10 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
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
ErrorError