IA-Selzer: Trump +7

[Buzz]

There's no way Trump made up THAT much ground with independents.

He was never that far down....

[BudgieForce]

I feel sick.
It's happening again.

That's it. I'm out of here.

See you all on Wednesday

Yeah, I might join you.

[jamestroll]

Missouri being a tad closer than Iowa would be something but can make sense.

but Missouri has something Iowa doesn't really.



large suburbs with potential Democratic swings. This obviously wont be Biden's Missouri map though. Only St Louis/Jackson/Boone/ and hopefully Clay/Platte.

[swf541]

WOW is everyone here as autistic as the nutbags in this thread? Good riddance.

No just some of the normal suspects being nutjobs

[MR DARK BRANDON]

I feel sick.
It's happening again.

That's it. I'm out of here.

See you all on Wednesday

Yeah, I might join you.

Same here.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

WOW is everyone here as autistic as the nutbags in this thread? Good riddance.

Yeah, I might peace out too until Wednesday and just look at the polls released tomorrow without being logged in. See you bitches on Wednesday!

[morgieb]

But you fail to realize that Trump is still trailing in enough states to lose. He's behind in the Republican stronghold of Texas and if he loses Texas winning Iowa means nothing.

There are some people on here that are living in the 2012 era and can’t wrap their heads around that scary idea of letting Iowa “go”.

It's not letting Iowa go. It's letting the Midwest go. Georgia might be there, but I'm still not quite sure Texas is and then we're relying on states without a significant trend like Florida and North Carolina.

Make no mistake, this poll means potentially very bad things in other states.

[NOVA Green]

Keep calm and carry on folks...

Also, please don't hate on Iowa--- it's actually a pretty cool state and not everyone is crazy nutters like the PUB dude from CD-04 who got primaried.

My concern is less about IA in the PRES GE, but rather the US-SEN election and in general *where* these numbers are in terms of representing the plethora of medium-sized manufacturing towns throughout the State, which generally have historically been much more DEM leaning than Rurals Proper.

Many of these medium-sized towns exist throughout the entire Midwest...

Still, I am a bit doubtful in some ways, considering there is a significant body of evidence that Biden is performing much better among White Catholics in the MidWest than HRC '16 numbers.

[Storr]

Reminder they had Obama +13 in 2012. LOL
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/bloomberg-pollster-why-our-poll-might-be-an-outlier/2012/06/22/gJQA6Cr3uV_blog.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2012/06/21/obama-leads-romney-by-13-points-in-new-poll-can-that-be-right.html

[Brittain33]

I think this is an outlier. Why is Trump still going to Iowa if he's up 7 and trailing in lots of other places (I think he's ahead there but it's much closer, maybe 2-3 points)

If this poll said 2-3 then it wouldn't seem so off, but Trump up 7 with Biden only at 41% seems off. It's like they are closer to Trump's number but are way under counting Biden.

How I’m making this poll make sense: I believe Trump has a solid base in this state that gets him to 48%. I can see a close result where the undecideds here go overwhelmingly to Biden. If Trump does win Iowa by 7 points, then as in 2016, my gut and brain are not aligned with what’s really happening. Because I don’t believe it.

[swf541]

But you fail to realize that Trump is still trailing in enough states to lose. He's behind in the Republican stronghold of Texas and if he loses Texas winning Iowa means nothing.

There are some people on here that are living in the 2012 era and can’t wrap their heads around that scary idea of letting Iowa “go”.

It's not letting Iowa go. It's letting the Midwest go. Georgia might be there, but I'm still not quite sure Texas is and then we're relying on states without a significant trend like Florida and North Carolina.

Make no mistake, this poll means potentially very bad things in other states.

Now hear me out, just what if... what if Iowa isnt that similar to other states in the region and Selzer is not the word of god?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anyway, the idea that a bad poll for Biden in one state is tantamount to a bad poll for him in nearby states too is literally megacoattails and true Atlastorians should know to treat it with a quantity of salt befitting for a fast casual restaurant in Dubuque. Selzer is the (former?) gold standard for Iowa, not for the whole Central Time Zone.

[2016]

GAME OVER LIBS!

IOWA INDEPENDENTS

TRUMP 49

BIDEN 35

So Buzz, you are quite right. If Trump wins Independents in Iowa there is no reason he won't win them elsewhere accross the Midwest! Game Over Liberals indeed!

[compucomp]

I understand Selzer is great at polling Iowa and that Iowa can predict trends of the white working class. However, Biden is still up by 8.6 in the NPV. Let's say that there's another systematic polling issue in the upper Midwest and Biden is in danger of losing one or more of MN/WI/MI/PA. So if Biden is underperforming his polls in this region, where is that +8.6 coming from? It can't be all from votes in safe blue states, and a lot of the safe red states (like IN, MO, etc.) have similar profile as Iowa and Biden is underperforming there. Let's say Florida is close as usual. Then this suggest to me that in this scenario Biden would be overperforming his polling in the Sun Belt, in particular AZ, TX, GA, and NC, and winning those states. So unless there's a big polling error in the NPV and Biden is actually only up by 4, then I still feel good about Biden's chances.

[philly09]

Michael Dukakis won Iowa and the midwest, yet he lost.

John Kerry lost Iowa but won the midwest. He lost.

[libertpaulian]

And I hardly buy that Trump has made up ground with women.

[dspNY]

Once again, I think it is a trump lead because the rural vote will narrowly win out but not this large because both candidates have been or will be in the state (Biden on Friday, Trump on Sunday) on the final weekend. That doesn't indicate a wide lead for either candidate

[jamestroll]

But you fail to realize that Trump is still trailing in enough states to lose. He's behind in the Republican stronghold of Texas and if he loses Texas winning Iowa means nothing.

There are some people on here that are living in the 2012 era and can’t wrap their heads around that scary idea of letting Iowa “go”.

It's not letting Iowa go. It's letting the Midwest go. Georgia might be there, but I'm still not quite sure Texas is and then we're relying on states without a significant trend like Florida and North Carolina.

Make no mistake, this poll means potentially very bad things in other states.

Let's see.. Not really.

Michigan has suburbs that pushed Democrats through, sometimes by wide margins, in 2018. Minnesota the same.

Rural Wisconsin has not been voting the same as it did in 2016 nor the same as its neighbors and a Democratic trend is evident in Wow..

So not much to worry. Even if Trump does win Iowa by 7 to 10 points. lol

[new_patomic]

I would think that if Trump and Republicans were gaining with Independents and White voters in Iowa, it would show up in some other midwest polling.

But the best I can think of is like, the Republican internals showing Bustos only up 5-6 points, and even that doesn't seem right.

[lfromnj]

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=251190.msg7710734#msg7710734

Heres the poll from 2016 and forum reaction.

I think people should genuinely take this as a small yellow flag atleast. Im still pretty sure Biden wins but its absurd gaslighting to say one should just entirely discount this poll.

Hopefully Maine is next

No, but WI, MI and MN are in play. Probably NH.

Michigan Wisconsin and Minnesota are not in play.

We don't know that. If this Iowa result is right, then theu are in play along with Pennsylvania, while Ohio is safe Trump.

[Splash]

Now watch some of the self-anointed election experts extrapolate this one poll to make the argument that Trump is going to win the election.

Oh wait - it's already happening. Never change, Atlas

I extrapolated the same poll in 2016 and got Trump winning Michigan and Pennsylvania.
What is your point?

Ex post ergo propter hoc

That wasn't a valid relationship then and it isn't now. As noted already, the congressional district polls in 2016 was the proverbial canary in a coal mine that indicated trouble for Clinton throughout the blue wall in 2016 - and in that instance, we had dozens upon dozens of polls then to make the case that the statewide polling was masking a significant  movement towards Trump in the latter days of the campaign.

Unlike 2016, the district-wide polling is showing a much different story than what happened in 2016; marginal movement toward Biden in rural/exurban districts and significant movement toward Biden in suburban districts.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This poll has Trump up 1 from September but Biden down 6?

That strikes me as bizarre.

This poll includes those who already voted but don't want to say who they voted for, which was not a category in the previous polls since no one had voted yet.  That's why combined support for Biden + Trump in this poll is 5 pts less than in the previous poll.

[RFayette]

Absolutely fantastic poll.

Four more years!

[swf541]

I understand Selzer is great at polling Iowa and that Iowa can predict trends of the white working class. However, Biden is still up by 8.6 in the NPV. Let's say that there's another systematic polling issue in the upper Midwest and Biden is in danger of losing one or more of MN/WI/MI/PA. So if Biden is underperforming his polls in this region, where is that +8.6 coming from? It can't be all from votes in safe blue states, and a lot of the safe red states (like IN, MO, etc.) have similar profile as Iowa and Biden is underperforming there. Let's say Florida is close as usual. Then this suggest to me that in this scenario Biden would be overperforming his polling in the Sun Belt, in particular AZ, TX, GA, and NC, and winning those states. So unless there's a big polling error in the NPV and Biden is actually only up by 4, then I still feel good about Biden's chances.

We also got all the district polls showing that state polls are indeed systemically wrong... just not in Trump's direction

[Progressive Pessimist]

Anyway, the idea that a bad poll for Biden in one state is tantamount to a bad poll for him in nearby states too is literally megacoattails and true Atlastorians should know to treat it with a quantity of salt befitting for a fast casual restaurant in Dubuque. Selzer is the (former?) gold standard for Iowa, not for the whole Central Time Zone.

Not to mention that Clinton still won Minnesota and only barely lost Wisconsin. It's a correlation doesn't equal causation situation. I'm as disappointed as anyone by this poll, but I think it's absurd to consider this the bellwether for the entire national election.