Fox National Poll: Clinton +3/+5
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:09:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  Fox National Poll: Clinton +3/+5
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Fox National Poll: Clinton +3/+5  (Read 2038 times)
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2016, 06:04:40 PM »

I'd expect to see Trump leading if he's +13 with Independents, as both parties are getting a similar % of each party, so the party tabs seem off.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2016, 06:04:54 PM »

There's no way Clinton is only leading by 44 points among non-whites.

yep - and anything below 20 points ahead with whites is DOA for Republicans.

It seems like polls are suggesting a far whiter audience than what should be expected for this election.
Logged
Fusionmunster
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2016, 06:06:25 PM »

Best to ignore national polling this week in my opinion. Pollsters will only start caring about accuracy next week.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2016, 06:10:41 PM »

urban: Clinton +22
suburban: Clinton +7
rural: Trump +17


Um, these numbers actually suggest a Clinton blowout.

How are they defining urban, suburban, and rural?  What %age of the country do they put in each basket?  If it was an even split between the three, then the average would be (+22 +7 -17) / 3 = +4, for a 4 point Clinton lead.


I doubt it. Romney carried suburbs by 2 and rural areas by 24 and still lost by 4.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2016, 06:14:27 PM »

urban: Clinton +22
suburban: Clinton +7
rural: Trump +17


Um, these numbers actually suggest a Clinton blowout.

How are they defining urban, suburban, and rural?  What %age of the country do they put in each basket?  If it was an even split between the three, then the average would be (+22 +7 -17) / 3 = +4, for a 4 point Clinton lead.


I doubt it. Romney carried suburbs by 2 and rural areas by 24 and still lost by 4.

and assuming that Trump is AMPING UP TURNOUT IN RURAL AREAS seems like exactly the wrong assumption to make considering what's happening in early voting.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2016, 06:18:14 PM »
« Edited: October 26, 2016, 06:20:55 PM by Happy Sad Trumpista »

There's no way Clinton is only leading by 44 points among non-whites.

yep - and anything below 20 points ahead with whites is DOA for Republicans.

It seems like polls are suggesting a far whiter audience than what should be expected for this election.
In LV, if my calculations are right:

White ~70.7%
White No Degree ~43.9%
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2016, 06:59:57 PM »

Noise.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 26, 2016, 07:16:34 PM »

How are they defining urban, suburban, and rural?  What %age of the country do they put in each basket?  If it was an even split between the three, then the average would be (+22 +7 -17) / 3 = +4, for a 4 point Clinton lead.


It might be self-reported.  I was recently polled on a state race and asked the question.  But it could imputed from the area code and telephone prefix (at least for landlines), like Google Consumer Surveys does in its Internet polling.  Without asking the Fox News pollsters, we don't know.
Logged
Rand
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,089
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 26, 2016, 07:18:12 PM »

Clinton holding on! Fox, AP, Suffolk, Reuters, IBD, NBC, and Rasmussen all showing an average 6% Clinton lead today. That means something.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 26, 2016, 07:20:54 PM »

Here are the MoE's for the urban/suburban/rural subsamples:
Urban: +/- 5.5%
Suburban: +/- 4%
Rural: +/- 5%

So there are more suburbanites than rurals than urbans, however the Fox pollster defines them.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 26, 2016, 07:21:14 PM »

Clinton holding on! Fox, AP, Suffolk, Reuters, IBD, NBC, and Rasmussen all showing an average 6% Clinton lead today. That means something.

No, it's OVER don't you understand?!?!

*cough*
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 26, 2016, 08:11:36 PM »

urban: Clinton +22
suburban: Clinton +7
rural: Trump +17


Um, these numbers actually suggest a Clinton blowout.

How are they defining urban, suburban, and rural?  What %age of the country do they put in each basket?  If it was an even split between the three, then the average would be (+22 +7 -17) / 3 = +4, for a 4 point Clinton lead.


I doubt it. Romney carried suburbs by 2 and rural areas by 24 and still lost by 4.

But we have no idea if Fox defines urban/suburban/rural the same way that the exit poll service does.  As cinyc noted, for all we know this is just self-reported.
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 26, 2016, 08:31:56 PM »

urban: Clinton +22
suburban: Clinton +7
rural: Trump +17


Um, these numbers actually suggest a Clinton blowout.

How are they defining urban, suburban, and rural?  What %age of the country do they put in each basket?  If it was an even split between the three, then the average would be (+22 +7 -17) / 3 = +4, for a 4 point Clinton lead.


I doubt it. Romney carried suburbs by 2 and rural areas by 24 and still lost by 4.

But we have no idea if Fox defines urban/suburban/rural the same way that the exit poll service does.  As cinyc noted, for all we know this is just self-reported.


I thought this was discussed at the time of the last Fox News national poll...

Regardless, even if Trump is up 17% among "Rural" voters, however that is defined while losing by large margins with urban/suburban voters, it would be hard to find a silver lining even if one were a Trump supporter.

But yeah, we can't easily extrapolate date from this one particular poll and compare/contrast based upon 2012 exit polls, but regardless of how one chooses to slice and dice, these numbers don't look at all good for Trump unless there are a ton of urban/suburban voters based upon area codes/ zip codes/ self-ID or what have you that fall into a "rural" category considering that over 80% of Americans live in urban/suburban areas by any measure whatsoever.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 26, 2016, 08:52:29 PM »

But yeah, we can't easily extrapolate date from this one particular poll and compare/contrast based upon 2012 exit polls, but regardless of how one chooses to slice and dice, these numbers don't look at all good for Trump unless there are a ton of urban/suburban voters based upon area codes/ zip codes/ self-ID or what have you that fall into a "rural" category considering that over 80% of Americans live in urban/suburban areas by any measure whatsoever.

But why does it matter?  What really matters is the topline number, much moreso than how he's doing with this or that demo.  Unless you can really use the crosstabs to cast doubt on the topline number, but I don't see how you can do that with urban/suburban/rural when we don't know how they're defined in this poll.  If you want to cast doubt on the topline number, then use one of the other crosstabs, where the definition is more clear.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 26, 2016, 09:15:40 PM »

I thought this was discussed at the time of the last Fox News national poll...

Regardless, even if Trump is up 17% among "Rural" voters, however that is defined while losing by large margins with urban/suburban voters, it would be hard to find a silver lining even if one were a Trump supporter.

But yeah, we can't easily extrapolate date from this one particular poll and compare/contrast based upon 2012 exit polls, but regardless of how one chooses to slice and dice, these numbers don't look at all good for Trump unless there are a ton of urban/suburban voters based upon area codes/ zip codes/ self-ID or what have you that fall into a "rural" category considering that over 80% of Americans live in urban/suburban areas by any measure whatsoever.

Well, we know from the subsample MoEs in this poll that Suburban>Rural>Urban.  So there are more rural residents (however defined) than urban residents.  Whether that's because self-reporting residents of, say, Staten Island or the less dense areas of northern San Antonio, claiming they live in a suburban rather than urban area despite technically living in a city, or exurban residents claiming they live in a rural area, or the Fox pollsters have some other criteria like density or whether someone lives in an urban cluster we don't know.  But we do know that there are fewer urbans in this poll than any other type.
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 26, 2016, 09:36:36 PM »

But yeah, we can't easily extrapolate date from this one particular poll and compare/contrast based upon 2012 exit polls, but regardless of how one chooses to slice and dice, these numbers don't look at all good for Trump unless there are a ton of urban/suburban voters based upon area codes/ zip codes/ self-ID or what have you that fall into a "rural" category considering that over 80% of Americans live in urban/suburban areas by any measure whatsoever.

But why does it matter?  What really matters is the topline number, much moreso than how he's doing with this or that demo.  Unless you can really use the crosstabs to cast doubt on the topline number, but I don't see how you can do that with urban/suburban/rural when we don't know how they're defined in this poll.  If you want to cast doubt on the topline number, then use one of the other crosstabs, where the definition is more clear.



[/quote]

I thought this was discussed at the time of the last Fox News national poll...

Regardless, even if Trump is up 17% among "Rural" voters, however that is defined while losing by large margins with urban/suburban voters, it would be hard to find a silver lining even if one were a Trump supporter.

But yeah, we can't easily extrapolate date from this one particular poll and compare/contrast based upon 2012 exit polls, but regardless of how one chooses to slice and dice, these numbers don't look at all good for Trump unless there are a ton of urban/suburban voters based upon area codes/ zip codes/ self-ID or what have you that fall into a "rural" category considering that over 80% of Americans live in urban/suburban areas by any measure whatsoever.

Well, we know from the subsample MoEs in this poll that Suburban>Rural>Urban.  So there are more rural residents (however defined) than urban residents.  Whether that's because self-reporting residents of, say, Staten Island or the less dense areas of northern San Antonio, claiming they live in a suburban rather than urban area despite technically living in a city, or exurban residents claiming they live in a rural area, or the Fox pollsters have some other criteria like density or whether someone lives in an urban cluster we don't know.  But we do know that there are fewer urbans in this poll than any other type.

I absolutely agree with both of these statements (Bolded).

Self-definitions of urban/suburban/rural are much less indicative of what is actually happening than standard more clearly defined categories of gender/ethnicity/income/education without even getting into items such as religious attendance/ married status/ gun ownership, etc....

Topline numbers once again indicate that Clinton is cracking 50% in a two-way and 44%+ in a four-way with Trump still struggling to even hit 42%.

This is not a bad poll for Clinton, although it might indicate a slight swing towards Trump from some Republicans that dumped him a week or two back, and essentially this is statistical noise in just one poll, and doesn't in any way shape or form indicate that there is a new wave of "TrumpMo" going down, considering that although it is slightly on the low end for Clinton's topline doesn't appear to indicate a Trump surge among undecided voters.

Logged
EliteLX
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,029
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.64, S: 0.85

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 26, 2016, 10:10:43 PM »
« Edited: October 26, 2016, 10:12:21 PM by EliteLX »

The 2-4 margin difference in all these polls is not significant nor does it represent a comeback.

The fact of the matter is Trump has a 39-42% problem that he has never been able to escape from, and this leaves it impossible for him to win the general election. Period. You can pretty much ignore the margins for right now considering this. When your ceiling starting to become 4/10ths of the population, you are likely screwed.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 27, 2016, 11:17:54 AM »

Wow, a poll where Johnson actually improved his position...
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 13 queries.