Posted on 10/12/2024 11:04:21 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
A “surprise” win for former President Donald Trump in a traditionally blue state is “possible” this election cycle, James Blair, who is running the political operations for the Trump campaign, said during an interview on Breitbart News Saturday.
Breitbart News Saturday host Matt Boyle asked Blair what he thinks about a “possible surprise” in a state such as Virginia, New Mexico, Minnesota, New York, or New Jersey.
“I know President Trump is doing another event upcoming very soon at Madison Square Garden in New York City. I know that state’s near and dear to his heart. We talked with him about that, and he’s mentioned New Jersey to us as well. Is there any of those out there that are, you know, possibilities based off what we’re seeing so far?” Boyle asked.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Praying for more than one.
I doubt an upset could occur in NM as the state is among the most ruthless pro-abort.
It’s as if maybe there might be some kinda news about to break that might have the potential to change the entire campaign.
Just sayin’, hypothetically.
We see this story EVERY cycle!!!!!!!!!!!
Not really.
Limited polls in NJ. Trump did well in a poll in NJ a couple months ago. Usually they'll follow up with more polls. But they're not doing that.
It would be really fun if it was all of them
If Trump wins any of those states, especially New York or New Jersey, go to bed the election is OVA
Trump takes NY.
I searched to find the scheduled date of the rally (Sunday, October 27) and many search results including by USA Today made sure to mention that MSG was the location of a rally by pro-Nazis in February 1939. If that mention was made, the articles included statements by progressive Jewish leaders that "Trump had refused to condemn white supremacy, incited rightwing extremists to engage in an insurrection, and aligned with and dined with Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis" (Trump plan for Madison Square Garden rally compared to infamous Nazi event).
Of course, the Trump campaign rightly condemned the comments, according to the New York Post, saying, “This is the same type of dangerous rhetoric that led to two assassination attempts on President Trump’s life and has divided our country,” said the campaign's national press secretary Karoline Leavitt.
Should Trump win a blue state, or even two or more, there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth by the regressive crowd.
And RealClearPolitics has since dropped those two polls from their website.
Fivethirtyeight has a new NJ poll from Activote that has Harris up by 12 over President Trump, but it is based on a very flawed sample population.
-PJ
I think people have been noticing a difference in disaster response effectiveness between Democrat controlled North Carolina, and Republican Florida.
I think a lot of white Democrats have had enough and are willing to walk away.
I think he wins VA early.
What makes it flawed?
Let me point out a few things in their methodology that they point out (and a few that they don't).
Please note that the unweighted sample of Black voters (6%) results in a possibly large Margin-of-Error. In our (small) sample of Black voters, every single one preferred Vice-President Harris, leading to the inflated number of 100% backing her.
Six percent of a sample of 400 is 24 people, all of whom voted for Harris. Their target weight for African-Americans was 10% or 40 people. The manufactured 16 people will also all vote for Harris. Their sample makes no attempt to assume disaffected black voters who switch to Trump.
The Activote sample of women was only 28% or 112 people. Most polls have women making up between 52%-54% of their sample. Activote targeted 54% which is a 93% inflation rate from the actual sample. This is too extreme of a miss in their polling of women to simply weight higher by nearly double, and is resulting in 63% of women preferring Harris.
The Activote sample of age 65+ was 14%; their target was 29%, an increase of 109%. This yields only a 53% support for Trump. Age 50-64 was sampled at 16% and targeted for 27% (52% for Trump).
You can see all of this in their adjustment table.
I'd have preferred to see them over-sample sufficiently that they could naturally assemble a sample population that met their desired conformity to trends without have to weight the sample data that they had.
I hope this answers your question to your satisfaction.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.