Official Presidential Polling and Odds thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

He could be 100% right though? I mean he’s completely opposite every market, every good bookmaker in the world, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.


If you think the election and polling errors are similar to 2016 and 2020, his estimates are realistic.

But atlas and Trafalgar and all those polls were so far off during the mid terms, having Herschel Walker up 4 and other laughable results, that it becomes about has abortion ruling changed the playing field permanently or is Trump a unique thing on Election Day.

Thiel spent millions over a personal grudge with Hulk Hogan. If he gave me $50 million to lie I’d take it. So it’s possible he’s getting so rich lying that he no longer cares about credibility or will change it drastically at last minute?

Or he can be right?

I feel like we truly aren’t going to know until the actual election.

The whole burn him at the cross because he’s saying shit we don’t like part is going to look really dumb if he’s right. I hope he’s getting really mega paid by Thiel if he’s wrong though, because if he sticks with those numbers, they’ll set the narrative for the it got stolen crowd and all kinds of bad shit

Or he’ll be the only liberal who was telling the truth about the probabilities and expectations and a hero.

One of the more interesting stories going on.

---

america electing a black woman to be president seems borderline impossible against any stable normal white republican male. factor in trump's darkly comedic failings and kamala at 35% seems realistic tbh.

---

I agree. I think it’s going to fall somewhere in the middle. Like if she’s polling ahead 3, this shit is going to take a month to sort out. Her number is where Biden was in these polls. Like 49% in most. His number is much higher. The whole embarrassed to admit they are Trump voters thing isn’t what it once was is my guess.

But I think he’s like 55/45 to win. 65 feels a bit high because he’s playing so badly atm, but I’d still rather have Trump ticket than Kamala for even money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

america electing a black woman to be president seems borderline impossible against any stable normal white republican male. factor in trump's darkly comedic failings and kamala at 35% seems realistic tbh.

---

I agree. I think it’s going to fall somewhere in the middle. Like if she’s polling ahead 3, this shit is going to take a month to sort out. Her number is where Biden was in these polls. Like 49% in most. His number is much higher. The whole embarrassed to admit they are Trump voters thing isn’t what it once was is my guess.

But I think he’s like 55/45 to win. 65 feels a bit high because he’s playing so badly atm, but I’d still rather have Trump ticket than Kamala for even money.

---

i expect smarter minds than mine are looking at rate hikes, return-to-office mandates vs corporate real estate value, housing markets, etc and coming up with the broader strokes.

wonder what lines for newsom '28 are looking like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

america electing a black woman to be president seems borderline impossible against any stable normal white republican male. factor in trump's darkly comedic failings and kamala at 35% seems realistic tbh.

---

Remember when the Republicans screwed up the economy so bad we elected a black man from Kenya president?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

I agree. I think it’s going to fall somewhere in the middle. Like if she’s polling ahead 3, this shit is going to take a month to sort out. Her number is where Biden was in these polls. Like 49% in most. His number is much higher. The whole embarrassed to admit they are Trump voters thing isn’t what it once was is my guess.

But I think he’s like 55/45 to win. 65 feels a bit high because he’s playing so badly atm, but I’d still rather have Trump ticket than Kamala for even money.

---

i expect smarter minds than mine are looking at rate hikes, return-to-office mandates vs corporate real estate value, housing markets, etc and coming up with the broader strokes.

wonder what lines for newsom '28 are looking like.

---

If she loses, I don’t know about the appetite for another Bay Area Dem.

Is plop really that bullish on Kamala? That’s a super sharp kid. I looked for that election betting podcast he recommended last time that was dead on. I thought it was called something like Red White Blue election pod or something but don’t see it. Maybe my recollection is off.

Here is today's polling. Basically nothing really moved post debate. Nate has basically said if either candidate is at 40% come election day its basically a tossup. So at Trump 60-40 today both candidates are probably 'who gets their base out' at this point.

Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Harris InsiderAdvantage
Trump 50, Harris 48

Trump +2

Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Harris USA Today/Suffolk*
Trump 46, Harris 49

Harris +3

Georgia: Trump vs. Harris Trafalgar Group (R)
Trump 46, Harris 45

Trump +1

Missouri: Trump vs. Harris The Hill/Emerson
Trump 53, Harris 43

Trump +10

Indiana: Trump vs. Harris The Hill/Emerson
Trump 57, Harris 40

Trump +17

Maryland: Trump vs. Harris The Hill/Emerson
Harris 63, Trump 32

Harris +31

National: Trump vs. Harris Forbes/HarrisX
Harris 52, Trump 48

Harris +4

One more thing, internal polls candidates have are much more reliable, because they in essence have unlimited money and can poll non stop every day. PA was considered safe for Clinton in 2016, like a 5 point lead the week before the election. Everyone thought it was a done deal, then 5 days before the election she began having rallys in PA with Jay Z and Beyonce on stage. Everyone was WTF, why is she in PA? And Trump was down by 7 in MI and began campaigning the weekend before the election in MI. Why was he there if he was down by 7?

Bottom line if you see Harris camping out in say WI or Trump doing the same in NC, close to the election, you know who is going to win.

https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1836350800236367969

https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1836345753008013325


Back to national polling, there are two sets of polls producing wildly different results. These keep being discussed without people looking into why. Literally every single one of these Harris +4, +5, or more "polls" are conducted using opt-in online survey panels, almost all of which too are revealed to be heavily Dem weighted when data is available. TIPP too switched to this cost cutting method. Feel free to do your own research.

The polls paying the extra money and putting in the extra effort to work around the response bias problems and conduct live interviews are floating between Harris +1 to Trump +3. We've had a couple instances of internal polling leaks or known insiders openly discussing data they are privy to, both sides show a race completely different than what the biased media is trying to convey. Internal polling is not done with opt-in survey panels and is not weighted to get the results they want. These polls are conducted literally daily. Think back to Hilldawg having to cancel her victory fireworks show.

Campaign ad spending data is all publicly available. The Kamala campaign is spending 40% more money in Michigan than in Georgia, nearly as much as in Georgia in Wisconsin, and less than all of these states in North Carolina - this alone should be eye opening. It's not hard to infer what the internal polling is guiding all to do. When you break this down per capita on population size, the problems in Wisconsin become more apparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

i expect smarter minds than mine are looking at rate hikes, return-to-office mandates vs corporate real estate value, housing markets, etc and coming up with the broader strokes.

wonder what lines for newsom '28 are looking like.

---

If she loses, I don’t know about the appetite for another Bay Area Dem.

Is plop really that bullish on Kamala? That’s a super sharp kid. I looked for that election betting podcast he recommended last time that was dead on. I thought it was called something like Red White Blue election pod or something but don’t see it. Maybe my recollection is off.

---

hes on a bit of a walkabout at the moment but said he has light action on kamala, which felt like value more than conviction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

nate silver has trump at 65% to win the ec

---

Not any more. As of today, Trump is down to 52%. Essentially a toss up.
https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1836463729934025099

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vpbob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

nate silver has trump at 65% to win the ec

---

Not any more. As of today, Trump is down to 52%. Essentially a toss up.
https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1836463729934025099

---

Quinnipiac polls. ROFL

Quote:

---

Last update: 1:45 p.m., Wednesday, September 18. Another very good day of polling for Kamala Harris, especially in a trio of polls of Blue Wall states by Quinnipiac, including one that had her up by 5 or 6 points in Pennsylvania (depending on whether you use the version with or without minor candidates). One caution is that Quinnipiac polls have been Democratic-leaning in recent years. With that said, they retain a good pollster rating. And this follows on some strong national polls for Harris since the debate.

The race is really a tossup: The model gives Harris a 49 percent chance of winning Pennsylvania, a 54 percent chance in Wisconsin, and a 56 percent chance in Michigan. Nevada is also 50/50. She’s had some disappointing polling recently in Georgia and Arizona, however.

---

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1836446883314626745

The Suffolk Pennsylvania poll released yesterday has Harris +3. They had Biden +7 in 2020. He's essentially knowingly allowing his model to be pozzed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1836350800236367969

https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1836345753008013325


Back to national polling, there are two sets of polls producing wildly different results. These keep being discussed without people looking into why. Literally every single one of these Harris +4, +5, or more "polls" are conducted using opt-in online survey panels, almost all of which too are revealed to be heavily Dem weighted when data is available. TIPP too switched to this cost cutting method. Feel free to do your own research.

The polls paying the extra money and putting in the extra effort to work around the response bias problems and conduct live interviews are floating between Harris +1 to Trump +3. We've had a couple instances of internal polling leaks or known insiders openly discussing data they are privy to, both sides show a race completely different than what the biased media is trying to convey. Internal polling is not done with opt-in survey panels and is not weighted to get the results they want. These polls are conducted literally daily. Think back to Hilldawg having to cancel her victory fireworks show.

Campaign ad spending data is all publicly available. The Kamala campaign is spending 40% more money in Michigan than in Georgia, nearly as much as in Georgia in Wisconsin, and less than all of these states in North Carolina - this alone should be eye opening. It's not hard to infer what the internal polling is guiding all to do. When you break this down per capita on population size, the problems in Wisconsin become more apparent.

---

BS. Trump is devoting more resources to WI than Harris.
https://x.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1834604207514542377
Per electoral vote, Trump is spending the second most per electoral vote in WI, whereas Harris is spending the fourth most.
https://x.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1836096702912303591

All that money wasted.

Our corporate overlords don’t change with who is in office.

classic biased libtards fox news at it again



https://x.com/DeItaone/status/1836530947971301457

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXylEGkX...pg&name=medium

This BOL line caught me by surprise



If Americans had better marksmanship the +5000 might be worth a sprinkle. Even I can’t bet that now that ballots are being mailed.

https://youtu.be/Nbce4uKjXG0?si=84vs1Qr7KuHe9kUl

Looking good for Harris

Even bum hole Florida is gettin on board

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

classic biased libtards fox news at it again



https://x.com/DeItaone/status/1836530947971301457

---

Cleatus everyone knows Kamala will win popular vote….oh this is tine posting this…did he hit his head?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vpbob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VaughnP

https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1836350800236367969

https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1836345753008013325


Back to national polling, there are two sets of polls producing wildly different results. These keep being discussed without people looking into why. Literally every single one of these Harris +4, +5, or more "polls" are conducted using opt-in online survey panels, almost all of which too are revealed to be heavily Dem weighted when data is available. TIPP too switched to this cost cutting method. Feel free to do your own research.

The polls paying the extra money and putting in the extra effort to work around the response bias problems and conduct live interviews are floating between Harris +1 to Trump +3. We've had a couple instances of internal polling leaks or known insiders openly discussing data they are privy to, both sides show a race completely different than what the biased media is trying to convey. Internal polling is not done with opt-in survey panels and is not weighted to get the results they want. These polls are conducted literally daily. Think back to Hilldawg having to cancel her victory fireworks show.

Campaign ad spending data is all publicly available. The Kamala campaign is spending 40% more money in Michigan than in Georgia, nearly as much as in Georgia in Wisconsin, and less than all of these states in North Carolina - this alone should be eye opening. It's not hard to infer what the internal polling is guiding all to do. When you break this down per capita on population size, the problems in Wisconsin become more apparent.

---

BS. Trump is devoting more resources to WI than Harris.
https://x.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1834604207514542377
Per electoral vote, Trump is spending the second most per electoral vote in WI, whereas Harris is spending the fourth most.
https://x.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1836096702912303591

---

What even is your argument? Does her spending in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada look to be that of the candidate supposedly ahead? Trump is spending significantly less, and the media would have one believe that the current states most on the line for either candidate besides the obvious Pennsylvania are Georgia and North Carolina.

Ads target individuals, not electoral votes. Basing the ad spending on electoral votes is obviously a gross oversimplification. Wisconsin has a population of 5.9 million, Georgia has a population of 10.9 million, and North Carolina has 10.7 million. When you break this down by eligible voting population it gets crazier. WI 4.5 million, GA 7.8 million, NC 8.1 million.

Her campaign is spending $7.5 per eligible voter in Wisconsin, $5 per in GA, $3.70 per person in NC. Feel free to pull the eligible voter data yourself. This was based off the totals from the last election and rounded up.

Go back and look at the spending from the month before, Trump's campaign spent considerably less than this month. One candidate is in a countering and holding pattern, the other is in a desperation pattern. What's your explanation for her extreme spending in Nevada? Kamala's campaign has more money, but this doesn't mean they will just waste it.

Nevada is their hope to counter Trump winning Pennsylvania while planning for more Georgia shenanigans. They've been campaigning in North Carolina and testing the ad effectiveness to see if they can move the needle at all for this same scenario.

Though a less likely scenario, her winning Nevada guards against Trump losing every blue wall state and still winning. High quality public polls for New Hampshire would be interesting. RFK was doing better there than any state, and remember Kamala campaigned there after he dropped out while simultaneously forcing stories about the "pathetic", "sad", "sorry" state of Trump's NH campaign.

When you understand the desperation and that the mainstream media is essentially the propaganda arm of the DNC, how they've covered GA and NC makes much more sense.

Obviously they hope to ballot stuff/harvest enough to win in Pennsylvania, but here's a visualization of why the Nevada spending is so extreme. Flip Trump to losing PA and winning NV and GA then you will see the importance of WI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Texter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

classic biased libtards fox news at it again



https://x.com/DeItaone/status/1836530947971301457

---

Cleatus everyone knows Kamala will win popular vote….oh this is tine posting this…did he hit his head?

---

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1836538039692038501