CA-Gravis: Clinton 49% Paul 40%; Paul 44% Warren 33%
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:00:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  CA-Gravis: Clinton 49% Paul 40%; Paul 44% Warren 33%
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: CA-Gravis: Clinton 49% Paul 40%; Paul 44% Warren 33%  (Read 4305 times)
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 31, 2014, 05:56:25 PM »

Gravis poll of California, 580 registered voters, conducted July 22-24:

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/california-statewide-polling/

Clinton 49%
Paul 40%

Paul 44%
Warren 33%
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2014, 05:59:28 PM »

Now we know Gravis is a joke.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2014, 06:00:43 PM »

Before I was giving Gravis polls about a 0.1% weight in my mind. Now it's down to 0%. Congrats.
Logged
GaussLaw
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,279
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2014, 06:12:27 PM »

Gravis needs to poll every state.

If these are their California results, just imagine them for other states.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2014, 06:15:46 PM »

Gravis needs to poll every state.

If these are their California results, just imagine them for other states.

They have Elizabeth Warren doing better in North Carolina than in California. Not even kidding.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2014, 06:19:21 PM »

The Clinton/Paul CA Results are actually similar to the Bush/Kerry CA results, but really, Gravis, Paul ahead of Warren by 11 in CA? Give me a break.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,976


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2014, 06:30:53 PM »

Junk.
Logged
I Will Not Be Wrong
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,346
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2014, 06:38:25 PM »

Gravis needs to poll every state.

If these are their California results, just imagine them for other states.
Agreed, lets see Oregon!
Logged
Never
Never Convinced
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,623
Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2014, 06:40:32 PM »

Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,976


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2014, 06:42:01 PM »

Californians will love Paul's Personhood Amendment.
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2014, 07:01:29 PM »
« Edited: July 31, 2014, 07:03:07 PM by eric82oslo »

The problem with this poll is that white voters make up more than half (53%) of the electorate, while Hispanics make up less than a quarter (23%). We know from the US Census Bureau that there are actually now more Hispanics living in California than white citizens. Of course this isn't going to be 100% reflective in the voter databases, as a lot of these Hispanics are either minors or non-ctizens/illegal immigrants [or less likely to be registered/turn out to vote]. Yet a 30% voter difference is just down right laughable. I guess I could have accepted an 8 or 10% difference, yet not much more than that.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2014, 07:03:08 PM »

The problem with this poll is that white voters make up more than half (53%) of the electorate, while Hispanics make up less than a quarter (23%). We know from the US Census Bureau that there are actually now more Hispanics living in California than white citizens. Of course this isn't going to be 100% reflective in the voter databases, as a lot of these Hispanics are either minors or non-Citizens/illegal immigrants. Yet a 30% voter difference is just down right laughable. I guess I could have accepted an 8 or 10% difference, yet not much more than that.

Er... have you checked the 2012 exit polls? That racial breakdown looks fine to me.
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2014, 07:08:01 PM »
« Edited: July 31, 2014, 07:38:29 PM by eric82oslo »

The problem with this poll is that white voters make up more than half (53%) of the electorate, while Hispanics make up less than a quarter (23%). We know from the US Census Bureau that there are actually now more Hispanics living in California than white citizens. Of course this isn't going to be 100% reflective in the voter databases, as a lot of these Hispanics are either minors or non-Citizens/illegal immigrants. Yet a 30% voter difference is just down right laughable. I guess I could have accepted an 8 or 10% difference, yet not much more than that.

Er... have you checked the 2012 exit polls? That racial breakdown looks fine to me.

That's odd indeed. It's strange that whites can make up 55% of actual voters, when they make up just 37% of the overall population. Certainly that 55% number will drop precipitously for 2016 no matter what though. Whites have been fleeing California for more than a decade already and non-whites keep turning 18 at crazy levels. If whites can make up 49% of the 2016 turnout in the state, they'd be very lucky. And only due to ridiculous turnout numbers among non-whites.

At second look, comparing the Gravis demographic breakdown to the 2012 exit poll (which was probably already scewed towards whites in the first place, as I imagine they would be more likely to respond; just like they're more likely to respond to polls), it doesn't look fine to me at all. These are the Gravis break down with the change from the 2012 exit poll in parenthesis:

Whites: 53% (down 2%)
Hispanic: 23% (up only 1%)
Asians: 8% (actually down 3%!!)
Blacks: 5% (almost cut in half, down an amazing 3%)
Others: 4% (up 1%)
Don't wish to answer: 8% (what is this??)

If you increase the black, Asian and Hispanic percentages by 8-10-12%, it's starting to at least look a bit more like an imaginable 2016 electorate. That the black turn out should be cut in half is insane, to put it mildly. That the extremely rapidly growing Asian turn out should be down with 50%, is perhaps even more insane. And there's no way in the world that Hispanic turnout will only increase by 1% in California in 2016.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2014, 07:14:49 PM »

lol
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2014, 10:31:34 PM »

lol this is great. If only this were true.
Logged
Liberalrocks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2014, 10:35:12 PM »

I suppose Gravis is showing DC as a toss up in Warren vs Paul ?....j/k
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2014, 09:40:46 AM »

I think it's time to put Gravis in the ARG/Zogby pile if we haven't already.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2014, 12:01:20 PM »


What is this? LOL
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2014, 12:29:26 PM »

    I don't think it's that crazy three a lot of conservatives in California just like lots of liberals there too.
Logged
Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort
Joshua
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2014, 08:08:04 PM »

    I don't think it's that crazy three a lot of conservatives in California just like lots of liberals there too.

...That was sarcastic, right?

There are 12 conservatives in Eastern California and the Northeast corner, and one of them is Tim Donnelly.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2014, 11:02:48 PM »

    I don't think it's that crazy three a lot of conservatives in California just like lots of liberals there too.

...That was sarcastic, right?

There are 12 conservatives in Eastern California and the Northeast corner, and one of them is Tim Donnelly.

While conservatives are severely outnumbered by liberals in California, and the Republican nominee will pretty much certainly not win California in 2016, and can hope at most to merely lose by high single-digits in the event of a massive landslide, there are in fact more than 12 conservatives in California; in fact, California has the third-biggest Republican delegation in the House of any state (after Texas and Florida) and before defeats in 2012 it was second-biggest. In terms of popular vote, California gave more votes to Mitt Romney than any other state except Texas. The state's population is just absolutely massive compared to anyone else.
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2014, 11:18:20 PM »

I doubt this is true of California, but there are probably a number of states where Paul would lead Warren just off of higher name rec.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2014, 11:26:43 PM »

I doubt this is true of California, but there are probably a number of states where Paul would lead Warren just off of higher name rec.

Yep.  In this Quinnipiac national poll, her name recognition is only at 39%, while Paul's is in the 60s:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=195277.0

She's more well known than O'Malley or Klobuchar, but not as well known as the majority of the most often discussed GOP 2016 candidates.  Hence, her performance in these polls is always going to be somewhat limited.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2014, 12:04:23 AM »

Field, they're not.
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,838
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2014, 12:15:35 AM »

Warren vs. Paul 2016 according to Gravis

Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 13 queries.