Share this comment
A propos the discussion of polling in this thread:
If Gallup is right, I don't see how the Democrats will win this election, but this is Gallup we're talking about; politicalwire.com/2024/…
52% worse off, 39% better off, 8% about the same. And to these weirdos, Covid never existed...
A propos the discussion of polling in this thread:
If Gallup is right, I don't see how the Democrats will win this election, but this is Gallup we're talking about; https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/18/majority-feel-worse-off-than-four-years-ago/
52% worse off, 39% better off, 8% about the same. And to these weirdos, Covid never existed...
The scary reality is that basically every Presidential election boils down to that fundamental. We're testing that theory to the absolute limit with this year's opposition party candidate, but I'm beginning to think that absolutely anybody could win if they were nominated against an incumbent party when more than half the country thinks they're worse off than they were four years ago.
The majority of Americans thought we were on the "wrong track" in 2012. It didn't result in Mitt Romney becoming President. All those "it's 1980 all over again" predictions went out the window. Also I believe Gallup stopped polling after 2012 because they botched that election badly.
Do you know the "worse than four years ago" number from 2012? And how it compared to the "better than...." number? I should clarify my comment to say that any double-digit spread between "worse" and "better" numbers is the danger zone rather than generically "above 50%".
https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/TGBCMS/hobqwcnhcuohd8gvv29fjq.png
That the “better off” figure was 56% in 2020 beggars belief and makes me question the efficacy of the poll in general
I'm curious how that answer breaks down according to what people want to happen. Even though it isn't the same I expect we would see huge overlap between this question and right track / wrong track questions.
It's not hard to imagine a young woman answering that she's worse off than four years ago, because four years ago she still had a court protected right to abortion. Someone answering that way isn't going to vote republican. An investment banker could answer that they're better off than four years ago because the stock market is doing a lot better, but that doesn't mean they're in our camp either.
How much is this question being changed by hardening partisanship? How much of the answer is a result of that partisanship? Democratic voters are consistently more willing to be critical of democratic administrations than republicans of republican administrations, for better or worse.
It's not an encouraging result but I find it so hard to make sense of the data available today that I don't really know what to make of it.
That's exactly the point. And there are some so called leftists who point out that "Roe v Wade got overturned under Biden."
I feel that I am worse off because of SCOTUS rulings, the lack of accountability for Trump, the fact that Trump still can play a role in politics, and the notion that the MSM has become Trump whisperers with bothsiderisms and sane washing. That said, I will happily vote for VP Harris,
Just to point out: 4 years ago, Trump was in office. He's not in office now. So that's one obvious way that we're better off now. Plus, COVID was out of control 4 years ago. That's a big one!
I'm sort of worse off than I was four years ago, but none of that has anything to do with Harris or Biden. So, I would be one of those 52% and still obviously voting for Harris.
That's what I think also; the question is meaningless in the age of Trump imo
Gallup has D+3 in voter party ID.. Many polls are modeling a R+3 election. We will see what happens
I thought it was like D+4?
Or was that Pee?
Imo this electorate is going to be D+2-3
Context is important here:
During 1992, there was a recession which lasted until 1993. It was short but significant. President George HW Bush was also aloof and not proactive in working to improve the economy. Clinton capitalized on this and won by showing his ability to empathize with voters.
By contrast:
1) We had a pandemic-induced downturn, which I'd call a short depression (very similar to what happened during the Spanish Flu) that had a quick recovery and months of healthy jobs being added for years.
2) People are still very much price sensitive these days. If the argument is that voters are worse off than they were four years ago, it's probably because of finances, ability to save and in direct correlation with inflation.
3) A sitting president resigning for the VP to run her own campaign months ahead of the election is historic. Kamala Harris still has capital in a way Biden didn't have.
Gallup is also not Professor Allan Lichtman, who has predicted Kamala Harris will win based on his keys methodology that digs more into what a polling firm like Gallup does. So Gallup's polling essentially predicted a Clinton win in 1992? Lichtman predicted a win for Clinton in 1992 as well.
I don't respect Lichtman. I think his methodology is subjective and changes a lot. I want to believe this year, but I just don't.
How is it subjective? I'd say Lichtman has a good gauge at things from multiple variables and doesn't exactly use subjective methodology with his keys. If that was the case, he'd be biased towards Democrats all the time.
If there are facts that you argue he's wrong at, then share them.
Tipped, but isn't his keys method very subjective?
From my standpoint, not as subjective as you think. Lichtman looks at multiple variables affecting the presidential race.
I've come to respect his analysis because frankly, polling firms don't look at multiple variables. They only focus on polling data methodology, which lends only insight as it relates to voter sentiment. Which can help getting an understanding on what is going on in the minds of voters.
However, polls change. The macroeconomic environment on the other hand isn't something polls always have the best ability to analyze, unless there are specific questions relating to that topic.
FYI, for those reading this, I re-edited my comment for clarity. I'm not trying to be biased towards Lichtman and his keys methodology.
However, Lichtman is one of the few professors and analysts out there who actually looks at multiple variables affecting the political environment as it relates to the presidential race and who could possibly win. If there are flaws, fine. As it relates to the presidential race the one thing Lichtman may not be the best at doing is predicting exact turnout.