Gravis National: Clinton +2

[Matty]

http://www.oann.com/pollnational/

+7 D sample

clinton 48
trump 46

when leaners are pushed

clinton 51
trump 49

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

> Gravis

[Dr. Arch]

Non-Hispanic White at 72%. Is that correct? Seems a bit over-sampled.

[mds32]

It seems to be in line with most polls. Bug off.

[Ebsy]

One day poll?

also, the age samples are way off:



From the 2012 exit poll:

[Virginiá]

Non-Hispanic White at 72%. Is that correct? Seems a bit over-sampled.

Typical. 72% is what it was in 2012. Once again, pollsters assuming there will be no demographic changes. The trend has been very reliable, and 2016 looks to be 69% - 70%.

So nope, not correct.

[MT Treasurer]

So is time to "unskew" every poll now (even PPP)?

[Ebsy]

So is time to "unskew" every poll now (even PPP)?

Raising legitimate questions about sample composition and methodology are not unskewing, especially when no one is trying to say what the poll actually shows. I'm sure that Clinton was +2 with the sample they got, they just got a sample that looks almost nothing like the likely 2016 electorate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL at the unskewers.

[Dr. Arch]

So is time to "unskew" every poll now (even PPP)?

Raising legitimate questions about sample composition and methodology are not unskewing, especially when no one is trying to say what the poll actually shows. I'm sure that Clinton was +2 with the sample they got, they just got a sample that looks almost nothing like the likely 2016 electorate.

Pretty much this. If you want to poll the 2016 electorate and have a properly-represented estimation, then you have to do it with 2016 and not 2012 numbers. Laughing at or antagonizing other members for not taking the toplines at face-value and questioning the methodology and procedure just underscores the limited understanding that poster may have of scientific sampling methods (@jfern).

[RJEvans]

So the last six polls:
Clinton +2 May 10 Gravis Marketing
Clinton +1 May 10 Ipsos
Clinton +6 May 9 PPP
Clinton +6 May 9 Morning Consult
Clinton +2 May 9 YouGov
Clinton +5 May 8 Survey Monkey

AVERAGE Clinton +3.7

Not bad for a bounce.

[Virginiá]

So is time to "unskew" every poll now (even PPP)?

Actually, yes. If every poll is going to oversample certain age groups and/or operate under the assumption that demographic changes stop now that Obama isn't on the ticket, then people should know that. These things have a noticeable effect on the results.

LOL at the unskewers.

LOL at the guy whose sole purpose in life is to trash Clinton and praise Sanders.

[This account no longer in use.]

LOL at the unskewers.

BUT HILLARY
U                R
T                A
                  L
H                L
I                 I
L                H
L
A                T
R                U
YRALLIH TUB

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Wow a 2 point lead against a clown...how impressive.

[Zache]

So is time to "unskew" every poll now (even PPP)?

LOL at the unskewers.

Interesting how Gravis is widely understood to be a joke on this website until they fart a result some posters agree with.

I guess I'm unskewing when I point out Trump winning Hispanics 55-45 probably isn't consistent with reality.

---
To avoid sounding too incendiary, I do agree with both of you broadly but I just don't think a Gravis thread is an appropriate thread to make your insinuation.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Its gonna stay close until the debates. But just like Obama proved himself, Clinton will prove herself and Dems can ultimately win a 2012 race.

[Ebsy]

Yes obviously Trump is going to win Hispanic voters 55 to 45 in the general election.

[IceSpear]

Yes obviously Trump is going to win Hispanic voters 55 to 45 in the general election.

Oops. Looks like our resident salties just got egg on their face!

[Kingpoleon]

RIP Clinton

[Adam Griffin]

Don't worry, 288 firewall with GA will save the day

[Maxwell]

Lol at people talking about UNSKEWING in a god damn GRAVIS POLL.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So is time to "unskew" every poll now (even PPP)?

LOL at the unskewers.

Interesting how Gravis is widely understood to be a joke on this website until they fart a result some posters agree with.

I guess I'm unskewing when I point out Trump winning Hispanics 55-45 probably isn't consistent with reality.

---
To avoid sounding too incendiary, I do agree with both of you broadly but I just don't think a Gravis thread is an appropriate thread to make your insinuation.

Gravis isn't a good pollster, but a majority of recent polls have the margin in the low single digits, and   there's no hard rule that the non Hispanic white electorate has to decrease from 2012. Blacks had higher turnout than whites in 2012.

[Virginiá]

Gravis isn't a good pollster, but a majority of recent polls have the margin in the low single digits, and   there's no hard rule that the non Hispanic white electorate has to decrease from 2012. Blacks had higher turnout than whites in 2012.

No, just decades of uninterrupted trends.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Gravis isn't a good pollster, but a majority of recent polls have the margin in the low single digits, and   there's no hard rule that the non Hispanic white electorate has to decrease from 2012. Blacks had higher turnout than whites in 2012.

No, just decades of uninterrupted trends.

Maybe non-white voters don't have any motive to turn-out this year and vote against TRUMP.
It's not like he called them rapists and murderers or that he refused to denounce the KKK.