Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 18, 2019, 01:40:04 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  Pew: Clinton +9
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print
Author Topic: Pew: Clinton +9  (Read 3293 times)
Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,032
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: July 07, 2016, 05:24:33 pm »

^I know it sounds crazy, but in the eyes of many Republican primary voters like Seriously?, Trump is the only true conservative in this race. Kasich and Rubio are immigration-loving RINOs.
Try again. Ted Cruz was just fine, also. Kasich really is no better than a Democrat. He was soft on immigration and Ohio took the Obamacare Medicaid money, which will come back to haunt them after Kasich leaves office.
Logged
Mallow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 739
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: July 07, 2016, 05:44:03 pm »
« Edited: July 07, 2016, 05:48:15 pm by Mallow »

The average lead in the RCP average is Clinton +4.7. This poll is 9. It's off significantly. The relevant polling time this poll was taken is mid-to-late June. They released the results over a week later. That is when Clinton was surging a bit from the wrap up of the nomination.

The polls concluded in the past week have the race in the 3-5 point range. They have shown a consistent narrowing.

This polling was roughly in the 5-8 point Clinton ballpark at the time period that this Pew poll was taken. It is not representative of where the race is right now. That bounce has faded.

Ignoring for now the fact that FiveThirtyEight's polls-only forecast, which takes into account the relative biases, absolute errors, and recentness of all the national polls, suggests that the current state of the race is a Clinton +5.5 margin, even if we go with your +4.7 number, that still leaves Pew off by 4.3 and Rasmussen off by 6.7. So your statement earlier that they're in the same class of wrong seems shaky at best. If we go with the more realistic 5.5 current state, then Pew is off by 3.5 and Rasmussen is off by 7.5.

As for the "polls conducted in the last week" point, there are three on RCP, and two of them are clear outliers. How do you get a "polling average" from one poll? Indeed, if you average all three of them, you get Clinton +4.8, and the non-outlier is Clinton +5, so how you possibly calculate "the 3-5 range" is beyond me. Unless "3-5" is code in your book for "5". Which doesn't change the idea that the Pew poll way closer to reality than the Rasmussen poll.
I never equated Pew to Rasmussen except to put both polls in the same trash heap for the reasons I have stated twice now.
I put this in the same ballpark as Trump +2 with Rasmussen.

Yep, gonna call B.S. on that one.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't remember correctly, and I don't want to make it "3-6", I want to make it "4.5-5.5", which is really the only defensible range at this juncture (and the 4.5 is generous). Tacking on 3, or even 4.0, is wholly partisan wishcasting. As I said earlier, using your own "past week" cutoff and your own choice of RCP, there have been precisely three general matchup polls, Clinton +5, Clinton +11, and Trump +2. Extending it back to polls that ended within the past two weeks, we have the two Rasmussens at Trump +4 and Trump +2, two Clinton +2 polls, three Clinton +4 polls, two Clinton +5 polls, two Clinton +6 polls, a Clinton +9 poll, Clinton +10 poll, a Clinton +11 poll, and a Clinton +12 poll. That gives a mean of Clinton +4.9 and a median of Clinton +5.

These are just the facts.
Logged
Mallow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 739
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: July 07, 2016, 05:59:15 pm »

I'll also point out that, according to a standard analysis of what makes an "outlier" an outlier (that a data point is greater than 1.5 times the interquartile range outside the first or third quartile), the only outlier over the past two weeks is the Rasmussen Trump +4 result.

Specifically, 1.5*IQR is 6.75, the first quartile is at Clinton +3, and the third is at Clinton +7.5. So, any poll over the past two weeks that gives Trump a bigger margin than +3.75 or Clinton a bigger margin than +14.25 is an outlier. So if we re-did the analysis without the Trump +4 outlier, it only looks more favorable for Clinton.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,847
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.42, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: July 07, 2016, 06:20:22 pm »

^I know it sounds crazy, but in the eyes of many Republican primary voters like Seriously?, Trump is the only true conservative in this race. Kasich and Rubio are immigration-loving RINOs.

Ted Cruz was the true conservative. There wasn't one issue where Trump was more conservative than him.
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,793
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: July 07, 2016, 06:22:57 pm »

^I know it sounds crazy, but in the eyes of many Republican primary voters like Seriously?, Trump is the only true conservative in this race. Kasich and Rubio are immigration-loving RINOs.

Ted Cruz was the true conservative. There wasn't one issue where Trump was more conservative than him.

He was "more conservative" in hating minorities.
Logged
#StillWithBeto
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,440
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2016, 06:33:48 pm »

^I know it sounds crazy, but in the eyes of many Republican primary voters like Seriously?, Trump is the only true conservative in this race. Kasich and Rubio are immigration-loving RINOs.

Ted Cruz was the true conservative. There wasn't one issue where Trump was more conservative than him.

He was "more conservative" in hating minorities.

Isn't that a redundancy (a minority-hating conservative)? Tongue

But yes, Lyin' Ted Cruz was arguably the more conservative candidate. For all of his faults, Trump does seem like the kind willing to negotiate and compromise, whereas Cruz prides himself on sticking it to all the baby-killing God-hating liberals and Democrats and socialists and communists who want to destroy our Amurika. Trump only came off as more "conservative" because he was anti-PC and more controversial. I think people confused conservative and controversial, although the two are often interchangeable. 
Logged
Flake
Flo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,699
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: July 07, 2016, 06:58:09 pm »

Actually men are pretty oversampled in this poll (55.4% of this sample) to women (44.6% of the sample), because women are more likely to turn out to vote (53% of the electorate in 2012 were women). I only see very bad things for Trump/very good things for Clinton in this poll.
Logged
HillOfANight
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,462
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: July 07, 2016, 07:30:51 pm »

The average lead in the RCP average is Clinton +4.7. This poll is 9. It's off significantly. The relevant polling time this poll was taken is mid-to-late June. They released the results over a week later. That is when Clinton was surging a bit from the wrap up of the nomination.

The polls concluded in the past week have the race in the 3-5 point range. They have shown a consistent narrowing.

This polling was roughly in the 5-8 point Clinton ballpark at the time period that this Pew poll was taken. It is not representative of where the race is right now. That bounce has faded.

Ignoring for now the fact that FiveThirtyEight's polls-only forecast, which takes into account the relative biases, absolute errors, and recentness of all the national polls, suggests that the current state of the race is a Clinton +5.5 margin, even if we go with your +4.7 number, that still leaves Pew off by 4.3 and Rasmussen off by 6.7. So your statement earlier that they're in the same class of wrong seems shaky at best. If we go with the more realistic 5.5 current state, then Pew is off by 3.5 and Rasmussen is off by 7.5.

As for the "polls conducted in the last week" point, there are three on RCP, and two of them are clear outliers. How do you get a "polling average" from one poll? Indeed, if you average all three of them, you get Clinton +4.8, and the non-outlier is Clinton +5, so how you possibly calculate "the 3-5 range" is beyond me. Unless "3-5" is code in your book for "5". Which doesn't change the idea that the Pew poll way closer to reality than the Rasmussen poll.
I never equated Pew to Rasmussen except to put both polls in the same trash heap for the reasons I have stated twice now.

Rasmussen is an outlier. However, I will continue to point out that Scott Rasmussen does not have anything to do with Rasmussen anymore, so comparing 2012 to 2016 may be a bit fallacious. The R house effect may be even worse under new management.

Pew was slightly out of the range when Clinton was surging at the time, but not by that much. A few weeks ago, it was basically Clinton in the 5-8 point range with the Washington Post and Reuters as outliers at +12 and +14 or whatever crazy Reuters number they had at the time. It's a reasonable poll for the two week period ending 6/26, but not so much 7/7.

With that said, I put stock in neither of those polls and restate the narrative is roughly in the 3-5 point range at this point in time, down a slight bit from a few weeks ago. If you want to make it 3-6, that's fine. There have been a few polls at +1 or +2 and a few at +6 as well, IIRC.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ia/iowa_senate_ernst_vs_braley-3990.html
Most polls said Iowa senate 2014 was going to be close, except Des Moines Register, and they got it right. Just because it's an outlier doesn't mean it's wrong.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2016, 08:33:15 pm »

Winning college educated whites by 12 points! Here comes the landslide!

Figuring that Hillary Clinton will do as well among every obvious religious, racial, and ethnic minority as Barack Obama... Donald Trump could fare as badly as Barry Goldwater in 1964. He probably wins the sorts of people who would vote for Strom Thurmond in 1948 or George Wallace in 1968, which will prevent him from losing in a 49-state landslide. 
Logged
Lean Branson
Doctor Imperialism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,038


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: July 08, 2016, 01:55:47 pm »

Can we talk about the fact that Johnson's leading Trump among 18-29 year olds?



I know a lot of that's probably disgruntled Sanders people, but still.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2016, 03:30:55 pm »

Can we talk about the fact that Johnson's leading Trump among 18-29 year olds?

The right-leaning of the Millennial generation are less religious and have nothing to gain from the GOP's crony capitalism. For them, libertarianism is a new and practically revolutionary ideology. The GOP seems to them a cause for price-fixing, heavy personal debt, and low pay. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The more that Sanders supporters see or hear of Donald Trump, the more realistic they will get about him.

....All in all, margins seem to shrink once one recognizes Gary Johnson as a Third Party nominee who can take a big  piece of the vote --  but by doing so he also reduces the threshold for a Clinton victory.
Logged
amdcpus
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: July 08, 2016, 04:09:19 pm »

Can we talk about the fact that Johnson's leading Trump among 18-29 year olds?



I know a lot of that's probably disgruntled Sanders people, but still.

Eh it isn't that surprising. I've been following his polls for a while and he usually polls around 16-26% with 18-29 year olds and Independents.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: July 08, 2016, 09:03:06 pm »

Every pollster has a model, a different set of assumptions. Assume certain things, and Clinton is up by middle-single digits. Assume others, and she is up in the high-single digits or low-double digits.

We have a political insider, probably the most blatant political insider since the elder Bush, running against someone with no experience in elected or appointed office. We also have a lame-duck President who could be re-elected if he so wished, except that the 22nd Amendment gets in the way. But that does not help someone running to replace him. 
Logged
Desroko
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 346
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: July 10, 2016, 10:39:51 pm »

Actually men are pretty oversampled in this poll (55.4% of this sample) to women (44.6% of the sample), because women are more likely to turn out to vote (53% of the electorate in 2012 were women). I only see very bad things for Trump/very good things for Clinton in this poll.

Wanted to bump this, because Pew buried it in most of the reports I read. I think 1960 was the last election where men outnumbered women, and most cycles it's not close.

Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: July 10, 2016, 11:47:04 pm »

Actually men are pretty oversampled in this poll (55.4% of this sample) to women (44.6% of the sample), because women are more likely to turn out to vote (53% of the electorate in 2012 were women). I only see very bad things for Trump/very good things for Clinton in this poll.

Wanted to bump this, because Pew buried it in most of the reports I read. I think 1960 was the last election where men outnumbered women, and most cycles it's not close.



Where does it say what fraction of the sample is male and what fraction is female?
Logged
Desroko
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 346
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: July 10, 2016, 11:52:20 pm »

Actually men are pretty oversampled in this poll (55.4% of this sample) to women (44.6% of the sample), because women are more likely to turn out to vote (53% of the electorate in 2012 were women). I only see very bad things for Trump/very good things for Clinton in this poll.

Wanted to bump this, because Pew buried it in most of the reports I read. I think 1960 was the last election where men outnumbered women, and most cycles it's not close.



Where does it say what fraction of the sample is male and what fraction is female?


http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/vote-preference-over-time/

1,655 is the registered voter subsample, who were the only ones asked horse race questions according to the questionnaire.  917 were men, and 738 were women.
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: July 11, 2016, 12:05:50 am »

Actually men are pretty oversampled in this poll (55.4% of this sample) to women (44.6% of the sample), because women are more likely to turn out to vote (53% of the electorate in 2012 were women). I only see very bad things for Trump/very good things for Clinton in this poll.

Wanted to bump this, because Pew buried it in most of the reports I read. I think 1960 was the last election where men outnumbered women, and most cycles it's not close.



Where does it say what fraction of the sample is male and what fraction is female?


http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/vote-preference-over-time/

1,655 is the registered voter subsample, who were the only ones asked horse race questions according to the questionnaire.  917 were men, and 738 were women.

But those are unweighted numbers.  That’s just the raw number of men who picked up the phone vs. the raw number of women who picked up the phone.  Once they’ve done the survey, they do demographic weighting to make the demographics match the demographics of US registered voters.
Logged
Desroko
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 346
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: July 11, 2016, 12:16:07 am »

Actually men are pretty oversampled in this poll (55.4% of this sample) to women (44.6% of the sample), because women are more likely to turn out to vote (53% of the electorate in 2012 were women). I only see very bad things for Trump/very good things for Clinton in this poll.

Wanted to bump this, because Pew buried it in most of the reports I read. I think 1960 was the last election where men outnumbered women, and most cycles it's not close.



Where does it say what fraction of the sample is male and what fraction is female?


http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/vote-preference-over-time/

1,655 is the registered voter subsample, who were the only ones asked horse race questions according to the questionnaire.  917 were men, and 738 were women.

But those are unweighted numbers.  That’s just the raw number of men who picked up the phone vs. the raw number of women who picked up the phone.  Once they’ve done the survey, they do demographic weighting to make the demographics match the demographics of US registered voters.


No, they're not. Numbers all match the weighted results from the press release. Topline is 51-42, Hipanics 66-24, youth 60-30.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: July 11, 2016, 12:31:45 am »

Actually men are pretty oversampled in this poll (55.4% of this sample) to women (44.6% of the sample), because women are more likely to turn out to vote (53% of the electorate in 2012 were women). I only see very bad things for Trump/very good things for Clinton in this poll.

Wanted to bump this, because Pew buried it in most of the reports I read. I think 1960 was the last election where men outnumbered women, and most cycles it's not close.



Where does it say what fraction of the sample is male and what fraction is female?


http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/vote-preference-over-time/

1,655 is the registered voter subsample, who were the only ones asked horse race questions according to the questionnaire.  917 were men, and 738 were women.

But those are unweighted numbers.  That’s just the raw number of men who picked up the phone vs. the raw number of women who picked up the phone.  Once they’ve done the survey, they do demographic weighting to make the demographics match the demographics of US registered voters.


No, they're not. Numbers all match the weighted results from the press release. Topline is 51-42, Hipanics 66-24, youth 60-30.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/

Huh?  When they say that men are Trump 49% Clinton 43% from a 917 person sample and women are Clinton 59% Trump 35% from a 738 person sample, that doesn't mean that every single one of those men is weighted the same or every single one of those women is weighted the same, or that the men as a group are weighted the same as the women.  It just means that 917 of the people they polled were men and 738 were women.  There's still weighting done after the fact.
Logged
Desroko
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 346
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: July 11, 2016, 01:02:58 am »

Actually men are pretty oversampled in this poll (55.4% of this sample) to women (44.6% of the sample), because women are more likely to turn out to vote (53% of the electorate in 2012 were women). I only see very bad things for Trump/very good things for Clinton in this poll.

Wanted to bump this, because Pew buried it in most of the reports I read. I think 1960 was the last election where men outnumbered women, and most cycles it's not close.



Where does it say what fraction of the sample is male and what fraction is female?


http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/vote-preference-over-time/

1,655 is the registered voter subsample, who were the only ones asked horse race questions according to the questionnaire.  917 were men, and 738 were women.

But those are unweighted numbers.  That’s just the raw number of men who picked up the phone vs. the raw number of women who picked up the phone.  Once they’ve done the survey, they do demographic weighting to make the demographics match the demographics of US registered voters.


No, they're not. Numbers all match the weighted results from the press release. Topline is 51-42, Hipanics 66-24, youth 60-30.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/

Huh?  When they say that men are Trump 49% Clinton 43% from a 917 person sample and women are Clinton 59% Trump 35% from a 738 person sample, that doesn't mean that every single one of those men is weighted the same or every single one of those women is weighted the same, or that the men as a group are weighted the same as the women.  It just means that 917 of the people they polled were men and 738 were women.  There's still weighting done after the fact.


Those are the final weighted subsamples. Seriously, do the arithmetic, or maybe have a grownup do it for you.
Logged
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: July 11, 2016, 01:28:59 am »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCain never lead prior to this and them promptly 'suspended' his campaign.

McCain was a terrible campaigner.

 
 
Logged
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: July 11, 2016, 01:30:56 am »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can get my map with 53 percent support from college educated white people from the democrats.

12 point lead among college educated whites means that Trump might not win a state.
Logged
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: July 11, 2016, 01:37:14 am »

Touching nothing else, 56-44 will give us, my prediction, but with AK, MT, TX, LA still with the Republican.

To match my map, we need a 56-44 Clinton win, 84 percent Hispanic, 79 percent Asian, and a drop in the whites without a degree turnout to 51 percent.

That's it.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,527
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: July 11, 2016, 01:43:29 am »

Actually men are pretty oversampled in this poll (55.4% of this sample) to women (44.6% of the sample), because women are more likely to turn out to vote (53% of the electorate in 2012 were women). I only see very bad things for Trump/very good things for Clinton in this poll.

Wanted to bump this, because Pew buried it in most of the reports I read. I think 1960 was the last election where men outnumbered women, and most cycles it's not close.



Where does it say what fraction of the sample is male and what fraction is female?


http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/vote-preference-over-time/

1,655 is the registered voter subsample, who were the only ones asked horse race questions according to the questionnaire.  917 were men, and 738 were women.

But those are unweighted numbers.  That’s just the raw number of men who picked up the phone vs. the raw number of women who picked up the phone.  Once they’ve done the survey, they do demographic weighting to make the demographics match the demographics of US registered voters.


No, they're not. Numbers all match the weighted results from the press release. Topline is 51-42, Hipanics 66-24, youth 60-30.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/

Huh?  When they say that men are Trump 49% Clinton 43% from a 917 person sample and women are Clinton 59% Trump 35% from a 738 person sample, that doesn't mean that every single one of those men is weighted the same or every single one of those women is weighted the same, or that the men as a group are weighted the same as the women.  It just means that 917 of the people they polled were men and 738 were women.  There's still weighting done after the fact.


Those are the final weighted subsamples. Seriously, do the arithmetic, or maybe have a grownup do it for you.

Logged
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: July 11, 2016, 01:50:07 am »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually with the 58-42 map, you would need 83 percent Hispanic, 74 percent Asian and a drop in White turnout without a degree to 52 percent. That is a 13 point Hispanic shift away from the Republican party, and a 4 percent shift in the Asians away from Trump.

Trump is in *deep* trouble.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC