Atlas Google Consumer Survey polls megathread

[Alcon]

Pre-Debate Unweighted Tennessee Numbers:
Trump 46
Clinton 26
Johnson 20
Others 8

Take it with a grain of salt due to the sample size of just under 100 people and the lack of weighting (I couldn't do that because 65+'s were 75% Clinton (3-1), so that would just make it look really weird with a sample based on four people!

Afraid the MoE on the margin is over 20 percentage points, so that result is (barely) within MoE.  Even ignoring weighting (which is a big deal) you'll need a bigger sample.  But thanks for doing this!

And thank you, cinyc, for being such an awesome resource.

[Alcon]

I did a WA poll, and re-weighed found this, Clinton +10:

Clinton 47%
Trump 37%
Johnson 11%
Stein 5%

30-point gender gap

[Alcon]

I did a WA poll, and re-weighed found this, Clinton +10:

Clinton 47%
Trump 37%
Johnson 11%
Stein 5%

30-point gender gap

Pretty similar to other WA polls. Hillary hasn't crossed 50% in a single one, nor has Trump scored more than 40% in any poll AFAIK.

Yes, although I'm really skeptical about the prospect that WA is actually only +10.  Considering demographics and past results, it should be something closer to +16.

[Alcon]

I did a WA poll, and re-weighed found this, Clinton +10:

Clinton 47%
Trump 37%
Johnson 11%
Stein 5%

30-point gender gap

What exact question did you ask, what were the choices, and if you included a not registered/likely to vote/from WA option, what percentage of respondents chose that option?

Question: "Washington State Voters: If the Presidential election were held today, who would you vote for?"

'Opt-out' question was "I do not plan to vote in Washington State" -- unconventional wording but I wanted to give it a try.  70/333 people chose that, so overall unweighted sample size of n=263 (MoE +/-6%).

Choices were my best effort to reflect the Washington ballot:

Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine (Democrat)
Donald J Trump/Michael R Pence (Republican)
Gary Johnson/Bill Weld (Libertarian)
Jill Stein/Ajama Baraka (Green)

I excluded the two socialist options.

[Alcon]

I did a WA poll, and re-weighed found this, Clinton +10:

Clinton 47%
Trump 37%
Johnson 11%
Stein 5%

30-point gender gap

What exact question did you ask, what were the choices, and if you included a not registered/likely to vote/from WA option, what percentage of respondents chose that option?

Question: "Washington State Voters: If the Presidential election were held today, who would you vote for?"

'Opt-out' question was "I do not plan to vote in Washington State" -- unconventional wording but I wanted to give it a try.  70/333 people chose that, so overall unweighted sample size of n=263 (MoE +/-6%).

Choices were my best effort to reflect the Washington ballot:

Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine (Democrat)
Donald J Trump/Michael R Pence (Republican)
Gary Johnson/Bill Weld (Libertarian)
Jill Stein/Ajama Baraka (Green)

I excluded the two socialist options.

Thanks.  Unless you weighted the respondents without sex or age data, the weighted sample is probably smaller than just excluding the opt-outs, unfortunately.  Unfortunately, GCS can't impute demographic information for everyone.

Any suggestions on that?  I considered re-weighing on the assumption that the unknown group had a comparable gender gap, and a comparable oversampling of males, which came to Clinton +12 or so.  I also tried just separating that group and adjusting only known-gender people.  Got Clinton +10 rounded.  Not terribly happy with either option.

Why did you not include Castle, btw?

Castle's not the only minor candidate on the Washington ballot.  Alyson Kennedy/Osborne Hart (Socialist Workers) and Gloria Estela La Riva/Eugene Puryear (Socialism and Liberation) are also on it.

Adding the more minor candidates by name leads to poll clutter, which sometimes leads to more inaccurate results.

^ This is why.  I don't want to give people an overt "None of the Above" stand-in.

[Alcon]

Any suggestions on that?  I considered re-weighing on the assumption that the unknown group had a comparable gender gap, and a comparable oversampling of males, which came to Clinton +12 or so.  I also tried just separating that group and adjusting only known-gender people.  Got Clinton +10 rounded.  Not terribly happy with either option.

I've been ignoring those who we don't have demographic information for when weighting.  I haven't tried to readjust making assumptions, because whatever assumptions are made are probably wrong.  Usually, that subsample is only 10% voters or so, anyway, so they shouldn't move the margin much.  

In my SD poll, there were 63/500 without demo info, and a plurality chose the "not registered in SD" option (33.3% versus 22.1% overall).  So they're probably more likely to be out-of-staters, too.

Google's own weighting for Internet users ignores those without imputed age/sex data.

Out of curiosity, what were the raw (non-Google weighted) numbers for Washington?

That's what I figured too, so I avoided that method.

Clinton +6

[Alcon]

WA poll was 10/21-23