If, as is expected RFK drops out of the race today, the charts will revert to two-way polling as all of the other candidates combined don’t amount to ■■■■■
New posts for President, Senator, and the house will be posted accordingly.
I 100% agree that makes it easy. trump or harris. choose your side.
Allan
And now, back to the subject of the thread!
Electoral Template. Change to 2-way polling. Generally, helps Trump in most swing states, but not all.
Contested states (lead is >0 but <4 and leader (over 3 pts) has broken 50% in fewer than 2 polls)
WI: Harris up 1 has broken 50% in two polls
MI: Harris up 2 has broken 50% in two polls
PA: Trump up <1 has broken 50% in one poll
GA: Trump up <1 Both have broken 50% in one poll
AZ: Trump up <1 has not broken 50% in any poll
NC: Trump up <1 has broken 50% in one poll
NV: Trump up <1 has not broken 50% in any poll
Note: Harris has broken 50% in two AZ polls
Note: Harris has broken 50% in one poll in NV
Competitive (lead is >3 but <7 and leader (over 6) has broken 50% in fewer than 2 polls)
VA: Harris up 4 has not broken 50% in any poll
NH: Harris up 5 has broken 50% in three polls.
FL: Trump up 6+ has broken 50% in one poll
Marginal (lead is >6 but <9 and leader (over 8) has broken 50% in fewer than 3 polls)
MN: Harris up 8 has broken 50% in two polls
OH: Trump up 8+ has broken 50% in two polls
*Note: This data includes 2-way polling since RFK has now dropped out.
Note: If Trump wins the states he is currently leading he wins.
ETA: I would have said that post-convention Harris would have gotten a slight bump of a point or so putting her back in the lead, but I think RFK took the wind from those sails.
Senate races are largely solidifying with the GOP ending up with 51 seats.
Latest Senate Math: MT slipping away from Democrats would be the 51st seat.
Contested (lead is >0 but <4, 3 if incumbent w/1 poll over 50)
None
Competitive (lead is >3i w/50 but <7, 6 if incumbent w/1 poll over 50)
MT: Sheehy(R) up 5 has broken 50% in three polls
MI: Slotkin(D) up 5 has broken 50% in two polls
OH: Brown(D) up 5 has broken 50% in two polls
FL: Scott(R) up 5+ pts has not broken 50% in any poll
NJ: Kim(D) up 6 has not broken 50% in any poll
MD: Alsobrooks up 6 has not broken 50% in any poll
Note: MT and AZ move from contested to competitive
Note: MD is tied, the polls showing Alsobrooks leading are all over 2 months old
Marginal (leading candidate up >6i w/50 but <9, 8 if incumbent w/1 poll over 50)
AZ: Gallego(D) up 7+ has broken 50% in four polls
TX: Cruz(R) up 7+ has broken 50% in two poll
NM: Heinrich is up 7 has not broken 50% in any poll
PA: Casey up 7+ pts has broken 50% in two polls
Note: NV moves off the list
Note: TX back on Marginal list
Note: WI lead is only 6+, but over 50% in 9 polls
Note: Bold denotes a possible flip
GOP must hold FL and TX and take any other seat for an outright majority. If Trump wins, they need only hold FL and TX
DEMs must hold all of their seats plus take FL or TX to keep a majority, or all except FL and TX if Harris wins
Note: If the Presidential race is tied, Trump will become President, but if the Senate is in the balance (50/50) Democrats could make Harris or Walz VP in order to hold the Senate.
The following races are the races that all of the pundit sites (Silver, Cook, DDHQ and Rotherberg) agree either will flip or stand the greatest chance of flipping:
Dem to GOP (Total gains: GOP+5)
NC-1/R+1 District; PA-8/R+4 District; NC-6/Redistricting;
NC-13/Redistricting; NC-14/Redistricting
GOP to Dem (Total gains: Dem+4)
NY-17/D+3 District; LA-6/Redistricting; AL-2/Redistricting;
NY-22/D+5 District
Note: In all other contested districts all of the pundit sites rate the remaining races toss ups or give a slight edge to the incumbent party.
Other House seats with the opportunity to flip (by party demographics) open seat most vulnerable
Contested (R1 to D1 or Incumbent underwater)
CA13(R)…CA27(R)…CO08(D)…MI07(D)…NM02(D)…OR05(R)
MI08(D)…OH13(D)…PA07(D)…WA08(D)…ME02(D)…OH09(D)
PA17(D)…NJ07(R)…NY19(R)…AK01(D)…CA22(R)…NY04(R)
CA45(R)…MN02(D)…NV03(D)…NH01(D)…MI03(D)…KS03(D)
VA07(D)…TX15(R)…PA01(R)…PA10(R)…WA03(D)
11R, 16D Most Vulnerable: 7R, 9D
Competitive R2-R4 and D2-D4
CA47(D)…AZ01(R)…OH01(D)…VA02(R)…AZ06(R)…CA41(R)
IA03(R)…WI03(R)…CA49(D)…MD06(D)…NV01(D)…NH02(D)
CT05(D)…IL13(D)…IN01(D)…NY18(D)…OR06(D)…TX28(D)
NV04(D)…NE02(R)…OR04(D)…CA03(R)…CA40(R)…IA01(R)
NY01(R)…WI01(R)…MI10(R)…GA02(D)…TX34(D)
12R, 16D Most Vulnerable: 4R, 0D
Note: Vulnerability is based on party demographics for the district >+2 underwater or recent redistricting changes making the seat more competitive with a party demographic switch.
Some of this is supported by polling now, but the polls are mostly candidate internal polls.
The pollsters are playing some games as well over polling dems.
I trust none of the polls.
I have found its mostly over polling women or those who voted Biden in 2020.
3 Likes
Now there is an unbiased demographic if I ever saw one. 
I don’t think you understand how polling works.
Suppose you tell us how it works.
one of us doesn’t. Pretty sure its you.
When polling in a state that Biden won by 0.38% what happens to a poll that interviews 6% more Biden voters than Trump voters?
When polling in general what happens when you poll 10% more women than men when voting patterns show 3% more women vote than men?
When you poll 4X as many black voters as hispanic?
Do you think they might be a little skewed?
1 Like
By our nature, conservatives tend to refuse to participate in polls. That makes it very difficult to assemble a neutral poll without going to considerable effort, which most pollsters do not, thus producing skewed results. Just today, for example, I received a request to participate in a poll text … which I deleted without even looking to see who was asking or what it was about.
1 Like
Interesting.
The RCP average has Kamala +1.7 Nationally.
RCP arbitrarily takes the simple average of the last 8 polls (only using the most recent version of any poll that shows up twice).
I think this is a poor way of reflecting where the numbers really are, but it is RCPs average and it is what it is.
However, if you take a look at all 20 polls since Harris announced (again only using the most recent of any poll that shows up twice)…
Lo and behold Harris is +3.4 Nationally.
Double the RCP advertised number.
The next day or two should see a bunch of post convention polls drop and it will be very interesting.
If the poll numbers for Harris do not decline or keep ticking upwards, Trump supporters will start to pivot from the honeymoon effect to the polls are skewed, not using the right formulas, not asking the right questions, only polling dems, conveniently forgetting these are the same polls not too long ago they were crowing about showing how Trump was going to easily walk back into the WH.
Personally I think too much importance is put on polls regardless of who is showing in front and that has always been my position.
1 Like
they won’t likely change at all.
correct. its all about getting people to mail in their ballots and getting people
to the polls in battleground states. GOTV efforts is not reflected in Polls.
candidate who does that the best will most likely be the next POTUS.
Allan
I for one lie in any and all polls. Even in those annoying YouTube ads that ask questions
Then Why not lie in the voting booth?
Nobody will ever know
Vote Harris! 
.
2 Likes
Yeah thinking about I tend to agree.
Definitely interesting info you are posting so thanks for that.
I’m thinking about incorporating 538 polls that don’t show up in the averages but have not made up my mind yet, many of those are internals or party pollsters and I don’t really trust them. The ones in RCP all seem to be in 538 too, so all thats missing are the internals and the odd ducks. I may however reconfigure averages to show only the last 30 days. That, I think I will do. RCP has some older polls in their averages that aren’t worth spit.
1 Like
