Trump losing sleep over polling numbers days before election
Trump losing sleep over polling numbers days before election
The GOP nominee is growing obsessive in the last mad dash to Election Day.
Donald Trump is reportedly losing sleep, battling anxiety, and obsessing over his polling numbers as the GOP nominee hopes to hang his hat on any sign that he will return to the White House.
A campaign official told Axios that Trump is asking more questions and pushing his staff to work even more to ensure that he will come out ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris come Election Day.
"Trump's anxiety is evident in his late-night and early morning calls to aides in which he peppers them with questions on how things are going---and whether they think he'll win," Axios reported.
You're viewing a single thread.
Well, I've been losing sleep and having anxiety attacks over the possibility that he might worm his way back into office again, so no sympathy
I've slept maybe 6 hours since Tuesday.
Just gonna white knuckle it till Tuesday.
Yeah same tbh. But also I don’t expect this shit to really wrap up one way or another in anything less than a week, and then who knows what Johnson will try to pull at the electoral vote count in December…
This thing needs to be a blow out to keep it out of the SC.
Kamala needs to end Tuesday dominantly. 5/7 swing states +Iowa. Its gotta be such that they can't get one case alone to the SC that changes the results.
Are you telling me she needs a perfect 5/7
With rice
Well what happens if he wins? Surely your stress level won't go down
I guess the house goes up for sale and I'm back on duo lingo for my Spanish/ Portuguese?
Unlike most lemmings, I have an actually target on my back, and have been doxxed for my political organizing. I know for a fact I'm in some databases used by fascists/ right-wingers to doxx left wing organizers. I've seen how weak Democrats and their voters are when it comes to standing up to power. And while I hated her with great vitriol, I realized how dependent we were on the acumen of players like Pelosi to just hold this shit together for the four years of Trump we already survived. I hold no hope for the weakness which has been demonstrated to be the 2024 Democratic party.
One thing that I've found with anxiety that can help is volunteering and other things that help dem turnout. It moves the needle a little and if nothing else it makes you feel productive and some more degree of agency besides just voting yourself
Can find some phone banks, canvasing, and text banks near you
Also another small thing that can also help is reminding and encourage any dem leaning friends, family, etc. to go out and vote. Helps more than you'd think
Yep. And I think he will win too. I’ve been playing with the ABC/538 and Harris’ chances just seem so slim to me.
I just want to see something reassuring at this point.
Reassurance is women are out-voting men by 10pts in early voting.
Fully 35% of black voters say they plan to vote on election day alone.
538 gave 59% odda GOP to take the Senate in 2022.
Not only do these polls have a margin of error, but they are only predictive insofar as their likely voter models are accurate, and registration volatility and GOP crossover support for Harris means they likely aren't.
There is no evidence that the low propensity incel bro vote is churning out as hoped.
I happen to live in a Republican controlled district in one of the swing states. The people who are enthusiastic about Trump are extremely enthusiastic. As in, flying Trump-Vance flags in their truck down a major thoroughfare.
And, the Muslim population here may very well not be bluffing and vote for Trump instead of Harris - or simply not vote at all. The Israel-Gaza issue is HUGE here.
Unless our major city pulls through for us, Trump will win our state.
The odds are also stacked against Harris based on how electoral votes are counted. If you ask me who I think will win the popular vote, I think Harris will win. It’s just that the game is so stacked, and Republican controlled regions are, well, making it hard to vote.
Did I mention SCOTUS is not impartial?
Any Muslim voting for Trump fully deserves the shit that will rain down on their countrymen if Trump wins. That’s literally the dumbest thing they could be doing, even worse than not voting or voting for “Free Palestine”.
“Any Muslim”? “Countrymen?” “Dumbest thing”?
It feels like “Trust me I know what’s best for you, foreigner” vibes.
And that seems to be a theme in the Democratic Party. “Vote for me, the other guy is worse” but then just maintain the status quo. But how are they representing interests of their voting bloc?
Don’t get me wrong, I’d vote for a literal flaming pile of shit over Trump.
Does the states name rhyme with bitch again?
Republican voting is up in the places it matters last time I checked.
Republican early voting is up, yet early voting numbers split is in line with 2020. That's not necessarily a good sign for Republicans.
We're not going to really know fuck about shit till Tuesday.
Nope, but here we are
-
You're going to see more registered Republicans crossing over to vote for Harris than perhaps any Democrat has previously received.
-
More are voting early, but that's to be expected given Trump learned from the 2020 mistake of dissuading his voters from early voting. It doesn't mean greater turnout; it just means the same voters Trump had before are voting earlier.
You’re going to see more registered Republicans crossing over to vote for Harris than perhaps any Democrat has previously received.
I'm fully aware thats the assumption people are making. Its not clear how good or bad of an assumption that is. Its also not clear what damage Harris has done with Democrats relationship to the Arab/ Muslim/ Anti-genocide Democrats. Two weeks ago this thing was in the bag for Trump to the point he was just dancing on stage cus he knew he didn't need to do anything else to win. Then he had a Nazi rally.
Pretending like this thing is in anyway a shoe-in for Harris seems to be oblivious to the facts on the ground. She campaigned extremely poorly and made bad strategic choices that took her from heading towards a blue-wave the likes of which we've never seen to now, a blue whimper. Look at how Harris is doing relative to down-ballot Democrats (538) (D's left, R's right, senate where possible, house where not):
Pennsylvania:
Harris 47.6, Trump, 47.9: -0.3 to team D. Casey 49, McCormick 46: +3.0 to team D. Harris delta: -3.3
Michigan:
Harris 47.9, Trump 47.1: +0.8 to team D. Slotkin 49, Rogers 47: +2.0 to team D. Harris delta: -1.2
Georgia:
Harris 47, Trump 48.5: -1.5 to team D. Bishop 47, West 44: +3 to team D. Harris delta: -4.5
Arizona:
Harris 46.5, Trump 49: -2.5 to team D. Kelly 48.6, Masters 47.1: +1.5 to team D. Harris delta: -3
North Carolina:
Harris 47, Trump 48.5: -1.5 to team D. Beasley 45.2, Budd 49.5: -4.3 to team D. Harris delta: 3.2
Nevada:
Harris 47.1, Trump 47.9: -.9 to team D. Cortez Masto 45.9, Kaxakt 47.3: -1.4 to team D. Harris delta: 0.5
Wisconsin:
Harris, 48.1, Trump 47.4: +0.6 to team D. Baldwin 49, Hovde 48: +1 to team D. Harris delta: -.4
Averages out to about ~ -1.25
So in general, Harris is under performing "the average Democrat" in the swing states by about 1.25 points. Keep in mind, Harris was leading or damn near leading at one point in most of those races, and was on track for more substantial gains going into the convention.
She may win in-spite of those major mis-steps, but its not a forgone conclusion that she will win either. Also, it still has to get through all the states, the supreme court if that comes up, and then finally through the certification.
I think you're giving Trump far too much credit that he was dancing on stage because he had nothing to do and coasting to victory and that wasn't just an obvious sign of dementia. Let's be honest, here, the polls have been pretty much tied and within the margin of error this entire time. So I find this to be a bit speculative and expecting more than Trump than he is really capable of.
I'm nowhere saying this is a shoe-in. I am just explicitly responding and providing context to, "republican voting is up in places it matters"
I also disagree that she campaigned poorly. I think she campaigned exceptionally given the time she had and the needle she needed to thread with both distancing from Biden but also citing that the economy is, in fact, improving phenomenally on the world stage and post pandemic. To pick up the mantle in three months and run as well as she had? The Democrats have honestly not been this united since 2008 maybe, and that speaks to the fact that she brought onboard 5 veteran Obama campaign staffers. Regardless of the outcome, this has been historic.
Sounds like your main gripe is really her policy on Gaza, which unfortunately during election season you need to get the votes needed to cross the finish-line... Which means catering to the Jewish votes in Pennsylvania perhaps more so than the Uncommitted voters in Michigan by the nature of electoral votes. You saw that Elon Musk is spending millions in PA with attack ads with opposite messages targeting BOTH the (larger) Jewish community and the Muslim community in PA — yes? She literally has no choice but to toe the line between these two groups.
Moreover, I want to know at what specific point in time in polling anyone had confidence we were heading for a blue wave when polls are all we know?
The Iowa poll which has been dead-on in terms of gauging turnout in 2016 and 2020 compared to nearly any other pollster just gave Harris a +3 in Iowa. A +3 in Iowa. Keep that in mind.
If we're going to go into more speculation as you're suggesting we do, then I can point to 2022 and show that the Red Wave turned into a Red Mirage. Why? Simply: Pollsters did not account for the over-performance of Democrats post-Roe Reversal. Polling volatility given registration numbers and cross-over from Republicans is very volatile right now. It is entirely possible we see that same over-performance again, and thus a red wave turns into a blue mist, wave, or tsunami even given that Platinum-tier Iowa poll. Don't forget 538 had 59:41 odds of GOP getting the Senate.
In the end who knows and I'll hope for the best and expect the worst. But given the circumstances I think the Harris campaign has done great. I don't think we as laypeople could do better. Easy to throw peanuts from the sidelines.
just an obvious sign of dementia
Yeah we just don't know. The whole campaign seemed to have gone into autopilot at that point, because they were doing quite well in the polls. My read was they went into "do no harm mode". Then they did a Nazi rally which kind of blew up that notion.
“republican voting is up in places it matters”
Which it was on my last check in NC and GA. Republican receipts were up a couple percent points in NC and Harris canceled Ad buys. The tea leaf read was that the campaign was throwing in the towel to do damage control in MI.
I also disagree that she campaigned poorly.
That's fine, but we're not going to agree on this. Harris went from a 38 to 50 in a like, 4 weeks. That's meteoric. Not good, not great, shocking. And that happened in the weeks prior to the DNC, when the assumptions we had about the candidate was her platform from 2020. At the DNC we saw her platform an anti-abortion Republican in the slot that was for a Palestinian Democrat from GA. She made no effort to fix this, and its probably going to have cost her MI. Since about a week after the convention, as she continued to step right, her polling started out and went into serious decline. It became clear she' wasn't going to be trying to gather the disaffected votes of Democrats to win this. She wanted "Cheney" Republicans (keeping in mind that Cheney lost her primary, as an incumbent, with only 27% of the vote.). Only in the past 3 days have we had any signal that Harris still has a chance in this race. She ran a teerrrrrrrrrible campaign post convention. Just straight up. Had she stepped to the left and worked off of the things she campaigned on in 2016, had she distanced herself from Israel Gaza, I think her numbers from before the convention would have continued to increase and that she'd be at about 54-56% nationally right now. The facts are on my side for this one. It does us no good to pretend that things were some other way than they actually were. We can just plot her polling over time and see she dropped the ball. Like you can-not pretend that a candidate who had been dropping in polling for the 8 weeks prior to an election is "crushing it".
her policy on Gaza, which unfortunately during election season you need to get the votes needed to cross the finish-line… Which means catering to the Jewish votes in
What makes you think Harris would lose any Jewish voters with a stance against genocide? If you are going to make that claim, you need to back it up with evidence. All that the Arab and Muslim community has asked for is a seat at the table for the party that supposes to represent them, and they were refused. If Harris' loses MI, this is why, and its on her head. There is no evidence to suggest there is any cost to holding Israel accountable when its already in violation of US law. You don't get to just speculate that things were some way you wished they were. What we can defintivelty say is that Harris has lost the support of the Muslim community in Michigan and that very well may cost her the election.
Harris a +3 in Iowa. A +3 in Iowa. Keep that in mind.
+3 in Iowa is fucking wild. I generally go by aggregates not individual pollsters. The only way Harris does this is with a landslide of women voters who are not showing up in most polls. We are seeing women voting at an anomaly level, but we're also seeing republican voting up. Nate silver says don't read anything into early voting, but also, its a post-covid world.
Okay, but consider: The Des Moines Register came out with a poll from Seltzer today showing Kamala up by three in Iowa. For context, Seltzer is considered an S-tier pollster; they came out with Trump beating Biden by 7 points in Iowa, foreshadowing that the rust belt states would be much closer than other polls were showing, and was only one point off the actual result (Trump +8).
They got the 2008 caucus right, surprising everyone that some upstart named Barack Obama was putting up a real challenge to Clinton. They got 2008, 2012, and 2016 right. You have to go back to 2004 for a sizable miss in the presidential election, where the poll shows Kerry up by five when Bush won by less than a percent. They also had a 5-point miss in 2018 with a state-level race, but that is as bad as it gets.
Even if there's a similar 5-point miss here, going from Trump +8 to Trump +2 in Iowa is catastrophic for his campaign. Hell, even a 7 or 8-point polling miss by Seltzer would still seal Trump's fate. Iowa votes pretty similarly to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, so even if Seltzer missed more than she ever has before, a 3-4 point swing away from Trump in those three states would be more than enough to all but guarantee victory for Harris.
And if the results are anywhere close to this poll, you start seeing knock-on effects elsewhere and really crazy shit starts happening, like Harris winning every swing state with Florida or Texas potentially turning blue, giving Harris over 400 electoral votes. While it's unlikely to actually happen this election, the fact it's even in the realm of possibility is givine actual legitimate hope (instead of industrial strength cognitive dissonance) for the first time since the Biden debate. It also bode well for down ballot races too--we may see Allred finally kicking Cruz out of the Senate (and good fucking riddance).
-
Nate Silver left 538, but he is still hosting the Monte Carlo model at the Silver Bulletin. That model is putting it right around 50-50 for Trump win vs Harris win. That's not a polling average... That's the result of playing a few million elections where the results are based on the current polling average.
Wow, 50/50 split. Bold prediction, Nate!
Nate has been wrapped up in the betting markets, and I'm afraid he's not the same Nate Silver from 2008.
Okay and on Election Day 2016 he had it at 60-70% Clinton when I went out to vote. He was very wrong
He was very wrong
If everytimw you say something has a 30% chance of happening, it never happens, then your models are wrong because they should say zero percent. If you say something has a 30% chance of happening and it happens, that doesn't mean you were wrong.
It's shocking how many people don't understand percentages.
I do. At 60%, it’s drawing 3/5 cards. I wouldn’t take that chance. At 70%, it’s 3/4. There’s always a chance of the 1/4, sure. But I expect it to happen.
That’s part of why I’m so uncomfortable right now. I wouldn’t take a coin flip.
I wouldn’t take that chance.
Not taking the chance isn't the same as it never happening. Speaking as a decently experienced poker player, you can understand your odds, and make the right call, and still lose because of it. It doesn't mean you were wrong, it's just statistics.
I mean, I played competitive LCG before. I completely understand that it’s possible. I have definitely taken and lost on a 60% chance. It’s just not a risk I would take.
And I maintain that he was wrong. I don’t think it was a 70% chance. By the time I got back from voting, he had revised it closer to 55-60%. That seems more accurate to me. I think he underestimated Trump.
Ugh for the billionth time, he wasn't wrong. That is not how statistics works. He gave a percentage chance. That's it. If I say there is a 70% chance Clinton wins, and she loses, that doesn't mean I was wrong.
I think he was wrong. I think he underestimated Trump. I don’t think it was 70/30.
He had it at 70/30, when the poll/pundit environment was giving Hillary 95% chances.
He gave much more realistic odds than most any pundit of that cycle.
Well good thing statistics aren't based on "what that one random guy on the internet thinks"
I mean, at the time he had a lot of inputs for his model and I have almost none, but his are also just what he thinks.
I mean, at the time he had a lot of inputs for his model and I have almost none, but his are also just what he thinks.
I think it was right around 35% as you say. Unlikely, but not impossible for Trump to win. If Trump hit a one out of three lucky shot, that should be somewhat surprising, but not too very surprising.
Anyhow, he's saying this one is an even coin flip.
Yeah, all these people are acting like at 2:1 odds are some kind of impossible situation still to this day.
He hadn't counted your vote yet.
Love how lemmy just toxically down-votes things that don't agree with their bias.
We also downvote stupid comments. Here, have another.
... isn't the downvote button explicitly meant to voice your disagreement with something?
I don't understand why people complain about downvotes. If you don't want to see them, join an instance where they're disabled (like mine).
A lot of people try to say you should only down vote poor quality comments that don't contribute to the discussion.
If every one downvotes opinions they disagree with you just have a homogeneous echo chamber.
Personally, I don't think there's any point complaining about it. You can't hold back that tide.
Honestly I think users on Lemmy are from a very narrow demographic, and to be blunt a lot of users just don't have a very broad life experience. That being the case I think anyone should expect to have some opinions which are unpopular with other lemmy users.
Its not that they "disagree" with it per se, its that they want it to not be the case.
Down voting statements of fact because they make you feel uncomfortable is what is actually happening. If they were willing to step in and make or defend an argument; thats a separate case. Lemmy just knee-jerk downvotes things that it doesn't want to be true.