Jump to content

National Election Projection Websites


Recommended Posts

Thought it might be of interest to post links to some of the more prominent election projection websites so we could have them in one location.  What some project will make us feel better while others will cause us anxiety and disbelief.  I think most show the Republicans taking control of the House.  Many show the Senate as a toss up.  On the 2024 Presidential race, some show Biden / Harris / Newsome polling well against Trump / Desantis / Cruz / etc.  That should cause all of us angst and instill a desire to do whatever we can to influence it.  If you track some of the political stuff, you'll have read that Democrats were very active in the Republican primaries in many states this time.  They were generally pretty successful in increasing the odds for Democrats winning in the general by pushing Republican candidates in the primaries who are less likely to get elected in the general election.  Very smart for Democrats.  Very frustrating for Republicans.  It is what it is.




















Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Senate polling has been utter trash since 2014 and has shown no signs of improvement. Also remember that summer polling is even worse and downright wish casting at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WSJ -  Democrats are not up in the generic ballot +3 when +45 believe the current administration has us on the wrong track.  Those are mutually exclusive results.


There are a few polling outfits that poll the same block of people with the same questions throughout the election season.  They have shown little to no movement. 

However, many of the other polling outfits have shown a huge swing. If I wanted to show a huge swing I'd poll urban zip codes and not correctly account for oversampling.  Remember, according to ABC/WaPo Biden was going to win wisconsin by 17 points just days before the election and Biden won by less than 1%.  Some of these polling places are run by party operatives seeking to start a narrative and demoralize the opposition.









Link to comment
Share on other sites

One interesting thing to remember about your statement about dems trying to prop up pro Trump people because they think they’ll be easier to beat..  When Trump ran the first time, remember how they made fun of him and how they thought Trump was stupid and could not win.  Look where their arrogance got them.  Now they’ve got in Trump a political enemy that if he were ever to regain office he’d be out to clean house, I think they know this and why they are fighting so hard.  I’m just saying they made a mistake before underestimating opponents, propping up the pro Trump candidates could prove to not have been a good political move.

Edited by illinois_buckeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider is this.


Fox News Channel’s Greg Gutfeld Beats Stephen Colbert To Claim Title As Ratings King Of Late Night (forbes.com)


I know this sounds silly, but consider how long Colbert has been out there and suddenly a conservative talk show host has higher ratings.   It gives you a clue what people are actually listening to.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't the last poll's tell us we were getting Hillary for a new boss?  I don't listen to them very much anymore.  I prefer to listen to the truck driver that makes a pick up from my shop, a supplier that is 800 miles away,  a customer 2000 miles away.  Seems that everyone I talk to is not happy with any decisions being made at the moment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2022 at 7:33 AM, GTX63 said:

Trafalgar polling has been a pretty dependable and accurate group. Scrolling down on their home page will give you their latest results.



Trafalgar uses a different polling methodology than mainstream polls.  Rasmussen uses a similar method.  Both try to eliminate over sampling, but mainstream polling outfits disagree and claim oversampling of democrats is valid methodology because there are more democrats than republicans. 

That is accurate - there are more blue voters than red voters. The issue in the past was getting all those democrats to the polls.  With mail in voting and ballot harvesting, they no longer had to bring the ghetto to the polls, they could bring the polls to the ghetto.  



Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2022 at 5:54 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

according to ABC/WaPo Biden was going to win wisconsin by 17 points just days before the election and Biden won by less than 1%. 


On 7/31/2008, I was polled -- I was asked if I was going to vote for Obama or McCain.


I told the VERY young lady that I was going to vote for Bob Barr (the Libertarian). She told me that my choice was between Obama and McCain. I told her that Obama and McCain are not the only names on the Illinois ballot.


She told me to PRETEND that Obama and McCain are the only candidates on the ballot. I said that I would write-in the Libertarian. She said that she never heard of the Libertarians. I told her that her awareness is not a requirement for my vote.


Then, considering her mentality, I suggested that she might want to vote for the Green Party. She said that never heard of the Green Party. So I says, "You've never heard of Ralph Nader?"


She said that she never heard of him.


I said, "You've never heard of the guy who cost Al Gore the state of Florida, in 2000?"




Do note: a 21 year old college graduate in 2008, would have been 13 at the time of the 2000 election. Anyway,  I told her to fix her survey to reflect reality and call me back. She apologized for wasting my time.


Now you know the science behind a certain SCIENTIFIC poll taken on the last week of July 08 from some place in Virginia.


That, and the fact that even the most scientifically accurate poll does not factor in ballot harvesting or out right cheating.





On 9/13/2022 at 11:27 AM, Jeffrey said:

Didn't the last poll's tell us we were getting Hillary for a new boss?  I don't listen to them very much anymore.


In 1998, Democrats led Republicans 42 percent to 37 percent in 21 SCIENTIFIC polls. In 1996, they led 43 percent to 39 percent in 25 SCIENTIFIC polls. Both times the Republicans ended up winning more popular votes and winning more seats in Congress than the Democrats did.


In the 2002 Minnesota Senate race, SCIENTIFIC polls showed Mondale with a 10 point lead; he lost.


In 2003, two days before the Swedish referendum on the Euro, Gallup SCIENTIFICALLY predicted a 43% to 42% "no" vote. The "no" vote was 56.1% to 41.8%.


In 2008, a SCIENTIFIC Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll said that Obama led Clinton by 49% to 36% in the state of California. The margin of error was 3.3 percentage points. Clinton won California with 52% of the vote.


In 2014, with a week to go before the primary election, a SCIENTIFIC Daily Caller poll showed Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, with 52% and Dave Brat with 40%. Brat defeated the House Majority Leader (!) 55.5% to 44.5%


In 2015, a SCIENTIFIC October poll by Kent State University showed that 56% of Ohioans in favor of legalized pot; the referendum lost 64.1% to 35.9%.


In 2016, Clinton v Trump ... well, just ask Jeffrey up there.


And my personal favorite! With a week to go before the 2006 Cook Country Board election, a SCIENTIFIC poll by ABC-7 and the Daily Herald showed Tony Peraica ahead of Todd Stroger, 51% to 42%. On the exact same day, a SCIENTIFIC poll by WGN-TV and the Chicago Tribune showed Stroger leading Peraica, 48% to 33%.


With SCIENTIFIC polling like that, why bother hold elections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...