OH-Bloomberg: Trump +5/+5

[jaichind]

538 nowcast and poll-plus mode also has OH going to Trump with this poll.

[jaichind]

Problem for Trump is that even after he wins over NC IA OH and then perhaps FL, the next rung of states will be NV and NH which I will see as being very hard for him to flip unless there is another surge of support on top of the existing surge he is experiencing.  This will leave him short.

[Seriously?]

Problem for Trump is that even after he wins over NC IA OH and then perhaps FL, the next rung of states will be NV and NH which I will see as being very hard for him to flip unless there is another surge of support on top of the existing surge he is experiencing.  This will leave him short.

Eh, VA is more of a bellwether than most people on here give credit for. The PVI is Even. If Trump is in the lead, I'd expect it to be close or follow into the R camp as well.

NV seems more likely than NH at this point. ME-02 oddly seems to be to the right of NH.

[Wiz in Wis]

A couple things

1) This poll isn't exactly an outlier. Red Avatars should calm down. Trump has been up in OH in the last few weeks of polling. Given what we know about the WWC vote, Ohio is a likely candidate state for him to flip, even if he's down a few nationally. It was to the right of the nation in 08 and 12.

2) We have no trend-line to look at with Seltzer here. It may be that their LV screen is too tight, or it may be accurate. We don't know because we don't have RVs.  Even in the Bloomberg link, they seem somewhat cautious: They go out of their way to say their LV screen is shifting a lot of support to Trump:

“Our party breakdown differs from other polls, but resembles what happened in Ohio in 2004,” said pollster J. Ann Selzer, whose Iowa-based firm Selzer & Co. oversaw the survey. “It is very difficult to say today who will and who will not show up to vote on Election Day. Our poll suggests more Republicans than Democrats would do that in an Ohio election held today, as they did in 2004 when George W. Bush carried the state by a narrow margin. In 2012, more Democrats showed up.”

3) Even if you are inclined to think Clinton is a bad candidate, she's outpacing Strickland by 12 and generic house D by 8. Again, it seems as if GOPer's in general are much more "likely" to say they are voting in this poll. That would point to an enthusiasm gap for the Dems, rather than a shift in preferences. The debates can turn that around on a dime

4) If the best Trump can do is +5 in a state that he absolutely needs to win, that is demographically favorable to him, and at Clinton's lowest point (post-deplorables, post convention, mid-pneumonia), that's hardly worth bragging about.

[StatesPoll]

Problem for Trump is that even after he wins over NC IA OH and then perhaps FL, the next rung of states will be NV and NH which I will see as being very hard for him to flip unless there is another surge of support on top of the existing surge he is experiencing.  This will leave him short.

TRUMP's paths (if he wins Romney(206) + IA(6) + OH(18) + FL(29) = 259
Then he needs 11 more

1. NV(6) + CO(9) = 15
2. PA(20) = 20
3. WI(10) + ME-2(1) = 11
4. MI(16) = 16
5. NV(6) + NM(5) =11
6. CO(9) + ME-2,ME(Statewide) =12

TRUMP has some chances in NM/CO as latest polls.
let me show you my cherry-picking polls

1) PA
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/pennsylvania/#plus
Aug. 31-Sep. 6  Google Consumer Surveys  808 LV  TRUMP 35% | Hillary 33% | Johnson 11%

2) NV
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/nevada/#plus
Sep. 6-8    Marist College  627 LV     TRUMP 42% | Hillary 41% | Johnson 8%

3) CO
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/colorado/#plus
Aug. 26-Sep. 8   Ipsos   417 LV            TRUMP 43% | Hillary 41%
Aug. 9-Sep. 1    SurveyMonkey    2,428 RV    Hillary 37% | TRUMP 37% | Johnson 16%

4) ME-2
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/maine-2/#plus
Sep. 4-10 SurveyUSA   397 LV             TRUMP 47% | Hillary 37% | Johnson 8%
Sep. 2-5    Emerson College 400 LV    TRUMP 41% | Hillary 36% | Johnson 14%

5) WI
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/wisconsin/#plus
Aug. 26-Sep. 8   Ipsos  523 LV            TRUMP 40% | Hillary 38%
Aug. 9-Sep. 1    SurveyMonkey    2,687 RV    Hillary 39% | TRUMP 37% | Johnson 13%

6) MI
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/michigan/#plus
Aug. 26-Sep. 8   Ipsos  613 LV               Hillary 43% | TRUMP 41% |
Aug. 26-Sep. 8   Ipsos  494 LV               Hillary 42% | TRUMP 42% |

7) NM
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/new-mexico/#plus
Aug. 26-Sep. 8   Ipsos  106 LV            TRUMP 48% | Hillary 38%
Aug. 31-Sep. 6  Google Consumer Surveys  215 LV  TRUMP 30% | Hillary 27% | Johnson 18%


ME(Statewide)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/maine/#plus
Sep. 4-10 SurveyUSA   779 LV             Hillary 42% | TRUMP 39% | Johnson 9%

[KingSweden]

Problem for Trump is that even after he wins over NC IA OH and then perhaps FL, the next rung of states will be NV and NH which I will see as being very hard for him to flip unless there is another surge of support on top of the existing surge he is experiencing.  This will leave him short.

Eh, VA is more of a bellwether than most people on here give credit for. The PVI is Even. If Trump is in the lead, I'd expect it to be close or follow into the R camp as well.

NV seems more likely than NH at this point. ME-02 oddly seems to be to the right of NH.

What would you say va+6 means for the state of the race, in that case?

[Devout Centrist]

Problem for Trump is that even after he wins over NC IA OH and then perhaps FL, the next rung of states will be NV and NH which I will see as being very hard for him to flip unless there is another surge of support on top of the existing surge he is experiencing.  This will leave him short.

TRUMP's paths (if he wins Romney(206) + IA(6) + OH(18) + FL(29) = 259
Then he needs 11 more

1. NV(6) + CO(9) = 15
2. PA(20) = 20
3. WI(10) + ME-2(1) = 11
4. MI(16) = 16
5. NV(6) + NM(5) =11
6. CO(9) + ME-2,ME(Statewide) =12

TRUMP has some chances in NM/CO as latest polls.
let me show you my cherry-picking polls

1) PA
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/pennsylvania/#plus
Aug. 31-Sep. 6  Google Consumer Surveys  808 LV  TRUMP 35% | Hillary 33% | Johnson 11%

2) NV
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/nevada/#plus
Sep. 6-8    Marist College  627 LV     TRUMP 42% | Hillary 41% | Johnson 8%

3) CO
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/colorado/#plus
Aug. 26-Sep. 8   Ipsos   417 LV            TRUMP 43% | Hillary 41%
Aug. 9-Sep. 1    SurveyMonkey    2,428 RV    Hillary 37% | TRUMP 37% | Johnson 16%

4) ME-2
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/maine-2/#plus
Sep. 4-10 SurveyUSA   397 LV             TRUMP 47% | Hillary 37% | Johnson 8%
Sep. 2-5    Emerson College 400 LV    TRUMP 41% | Hillary 36% | Johnson 14%

5) WI
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/wisconsin/#plus
Aug. 26-Sep. 8   Ipsos  523 LV            TRUMP 40% | Hillary 38%
Aug. 9-Sep. 1    SurveyMonkey    2,687 RV    Hillary 39% | TRUMP 37% | Johnson 13%

6) MI
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/michigan/#plus
Aug. 26-Sep. 8   Ipsos  613 LV               Hillary 43% | TRUMP 41% |
Aug. 26-Sep. 8   Ipsos  494 LV               Hillary 42% | TRUMP 42% |

7) NM
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/new-mexico/#plus
Aug. 26-Sep. 8   Ipsos  106 LV            TRUMP 48% | Hillary 38%
Aug. 31-Sep. 6  Google Consumer Surveys  215 LV  TRUMP 30% | Hillary 27% | Johnson 18%


ME(Statewide)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/maine/#plus
Sep. 4-10 SurveyUSA   779 LV             Hillary 42% | TRUMP 39% | Johnson 9%

Your word salad never gets any less amusing.

[DrScholl]

The white supremacists have found a bone to chew on.  Let them have their fun, they need aast meal before they rightfully get dragged through hell in November.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Trump has been leading OH for the last few polls actually. Not sure how this is anymore junk than the rest.

Hillary's health has become an issue and until its settled, I expect her poll numbers will dip.

[Virginiá]

It is f**king Selzer! Third best pollster according to 538.

Bull****

Is it really 'bs' to find issue with the sample the poll used? It is basically 2004's electorate, but only slightly less white (per nyt ep), and somehow less Hispanic:

White: 83% (was 86% in 2004 nyt ep) vs 79% in 2012
Black: 11% (was 11% in 2004) vs 15% in 2012
Hispanic: 2% (was 3% in 2004) vs 3% in 2012

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/r2.771xfmKOI/v0
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls (2004-2012)

Now, if this is what their polls tell them the electorate might look like, then ok, but before this election ever started I wholeheartedly believed the electorate was never going to look like 2004 again. IF this is what the poll really assumes, then I have to believe it is wrong. I won't presume to say how wrong, though. It's not about being some partisan hack that just wants to "unskew" to assuage my fears of a Trump presidency, but rather about how I hate this idea that because Obama isn't on the ticket, somehow everything is going back to 2004 and minorities will forever stay low-turnout. That theory is ludicrous. So is this indeed the kind of voters they believe will make up 2016's OH electorate?

One thing worse than serial unskewers is the people who go around yelling "HAHA UNSKEWER" or the like whenever someone raises any kind of concern with a poll.

And for the record, since I can't rely on you to give any benefit of the doubt versus your desire to insult people, I'm only raising concern with the sample here and not trying to say Trump isn't closing the gap or perhaps even winning in Ohio right now.

edit: terminology

[Wiz in Wis]

Worth reading and keeping in mind in general:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/swing_voters.pdf

[RI]

Worth reading and keeping in mind in general:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/swing_voters.pdf

Their results are not generalizable beyond the 2012 election.

[Wiz in Wis]

Worth reading and keeping in mind in general:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/swing_voters.pdf

Their results are not generalizable beyond the 2012 election.

the concept of differential response rates based on enthusiasm is not generalizable? Based on what, your gut?

[DrScholl]

It is f**king Selzer! Third best pollster according to 538.

Bull****

Is it really 'bs' to find issue with the sample the poll used? It is basically 2004's electorate, but only slightly less white (per nyt ep), and somehow less Hispanic:

White: 83% (was 86% in 2004 nyt ep) vs 79% in 2012
Black: 11% (was 11% in 2004) vs 15% in 2012
Hispanic: 2% (was 3% in 2004) vs 3% in 2012

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/r2.771xfmKOI/v0
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls (2004-2012)

Now, if this is what their polls tell them the electorate might look like, then ok, but before this election ever started I wholeheartedly believed the electorate was never going to look like 2004 again. IF this is what the poll really assumes, then I have to believe it is wrong. I won't presume to say how wrong, though. It's not about being some partisan hack that just wants to "unskew" to assuage my fears of a Trump presidency, but rather about how I hate this idea that because Obama isn't on the ticket, somehow everything is going back to 2004 and minorities will forever stay low-turnout. That theory is ludicrous. So is this indeed the sample of voters they used?

One thing worse than serial unskewers is the people who go around yelling "HAHA UNSKEWER" or the like whenever someone raises any kind of concern with a poll.

And for the record, since I can't rely on you to give any benefit of the doubt versus your desire to insult people, I'm only raising concern with the sample here and not trying to say Trump isn't closing the gap or perhaps even winning in Ohio right now.

This is similar to what happened with Gallup in 2012. They used an antiquated sample and ended up being wrong in the end.

[Wiz in Wis]

It is f**king Selzer! Third best pollster according to 538.

Bull****

Is it really 'bs' to find issue with the sample the poll used? It is basically 2004's electorate, but only slightly less white (per nyt ep), and somehow less Hispanic:

White: 83% (was 86% in 2004 nyt ep) vs 79% in 2012
Black: 11% (was 11% in 2004) vs 15% in 2012
Hispanic: 2% (was 3% in 2004) vs 3% in 2012

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/r2.771xfmKOI/v0
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls (2004-2012)

Now, if this is what their polls tell them the electorate might look like, then ok, but before this election ever started I wholeheartedly believed the electorate was never going to look like 2004 again. IF this is what the poll really assumes, then I have to believe it is wrong. I won't presume to say how wrong, though. It's not about being some partisan hack that just wants to "unskew" to assuage my fears of a Trump presidency, but rather about how I hate this idea that because Obama isn't on the ticket, somehow everything is going back to 2004 and minorities will forever stay low-turnout. That theory is ludicrous. So is this indeed the sample of voters they used?

One thing worse than serial unskewers is the people who go around yelling "HAHA UNSKEWER" or the like whenever someone raises any kind of concern with a poll.

And for the record, since I can't rely on you to give any benefit of the doubt versus your desire to insult people, I'm only raising concern with the sample here and not trying to say Trump isn't closing the gap or perhaps even winning in Ohio right now.

This is similar to what happened with Gallup in 2012. They used an antiquated sample and ended up being wrong in the end.

It's not the sample... it's the LV screen. Lean Trump voters are more likely to say they will vote right now than Lean Clinton, at least using their screen. It's not rocket science.

[Fusionmunster]

Again, its not hard to imagine dems arent excited to vote for sick Hillary right now meaning she suffers in LV screens.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

A lot of text.

Firstly, turnout might change. The biggest "homogeneous" group in 2012 was non-college-educated Whites. And they had a very low turnout (56%).

Secondly, exit-polls usually underestimates non-college-educated Whites.

Thirdly, looking at selfreported party identification in a LV-model is exactly what unskewing is about.


And yeah. You should be consistent. Why do red hacks always unskew only Trump-friendly polls?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It's not the sample... it's the LV screen. Lean Trump voters are more likely to say they will vote right now than Lean Clinton, at least using their screen. It's not rocket science.

We don't know it. It might be both.

And Selzer is that good, because their LV-model is good

[Wiz in Wis]

A lot of text.

Firstly, turnout might change. The biggest "homogeneous" group in 2012 was non-college-educated Whites. And they had a very low turnout (56%).

Secondly, exit-polls usually underestimates non-college-educated Whites.

Thirdly, looking at selfreported party identification in a LV-model is exactly what unskewing is about.

Not "unskewing." If the election were held today, I'd bet Trump wins OH. But, the LV screen is definitely picking up differential enthusiasm to answer polls, or self-rate their probability of voting higher among GOPers. That is not the same as voters switching to Trump from Clinton.

[Brittain33]

Well, either this poll has picked up a rather significant and recent shift in party ID and enthusiasm in Ohio favoring Republicans and hurting Democrats, or it's an outlier. Too early to say.

[RI]

Worth reading and keeping in mind in general:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/swing_voters.pdf

Their results are not generalizable beyond the 2012 election.

the concept of differential response rates based on enthusiasm is not generalizable? Based on what, your gut?

No, their conclusions that "vote swings in 2012 were mostly sample artifacts" and from selection bias and that "a pivotal set of voters, attentively listening to the presidential debates and switching sides" doesn't exist are as much artifacts of their own selection bias in choosing the 2012 election as anything.

Differential response rates to opt-in polls are obviously a real thing.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

A lot of text.

Firstly, turnout might change. The biggest "homogeneous" group in 2012 was non-college-educated Whites. And they had a very low turnout (56%).

Secondly, exit-polls usually underestimates non-college-educated Whites.

Thirdly, looking at selfreported party identification in a LV-model is exactly what unskewing is about.

Not "unskewing." If the election were held today, I'd bet Trump wins OH. But, the LV screen is definitely picking up differential enthusiasm to answer polls, or self-rate their probability of voting higher among GOPers.

It is.  You don't have evidence, that it will go back to normal. LV model tryies to predict turnout, what's wrong here?

That is not the same as voters switching to Trump from Clinton.

And?

[Tender Branson]

Interesting.

Trump might get a few days of good polling now, but Hillary should recover when the debates start or when Obama campaigns the full month of October with her ...

[Xing]

I'm a bit skeptical, but this is potentially troubling.

[Virginiá]

Firstly, turnout might change. The biggest "homogeneous" group in 2012 was non-college-educated Whites. And they had a very low turnout (56%).

Well, you are just as entitled to your opinion just as I am. We will just have to see. I'm rather excited for this election in the sense that it means that one way or another, the Republican wet dream of forever-2004 electorates, with minorities once again retreating from the polls on election day, will finally be put to the test.