Early voting

[bacchys]

Trafalgar and I believe the other was Susquehanna (might be wrong on that)

Trafalgar was the most accurate in 2016 for whatever that’s worth.

I don't think it's worth much. Trafalgar Group doesn't seem to have existed before the 2016 cycle, and the only race they tout in the '18 cycle is the Florida gubernatorial one. That's not much of a track record.

Like a lot of people, they talk about Trump's victory as if the polls were smashed. Listening to the rhetoric, one would think Trump was down 9 points in the polls and one by 12. In reality, he had around 80,000 more votes than Clinton in three key states where the final polls was both well within the margin of error of the final polls and with the trend going into the election. IOW, it's a lot easier to see in hindsight, but the numbers definitely show it was at least a very strong possibility. It was dismissed by the pundit class mostly because there's a natural human tendency to interpret new information within the context of old, people don't like to change their minds, and Trump needed to sweep the "battleground" states in order to pull it off and that didn't seem likely to them. The fact the polls had narrowed considerably, with Clinton trending down, from the Comey letter forward was ignored or dismissed.

I think Cahaly misconstrues the "shy Trump voter." The problem with the polls in seeing Trump support in '16 wasn't from Trump supporters being reticent to identify as such (at least not in significant numbers). It was the polling models failing to account sufficiently for the demographics that supported Trump. Polls skewed too much towards the college-educated in '16. Reasonable, perhaps, given their greater propensity to vote in previous elections, but erroneous given what eventually happened.

Polls have long given little weight to people under thirty because, historically, they don't turn out and vote. That might be the "surprise" factor for pollsters when 2020 is said and done.

[stevez51]

I don't think it's worth much. Trafalgar Group doesn't seem to have existed before the 2016 cycle, and the only race they tout in the '18 cycle is the Florida gubernatorial one. That's not much of a track record.

Like a lot of people, they talk about Trump's victory as if the polls were smashed. Listening to the rhetoric, one would think Trump was down 9 points in the polls and one by 12. In reality, he had around 80,000 more votes than Clinton in three key states where the final polls was both well within the margin of error of the final polls and with the trend going into the election. IOW, it's a lot easier to see in hindsight, but the numbers definitely show it was at least a very strong possibility. It was dismissed by the pundit class mostly because there's a natural human tendency to interpret new information within the context of old, people don't like to change their minds, and Trump needed to sweep the "battleground" states in order to pull it off and that didn't seem likely to them. The fact the polls had narrowed considerably, with Clinton trending down, from the Comey letter forward was ignored or dismissed.

I think Cahaly misconstrues the "shy Trump voter." The problem with the polls in seeing Trump support in '16 wasn't from Trump supporters being reticent to identify as such (at least not in significant numbers). It was the polling models failing to account sufficiently for the demographics that supported Trump. Polls skewed too much towards the college-educated in '16. Reasonable, perhaps, given their greater propensity to vote in previous elections, but erroneous given what eventually happened.

Polls have long given little weight to people under thirty because, historically, they don't turn out and vote. That might be the "surprise" factor for pollsters when 2020 is said and done.

Polls are having to ask around 40,000 people to get 1100 responses. People it seems don’t want to talk to them. So are they really getting true numbers,

[jonboy79]

Polls are having to ask around 40,000 people to get 1100 responses. People it seems don’t want to talk to them. So are they really getting true numbers,

Maybe because they call/text 40 times/ day no matter how many times you ask to get taken off the list. They are even more relentless than the BS aftermarket extended warranty companies...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Willbacker]

Everyone is trying read the tea leaves, but most are just seeing what they want.

The increase in the number of voters isn't a great sign for Trump...if we're going by conventional wisdom. Between the pandemic and everything else I don't think anyone's preconceptions of what any of it means really means all that much.

I'm seeing reports that Millennials and Gen Z are coming out in unusually high numbers for the young vote. I don't think that bodes well for Trump, but, of course, we'll see. Texas is experiencing an unusually high turnout, especially among younger voters.

Lets just say I know some people that made sure to vote this year that didnt vote in 2016. A lot of people have seen thru the tea leaves.................but it might not be the response you're thinking.

[blueridgemtnman]

One thing seems to be happening this go 'round. Younger people voting in large numbers. Will it matter?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ld_listen.html