#PollingData

[audreythompson1]

TRUMP SKYROCKETS, NOW LEADS BY 16% ON POLYMARKET

2024 Election (Odds to Win) Trump 57.7% Harris 41.9%

Trump has taken a commanding lead and has become the clear favorite to win this election

[shalaka04]

According to a survey, the Labour Party is expected to win the UK general election in a historic fashion.

Find out how the UK Labour Party is expected to win a record number of seats in the next general election, surpassing its landslide victory in 1997. Discover how the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and other major parties are expected to fare in this election, which has the potential to drastically alter British politics.

According to a significant new survey by Survation published on Tuesday, the UK Labour Party is expected to win more seats in Thursday's general election than it won during its historic landslide triumph in 1997—an extraordinary turn of events.

It is predicted that the opposition center-left party, which has been out of office since 2010, would win 484 of the 650 seats available. Should this forecast come to pass, it would be a remarkable triumph in contemporary British history and profoundly alter the political terrain of the United Kingdom. In the much-awaited victory, Keir Starmer, the leader of Labour, will take over as prime minister, unseating Rishi Sunak, the leader of the Conservative Party.

A clear Labour victory on July 4 has been continuously predicted by Survation's poll, which is a part of a series of MRP (multi-level regression and post-stratification) polls that employ large national samples to forecast results for each UK seat. According to the most recent figures, Labour is expected to secure over 42% of the total vote, a substantial lead over the 23% Conservatives. 

The UK's winner-take-all election system means that, despite the Conservatives' forecast percentage of the vote, they are only likely to win 64 seats, while the moderate Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) are projected to gain 61 seats. According to Survation, this would be a sharp decline from their current positions and would be the Conservatives' poorest showing in any previous general election.

Labour's projected 484 seats would surpass both the 470-seat landslide win gained by the Conservatives in 1931 and the 418 seats obtained by former prime minister Tony Blair in 1997. This prediction emphasizes the possibility of a major change in the balance of political power.

It is also anticipated that Labour will reclaim its top spot in Scotland, taking 38 of the 57 seats and replacing the Scottish National Party (SNP), which is expected to win just 10 seats. For the pro-independence SNP, which won 48 constituencies in the 2019 general election, this would be a significant loss.

Furthermore, Reform UK, an anti-immigration party led by Brexit icon Nigel Farage, received the third-highest total vote share but is predicted to gain only a few seats. This result highlights the difficulties tiny parties encounter in the UK election system.

Based on almost 35,000 interviews with voters, the Survation projection is expected to heighten Conservative cautions in the closing stages of the campaign. Sunak has urged caution and awareness among voters, warning them against giving Labour a purported "super-majority."

Starmer's answer has been to attack the Conservative campaign, pointing out that it is becoming more hostile and frantic, which is understandable given the high stakes and fierce competitiveness in this election.

With the UK preparing for election day, all eyes are on Labour's possible historic win and the consequential political changes that might ensue. The result of this election may permanently alter the political climate in the United Kingdom. 

[usnewsper-politics]

Will New Hampshire Make or Break Biden's Campaign? #BernieSanders #campaignperformance #challengesfacingBidenscampaign #ElizabethWarren #JoeBidenscampaign #lackofenthusiasm #loyalbaseofsupporters #makeorbreakmoment #momentumforcampaign #NewHampshireprimary #PeteButtigieg #politicalanalysts #pollingdata #presidentialelection #progressivealternative #regroupingcampaignefforts #significanceofNewHampshireprimary #upcomingprimaryelection #youngervoters

[jjbizconsult]

Latest Polls Show Tight Race: Did Biden Just Switch Teams? 😄

[amnglobal]

Baltimore, MD---- The Baltimore City Board of Elections released the unofficial early in-person voting data for Day 6 of early in-person voting in the city. There were 4,687 voters in the city that casted a ballot in-person at one of the designated voting centers. On October 31st, 968 voters cast a ballot at Morgan State University. This is the fewest amount of people who voted in-person at the location over the 6 day period. During the 3rd day of early in-person at Morgan State , the location had a high 1,999 cast a ballot . Keep track of AMNGLOBALinsights for more Baltimore city election coverage.  Track the official updates from Maryland state Board of Elections for statewide election coverage. Link here : https://elections.maryland.gov/

[delaportediaries]

Big Carrot

4/13

Diary,

Good to see you again. I’ve only really used your pages the last few weeks to keep some polling numbers, but I figured I’d drop in an actual entry for your time. Per my green pea push, I have a major update. 

Kelvin DeLaporte has been pushing an alternative agenda for an official family side dish. They’re very well known to be a carrot person, and they’ve been pushing for a crinkle-cut carrot official side dish. I will not allow this to stand. Here are my new talking points:

1. Carrots, while healthy, take FAR more work to prepare than peas.

2. Crinkle-cutting is a process used by BIG CARROT to trick consumers into a false sense of security. 

3. Peas have far more nutritional value and psychic value than carrots.

4. Kelvin DeLaporte smells like a can of sardines that have been left in the yard to rot. 

I think this will make great headway in the official DeLaporte side dish fight. I’ll keep you posted.

Bye!

Royal DeLaporte

[theconservativebrief]

It wasn’t supposed to be a walkover, but it just about was one. Jair Bolsonaro, the far-right candidate of the PSL (Social Liberal Party), fell just short of an outright majority in the first round of Brazil’s elections on October 7, winning 46 percent of all valid votes (that is, excluding spoiled and blank ballots). Fernando Haddad of the PT (Workers’ Party) also made October 28’s runoff, finishing a distant second with 29 percent. According to poll aggregator PollingData.com.br, Bolsonaro is a clear favorite, with a 98 percent chance of winning the second round and an advantage of between 6 and 14 percent in the polls.

Polls significantly undershot both Bolsonaro and Haddad’s numbers, with the biggest polling firms putting Bolsonaro around 40 to 41 percent and Haddad around 24 to 25 percent. I had warned before the election that one should take polling figures in Brazil with a grain of salt. So what went wrong? And could these problems happen in other places, too?

Polls in Brazil suffer from problems that also afflict other countries, but these problems can be accentuated because of limitations with Brazilian polls. The Brazilian Polling Error Database (BPED) — compiled with Mathieu Turgeon of the University of Western Ontario for a working paper currently under review — shows that the average absolute error for polls conducted just one day before the 2014 presidential election was 4.86 percent (most other countries average between 2 to 2.5 percent).

One reason is that it can be difficult to access certain areas, which make face-to-face surveys more difficult. However, according to Neale El-Dash, the statistician behind PollingData, they are still often better than telephone-based surveys, which have generally been conducted with lists of phone numbers bought from companies without regard to their origins or possible biases.

To compensate, El-Dash says that “almost all surveys before this year were with quotas,” with some even conducted in public places with passersby. These quotas tend to be primarily for sex and age. This could have underestimated the effect of evangelical voters, who are, ceteris paribus, more likely to be poor and live in difficult-to-access areas. Evangelicals also voted en masse for Bolsonaro.

When Donald Trump was elected US president in 2016, outperforming poll predictions, some political scientists and commentators proposed that many Trump supporters could have been reluctant to share their preference for him to pollsters. The evidence has been mixed, but the unwillingness to publicly say socially undesirable things has been shown to affect survey responses on a variety of topics, including sex, drug use, and vote buying. Some voters might refuse to acknowledge support of controversial politicians to pollsters while still voting for them.

This looks to have applied to Bolsonaro, whose fondness for saying repugnant things is no secret. A reliance on face-to-face interviews could have produced an especially pronounced social desirability bias with Bolsonaro, a particularly controversial candidate; telling an interviewer to their face that one supports Bolsonaro could be more difficult than doing so on the phone.

The US was also not the only country with two unpopular leading candidates. Both Bolsonaro and Haddad had sky-high rejection rates going into the election, both of them eclipsing 40 percent. Much like Trump captured an anti-Hillary vote and vice versa, both Haddad and Bolsonaro attracted votes by using the imminent threat of their opposite number.

As polls began to indicate that Bolsonaro and Haddad were the two leading candidates, this could have led to last-minute shifts among those who opposed one of them. A certain subset of voters looks to not “waste” their vote on a candidate with no chance of winning — and this is especially salient when voters want to “stop” certain unpopular candidates. This can lead to two candidates pulling away from others, even in multi-round elections, as happened here.

In the US, we often talk about a coattails effect: The support for one high-profile candidate (typically president) can affect the support of candidates running for other positions. In Brazil, this effect exists, too, but it also exists in reverse: Local politicians use their networks to support majoritarian candidates.

Picking a candidate who ends up losing gains nothing for elites; picking one who wins can give them a job and influence. Something that passed under the radar this year, but was possibly very influential, was the fact that the National Congress of Brazil’s rural caucus abandoned the PSDB’s Geraldo Alckmin for Bolsonaro five days before the election. Alckmin duly underperformed expectations by 3 to 4 percent while Bolsonaro outperformed them.

This kind of shift might not have as big an effect as it did in the 1980s, but it is not irrelevant. While campaigning is illegal 24 hours before the election, it still exists — and sometimes with offers of cash as well. This sort of practice rarely influences voters who have already made up their minds, but it still could affect elections when people don’t have preferences for that race.

This time around, 10 to 16 percent either did not respond or did not choose a candidate in the last polls before the first round. Pre-election polling would not have been able to capture this type of movement or catch if it would systematically help (or harm) one candidate in particular.

In short, many of the same problems that have plagued polling in other countries are also present in Brazil. Yet they are likely accentuated by certain factors that are more specific to Brazil. Pollsters elsewhere — particularly in other developing countries — will have to be attuned to these potential pitfalls, or else they could repeat the same mistakes.

Original Source -> Pollin’ ain’t easy: why did Brazilian pollsters go so badly astray in 2018?

via The Conservative Brief

[amnglobal]

[ICYMI] The final day 4 early in-person voting turn out count numbers are in for Baltimore city. Here’s the cumulative total over the 4 day period. Today, a total of 7,743 voters turned out at the polls in Baltimore alone on October 29th. 

  #elections #pollingdata #amnglobalinsights