The US Election Polling / Data Thread

[direwolf]

The race continues to tighten. Clinton has maintained her lead in national polls, but the individual state polls are looking pretty scary right now, with Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada all leaning slightly Republican according to the 538 model. Good news is Clinton is still sitting at a 64% chance overall. But all Trump would have to do is flip a couple of states like Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, and then we'll officially have armageddon (provided Clinton actually loses all of those swing states, which I don't think she will). I still think the Dems will win, but this is shaping up to be a crazy finish.

Those state polls? Not a lot of good news for Clinton. There’s more data showing a tied race in New Hampshire. And Clinton’s lead in Pennsylvania is down to about 3 percentage points in our forecast. Polls in Michigan have also been tightening, with an unusually large number of undecided voters. Polling in New Mexico has been tight enough that we’re now considering it a “state to watch,” although that may reflect an abundance of caution. Clinton’s numbers have held up better in Wisconsin and Virginia, while the data has been very mixed in Colorado.

At a minimum, however, the map is getting messier for Clinton, changing a firewall of states that once seemed locked in. Nevada, for instance, could fairly easily leapfrog New Hampshire in her pecking order, especially given the early voting statistics there. You also shouldn’t rule out cases where Florida or North Carolina wind up being the tipping-point state as a result of a late decline for Clinton in Michigan or Pennsylvania.

Overall, Clinton’s Electoral College chances are 65 percent in the both the polls-only forecast and polls-plus forecasts, not much changed from yesterday. And she maintains about a 3-percentage-point lead over Trump in our national popular-vote forecast. It’s not clear that things are getting any worse for Clinton, but it’s also not clear that they’re getting better — and we’re at the point where even a 1-point swing in either direction would be a big deal, since a 4-point lead for Clinton would be quite a bit safer than a 2-point one.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...s-not-so-much/

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Again, he really just needs to flip Colorado (or Michigan or Wisconsin which seem the next most likely). He needs to win the states they think he's a coin toss or better in.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Nate's model is gonna need some serious adjustments/rework for the next campaign. For instance yesterday all the PPP polls that came out were mostly good for Hillary, and mostly in swing states or a wannabe swing state in Michigan. But based off all those good polls, her numbers overall went down. Why? Because a couple polls in Indiana, Utah, Kansas and Missouri showed Trump well ahead. So polls in states that won't matter even slightly tipped the scales more to Trump than polls in states that will be vital to determining the winner. Plus as we know the Nevada early voting data strongly suggests Hillary is comfortably in front, but that data isn't worked into the model right now. I know it's not 100% accurate, detailed data, but Nate loves reminded people of the trend lines, so he should be able to incorporate some of the early voting data into his model. Overall this election I've found myself using the Upshot and RCP more than 538. Just not a very good cycle for Nate and company, too much click bait as well.

[GGG]

What do we actually know about early voter information?

We know affiliation, what we don't know is is early voter turnout reflective of Election Day turnout. And it might be presuming the parties have equal ground game. However given that Hillary has a vastly superior ground game her earlier voting numbers should be better.

It is untested whether or not the missing republican early voters due to a lack of ground game show up on Election Day. I believe it's likely they will as early voters are high propensity voters to begin with so whether or not they vote early they are likely to vote.

So I think drawing any assumptions out of the early voting data is possibly very misleading.

To me the most you can assume out of early voting is Clinton is more likely to outperform polling than trump.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Nate's model is gonna need some serious adjustments/rework for the next campaign. For instance yesterday all the PPP polls that came out were mostly good for Hillary, and mostly in swing states or a wannabe swing state in Michigan. But based off all those good polls, her numbers overall went down. Why? Because a couple polls in Indiana, Utah, Kansas and Missouri showed Trump well ahead. So polls in states that won't matter even slightly tipped the scales more to Trump than polls in states that will be vital to determining the winner. Plus as we know the Nevada early voting data strongly suggests Hillary is comfortably in front, but that data isn't worked into the model right now. I know it's not 100% accurate, detailed data, but Nate loves reminded people of the trend lines, so he should be able to incorporate some of the early voting data into his model. Overall this election I've found myself using the Upshot and RCP more than 538. Just not a very good cycle for Nate and company, too much click bait as well.

Lots of folks are disenfranchised with Silver since ESPN bought his site. I know it's his stats but I think he or the folks over there like a horse race. Keeps the clicks up. Apparently he also had the GOP primary wrong.

[Drak]

I was paying attention last night to heavy voter turnout by Hispanics in Nevada. Long lines.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Drak

Lots of folks are disenfranchised with Silver since ESPN bought his site. I know it's his stats but I think he or the folks over there like a horse race. Keeps the clicks up. Apparently he also had the GOP primary wrong.

He had the primary right statistically, but he wrote articles about how in almost primaries, the party chose the candidate more than the people. What he didn't about for in his opinion (and he admitted such) was that the party establishment was too weak to do anything about it

[GGG]

That was also influenced because their politics editor wrote the book on that theory.

Literally.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...-party-decides

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

He had the primary right statistically, but he wrote articles about how in almost primaries, the party chose the candidate more than the people. What he didn't about for in his opinion (and he admitted such) was that the party establishment was too weak to do anything about it

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

[Drak]

How is McMullin doing now? I heard Romney might possibly give him his endorsement?

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Drak

Lots of folks are disenfranchised with Silver since ESPN bought his site. I know it's his stats but I think he or the folks over there like a horse race. Keeps the clicks up. Apparently he also had the GOP primary wrong.

? You argue he is has a bias to show a "horse race", yet he shows a 65% chance of a Clinton win?

That isn't a horse race.

It may be closer then we would like, but don't pull fake arguments out to disprove a site.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

? You argue he is has a bias to show a "horse race", yet he shows a 65% chance of a Clinton win?

That isn't a horse race.

It may be closer then we would like, but don't pull fake arguments out to disprove a site.

If their current projections are correct, it's extremely close. Basically Trump would only need to add New Hampshire to the states he's already >50% in and he'd win the election.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by opendoor

If their current projections are correct, it's extremely close. Basically Trump would only need to add New Hampshire to the states he's already >50% in and he'd win the election.

I think some of the recent polls may be skewing his stats. He's showing both Florida and Nevada as going Trump, yet every indication from early ballots is both states have broken big for Clinton. That's 35 electoral votes right there that make his projection seem way off. Instead of a slim 21 vote win, it turns into a 56 ballot victory. I think their numbers are a little skewed and they are doing so to maintain traffic.

[MikeN]

This whole thing is a total cluster F*** how the media is playing in Clinton's corner is disgusting. Ad that will all the crazy voter fraud going on, its going to be one hell of an interesting few weeks. Even more with the FBI investigating her and her slush fund foundation.

She's one hell of a crook, its shocking how the DOJ has blocked the FBI's attempt to arrest anyone.

I would not be to surprised if James Comey ended up dead in the next 60 days.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MikeN

This whole thing is a total cluster F*** how the media is playing in Clinton's corner is disgusting. Ad that will all the crazy voter fraud going on, its going to be one hell of an interesting few weeks. Even more with the FBI investigating her and her slush fund foundation.

She's one hell of a crook, its shocking how the DOJ has blocked the FBI's attempt to arrest anyone.

I would not be to surprised if James Comey ended up dead in the next 60 days.

The media isn't in Clinton's camp. Reporting on what temp days and does isn't bias. There's no voter fraud going on

[Drak]

Originally Posted by MikeN

This whole thing is a total cluster F*** how the media is playing in Clinton's corner is disgusting. Ad that will all the crazy voter fraud going on, its going to be one hell of an interesting few weeks. Even more with the FBI investigating her and her slush fund foundation.

She's one hell of a crook, its shocking how the DOJ has blocked the FBI's attempt to arrest anyone.

I would not be to surprised if James Comey ended up dead in the next 60 days.

Humor on a dreary Saturday morning. Well done.

[MikeN]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The media isn't in Clinton's camp. Reporting on what temp days and does isn't bias. There's no voter fraud going on

Right, and dead people can vote via a Medium ?

[Drak]

Originally Posted by MikeN

Right, and dead people can vote via a Medium ?

They can. And zombies too.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MikeN

This whole thing is a total cluster F*** how the media is playing in Clinton's corner is disgusting. Ad that will all the crazy voter fraud going on, its going to be one hell of an interesting few weeks. Even more with the FBI investigating her and her slush fund foundation.

She's one hell of a crook, its shocking how the DOJ has blocked the FBI's attempt to arrest anyone.

I would not be to surprised if James Comey ended up dead in the next 60 days.

I would argue that the media has been pro trump.

Here you have a candidate which has no political experience, is an open bigot, has admitted to sexually assaulting women, has an open child rape case going on, has two policies that are universally panned by Enconmists and yet they treat him like a credible candidate and blatantly lies every time he opens his mouth.

The fact that the media doesn't start every broadcast with Here are the reasons that you can't elect trump makes them biased against Hillary. Against a generic republican you might have a point but against Trump. Come on.

[Drak]

Not to mention they've been going on and on about Clinton's nothing burger emails.