Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls => Topic started by: Tender Branson on August 21, 2016, 09:05:29 AM



Title: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Tender Branson on August 21, 2016, 09:05:29 AM
39% Trump
38% Clinton
10% Johnson
  2% Stein (not on the ballot)

44% Clinton
43% Trump

Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 723 registered voters across North Carolina. The poll was conducted from August 15th through the 17th and has a margin of error of ±3.6% at the 95% confidence level. The total may not round to 100% because of rounding. The polls were conducted using automated telephone calls, internet panels of cell phone respondents, and weighted by voting patterns.

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-north-carolina-polling-2


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: BlueSwan on August 21, 2016, 09:06:22 AM
Gravis.

Still pretty bad for Clinton compared to recent NC polls.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: heatcharger on August 21, 2016, 09:06:56 AM
Of course Gravis polled Stein even though she's not on the ballot.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: politicallefty on August 21, 2016, 09:09:32 AM
I'm of the opinion that any poll (other than Utah) that has both candidates below 40% isn't worth my time.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Cruzcrew on August 21, 2016, 09:37:11 AM
Since when did Gravis have undecideds.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: dspNY on August 21, 2016, 09:41:54 AM
A Gravis tie = several point lead for Clinton


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Erich Maria Remarque on August 21, 2016, 09:47:45 AM
Of course Gravis polled Stein even though she's not on the ballot.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Gass3268 on August 21, 2016, 10:41:15 AM
How the hell is Trump tied here but only up 4 in South Carolina?


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Xing on August 21, 2016, 10:44:01 AM
Oh dear, Gravis. NC only 3-5 points to the left of SC? I think you may have had one too many.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Simfan34 on August 21, 2016, 10:44:13 AM
Sad to see Stein clutching on to Johnson's coattails like the veritable loser she is, despite not even being on the ballot!


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Erich Maria Remarque on August 21, 2016, 10:52:24 AM
Oh dear, Gravis. NC only 3-5 points to the left of SC? I think you may have had one too many.
It goes well with 538:s model (it's 6 points difference according to it), so your sarcasm is little bit outdated.

But it is Gravis. Why in the hell did they poll Stein? ???


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Maxwell on August 21, 2016, 10:55:00 AM
if even Sad! Gravis can show Clinton tied or up in a swing state, that's a very good sign.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Mehmentum on August 21, 2016, 11:29:46 AM
The NBC poll in NC is starting to look like an outlier, but apparently internals are having the Republicans freak out.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Smash255 on August 21, 2016, 11:51:09 AM
How the hell is Trump tied here but only up 4 in South Carolina?

In the poll SC was 65% white, 29% black, about what you would expect

NC on the other hand....   
79% white, 10% African American,  9% Hispanic



Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: john cage bubblegum on August 21, 2016, 12:09:54 PM
A 10% black NC sample?  Gravis is on a bender.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Vern on August 21, 2016, 12:23:31 PM
Yea this poll is nothing but crap


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Obama-Biden Democrat on August 21, 2016, 01:52:08 PM
Wow, Breitbart's biased in house pollster has a tied race, in a state that is 6 points more Republican than the national average. Sad!


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: JerryArkansas on August 21, 2016, 04:20:47 PM
Love this poll.  Only 10% black when the state was 23% in 2012. 


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Speed of Sound on August 21, 2016, 04:25:37 PM
Love this poll.  Only 10% black when the state was 23% in 2012. 
I wish they had given the crosstabs so we could toy with the demos a bit, but I haven't seen them yet, unfortunately.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on August 21, 2016, 04:29:19 PM
Love this poll.  Only 10% black when the state was 23% in 2012. 

I guess that's what McCrory and co. were hoping with their vote ID laws.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Erich Maria Remarque on August 21, 2016, 04:36:17 PM
Love this poll.  Only 10% black when the state was 23% in 2012. 
And they polled Stein. What a bunch of idiots! :/


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Erich Maria Remarque on August 21, 2016, 04:37:56 PM
But they say:
Quote
The polls were conducted using automated telephone calls, internet panels of cell phone respondents, and weighted by voting patterns.
But still :/


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Wells on August 21, 2016, 04:40:25 PM
lol Gravis

By the way, where's ARG? It was active in the primaries and I don't think this election has enough junk polls.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: NOVA Green on August 21, 2016, 04:55:13 PM
Love this poll.  Only 10% black when the state was 23% in 2012. 

This poll does appear to be a bit crap if they are that far off among AA voters, especially in a Southern State.... although it is a B- Pollster with a +1.1% R house effect overall, but still an epic fail on the demographic breakdown of the electorate.

All being said, it does look like the NBC/Marist poll was a bit high for Clinton, and considering that Nate Silver is indicating it does look like a +5-6 Clinton lead nationally, PPPs NC poll is probably closer to the actual current state of the race, and Clinton is likely up about 2-3%.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: pbrower2a on August 21, 2016, 10:03:20 PM
I'm of the opinion that any poll (other than Utah) that has both candidates below 40% isn't worth my time.

I am raising the threshold to 43% unless someone is up 5% for treating it as a tie.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Gass3268 on August 21, 2016, 10:10:22 PM
lol Gravis

By the way, where's ARG? It was active in the primaries and I don't think this election has enough junk polls.

No We Ask America either.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Senator-elect Spark on August 21, 2016, 10:11:36 PM
Great poll. It's actually tied, won't be the case on election day though. Probably will still be close.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Smash255 on August 21, 2016, 11:22:36 PM
Great poll. It's actually tied, won't be the case on election day though. Probably will still be close.

If Trump is tied in a North Carolina poll that has a 10% African American electorate...


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Virginiá on August 21, 2016, 11:29:58 PM
Love this poll.  Only 10% black when the state was 23% in 2012. 

This poll does appear to be a bit crap if they are that far off among AA voters, especially in a Southern State.... although it is a B- Pollster with a +1.1% R house effect overall, but still an epic fail on the demographic breakdown of the electorate.

All being said, it does look like the NBC/Marist poll was a bit high for Clinton, and considering that Nate Silver is indicating it does look like a +5-6 Clinton lead nationally, PPPs NC poll is probably closer to the actual current state of the race, and Clinton is likely up about 2-3%.

Do any of these outfits ever actually explain why their demographic samples are so off? I try not to nitpick polls too often, but some of them have ludicrous samples that are blatantly not representative of the actual electorate.

So I have to ask.. why? How can they mess something like this up? It doesn't take a genius to put the numbers together beforehand. I just don't get it. Even a crappy firm should be able to do this without an issue. All I can think of is that they are terribly managed and staffed by idiots who just don't care. If that's not it, then I got nothing.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: An American Tail: Fubart Goes West on August 22, 2016, 12:33:34 AM


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: Erich Maria Remarque on August 22, 2016, 06:46:04 AM
Love this poll.  Only 10% black when the state was 23% in 2012.  

This poll does appear to be a bit crap if they are that far off among AA voters, especially in a Southern State.... although it is a B- Pollster with a +1.1% R house effect overall, but still an epic fail on the demographic breakdown of the electorate.

All being said, it does look like the NBC/Marist poll was a bit high for Clinton, and considering that Nate Silver is indicating it does look like a +5-6 Clinton lead nationally, PPPs NC poll is probably closer to the actual current state of the race, and Clinton is likely up about 2-3%.

Do any of these outfits ever actually explain why their demographic samples are so off? I try not to nitpick polls too often, but some of them have ludicrous samples that are blatantly not representative of the actual electorate.

So I have to ask.. why? How can they mess something like this up? It doesn't take a genius to put the numbers together beforehand. I just don't get it. Even a crappy firm should be able to do this without an issue. All I can think of is that they are terribly managed and staffed by idiots who just don't care. If that's not it, then I got nothing.
It's a random survey. Randomness and the fact that some groups is less likely to participate in polls implies that crosstabs might be skewed. So it's pollster's job to weight accordingly to voter history/pattern/their intention to vote etc.
Quote
The polls were conducted using automated telephone calls, internet panels of cell phone respondents, and weighted by voting patterns.
Gravis indeed weighted, but I prefer when pollster publish their "after-weghted-data" for more transporacy. Their SC crosstabs looks better.

Nate Silver about unskewing/crosstabs.
Quote
Don’t get lost in the crosstabs.
Don’t get lost in the crosstabs. Trust us — you don’t want to take the route of scrutinizing the poll’s crosstabs for demographic anomalies, hoping to “prove” that it can’t possibly be right. Before long, you’ll wind up in the Valley Of Unskewed Polls. Sample sizes are one issue. If a 600-person poll breaks out the results for men, women, Hispanics, blacks, Democrats, Republicans, older voters, younger voters and so forth, those subsamples will have extremely high margins of error, pretty much guaranteeing there will be some strange-looking results. Also, these comparisons are often circular. It might be asserted that a poll must be wrong because its demographics don’t match other polls. But no one poll is a gold standard — exit polls certainly aren’t. There are also legitimate disagreements over methodology — some polls weight by partisan identification and some don’t, for example. Although some of these debates may be important in the abstract, our experience has been that they involve a lot of motivated reasoning when raised in the middle of the horse race.

With that being said, Gravis is B- pollster with R-house effect and should be treated accordingly.


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: pbrower2a on August 22, 2016, 12:22:48 PM
With that being said, Gravis is B- pollster with R-house effect and should be treated accordingly.

Basic tie with a proclivity for R house effects... North Carolina is "barely Clinton". 


Title: Re: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
Post by: PikaTROD on August 22, 2016, 08:01:28 PM
I'm of the opinion that any poll (other than Utah) that has both candidates below 40% isn't worth my time.

Amen to that!