Pollsters adjusting and giving extra weight to Trump this election could be 100% wrong.

[Quixote1818]

I've heard that because Trump over performed the polls in 2016 and 2020 pollsters are weighting the data toward Trump because of the past trends. But should they? This article shows that past trends can mean absolutely nothing in future elections: https://prospect.org/politics/2024-09-25-polling-imperilment/

So as the above article points out, what Trump did in the polls before may mean nothing this round. This has been shown many times in the past. Here are some points that may suggest polls are weighted for Trump more than they should and in fact they maybe should be weighted against him this round for several reasons and weighted to favor Harris this round instead of Trump.

1. Trump badly under performed the polls for the Republican nomination. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-underperform-michigan-gop-primary-results-1874325
2. Since Dobbs, Republicans have been under performing and Dems over performing.
3. I am betting Harris has a very similar coalition to Obama and the polls under estimated his performance against Romney.

So it's possible they have totally gone the wrong way on how they should be weighting polls in this election. Meaning, a total blowout could be possible.

[elleng]

1. COULD!

[Lovie777]

2. Keep eyes on the prize...

Vote Blue, across board.

[gab13by13]

3. I drove route 28 from Brookville, Pa.

to near Butler Pa. It is rural countryside. I make the drive to visit my grandson. My last visit was about 2 months ago and let me tell you all, I saw 25 - 30 more Trump/Vance signs than I saw 2 months ago.

It is good that Kamala is visiting Magat leaning places like Erie, but the very rural small towns are locked in for TSF.

If I had to bet my golf clubs on Pa. I have no doubt that Kamala is going to win but I just think it will be closer than I originally thought several months ago.

GOTV in Philly and Pittsburgh.

A bit of good news, when I got closer to Pittsburgh I saw Harris/Walz signs and no TSF signs, actually, not many signs at all.

[ColinC]

4. I hope they are doing exactly as we suspect. Think about it: it can't really hurt us

But there’s also no guarantee that’s happening I guess

[VMA131Marine]

5. Point of clarification.

The polling result is what it is. I don’t believe pollsters are modifying the numbers they get by any weights or fudge factors. It’s the sample they are weighting. Polling more Republicans and fewer Democrats to account for the presumed undercounting of Trump voters in an unbiased sample. You can kind of see this looking at all the polls side by side on 270-to-win or 538. Some pollsters are show results consistently 2-3 points more in Trumps favour than the other polls. I guess we’ll have to wait until November to see who was right but the national polling data seems to favour the pollsters who are playing things straight and not the ones who are “correcting” for those “hidden” Trump votes.

I will say this though, if the “corrected” polls are correct (which I don’t think they are) then it’s going to be a miserable 4 years afterwards.

[-misanthroptimist]

6. Trump failed to reach 47% in 2016 and 2020

There is no reason on Earth or in the data to suppose he'll crack 47% in 2024. Kamala will win the national vote by 6-8%.

But she'll need you to vote for that to happen.

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

9. That's where I'm at too.

[-misanthroptimist]

10. 2016 was a freak election

HRC, in addition to being a poor campaigner and pretty unpopular, got hosed by Comey in the closing days. On top of that, there was a fairly robust third-party vote.

None of that is likely this year. It will be a two-party race with very little third party share. It's very difficult to win the EC with just 47% of the PV. And 47% seems to be the ceiling for Trump.

Unless something dramatic happens, I think that PV will be 53-46 in Harris' favor, with upwards of 300 EV (it could be in the 350 range).

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

11. Definitely over 300, I think more like 340s range

Of course GOTV is the most important thing!

[BWdem4life]

7. I would definitely give a litle more weight to tRump

at least a few pounds.

[lees1975]

8. Not only did Trump's primary results seriously underperform the polls, and when there were no candidates left, Haley

continued to overperform more than double the MOE, but every poll taken in every state where there was a referendum on abortion came in way above where the polling data said they would, and that included deep red Kansas. The pollsters don't like those off year elections, because turnout is so varied, but those that they did poll, including the legislative races in Virginia, they found Democrats overperformed significantly.

I've noticed that the composite polls continue to use averages and models that they were using when Biden was still running. That has to have a numerical factor on polling data.

[Polybius]

12. While Trump did underperform in the primaries, it could be because he had it in the bag

I know one Haley voter, and he voted for her in the primary. I also know several Trumpers, being that I'm in a Red area. Some said it was pointless, since he was leading so big. The rest simply forgot to vote. They won't be forgetting next month.