Polling/Votes Prediction

W

WCM

Verified User
The Libs/Dems will lead their respective polls for the entire last month of the next election by 5-7%, and then on the last weekend, their lead will inexplicably drop to 2%, and they will lose the popular vote by 1.5-2%.
 
Yes, this prediction can be defensibly deemed a realistic observation based on known patterns from recent U.S. elections, particularly 2024, though it's not a guaranteed or universal rule.

The described pattern—sustained Democratic polling leads in the final month that narrow or reverse late, with polls overestimating Democratic support relative to the final popular vote—aligns with documented polling behaviors and errors in 2016, 2020, and especially 2024. It's not purely "inexplicable" but tied to well-analyzed factors like nonresponse bias, turnout modeling, sampling challenges, and differential enthusiasm/participation.

Key Evidence from 2024 (Strong Match)​

  • Final polls vs. results: Pre-election averages (e.g., RealClearPolitics, NYT, NBC) often showed Harris at ~48-49% to Trump's ~46-48% in the closing weeks, with some polls giving her a 3-4 point edge as late as the final weekend. Trump ultimately won the popular vote by ~1.5 points (roughly 49.8% to 48.3%).
  • This matches the prediction's "lead drops... lose popular vote by 1.5-2%." The error was smaller than in prior cycles but consistently underestimated Republican performance nationally and in key states.
  • Late shifts and polling misses were discussed in real-time analysis, with some narrowing observed and final results exceeding poll projections for Trump.

Broader Historical Context​

  • Recurring polling bias toward Democrats in recent cycles: In 2016 and 2020, polls systematically understated Trump support (national and especially in battlegrounds), attributed to "shy Trump" effects (social desirability bias), nonresponse (Trump voters less likely to participate), and turnout models that underweighted lower-propensity or less-educated voters.
  • 2024 polling was more accurate overall than 2016/2020 but still showed a similar (smaller) Republican underestimation.
  • Late movement is common: Campaigns intensify, undecideds break, and turnout realities (e.g., in-person vs. mail/early voting patterns) emerge. The "red mirage/blue shift" describes how early counts can favor Republicans before later ballots shift, though the reverse dynamic in polling has been noted.

Why This Pattern Persists (Not Conspiracy)​

Pollsters face structural challenges:

  • Nonresponse and weighting: Harder-to-reach groups (often Republican-leaning) are underrepresented; adjustments help but aren't perfect.
  • Shy voter/social desirability: Evidence is mixed, but persistent gaps suggest some reluctance to disclose preferences in certain modes (e.g., live caller vs. online).
  • Turnout and late deciders: Final-weekend drops can reflect real momentum or polling that misses enthusiasm gaps.
  • Historical precedents exist beyond Trump (e.g., other cycles with late narrowing), though the consistent recent direction favors Republicans in the polling-to-vote gap.
This isn't universal—polls can be accurate (e.g., 2018 midterms for Democrats), and errors go both ways. But for high-stakes presidential races with polarized, low-trust electorates, the pattern of Democratic overperformance in polls followed by closer/underperformance on Election Day has repeated enough to make the prediction a reasonable extrapolation, not wild speculation.

The forum post captures a skeptical view of polling reliability that's grounded in post-election analyses from AAPOR, Pew, and others. It's "realistic" as an observed tendency, though future elections could differ with improved methods or changing voter behavior.


 
Diogenes said:
Yes, this prediction can be defensibly deemed a realistic observation based on known patterns from recent U.S. elections, particularly 2024, though it's not a guaranteed or universal rule.
Click to expand...
It happened in our last 3 elections in Canada and down south in the US as well.
The leftists lead by a wide margin for the whole month, but then the polls shift right at the end for no reason.

Don't you remember how far ahead Hillary was for that whole last month? She had "a 95% chance of winning" for most of it, then 85%, then right at the end the polls were suddenly down to within a couple percent the day before the elction.

It's always that way in Canada, and the US. Big lead for 29 days, small lead for the last day and a half.
 
WCM said:
It happened in our last 3 elections in Canada and down south in the US as well.
The leftists lead by a wide margin for the whole month, but then the polls shift right at the end for no reason.

Don't you remember how far ahead Hillary was for that whole last month? She had "a 95% chance of winning" for most of it, then 85%, then right at the end the polls were suddenly down to within a couple percent the day before the elction.

It's always that way in Canada, and the US. Big lead for 29 days, small lead for the last day and a half.
Click to expand...


Interesting.
 
Diogenes said:
Interesting.
Click to expand...
Consider the source of revenue for the pollsters....

In the US and Canada, people see most of their polls on CTV/CBC/Global or CNN/ABC/CBS, etc.

Why would those guys pay for polling data that doesn't fit their narratives.

CBC can't say stupid shit like "Who cares if Trudeau tried to get $900M to his buddies at WE, which they will use to make more Hitler Youth-style propaganda and to lavish on his mom for speaking engagements", but they can say "His popularity isn't slipping in the polls, so Canadians don't seem to care about this.

vimeo.com

WE ARE CANADA - PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU

we.ca/ Client: WE Charity Production Company: Door Knocker Media Executive Producer: Karen Barzilay Director: Matt Finlin Director of Photography: David Suddaby Producer: Anna Kowalski Editor: Marc Langley VFX: Fort York VFX Post Audio: Boombox Sound First AC: Rafi Mishan Gaffer: Edwin Lau...
vimeo.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top