The US Election Polling / Data Thread

[Senator Clay Davis]

Excellent breakdown of the extremely flawed LA Times model from the good people at the Upshot. Don't wanna post the entire thing, but it lays out pretty well why it's the outlier it appears (and should simultaneously crush Trump supporters hopes that this poll is the one that matters).

There is a 19-year-old black man in Illinois who has no idea of the role he is playing in this election.

He is sure he is going to vote for Donald J. Trump.

And he has been held up as proof by conservatives — including outlets like Breitbart News and The New York Post — that Mr. Trump is excelling among black voters. He has even played a modest role in shifting entire polling aggregates, like the Real Clear Politics average, toward Mr. Trump.

How? He’s a panelist on the U.S.C. Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Daybreak poll, which has emerged as the biggest polling outlier of the presidential campaign. Despite falling behind by double digits in some national surveys, Mr. Trump has generally led in the U.S.C./LAT poll. He held the lead for a full month until Wednesday, when Hillary Clinton took a nominal lead.

Our Trump-supporting friend in Illinois is a surprisingly big part of the reason. In some polls, he’s weighted as much as 30 times more than the average respondent, and as much as 300 times more than the least-weighted respondent.

Alone, he has been enough to put Mr. Trump in double digits of support among black voters. He can improve Mr. Trump’s margin by 1 point in the survey, even though he is one of around 3,000 panelists.

He is also the reason Mrs. Clinton took the lead in the U.S.C./LAT poll for the first time in a month on Wednesday. The poll includes only the last seven days of respondents, and he hasn’t taken the poll since Oct. 4. Mrs. Clinton surged once he was out of the sample for the first time in several weeks.

How has he made such a difference? And why has the poll been such an outlier? It’s because the U.S.C./LAT poll made a number of unusual decisions in designing and weighting its survey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/up...ages.html?_r=1

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Excellent breakdown of the extremely flawed LA Times model from the good people at the Upshot. Don't wanna post the entire thing, but it lays out pretty well why it's the outlier it appears (and should simultaneously crush Trump supporters hopes that this poll is the one that matters).

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/up...ages.html?_r=1

On the Reddit politics discussions, they call this guy Carlton.

[Senator Clay Davis]

So ummmm....wow. From close to totally gone because of the tape.

MULawPoll
‏@MULawPoll
Among likely voters in WI:
Thursday: Trump 41%, Clinton 40%
Friday: Clinton 44%, Trump 38%
Saturday and Sunday: Clinton 49%, Trump 30%

https://twitter.com/MULawPoll/status/786257047960424448

And the overall poll results

MULawPoll ‏@MULawPoll 14m14 minutes ago
New Marquette Law School Poll, Wisconsin likely voters:
Clinton 44%
Trump 37%
Johnson 9%
Stein 3%

https://twitter.com/MULawPoll/status/786255865674276864

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by driveway

Women crushing Trump.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-donald-trump/

Is it possible he doesn't know they can vote now?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Excellent breakdown of the extremely flawed LA Times model from the good people at the Upshot. Don't wanna post the entire thing, but it lays out pretty well why it's the outlier it appears (and should simultaneously crush Trump supporters hopes that this poll is the one that matters).



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/up...ages.html?_r=1

One thing I like about this poll is that its own trend line in basically noise free as its the same group that is sampled over and over. People dropping out is an issue but compared to a standard live poll which could be Hillary +0 one week and Hillary +7 the next and that might reflect no change in the electorate it adds some value.

Once you except that it leans 5 to 7 points toward Trump it becomes an interesting relatively noiseless trend line. Its also neat from a more game theory stand point as these are the same people switching allegiances rather than a new sample so you can pin point what things caused which people to switch sides.

So I like the LA Times poll, you just need to account for the underlying bias of the 1st and only sample they took.

[troutman]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...rump-comeback/

Simply put, there isn’t a precedent for a candidate coming back to win this late in the game after being behind by as much as Trump is now. That’s not to say Trump is dead in the water — polls are not perfectly predictive — but history doesn’t offer much hope for candidates in Trump’s position.

[Flamenspiel]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...losing-ground/

"Another, far less optimistic hypothesis for Democrats is that voters are purposely splitting their tickets. As my colleague Nate Silver pointed out on Tuesday, there’s some evidence that voters split their tickets when they feel confident in predicting who the next president will be. If they’re certain it will be a Democrat, they’ll vote for a Republican for Senate, and vice versa. It’s known in political science as “anticipatory balancing.” With Clinton’s lead becoming clearer by the day even as her favorability rating remains low (albeit not as low as Trump’s), it wouldn’t be surprising to see voters seeking a Republican Congress as a check on a President Clinton."

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...losing-ground/

"Another, far less optimistic hypothesis for Democrats is that voters are purposely splitting their tickets. As my colleague Nate Silver pointed out on Tuesday, there’s some evidence that voters split their tickets when they feel confident in predicting who the next president will be. If they’re certain it will be a Democrat, they’ll vote for a Republican for Senate, and vice versa. It’s known in political science as “anticipatory balancing.” With Clinton’s lead becoming clearer by the day even as her favorability rating remains low (albeit not as low as Trump’s), it wouldn’t be surprising to see voters seeking a Republican Congress as a check on a President Clinton."

It will likely be the case and perhaps the Senate even remains in GOP hands. That said, the implosion of the GOP would seem to indicate that the fringe right will be cut away and the houses may actually be cooperative with a Clinton administration.

[GGG]

Rassmusen's daily tracker is trending toward trump going from +7 Clinton, to +5 to +2 trump today. This is an interesting trend showing a return to pre-debate / groping numbers

[Senator Clay Davis]

Well really we're down to focusing on 4 state polls from here on out with Trump giving up on Virginia, so national polls are becoming pretty meaningless. All about FL, NC, OH, PA. But hey what do you know, just today we have polls from:

OH: Trump 42, Clinton 41, Johnson 9, Stein 4 (NBC/WSJ); Clinton 45, Trump 43, Johnson 7, Stein 2 (Emerson)

NC: Clinton 45, Trump 41, Johnson 9 (NBC/WSJ); Clinton 45, Trump 43, Johnson 5 (Suffolk); Clinton 46, Trump 42, Johnson 5 (Emerson)

PA: Clinton 48, Trump 39, Johnson 6, Stein 4 (Bloomberg)

I would think these are the states we'll see the vast majority of polling coming from for the next few weeks. And really it's all about Florida, if Trump loses Florida it's lights out.

[GGG]

Trump needs all four to win or lose Pennsylvania, win Nevada plus NH 2nd.

Correct?

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'm playing around with the Upshot and if he wins FL, NC and OH (I'm considering PA gone with his dreadful numbers in the suburbs), he has to win IA+NH+NV, or CO+NH+NV, and there's a few other scenarios. But I think NC is the biggest problem, the bathroom bill has lost the state a lot of money and events so there's probably going to be some GOP backlash there. If she can get PA and NC, Trump basically has to run the table in the other swing states.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I looked at the Rasumussen poll a bit more, and it has Trump at nearly 25% with the African American vote. I'm gonna go ahead and believe that's a bunch of bull#### (it was 9% a week ago and even that seems high). Also according to the latest FOX poll, she is closing in on an even net favorability. The orange goblin, not so much

[Senator Clay Davis]

Texas is closer than Pennsylvania, or "Things That Should Be Shocking, But Aren't In 2016"

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Texas is closer than Pennsylvania, or "Things That Should Be Shocking, But Aren't In 2016"

What's crazy about Texas is its close without Johnson taking up a significant portion of the vote.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Also another Utah poll showing McMullin could be a factor. And sorry Evan, but every time I see your name I read it as McMuffin. My bad.

UT: Trump 34, Clinton 28, McMullin 20, Johnson 9, Stein 1 (Monmouth)

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by ernie

It will likely be the case and perhaps the Senate even remains in GOP hands.

I wouldn't bet on it.

Not that I think the senate is a surefire loss for the GOP but they're (The Democrats) ahead or close in enough states that Trumps feud with the GOP + the Democrats financial/organizational advantages ought to have them taking the senate and make inroads in the HoR (control of that is a lost cause though I think).

Democrats have consistently led on the generic ballot polls...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...eneric-ballot/

... so they'll pick up seats the only question is how many. My bet would be enough to take the senate but not enough to get the super-majority (60) nor enough to retain control after the 2018 midterms. 51-52 seats.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I wouldn't bet on it.

Not that I think the senate is a surefire loss for the GOP but they're (The Democrats) ahead or close in enough states that Trumps feud with the GOP + the Democrats financial/organizational advantages ought to have them taking the senate and make inroads in the HoR (control of that is a lost cause though I think).

Democrats have consistently led on the generic ballot polls...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...eneric-ballot/

... so they'll pick up seats the only question is how many. My bet would be enough to take the senate but not enough to get the super-majority (60) nor enough to retain control after the 2018 midterms. 51-52 seats.

I think they end up getting control as well but 538 had a piece on the down ballot voting where as Clinton has increased here lead over the past 10-14 days significantly, the Senate races have actually gotten closer. Close enough to not allow the Dems to pick up enough seats? Not likely but it may be closer than everyone assumes.

[octothorp]

I think both Wisconsin and Indiana are safe pickups for the Dems. Ayotte probably hung herself with saying that Donald Trump was a good role model just a little more than a week ago; even if the polls haven't moved on her a lot yet, they will. With those 3 in the bag, they only need to pick up one of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or Missouri, or hold Nevada. I give them pretty good odds of that.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I think both Wisconsin and Indiana are safe pickups for the Dems.

You forgot the safest pickup... Tammy Duckworth in Illinois.

Originally Posted by octothorp

Ayotte probably hung herself with saying that Donald Trump was a good role model just a little more than a week ago; even if the polls haven't moved on her a lot yet, they will. With those 3 in the bag, they only need to pick up one of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or Missouri, or hold Nevada. I give them pretty good odds of that.

They need 4 pick-ups (Plus keeping Nevada). That get's them 50 with the Vice-presidential tiebreaker. So the two you mentioned (although Indiana isn't a lock yet I'd argue) + Duckworth + Two others and they have it.