The US Election Polling / Data Thread

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well the USC poll is absolutely irrelevant. Their methodology is extremely flawed.



http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-pres...oll-dashboard/

It's certainly one of the least useful polls out there. It's a closed poll, limited to selected voters, and for whatever reason considers what happened in 2012. Just look at the difference between who wins the "vote" (usually Trump) and who people "expect to win" (always Hillary and by huge margins at times).

Selzer is a decent poll, but with a smaller sample size.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It is a much better poll than the USC poll. The USC poll has basically had Trump in front for the majority of their polling. Obviously that would be a textbook outlier when no one else had anything close to Trump leading except slightly after the convention. And obviously whatever gains he may have made in the Selzer poll have been totally wiped out by yesterday.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

People were talking about Trump's "2nd amendment" comment for hours yesterday and no one had actually posted it in the thread. Just my two cents.

The very first post on the topic contained the comment...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

My view, for what it's worth, is that these numbers don't show much, if any, "tightening." Selzer still has Clinton up 6 in a 2-way race, and 4 in the 4-way race. Not that different from their prior numbers, and certainly not different enough to rule out statistical noise.

The USC/Dornsife poll is just odd. Odd results, odd methodology, odd everything. But it is worth noting that they were the only ones who had Trump ahead before the conventions, so in that context this result really just shows the bounce holding steady.

With that said, I would expect to see some tightening over the next few weeks. I would be pretty surprised if on Election Day Clinton won by 10 or 11 points. 4 or 5 is more likely in my view.

[Displaced Flames fan]

IFF...what's your take on Johnson? Does he have a chance to make some noise if things continue down the path they are on now.....ie Trump losing support because he is an idiot. I think most Trump supporters are so because they can't stomach voting for Clinton.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

IFF...what's your take on Johnson? Does he have a chance to make some noise if things continue down the path they are on now.....ie Trump losing support because he is an idiot. I think most Trump supporters are so because they can't stomach voting for Clinton.

Really hard to say. Third party support is very difficult to poll, but the circumstances look good for Johnson to make some noise, but mostly (I would think) in traditionally "red" states like Utah or Montana.

To give a sense of how tough it is to poll third parties, Jill Stein is polling at about three times the percentage that Ralph Nader got in 2000, despite the fact that most voters haven't even heard of her. Highly unlikely she gets even 2% of the popular vote, let alone the 5% the polls would suggest.

With that said, could we be in a Ross Perot situation where a third party candidate gets significant traction? It's possible, but I don't know how we would know. Keep in mind that Perot's poll numbers at various times were far in excess of Johnson's, but in the end he got less than 10% of the PV and no electoral votes.

[Senator Clay Davis]

A Perot situation seems unlikely because the two major party candidates are so hated you have to figure a good chunk of voters will ultimately revert to one of the two major parties as a means of blocking Hillary or Trump. People rarely follow through with the third party vote too, Johnson was polling around 5% in 2012 and ended up with 1% in the actual vote. I do think he'll do better this time, but I'd guess high single digits is his overly optimistic ceiling.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I'm sick of having people tell me that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Clinton or Trump...both sides have said this to me. While it may be effectively true, that entire mindset plays into the horror of our two party system. I won't vote for someone to prevent someone else from winning. Worst reason ever to vote for someone. Sadly, I think a high percentage of Americans will do exactly that this year.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'm sick of having people tell me that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Clinton or Trump...both sides have said this to me. While it may be effectively true, that entire mindset plays into the horror of our two party system. I won't vote for someone to prevent someone else from winning. Worst reason ever to vote for someone. Sadly, I think a high percentage of Americans will do exactly that this year.

Best case a vote for Johnson is a vote for the House to decide the presidency. If no one gets to 270 each state house delegation gets 1 vote which the republicans control.

Until they change it to plurality of the electoral college a vote for a third party is truly wasted.

[White Out 403]

538 had Clinton 87% to win yesterday, 85 today. I can live with that.

Ive pretty much done a 180 on this. I was hoping for a Trump win for the wrong reasons, and, at this point, consider myself more anti Trump than pro Hillary. She's a despicable insider. He's a truly terrible human being. Lesser of 2 evils for me.

Unless I'm mistaken, unless Trump can make PA even some what a toss up this thing is all but over unless a huge turn of events occurs.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'm sick of having people tell me that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Clinton or Trump...both sides have said this to me. While it may be effectively true, that entire mindset plays into the horror of our two party system. I won't vote for someone to prevent someone else from winning. Worst reason ever to vote for someone. Sadly, I think a high percentage of Americans will do exactly that this year.

Easy to say if you don't have much to lose. I'm fortunate--middle class, stable career, white. My biggest issue is being a woman, but in my industry I generally get paid as much or more than the men who work alongside me, mostly because I work harder/more hours, etc., and my chances of ever needing an abortion are extremely low. Either way, Hillary or Trump, my everyday life won't change dramatically.

But there are people whose lives do change if Trump wins, for the worse. Latinos, Muslims, women, the LGBT community, etc.

If you're in a deep red or deep blue state and you want to make a point? Absolutely, vote third party. If you're a battleground state, please just try to keep the actual sociopath from making SCOTUS choices.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I consider myself more anti Trump than pro Hillary. She's a despicable insider. He's a truly terrible human being. Lesser of 2 evils for me.

[GGG]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ig-difference/

Some neat info on how Silvers model works and how it over reacted to the Quinnipac Pennsylvania poll and this most recent selzer poll.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by GGG

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ig-difference/

Some neat info on how Silvers model works and how it over reacted to the Quinnipac Pennsylvania poll and this most recent selzer poll.

Yes, it's an interesting read. I didn't realize Selzer had Clinton ahead by 18 in March--that now seems like a not-particularly-relevant data point (too far from the election, and perhaps an outlier--winning by 18 would be a truly unprecedented landslide). However, because the model looks at trend lines within a poll, it reacts strongly to a Selzer poll showing Clinton up by only 6.

I still think his model is likely very solid. I like that the "polls plus" version doesn't overreact to polls taken months before an election, and that it expects the race to tighten as the election gets closer, since they normally do.

On that note, we are still a log way from the election, but it's important to note that early voting in some swing states actually starts after Labour Day in some swing states.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I like that the "polls plus" version doesn't overreact to polls taken months before an election, and that it expects the race to tighten as the election gets closer, since they normally do.

I like most things about Polls Plus. I like that it bakes in the convention bounce and VP home state bump. I'm not sure how I feel about adding the "Fundamentals"... it would make sense if the campaigns in question were headed by people that hue close to "Generic Democrat/Generic Republican" but I kind of feel like Trump and Clinton as candidates might cause standard indicators to be less prevalent.

Still it's good to have as a "Don't Freak Out" button.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

On that note, we are still a log way from the election, but it's important to note that early voting in some swing states actually starts after Labour Day in some swing states.

If all the reports about Trump's ground game (or more accurately reports about the lack thereof) are accurate then I would expect Clinton to dominate early voting.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Ok I shouldn't post this right? It's a Breitbart commissioned poll after all. But it sort of shows Trump and Hillary tied in Georgia. Be fun to see Trump supporters turn against Breitbart for this kind of poll.

Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, holds a 1-point lead over Democrat Hillary R. Clinton in Georgia, according to a Breitbart/Gravis poll conducted Aug. 4 through Aug. 8 of 1,604 registered voters in that state.

“Trump is in a precarious position,” said Doug Kaplan, the managing partner of Gravis Marketing, the Florida-based firm that executed the poll for Breitbart News. The New York City developer leads the former first lady 45 percent to 44 percent in the poll, he said. The poll was conducted using automated phone calls with online responses and carries a 2.5 percent margin of error.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...45-clinton-44/

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Gravis isn't a great pollster, but they aren't the worst out there either. Usually a slight Republican house effect if memory serves. Either way that is a bad poll for Trump, and more or less confirms a few others showing him leading in Georgia by low single digits.

To put that in perspective, that means that solid red Georgia is actually closer than any of Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire, all of which are supposed to be swing states.

In the end, that is likely consistent with him trailing nationally by around 6-10 points, which is what the national surveys show.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

New state poll numbers from Marist/NBC today:

Florida: Clinton 41, Trump 36, Johnson 9
Virginia: Clinton 43, Trump 31, Johnson 12
Colorado: Clinton 41, Trump 29, Johnson 15
North Carolina: Clinton 45, Trump 36, Johnson 9

A bit surprising to see Clinton leading by 9 in NC, but only 5 in Florida, but overall these tell the same story as the other polls that are out there: Trump is in some trouble.

It's not over yet, I don't think--three months to go and a lot can happen. But boy those numbers have to look gloomy in the Trump camp. Even if you can flip Florida back, there will still be no path to victory without North Carolina.... Colorado and Virginia are virtually done now, as are Michigan and Wisconsin. Trump needs to run the table to have a chance, and he will need Pennsylvania (which also looks out of reach).

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

New state poll numbers from Marist/NBC today:

Florida: Clinton 41, Trump 36, Johnson 9
Virginia: Clinton 43, Trump 31, Johnson 12
Colorado: Clinton 41, Trump 29, Johnson 15
North Carolina: Clinton 45, Trump 36, Johnson 9

A bit surprising to see Clinton leading by 9 in NC, but only 5 in Florida, but overall these tell the same story as the other polls that are out there: Trump is in some trouble.

It's not over yet, I don't think--three months to go and a lot can happen. But boy those numbers have to look gloomy in the Trump camp. Even if you can flip Florida back, there will still be no path to victory without North Carolina.... Colorado and Virginia are virtually done now, as are Michigan and Wisconsin. Trump needs to run the table to have a chance, and he will need Pennsylvania (which also looks out of reach).

Is Johnson gaining on Trump?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Trump's success (if you can call it that) in Florida is really baffling. That it appears to be the closest battleground state and not say the much whiter Ohio, Pennsylvania or Virginia is weird.