Talk Elections

Obvious disclaimer: JUNK!

http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/

()

As Missouri goes, so goes Wyoming

State   Clinton   Trump
California   63%   26%
Illinois   56%   30%
Maryland   53%   29%
Massachusetts   53%   30%
New York   52%   30%
Connecticut 50%37%
Florida   49%   41%
North Carolina 47%45%
Missouri   46%   41%
New Jersey46%   33%
Pennsylvania 46%45%
Ohio           45%   39%
Virginia   45%   39%
Washington45%   33%
Delaware   44%   22%
Michigan   44%   43%
New Mexico44%   41%
Oregon   43%   39%
Colorado   42%   39%
Georgia   42%   46%
Minnesota   42%   34%
Iowa   41%   41%
Kentucky   41%   47%
New Hampshire   41%   39%
South Carolina   41%   50%
Arkansas   40%   45%
Montana   40%   47%
Nevada   40%   38%
Arizona   39%   47%
West Virginia 39%48%
Louisiana   38%   48%
Mississippi   38%   52%
Wisconsin   38%   37%
Kansas   37%   48%
Alabama   36%   55%
Indiana   36%   54%
Tennessee   36%   43%
Nebraska   35%   49%
Maine   33%   37%
Utah           33%   44%
Texas   32%   46%
Idaho   30%   44%
Oklahoma   29%   58%

Wyoming, DC, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Alaska and Hawaii were all too small for a scientific sample apparently.

LOL at ME, MI, WI, WY, NM, NH, and MO.

Why is Maine always red in these "polls" that poll every state? lol

morning consult did something similar.

Probably assuming that DJT will win by such a huge margin in the 2nd District that it'll offset Hillary's margin in the 1st, in my opinion. But yeah Trump isn't winning Maine.

And this is why you poll states individually (or maybe two at a time), rather than doing a bunch at once. You'll always end up with nonsensical results.

Yeah that definitely was not my intent.

Strange to say the least.

No, just Reuters.

I am contractually obligated to say that ipsos is a junk pollster (opt-in panels = bad)

Lol... I remember when Ipsos was basically Clinton's L.A. Times. Now they're just trash...

South Carolina = Likely R
This = trash

538's data from Reuters shows Clinton surging in South Carolina while Trump is simultaneously surging in New Hampshire.

There is no universe in existence where those two things are simultaneously true. This is just utter garbage.

Haven't heard a peep about this from the media, but ol' Nate has it...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/kentucky

Of all places, Kentucky is actually in play.

I thought that was a different Reuters poll.

This is from the thing in this thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=244303.0).  Reuters in junk.

This poll also has Trump +7 in WV, Clinton +3 in CO, and Trump +3 in WI. Sad that Nate thinks these small sample polls are worth anything.


I think Reuters is polling all the states (except a few) like a tracking poll. Which is a joke.

More like, "Do we need any more evidence that Bandit is a pure troll?"

lel

But I thought that if polls in a state show a close race, that makes voting history and demographics irrelevant! Just like Nevada, Kentucky is a toss-up, I'll be shocked if Trump wins by more than 5, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary wins it.

I can see Louisville, Lexington, Frankfort, and university areas offsetting the coal areas a little bit. Of course, it might not be enough to cost Trump the state. On the other hand, are we absolutely positive Trump isn't collapsing in the coal areas like he is everywhere else?

After all, there was this interview where Trump said miners were stupid...

http://www.barefootandprogressive.com/2016/02/donald-trump-as-clueless-about-coal-miners-as-kentuckys-political-leaders.html

This same updated pile of junk now has Trump ahead by 14 in New Hampshire. Trump also leads in Wisconsin and Michigan (unlikely). Hillary leads in Nebraska.

They somehow have "insufficient data" to give Hillary DC and Hawaii. And Trump Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and Alaska.

Until the kinks are all ironed out or they have more respondents, these polls are probably as bad as the YouGov effort of every state four years ago.

LOL no. Just throw everything Reuters/Ipsos does in the trash regardless of who it favors

It saddens me that Nate included this into the 538 model because it threw everything on a wack.

Nebraska: Clinton+3. No wonder it's so weird on 538.

Not with

(1) Trump up 11 in Indiana

(2) Trump winning southwestern Virginia, which is culturally similar to Kentucky, by a landslide margin. (West of a line from about Winchester to the western suburbs of Richmond, Trump is doing quite well in Virginia. Of course most Virginians live to the east of that line and are going heavily for Clinton).

(3) no event that should bring Kentucky into line with a state nearly even -- like Missouri or North Carolina.

Corroboration necessary.   

I refuse to format this junk, but here you go. The latest data, including battleground Kentucky, Reuters doesn't know who wins DC and the 14-point New Hampshire Trump surge!

State     Clinton   Trump
Alabama   42%   48%
Alaska   —   —
Arizona   43%   46%
Arkansas   39%   48%
California   61%   25%
Colorado   43%   40%
Connecticut   50%   37%
Delaware   —   —
Florida   49%   42%
Georgia   43%   46%
Hawaii   —   —
Idaho   29%   49%
Illinois   53%   26%
Indiana   34%   55%
Iowa   43%   40%
Kansas   37%   48%
Kentucky   43%   45%
Louisiana   39%   50%
Maine   39%   40%
Maryland   53%   30%
Massachusetts   46%   33%
Michigan   43%   44%
Minnesota   44%   35%
Mississippi   37%   53%
Missouri   40%   46%
Montana   —   —
Nebraska   45%   41%
Nevada   41%   39%
New Hampshire   34%   48%
New Jersey   48%   34%
New Mexico   —   —
New York   53%   31%
North Carolina   48%   44%
North Dakota   —   —
Ohio   47%   41%
Oklahoma   32%   54%
Oregon   45%   37%
Pennsylvania   50%   43%
Rhode Island   —   —
South Carolina   46%   46%
South Dakota   —   —
Tennessee   33%   46%
Texas   32%   45%
The District of Columbia   —   —
Utah   34%   39%
Vermont   —   —
Virginia   48%   37%
Washington   49%   33%
West Virginia   39%   47%
Wisconsin   36%   39%
Wyoming   —   —

That 36% margin in CA though, lol

Clinton leading in Nebraska lmao.

There Nebraska statewide has Clinton leading Trump by four points (538 (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/nebraska/#plus)). I'll just put that out there.

Also, still not sure how 538 is getting the sample sizes. And why would a polling company even put out polls with samples under 200?

Edit: I'm not trying to cherrypick here, just showing that something is very wrong with their polls.

I remember You Gov doing something similar in either 2014 or 2012. The sample sizes for some of the states were putrid. This thing has an interesting methodology where some states are 1, 2 or 3 week samples depending on the sample size.

Reuters/Ipsos must be supplying the information to 538. I don't see anything on either Reuters' or Ispos' websites.

Yeah, and Clinton is up by 5 in Nebraska and winning overall in the electoral college. :P

(you probably shouldn't cherry pick good results for your side out of a clearly crap set of polls that still shows your candidate losing by a large margin if you don't wanna look like a tool)

Is Florida deep blue?

That New Hampshire... thing has a sample size of 133; polled over twenty days.  They basically asked seven people a day for three weeks and thought that made a scientific poll worth publishing.  Factoring on what the MoE probably is the race is probably still within it, which says a lot about the thing.

Wow... are things that bad?

Where's TN?

Great news on these polls, obviously FL and Via are heading in Clinton's direction.

Also from Reuters/Ipsos:
Trump +2 in Kentucky.  Clinton up 4 in Nebraska! South Carolina is a tie but Trump is leading by 1 point in Michigan and 3 points in Wisconsin.

So I think we can all agree these are pretty sh**tty polls.

I thought Reuters was a good pollster...?

ayy lmao

Clinton's only winning NEB 2 and ME 2 is competitive as well.

Trump under 50 in WV? WI to the right of IA? Trump up 11 in LA?

I changed the turnout to 100% and got TX to the left of AZ and LA looked about right.

lol this looks like one of Dick Morris' 2008 maps. hilarious!

By definition 2 out of every 50 polls is going to have a result outside of the margin of error of the actual result. If we assume a sample size of ~350 (which seems typical for a medium-sided state in these polls), then a fair amount of these polls should be 5% or further from the actual result, with smaller states even less precise.

ignores 50 other polls that say otherwise




HEY WEIRD OUTLIER SAYS +14 IN NEW HAMPSHIRE FOR TRUMP, LET'S HAVE A MISPLACED THREAD ABOUT IT.

don't be such an idiot dude.

I think most of their state polls have a sample size of a dozen or so people.

#TossUp Wyoming

Can we stop cherry picking results that we like from this poll, and just toss it all in the trash?

     We should do that, but hacks gonna hack.

There is an issue with turnout filters clearly. Bring everything up to 100% (i.e not making assumptions and just using the data you have), the map is a little better.

Actually, I don't think that's the right answer.

So long as you understand that out of the 50 states+DC, there are going to be an average of 2.5 polls that fail as a matter of science, the model they are using for turnout and know the MOE in the thinly polled states, these polls won't be terrible.

Like anything else, they are simply data points at the end of the day, so long as they are put in the right context. Hopefully, the thinly polled states will get some heft to them in the upcoming weeks.

If you put it into that context, we may laugh at a number of the results, but they are not absolutely terrible as a matter of science to be completely discounted as a whole. The ones where they have a decent sample should be somewhat decent polls.

What in god's name is this pile of junk?!

I really think people should stop trying to poll all 50 states. It never seems to go well. Though these make the Morning Consult ones look excellent by comparison.

-In Alabama, Trump is leading Hillary by six points in another batch of polls? (#LeaninBama)

- Hillary is losing to Trump by three points in Wisconsin? (#SwingOnTreesWI)

-Hillary is only up by three points in Colorado? (#NoCollegeForCO - Despite its high college educated % going Mormon on Trump)

-Trump leads Hillary BIGLY in New Hampshire by 14 points. (#NHWomenMarryTrump)

Bunch of BS if you ask me.

It's the MOE fluctuations from a small sample size that's the issue here. If they can increase the number of people polled, they may have the start of something decent here. I don't think any internet polling outfit, including YouGov has quite gotten there yet though. The smaller states just have outrageous MOEs, which make the poll useless.

There should, however, be some heft to the larger states with bigger sample sizes.

Update:

Maine: Trump 42%, Clinton 42%
New Hampshire: Clinton 44%, Trump 45%
Pennsylvania: Clinton 48%, Trump 42%
Ohio: Clinton 43%, Trump 46%
Michigan: Clinton 41%, Trump 42%
Wisconsin: Clinton 38%,  Trump 38%
Virginia: Clinton 50%, Trump 37%
Florida: Clinton 48, Trump 45%
Iowa: Clinton 41%, Trump 44%
North Carolina: Clinton 49%, Trump 44%
Colorado: Clinton 45%, Trump 39%

Clinton: 273 EV
Trump: 182 EV

Adjust those numbers for 60% white male non-college turnout instead of the unrealistic 70% that Reuters is using and those numbers fall right in line with expectations. I'll demonstrate in another post

I don't understand why the model has Hispanic turnout at just 32% when it was 48% last time. Black turnout is down from 66% to 41% etc.

OK, I dialed in these turnout projections:

White male: 63%
White female: 66%
Black male: 55%
Black female: 75%
Hispanic male: 45%
Hispanic female: 55%

and got these numbers in the swing states and marginal swing states:

Arizona: Trump 44, Clinton 42
Colorado: Clinton 45, Trump 38
Florida: Clinton 49, Trump 43
Georgia: Clinton 45, Trump 44
Iowa: Trump 44, Clinton 43
Maine: Clinton 43, Trump 41
Michigan: Clinton 43, Trump 40
Minnesota: Clinton 43, Trump 33
Missouri: Trump 49, Clinton 37
Nevada: Clinton 46, Trump 32
New Hampshire: Trump 46, Clinton 43
North Carolina: Clinton 51, Trump 42
Ohio: Clinton 45, Trump 45
Pennsylvania: Clinton 49, Trump 41
Virginia: Clinton 51, Trump 37
Wisconsin: Clinton 38, Trump 38

So still some weakness for Clinton in northern rust belt states but greater strength in states with more African Americans

Romney unskewed polls in 2012, Dems in 2014, you now... Sigh

Because voters say so. As in 2012, as in 2014, when polls were better than convential wisdom...

This model has white turnout at 69%, African-American turnout at 56% and Hispanic turnout at 32%. That is never happening. Even in 2012, when GWB won by 2.5%, white turnout was 67.2%, African-American turnout was 60% and Hispanic turnout was 47.2%. Hispanic turnout is expected to spike dramatically this election to at worst 55% (and in the mock turnout model I used, I had Hispanic turnout at 50%). African-American turnout will also remain high, well north of 60%

Who expect it? Not polls, that ask voters.

I expect, for instance, that silent majority will stand up and vote for You Know Who :)

According to 538 http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/updates/#plus, it looks like Ipsos has made another results dump ranging from Aug26-Sept1. Here are the states ranked by lead order; take it as you may:

D States:
CA: C+38
NY: C+22
MD: C+20
MA: C+16
IL: C+13
VA: C+13
NJ: C+11
WA: C+10
MN: C+9
CT: C+8
NV: C+8
PA: C+6
CO: C+6
NC: C+5
OR: C+5
FL: C+4

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ States:
ME: C+1
MI: T+1
NH: T+1
WI: T+1
UT: T+1

R States:
IA: T+3
OH: T+3
AZ: T+3
SC: T+3
AR: T+5
KY: T+5
GA: T+6
NE: T+7
OK: T+12
AL: T+12
MO: T+15
KS: T+15
WV: T+17
TX: T+17
TN: T+18
LA: T+20
IN: T+24
MS: T+28
ID: T+30

The only positive of this poll series is it helps provide some data in states that don't get polled enough or at all.

Classic! That should be enough to tell you all you need to know.

And of course 538 adds them.

#OH right of UT

That's actually awful.

Complete List

This assumes Hillary +3 (Hillary 44, Trump 41)

NAME   CLINTON   TRUMP
Alabama   39%   52%
Alaska   —   —
Arizona   41%   45%
Arkansas   42%   48%
California   63%   24%
Colorado   45%   39%
Connecticut   47%   39%
Delaware   —   —
Florida   48%   45%
Georgia   41%   47%
Hawaii   —   —
Idaho   28%   58%
Illinois   50%   37%
Indiana   32%   56%
Iowa   41%   44%
Kansas   37%   52%
Kentucky   42%   46%
Louisiana   37%   57%
Maine   42%   42%
Maryland   52%   32%
Massachusetts   48%   32%
Michigan   41%   42%
Minnesota   42%   33%
Mississippi   30%   59%
Missouri   35%   51%
Montana   —   —
Nebraska   38%   45%
Nevada   43%   35%
New Hampshire   44%   45%
New Jersey   47%   36%
New Mexico   —   —
New York   50%   28%
North Carolina   49%   44%
North Dakota   —   —
Ohio   43%   46%
Oklahoma   37%   48%
Oregon   44%   39%
Pennsylvania   48%   42%
Rhode Island   —   —
South Carolina   45%   48%
South Dakota   —   —
Tennessee   31%   49%
Texas   32%   49%
The District of Columbia   —   —
Utah   34%   35%
Vermont   —   —
Virginia   50%   37%
Washington   45%   35%
West Virginia   38%   55%
Wisconsin   38%   38%
Wyoming   —   —

LOL @ Utah to the left of Arizona, NH to the right of NC, MI/WI to the right of NE-02, SC to the left of GA, and pretty much everything else. HP

     The data sucks, though. We could just make up numbers and it would be about as useful.

So can anyone explain why Ipsos/Reuters have an A- ranking from 538?

These statewide polls leave a bit of something for everyone when it comes to cherrypicking individual state polling numbers, but their results are so far off the map when it comes to not only comparing states in terms of national PVI. but additionally the numbers from even large states like California and Texas, let alone random inexplicable numbers between Arkansas/Kentucky and Louisiana/Mississippi for example.

Differences between Nebraska/Kansas don't appear intuitively appear to make sense....

So, we'll see but when you do the state by state comparisons these results don't make much logical sense.

A lot of this is just polling around the MOE. You also have to keep in mind that about 2 1/2 of each 51 polls will fail as a matter of science.

The methodology is also a little unique based on sample sizes recorded in any given state over a period of time.

Each state sample must have 500 likely voters to get a one week result. If that number is not met, the poll goes out to a two week or three week sample. If they can't get a sample with 70% of the simulations has one candidate winning over another over two or  three-weeks, the state goes to "insufficient data." It also goes to insufficient data is the sample size is less than 60.

As a result, there's a bit of a lag in real time with some of these states, hence the Clinton +3 sample with the "State of Polls" result while it's Trump +1 in the nationwide Reuters "Polling Explorer."

If you keep all of those variables in mind, you get a better idea of how this poll works and how you can have some of the variances we are seeing.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/states-of-the-nation-explainer/#sidebar-methodology

What do you think the PVI map will look like this election?

NH: +25R

Thanks Seriously!

That's the best explanation I have seen thus far....

Just because you have a "Blue" avatar and I have a "Red" avatar doesn't mean that there isn't at least a common area of legitimate discussion.

If your man loses.... don't blame me I voted for Bernie. :)

For me there's a difference between the academics of polling on this board and the partisanship that goes on in the 2016 elections board. A lot of folks can't grasp that there are differences between these two boards and think that if I am hackish when I support my candidate, that I can't be reasonable when it comes to numbers.

Numbers are numbers as far as I am concerned. The only real difference is your interpretation of them at the end of the day.

With that said, like You Gov four years ago, these Reuters samples will be hit or miss, but provide data points that may be otherwise lacking in smaller states. I just wish I didn't have to go to 538 to get the relevant sample sizes.

Here's an analysis of the Reuters States polls.

As you can see, the biggest seven states (CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH) generally get 1 week surveys.

Thirteen states from 10 to 16 EVs (Georgia to Minnesota), with the exception of Maryland are on a two-week cycle.

Maryland and states generally from 5 to 9 EVs are on a three-week polling cycle.

When you get to about 6 EVs, the polling gets a little unreliable, where sample sizes will be in the 100s, hence the MOEs for these states increases significantly.

Most states with 3 or 4 EVs do not get polled, however, IA, ME and NH are exceptions. NM is the only 5 EV state without polling.

()

Sourcing for LV and length of poll is 538. Population totals are from the Census 2015 estimate. MOE calculated at 50% interval at 95% confidence based on number of persons surveyed. EVs and polling data are from the Reuters Data for 1, 2 or 3 week period ending 9/1.

Donnie is really using these garbage polls to promote himself?


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/772812917175562241

Statistically speaking, the Ohio poll is not that terrible. It's 1 week poll with the MOE ~ +/- 5%

He has moved all in on cherry picking the sea of trash that are these polls...


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/772863407620034560

I'm mad 538 ever brought these junk polls to light. It was only a matter of time where Trump went dumpster-diving and bragged on Twitter.

This man is like a rampant child with no adult supervision.

Btw, the Ohio poll only polled 375 LV. Not anything to brag about lol

375?! Jesus, that's downright unethical.

It's part of a larger national tracking poll, which is why including it in the 538 model as a state poll is so dumb.

That made me laugh pretty hard.

But it shows NV at Clinton+7 so itt's probably not that junk according to Atlas.

*Walks into thread with everyone calling it junk except Trump*

*Complains that nobody will call it junk*

Okay.

I do enjoy Trump touting a 1-point lead in Utah.

No more Nate Bronze I guess? I wonder how /r/The_Donald feels about this...

He realises that he's still below 250, even with all the ties breaking for him.

It was a joke. Respectable pollsters have polled NV and have shown a close race, so users here call those junk because they don't show a larger Clinton lead since they don't have the option of taking the poll in Spanish.

Cool.... so a one week polling period at least sounds somewhat reasonable, but even then there are odd results...

California--- Ok can see huge margins here for Hillary and extremely low numbers for Trump, but Clinton numbers appear to be significantly higher than expected considering a large Bernie primary percentage, that in many other states are still heavily flirting with 3rd parties.

Texas--- Trump top-line numbers look realistic assuming a consolidation of the Republican base, which appears to be a major factor in Trump polling improvements over the past few weeks. Clinton's numbers look excessively low (32%) considering that this was her best state in the primaries, and she has likely consolidated both minority voters, but also older Anglos that voted for Bernie, as well as many younger minority voters. Texas for Dems is usually a high floor/ Low Ceiling state where a dogcatcher could still win 40% of the Dem vote running for governor.

Florida--- Actually looks about right, although it might be 1-2% in either direction.

New York--- Looks realistic, although Trump obviously has significant room to add to the base, but overall margins seem about right.

Illinois--- looks about right.... solid Republican base, lots of Bernie holdouts, but ultimately will be likely +15-17 Dem at minimum come November.

PA---- Clinton +6 about right, considering what we have seen in state/national polls. Surprised at the high percentage of voters that are firm on a Dem/Rep race and not undecided or looking at 3rd parties.

OH--- Honestly, I could see Trump narrowly ahead at this point in the race in some polls, and once again it looks like this state will be quite dramatic come November, with current national polling averages.

GA--- Looks slightly Trump heavy, although assuming he is consolidating Republicans not totally unrealistic although I suspect is slightly +2-3% Trump.

So, even we toss the >1 week surveys into the trash, there are some legit discussions regarding what appear to be some weird numbers from Cali and Tejas compared to some of the other states in the one week polls....

thoughts anyone???

My take from all of this are that the polls in the smaller states <6 EV are unreliable and that's why we're seeing weird results in New Hampshire and Utah, for example.

The other polls are generally OK if you take trends into account.

Sounds reasonable overall and let's see what the polls look like in a week or two ....

Tick tock goes the clock....

9/8 numbers. Only NM seems off significantly as far as I can tell from a quick look.

State           EV   Clinton   Trump
Alabama   9   42%   51%
Alaska   3   —   —
Arizona   11   40%   46%
Arkansas   6   41%   50%
California   55   60%   32%
Colorado   9   40%   43%
Connecticut   7   46%   40%
Delaware   3   46%   24%
Florida   29   47%   47%
Georgia   16   38%   48%
Hawaii   4   —   —
Idaho   4   30%   56%
Illinois   20   52%   34%
Indiana   11   32%   56%
Iowa   6   41%   44%
Kansas   6   38%   52%
Kentucky   8   37%   53%
Louisiana   8   33%   60%
Maine   4   52%   33%
Maryland   10   54%   30%
Massachusetts   11   53%   30%
Michigan   16   43%   41%
Minnesota   10   42%   31%
Mississippi   6   35%   58%
Missouri   10   34%   53%
Montana   3   30%   60%
Nebraska   5   28%   56%
Nevada   6   43%   41%
New Hampshire   4   49%   36%
New Jersey   14   47%   35%
New Mexico   5   38%   48%
New York   29   52%   30%
North Carolina   15   46%   45%
North Dakota   3   —   —
Ohio   18   47%   46%
Oklahoma   7   33%   52%
Oregon   7   47%   35%
Pennsylvania   20   49%   44%
Rhode Island   4   —   —
South Carolina   9   45%   49%
South Dakota   3   —   —
Tennessee   11   28%   49%
Texas   38   31%   48%
The District of Columbia   3   —   —
Utah   6   29%   46%
Vermont   3   —   —
Virginia   13   50%   37%
Washington   12   45%   37%
West Virginia   5   39%   54%
Wisconsin   10   38%   40%
Wyoming   3   —   —

"Only NM,"

-looks at WI and CO-

lol

I don't have sample sizes, but CO and VA have some heft to them, so on balance, there's some science there. NM is likely a junk sample.

From a MOE standpoint, WI and CO are possible if you are on the heavy Trump side of recent samples (assuming MOE ~ +/- 5%).

Wi has been consistent pro-Trump with Reuters for whatever reason.

The turnout model  (Hispanics at 30%) crazify some of these state results.

Is it head-to-head numbers?

Yes. 2-way, LV. no 4-way numbers.

Yep, NM, WI, CO, and to a lesser degree, VA, all look way off. But in a poll this big, you're bound to get some oddities.

Is anyone gonna mention Mississippi's result? Over 20 points along with Texas being Trump +17?

It's actually a bit more interesting to look at these in terms of overall trends, rather than getting fixated on some of the individual state numbers, and some apparent outliers.

So, if we look at the swing states we see some patterns that appear to support what we have seen elsewhere:

Ohio- Numbers have fluctuated a bit, but it looks like Trump has consolidated much of the wavering Republican base over the past few weeks and Clinton is basically holding steady at around 46/47%.

Florida- Clinton's numbers have held relatively steady, with a slight drop to undecideds and Trump has consolidated much of the Republican base.

Virginia- Numbers have held remarkably steady for the past month with Trump stuck at about 37% and down ~10%. Trump can't break through in NOVA?

Pennsylvania- Clinton is basically holding at slightly under 50% and Trump has been stuck in the lower 40%. He can't break through in suburban Philly?

North Carolina- Clinton has lost a few points to undecideds, but Trump has been stuck at 44% for a month. Comparing with other polls it's really looking like he has virtually maxed out his support and Clinton is holding a slight structural advantage with the remainder of the electorate.

Michigan- There hasn't been much movement over the past month, although it appears that Trump has lost a few points with Clinton holding steady. Surprised at the large number of undecideds in their polls, but historically this is a state that tends to close strong for Dems in the GE.

Wisconsin- Looks a little weird in all of their polls over the past month, but not implausible considering other polls and some likely Bernie holdouts, and also a state that tends to close strong for the Dems in the GE.

Iowa--- Seems about right with a narrow Trump lead and huge number of undecided voters.

Georgia--- There has been a significant drop of Clinton supporters to undecided voters over the past month with Trump gaining a few points and getting closer to the magic 50% number.

Other Notes---

1.) It looks like Ipsos does have some issues polling Spanish language speaking voters judging from some dubious numbers in Texas and New Mexico, as well as some odd swings in Nevada and Colorado.

2.) Major shifts from Clinton to Trump in Kentucky, Missourri, and some Republican plains states (Nebraska, Oklahoma, Montana.)

3.) Odd numbers in a few Deep South states (Louisiana and Mississippi @ +20-29 Trump) compared to Arkansas (+6-+9 Trump) and Alabama (+13-+9 Trump), as well as a few other miscellaneous places (CT and IN).

On FiveThirtyEight, an Ipsos poll has Trump leading here. Is this legit or no?

Answer in bold.

No, not even close.

CO is nearly as safe as NH this year.

Did Ipsos actually find Trump ahead there? Yes. Can they be trusted? Absolutely not. (Trump up TEN in NM!?)

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of Trump having a lead there or drawing things close in Colorado as nonsense. The Ipsos polls of the state actually have a statistically significant sample and a two-week frame of reference.

Given the state of the national race, it could be closer than some of the older data suggests.

I am not saying Trump is ahead in the state, but it could be closer than you think. There hasn't been a legit landline/cell poll of the state in a while.

If Clinton wins OH and or VA, it doesn't matter. But Clinton should win CO.

Quinnipiac and Marist had Clinton up at 8 and 12 respectively back in early August. Since then Trump has picked up ~4 points nationally, so a modest single digit lead is about what should be expected here.

Arkansas and Alabama have been oddly close... I can kind of get AR (home state, plus elasticity) but AL makes no sense. Then again this is Ipsos...

Well, unfortunately we haven't really seen any decent polls from 'Bama this GE election cycle, but Ipsos seems to be the best available, compared against the likes of Google Consumer Surveys, or the one Survey Monkey poll.

However, it should be noted that Bill Clinton only lost "Bama by 7 points in both '92 and '96 in a 3-Person race, and even Gore only lost by 14 points in 2000.

'Bama swung hard to the right in 2004 (37-62 George W.) and was basically static in '08 and '12, with slight improvements for the Dems, likely as a result of high Black turnout....

The key for a Dem to make Alabama a single digit state is to pull back Whites in Northern Alabama, which historically has been a region of the state where voters never really bought the Republican Southern strategy agenda.

Arkansas is an interesting contrast, and a state that until just recently would elect Democratic governors and US Senators.... Even John Kerry only lost Arkansas by 9 points in '04. .

There hasn't been a single poll showing Trump up by double-digits other than a couple of junk "Google Analytics Polls".

I could easily see this closing out as only a +6-7 Trump win come November, and if his national numbers start collapsing (Clinton +8) move into relatively close race....

New numbers:

Pennsylvania: 46% Clinton, 44% Trump
Ohio: 47% Clinton, 44% Trump
Florida: 50% Trump, 46% Clinton
Colorado: 43% Trump, 40% Clinton
New Mexico: 43% Trump, 40% Clinton
Nevada: 41% Trump, 38% Clinton
Michigan: 44% Trump, 44% Clinton
Wisconsin: 43% Clinton, 40% Trump
Maine: 41% Clinton, 40% Trump
North Carolina: 46% Clinton, 44% Trump
Iowa: 49% Trump, 41% Clinton

Apparently, Trump is leading in Vermont. lol

Trump: 243 EV
Clinton: 242 EV

Disgruntled Bernie supporters? Lol

How does Reuters consistently manage to produce ridiculous results across the board?

Did they not poll Latinos?

I think Nate Silver is rather stupid and said so multiple times this past year, but you were probably too busy unskewing polls with bogus Ohio voter registration numbers to be aware of that.

maybe they are A pollsters but even those don't seem to get "multi-polls" straight.

while i...as a liberal hack...have accepted the whole rust belt to be competetive this cycle there are just too many strange numbers to believe anything at all.

CO may be a sleeper trump state if poll after poll finds this result but at the same time PA won't be to the right of OH and NM absolutely won't have the same numbers as CO.

and don't even get me started about trump clearing maine but losing NC like that.....i guess some are right, some are wrong but since i can't say which numbers are which ......i guess those polls are only useable for aggregators like 538 and not simple folk like us.

This is pretty much exactly what I thought as well. It seems like these polls are actually very consistent, if you HEAVILY undersample the Latino vote. That would account for NM (the most Hispanic state) being where it is, as well as NV, CO, and even FL.

()

Reading this correctly, it's Battleground Michigan for all the marbles.

Would also explain Trump being up 7 in Arizona and 22 in Texas...

Yeah, they estimate Latino turnout at 30%, which is just absurd. Ipsos trying to unskew themselves, lol.

I'd say that's very very bad for Clinton and the Democrats. Trump can run up the score elsewhere.

This also has WV as Trump +10, for what it's worth.

Probably best to treat with significant skepticism subsamples with lower than traditional sample sizes (I wish people would apply this logic to demographic crosstabs...)

Go to the turnout model and reduce everyone to 0 but Hispanics to 100. I can't do that right now but last time ir showed that there was not enough in the sample to measure for states like NM

Yes, and your point is? ???

For the record, this is their turnout projection....

()

So yeah. If we adjust it to the 2000-2012 average, then it's 2012 less Vermont (ugh), Iowa, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.

In the PV it's 46-40 to Clinton.

If you reduce turnout to 0 for everyone and up to 100% for Hispanics, then Reuters have insufficient data for all states bar California, Texas, Colorado, Mississippi, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

The point is child, that in the past two weeks out of 4,899 respondents, only 162 respondents are Hispanic. That's 3%. That sample isn't accurate enough to give you an accurate national poll, never mind states ones.

Unskewers detected...
Yes, so? They have low sample. Is it so difficult to understand, Red Hacks?

For instance in NM, that you referenced to, it was totally~120. Is it so strange? ???

Yes, Hispanics are undersampled in most polls (not just IPSOS, not just this year). So are those under 34 years-old (not just IPSOS, not just this year).

How is pointing out that a sample size is too low 'unskewing'? i said nothing about what the sample says, what the results are, just simply that is too low. Would I be 'unskewing' a poll if 25% of the respondents were women and i thought it should be closer to 50%

By the way, where did you find those numbers? Ipsos doesn't make it simple to find it :-[

???

That's not unskewing the sample. Again, I have no issue with the numbers they are getting. It's instead looking at how they are applying a LV model.

Affie - don't bother. Any poll, no matter how dodgy, needs to be accepted and ANY attempts to try to make sense of them is unskewing.

Lol, neither you or I were talking about the sample.

You tried to "adjust" their turnout model. How is that not an unskewing? ???

It reminds me of this

Again, why cite Nate Silver?  He is pretty bad.

Lol, Mr. Unskever.

You still has not answered me, what change in CBS methodology (compared to 2012/08 etc) you doesn't like ;)

So tell me, what oddities in their method you have found, but are so unwilling to reveal for us? :)

Or you can admit, that you don't like the results :)

Not if you reweigh those Hispanics to the equivalent of your suggested turnout model, which it appears that Reuters has done. So Reuters in essence takes the 162 Hispanics and extrapolates them to the real number which is likely about 400 or so.

Whether they did it on a micro level for each state is the only real question that you have when attempting to reskew these polls.

These numbers fundamentally are fine and in line with most state polls within the margins. Of the four companies doing these 50-state polls (Morning Consult, Google, Survey Monkey and Reuters), the way Reuters is doing it makes the most sense to give you the most up-to-date polls possible.

It's the states with 6 or fewer EVs where you start to run into issues methodologically.

Where can one see Ipsos' crosstabs?

Wait, they're projecting that Hispanic turnout will go down!? Hah! They're in for a rude awakening.

You think, Hispanics [and Whites] lie? As far as I know, the answers to the questions ("Will you vote Nov 8?" and "How enthusiastic are you about the election?") are the most important to decide likelihood.

Listen, Trump has literally targeted Hispanics with his rhetoric. From my communication with Hispanic leaders all over my state and with friends and family in places like Florida and New York, the sentiment is not that of passing on voting, but on stopping Trump cold. If you think a community that's being threatened at a national level will not turn out more than in times that they weren't, then you don't understand or you just don't want to consider it, plain and simple.

More to consider, polls in places like FL aren't taking into account the large population influx of Puerto Rican Hispanics who vote overwhelmingly D. You can go to the FL poll thread that I elaborated more on this if you want more information.

Lastly, I remember reading on this forum even that Hispanic voter registration has skyrocketed in places like Colorado and Nevada.

The same applies to African-Americans, who have now been reminded of Trump's birtherism once more (those that forgot). Hillary is well-known and trusted among this community, and Obama is on the trail campaigning for her. I doubt voter turnout there will be suppressed much either.

If they project lower turnout in light of all this, they're not going to get a good screen and so their topline numbers and projections will suffer.

There are a lot of reasons why turnout among non-white might be lower than 2012. If almost all the polls show [right now] that, why would you not believe them?

They [all pollsters, not just Ipsos] might be wrong, of course, but it is more likely that they are right.

How so? I thought Survey Monkey is the one that actually came closest to conducting 50 separate state polls (which is why it has the highest weights at 538)?

And for what it's worth, Survey Monkey is more strongly correlated with the Morning Consult MRP analysis (R=0.94) than with Reuters/Ipsos (R=0.88) or Google (R=0.79).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/ (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/)

Does it sound familiar, Arch?

I am not saying it is the case this year, but pollsters on average are better than conventional wisdom and "Hispanic leaders" (who the hell are they anyway?) :P

It's not polls which are showing lower turnout, it is Ipsos's weighting scheme.

Explain

Pollsters re-weight their poll results to match a pre-determined demographic breakdown, which varies from pollster to pollster based on their own assumptions of the race. If they didn't, the raw numbers would be all over the place, since the sample size isn't large enough to capture the proper demographic proportions. This is not the same thing as the "registered" versus "likely" voter issue--that's based on the questions you were discussing earlier, but not the demographic breakdown.

"Unskewing," at least as it pertains to the action often derided here and in political polling circles in general, usually involves saying you don't believe a poll because they didn't sample enough Latinos, or blacks, or something along those lines. That is not the same as what's being done here, which is arguing that the poll's demographic weighting seems unreasonable.

It's the staggered releases, which to me makes them more relevant. If the poll is big enough, Reuters releases them over a 1, 2 or 3 week cycle.

Google's samples are 1-week and generally too small in smaller states. Google just balances their samples based on age and gender. They don't even ask any other questions.

Survey Monkey and Morning Consult go over a longer period. (a month), so your snapshot is not as accurate as the race changes over the course of a month.

Lol, what? 99% of pollsters re-weight RV demographic to match RV Census Bureau statistic. Own assumption LMAO ()()()

#uneducatedUnskewersHillary2016 (#post_uneducatedUnskewersHillary2016)

Google doesn't balance by racial demographics?  

Wow, no wonder their polls are so useless...

I can see the argument that 1-week cycles provide a valuable snapshot, but once you get up to two weeks or more, I think a poll loses any value as a "snapshot", which is why I think the much larger Survey Monkey samples are far more relevant for most states.

Also, Reuters/Ipsos only had 1-week windows for 8 states: IL, CA, TX, FL, VA, NY, OH, PA, two of which are clear outliers (CA: C+38, TX: T+23) relative to all the other recent polling.

So I'm VERY dubious that these Reuters/Ipsos polls are providing any useful info at all (though they're not as bad as the Google polls).

I'm talking about the pollsters' demographic turnout breakdown. That being said, I am not sure where I remember reading about that (FiveThirtyEight?), and it's very possible I'm remembering wrong. Memory is a fickle thing. If that's the case, disregard my previous message.

That being said, your attitude is out of line (if I'm wrong, a simple correction would have sufficed). Have a nice election season.

= LV-model

It's literally like a 3-4 question poll.. Likelihood to vote, Voter Intention, Gender and Age.

I don't mind any polls, but Google is weird (though it has B rating on 538). One can probably use it apple-to-apple comparison (as 538 does). But... it still is weird...

Seriously? Do you have a link so I can pull up the statewide numbers.

As an older man my eyesight isn't nearly as good as it used to be and wanted to be able to update my spreadsheet without squinting. ;)

http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/ (http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/)

Thanks Little Big!

You are absolutely adorable, especially on the polling threads.... ;)

Vermont to the right of both Carolinas? Sure. . .

Vermont red, Maine toss-up, NH blue.

Congrats TN Volunteer!!

#BattlegroundWyoming


Berniebros obvz

It would be nice if the moderators enforced some level of civil discourse, wouldn't it?

At least this is better than Google. GeoIP, LOL.

If Hillary actually wins California by 39% and doesn't win the Presidency, I will be a full-fledged secessionist (and hopefully we could also take Washington and Oregon as well).

I think if CA leaves, NY-MA leaves, too. We would have our own little 1991.

Apologies if someone has already posted this message about Ipsos Polls from electoral-vote.com:

electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Sep21.html#item-11

some of the more interesting quotes...

"We Are Removing the Ipsos Polls from the Database"

"In nine of the 44 states Ipsos has polled, the Ipsos and non-Ipsos results differ by 10 or more points. That is way outside the margin of error (usually about 4%). In 21 states, the difference between Ipsos and non-Ipsos was 5 points or more."

"Interestingly enough, Ipsos is not biased. Averaged across all states, Ipsos favors the Democrats by a very small margin: Only 0.70%. That is fine. Except that it gets this small margin by having large errors cancel out."

Latest update 9/16-9/25, 1 or 2 or 3-week polls, depending.

259-191 Clinton. Lots of close states though. OH and NC in the Clinton camp.

()

http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/

Right,

We have White turnout at 68%, Black turnout at 52%, Asian and other turnout at 40% and Hispanic turnout at 36%. So again historic highs for white voters and historic lows, bordering on mid term lows for everyone else...

Their turnout model really is awful.

Yeah... whoever designed the Ipsos demos model needs to be banned from polling for life. Just absurd

Ugh... this garbage get's added to 538, and then Nate chastises people for having less faith in his model. Good grief.

results look pretty reasonable actually

9/29 update. Some pre-debate and some post-debate numbers. Roughly 50/50.

()

Reuters Link: http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/

These really don't bounce around much do they. Again, MI/WI being tied is not credible, SC will not be 8 points left of Georgia, and clearly this is an outlier in terms of OH... otherwise nothing really obviously wrong.

Tuning those numbers to likely turnout percentages, you get an easy Clinton win. Their African-American and Hispanic turnout numbers are very low and they still have Clinton winning

Adjust racial turnouts to 2012 levels, then it's 2012 with Clinton picking up NC, SC (SC which we can perhaps ignore) but losing Iowa and with Colorado being a tie.

Are these polls legit?  They seem to contradict the trends.

Link? Info? Either way, Trump isn't winning either MI or WI, period.

Although the latter has elected sone dubious characters over the years.

On Twitter within the last hour or so.  These seem hard to believe given all the other polls and trends.

Makes sense. Junk.

It's pretty sad when this is the most optimistic poll your small, tax dodging hands can tweet in an effort to maintain the diminished enthusiasm of the continually shrinking minority of American voters who support you. Look at the cute way they tilt Clinton's name. Isn't the Trump campaign just the most brilliant and innovative at the subtleties of politics?

()

Through 10/6. 1, 2 and 3 week surveys depending on state.

Reuters/Ipsos State of the Nation poll: 10/20

Looking a lot less junky (except for Washington State). Color scheme in Atlas red/blue

Alabama: 52-38 Trump
Alaska: No data
Arizona: 45-43 Trump, too close to call
Arkansas: 53-34 Trump
California: 64-26 Clinton
Colorado: 45-41 Clinton
Connecticut: 53-35 Clinton
Delaware: 48-34 Clinton
DC: No data, but expected to go to Clinton
Florida: 48-44 Clinton
Georgia: 49-41 Trump
Hawaii: Clinton, margin uncertain
Idaho: 51-35 Trump
Illinois: 57-28 Clinton
Indiana: 49-38 Trump
Iowa: 46-43 Clinton
Kansas: 50-38 Trump
Kentucky: 52-41 Trump
Louisiana: 51-35 Trump
Maine: 48-39 Clinton
Maryland: 53-29 Clinton
Massachusetts: 57-25 Clinton
Michigan: 45-41 Clinton
Minnesota: 44-32 Clinton
Mississippi: 52-37 Trump
Missouri: 48-37 Trump
Montana: 51-32 Trump
Nebraska: 47-35 Trump
Nevada: 48-43 Clinton
New Hampshire: 45-39 Clinton
New Jersey: 53-32 Clinton
New Mexico: 51-35 Clinton
New York: 54-30 Clinton
North Carolina: 47-43 Clinton
North Dakota: Trump, margin uncertain
Ohio: 43-43 tie
Oklahoma: 51-36 Trump
Oregon: 46-37 Clinton
Pennsylvania: 49-39 Clinton
Rhode Island: Insufficient data, expected to go to Clinton
South Carolina: 51-44 Trump
South Dakota: 50-33 Trump
Tennessee: 44-35 Trump
Texas: 52-39 Trump
Utah: 41-29 Trump* No McMullin
Vermont: Clinton, margin uncertain
Virginia: 49-37 Clinton
Washington: 46-42 Clinton
West Virginia: 56-39 Trump
Wisconsin: 45-42 Clinton
Wyoming: Insufficient data, expected to go to Trump

Another FL poll with a 4.

FL Clinton+4 here too. What are the chances of so many polls of different qualities showing Clinton+4 in FL this many times? Has the race stabilized/locked in that much there?

So, what's the count? 328-210?

Cough cough herding (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/)

Shouldn't that be "moo moo"? :)

Or oink oink squeeel in this case.

Reuters State of the Nation polls, October 27:

National: Clinton 47, Trump 40

Alabama: Trump 51, Clinton 39
Alaska: Insufficient data, likely to go GOP
Arizona: Clinton 43, Trump 42
Arkansas: Trump 53, Clinton 34
California: Clinton 65, Trump 26
Colorado: Clinton 46, Trump 43
Connecticut: Clinton 51, Trump 36
Delaware: Clinton 48, Trump 36
DC: Insufficient data, will go Dem
Florida: Clinton 49, Trump 45
Georgia: Trump 48, Clinton 43
Hawaii: High confidence Clinton, margin uncertain
Idaho: Trump 54, Clinton 30
Illinois: Clinton 56, Trump 35
Indiana: Trump 54, Clinton 39
Iowa: Clinton 44, Trump 42
Kansas: Trump 52, Clinton 38
Kentucky: Trump 56, Clinton 38
Louisiana: Trump 53, Clinton 34
Maine: Clinton 46, Trump 39
Maryland: Clinton 54, Trump 34
Massachusetts: Clinton 56, Trump 27
Michigan: Clinton 41, Trump 37
Minnesota: Clinton 41, Trump 37
Mississippi: Trump 52, Clinton 33
Missouri: Trump 48, Clinton 42
Montana: Trump 48, Clinton 32
Nebraska: Trump 50, Clinton 35
Nevada: Clinton 40, Trump 40
New Hampshire: Clinton 44, Trump 40
New Jersey: Clinton 51, Trump 34
New Mexico: Clinton 49, Trump 39
New York: Clinton 52, Trump 30
North Carolina: Clinton 48, Trump 44
North Dakota: Margin uncertain, likely GOP
Ohio: Clinton 45, Trump 45
Oklahoma: Trump 52, Clinton 36
Oregon: Clinton 46, Trump 38
Pennsylvania: Clinton 48, Trump 46
Rhode Island: Insufficient data, will go Dem
South Carolina: Trump 49, Clinton 44
South Dakota: Margin uncertain, likely GOP
Tennessee: Trump 43, Clinton 35
Texas: Trump 48, Clinton 34
Utah: Trump 44, Clinton 31 (no McMullin option)
Vermont: Insufficient data, will go Dem
Virginia: Clinton 48, Trump 39
Washington: Clinton 47, Trump 37
West Virginia: Trump 56, Clinton 37
Wisconsin: Clinton 47, Trump 42
Wyoming: Insufficient data, will go GOP

Its right because Hillary is up by 4 in Florida.

Margins seem legit. I like that they didn't try to force a result on states with too little data, that gives the poll a bit more credibility at least than other state-by-state ones.

I haven't followed this one closely.  The latest numbers look pretty good for Clinton in isolation, but how are the trends from previous datasets?

They didn't change any 538's models. OK, by 0.1%.
But 538 already was pretty good for Trump, giving him about 20% chance of winning.

A 1 in 5 chance of winning is pretty good?

Noone in the world would have better chances after all the scandals :D

Joking aside, you are right. I meant relatively good [compared to other models].

I assume he means in comparison to other models, which have Clinton anywhere from 87% to 99% at present (see the Upshot page at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html for a summary about halfway down the page).  538 is more bullish on Trump because they have more uncertainty built into their model; when you're behind, uncertainty is a good thing because you want things to change.