|
Title: FL-Associated Industries of Florida: Clinton +3 Post by: The Other Castro on October 25, 2016, 07:23:56 PM Clinton - 44%
Trump - 41% Johnson - 4% Stein - 1% As I mentioned in the senate thread, this is another pollster engaging in Party ID weighting: Quote We finished our second statewide survey track yesterday after taking last week off due to Hurricane Matthew. This track is an N=1,000 likely general election voter sample and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1% with 30% of the interviews being conducted via cell phone. The sample details are in the attached slides and the partisan breaks are weighted to a 38% R – 38 D% - 24% NMP. Based on the very early makeup of the vote by mail (VBM) returns and what we expect the final voter registration statistics for this election to look like, it seems safe to assume a D+1 electorate (or slightly more) is likely so this sample is slightly more Republican than what we believe the actual electorate in Florida will look like. We find Secretary Clinton holding a 3% lead over Donald Trump and Senator Rubio over Congressman Murphy by 5%. Poll of likely voters was conducted on October 19. http://static.politico.com/8a/b1/6632d7e147899c4489dd14a84e17/161024-states-statewidetrack.pdf Title: Re: FL-Associated Industries of Florida: Clinton +3 Post by: Dr. Arch on October 25, 2016, 07:24:51 PM -sigh- Party ID weighing. Still, HRC lead.
Title: Re: FL-Associated Industries of Florida: Clinton +3 Post by: Speed of Sound on October 25, 2016, 07:27:31 PM Is there a reason they weight to a number they think is unlikely to be correct? At any rate, that's a very good number for Clinton, and confirms what we're seeing on the ground (~+5)
Title: Re: FL-Associated Industries of Florida: Clinton +3 Post by: Ebsy on October 25, 2016, 07:49:18 PM Is there a reason they weight to a number they think is unlikely to be correct? At any rate, that's a very good number for Clinton, and confirms what we're seeing on the ground (~+5) Title: Re: FL-Associated Industries of Florida: Clinton +3 Post by: Speed of Sound on October 25, 2016, 07:50:34 PM Is there a reason they weight to a number they think is unlikely to be correct? At any rate, that's a very good number for Clinton, and confirms what we're seeing on the ground (~+5) Don't get me wrong, I get that problem in general, but then why literally say that the ID weight you've used is going to be wrong? Title: Re: FL-Associated Industries of Florida: Clinton +3 Post by: Ebsy on October 25, 2016, 08:02:58 PM Is there a reason they weight to a number they think is unlikely to be correct? At any rate, that's a very good number for Clinton, and confirms what we're seeing on the ground (~+5) Don't get me wrong, I get that problem in general, but then why literally say that the ID weight you've used is going to be wrong? Title: Re: FL-Associated Industries of Florida: Clinton +3 Post by: Speed of Sound on October 25, 2016, 08:05:18 PM Is there a reason they weight to a number they think is unlikely to be correct? At any rate, that's a very good number for Clinton, and confirms what we're seeing on the ground (~+5) Don't get me wrong, I get that problem in general, but then why literally say that the ID weight you've used is going to be wrong? Right...but that isn't the number they weighted to, nor is it the number they themselves say they expect on election day. |