PA-Franklin & Marshall College: Clinton +11

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Do post-convention bumps generally look this disastrous for the other candidate or is Trump just that much uniquely in a horrible position?

To be fair to Trump here, he had the bad luck of going 1st, so the Democrats got the last word in. The American people are known to have the attention span of a peanut, so the RNC calling Hillary the Antichrist was drowned out by the DNC right after. The DNC was certainly better run with a better star studded cast but they were helped by going second and drowning out the memory of the RNC in the fickle voter's mind.

[Deblano]

Trump has to win NV, CO, VA, NC, GA, MO, OH, IA, NH and WI in order to win.

Colorado and Virginia are likely in the Clinton camp as well, and Wisconsin is probably gonna go to her as well.

[Free Bird]

Just saying that this poll is composed of 10% or so more Democrats than Republicans, but this is still trouble for Don

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Just saying that this poll is composed of 10% or so more Democrats than Republicans, but this is still trouble for Don

The 2012 Exit poll had D 45% R 35%

[Badger]

Caution with this poll.  In 2012, PA was 78% white in the electorate.  This poll has that number at 93%. 

And Trump is STILL down 11? Holy $hit!

[GeorgiaModerate]

Just saying that this poll is composed of 10% or so more Democrats than Republicans, but this is still trouble for Don

First of all, there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country at present, so this is reasonable.  Would you contend that there should also be as many Libertarians sampled as Democrats and Republicans?  Second....

Begin: soapbox

Not to pick on you particularly, because we see this kind of complaint frequently in this forum and elsewhere, but this is a completely bogus complaint.  Yes, it's reasonable to reweight samples for demographics such as sex, race, and age, but these are all inherent or "fixed" attributes of a voter.  (That is, it's reasonable if your turnout assumptions by demographic are good -- which is a whole separate question.)

The problem with complaints about more Democrats or more Republicans, in a sample is this:

Party ID is not a fixed attribute.

Although some people have a strong allegiance to one party or the other, many people don't.  (And even some who do loyally identify with one party may still vote for the other, as shown by other discussions on this forum.)  Party ID is, in a sense, nothing more than a personal opinion; it's not an unchangeable characteristic such as race.  Most important for this discussion: a voter's party ID can fluctuate in the short, medium, and long terms.  

For the short term, just take a look at the NBC/Survey Monkey polls before, between, and after the conventions.  Between the conventions -- during Trump's bounce -- the party ID of their sampling became significantly more Republican than it was before the RNC.  But after the DNC -- when Clinton bounced back -- party ID shifted back to near the pre-convention proportion.  The samples shifted because the ID of the general population shifted.  This is because many voters' party ID follows their preference for President, not the other way around.  Such fluid voters don't have a strong party ID going in, but their thinking (consciously or not) runs along the lines of "I support Trump, therefore if someone asks whether I'm a Democrat or a Republican, I must be a Republican."

For the medium term, look at the posters on this forum who have changed avatars on this forum during this campaign.  If you took a census of the party ID of all members a year ago, the proportion identifying with each party would look different than it does now.  Therefore, a representative sample would also have shifted.

For the long term, many people's political leanings shift over the course of their lives, due to age, income changes, life experiences, etc.  I know personal anecdotal evidence is unscientific, but I'm sure I'm not the only one with a similar story.  I was raised as a Rockefeller Republican (a species now unfortunately extinct), and in my life I've identified at various times as a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, and an Independent.  I've voted for all of these in Presidential elections; the Independent was John Anderson -- in fact I was an Anderson volunteer.  (Yeah, I'm getting up there. )

Creating a voter model and weighting for various demographics essentially boils down to trying to create a function with several input variables, such as age, sex, race, location, income, etc., and the output being a valid prediction of the vote.  I submit that party ID is one of the outputs of this function, not one of its inputs.

Because of this, questioning the party makeup of a sample is highly dubious.  Doing so leads to the kinds of "unskewing" that failed notoriously in 2012.  In general, most samples at the time showed fewer Republicans and more independents than in 2008.  In hindsight, this was during the rise of the Tea Party movement.  Many of the TPers were frustrated with the Republican establishment, and chose to no longer identify with the party.  However, they still voted very much like Republicans.  As such, this made the Independent group more favorable to Republican candidates.  This would not be a problem, if people then didn't attempt to manipulate the numbers.  But the unskewers applied the results of sampling based on 2012 party ID to a turnout model based on 2008 party ID -- when it was clear (at least in hindsight) there had been a significant chunk of Republican-voting people whose party ID had shifted from Republican to Independent.  Their voting intention was the only important thing, not their party ID.  This is why the unskewing attempts were so off base; this technique is completely invalid.

Disclaimer: I'm not a professional pollster, and this is just my personal opinion based on several decades of observation of American politics.  On the other hand (we moderates always have to balance!), I have a graduate degree in systems analysis and work as an engineer for a Fortune 50 technology company; I know a fair bit about sampling and statistics.

End: soapbox

[Badger]

Caution with this poll.  In 2012, PA was 78% white in the electorate.  This poll has that number at 93%. 

And Trump is STILL down 11? Holy $hit!

[pbrower2a]

Do post-convention bumps generally look this disastrous for the other candidate or is Trump just that much uniquely in a horrible position?

It's certainly not a disaster for Hillary Clinton!

The Republican Convention really was a disaster. It failed to heal rifts within the party. It was all the Donald Trump Show. It did little to promote the careers of future Republican leaders.

Democrats had their problems, but they solved them. Oh, did they solve them! They stole the Reagan-Bush legacy except for the Social Darwinism. They had a President unusually popular approaching the end of his second term showing why America elected him twice and leaving a legacy to carry on.  Democrats exploited the scapegoating of Donald Trump to find a powerful slogan that one usually associates with Republicans: "STRONGER TOGETHER". Bernie Sanders left no ambiguity in his endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Democrats introduced some of the negative material about Donald Trump... with the aid of a masterful comedian Senator Al Franken.  

The themes of the 2016 Presidential elections are set.

Conventions rarely decide elections -- but this time the failure of a convention may have decided the election.  If you got sick of the "Willie Horton" ads in 1988, then don't worry. It won't be all the same stuff.

[Devils30]

For all the talk about how Trump was a good fit in PA, the state might even "trend" D.

[Smash255]

For all the talk about how Trump was a good fit in PA, the state might even "trend" D.

The idea he is a good fit in PA is insane.   Yes he will do well with the rural vote in western PA, which has already trended heavily R, and likely will continue to do so.  He is a BRUTAL fit for suburban Philly, Montco is going to be utterly hilarious.

[Devils30]

MontCo could be something like 61-34 Clinton, Chester maybe 55-41 or so.

[Desroko]

Just saying that this poll is composed of 10% or so more Democrats than Republicans, but this is still trouble for Don

First of all, there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country at present, so this is reasonable.  Would you contend that there should also be as many Libertarians sampled as Democrats and Republicans?  Second....

Begin: soapbox

I'm not going to quote the whole thing, but this is correct. Party ID is an attitude, not a demographic, and plenty of professionals have been burned by thinking otherwise, as recently as 2012.

[IceSpear]

F&M used to be a good pollster. I don't know what happened. 93% white? Really? I'm hoping this is just a typo or something.

[SWE]

It's really bizarre to me that people thought this state was winnable for Trump.

[Sir Mohamed]

But, but... the Trumpster told me he's going to win there. He was practically no chance without PA. It's just like FL. A must-win for the fake billionaire.

[politicallefty]

Trump getting drubbed in the Philly suburbs by 40 points. DISASTER!

This point has been severely understated in this topic. That's the reason I've never bought into the PA=Tossup idea. Trump can pick up voters in Southwestern PA and other rural areas. He might even make inroads into the Scranton and Wilkes-Barre area. However, I don't think he stands a chance in SEPA. President Obama won the Philly suburbs by 9% in 2012. A 40-point lead in the Philly suburbs is mind-boggling. She doesn't even need to get that to keep PA Democratic. If she gets up to or near 65% in Montco and Delco and up to or near 60% in Chester and Bucks, she'll have the state locked up so long as Philly itself delivers a 450k+ vote margin.

[pbrower2a]

It's really bizarre to me that people thought this state was winnable for Trump.

People made assumptions that just did not hold up.