General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNYTimes Siena Poll: Trump 48 Harris 47
New Poll Suggests Harris’s Support Has Stalled After a Euphoric August
That’s the question raised by this morning’s New York Times/Siena College poll, which finds Donald J. Trump narrowly ahead of her among likely voters nationwide, 48 percent to 47 percent.
To me, the result is a bit surprising. It’s the first lead for Mr. Trump in a major nonpartisan national survey in about a month. As a result, it’s worth being at least a little cautious about these findings, as there isn’t much confirmation from other polls.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/08/upshot/trump-harris-poll-analysis.html
This election is not going to be easy. Not at all.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Getting our voters to the booth is all that matters. Polls are useful data but they can’t accurately predict voter turnout. Part of the reason I hate polls is that they either discourage or allow folks to get overconfident. I refuse to let any poll get me distracted on the things that will help us win and that is donating, volunteering and making sure people I know are registered to vote.
Blue Owl
(59,054 posts)
Dennis Donovan
(31,059 posts)Their methodologies are always inconsistent and not worth the time. I'm not chastising you for doing so, it's just I don't find them to be useful bellwethers to the true pulse of the electorate. 
Plus, anything NYT should be suspect given the editorial direction they've taken in this race where one candidate is wholly illegitimate.
getagrip_already
(17,802 posts)The pollsters have turned the knobs and tightened the results.
They do that by adjusting the turnout models, and adjusting screening questions.
But the turnout models are the key. Just assume more white males will turnout. And the end numbers change.
The msm wants this narrative. Its part of their playbook.
Peoples opinions arent changing. Voters arent returning to tsf.
Yes, gotv, but dont run around with your hair on fire over media polls.
tinrobot
(12,060 posts)Or attract eyeballs or whatever.
getagrip_already
(17,802 posts)If you want viewership, polls are the way to get them.
And tight polls generate excitement. But still fit the overall narrative they want to pitch.
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)Or were they cooking them in our favor? The final NYT/Siena poll had Biden winning the popular vote by eight-points. They had him winning Arizona by six and Wisconsin by 11.
getagrip_already
(17,802 posts)That could be part of it.
Also, polls all come home close to election day. That way, they can say they were right.
But you may be right that they hoped to lull dems into thinking their vote wasnt needed. That burned us in 2016.
But now, its pretty obvious they are playing with turnout models.
Turnout models beguile even reputable pollsters. They often have no idea what the voting demographics will be on election day.
But mischief is easy if that is your goal.
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)Nearly every national poll shows a tight race. Emerson, Morning Consult, I&I/TIPP and Quinnipiac all show Harris leading between 1-3 points (ABC News has her +4). This poll is no different than those because when you factor MOE, it's essentially a toss-up.
In fact, with how close the results are near-universally, you'd expect one or two polls to show Trump leading. This is just more indication that the race is extremely narrow. But I get people don't want to believe it. It's hard to believe Trump can actually win. But he can and I guarantee you Harris' campaign's own polls show a very close race.
getagrip_already
(17,802 posts)Especially this far out from an election.
Remember the red wave 22? Yeah, i dont because it didnt exist, despite polls showing it.
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)Pundits did but the polls showed multiple tight races and it was a very tight election.
Also, the NYT/Siena poll you're so adamant about being cooked accurately predicted key 2022 races:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/31/upshot/senate-polls-az-ga-nv-pa-toplines.html
In Arizona, they had Kelly +5. He won by 4.9 points,
In Pennsylvania, they had Fetterman +5. He won by 4.9 points.
In Georgia, they had Warnock +3. He won by 2.8 points.
In Nevada, they had Cortez Masto and Laxalt tied. Cortez Masto won by less than a percentage point.
Anyone who doesn't think this will be a tight election is just not paying attention or in denial.
Wanderlust988
(783 posts)That's where they screwed up. Also, even Cook Political Report predicted a red wave and he's as cautious as they come.
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)The polls never pointed to a red wave. Again, it was a media narrative. If you looked at the polls, you could see how close the House was going to be.
The average of polls in 2022 had Republicans winning by 2.5 points nationally. They won by 2.8 points.
To put that into perspective, in 2018, when Democrats took back the House, they won nationally by nearly nine-points.
There was no chance of a red wave or tsunami with national numbers like that. So, every talk about a red wave was purely based on vibes and not actual data.
Here's a good article from VOX on what happened.
The funny thing about all this is we're seeing a reverse of 2022. Nearly every poll points to this election being extremely close, basically a toss-up, and now it's the Democrats who are dismissing the polls and predicting a landslide. Just look at this poll right here on DU. Nearly half so far (at the time of this post) think Harris is going to win by Bill Clinton/Obama numbers. Bill Clinton won 379 electoral votes in 1996 and beat Dole by eight-points nationally. There is no indication that 2024 will even come close to that. Yet a lot here can't seem to fathom the possibility. The vibes don't match what the data is saying so the data must be wrong! It's the exact same thing that happened in 2022. The vibes were on the Republicans' side. Biden was unpopular. Inflation was still a major issue. Gas prices were high. The polling HAS TO BE WRONG!
But it wasn't. The polling was pretty accurate. People didn't want to believe it, tho.
Just like now. People don't want to believe that November will be close. How could it be close? Trump's a felon. Trump's a rapist. Trump is a liar. Trump tried to overthrow an election. How could he still win? There's no way the polls are right.
Unless they are and it's your perception of the race that is wrong.
displacedvermoter
(4,459 posts)anywhere, that was reported anywhere,
that would lead serious people -- like at the Times -- to see any downturn in enthusiasm for Harris/Walz?
What positive steps or uplifting message has come from Trump's campaign? How could the Arlington debacle have helped him? What has Vance done or said that was anything but detrimental?
I am sorry, but this poll doesn't add up to me. It is as biased as the polls they ran last fall that started the Joe has gotta go talk a year before the election.
Sorry, I am not buying it. I sincerely believe this poll is designed to dampen the enthusiasm they are suggesting had started to wane, frankly without evidence.
Maraya1969
(23,495 posts)somehow making money from the right hand turn they have made? I don't even go there anymore and I used to pay for a subscription.
democrattotheend
(12,011 posts)I live in the Philadelphia suburbs and I am stunned by how many Trump signs I am seeing even in blue areas. Just starting to see Harris/Walz signs, which did just become available, but the number of Trump signs is shocking and I'm just not seeing the kind of enthusiasm on the ground that I would have expected based on what they are saying on the news. It's nothing like 2008. I have been canvassing and finding less support than I would expect. Jewish voters who are skittish about whether she will support Israel enough, other voters who buy the narrative that they had more money in their pocket when Trump was president. There's a bakery nearby that has cookies for both candidates, and they've had way more sales of Trump cookies this year; it was about even in 2020.
Republican registration has gone way up in the state compared to Democratic registration; some of that is just party switches by people who were already voting Republican, but the fact that it's all going one direction is worrisome. And mail ballot requests are down for Democrats everywhere, obviously from 2020 but also from 2022 in some cases.
I'm not saying we can't win but the odds are definitely against us.
Freddie
(10,104 posts)Really disgusted by the number of TFG signs popping up everywhere. How can seemingly intelligent people be such idiots?? Please dear god may the debate make a difference.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,502 posts)Trump signs have popped up like weeds. Not many Harris signs yet. Even seen some Trump signs in Hamtramck and Detroit and more then usual in Dearborn. Never saw them in Detroit or Hamtramck in 2020.
Wiz Imp
(9,974 posts)In my area of PA (South Central). I'm seeing absolutely NO trump signs where in the past there were hundreds.
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)The Harris campaign fully believes they're the underdog. When they say it, they're not pretending just so voters don't get complacent. They absolutely believe they are the underdog because of places just like Pennsylvania. There are far more must-win Harris states than there are must-win Trump states.
Harris can afford to lose Georgia and Arizona, but she can't afford to lose any of the three blue wall states if she does - whether it's Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. She can't lose any of those three states if she doesn't win Georgia (she could lose one then) or Arizona (or she could afford to lose Wisconsin - and that's it. She can't lose Michigan or Pennsylvania in that scenario).
She has way more map to defend than Trump.
Trump wins Pennsylvania, he can lose Arizona. He can lose Nevada. He can even lose the NE-2 congressional district. And he still wins.
Now if he loses Georgia? Then he's in trouble and he'd need to win Arizona and another blue wall state.
People also need to understand that while enthusiasm is up, it's also very high for the Republicans. In 2008, enthusiasm was entirely one-sided. That was McCain's biggest obstacle in that election and why he picked Palin because he knew it would increase enthusiasm. It did - for a minute.
unblock
(56,193 posts)Harris is crushing Donnie with rally attendance and fundraising.
Donnie is a convicted criminal with more trials pending and owes staggering amounts of money for rape, defamation, and fraud. A long list of people who worked closely with him are endorsing Kamala.
Donnie barely campaign, can't pack a venue, and babbles incoherently.
This is not what a close race looks like.
Where is Donnie's newfound support supposedly coming from?
Who is voting for Donnie who didn't vote for him previously?
Frank D. Lincoln
(894 posts)Trump wouldn't be making all of those vile threats against his perceived political opponents if he didn't fear he was going to lose. Not only is he unable to deal with Kamala Harris, Marc Elias has put him on notice that his attempts to steal the election aren't going to work. Trump has gone from a situation in which he was leading in almost all of the polls when Biden was in the race to a situation in which he's trailing Kamala in almost all of the polls. Kamala is attracting bigger crowds at her venues than Trump and is receiving substantially more campaign donations than he is (and much of Trump's campaign donations are going to lawyers). Plus, there's far more energy on the Democratic side than on the Republican side. Furthermore, we're getting Republican endorsements and crossovers when the reverse isn't happening.
Contrast this to when Biden was still in the race, the news media was ganging up on Joe about his debate performance and age, and Trump had survived that apparent assassination attempt. Trump thought he was a shoo-in to get back into the White House and wasn't lashing out on 'Truth' Social.
Dark Brandon really twisted Trump's cap back when he dropped out of the race.
Think. Again.
(22,456 posts)displacedvermoter
(4,459 posts)
NoMoreRepugs
(12,065 posts)GreatCaesarsGhost
(8,621 posts)I think women will turnout and save us from trump.
Response to GreatCaesarsGhost (Reply #10)
Name removed Message auto-removed
kerry-is-my-prez
(10,268 posts)Instead of going back to the days where women could not vote how about discouraging white men from voting. Maybe us single and married females should try to keep the men we are involved with who are going to vote Rep. from going out to vote in Election Day. Get some sports tickets for that day or movie tickets or get some sexy lingerie. I have been dismayed at how many men that I have dated have turned out to be Republicans (and eek a few Trumpsters!) I did get one guy to revert from R to D by leaving certain books around and having MSNBC on constantly.
JohnSJ
(98,883 posts)cross tabs, and it becomes even more confusing.
How do they account for those who don't answer calls from numbers they do not recognize because of all the SPAM calls? I think that number is pretty significant, and I also think that a younger demographic are the ones most likely not to answer calls from numbers they do not recognize.
So they interviewed 1695 registered voters from a list that supposedly contains demographic characteristics to "make sure they reach the right number of voters of each party, race and region." It is a live poll with a lot of questions. Who exactly is going to spend at least 30 minutes to an hour answering these personal questions from a phone number they don't recognize? Someone who has a lot of time on their hands.
There were questions in that poll which news source do they watch, and in this survey, most are watching fox and cnn, with fox viewers having a slight edge. In this survey 60% said they would definitely vote, while the rest a divided between, likely, unlikely, etc.
and in their disclaimer they give "MORE WEIGHT" to those underrepresent, like people without a college degree.
"we give more weight to respondents from demographic groups that are underrepresented among survey respondents, like people without a college degree. You can see more information about the characteristics of our respondents and the weighted sample at the bottom of the page, under “Composition of the Sample.”
So I guess they are the deciders who is under-represented, and over-represented.
Forget the polls, focus on getting out the vote, because that is the only thing that matter.
Here is disclaimers, almost as good as the financial analysts you hear on the financial network making predictions. As an aside, an analysis of the accuracy of financial newsletters, the results were that they had about a 50% accuracy. In other words, flip a coin.
"• Interviewers spoke with 1,695 registered voters across the country from Sept. 3 to 6, 2024.
• Times/Siena polls are conducted by telephone, using live interviewers, in both English and Spanish. About 96 percent of respondents were contacted on a cellphone for this poll.
• Voters are selected for the survey from a list of registered voters. The list contains information on the demographic characteristics of every registered voter, allowing us to make sure we reach the right number of voters of each party, race and region. For this poll, interviewers placed nearly 194,000 calls to nearly 104,000 voters.
• To further ensure that the results reflect the entire voting population, not just those willing to take a poll, we give more weight to respondents from demographic groups that are underrepresented among survey respondents, like people without a college degree. You can see more information about the characteristics of our respondents and the weighted sample at the bottom of the page, under “Composition of the Sample.”
• The poll’s margin of sampling error among likely voters is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points. In theory, this means that the results should reflect the views of the overall population most of the time, though many other challenges create additional sources of error. When computing the difference between two values — such as a candidate’s lead in a race — the margin of error is twice as large."
Wiz Imp
(9,974 posts)That indicates a possible significant bias to the right. A reminder that Fox news highest rated programs (Prime Time lineup) average only about 3,000,000 viewers each night which is less than 1% of the US population. Obviously, there's a lot more Fox viewers over the course of a day or week, but I don't believe (with ratings like that) that Fox is as popular as many give them credit for.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Yet if a poll shows Harris ahead none of those points show up.
helpisontheway
(5,378 posts)onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)Moreover, why is it allowed to stand?
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)Too many people think that Trump will be easy to beat. He's not. That's the takeaway from this poll.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)Give me a break. This IS Russian propaganda and it should not be allowed here.
MorbidButterflyTat
(4,495 posts)So he won't be easy to beat. And? How are you preparing? 
Initech
(108,721 posts)Because this is how it happens. And fuck you mass media, if there is one guy who shouldn't be dictator for life, it's Donald Trump. 
delisen
(7,360 posts)Only 9% want to know more about Trump
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)
sarisataka
(22,672 posts)Polls are back to MSM propaganda with made up data.
flamingdem
(40,886 posts)Crosstabs need to be checked for other changes.
obamanut2012
(29,357 posts)Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #29)
Name removed Message auto-removed
getagrip_already
(17,802 posts)Increase the number of white males in the data sample and you have skewed the results to the right.
There is no basis for assuming more white men will turn out, but there is for women. Yet they increased the male turnout expectation.
peggysue2
(12,529 posts)We know that the numbers have been running tight but showing a fairly consistent 3+ point spread for Harris since the convention. I've also been reading the Trump campaign is praying the debate will kickstart their own momentum into the final month.
All eyes will be on the National Constitutional Center. This new poll, no doubt, will heighten the interest and attention but doesn't indicate a turn in the overall race.
Does mean that there's no letting up in pushing these MAGA crazies into the Deep Blue Sea!
MorbidButterflyTat
(4,495 posts)"I've also been reading the Trump campaign is praying..."
Excuse me while I laugh my ass off. 
peggysue2
(12,529 posts)They were praying to. LOL.
I have my suspicions. 
Doodley
(11,890 posts)
Takket
(23,712 posts)you may was well quote newsmax if you are going to quote the RW propaganda outlet the NYT has become.
any sane, logical and reasoned mathematical evaluation of a poll like this would immediately identity if as a far outlier that should be discounted as a flawed poll. but the NYT has no interest in that.
i mean honestly look at the polling averages: did harris just up and lose 4% of her support overnight? That's nonsense.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
problem is polls showing harris leading get no publicity and NYT goes out and over-samples rethugs so they can blast this poll out and terrify the entire voting public into thinking drumpf is going to win.
flamingdem
(40,886 posts)
dalton99a
(94,101 posts)Response to Yavin4 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
dalton99a
(94,101 posts)
FSogol
(47,616 posts)
Wiz Imp
(9,974 posts)That would support anywhere remotely close Silver's percentages. As someone else said, it appears he just pulled them out of his ass. People definitely should stop paying any attention to him.
Rstrstx
(1,647 posts)They show Harris with a 1 to 3 point lead in MI, WI and PA and tied in GA, NV and AZ. So this poll would somehow have to be skewed even farther to the right for Trump to actually win.
Generic Brad
(14,374 posts)Voter registration, aggregate polls that actually poll more than 1,500 likely voters, fund raising and volunteers completely contradict what the Times is reporting. They have stopped being objective.
Wiz Imp
(9,974 posts)There are a lot of results to individual questions which point to the sample as being more conservative than the population in general. I'm not going to accuse the NYT of purposely skewing the poll, but based on the sample they got to respond, it does appear to be skewed to the right.
Wiz Imp
(9,974 posts)They asked if people support a policy of price controls - something neither side has proposed. Though the right has tried to call one of Harris policy proposals as "communist style price controls", she has proposed nothing of the sort. Simply asking the question dishonestly frames it according to right wing propaganda.
Also, they ask if people support the policies in Project 2025 without ever referencing even one specific policy it contains. Other polling has shown many (if not most) of the specific policies in Project 2025 are wildly unpopular with the general public. Asking about specific policies would likely generate more negative reactions even from the people who professed support for Trump (It's incredible how many Trump supporters have absolutely no clue about the actual specific policies he wants to enact. Talk about voting against your own self interests!)
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)I have said all along that this election would be close. I said that when Joe Biden was our candidate and I am predicting pretty much the same thing now that VP Harris is the candidate. Most recent polls have Kamala slightly ahead and this poll could be an outlier. We shall see.
Klarkashton
(5,280 posts)To see all the shit that happens when people say "whaaaa happened?" When the fucking reality hits.
Good fucking luck.
mobeau69
(12,374 posts)kind of class (which, unfortunately, I never inherited). I would describe her as a middle class Jackie. Anyway, she would not tolerate dad putting up yard signs at election time. Even for Kennedy. On the day Jack drove by our house on the way to the airport dad ripped a “Let’s Back Jack” sign off telephone poll on the highway and brought it home and nailed it on our mailbox post about an hour before the motorcade passed by. Only time we ever had one. It came down later that afternoon. I’d bet a lot of those women in the suburbs are just like mom. When I drive by a house without any sign(s) I think of mom and say to myself “A red hot Dem could very well live there with a wife just like dad had”.
Counting yard signs is anecdotal evidence. I know damn well maga wives are nothing like Mom.
anamnua
(1,510 posts)on this thread.
DFW
(60,169 posts)Their top behind-the-scenes operations man, David Simas, told me and some others present that around Labor Day, the poll numbers would converge and make the race seem tied. Simas told us, "this is expected, and it has been predicted for a while. We'll tear our hair out so that you don't have to. Don't worry. We will pull ahead in the weeks after that, and we will stay there."
He was 100% right, and Obama cinched re-election.
I haven't talked to David in many years, but I heard he was on board with the Harris-Walz team, which means they are VERY good hands, and we can hope for better numbers in a few weeks, or maybe sooner.
No two campaigns are alike, of course, and there were no Trumpanzees in 2012 or Russian teams of Republcian cyber help, so we can't expect history to repeat itself completely, but this one poll should not be allowed to instill panic in our ranks, either.
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)In 2012, the polls didn't converge around labor day. In fact, Obama's lead steadily grew after the conventions until early October.
On Sept. 4th, 2012, Obama had an average lead of just .1 points nationally.
On October 1st, it sat at 4 points nationally.
Then the first debate happened and that shook the race. Polling tightened, even most polls saw Romney take a very narrow lead, before Obama leveled off the bleeding and regained momentum late in the race...to win by essentially 4 points, which was his lead a month out from the election.
But talking with Harris' campaign, they're well aware how close this race is. In fact the NYT poll aligns more with what they've seen in their internala than a narrative that they're up comfortably. They do not believe they're up comfortably. They see this race as essentially a tie.
DFW
(60,169 posts)You said that the polls had Obama up by just 0.1% a day later.
How much close than one tenth of a per cent do the two numbers have to be to converge? 0.05%?
That sounds like 99.9% right to me.
Self Esteem
(2,248 posts)The polls were extremely close throughout the summer. Obama led by .8 points in June and 1.1 in July on average.
And Obama's lead collapsed a month out from Labor Day, the exact opposite of what he said would happen. Obama lost a lot of ground in early October and had to make it up by election day. He was able to and the state polling was always way more favorable to Obama than the national (why I never got too worried over the drop in support because he remained solid in PA, MI, WI and Ohio - almost the reverse for Harris whose national polls are better than her swing state polls it seems) but the polls were always consistently 0-3 or so points in Obama's favor between spring and Labor Day.
EnergizedLib
(3,028 posts)1. Ignore the poll, go vote.
2. Believe the poll, go vote.