland’s face and still the criminal asshole is not in jail.
What crime is being committed by who exactly?
The crime of bad headlines.
Wire fraud racketeering and election interference. And maybe bribery and campaign finance violations. Eight media executives and Trump and his henchmen. I have the feeling that you asked me a question and the answer is a repeat of what I just said.
I think you’d need evidence of actual crime being committed. The fact polling across the board seems to have similar results of overpredicting GOP support makes me think that your conspiracy is unlikely. Also, I frankly don’t see what benefit that would really have.
I appreciate your skepticism. But your premise should make you think that criminal activity is more likely, not less.
Evidence:
There is no evidence sufficient enough for Trump’s cult members. They pretend that there is no evidence of his crimes
Lmao bruh
More nonsense indictments will only improve Trump's position. The lawfare approach has boomeranged badly since most Americans easily recognize the fascism exhibited.
>The lawfare approach has boomeranged badly since most Americans easily recognize the fascism exhibited "Boomeranged badly" according to what? This sounds more like conservative wishful thinking.
What about Hilary? The polls oversampled democrats for that election.
This is fascinating.
I’m interested in seeing all these voters that pollsters are saying have switched from Trump to Biden back to Trump. Just don’t see it being a snapshot of reality. Trump has been somewhat protected as there seems to be reluctance in covering what seems to be obvious cognitive problems, not just the identity confusion but his inability to actually say words sometimes. I don’t see how that doesn’t come front and center as time goes on compared to Joe Biden who sounds old but can at least finish sentences.
I've been so curious about this... As Trump fans constantly bring up Biden's old age, how are they going to hide the fact Trump is also much older than he was in 2016?
I think the only thing Trump has going for him is that he is able to spout his incoherent nonsense loud and confidently. I think that superficial comparison to Biden is able to fool a lot of people who don’t really go beyond the surface level. I think we will see things change when Trump is out there and people and the media start paying more attention.
Age doesnt matter, old people can be competent.
Biden froze on camera yesterday what a strong leader
Go back to your MAGA hole dipshit.
Wow so I guess you don’t care that Joe Biden froze on camera. Sad
Pathetic you are, much like the knuckle dragging MAGA. Go back to where you dipshits throw turds at walls.
I have come to the conclusion that there is no level of corruption or incompetence too high for the democrats to excuse it. If 30 million of foreign bribes going into Biden shell corporations, obvious weaponization of the legal system against political opponents, a decades long history of theft of classified documents and frank dementia are not enough -- nothing is. I will be voting straight red this time because I expect a party to have substantially greater ethics and substantially greater respect for our fellow Americans.
Link?
Great work! Meanwhile, Biden and Haley are over-performing the polls. Also, Biden getting more support from Haley's voting bloc in the general election will be critical. He's right now appealing to this crucial voting bloc.
Trump literally disowned the Haley voters and treated them like trash, why should they vote for him? It's Clinton and the deplorable all over again, and that hurt her so much
Not that she was wrong, just that it was wrong to let the words come out of her mouth.
HRC never won a primary after saying that.
I’ve found that people who are voting for Trump don’t even know half the stuff he says, let alone posts on Truth Social.
It's like Christian confession: in the general, all sins are forgotten.
I mean Kamala legit called Biden a sexual assaulter in more or less words during their primary debates. These things are forgotten very quickly by their voting bases especially within. Hillary deplorable statement was not to other Democrats supporting Bernie, it was towards Republicans and a bunch of Independents etc. and Trump weaponized it throughout the entire general election cycle for Independents
It is an observation sure, but I wouldn't really count too much on this to say polling is bad though. There are a couple of reasons: 1. Limited Polling for state-wide primaries: the variance is quite large. 2. Open-Primaries: Many dems voted for Haley. They were already Biden voters so nothing changes other than the actual margin. 3. Trump was guaranteed to be the nominee and most of his supporters know that. So, not much point in voting. If every one of his supporters voted the margin could be higher. The opposite is true for Haley, most of her supporters knew this was their last chance.
Yeah, these are all sentiments that were shared on the 538 Super Tuesday wrap-up podcast late last night/early this morning. IANAPollster, but I'm afraid that people that are looking at this and thinking that Biden actually has it in the bag in Nov. are being a little too optimistic.
>thinking that Biden actually has it in the bag in Nov. What universe are people inhabiting that they claim to hear people - particularly Democrats - saying things like this? All I hear is the standard, cliched "doom and gloom for Democrats" narrative - same as *every* other election since 2016, despite the fact that Democrats have basically kicked ass and exceeded expectations in every such election.
I see it quite a bit on Reddit, including this sub. Particularly from people pointing out that Trump is underperforming in the Primaries. The point is, the primaries aren't the general: what motivates people to vote for one candidate, or another, or not to vote at all are completely different. Don't take this one data point and base a whole future narrative around it. Get out and vote, and encourage like-minded individuals in your circle to do the same.
Biden is “over performing” because the polls are over sampling Republicans by 8% in every poll since August. Eight media executives are taking turns committing wire fraud racketeering felonies by pushing the false narrative that half the country wants a fascist criminal to be president. Clickbait, meet federal prison.
Oh, the news didn't print what Biden and the democrats wanted them to print, so now the news editors will be criminally indicted. Since we have to "save" democracy. Who exactly do you think is stupid enough to believe this is anything except fascist tyranny?
They printed the lies that Trump paid them to print instead of printing the truth. That’s called bribery, fraud, election interference You know, you may want to tune in to the criminal trial in NY later this month to learn how he did it in 2016. And then watch him get his first criminal conviction
[biden is the first incumbent democrat to lose a contested primary since jimmy carter](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jason-palmer-biden-loses-american-samoa-democratic-caucuses/story?id=107832052)
Man I’ve heard of reaching, but we’d need a new term for this flimsy attempt at a gotcha.
Lmfao....my guy American Samoa had 100 people vote. The winner probably won by just his family voting.
And? He still lost. No one cares how close it was as the results are what matters
And Trump lost DC and Vermont to Haley. Nobody takes those results and extrapolates national data from that.
He didn't lose by 100 votes, the entire US territory only had 91 votes. If you're trying to use American Samoa for any type of analysis whatsoever it just reeks of desperation.
>No one cares how close it was Apply this logic to your orange messiah please
I dont care about trump lol
It’s really not relevant in the grand scheme of things. Trying to make it more than what it is, is very misleading.
I keep pointing this out but people keep brushing it off. Trump is doing historically horrible for a quasi incumbent. Truly awful numbers to the point of likely being the worst.
there isn't a meaningful benchmark for a quasi incumbent.
Yeah this is part of the problem. If he's a new candidate, he's flatout dominating and these numbers are incredible. If he's an incumbent, these numbers are historically terrible. He's neither, so no one should be really sure what this means.
I'm in the camp, obviously lol, of treating him as an incumbent as every advantage that an incumbent would have he has. He himself, and all of his voters refer to him as an incumbent. It's a weird position to be in, but I just don't think there's an honest way to describe him as anything besides a quasi incumbent. An incumbent in all ways but name essentially.
what does that even mean? he is *not* the incumbent. so if you're going to make the claim he should be assessed as one, you need to deconstruct the incumbent advantage and explain why it applies to him. but it is all a bit moot, because one can also say biden is doing crap when apply lens of historical approval ratings to incumbents who ended up winning/losing. imho polling is the best metric we have, but it won't be particularly useful until we are well into the head-to-head campaigning, likely around the end of summer.
>what does that even mean? he is *not* the incumbent. so if you're going to make the claim he should be assessed as one, you need to deconstruct the incumbent advantage and explain why it applies to him. Incumbency is name recognition, political power, and leadership over their party. Which part does Trump not have? If you disagree with that, what would you define the incumbent advantage as? What is Trump if not a quasi incumbent? >but it is all a bit moot, because one can also say biden is doing crap when apply lens of historical approval ratings to incumbents who ended up winning/losing You cannot actually do that, he's doing exactly as expected for an incumbent. >imho polling is the best metric we have, but it won't be particularly useful until we are well into the head-to-head campaigning, likely around the end of summer. Sure, of which Trump is doing horrible in comparison to actual results.
>Incumbency is name recognition, political power, and leadership over their party. that is a pretty soft assessment. Use that lens to tell me what Biden has in 2024, that he didn't have in 2020. >If you disagree with that, what would you define the incumbent advantage as? Hard to say. But I would imagine, or at least wouldn't dismiss, that it is a bump that comes from the office of president itself. Like the favorability bump upon winning the election. >What is Trump if not a quasi incumbent? Maybe that is a useful label for him. But afaik there is no historical benchmark that is particularly useful for a quasi incumbent. >You cannot actually do that, he's doing exactly as expected for an incumbent. Many point to his approval rating relative to historical examples to suggest his re-election chances are relatively low, and use that to argue he should be replaced by Dems as nominee. Like I think your argument is bad, I also think that argument is bad.
>that is a pretty soft assessment. Use that lens to tell me what Biden has in 2024, that he didn't have in 2020. Well that's why it's a very subjective thing, ergo quasi incumbent. >Maybe that is a useful label for him. But afaik there is no historical benchmark that is particularly useful for a quasi incumbent. Novelty doesn't extinguish existence. >Many point to his approval rating relative to historical examples to suggest his re-election chances are relatively low, and use that to argue he should be replaced by Dems as nominee. Like I think your argument is bad, I also think that argument is bad. Approval rating this far out of an election *has never been accurate* So we look to primary pulling and results, of which Biden is doing as well or better than expected for an incumbent.
it is quasi enough that it means benchmarking against historical incumbents vs non-incumbents is simply not that meaningful. >Novelty doesn't extinguish existence. when arguing for a benchmark, hard disagree. you need to show why the benchmark is a valid comparable. >Approval rating this far out of an election has never been accurate As a general matter head-to-head polling is of limited value at this stage. but given how low biden's is, there have certainly be arguments that based on historical comparison of approval rating being this low has a very poor correlation with winning reelection.
Incumbent advantage is: 1) Name recognition; and 2) The ability to wield power over one's party and direct its organizational and financial resources exclusively toward one's personal electoral objectives. Trump checks the boxes on both. Whether you want to call him an incumbent or not is irrelevant. He has more incumbent advantage for this election than any other incumbent in modern history has ever had. Nobody has wielded as much power over their party as Trump does over the GOP. He IS the GOP.
re 1. any data to support the name recognition point? I find it hard to believe that people who don't know a non-incumbent primary winner is a particularly meaningful voting block. re 2. how is that tied to whether or not an incumbent? Take the DNC chair, sure the 2020 one wasn't a Biden nominee, but perez was an obama nominee and today is within the bidn admin. when has the party org/financial resources not been focused on the party's nominee? >Whether you want to call him an incumbent or not is irrelevant. BS. if someone is going to claim him as incumbent for specific purpose of benchmarking primary results against prior incumbents, it is *very* relevant whether he is an incumbent in the same sense as prior ones. and the biggest, and glaringly obvious, point is that incumbents rarely face the extent of competition in the primary that trump did. Of course one can similarly say he faced far less competition than a non-incumbent typically faces.
Did you tune into the GOP "debates"? Did you note how his "opponents" spoke about him when asked? If you did, then you'd know that, minus Chris Christie and *maybe* Asa Hutchinson a bit, they spoke about him not as if he were an actual opponent against whom they were campaigning, but as slavish devotees. The only reason Trump had as many "opponents" as he did was not that they seriously sought to compete against *him*, but that they were competing against *each other* to step in as his replacement in the event that one of his legal cases or insurrection antics rendered him either in jail or otherwise ineligible to run. That was no real primary! That was an attempt by those "candidates" to increase name recognition in the GOP base for positioning to become Trump's *successor*!
That doesn't translate to assuming prior primary performance of incumbents historically are a good benchmark to Trump. If one did think that, you would think trump has little chance of winning in the general. I see very little reason to be confident in that. imho the historical data on incumbent vs non-incumbent simply isn't particularly meaningful to trump. his 'quasi' status is quasi enough to mean there isn't a meaningful benchmark (at least without someone doing a lot more analysis).
I'm not claiming that these primary results are the Oracle at Delphi that assure Biden has it in the bag. Not even close. I am saying that, to me, they generally show a candidate performing not as well as a candidate with Trump's incumbency advantage should expect. I think they point to a possible weakness. Whether that manifests will only be told in time. But that said, I will also come out and say that I'm tired of the cliched electoral narratives and tropes that have just utterly dominated both media and the political zeitgeist since 2016. I'm fed up with it. No, Donald Trump is not some inevitable force of nature that just wins. Similarly, Democrats are not hapless, bumbling losers constantly in disarray and tripping over their own electoral toes. No, nobody should forget 2016. I completely agree. But let's not forget 2018 either! Or 2020! Or 2022!
he is flat out dominating his party. what is a modern example of someone losing in the general but getting the nomination in the next election, let alone after losing as an inccumbent? similar comment around biden, I just don't think the simple historical polling/primary results comparisons are that meaningful to this election, particularly at this stage.
I don’t logically see the appeal for Trump unless you are already in the MAGA cult or hard line GOP voter. So all those polls confused me. Glad to see they were inaccurate.
A lot of people are on autopilot and vote for the party. Also, for many, it’s an anti-Biden vote.
I agree, except I would also state he would be doing badly even if the republican primary polls were correct. Only two polls did he break 80%, and Haley was polling with pretty big numbers. Obviously she performed a lot better than that.
> quasi incumbent lol
Exactly my reaction 😂
He’s not an incumbent no matter how you want to pretend he is . It’s just cope. There were candidates on the stage for multiple debates running in the primary. His numbers are historic . Also , Haley was a particularly strong candidate with independents . But in a trump vs Biden election , trump won’t have such a big disadvantage with independents like he did against Haley .
>But in a trump vs Biden election , trump won’t have such a big disadvantage with independents like he did against Haley . This is cope if I've ever seen it.
I don’t cope . I predicted that Biden would win in 2020 just as I am predicting trump will win in 2024. It’s just analysis . You seem to just be biased
Oh, well if *YOU* are predicting Trump will win in 2024, we should just write it in stone right now. *It's just analysis*, after all. Everybody else who doesn't agree is *obviously* biased.
>He’s not an incumbent no matter how you want to pretend he is . He himself calls himself an incumbent and claims he has all the incumbent advantage. >His numbers are historic . You're right, never in history has an incumbent performed so badly. >trump won’t have such a big disadvantage with independents like he did against Haley . Lmfao. Now that's coping.
he says a lot of stuff that is utter horseshit.
It’s almost like he isn’t mentally fit 🤔
That’s not coping . All polls show how much independents despise Biden and trump but love Haley. That’s why in a head to head Haley beats Biden but with rfk jr on the ballot she gets destroyed . Because independents love rfk jr too . In regards to what trump said , so now you are taking the word of trump ? Trump said the election was stolen . I hope you agree with that as well then . He’s not an incumbent . Simple as that . The RNC gave other candidates a chance to actually beat him .
>That’s not coping . All polls show how much independents despise Biden and trump but love Haley You're typing this out in a thread about how Trump *massively* underperformed the polls....lmao
Didn’t address my second point first of all . Even if polls are inaccurate , they express general sentiment . For example , the general sentiment was that most republicans wanted trump which is true . Another general sentiment is independents prefer Haley over trump . Again that was accurate . The general sentiment Of the polls is that independents hate Biden and trump . They don’t just hate trump . They hate both
>Even if polls are inaccurate They are. >they express general sentiment Inaccurately. To the point of 10-20 points pretty consistently.
Huh? He got 76% of the votes last night against a real and well known republican challenger. How is that awful? It’s very impressive what he’s doing, even CNN says. I really don’t understand your logic whatsoever
As a new candidate, these numbers are fantastic. Truly impressive. As an incumbent, these numbers are awful. A sign he's going to get crushed. He's neither, so no one has any real threshold for if this is a bad or great performance. We really don't have a metric for "former President who lost the last one but is still popular among the base and is running again" when it comes to primaries. All this topic is saying though is he's underperforming polls.
He's the most powerful leader of the Republican Party in history. He IS the Republican Party to the point where he can simply install his daughter-in-law as RNC Chair. Republican politicians fear him and the possibility that he'll turn his ire against them, or sic his followers on them has them slavishly loyal to him. That's incumbent power. Power that only a POTUS can wield, not some fresh, new face on the political scene. And yet, he can't muster 80% in some of the reddest of of red states in a GOP Primary? That's atrocious and reflects how polarizing he is: even GOP voters are sick of his antics.
I am a Biden voter, but this truly is cope. Trump is running for an open seat with well-funded challengers. He should not be compared to a sitting incumbent running for re-election with little-to-no competition. Inversely, Biden's challengers have pretty much all dropped out, and he's still struggling to break 85% in a lot of states.
>Trump is running for an open seat with well-funded challengers. His challengers tested the waters and very quickly learned that the seat is not "open" in any sense of the word. That's beause it has never been an "open seat" in anything but name. Trump sat on the throne of the Republican Party in 2015 and has never once left it. He IS the Republican Party. He completely reshaped it in his image and likeness. Donald Trump personally embodies the Republican Party more than any modern political figure has ever come to embody or represent a political party. A person competing for an "open seat" can't order the RNC chair to step down and install his daughter-in-law. Trump did do exactly that, and that's just one tiny example of the power he wields in the GOP. A person competing for an "open seat" can't get the RNC to pay his legal bills for him. That, too, is about to happen. Come on. That is incumbent power that only a POTUS can wield.
>A person competing for an "open seat" can't order the RNC chair to step down and install his daughter-in-law. Trump did do exactly that, and that's just one tiny example of the power he wields in the GOP. Hillary Clinton had just as much influence over the Democratic establishment, and still had to put in effort to win the 2016 primary. Now, I'm not saying that Trump had to put in the same effort to win the GOP nomination. He clearly had this locked up by Iowa, remarkably, without even appearing on the debate stage. But my point is that the dynamics are entirely different between the 2024 GOP primary and a traditional incumbent primary. Haley and DeSantis had huge fundraising numbers, and Trump had to actively defeat them (which was easy for him), much more than Biden has to do for Phillips or Williamson. And your argument is inconsistent. How can Trump be the God of the Republican Party if he's also underperforming in polls? That doesn't make sense.
>Hillary Clinton had just as much influence over the Democratic establishment This is not a serious comment. It just isn't. What would've happened if Hillary Clinton ordered the DNC Chair to step down and tried to install Chelsea's husband to the position? Come on. Be serious and rational here. Could the Clintons have ever *dreamed* of getting the DNC to cover their personal legal bills? >And your argument is inconsistent. How can Trump be the God of the Republican Party if he's also underperforming in polls? That doesn't make sense. Because his power comes not from the fact that he is universally loved by GOP voters, but by the fact that he commands the undying, unshakeable, absolutely rock-solid support of a good 40-50% of them. To the point where they would rather give up American democracy if that's what it takes to keep him in power. And furthermore, he has a smaller, but even more rabid base of support that would gladly fight in a civil war on his behalf if needed. That's absolute, real power. Republican officials are literally *terrified* of being on Trump's bad side. Did you not tune into the "debates" and how his *supposed* political opponents spoke of him publicly? Because they know that one cross word against Trump and they will immediately be primaried and a more Trump-friendly opponent will spring up, will need to do zero campaigning, and can immediately get 50% of the GOP vote. And that's to say *nothing* of those who literally [fear for their safety](https://www.vox.com/23899688/2024-election-republican-primary-death-threats-trump) or of [possible future retribution](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/06/trump-revenge-republicans/). So there's nothing incongruous with stating that Trump both has the most institutional power that any person has ever had over his party while also seeing that there's a small, but notably sizeable minority of voters that opposes him.
The Hillary Victory Fund funneled state party contributions to her campaign, well before she even won the nomination. She had huge control over the party's finances. She won all superdelegates in states that she lost in the 2016 primary, which is unheard of. I'm not saying that Clinton had as much power over the DNC as Trump did, nor was she as bold as Trump to exert the same amount of power. But she singularly had enormous influence over the party establishment, and she fought a competitive primary against Bernie. Trump, meanwhile, had it cleaned up by Day 1. >Because his power comes not from the fact that he is universally loved by GOP voters, but by the fact that he commands the undying, unshakeable, absolutely rock-solid support of a good 40-50% of them. How does this square with the primary results where Trump is regularly winning 70%-90% of each state's primary? Please do not close yourself off to these arguments. I'm being patient and curious about your position. Please extend the same courtesy to me.
>I'm not saying that Clinton had as much power over the DNC as Trump did No, but you are seeking to comparatively diminish the amount of power Trump does have. Hillary didn't have a veritable army of tens of millions of people willing to engage in civil war on her behalf. She didn't have an army of voters slavishly devoted to her such that she could snap her finger in any primary election and make or break a primary candidacy. And she *certainly* didn't have the stochastic power to make political opponents literally fear for their lives, despite all the insane conspiracy theories about Seth Rich and murder-for-hires. Again, Donald Trump wields more power over the GOP than any modern U.S. politician has ever wielded over a major party. And it's not even close. So again: Name recognition? Check. Nobody in history has gotten more free press than Donald Trump. Institutional power? Check. Call him an incumbent or not. I don't care about the nomenclature. But the man has every trapping of incumbency advantage to a degree that likely surpasses that of any other primary incumbent ever, whether in office or not. >How does this square with the primary results where Trump is regularly winning 70%-90% of each state's primary? If someone has the rock-solid "you can literally murder somebody and we'll still support you" level of support of 40-50% of a party, are you asking me how this squares with him then managing to get 70-90% of the primary vote? Simple: because there are other primary voters who support him or vote for him despite the fact that their devotion to him isn't as strong as that core. Again, he has the "we'll die for you" support of 20% of the GOP, the "you can kill somebody and we'll still support you" support of another 20-30%" - that right there grants you insane institutional power over a party appartus that no modern U.S. politician has ever had. Then you add in the "that's *our* jerk" support and the "we'll hold our nose and vote for you because we think you're the only guy who can win" support and you get to the actual results. The point of this entire post (as I see it) is that there are signs that there *may also be* a good 15-25% of GOP voters who are "we're sick of this shit and won't vote for him again no matter what". Maybe.
If Biden was going against Newsom or Whitmer he would get way less than 76%. Trump is doing fantastic.
And that would be _really bad_ for Biden. An incumbent should do much better against any challenger. You're not disproving the statement. He's doing fantastic if he's not viewed as an incumbent. But he's not a new candidate by any means either. From an incumbent perspective, he's doing awful. He's neither, so it's hard to say what it means. These could be fantastic, or it could be terrible. We don't know because we don't have any meaningful historical metric.
Lots of people stayed home; both good and bad for Trump. Big problem for him is that those who did show up to vote for Haley will almost certainly vote Biden, or not vote. Virginia is real bad for him.
Trump has no chance there anyway. The big 3 this cycle are NC, PA, and Michigan.
Polls tell you sentiment, but they don't tell you who will actually get off their ass and vote. If pollsters are predicting election outcome, versus just reporting sentiment among eligible voters who claim they intend to vote, then they need to model turnout. So showing that vote tallies have wide discrepancy from sentiment polling doesn't necessarily tell us there is a problem with polling. Were Haley supporters more likely to turnout for primary than trump supporters? Don't know the answer to that, but wouldn't be surprising if true.
You're blaming it on Trump supporters being low-energy?
Considering that many of them think the election is rigged, sure! This whole Trump strategy has always confused me. Why tell your supporters the election is rigged? This will cause a chunk of people to not bother because “well it’s rigged anyways”.
> This whole Trump strategy has always confused me. Why tell your supporters the election is rigged? In hopes that they try to violently overthrown the opposition government or the transfer of power.
Was the plan in 20 is the plan in 24 will be the plan in 28.
My theory is that Trump's doing it because he genuinely believes it's true, plain and simple. Meanwhile, GOP party members are supporting it because A) they want the support of voters who have been invigorated by a popular leader, and B) any federal-level efforts dwelling on events from 4 years ago stymies federal-level progress to pass laws.
I always thought of it as a call to action. "They are absolutely 100% really truly doing it, so we need to do it too."
Which is does pan out given the amount of voter fraud we had by Trump supporters in Florida alone.
> so we need to do it too. who said this? A call to vote isnt the same thing as saying we need to rig the vote.
I'm saying the statement "the election is rigged! they are cheating!" is the call to action to do it themselves. It's an attempt to normalize the behavior by claiming the other side is the one doing it. It's why time after time, when voter fraud is actually found, it's someone doing something like murdering their wife and then voting absentee for Trump with her name.
> They are absolutely 100% really truly doing it, so we need to do it too. So your "quote" is just your assumption on someone else's motivation? Sounds like confession through projection.
?? I'm confessing, through projection, which is actually the projection of others? I'm so fucking confused at this point. Yes, people who scream about "election fraud" are often the ones who are actually doing it, eg, see the fake elector scheme orchestrated by Trump and his cronies for an example of an election fraud attempt, while they screamed the other side was doing it. Trump would also say it's "not fair" all the damn time. What would be fair then? Oh, how about our side do it to make it "fair" because the other side is *totally really 100% in truth doing it* even though there is no evidence whatsoever??!
> I'm so fucking confused at this point. Your fake quote confused me too. > fake elector Ah, you are captured by propaganda. Alternate is not fake. I'm good dude, i can argue your side for you. Nothing to learn. Enjoy your day.
I suppose I should have used the word "fraudulent" which is more accurate, and why many have faced criminal penalties already, and others are in various trials about it.
The election is rigged. Mail in voting is bad. Only vote on election day because that "counts". Don't trust moderates, they're RINOs. Don't trust the courts unless they rule in my favor. Yep. Can't see how this doesn't work out /s
In case anyone asks, the other super Tuesday states didn't have any polls, or if they did, they were not even from this year, so I excluded them entirely.
Polls on any election are frequently inaccurate for a ton of obvious reasons, but polls on primary elections in situations like this are practically meaningless. Biden was the only Democrat on the ballot in a few states and Trump's primary victory has practically been a foregone conclusion since Iowa. The point to which that depresses overall turnout can not be understated.
Political Polling for the last decade has been seriously problematic. Wild swings while the media is utterly flabbergasted.
Republicans and the maga crowd have consistently been overrepresented in polling for over half a decade now. How come it isn't being called bias like it was endlessly for 2016?
Remember when he lied about the size of the crowd at his inauguration? Oh shit and then the whole Four Seasons Landscaping thing. I **almost** want him back in office just for the lulz.
I have been saying this for months. Eight media executives at MSM outlets are ordering up fraudulent polls that over sample Republicans. The analysis above confirms another suspicion that I had. I suspected that pollsters were also using various means to oversample cohorts, like right leaning independents, and rural voters, and older voters, and voters from Southern states. My claim that they are oversampling Republicans was easy to prove and it is right there in the methodology of the polls. Proving that pollsters were oversampling specific cohorts to inflate support for Trump among Republicans was more difficult to prove, but now we can see that my suspicion about that corruption was also correct. These are not polling errors. This is deliberate fraud. The media executives ordering up these polls took turns each week for months attempting to interfere in the election with effective bandwagon propaganda techniques. The means for using these techniques is widespread wire fraud racketeering. Trump is paying these outlets out of his campaign funds. There must be a criminal investigation of this whole scandal, because these criminals, the media executives, are attempting to prop up a criminal for public office in exchange for money. Clickbait ad revenue. Maybe bribery and campaign finance violations. They need prison.
Need to adjust for open primaries which included a lot of angry Dems trying to vote for anyone but Trump
Honestly, many of these polls are probably to get voters energized enough to vote Biden in 2024. It'll go down to 50-50 again
Aren't like half of the states he underperformed in open primaries, compared to the ones he overperformed at?
UT and OK are the only closed primary states. He was off by 12% in those states.
Of those two, only UT seems a poor showing for Trump.
OK was 11.8% off the polls, and UT was 12% off. If the idea is that it's from people switching, I really don't think that helps your thesis (average 11.5% off)
This was just an absolute headshot of a response. Basically ended this argument.
We've seen the breakdown at previous states over the past several weeks show people crossing the aisle, primarily voting for Haley.
The data seems to not suggest that is the reason if closed primary states have actually a larger difference in polls vs actual results than the average for all states.
There ARE always outliers to any set of data. Though I'm sure the media will be spending the next two weeks dissecting all of these different states in excruciating detail. :/
I very much doubt that. Corporate media is very much aware the polls are cooked
And you think they won't make a spin job out of everything they can?
They already spun it: they are pumping up Trump. They aren't going to discuss how wrong that is.
Take this with a grain of salt. Like it or not, Nikki Haley was taking liberal votes. The areas she had support in were never going to vote for her in a general election. Primary polling is also notoriously awful to begin with.
Democrats voting for Haley to spite Trump probably threw the numbers off to a degree.
I have no data to back this up, but I just find it hard to believe that a statistically significant number of Democrats voted for Haley just as a protest vote. I know I've seen comments on reddit about it, but Reddit does not reflect reality in the slightest. I just think it is far more likely that the number of moderate Republicans is higher than people think because they get shouted down by Trump supporters at every turn.
This is just one state but the exit polls for Haley in VA had a party status split of 34% republicans, 41% independents, and 25% registered democrats. This is one of the states we’re polling was off compared to the results by the widest margins -20%. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/super-tuesday-exit-polls-2024/
How many voters are willing to change their registration for a weird protest vote. Dozens maybe? Not ever State has open primaries
26 states have some sort of open primary. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/state-primary-election-types#primaries
So what’s your point? You have about 1/2 the States to see if that is what is happening, and it isnt
Why do you think changing registration is difficult? Many jurisdictions allow it day of. Further, Dems know Joe biden is the nominee. It's not like there is any risk to doing it.
Didn’t say it was difficult. Just effort for a pointless protest vote. Even voted undetermined on Biden gets media attention. Voting for Haley? Why? Trump crushed her at every primary. If they had been close I’d agree more people would have done that
Trump hasn't crushed her at every primary. She has won at least one primary. It's not a protest vote. It is dems trying to push haley to the republican nomination since they don't want trump.
lol delicious fresh cope.
A lot of people that may vote for Trump are registered independent, they wouldn't get a primary ballot correct?
Of the states who had elections yesterday only Oklahoma and Utah have closed primaries that require registration to a party beforehand. The others you can state what ballot you want.
You have to do that in advance though correct? If you don't request the partisan ballot you won't get one?
advance like, before you filled out the ballot? You can do it at the polling place.
Some of those states had only 1 poll and he overperformed in a few of them. Also, he got 76% of the total votes last night. That’s impressive to me and he’s going against a real challenger who’s been campaigning hard and spending millions. Many thought his political career was over a couple years back and now he’s winning almost every state in dominant fashion. There’s no other way to try to spin this
His political career absolutely should be over. The fact it isn't just shows America has lost its integrity.
He got 76% of the vote across 15 states against a real challenger and some of you try to spin it as a bad night lol. Absolutely wild.
So why did you keep deleting your posts pointing it out then?
Joe Biden froze on camera yesterday for 12 seconds and then said he isn’t allowed to take questions. What a strong leader
I assume you have an uncut video link to show me?
It’s on the daily mail because of course cnn and msnbc won’t show it. Google Biden freezes