Could Trump Win Minnesota?

[WestCanMan]

The burned-out 3rd Precinct HQ in Minneapolis are still boarded up:

It's just an awful reminder of Tim Walz's failed leadership that people see every day.

At least one muslim mayor has openly supported Trump. 

Men support Trump.

Kamala is losing popularity every time she opens her mouth.

 

Polling has Kamala up by 5% in Minn, but it's not unheard for polls to be off by that much.

Could Kamala lose in Tim Walz's home state? 

[gatomontes99]

The last poll (I know of) to come out of MN is a Rasmussen poll that had Harris up by 3. But that was the last week in September. She's had a pile of bad days since.

 

[Black Dog]

10 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

The last poll (I know of) to come out of MN is a Rasmussen poll that had Harris up by 3. But that was the last week in September. She's had a pile of bad days since.

She's up by 8 lmao.

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

She's up by 8 lmao.

You've just made WestCanMan sooo happy. 

[gatomontes99]

42 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

She's up by 8 lmao.

Only in one outlier poll by Redfield Wilton Strategies. They are ranked 118th on the 538 website. I think we can safely throw that one out.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

[Michael Hardner]

You are citing 538? 

 

I think they have Harris up by five points 

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/minnesota/

[gatomontes99]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are citing 538? 

 

I think they have Harris up by five points 

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/minnesota/

In an average and one of those polls is an extreme outlier and is in the average twice.

Rcp has an average as well, but they haven't updated polls lately. The last poll had her up slightly outside the margin of error about a month ago.

[CdnFox]

It's not likely but of course it is possible. I doubt we'd see a lot of people in that state flipping for trump but it is quite possible we may see an abnormally large percentage of the democrat vote staying home.

We often forget this, but of course elections are not about who WOULD vote for the candidate, but how many actually showed up to do so. I feel like a lot of democrat voters are going to be very demotivated during this cycle. By the time we get to the election a lot of them will already be resigned to the fact that harris is going to lose, many of them we'll have a voted for Biden to be the candidate and maybe a little unhappy that harris was just parachuted in for no good reason in their mind, and if they feel it's a bit hopeless then they may just give up.

Trump supporters on the other hand may be unusually motivated.

I think in the end that she'll win it but it would be highly amusing if they lost it

[Black Dog]

23 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Only in one outlier poll by Redfield Wilton Strategies. They are ranked 118th on the 538 website. I think we can safely throw that one out.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Trump supporters squawking about outlier polls when citing Rasmussen Reports lol.

18 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

In an average and one of those polls is an extreme outlier and is in the average twice.

Rcp has an average as well, but they haven't updated polls lately. The last poll had her up slightly outside the margin of error about a month ago.

Strip out the outlier and she's still up by an average of 5.7 in the last month,

[NAME REMOVED]

8 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

The last poll (I know of) to come out of MN is a Rasmussen poll that had Harris up by 3. But that was the last week in September. She's had a pile of bad days since.

 

Rasmusson is the only polling company that nobody takes seriously, since they are so pro-Trump.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Rasmusson is the only polling company that nobody takes seriously, since they are so pro-Trump.

There are definitely others that nobody takes seriously

But the point really isn't whether they're bias or not but it's rather than whether or not they are consistently biased. Because at least if they're consistent you can see trends

As it is I don't think he's going to take the state unless the harris voters get discouraged and just don't get out to vote

[WestCanMan]

The poll that I looked at had her up by about 5.5 iirc, not 5 as I stated, but she's trending down lately.

At this stage of the game I think that states that weren't considered swing states could end up going red, and she shouldn't be taking any states for granted right now. 

Apparently the reason Biden was in New Hampshire, back when he made his remark about locking Trump up, was that her lead went down from 7.5 to the low 6's. I think that the Dems have a 9% lead in the number of registered voters, so down to 6 is not good.

Also, when Dems are leading by 5% or more in the polls against Trump they usually win, but if they are leading by less than 4 against Trump, it's not good.

538 polling for 2016:

Actual results:

At a quick glance, the states that 538 got wrong were:

Wisconsin polling: D+5.3

Michigan: D+4.2

Pennsylvania: D+3.7

North Carolina: D+0.7

Florida: D+0.7

 

NC and Fla were definitely within any margin or error, but Wisconsin, Michigan and Penn were pretty far in Hillary's favour according to the polls. 

Wisconsin at +5.3 is pretty close to where Minnesota is right now. 

I am not predicting Minn to go to Trump, but if he grabbed 1 state that's theoretically just out of reach for him, it would be nice if it was Minn. 

 

One thing about that 538 poll shown above that I don't like, is that just a week or so out from the election all those pollsters were saying 95% chance for Hillary to win, etc, etc. It looks like they were way off when they had her up at 71.4% to win, but that's close compared to what they were saying just a few days earlier. t seems like they might have thrown that much lower number out there because they knew all along Trump's chances were much higher. They were just pretending that Hillary was more popular than she really was. 

Edited October 24, 2024 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

I just threw this in here (270 to win polling) because it is informative, not because it's 100% germane to the topic. 

Looks like Trump eked out a lot of close wins, he got 102 EC votes from the thinnest margins. Hillary only got 31 in those ones. 

[gatomontes99]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/rcp-pollster-scorecard/national/

Rasmussen was the second most accurate poll in 2016 and 2020. Notice that almost every other poll was more than 3% off and in favor of Dems. That's the real bias.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I just threw this in here (270 to win polling) because it is informative, not because it's 100% germane to the topic. 

Looks like Trump eked out a lot of close wins, he got 102 EC votes from the thinnest margins. Hillary only got 31 in those ones. 

Generally speaking, pollsters are extremely good at their job. When you really analyze all the numbers most of the time posters are accurate within their margins if they only weigh their polls for age and sex. 

But what posters suck at massively in both Canada and America is accurately guessing voter turnout. If they try to account for that they tend to go horribly wrong. 

Take a look at the BC election for example. The conservatives were badly trailing the NDP and it should have been an easy NDP majority, and it has basically ended up in a tie. The posters were way off at first glance but I bet you any money when we analyze the actual results we will see that the NDP voters did not turn out and the conservatives did

 

Trump tends to appeal to people who are less likely to vote. These are the families who are more focused on getting their kids to school with a decent lunch and getting to work and earning their pay and getting on with life, and they don't focus as much on politics. They don't answer pollsters and they may or may not vote in any given election.

But when they are motivated and they do get out they can be a huge force that pollsters simply do not account for and can't detect before it happens.

Additionally they cannot accurately measure if the other sides support is really depressed or unmotivated and just won't be coming out in large numbers. The Ontario provincial election last year or so is an excellent example where despite polling the NDP and liberal voters just stayed home in huge numbers.

I believe that's why trump tends to pull better than he polls.  And why it's possible Kammy may underperform in the results as well.  Pretty lethal combo. 

[WestCanMan]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Generally speaking, pollsters are extremely good at their job. When you really analyze all the numbers most of the time posters are accurate within their margins if they only weigh their polls for age and sex. 

 

In the last ten years, pollsters in North America have been extremely bad at predicting election results, and the BC election that you cited is a perfect example of that. 

Hillary had "a 94% chance of winning" just a week before the election, and she lost badly.

There were 3 states where pollsters had Hillary up by more than 3.5% which she lost in that election.

In Canada, theoretically the Libs had more of the popular vote in the last two elections, and both times they did not. 

In the 2020 election Biden didn't "win" by anywhere near his projected margin in most of the states that he 'won'.

 

Let's face it: pollsters continually overrate liberal/dem candidates to the point where it's a form of election interference. They use polls to hold the line whenever their candidate has a bad week, or a bad 3 months like Kamala is having.

They use polls to say "Oh look, polling never changed for this guy after news of his scandal broke, so it obviously doesn't matter to anyone. We will just stop talking about it now." 

The words "The election is still within the margin of error 😇" sound a lot like "F-you peons. Did you really think that we'd let this election come down to some form of democratic process? 🤣 You get who we give you, and we give you this war. Try to make your kids bulletproof, because our kids aren't going to be the ones fighting in it."

Edited October 24, 2024 by WestCanMan

[Deluge]

22 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The burned-out 3rd Precinct HQ in Minneapolis are still boarded up:

It's just an awful reminder of Tim Walz's failed leadership that people see every day.

At least one muslim mayor has openly supported Trump. 

Men support Trump.

Kamala is losing popularity every time she opens her mouth.

 

Polling has Kamala up by 5% in Minn, but it's not unheard for polls to be off by that much.

Could Kamala lose in Tim Walz's home state? 

It'd be a miracle if he did. That piece of shit Mondale won Minnesota, and I bet that piece of shit Harris will win Minnesota, too. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

In the last ten years, pollsters in North America have been extremely bad at predicting election results, and the BC election that you cited is a perfect example of that. 

Well actually they get a lot of them right. But as I said the one thing they can't get is turnout. If both parties turn out more or less at the same ratio then the posters do very well. If one party stays home and the other party shows up the posters go into the trash can. 

Quote

 

Hillary had "a 94% chance of winning" just a week before the election, and she lost badly.

There were 3 states where pollsters had Hillary up by more than 3.5% which she lost in that election.

 

Come on. On October 28th the FBI quietly announced that they would be looking into a whole bunch of new emails they found and by the 29th it had exploded. And it was immediately after that that her polling began to nose dive. Let's not pretend that that's the posters getting it wrong. Had the notebook not been discovered she probably would have won.

 

Quote

Let's face it: pollsters continually overrate liberal/dem candidates to the point where it's a form of election interference.

They use polls to hold the line whenever their candidate has a bad week, or a bad 3 months like Kamala is having.

That can work against the candidate as well as for a candidate. If people think the candidate is doing well they are less likely to get out and vote.

I think they smooth the poles not so much to support one particular candidate but just so that if the polls break one way or another they can jump with them and pretend that they were right all along during periods where they don't trust the numbers they're getting from the weights they're using. 

Quote

They use polls to say "Oh look, polling never changed for this guy after news of his scandal broke, so it obviously doesn't matter to anyone. We will just stop talking about it now." 

This is the first time the polls haven't changed with a scandal. Or at all hardly, they've been in lockstep till october 1 where they finally SLOOOOOOWLY started to seperate with kammy heading downhill. I commented on this earlier I cannot believe given all of the things that have happened that the it's been so flat. Every other race has wild swings and ups and downs and one person ahead than the other but this one has been flat as a board and it's extremely rare

Quote

The words "The election is still within the margin of error 😇" sound a lot like "F-you peons. Did you really think that we'd let this election come down to some form of democratic process? 🤣 You get who we give you, and we give you this war. Try to make your kids bulletproof, because our kids aren't going to be the ones fighting in it."

LOL well maybe but it's probably not the pollster's thinking that  

 

[WestCanMan]

Trump is only behind by 4.5% in Minnesota now.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/minnesota/

 

[CdnFox]

Anything's possible but I think it's a bit of a long shot  

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Anything's possible but I think it's a bit of a long shot  

Aug 23 Harris was up by 9.2%. 

Her lead has dropped by 4.7% in two months, which is a lot, but gaining another 4.5% in 9 days is a bit of a stretch I guess.

Then again, Trump was behind by more than that in Wisc when he won in 2016. If there's a state where polls would be biased towards Harris it's Minn.

On 10/24/2024 at 4:30 AM, gatomontes99 said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/rcp-pollster-scorecard/national/

Rasmussen was the second most accurate poll in 2016 and 2020. Notice that almost every other poll was more than 3% off and in favor of Dems. That's the real bias.

CNN 🤣 

Off by over 5% on average, and always in favour of the dems. SHOCKER!!!

That right there basically sums up my opinion of polls.

USC... WTF? Was that just some dude in his mom's basement, who didn't know about blue states, purple states and red states? 

Edited October 29, 2024 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

Bad news for the Dems... it seems as though the areas where Trump really overcame big polling deficits were the rust belt/swing states:

Wisconsin polling: D+5.3

Michigan: D+4.2

Pennsylvania: D+3.7

Minn, at +4.5, is right in that sweet spot between Michigan and Penn.

I'm not saying it's 50/50, but I bet that if Kamala wins there it's by 1% or less. 

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Aug 23 Harris was up by 9.2%. 

Her lead has dropped by 4.7% in two months, which is a lot, but gaining another 4.5% in 9 days is a bit of a stretch I guess.

Then again, Trump was behind by more than that in Wisc when he won in 2016. If there's a state where polls would be biased towards Harris it's Minn.

CNN 🤣 

Off by over 5% on average, and always in favour of the dems. SHOCKER!!!

That right there basically sums up my opinion of polls.

USC... WTF? Was that just some dude in his mom's basement, who didn't know about blue states, purple states and red states? 

Notice they got reeeaaalll quite about Rasmussen when inposted that?