• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    TL;DR because they’re paid to say it’s going to be good for them while, in actuality, if the candidates were tied on election day Democrats would lose big due to gerrymandering and the electoral college.

    I am hopeful the outcomes improve, though.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Because she’s polling higher than Biden. That’s the reason. In a few days we’ll have better data. If equal numbers continues into a trend then that’s good because she’s already brought people back on side. Obviously if her numbers go above Trump that’s just great news all around. But this is breathing life into what was a dead campaign.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is the very first round of polling and she’s already doing better than Biden could have dreamed.

      • Icalasari@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Plus, the polls keep underestimating the turn out for Democrats ever since Trump’s first term

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          This is just not true. I’ve seen it repeated several times today. Not sure where you picked it up but its patently false.

          Biden under-performed his polling across the board by 4%. He did worse than the polls projected him to do.

          It should have been a barn-burner. It was a squeaker.

          • Icalasari@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Picked it up from another post where the poster was posting the numbers and theorizing that polls got less accurate because they are getting mostly landlines as people don’t tend to answer unknown numbers on their smart phones

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yeah, whoever that is, dont listen to them. They do not know what they are talking about.

              Here is the right answer:

              https://lemmy.world/post/15291274?scrollToComments=true

              Biden’s results came in at an average of -4 to where polling in Oct/November told us he would be. Trump’s results came in at an average of +8 to what we expected from the same polling window.

              The data we have says that polls currently over estimate Democratic performance in presidential elections. In estimating polling advantage going into this, we should give Trump +8 like we saw in 2020 (we saw a similar number in 2016). We should give Harris a 0 (no advantage/ disadvantage).

              This means that Democrats need to be +8 on Trump in the aggregate to break even. I think this is very very doable, but consider that Biden has been -1 to -10 on Trump for over 500 days. This would translate to a -13 to minus -23 polling disadvantage for Biden. Its why everyone who knows anything has been saying Biden doesn’t stand a chance since December.

            • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s correct. Very few people under 50 answer the phone if they don’t recognize the number. Biden didn’t underperform, and definitely not by 8%. Doesn’t anyone remember Georgia?

              Black women (and others) handed him an upset victory. Here’s the polls: Biden was supposed to win by a percent.

              https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2020/georgia/

              He won by half a percent:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Georgia