16 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Paleo's avatar

Monmouth poll:

Harris 49 (definite or probable)

Trump 44 (definite or probable)

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_091724/

Expand full comment
Oggoldy's avatar

I hate how they ask that question. Makes it incredibly difficult to compare to other pollsters

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

I actually like it. I think it gives you a truer picture.

Expand full comment
ClimateHawk's avatar

The main chunk of polling seems to have her up 4-5 points nationally. With some at 6-7, and R leaners at 2-3 or closer.

Biden won by 4.5 points.

But I am a firm believer Dems will generally overperform polling (Dobbs + ground game + recent history + crazy train).

Expand full comment
sacman701's avatar

Is there any way to estimate how much of Biden's underperformance of the polls in 2020 was due to the lack of the usual ground game due to the pandemic?

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Imo 2-3%

Expand full comment
Mark's avatar

Considering that Biden blew past previous turnout records and managed 10+ million more votes than any other candidate in history, I'm skeptical that the lack of ground game left too many votes on the table, especially enough to account for the polling discrepancy.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

I strongly disagree.

Bear in mind that national turnout in the 2020 Presidential Election was a mere 66.6 percent. That is absolutely dismal compared to other Western democracies (75–90 percent) or even the State of Minnesota (80 percent)!

Moreover, that is leaving 33.4 percent of registered voters "on the table". Surely by any measure that is outrageously many?

Bizarrely enough, many pundits actually think America’s "record-setting turnout" was "excellent".

Expand full comment
Kevin H.'s avatar

Ehh the vast majority of people who wanted to vote, showed up to vote in 2020. I do think there's a possibility of getting some of those low propensity voters to the polls that we missed 4 years ago.

Expand full comment
ClimateHawk's avatar

A lot of communities respond well to having a presence. And do not if you don't show up. Rurals. South FL.

The idea that the absence of a ground game did not negatively impact Biden's performance is highly suspect to me. Borderline nuts.

I mean, why does every campaign ever do it, then?

Vast majority leaves a lot out there. 3%? Five? That is a total strawman.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

It's pretty much a given by campaign pro's that a solid ground game funded and staffed can get between 2-3% higher turnout in the targeted states

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Where are you getting that figure from? I feel like some pros have suggested 1% and maybe 2% at the outside.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

It's actually a pretty standard metric(case study's from past campaigns); I'm sure Larry Sabato and his associates have\will be posting on this at the Crystal Ball(I believe one of them is Emory professor Alan Abramowitz)

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Also, I'm thinking Kos might have mentioned this either yesterday or today; going to recheck

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Kos mentions it today in his post; another poster at Kos posts about today's presidential polling and brings this topic up as well, but he states the impact as being 2-4%(I have never seen the 2-4% metric ever used; it's generally agreed at 2-3% if funded, staffed, and executed properly)

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

I should add further that the Trump campaign has outsourced it's entire field campaign to the grifters at Turning Point USA(which I speculate will be disastrous)

Expand full comment