Biden takes 2 point lead in new Fox poll

[Luvnit2]

It appears the Trump conviction will impact the 2024 election. Biden is up 3 points from the previous Fox poll and overall, by 2 points. The change is Independents switched from Trump to Biden. This is second poll in last 2 days showing the shift with independents.

Fox News Polls & Official Poll Results: Latest Poll Insights & Trends | Fox News

Fox News Poll: Three-point shift in Biden-Trump matchup since May

[HarleyDog]

Post the poll.

[Arturo Bandini]

Don't listen to the polls. Any of it.

Vote !

[Luvnit2]

(06-19-2024, 08:11 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Post the poll.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls

There you go

[*michaelsean*]

Fox poll. Dismissed.

[samhain]

Zero of these snapshot polls mean a thing until after the conventions.

[Luvnit2]

Democrats like Mayer seem to be very worried, regardless of the Fox poll giving 2-point edge to Biden. As I always say, look inside the poll numbers. It appears Biden is losing some of his base. Hispanics, under 50 Blacks and young people. Below is Maher's critique, not mine or a Republican.

The most recent Rasmussen poll with Trump leading by 9 Nationally gets our attention. It could be an outlier, it could be overstated for Trump, but not close to being within the margin of error which is bad news for Biden's camp.

Meanwhile, Trump is in Philly and Detroit the past 2 weekends attempting to get more votes while Bidne is taking a week to prepare for a debate. Biden needing 7 days to get ready for a debate on the surface is damaging to Biden. It puts more pressure on him to win the debate, showing up and debating for 1.5 hours will not be enough. He needs to be perfect.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-maher-panics-biden-sheds-support-among-key-voting-blocs-pandering-not-working

Bill Maher panics as Biden sheds support among key voting blocs: His 'pandering' is 'not working'
'It's a little scary because he's losing the people who are supposed to be the ones in the Democratic camp'

"Real Time" host Bill Maher was unsettled by recent polls showing President Biden losing support among key voting blocs despite all his "pandering" ahead of the November election.

"People seem to be saying we care about the pocketbook issues," Maher said during a panel discussion on Friday. "This is across the lines of race, of gender. Everybody seems to be saying the same thing. It's inflation. It's pocketbook issues. It's things like that, that hit us every day, in our everyday lives. And you guys are talking about Ukraine, and Gaza, and Israel and democracy. I really think democracy is on the line. It just doesn't seem to connect with the people."

"I mean, I could go through the stats here of the people he's losing. It's a little scary because he's losing the people who are supposed to be the ones in the Democratic camp," he exclaimed.
The HBO star first highlighted how only "45%" of Hispanic voters are backing Biden compared to the 39% supporting former President Trump despite Biden's recent executive order allowing permanent residency for illegal migrants who are married to U.S. citizens, noting that Biden had "59%" support among Hispanics in 2020.

He stressed that "pandering" was "not working."

"He went to Morehouse. He said, ‘What is democracy if you have to be 10 times better than anyone else to get a fair shot?' That seemed like pandering to me. Black voters under 50. He led by 80 points in 2020. Now, by 37. Still a lot, but he's lost 43 points off the key constituency!" Maher said.

"Student loans. He's forgiven $144 billion in student loans. Only 36% of student debt holders like it! I mean, if you can't win the people you're pandering to," Maher continued. "I mean, I get it. Politics is somewhat about pandering. That's not even an insult. You're supposed to do what people want to a certain degree, also be a leader. But if you're not winning these groups, and he's lost 8% off women since 2020. And yet I read in the polls, he pulled ahead this week. Explain that to me."

After reiterating his belief that identity politics "doesn't work," Maher pointed to Trump's "23-point edge" among Hispanics on the issue of border security.

[KillerGoose]

538 has released their election forecast tool. I tend to put more weight into this than anything else as it is an aggregate of all meaningful polls. Right now, it is a pure toss-up. Biden 51% chance to win, roughly. As we get closer to November, these numbers will likely change as debates have happened, more shifts in the economy etc.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

[CJD]

(06-19-2024, 08:10 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It appears the Trump conviction will impact the 2024 election. Biden is up 3 points from the previous Fox poll and overall, by 2 points. The change is Independents switched from Trump to Biden. This is second poll in last 2 days showing the shift with independents.

Fox News Polls & Official Poll Results: Latest Poll Insights & Trends | Fox News

Fox News Poll: Three-point shift in Biden-Trump matchup since May

So basically, it shifted from the Trump side margin of error to the Biden side margin of error?

Seems like that could have happened just by a sampling coincidence.

This is why polls don't really matter to me. Presidential elections don't come down to the national percentages. It all comes down to a couple hundred thousand people in 3 to 4 states.

Which is a dumb way to elect a president, but it is how we've always done it, so why change it now (he said, sarcastically).

[Luvnit2]

(06-24-2024, 01:23 PM)CJD Wrote: So basically, it shifted from the Trump side margin of error to the Biden side margin of error?

Seems like that could have happened just by a sampling coincidence.

This is why polls don't really matter to me. Presidential elections don't come down to the national percentages. It all comes down to a couple hundred thousand people in 3 to 4 states.

Which is a dumb way to elect a president, but it is how we've always done it, so why change it now (he said, sarcastically).

The great thing is there are counters to the electoral college. Staes with a larger population get more congressman so they have a better shot at controlling Congress. Also, larger state populations get more electoral college votes. Liberals fail to mention California gets 54 electoral votes while North Dakota only gets 3. The census determines the number of electoral votes each state receives.

Here is the kicker, the census counts illegal immigrants and not just US citizens. Why do you think Democrats and Biden are ignoring border policy and placing US citizens in danger? Simple, they want more electoral college votes and more congressional votes in future elections.

[CJD]

(06-24-2024, 01:35 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The great thing is there are counters to the electoral college. Staes with a larger population get more congressman so they have a better shot at controlling Congress. Also, larger state populations get more electoral college votes. Liberals fail to mention California gets 54 electoral votes while North Dakota only gets 3. The census determines the number of electoral votes each state receives.

You're saying this like it's some kind of secret when, in reality, "liberals fail to mention" this because it's common sense and universally acknowledged already.

Quote:Here is the kicker, the census counts illegal immigrants and not just US citizens. Why do you think Democrats and Biden are ignoring border policy and placing US citizens in danger? Simple, they want more electoral college votes and more congressional votes in future elections.

If illegal immigrants were removed from census counts, it would most likely affect southern states like Texas and Florida, both of whom vote solidly Republican, as well as California according to this study in 2020. So letting more illegal immigrants in would probably, at best, break even for Democrats and potentially, depending on where the immigrants reside, be a net loss for the Democrats.

Unless, of course, the Governors of those states force the immigrants to go to blue states via bus.

But then that's the Red governors' faults for giving away free electoral votes!

This conspiracy theory seems very, very weak. 

[Luvnit2]

(06-24-2024, 11:43 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: 538 has released their election forecast tool. I tend to put more weight into this than anything else as it is an aggregate of all meaningful polls. Right now, it is a pure toss-up. Biden 51% chance to win, roughly. As we get closer to November, these numbers will likely change as debates have happened, more shifts in the economy etc.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

I look at as well, but I do not see the state polls polled. Am I missing something as National polls mean little, it is the swing states that matter.

[Luvnit2]

(06-24-2024, 01:41 PM)CJD Wrote: You're saying this like it's some kind of secret when, in reality, "liberals fail to mention" this because it's common sense and universally acknowledged already.


If illegal immigrants were removed from census counts, it would most likely affect southern states like Texas and Florida, both of whom vote solidly Republican, as well as California according to this study in 2020. So letting more illegal immigrants in would probably, at best, break even for Democrats and potentially, depending on where the immigrants reside, be a net loss for the Democrats.

Unless, of course, the Governors of those states force the immigrants to go to blue states via bus.

But then that's the Red governors' faults for giving away free electoral votes!

This conspiracy theory seems very, very weak. 

I find it interesting states you mentioned like Texas cut off illegal immigration flow. The number one state for illegal immigrants is California. Why do you think these liberal cities and states like NY, California, Chicago and others are sanctuary cities? If you are illegal, would you remain in red cities and states where ICE can find and deport you more readily or a place that refuses to work with ICE?

You also never addressed California gets 54 electoral college votes, so population is in the equation for number of votes. If electoral college were unfair, each state regardlless of population would get an equal number of electoral college votes. 

[*pally*]

(06-24-2024, 01:35 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The great thing is there are counters to the electoral college. Staes with a larger population get more congressman so they have a better shot at controlling Congress. Also, larger state populations get more electoral college votes. Liberals fail to mention California gets 54 electoral votes while North Dakota only gets 3. The census determines the number of electoral votes each state receives.

Here is the kicker, the census counts illegal immigrants and not just US citizens. Why do you think Democrats and Biden are ignoring border policy and placing US citizens in danger? Simple, they want more electoral college votes and more congressional votes in future elections.

except the cap on members of the House of Representatives at 435, leaves the large states (both red and blue) under-represented thus depressing their electoral vote impact.

The least populous state of Wyoming had, at the last census, 580,000 people, the most populous state, California had 39,500,000 or 68 times the population of Wyoming.  Yet California only received 54 members of the House which translates into Electoral College votes.  To keep it proportional California should have 68 Members of the House. Texas is short-changed by 12 members, The constitution proposed district sizes of 30,000 people.  If we followed that California should get 1283 House members

Back in the 1920's Congress capped the size of the House at 435 which necessitates an out-of-proportion House and thus an out-of-proportion Electoral College

The constitution requires that ALL PERSONS residing the country be counted.  They did not ask for a count of citizens.  

That ridiculous theory only makes sense if all of those people live in blue or purple states

[HarleyDog]

(06-20-2024, 08:58 PM)samhain Wrote: Zero of these snapshot polls mean a thing until after the conventions.

Curious why conventions would make a difference?

[CJD]

(06-24-2024, 01:51 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I find it interesting states you mentioned like Texas cut off illegal immigration flow. The number one state for illegal immigrants is California. Why do you think these liberal cities and states like NY, California, Chicago and others are sanctuary cities? If you are illegal, would you remain in red cities and states where ICE can find and deport you more readily or a place that refuses to work with ICE?

I think liberal cities and states are sanctuary cities because they realize that immigrants are not, across the board, bad for the country, I suppose. Being an illegal immigrant is also not a single attribution. For example, my wife was an "illegal immigrant" for a few months because of a bunch of nonsense that caused her family's case to be held up in court until she was older than 18 years old and no longer under the shelter of her parents, who were granted their green cards. Blanket deportations are just not useful. Deport the people who are causing problems, but most immigrants are fine.

But you are implying an insidious reason with no basis or evidence, which is why I call it a conspiracy theory.

As for why they would remain in red cities and states, the reason could be as simple as those are the states they entered the country in. Texas has the largest border among all states. Florida is very close to the islands like Cuba. If you're illegally immigrating into a country, it makes sense that some percentage of people would just stay there and build a community. There are millions of illegal immigrants in Texas and Florida. The study that I linked shows how removing them from the census data would affect the house of representative count, which would affect electoral votes in a similar way. New York, Chicago, etc were not affected per that study.

Quote:You also never addressed California gets 54 electoral college votes, so population is in the equation for number of votes. If electoral college were unfair, each state regardlless of population would get an equal number of electoral college votes. 

Consider it addressed.

California has 54 electoral college votes.

That doesn't change anything though. The electoral college makes it so that, in a country with 333 million people, only a couple hundred thousand people actually have their votes substantially count towards the election of the President. The Republicans in California don't matter. The Democrats in Texas don't matter. The only people who matter are the people who sit between the two parties in Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania (although Ohio seems to have shifted to a straight red state in recent years).

Why not have everyone's vote count? If I'm a Democrat in Texas and I know for a fact that Texas will not be blue in the election, whether I vote or not doesn't matter. but, if my vote counted towards a popular vote, even if my state did not go blue, I would know my vote contributed to the eventual election of the president.

[KillerGoose]

(06-24-2024, 01:45 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I look at as well, but I do not see the state polls polled. Am I missing something as National polls mean little, it is the swing states that matter.

State polls are accounted for. This model is an actual simulation of the entire election. They use not only polls, but fundamentals such as economic conditions, incumbency, state partisanship etc. They then run this simulation 1000 times and that is ultimately what you see in the browser. It is quite complex, but state polls are certainly accounted for. 

[Luvnit2]

(06-24-2024, 02:02 PM)CJD Wrote: I think liberal cities and states are sanctuary cities because they realize that immigrants are not, across the board, bad for the country, I suppose. Being an illegal immigrant is also not a single attribution. For example, my wife was an "illegal immigrant" for a few months because of a bunch of nonsense that caused her family's case to be held up in court until she was older than 18 years old and no longer under the shelter of her parents, who were granted their green cards. Blanket deportations are just not useful. Deport the people who are causing problems, but most immigrants are fine.

But you are implying an insidious reason with no basis or evidence, which is why I call it a conspiracy theory.

As for why they would remain in red cities and states, the reason could be as simple as those are the states they entered the country in. Texas has the largest border among all states. Florida is very close to the islands like Cuba. If you're illegally immigrating into a country, it makes sense that some percentage of people would just stay there and build a community. There are millions of illegal immigrants in Texas and Florida. The study that I linked shows how removing them from the census data would affect the house of representative count, which would affect electoral votes in a similar way. New York, Chicago, etc were not affected per that study.


Consider it addressed.

California has 54 electoral college votes.

That doesn't change anything though. The electoral college makes it so that, in a country with 333 million people, only a couple hundred thousand people actually have their votes substantially count towards the election of the President. The Republicans in California don't matter. The Democrats in Texas don't matter. The only people who matter are the people who sit between the two parties in Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania (although Ohio seems to have shifted to a straight red state in recent years).

Why not have everyone's vote count? If I'm a Democrat in Texas and I know for a fact that Texas will not be blue in the election, whether I vote or not doesn't matter. but, if my vote counted towards a popular vote, even if my state did not go blue, I would know my vote contributed to the eventual election of the president.

 That scenario happens all of the country to Republicans whose vote does pick the winner in California, NY, Mass., Illinois, Oregon, Washington and many other places. My point is population is not ignored in detrmining the POTUS, eletoral college uses population to assign delegates for each state.

[Luvnit2]

(06-24-2024, 03:13 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: State polls are accounted for. This model is an actual simulation of the entire election. They use not only polls, but fundamentals such as economic conditions, incumbency, state partisanship etc. They then run this simulation 1000 times and that is ultimately what you see in the browser. It is quite complex, but state polls are certainly accounted for. 

Thanks, I have never seen them produce anything state by state to back up their data.

As for all polls, they never produce the algorithm used to determine voter preference. I see most attempt to poll the number of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. I don't see the underlying data. For example, if Biden won the black vote 92% to 8% in each swing state, is that calculated for the future poll?

Many are saying Biden is losing his base, if true how is that calculated into the poll numbers?

[KillerGoose]

(06-24-2024, 06:33 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Thanks, I have never seen them produce anything state by state to back up their data.

As for all polls, they never produce the algorithm used to determine voter preference. I see most attempt to poll the number of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. I don't see the underlying data. For example, if Biden won the black vote 92% to 8% in each swing state, is that calculated for the future poll?

Many are saying Biden is losing his base, if true how is that calculated into the poll numbers?

If you scroll down on that webpage, you'll actually see their predictions state-by-state. It will look like this...



The model algorithm is proprietary, and they are considered the "Golden Goose" for election forecasts. Nate Silver developed their original model, and he is releasing one of his own since he has left 538, but 538 is still running their model with several updates this go around. All of this to say, they keep it a secret so no one else can take it. It generates a lot of traffic on their site, and is thus very valuable. As far as I know, they do track polling data down to the demographic and account for it in this model. I have seen them reference that data specifically, but it is an assumption that it is accounted for here. 

If Biden is losing his base, then it would reflect in the polls. His support would be waning. At the end of the day, this is all statistics. If Biden truly is losing his base, then his polling numbers over the next few numbers will be quite bad and you'll be able to see that trend which would then be reflected in the model.