Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 28, 2016, 01:59:16 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 164
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Morning Consult (post-DNC): Clinton+3 on: August 01, 2016, 08:27:31 am
Call me in early September when the polls actually mean something :-)
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: People's Pundit Daily Tracking Poll: Trump +5 on: August 01, 2016, 08:20:43 am

So is this literally a surveymonkey poll they just put up on their website?


Polling is, to put it mildly, in a transition phase.

Given the explosion of social media, the death of land lines, etc "traditional" random digit dialed telephone polling is, if not quite dead, certainly on its last legs.

We're pretty sure something internet based will replace telephone polling, but EXACTLY what that replacement will be is very much a work in progress.

What survey monkey does is a possibility to potentially replace and/or supplement telephone polls.

Survey Monkey is a service that, as most of us know, allows users to upload a list of emails, and get everybody on the list sent an automated internet based survey.

Survey Monkey has thousands of users, and conducts a million+ surveys a week.

"in theory" one could take a small RANDOM selection of the millions of ongoing survey monkey survey takers and then ask them who they are going to vote for.....

If this data was then weighted by age, race, education, gender, geography, etc it would resemble a traditional probability based survey...

This poll, as well as the NBC/Survey monkey poll, try to do what I have outlined above.

I would put the methodology under "experimental", but assuming good quality control it at least has a chance of working.

It overcomes the major concern of most "panel" based internet polls in that it is a (semi) true "random" selection where the person being surveyed did not, at some point "opt in" - at least for the "horse race" part of the survey.



3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: People's Pundit Daily Tracking Poll: Trump +5 on: July 31, 2016, 06:27:18 pm
Never heard of those guys, so take it with a grain of salt.

47% Trump (R)
42% Clinton (D)
4% Johnson (L)
4% Stein (G)

The People’s Pundit Daily U.S. Presidential Election Daily Tracking Poll results are based on 3,056 interviews from 7/22/2016 to 7/29/16 (95% confidence interval), are weighted based on demographics from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey and based on a likely voter model.



https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/latest-polls/election-2016/us-presidential-election-daily-tracking-poll/
https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/polls/2016/07/30/trump-still-leads-clinton-in-presidential-election-daily-tracking-poll/

No idea who these guys are.

On a very quick look, they appear methodolocally similar to the nbc/survey monkey poll

4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: RABA Research (national): Clinton +15 (10pt bounce) on: July 30, 2016, 06:24:55 pm
Do we know when any legit polls are coming out?

Generally speaking, usually about the first week of Septenber 😇
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2000 or 1988 on: July 28, 2016, 04:55:44 pm
1960 - Clinton is Nixon and Trump is JFK.

Many people refused to vote for JFK - not because he was an egotistical, bigoted buffoon, but because he was a Roman Catholic.  JFK was charismatic, while Nixon was the robotic voice of the establishment.  Dirty tricks were employed to decide a key state (EDIT: Hasn't happened yet, but it wouldn't surprise me).

The popular vote margin was 0.17%, which makes Gore's PV margin over Bush look like a landslide.

You have a point about 1960..

So is 1960 or 1948 closer?
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2000 or 1988 on: July 28, 2016, 03:39:07 pm
1988 is what I voted.

Trump is Bush and Clinton is Dukakis.

Alternatively, I actually think a good parallel for this election is 2008. Followed by 8 years of an unpopular President (Bush 43/Obama), a dynamic candidate (Obama/Trump) defeats a weak and uninspiring candidate of the incumbent party (McCain/Clinton) - who ran with an awful running mate (Palin/Kaine) - in a huge landslide. Trump's margin of victory over Clinton probably will be similar to Obama 2008, (53-47).

Obama - and you guys have to realize this - is the new Dubya.





Doesn't quite work - Reagan was a very successful president which is very much at odds with the 2016 dynamic.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2000 or 1988 on: July 28, 2016, 03:35:49 pm
closer to 2000 than 1988, but neither is a great match.

1948 is an approximate parallel. - The US economy was coming off a sugar high of spending post WWII in 1948, today we are digesting the post 2009 Stimulus hangover. - In both years the economies were in transition from an unprecedented government distortion to the economy.

In addition, the US economy was in transition from one major era to another - In 1948 from a wartime economy to a cold war economy - In 2016 from a super power to a non superpower state....
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 7/26 - Trump +7 on: July 28, 2016, 02:38:21 pm
The internals are legitimately bad (dive in and look) whereas Reuters aren't.

I'm not sure about now, but before Reuters had ridiculous Democratic registration advantages. Like D+15 at one point I think. They're dreadful.

That's why I said the internals are fine. Do the internals 'add up' to an accurate national Clinton v Trump share? No. That's in the weighting,

Unless you have a %$%#&ing  HUGE sample, the internals simply cannot add up.

You balance your sample to the national data points (age, race, education, rural, urban, suburbs, etc) but the regional samples are simply too small to be balanced.

To make an extreme illustration if you did a "poll" of 8 people in the US there should be 1 african american (Blacks are about 12.2% of the population in the US) - So if you broke the US into 4 zones of 2 people each, one zone would have to be 50% black (wrong!) and the other 3 zones would be 0% black (wrong!) - but the overall sample would be ok.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic National Convention days 3 and 4 **live commentary thread** on: July 28, 2016, 02:31:16 pm
An outstanding speech by a great president, not to mention an INCREDIBLE endorsement of the woman he wants to succeed him.  Mr. Obama, thank you for your leadership.

All but 4 things in your post are correct.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 7/26 - Trump +7 on: July 28, 2016, 02:22:42 pm
I mean, people are now trying to claim RCP are right wing hacks. RCP!

In fairness, RCP is a Republican propaganda machine.
RCP is conservative, by and large. Their aggregate, however, is not biased.

It picks and chooses polls, yeah it is just as biased.

538's "Nowcast" says Hildebeast would win the popular vote by 0.2%
The RCP average has Trump up by 0.9%

1.1% is noise, not bias.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Rasmussen weekly tracker: Clinton+1 on: July 28, 2016, 02:19:46 pm
As much as I'd like this to be true, you can't denounce Rasmussen as garbage then praise it when you like the results.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

And THIS clock is very broken.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trumps Post RNC "Favorability" bump on: July 28, 2016, 02:15:01 pm
Not entirely conclusive as the before and after sets don't share any polls with each other.

True, but despite different methodologies, the differential between the two candidates should transcend the actual polls used, and least qualitatively, if not quantatatively.

If "X" is indeed viewed more favorably than "y", any properly done poll will show that.  The numerical value may vary, but the relative standing of the two should not vary much from poll to poll....
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Trumps Post RNC "Favorability" bump on: July 28, 2016, 08:02:50 am
In the Post RNC polling Trump's favorability has gone from "dangerously radioactive total exclusion zone" to "Potentially lethal exposure, handle with great care"

Hilldabeast and Trump are now roughly equivalently toxic.


Pre RNC

Clinton:

Gallup         7/16 - 7/23   3545 A   38   57   -19
Reuters/Ipsos      7/16 - 7/20   1522 A   46   54   -8
Monmouth      7/14 - 7/16   688 LV   35   54   -19
ABC News/Wash Post   7/11 - 7/14   816 RV   40   57   -17
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   7/9 - 7/13   1000 RV   34   56   -22

Average was unfavorable +17.0

Trump:

Gallup         7/16 - 7/23   3545 A   36   59   -23
Reuters/Ipsos      7/16 - 7/20   1522 A   43   57   -14
Monmouth      7/14 - 7/16   688 LV   33   54   -21
ABC News/Wash Post   7/11 - 7/14   816 RV   34   62   -28
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   7/9 - 7/13   1000 RV   27   60   -33

Average was Unfavorable +23.8

Net Advantage - Clinton +6.8

Post RNC:


Clinton

CBS News      7/22 - 7/24   1363 A   31   56   -25
CNN/ORC         7/22 - 7/24   882 RV   41   55   -14
Economist/YouGov   7/23 - 7/24   1300 A   42   56   -14

Unfavorable + 18.3

Trump

CBS News      7/22 - 7/24   1363 A   34   53   -19
CNN/ORC         7/22 - 7/24   882 RV   46   51   -5
Economist/YouGov   7/23 - 7/24   1300 A   35   61   -26

Unfavorable + 17

Swing:

From Clinton +6.8 to Trump +1.3 - A swing of 8.1%
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National: Trump +3 on: July 26, 2016, 03:04:13 pm
Dubious methodology. Questionable randomness.

A factual point of information:

The Rand Corporation (or the "Bland Corporation" for you Dr. Strangelove fans) ran a poll based upon essentially identical methodology in 2012 and came within 0.1% of predicting the actual margin of victory.  Rand had Obama +4.0, the actual was Obama +3.9

The Rand Corporation has also had 32 members of it's staff win the Nobel Prize in various disciplines over the years.  This may be an internet based poll but it's about as far from John Zogby as you can get.  RAnd is not a bunch of underfunded lightweights to put it very mildly.

The methodology is new, and unproven over a long term series of races,  so I would personally put this poll under the "worth watching, but unproven" category - but that being said this is a VERY serious and legitimate effort to get it right.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 7/25 - Trump +5 on: July 26, 2016, 02:55:52 pm
It never fails to amaze me how statistically illiterate people here are when all we do all day is analyze polls.

They real should teach statistics, or at least math and critical thinking in the schools.

Why did they stop doing that BTW?
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What can Hillary Clinton accomplish as president with a GOP House + Dem Senate? on: July 26, 2016, 02:51:46 pm
Legislative gridlock

Stacked SCOTUS => Activist judges imposing socialist dogma via judicial fiat.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Trump takes first lead in MorningConsult Poll: Trump 44% Clinton 40% Johnson 10% on: July 26, 2016, 08:42:41 am

Yes, it is the end of the world that Trump is getting the convention bounce that most people expected. Just ask President McCain.

Or Presidents Kerry and Dukakis, for that matter......
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 7/23 - Trump +3 on: July 25, 2016, 10:07:26 pm
lol this is such junk

I can't be the only one thinking that it is pretty much statistically impossible for them day after day, with such a small n of respondents, to have results that only vary a point or two. There should be more variation with such a small sample.
It's 5 Day Rolling.

7 day rolling actually....
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What can a President Trump do with a GOP House+Dem Senate? on: July 25, 2016, 10:04:10 pm
Legislative gridlock

Activist stacked supreme court that implements radical left agenda by judicial fiat.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National: Trump +3 on: July 25, 2016, 09:57:36 pm
Dubious methodology. Questionable randomness.

This poll is different, but most things touched by the Rand Corporation are well outside the box.

For the record... In 2012 Rand predicted Obama +4.0% - The actual was +3.9$

It could have simply been beginner's luck, but the Rand corporation is a VERY serious research organization - Staff members at Rand have won 32 (!) Nobel Prizes over the years.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National: Trump +3 on: July 25, 2016, 09:52:00 pm
So this actually isn't really a poll and should probably not be recorded as such.

In 2012 The Rand Corporation poll predicted Obama +4, and the actual result was Obama + 3.9

This is a VERY serious methodology.  The Rand corporation has had 32 (!) persons associated with the company win various Nobel prizes for everything from economics to physics.

I have questions if USC can match Rand in terms of anal retentive/obsessive compulsive validation and quality control, but this is indeed a VERY serious poll.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: University of DE/Princeton Survey Research Associates (national): Clinton +4 on: July 25, 2016, 09:45:47 pm
Who is this

This firm used to do the polling for Newsweek Magazine, they have strong ties and  partnership with PEW

Hey it's Vorlon!

I come out every 10,000 4 years :-)

For B5 fans the Vorlon option in this election would be like the "giant meteor hitting the earth" in PPP's polls

In an election where the choices are Trump, Clinton, and "Planet destroying meteor", any sane person would ask "Exactly how big is the meteor, are we talking total annihilation, or merely planetary level species extinction?"

Depending on the mass, velocity, angle of impact, the meteor may indeed be the best of the available options....
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National: Trump +3 on: July 25, 2016, 09:41:49 pm
Who?


This poll is METHODOLOGICALLY a clone of a poll run by the Rand Corporation in 2012.

The Rand poll did VERY well - their final poll has Obama +4, and the actual result was Obama +3.9.

Two questions:

Did Rand just "get lucky" in 2012? (Zogby did well in 1996, and Rasmussen was awesome in 2004, so one swallow does not spring make)

The Rand Corporation is anal retentive/obsessive compulsive on quality control, is USC in the same league?

This is a very interesting, but ultimately unproven polling methodology.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: University of DE/Princeton Survey Research Associates (national): Clinton +4 on: July 25, 2016, 05:38:16 pm
Who is this

This firm used to do the polling for Newsweek Magazine, they have strong ties and  partnership with PEW

Hey it's Vorlon!

I come out every 10,000 4 years :-)
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: DE-University of Deleware/Princeton Survey Research Associates: Shockingly close on: July 25, 2016, 04:29:29 pm
Who is this

This firm used to do the polling for Newsweek Magazine, they have strong ties and  partnership with PEW
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 164


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines