The US Election Polling / Data Thread

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by troutman

The problem for Trump is the only state he is winning that has a large number of electoral votes is Texas (not sure how recent this picture is):

Always a more useful visualization of electoral college.

[Senator Clay Davis]

So Florida appears to be maybe the only true "toss up" state so far in polling. Another poll out today shows Hillary up only 2, so that's quite a few that show it tight down there. Odd that Pennsylvania and Ohio are on track to be easy Hillary wins, but the less white Florida is close.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/doc...L_Aug_2016.pdf

[Drak]

Florida is a weird place, standing its ground.

[afc wimbledon]

What I'd like to know is how the complete absence of a traditional ground game will effect Trumps turn out, it's one thing to tell a poll you'll vote Trump but if no one is calling you up to check if you've voted, let you know where your polling station is (I refuse to call it a 'voting place', it's a childish term) offer you a ride etc will Trump actually get the voters who nominally support him?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

What I'd like to know is how the complete absence of a traditional ground game will effect Trumps turn out, it's one thing to tell a poll you'll vote Trump but if no one is calling you up to check if you've voted, let you know where your polling station is (I refuse to call it a 'voting place', it's a childish term) offer you a ride etc will Trump actually get the voters who nominally support him?

Yeah, that's a big question, but it's hard to find any Trump-positive scenario in the ground game. There's a lot of comparison of ground games in places like Ohio, but where it may be more significant is Clinton's expanded-map places. In Georgia, for example, Trump has turned the ground game over to the state GOP, which doesn't have a lot of cash on hand. By comparison, Clinton has earmarked more than $10 million in combined advertising GotV for Georgia. I suspect that states like Missouri and Arizona have similar tales. So this is the real advantage in Clinton's expand the map strategy: a good ground game in Ohio and Florida and a few other swing states is no longer enough. The fact that Republicans and Trump rely on seniors, the poor, and rural voters (and less reliant on their traditional suburban core this time around) makes it worse.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

What I'd like to know is how the complete absence of a traditional ground game will effect Trumps turn out, it's one thing to tell a poll you'll vote Trump but if no one is calling you up to check if you've voted, let you know where your polling station is (I refuse to call it a 'voting place', it's a childish term) offer you a ride etc will Trump actually get the voters who nominally support him?

Some will attribute about 3-5% to local campaigns. So that includes door knocking, local engagement, phoning, Get out the vote etc. So this election becomes a good test for that. Will Trump under perform polling, if ground game makes a measureable difference he should. Will it show through the noise I don't know.

One thing is that Trump in the primaries underperformed or met polling. This was looked at to debunk the shy trump voter affect. So was his primary underperformance a result of lack of ground game as well?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Drak

Florida is a weird place, standing its ground.

Florida is a weird place. You got that right.

I was in Miami in May of this year. That place is a very liberal, very urban city where more people speak Spanish than English. It felt more like I was in Latin America than the US honestly.

Weeks later I was in Panama City in Northern Florida. Man what a stark contrast. All Walmarts, trailer parks, 90's Ford Trucks with confederate flags and NRA bumper stickers.... and all white people. Essentially, stereotypical hillbilly country.

So the fact that Clinton is leading by only 2% shouldn't be much of a surprise.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

So Drumpf is tweeting that the Florida Chamber of Commerce has a new poll that shows he's up by 3. And also leading nationally.

After sniffing around it's a pretty pro-Republican poll. Does anyone ever take that poll seriously, or is it just him?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

So Drumpf is tweeting that the Florida Chamber of Commerce has a new poll that shows he's up by 3. And also leading nationally.

After sniffing around it's a pretty pro-Republican poll. Does anyone ever take that poll seriously, or is it just him?

Ipsos from an hour and a half ago said Clinton up by 7 in Florida...

[getbak]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Florida is a weird place. You got that right.

I was in Miami in May of this year. That place is a very liberal, very urban city where more people speak Spanish than English. It felt more like I was in Latin America than the US honestly.

Weeks later I was in Panama City in Northern Florida. Man what a stark contrast. All Walmarts, trailer parks, 90's Ford Trucks with confederate flags and NRA bumper stickers.... and all white people. Essentially, stereotypical hillbilly country.

So the fact that Clinton is leading by only 2% shouldn't be much of a surprise.

As they say, in Florida, the further north you go, the further South you get.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

So Drumpf is tweeting that the Florida Chamber of Commerce has a new poll that shows he's up by 3. And also leading nationally.

After sniffing around it's a pretty pro-Republican poll. Does anyone ever take that poll seriously, or is it just him?

I don't know, but Florida seems like it is likely quite close. That being the case, you would expect to see the occasional poll with Trump ahead.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

538 thinks the race has tightened, and I suspect that's right:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...out-the-clock/

That is borne out by state polls from Emerson, which show Clinton narrowly ahead in Pennsylvania and Michigan, and Trump leading by 1 in Ohio.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

One note of caution on the Emerson polls: it appears they were landline-only and I don't believe it was conducted in both Spanish and English. Make of that what you will:
http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_865e...7d7834766c.pdf

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Well I am now beginning to be a bit confused by Nate Silver's model.

This morning, a new poll from OH predictive insights shows Clinton narrowly ahead in Arizona:
http://email.connectstrategic.com/t/j-73630F4BD52B12D8

Slight adjustment for house effect makes this a 1 point Trump lead, in a state Romney carried by double digits, and which hasn't gone for a democrat since forever.

The effect of this poll on the "polls plus" forecast is that Trump's chances of winning have slightly increased. That makes no sense to me: a universe where Clinton is within a hair's breadth of carrying Arizona is a world where she carries Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada easily.

Maybe someone can explain to me how that poll is actually good news for Trump?

[octothorp]

It looks like the last OH Predictive Insights poll in Arizona in June had Clinton up +5, so maybe it's just this one replacing the old one and resulting in a net drop for Clinton.

Edit: actually it didn't bump the old one out and I missed a OH PI poll from beginning of August, but there is a trend in there of the poll moving toward Trump. (-4, -2, +1).

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well I am now beginning to be a bit confused by Nate Silver's model.

This morning, a new poll from OH predictive insights shows Clinton narrowly ahead in Arizona:
http://email.connectstrategic.com/t/j-73630F4BD52B12D8

Slight adjustment for house effect makes this a 1 point Trump lead, in a state Romney carried by double digits, and which hasn't gone for a democrat since forever.

The effect of this poll on the "polls plus" forecast is that Trump's chances of winning have slightly increased. That makes no sense to me: a universe where Clinton is within a hair's breadth of carrying Arizona is a world where she carries Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada easily.

Maybe someone can explain to me how that poll is actually good news for Trump?

It goes more by trend lines and more heavily by the big pollsters. So if he trend was ever so slightly more Trump compared to before, you'll have a small bump in Trump's direction.

[Street Pharmacist]

Also, that correction from +1 Clinton to +1 Trump I think is from methodology change (LV vs RV, etc). He doesn't adjust out house effect I don't believe

[Senator Clay Davis]

It might have taken like 8 election cycles, but "Neither" has hit the big time!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Nate pointed this out, and I think we've all settled on this being Trump's only chance, but it's all about making people hate Hillary, not like or even support Trump. His number is basically locked in right now, hers not so much. So we can expect almost no policy for Trump the next two months, and non stop conspiracies and trashing Hillary. Last 4 weeks of polling, averages

Trump
Aug 9: 37.8%
Aug 16: 36.7%
Aug 23: 37.3%
Aug 30: 37.7%

Hillary
Aug 9: 45.2%
Aug 16: 43.8%
Aug 23: 43.4%
Aug 30: 42.9%

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

The race has tightened, and Nate Silver doesn't think there is an "electoral college advantage" to Clinton:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-save-clinton/

My view on that has always been informed by demographics, not polls--but he is of course way smarter than I am.