20 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
ArcticStones's avatar

Many bad pollsters have taken Steve Bannon’s advice to heart: "Flood the zone with shit." All too many pollsters are really not in the business of conscientious polling, but instead have found an extremely cost-effective way to impact the media narrative. There’s now a massive flood of bad polls, mostly of swing states. A clear objective is to impact the polling averages and create the illusion that Trump is winning.

Unfortunately, all the bad-faith polling also creates a very fertile ground for the guaranteed claims of "Election fraud!" and "Stolen election!" after Trump loses.

Expand full comment
DiesIrae's avatar

If it were just the red-wavey pollsters, the Emersons of the world, I'd agree that this is what's going on. But Ipsos/Reuters aren't partisan, and in the past Fox hasn't been partisan in its polling either (though that R+3, plus the release timed to ambush Harris live, makes me wonder). I think there's something fundamentally weird right now. I just don't quite know what it is. Maybe it's that the electorate really will be R+3, but I'm suspicious.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

There may well be something going on, such as some Republicans "returning home". And I share your impression that Fox commissions high-quality polls. But if you look at the makeup of the recent wave of swing-state polls, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that much of the narrative is manufactured.

It’s worth noting that bad pollsters did exactly the same in 2022, creating the illusion of a "Red Wave" that never materialized. In fact, a chorus of pundits were mocking Simon Rosenberg, Tom Bonier, Michael McDonald, Jennifer Rubin and a few others that were insisting: "There may be a Red Wave coming, but so far we see no signs of that."

Nate Silver went so far as to accuse Simon Rosenberg of "Smoking Hopium!" That’s how the Hopium Chronicles were born. :)

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

Suggestion: Look very closely at the assumptions built into each good-faith pollster’s Likely Voter model. My impression is that they have tweaked their model to account for Trump’s overperforming the polls in 2016 and again in 2020 – but that they have failed to adjust for the post-Dobbs reality. Consider:

– Democrats overperformed in the 2022 Midterm Elections

– Democrats have overperformed in every Special Election, post-Dobbs

– Trump underperformed the polls in almost every single Republican primary.

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

I’d rather they tweak their model to account for their misses in 2016/20 than the other way around, to be sure

Expand full comment
IggySD's avatar

I would hope they already had tweaked their model to account for that but recent tweaks could be the cause. I think there is also a very good chance that they’re not accounting for (potentially) new Harris voters. The difference between her and Biden is so stark, that along with Dobbs I fully expect there to be a significant number of new women voters, young voters, and voters of color. There is data from new voter registrations to support that, but if pollsters are modeling based on the 2020 electorate those people will not be included.

I have to also consider that may be bias or wishful thinking, but there is enough evidence, both solid and anecdotal, that I would be more surprised by the polls underestimating Harris by a few points than Trump. It’s been stated on here multiple times that Trump has a hard ceiling of 46-47%. The only way he gets to 49-51% which is the number in a couple of polls today is if Dem enthusiasm craters. There is absolutely zero indication that will happen, and indeed every sign points to the opposite.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

" I think there is also a very good chance that they’re not accounting for (potentially) new Harris voters."

A modest example:

A New York Times/Siena College/Philadelphia Inquirer poll found Harris winning 12% of Republicans in Pennsylvania.

https://nitter.poast.org/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1847108612839076264#m

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

Parties typically usually only win about 4-5% of other-partisans, no?

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

These folks voted for Haley long after the nomination was decided; they won't vote Trump and will walk over hot coals barefoot to defeat him at the polls(and I think you are correct in your post above about normal partisan %)

Expand full comment
Mark's avatar

Trump's "hard ceiling" of 47% is an article of faith, leaning far too heavily into past performance and ignoring the significant coalitional dynamism that's been playing out in the last decade.

Expand full comment
sacman701's avatar

I usually think of floors and ceilings in terms of absolute numbers of voters, not shares of the electorate. If turnout collapses for one party, the other party can break through its supposed ceiling of the vote share even if its own turnout isn't that special.

Expand full comment
IggySD's avatar

That’s a fair point, but I don’t believe for a second that the majority of American’s support him. As sacman701 states below, him getting a higher percentage than that is heavily dependent on turnout collapsing on the Democratic side. I’ll concede that the 47% ceiling is based on slim to limited evidence, but that compares pretty well to the complete lack of evidence that he has majority support.

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

what makes it a poor argument, too, is easy: 47% of what electorate? If GOP turnout craters he’s not getting 47. If D turnout craters he probably beats that number. It’s entirely relative

Expand full comment
Tom A's avatar

It could be that pollsters are now getting actual voting data from early/mail in voting and its showing an R leaning year.

I often think - I basically live in a bubble with very little true interaction with how a good chunk of the country thinks.

But it could very well be that at the end of the day - the price of milk and rent and gas is just too high for the infrequent voter to ignore. Or that alot of the country is just too racist and misogynist. Or just too anti-California liberal - maybe those "Kamala saying in her own words how proud she is that she approved money for murderers to get trans surgery" ads are working.

Or that the softness in enthusiasm among infrequent Dem voters that we saw clearly when Biden was the candidate never really went away and now that the Harris announcement/Walz announcement/DNC/debate bounces have receded, we are in not so great shape.

Or just enough of all of the above for Trump to win. We will have to see.

All I can say is - if Trump wins and the GOP takes the house and senate it will prove that basically nothing matters in national politics but vibes. Not fundraising or organization or candidate quality or even ideology.

Expand full comment
YouHaveToVoteForOneOfUS's avatar

What matters is information ecosystems. Which create vibes.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

That's exactly how Glenn Youngkin got elected Governor here in Virginia. He managed to get father of five Terry McAuliffe perceived as "anti parent" and exit polls indicated that voters thought Youngkin, not McAuliffe was the "moderate." Not to mention the hard feelings that McAuliffe even ran in the race to begin with - Virginia is the one state in the USA where Governors are not permitted to serve consecutive terms - NEVER went away. Many "progressives" and African American voters wanted an African American nominee for Governor because "our turn" and felt that McAuliffe's run violated the "spirit of the law" I described above. I knew McAuliffe was in trouble when he let Youngkin beat him to the punch about repealing the grocery tax (Virginia is a VERY anti tax state) and when there were Democrats claiming that the law I described above meant that Governors could only serve one term. In short, vibes absolutely matter and we do ourselves no favors by pretending otherwise.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

I would say perceived ideology matters. Not actual ideology. Reagan was VERY right wing but because he looked good on television, he wasn't seen as such.

Expand full comment
Tom A's avatar

Trump is almost anti-ideological, and if he switches on almost anything his voters will come along with him.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

If he switched on choice, they wouldn't. The Republican Party remains hardline socially conservative.

Expand full comment
Caspian's avatar

He can switch on almost anything *that isn't what his voters actually care most about,* which is bigotry in support of a rigorously enforced social order. They're extremely ideological - they just don't actually care very much about traditionally Republican-coded policies of low taxes and pro-business policies. They care about people behaving the "correct way" and obeying their given place in the hierarchy.

Of course, because that's exactly who Trump is at his core, he won't be switching.

Expand full comment