Talk Elections

https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/770148497311969280

Clinton - 46
Trump - 43
Johnson - 7
Stein - 2

Cross tabs?

Probably in the AM. It's not on their website yet.

Weak for Clinton. PA shouldn't be close at all right now.

We'll just have to see whether an outlier or part of a trend.

But looking at the other state numbers they seem on the overall low side for Clinton... hopefully some other more regular state pollsters come out soon.

Excuse me but since when Emerson polls became the gospel of truth?
These guys were among the worst during the primaries.

Seems like the preponderance of evidence is indeed pointing to a tightening race...

Best to wait...

I was bit worried and then I saw their poll in Michigan, only +5, not going to happen lol.

Why is this good? There is, clearly, a high number of undeciders. A good poll should reflect it:-\

They seem to have a house effect +R 1-3

Anyway,
PPP will post their results for the general election this week, so if indeed the race has tightened, PPP will be a good indicator!

Actually, I'm still incredibly wary of any national PPP poll. They were horrible in 2012 on that front.

Great news.

Encouraging!

Probably the worst set of polls for Clinton since before the DNC.

Emerson is a B on 538 (decent, but not amazing) with a R+1.3 bias (you add that to these polls and they appear to be within the ballpark of the current averages).

When you say R+1.3, does that mean that the margin skew 1.3 point to the GOP or that GOPers have a score 1.3 points higher with this institute?

()

No, she was struggling in Iowa & NV too. The polls taken as of late were surges. But she can will like Obama did with 3.5 million votes.

Is this an LV or RV?

They picked the winner but they released some terrible polls.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=232469.0

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=230281.0

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=227905.0

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=210801.0

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls

PPP didn't seem to perform any national polls last time, and every other pollster appeared to get the national percentages wrong. 2012 was just a bad year for pollsters.

These are a little too generous to trump but I wouldn't completely throw them in the trash because Emerson did well in the primaries like Monmouth

They did, but for clients like Daily Kos. They were universally terrible.

Yeah, Emerson, we're going to need to see some crosstabs to understand what you are seeing.

"Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only."

Trump's favorables are definitely too high

So a robopoll

lol Emerson. Am I really supposed to believe Portman is up 15 and Toomey is up 7? Nope, straight in the trash. Junk poll!

IVR landline only poll and with Toomey up way more than plausible. Trump still losing here is a big problem.

Nah the polls are showing Clinton unpopular but for Trump much worse.

Final pre-election Daily Kos/SEIU State of the Nation poll: Obama 50-48 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/05/1155975/-Final-pre-election-Daily-Kos-SEIU-State-of-the-Nation-poll-Obama-50-48)
5 november 2012. Not that bad.

Well, they reweighted the data to get the sample's reported 2012 votes to match the actual 2012 results: "Data was weighted by 2012 election results and Michigan results included regional weights."

This practice is somewhat dubious (as pointed out in the LA Times tracking poll thread) since it's impossible to verify whether the respondents really did vote the way they said they did.

I thought they were amongst the worst in the primaries, but at second glance, they were the second-most accurate (behind Gravis of all people) according to Bloomberg and a tick better than the other university pollers (Monmouth, Marist) and significantly better than Quinnipiac when it came to average margin.

They were among the worst. Just because the end results lined up doesnt mean they weren't releasing huge outliers leading into it.

Evidence?
Every pollster might have some outliers, but according to this article, they were OK.

The margins were pretty consistent, although, on balance better on the GOP side.

I don't deny the R+1.3 house effect, however, I don't think these polls are total garbage either. Just another datapoint for the relevant states.

Are we still that behind in the times to not understand that robo calls of landlines only is probably one of the worst ways to collect polling data?

Here (http://www.theecps.com) you go for cross tabs. The PA bottom line result is in line with the cross tabs. It shows Trump holding on to the Mittens numbers in the Philly metro area. Of course, the whole thing could be GIGO, but it seems to be internally consistent GIGO, if it is GIGO.

One of the problems with Emerson is not necessarily just their methodology, but the fact that this is their first poll of these three states, so it doesn't really give us any trend lines to compare against.

Contrast this with Marist, "Q", Marist and PPP that have conducted multiple polls of Ohio and PA over the past few months.

So yes, a new PPP poll of PA will give us an indicator, not just in terms of topline numbers but also any trending that could indicate a tightening of the statewide race.

Going along with what I have been noticing concerning the age gap (or lack there of):

18-34: Clinton +2.5
35-54: Trump +3.2
55-74: Clinton +5.5
75+: Clinton +23.4

Any guesses as to what is going on here?  And, I've seen the same general pattern several times of Trump competitive with young voters, ahead with middle-aged voters, and getting trounced with older voters.

Senate race age breakdown if that helps:

18-34: Toomey +12.5
35-54: Toomey +13.9
55-74: McGinty +7.0
75+: McGinty +2.7

So, Toomey is far out performing Trump with everyone but 55-74 year-olds, and the younger voters are among the most Republican.

That is very weird.

The same phenomenon is actually more extreme in Michigan and exists but not as much in Ohio.

Both Ohio and Michigan, and to a lesser extent Pennsylvania, are suffering from brain drains.

Honestly.... I think just bad samples. You can explain a lot with this or that, but to that degree?

The word you're looking for is "inaccurate".

Not just samples.  Literally everything — samples,  landlines only,  reweighting seem... at least very very strange.

...Clinton up 3 in Pennsylvania but down 1.5% in North Carolina? Junk, unless America is becoming less polarized.