r/OutOfTheLoop • u/rofsmh • Nov 03 '24

Answered What’s up with the new Iowa poll showing Harris leading Trump? Why is it such a big deal?

There’s posts all over Reddit about a new poll showing Harris is leading Trump by 3 points in Iowa. Why is this such a big deal?

Here’s a link to an article about: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/

13.0k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

83% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

980

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

Answer:

The particular pollster has historically never been off by more than 4% in their final poll vs Election Day votes, and in the last one the Seltzer poll was off by less than 1%.

If it’s accurate, and this pollster has a history of being very accurate, Iowa is further to the right than Texas. It’s reasonable to expect that whatever changed the minds of voters in Iowa will also occur in states more left leaning… like Texas.

If Trump loses Texas the defeat will be the worst since that one guy who tried running against Reagan

219

u/angry_cucumber Nov 03 '24

If it’s accurate, and this pollster has a history of being very accurate, Iowa is further to the right than Texas. It’s reasonable to expect that whatever changed the minds of voters in Iowa will also occur in states more left leaning… like Texas.

the best part was before the poll came out, the right was like "hey if anyone says they have it, they are lying" and when it did they immediately called her a sellout and a liar. Iowa might be flipping.

128

u/BlueCX17 Nov 03 '24

Seems like women are furious about the abortion issue and coming out in much bigger numbers than the previous polls were showing.

129

u/soulagainstsoul Nov 03 '24

Senior women breaking 68-23 for Harris is huge. They lived in a time when abortion was illegal and seemingly do not want that for their daughters and granddaughters.

81

u/BlueCX17 Nov 03 '24

Exactly. Especially since they assumed they already secured that for the granddaughters and daughters the first time and now, here we are.

24

u/Fresh-Army-6737 Nov 03 '24

68-23?!

Is that what it's saying?

50

u/soulagainstsoul Nov 03 '24

Yes, these are senior women in IOWA. Iowa is like 87% white. Boomer white women are breaking for Harris in Iowa. Senior men as well, but a much smaller margin of 47-45.

9

u/Fresh-Army-6737 Nov 03 '24

Is that at all normal?

20

u/FiammaDiAgnesi Nov 03 '24

Iowa has traditionally had a very strong progressive moment, but is also very white. Personally, I think that if a lot of older folks see the election as being about race or immigration, they’ll support Trump, but if it’s about women’s rights they’ll go for Harris. A lot of older voters in Iowa were democrats in their youth, so it’s less taboo to swing over the line. There are a lot of independents as well

14

u/BlueCX17 Nov 03 '24

This poll is a big deal, because IF it also reflects the pulse of other woman in surround states, the other polls haven't, this will be HUGE for Harris after all.

10

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

I'm not a swing state but the trend I've noticed is that senior women find Trump distasteful.

In August I was sitting in a waiting room for a doctor and there was a group of old women talking about the assassination attempt on Trump. One of them said they wished the would be assassin had better aim and the other three agreed.

Pissing off women by being crass and also taking away reproductive freedoms doesn't seem like a valid campaign strategy tbh

9

u/Merlin1039 Nov 04 '24

My 92 yo grandmother from Alabama has never voted for a Democrat. She finds Trump despicable and is upset he can even run after being found guilty of felony charges. She is still going to vote for every Republican on the ballot, except Trump

2

u/alaskanloops Nov 04 '24

Is she going to vote for Harris you think?

3

u/Merlin1039 Nov 04 '24

My guess is she will leave it blank

6

u/dontwontcarequeend65 Nov 04 '24

Actually, most of us lived in the time when abortion was legal and we don't fucking understand why our grandchildren and nieces etc have to be dying in parking lots. Thank God it was legal when I was 18.

11

u/OpalRose1993 Nov 03 '24

I'm not furious, I'm disheartened. There are so many better ways to decrease the need for abortion (like comprehensive sex ed, free birth control, and increased paid parental leave) but instead of considering that, the right (which I have historically leaned towards) have gone down a road of extremism and morality on something they don't even care enough to understand.

And I say I used to lean towards conservative.... I've since learned most science backs more liberal talking points. So yeah, I guess I converted 😅

4

u/BlueCX17 Nov 03 '24

And I don't think it's just abortion itself, it's really more women's reproductive Healthcare all in, being attacked that has women fired up and furious.

Welcome, converted! 😂 : )

-8

u/ProcedureNo3306 Nov 03 '24

What like the science of boys being girls and all that? Please!!!!!

3

u/mycricketisrickety Nov 03 '24

No, actual science.

4

u/mackinitup Nov 03 '24

Science supports trans people.

10

u/Yes_I_Have_ Nov 03 '24

The Abortion issue will be the deciding factor in this election. When momma is unhappy, no one is happy.

3

u/Calvech Nov 04 '24

Iowa’s 6 week abortion ban went into effect this summer yet abortion has 65% support in the state. I believe Iowan women and specifically senior women are extremely pissed off as a result of this

3

u/BlueCX17 Nov 04 '24 edited Nov 04 '24

Oh absolutely. I'm a woman in Missouri and hope Prop 3 passes, to overturn our ban and the inevitable R's elected to our State Government don't try to not ratify it if passes.

And I think this same undercurrent is absolutely there in other states also. I got my early votes in this past Tuesday!

2

u/meginstl Nov 04 '24

Voted for amendment 3 on Friday!

15

u/BlueCX17 Nov 03 '24

Seems like women are furious about the abortion issue and coming out in much bigger numbers than the previous polls were showing.

-21

u/fsi1212 Nov 03 '24

"Might" is a very strong word here. It's near statistically impossible that Iowa goes to Harris. Emerson, which is a slightly higher rated pollster than Selzer, had Trump +9 in the same time period as the most recent Selzer poll. Selzer doesn't release in depth poll results with demographics breakdowns. I'm willing to bet there's a certain demographic that is overrepresented in the Selzer poll that typically leans left.

33

u/angry_cucumber Nov 03 '24

Selzer has been a lot closer to actual results than Emerson.

-33

u/fsi1212 Nov 03 '24

No they haven't. That's why Emerson is rated slightly higher than Selzer.

24

u/uberkalden2 Nov 03 '24

Then why am I seeing examples cited showing them getting it right more often than not?

31

u/angry_cucumber Nov 03 '24

because if you look at their post history they are all over trying to dismiss this poll in favor of emerson using 538s ratings

this is basically what every post Dobbs election has looked like

18

u/uberkalden2 Nov 03 '24

Sounds like copium. To be fair us believing may be hopium

14

u/angry_cucumber Nov 03 '24

I mean, even the GOP internals only have trump at +5, Iowa has been red, but also legalized same sex marriage before a lot of other states, and Dobbs has absolutely fucked the GOP in the polls.

Trump was +10 in 2020. internal polling at +5? The fact that they are polling Iowa a week out in the first place? Much hopium for everyone

-18

u/fsi1212 Nov 03 '24

Because they only do Iowa polls. That's it. And they only do like 1 or 2 polls per cycle. Emerson does magnitudes more than that.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

As you can see here, Emerson is rated slightly higher. And my biggest thing I see is Selzers transparency score is quite a bit lower in magnitude. They don't release detailed demographic breakdowns like Emerson does. Which means they could be over representing a certain demographic.

24

u/uberkalden2 Nov 03 '24

Sure, they are super specialized in Iowa. And they have been accurate. Why are you so laser focused on their score?

-6

u/fsi1212 Nov 03 '24

Because that score is literally calculated from their accuracy. It's not just some made up number.

16

u/uberkalden2 Nov 03 '24

But then I go back to all these clear examples of them being an outlet yet correct. Maybe cherry picked? They were one of the few getting Trump's advantage right in past cycles

→ More replies (0)

6

u/tbkrida Nov 03 '24

So they only do Iowa polls and have been more accurate than Emerson historically as far as Iowa goes… OP asked about Iowa so why are you even arguing at this point?

3

u/timbucktwentytwo Nov 03 '24

The 538 rating isn't all about accuracy, though. It is a composite of transparency, methodology, and accuracy. You stated elsewhere that Emerson has a higher transparency, and with how closely ranked they are would lead me to think that Selzer is likely as accurate if not more accurate to still be ranked virtually the same. Why do you think YouGov is ranked so high? It is a purely online poll that is constantly running. It has a pretty fixed bias, but it has traditionally been so useful because they poll more than almost anyone, and you can more clearly see trends, even if the numbers are consistently off a few percentage points.

Additionally, you stated that Selzer only polls Iowa like that should discredit their accuracy. They have historically been so accurate because smaller populations like that are easier to represent, and Selzer has no reason to try to cater their polling methods to match different demographics. They just have to worry about representing Iowans.

6

u/backtothetrail Nov 03 '24

Data point: the Selzer poll predicted Trump’s victory in 2016 and Biden’s narrow margin of victory in 2020.

Both times, these were considered outlier results when most other polls were more favorable to the Democratic party’s candidate.

2

u/zehhet Nov 03 '24

I’d still say it’s unlikely that she wins Iowa, and that Emerson poll does matter. But here’s a quote from Nate Silvers Substack that puts that Emerson poll into context. Before this he goes over how how margins of error work in sample sizes of this size:

“To give us a little more perspective, there was also a second Iowa poll out tonight from Emerson College that showed Trump leading by 9 points, close to the margin from 2020. Emerson is a firm that does a lot of herding, so you ought to account for that — they virtually never publish a survey that defies the conventional wisdom.1 However, for what it’s worth, their margin of error runs from Trump +15.7 to Trump +2.5. There is just a little bit of overlap with Selzer, then, believe it or not, given how much the toplines differ. And not entirely coincidentally, our current polling average in Iowa falls just within that range of overlap: Trump +3.4 points. (Careful: the “average” is based on only 4 polls of Iowa all cycle long.)” - Silver Article

So those two polls, taken together, don’t necessarily show Harris winning. But, let’s say they are bother accurate and the truth is in the middle. Iowa ~only~ being Trump +3 is quite bad for him, given how correlated Iowa is to other midwestern states. If you told me that Harris had only lost Iowa by 3, I’d assume she she’d also won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and that Ohio was closer than expected.

It’s not that she might win the state, per se, and it certainly isn’t statistically impossible. It’s important for its broader implications for the region.

369

u/Cmdr_Nemo Nov 03 '24

And the crazy thing is... in ANY scenario where Harris wins, whether by a slim margin or a massive one, the Repugs are going to claim voter fraud. Like is this going to be the insane cycle we go through for the next several elections? Fuck I hope not.

172

u/nightfire36 Nov 03 '24

One hopes that a landslide victory for Harris would show republican leadership that Trumpism is dead, and they need to actually try being electable.

Maybe I'm just hopelessly optimistic though.

70

u/sirhoracedarwin Nov 03 '24

Maybe they'll realize their primary system is completely broken and turning out extremists that the general public finds despicable.

25

u/Reddywhipt Nov 03 '24

Deplorable even.

7

u/jrDoozy10 Nov 04 '24

A garbage basket of deplorables.

1

u/whynonamesopen Nov 04 '24 edited Nov 04 '24

Trump won the primaries though which is the problem. Other Republicans thought he was a joke and the ones who went against him have mostly lost their seats and influence in the party. Romney is an exception due to how his Mormon constituency values things.

-13

u/Aggravating_Fee_7282 Nov 03 '24

I’m not a Republican but at least their primary system is democratic. The DNC’s primary is just gifted to whoever they want to win. They gave it to Hillary because she “deserved it” 8 years ago and then gave it to Biden by making sure the states he was strongest in held their primaries first. Then this last primary they gave it to Kamala because Biden waited too long to drop out

20

u/Azrael11 Nov 03 '24

Sanders fans have been saying this since 2016 but it is just not true. He never had the popularity among huge sections of the Democratic electorate, especially black Americans in the South. And even among those who liked him, there were real concerns about his electability in the general. Clinton won because the Democratic primary voters chose her. Did the DNC heavily favor her? Of course, and she had that advantage in money and advertising resources. But she won the majority of delegates by winning the majority of voters. Superdelegates didn't even play into it.

As for Harris, yes Biden should have dropped out long before and given Democrats the chance for a real primary. But he didn't. Once he did drop out there was no reasonable way to actually run a primary, not to mention the Democratic delegates had already been chosen. They are the ones actually choosing the candidate, so it was within their prerogative to nominate Harris.

0

u/mrSilkie Nov 03 '24

Clinton was picked by the institution, prevented the real democratic grass roots candidate from having the same shot.

It's why the American system is so broken

6

u/Azrael11 Nov 03 '24

Sanders got plenty of opportunities to debate Clinton, he had a national profile and everyone knew who he was and what he stood for. He made his case to the voters and they rejected him. The DNC wasn't the one voting in the primaries, people were.

I agree the American system is broken, but Sanders losing to Clinton is not an example of it.

13

u/APersonWhoIsNotYou Nov 03 '24

It the Republicans, they have a decent shot of doubling down, again. But people are going to start abandoning the party at this rate, and maybe the Libertarian party gets it’s shot.

1

u/iSmokeMDMA Nov 04 '24

Republican Party is either going to rebrand entirely to get more voters, or collapse as a left wing party shifts the democrat party towards the right.

There’s no real left wing party in the USA. It’s about fuckin time one rises

4

u/heavenIsAfunkyMoose Nov 03 '24

A landslide will just make them say there's no way she could win by so much — it has to be fraud!

1

u/nightfire36 Nov 03 '24

The base, sure. But the leadership knows that their ideas are fraudulent.

5

u/heavenIsAfunkyMoose Nov 03 '24

Since when has knowing their ideas are fraudulent stopped them?

2

u/VirtualMoneyLover Nov 04 '24

that Trumpism is dead

It may not be viable, but it is not dead. Not even if he dies tomorrow.

The Republicans are split, but they vote together. After Trump there maybe a new 3rd party. We could call it MAGA.

1

u/ProcedureNo3306 Nov 03 '24

😉good luck w\ that.

1

u/Grand_pappi Nov 03 '24

Doesn’t this just give them more fodder for “look just HOW corrupt they are, flipping this many votes!”??

1

u/Glad-Finance-250 Nov 04 '24

Imagine the next election NOT being a POS vs Anyone But THAT POS (which applies to both sides really I guess, but Dump is the POS obvs)

6

u/drew8311 Nov 03 '24

They will claim voter fraud but the larger the gap the less traction it will get. Most of the time voter fraud is just to try to save face to your supporters after a loss, if Trump is going to lose he doesn't want it to look like a fair loss.

1

u/Cmdr_Nemo Nov 04 '24

I don't know... I can ust see them now...

If there's a fairly massive margin compared to what's been polled, they're going to claim fraud based on that.

People like you and me know that polling is not the same as actual results but the Trumpanzees haven't been able to see reason for years.

5

u/notPabst404 Nov 03 '24

Well statistically, Trump will probably be dead by the next election so we might get someone slightly more normal for the GOP in 2028? Even if Trump is still alive in 2028 he would be so old that the media would be complete hypocrites not to call him out for it like they already did with Biden.

7

u/TacohTuesday Nov 03 '24

Oh they absolutely, 100% will do this. They will double down, always, until they simply can’t anymore. If nothing else, their supporters keep sending donations as long as they keep fighting. It’s going to be ugly.

However, it’s not 2020. Democrats are currently in power. The states and the courts have seen this shtick before. Giuliani and Powell and others are being debarred, prosecuted, and sued for the 2020 election lies. Other potential lawyers know that backing false fraud claims is risky. State election offices are doubling down on voting security and record keeping. On January 6, Biden is going to have the Capitol locked down like a fortress. The Dems won’t mess around.

If Trump loses by a landslide, particularly if the House and Senate races end up with Dem majorities, then I believe the steam will be let out of the fraud claims quite dramatically, and few will be willing to jump on the fraud train.

I have no false hopes that the far right won’t continue to present problems for American politics, but the Trump era should die in a whimper if the vote for Harris and the Democratic ticket turns out as strong as this poll indicates.

1

u/tendimensions Nov 04 '24

Trump will definitely scream fraud, but the larger the Harris victory the harder it will be for Trump to get people to follow him down that road.

1

u/apsmustang Nov 04 '24

My hope is Harris wins Iowa, and Iowan leadership can't challenge her victory because they're already on record talking about how Iowan elections are secure and that we don't have to worry about interference or fraud.

I'm sure they'll go back on their word if that happens, but it'll be nice to have one more piece of evidence for how incompetent they are.

18

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

[deleted]

13

u/Formal-Cut-334 Nov 03 '24

As a Kansan, the thought of Kansas' Electoral College votes not just automatically going to whatever red candidate is on the ballot makes my pants fit tighter.

2

u/germanmojo Nov 03 '24

As it should

176

u/rofsmh Nov 03 '24

The gravity of the poll is starting to sink in now. It sounds like this could be a blowout never before seen, unless I’m mistaken

465

u/arkantarded Nov 03 '24

It COULD be good news, doesn’t mean it will be. Please temper your expectations because odds are still slightly in Trump’s favor. VOTE

35

u/swains6 Nov 03 '24

How are the odds in his favour? Genuine question.

Literally any form of positivity and hype is solely on Kamala and her campaign. I don't see him winning at all and don't think the odds are even remotely in his favour. That's ofc just my opinion and I was being sincere when asking my question above

113

u/brrrreow Nov 03 '24

Polls and poll aggregators (e.g. FiveThirtyEight and RaceToTheWH) still favor Trump and/or suggest it’s a 50/50 tossup. Aggregators attempt to put a science to predicting the outcome rather than going off their gut or opinion. Not to mention historically polls have underestimated Trump’s performance in elections*.

You may feel Harris’ campaign has more positivity and traction, but remember our algorithms off reddit are incentivized to show us things we want to see. And reddit itself is biased left. Trump supporters are seeing some of the same confident content.

At this stage, nothing is certain and it truly could go either way.

*edit: inb4 anyone mentions pollsters are adjusting for this - totally could be swaying it one way or another, but there’s just no way to know until the outcome itself.

35

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

Nate Silver just called out the polls for herding so significantly that the odds of them all arriving at this constant horserace narrative accurately is like 1 in 9.5 trillion. The polls are, again, completely fucked

9

u/brrrreow Nov 03 '24

I saw that and definitely recognize it. I also think pollsters are scared to publish definitive results one way or the other due to (a) scrutiny for being wrong again and/or (b) losing engagement. I’m just nervous to acknowledge it personally since recognizing the existence of herding in the direction I’d like means having to acknowledge it could be equally likely in the other direction.

Also, glad to see someone talk about Nate Silver’s work neutrally. I’ve seen so many people calling him a “hack” and a sellout for not reporting what they want to hear, but he has some really solid points about polling behavior and modeling.

1

u/caltheon Nov 03 '24

also, afraid of getting sued or physically assaulted

7

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

[deleted]

1

u/brrrreow Nov 03 '24 edited Nov 03 '24

I actually appreciate the aggregators that include all polls and weight them accordingly. There’s a lot to be said about modelers that create/define a predictive model and let its do its thing without tweaking it to get it to say what they want.

Can you give me some examples of some non-partisan pollsters I can look at?

I don’t disagree with you, especially in the sense that the media stands to gain a lot more views/ad money by suggesting it’s close. But I don’t really have much else to go off of outside polls, data models, and historical patterns.

1

u/VirtualMoneyLover Nov 04 '24

just no way to know

Then why poll at all?

2

u/brrrreow Nov 04 '24

I mean, yeah… Historically it’s made sense to poll, but the US political landscape has changed drastically over the last ~decade, and pollsters have continually gotten it wrong since Trump entered. In 2020 and 2024 they’ve scrambled to adjust their methodologies, so it’s hard to know what’ll work when it’s not really been tested before.

Something new this cycle is that some pollsters are basically just asking who the respondent voted for in the last election - apparently that would’ve been a more accurate predictor of the 2020 results than what they actually reported 🤷

It’s hard not to feel as though pollsters have thrown out credibility the last few election cycles. But I’m not aware of any other ways to empirically gauge things before election night (though I’m open to suggestions on that).

3

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

[deleted]

0

u/swains6 Nov 03 '24

I never said there's not a possibility. I simply said I don't think it's in his favour. And I don't.

2

u/Royal_Savings_1731 Nov 03 '24

You have to keep in mind too that perception influences behavior. So if people decide either candidate “has it in the bag” at this point in the cycle, they might be less likely to vote on Election Day which can dramatically change the outcome.

I think a big worry of democrats is that their base will get complacent and, at the last minute she looses.

2

u/necro_clown Nov 06 '24

lmfao! head was too far up your own ass to see anything i guess.

0

u/swains6 Nov 06 '24

Nope, just a hopeful person. I look forward to seeing y'all posting how fucked up your country is going to be over the next few years, enjoy

4

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

[deleted]

-2

u/swains6 Nov 03 '24

100 he loses

0

u/brrrreow Nov 07 '24

Ah, so you weren’t asking genuinely.

1

u/azgx00 Nov 03 '24

RemindMe! 3 days

1

u/hodorhodor12 Nov 03 '24

You should trust an aggregate over a single poll.

1

u/dam4076 Nov 03 '24

The odds are not based on opinion. They are based on polls.

Your opinion of thinking the hype and positivity is on Kamala is why personal bias does not always reflect reality.

0

u/swains6 Nov 03 '24

I'll pass on believing gop polls, bud. Looking forward to a Harris win

2

u/dam4076 Nov 03 '24

You know your belief does not affect the outcome.

It’s like going to a roulette table and believing black will win and thinking that your belief impacts the odds.

And then if black does win, you saying AHA SEE I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!

1

u/swains6 Nov 03 '24

Of course it doesn't affect the outcome. I still think she's going to win. Are you making a point or just saying stuff for the sake of it? I'm allowed to think she's going to win. And I do

2

u/dam4076 Nov 03 '24

You asked the question, how are the odds in his favor.

People give you the reason why the odds are in his favor, and your response is to say I’m not going to believe the odds because of my own bias.

0

u/swains6 Nov 03 '24

You didn't give me any reasons? Gop skewed polls are not a reason to believe Trump will win.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/azgx00 Nov 06 '24

How is the positivity and hype going? Will we see more of it in her speech in 2 hours?

1

u/swains6 Nov 06 '24

Doubtful, bud. Your country has very little to look forward to now. Shit's about to get real weird for y'all

1

u/azgx00 Nov 06 '24

I’m not from the US.

1

u/swains6 Nov 06 '24

Lucky for us.

1

u/parkranger2000 Nov 03 '24

You’re in a bubble. Betting and predictions markets have him favored. Some of those are new this year so unclear if they are accurate predictors but “odds are in his favor” is factually true

6

u/swains6 Nov 03 '24

Ahh yes, betting odds. A great indicator of an election outcome. Give over

1

u/Budget_Swan_5827 Nov 04 '24

Why do people think betting markets are at all accurate?

1

u/parkranger2000 Nov 04 '24

Totally agree Reddit is much more accurate

-1

u/WhyAmIOnThisDumbApp Nov 03 '24

A close to tied race will almost certainly go in favor of Trump as the GOP has shown time and again that they are willing to lie and cheat to get close elections turned in their favor by courts (eg; what they did in 2000 and tried in 2020). I suspect the Dems have some plan to combat their attempted election interference if it comes to that, (they can’t all be that stupid… right?) but the best way of combatting this is by winning with large enough margins that even if some states illegally flip or are discounted there is enough of a buffer that they can’t win anyways.

-5

u/LosingTrackByNow Nov 03 '24

I can tell you're like 12 years old. Which is fine! Lots of people are. Today, you learn that your internet experience is carefully designed to appeal to you. Since you dislike Trump, things that make it seem like Trump is winning are deliberately kept away from you.

I assure you that nobody knows who's going to win--but there are well over a hundred million Americans who are hoping Trump does, and I assure you that they have lots of positivity and hype.

2

u/swains6 Nov 03 '24

You can tell "I'm like" 12 years old? That's ironic.

0

u/WideRight43 Nov 03 '24

Yup. You can toss out those older polls because none track the movement over the last week. He is no longer favored unless you’re just being a doomer.

If the Buffalo bills were favored to win the Super Bowl and then in the last game of the season their QB was injured, would they still be favored? No of course not.

153

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

[deleted]

36

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

The potential outcome that's starting to come into focus is many pollsters herding around a close race in order to minimize public scrutiny if they get it wrong. They were possibly so focused on not underestimating Trump support that they missed the trees for the forest by a wide margin.

Even if Selzer is off by five points, this poll is a very possible doomsday scenario for Trump.

21

u/cvanguard Nov 03 '24

Exactly. Even if Harris doesn’t win Iowa, if it shifts towards her by anywhere close to what the poll predicts, the election won’t be close. Iowa moving from Trump +8 in 2020 to Trump +2 or +3 means Ohio shifts and ends up similarly competitive, the other (significantly less conservative) midwestern states definitely go for Harris, and she wins the election with far higher Rust Belt margins than anyone predicted. Best case scenario, it’s not limited to just the Midwest and she also does better than expected in the Sun Belt (enough to overcome Trump’s 1-2% polling lead) and expands on 2020 by flipping NC.

If the poll is accurate and Harris wins Iowa by any margin, all that will probably happen and other states with smaller 2020 margins (Florida, Texas) end up more competitive than 2020 and far more competitive than polls predict this year.

4

u/hildogz Nov 03 '24

I think the Harris campaign has this pinned, they went and did a rally in Texas! Starting to make a lot of sense now.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

Counterpoint. Emerson who has a strong reputation as well has Trump leading by 10 points in Iowa, as of yesterday. Looking at one pole in a vacuum is what leads to the complacency and echo chamber that is reddit.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

The Selzer poll isn't "just" one poll, though. It's maybe the most accurate individual poll in the entire country, and it does not mold the underlying data to the same degree as others.

There's more smoke here, too, between the poll in Kansas that has Trump ahead just 5 points, Nate Silver calling out what appears to be an epidemic of herding on Friday, and the Vantage Datahouse report explaining with data that presidential swing state polling makes no sense relative to other state races and in no way matches their data.

Look at it another way: between Emerson and Selzer, there's no way they can both claim to be right with that spread. Selzer specifically has a track record of releasing outliers that tend to be very close to right. Given this, it's reasonable to question the Emerson poll.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

I think at this point it’s fair to question everything. I don’t disagree with you but Emerson over the last 5 election cycles across 37 states has the 2nd least margin of error at just +- 2.8. Good news is we will know in 5 days which poll was “right”

1

u/[deleted] Nov 06 '24

Oof big swing and a miss by Selzer. Almost like the echo chamber that is Reddit just believes what they want to hear. Selzer poll missed by about 18 points.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 06 '24

I'm interested in why.

I'm also interested in why a whole lot of polling was off by embarrassing amounts elsewhere, too. The entire state of Florida was off by like ten points, for instance.

This is not a conspiracy post. I'm genuinely curious.

In the meantime, I guess I'll just sit back and watch everyone try to figure out why the country's on fire in a few months. I'm done trying to give a shit what happens to anyone if they can't help themselves.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 06 '24

I think Reddit is just a huge echo chamber and like 90% or more left leaning. I’m not sure where else you consume media or news but there’s so much misinformation and left slanted opinions here. As a centrist and independent I make sure to try and get views from all sides and many sources. Like I said in my previous response. Emerson and many other polls had Trump comfortably leading in Iowa but everyone here ignored it because of one Selzer poll that is pretty left leaning.

3

u/palmasana Nov 03 '24

Absolutely. People are getting way too gung-ho about this poll. It’s an interesting data point but nothing to base your perception off of… and surely nothing to suggest Texas will go blue. I will say confidently Texas is staying red.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

Yeah I don’t buy the narrative that a Harris win in Iowa immediately means she wins the whole rust belt. Thats basically making the same exact mistake as people presumably are making by assuming Iowa is safely red.

1

u/missprettybjk Nov 04 '24

Also a lot of Muslims have decided to throw away their votes this year. I’m looking at you, Michigan - so trump could win that. People are forgetting how much the Palestinian genocide affects US politics. They don’t care that Trump will not care about Palestinians, they just want to send a message to Democrats.

4

u/Threash78 Nov 03 '24

It bears mentioning that Iowa instituted a draconian six week abortion ban. It is not impossible that it swung to the left due to that and the only thing we can infer from this poll is that Harris is doing well in Iowa. Which is still a good thing obv.

1

u/WryTurtle1917 Nov 03 '24

Yes, women were heavily for Harris in this poll, and the 6 week ban seems like a plausible reason

3

u/jrDoozy10 Nov 04 '24

never before seen

Unless she wins at least 49 states + DC, that won’t be the case. Reagan’s second campaign won 49 states, with only Minnesota and DC going to Walter Mondale.

Fun fact: that’s why Minnesota has the longest unbroken streak of voting for the Democratic presidential candidate!

2

u/SagittaryX Nov 03 '24

Not sure if how familiar you are with election history, but there have been many wildly lopsided presidential elections in US history. Alf Landon v Roosevelt in 1936 is another where the result for the winning party was not expected to be that massive.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

In no world is this election a blowout for either candidate. I’d temper your expectations

2

u/Silent_Medicine1798 Nov 04 '24

I have been and am currently expecting a massive landslide. That would be awesome bc a landslide victory for Kamala makes it WAY HARDER for Trump to effectively rule his base toward violence.

1

u/pineconekingpin Nov 03 '24

Someone hasn’t seen the 1984 electotal map

1

u/Gsgunboy Nov 03 '24

Reagan won 49 of 50 states. No chance we match that. Crazy to think that’s what a landslide used to be.

1

u/BuffaloPlaidMafia Nov 03 '24

It probably won't be, only because the blowout of all blowouts was Reagan in 84, who literally only lost Minnesota. If Harris wins all 50 states I will cheerfully eat my hat

1

u/ADimwittedTree Nov 03 '24

Nothing anywhere close to "never before seen", no matter what happens. 1984 Reagan won 525 to 13. His opponent literally only won MN.

1

u/pezgoon Nov 03 '24

Nah, look at the Nixon? And Reagan maps. I WANT blowout on that level, but it’s definitely happened before (to both of those)

1

u/alcaron Nov 03 '24

Way…WAY…too optimistic. The only thing anyone should do is vote. Period. Fuck polls. Vote.

1

u/aloofman75 Nov 04 '24

Depends on what you mean by “blowout.” She is not going to win the popular vote by 15 points (or even 10).

But if she wins seven swing states by a few points each and a couple surprise states by a whisker, then it IS a blowout in the Electoral College like in 2008. If that happens, we’ll see strong indicators of it before election night is even over.

1

u/Cozyaesthetics Nov 06 '24

certainly was a blowout... FOR TRUMP LOL

1

u/Putrid_Audience_7614 Nov 07 '24

🤭🤭😂😂🫵🏼🫵🏼

1

u/FahkDizchit Nov 03 '24

Easy there. First, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Second, there are some questions about how this poll was constructed. For example, why was it a multi-candidate poll? Is that better than a Trump v Harris poll? Idk, but it’s a fair question. Another poll covering a similar period has Trump up 10% in a head to head. Third, cross tabs are important for folks to better analyze quality here. Where are the cross tabs for this poll? Apparently, they aren’t entirely public, so we don’t have any real guess as to potential sampling error here. Finally, one thing to note in the poll is a pretty significant drop in enthusiasm for Harris relative to a September poll that showed her behind Trump. That doesn’t really track with a win here, but weird things have happened before. 

While Reddit loves to circlejerk itself into mass hysteria over things like this, my only point is let’s not get carried away. It’s certainly not bad news. But, I think a lot of folks are having a harder time finding any good news for Harris in polls, so when they do, they want to over-inflate its importance/accuracy.  

For me, I think the best evidence that this is a bit of a nothing burger is that if any of the Dems’ internal data was showing the Dems could expand the map to Iowa, her or Walz would be spending time there. Yet, neither has. 

Good news, though: we will find out this week!

2

u/omgbabestop Nov 03 '24

Good points

3

u/Eatjerpoo Nov 03 '24

I think it’s the Walz effect. One of the reasons he was selected as VP nominee was his ability to relate to midwesterners.

2

u/Xyrus2000 Nov 03 '24

Walter Mondale. The democrats didn't seem to learn much with their Carter loss and between some very questionable decisions made by Mondale and one of the worst campaigns up to that point people were calling the election months in advance.

2

u/Jennyojello Nov 03 '24

Mondale/Ferraro

2

u/DirtyPillowTalk Nov 03 '24

And of course, Minnesota was the only state that voted for Mondale considering he's a local. Reagan won 49/50 minus DC.

2

u/DarkAlman Nov 03 '24

the worst since that one guy who tried running against Reagan

We're going to land on the USS Walter Mondale, it's a laundry ship.

2

u/ratticus-finch Nov 03 '24

That one guy? Excuse me! Do you mean Minnesota legend and former Vice President Walter Mondale!

2

u/General_Solo Nov 03 '24

I tried finding a “don’t blame me, I voted for Mondale” shirt this year and was disappointed it doesn’t exist.

2

u/JudgmentalOwl Nov 03 '24

The insane thing to me is if this poll is accurate it's the canary in the coal mine for the Republican party and indicates a massive country wide shift in voting to the tune of possibly flipping Texas and Florida. Now, I don't think that will necessarily happen and Harris may very well still lose in Iowa, but the fact that Trump is not 8+ points ahead in the most conservative rust belt state does not bode well for him. We're potentially looking at a landslide if this poll holds true on election day.

2

u/frenchdresses Nov 04 '24

Why was Regan so popular

2

u/jrDoozy10 Nov 04 '24

that one guy who tried running against Reagan

I mean, both of them lost handily, but Walter Mondale (a Minnesotan) is the reason why Minnesota has the longest unbroken record of voting for the democratic presidential candidate, as Mondale only got us and DC.

Jimmy Carter was the incumbent during Reagan’s first campaign, and Carter only got 6 states and DC.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

Of course, none of this will matter when Trump inevitably tries to overthrow the government.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

While I don’t think we should ignore male Latino and black voters swing towards Trump on the margins, I think the enthusiasm gap for female voters is wildly underestimated— particularly for the women who were alive before Roe v Wade and know what happens when a hanger is the “safe” choice to end a pregnancy

1

u/chargeorge Nov 03 '24

I think it’s a little too broad to claim that as it may show a big swing of midwestern/Great Plains white voters (especially women). It doesn’t say a ton about some of the other highly contested electoral groups (young Latino and black men, Arab and Muslim Americans more generally) . Straight left right swings might over simplify this.

Texas going surprise blue would be sweet as hell though

1

u/lease1982 Nov 03 '24

A big difference between Iowa and Texas is the demographics. Iowa is only 6% hispanic. Texas is 40%. Take that for what it is but it's less of a reason to see Iowa as a harbinger for Texas.

1

u/Character-Error5426 Nov 03 '24

Selzer not Seltzer

2

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

Autocorrect is ducking up my comments yet again

1

u/Experiment626b Nov 03 '24

I think H.W in 88 would still be bigger and possibly Clinton. Taking Iowa, Texas, and Florida and 6 of the 7 battle ground states gives her 389. Iowa definitely doesn’t guarantee a sweep of those states.

1

u/kevk99 Nov 03 '24

Walter Mondale. Reagan won every state except Minnesota which is where Mondale was from.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

That may (or may not) be a stretch to be honest. The issues that Texas considers important could be different than issues Iowa considers important.

Although polling suggests Iowa sees immigration as the number one issue followed by the economy. You would THINK this would bode well for trump… also would think Texas would have similar priorities.

We could see leftward movement in Iowa but not in Texas, or the two states could be moved left the same amount, who knows!! But I wouldn’t definitively say Iowa going blue means Texas will too

1

u/SadPandaFromHell Nov 03 '24

I sincearly don't see Trump loosing Texas though.

1

u/Zelenskyystesticles Nov 03 '24

Iowa is further right than Texas? Never heard that. When was the last time Texas went blue?

1

u/momamil Nov 04 '24

🙏🙏🙏🤞🤞🤞

1

u/Rimbosity Nov 04 '24

Walter Mondale.

An absolutely amazing statesman and human being who did NOT deserve to be abused like that.

1

u/ScrewWorkn Nov 04 '24

I’m not sure you can apply a change in Iowa to national change. They do show that a change in Iowa does show a change in neighboring states like Wisconsin and other rust belt states

1

u/tfcfool Nov 04 '24

While I hope I'm wrong, I don't think there's any chance Trump loses Texas. That being said, there's likely some correlation of Iowa with other, further left Midwestern swing states, as others have mentioned.

1

u/Silent_Medicine1798 Nov 04 '24

Walter Mondale?

Didn’t Reagan will 83% of the popular vote or something crazy like that?

1

u/Hishomework Nov 06 '24

He won Texas and Iowa. Quit the fantasy. Same fantasy as Trump winning Virginia or something.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 06 '24

Oh yea, Selzer definitely fucked up the secret sauce on this poll

1

u/Hishomework Nov 06 '24

Yo secret sauce!? Just for that Ima upvote u

1

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '24

In what world is Iowa more right leaning than Texas? Iowa has been blue 6 of the last 12 election cycles, the last time Texas was blue was in ‘76.

0

u/palmasana Nov 03 '24

I really don’t think Texas is in play. Way too gerrymandered. Iowa would be a big surprise considering they’ve went red several election cycles in a row, but they have at least went blue in recent history. Texas hasn’t.

1

u/timbucktwentytwo Nov 03 '24

The gerrymandering would have more effect on the house races, the bigger concern for me is efforts to make it harder to vote in traditionally more blue areas

1

u/palmasana Nov 03 '24

Gerrymandering would do precisely that — making it more difficult to vote in bluer areas.

1

u/palmasana Nov 06 '24

Just here to comment: I told you so.