Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 17, 2019, 12:09:59 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  Morning Consult polls every state
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Morning Consult polls every state  (Read 3632 times)
Dom. Pol. Councilor Dwarven Dragon
Wulfric
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,174
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: 1.22

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2016, 05:33:14 pm »

As bad as some of these are, they've at least had a very positive effect on the Atlas polling map. KY/MS/UT/MN are no longer toss ups.
Logged
dspNY
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,583
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2016, 06:25:50 pm »

What are the national popular vote numbers? I'm sure that they would be super accurate, considering this is of 57,000 RV.

I plugged the percentages into my own turnout model and got

Clinton - 42.9%
Trump - 40.1%
Other/Undecided - 17.0%

Interestingly, the model predicted that ME-2 would go to Trump and NE-2 would go to Clinton. But the  calculated sample sizes were so small that I'd hardly give them any credence.

It would be nice if Morning Consult would cough up the actual numbers

Edit: Should have proofread. I incorrectly entered a couple of percentages.

Clinton +3 nationally is actually reasonable after her bad week considering the fact she was +6 or +7 before
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,701


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2016, 06:29:27 pm »

Some responses, including mine, aren't publishing on the first page of this thread.  I'll try this again for the third time.  If the responses on the prior page start showing up, please forgive me:

These Morning Consult state "polls" aren't polls in the traditional sense.  As I understand it, Morning Consult took subsamples of their national January-June nationwide poll responses and used multiple regression to reweight them for state-specific demographic factors, like age and income, and economic data, like unemployment rate, to come up with a figure for the Trump, Clinton and Other percentage in each of the 50 states.  This MRP method is allegedly more accurate than actual state polls according to one study they cite - but is not a traditional poll.  Perhaps this is the wave of the future, but again, it's not a traditional poll.

Back in April, they not only did MRP regression, but also took subsamples of respondents from January to April in each state, weighed them for demographic factors, and put out statewide special-sauce poll numbers for those states.  The results of these special-sauce state polls differed from the MRP results in some states.  It's not clear that Morning Consult did that this time.

Given that, I don't think these "polls" should be entered into the database - but that decision is not made by me.
Logged
dspNY
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,583
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2016, 06:32:37 pm »

Some responses, including mine, aren't publishing on the first page of this thread.  I'll try this again for the third time.  If the responses on the prior page start showing up, please forgive me:

These Morning Consult state "polls" aren't polls in the traditional sense.  As I understand it, Morning Consult took subsamples of their national January-June nationwide poll responses and used multiple regression to reweight them for state-specific demographic factors, like age and income, and economic data, like unemployment rate, to come up with a figure for the Trump, Clinton and Other percentage in each of the 50 states.  This MRP method is allegedly more accurate than actual state polls according to one study they cite - but is not a traditional poll.  Perhaps this is the wave of the future, but again, it's not a traditional poll.

Back in April, they not only did MRP regression, but also took subsamples of respondents from January to April in each state, weighed them for demographic factors, and put out statewide special-sauce poll numbers for those states.  The results of these special-sauce state polls differed from the MRP results in some states.  It's not clear that Morning Consult did that this time.

Given that, I don't think these "polls" should be entered into the database - but that decision is not made by me.

It can get you a reasonably accurate national horserace number but I agree that these polls shouldn't be in the database because they're not actually polls, but mathematical projections based on subsamples with high margins of error
Logged
JRP1994
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,626


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2016, 06:43:42 pm »

Some responses, including mine, aren't publishing on the first page of this thread.  I'll try this again for the third time.  If the responses on the prior page start showing up, please forgive me:

These Morning Consult state "polls" aren't polls in the traditional sense.  As I understand it, Morning Consult took subsamples of their national January-June nationwide poll responses and used multiple regression to reweight them for state-specific demographic factors, like age and income, and economic data, like unemployment rate, to come up with a figure for the Trump, Clinton and Other percentage in each of the 50 states.  This MRP method is allegedly more accurate than actual state polls according to one study they cite - but is not a traditional poll.  Perhaps this is the wave of the future, but again, it's not a traditional poll.

Back in April, they not only did MRP regression, but also took subsamples of respondents from January to April in each state, weighed them for demographic factors, and put out statewide special-sauce poll numbers for those states.  The results of these special-sauce state polls differed from the MRP results in some states.  It's not clear that Morning Consult did that this time.

Given that, I don't think these "polls" should be entered into the database - but that decision is not made by me.

It can get you a reasonably accurate national horserace number but I agree that these polls shouldn't be in the database because they're not actually polls, but mathematical projections based on subsamples with high margins of error

Agreed.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,356


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2016, 07:17:38 pm »

Can we try to do editorialize in the headlines for this subforum? Let's try to stick with 'just the facts' (eg. "Pollster: State/National: Candidate +x"
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,591
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.87, S: -6.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2016, 11:17:29 pm »

WY: Trump +34
WV: Trump +28
AK: Trump +21
AL: Trump +19
LA: Trump +18
MS: Trump +18
TN: Trump +16
KY: Trump +14
OK: Trump +14
SD: Trump +14
NE: Trump +12
UT: Trump +12
AR: Trump +11
ID: Trump +11
KS: Trump +11
SC: Trump +10
MO: Trump +9
MT: Trump +9
ND: Trump +9
AZ: Trump +8
IN: Trump +8
TX: Trump +5
NC: Trump +3
ME: Trump +2
OH: Trump +1
IA: Tie
PA: Tie
FL: Clinton +1
NH: Clinton +1
GA: Clinton +1
WI: Clinton +2
MI: Clinton +3
NM: Clinton +3
NV: Clinton +4
CT: Clinton +5
DE: Clinton +5
VA: Clinton +5
CO: Clinton +8
OR: Clinton +9
MN: Clinton +10
NJ: Clinton +10
RI: Clinton +12
IL: Clinton +13
WA: Clinton +14
VT: Clinton +16
MA: Clinton +17
NY: Clinton +17
MD: Clinton +18
CA: Clinton +19
HI: Clinton +19
DC: Clinton +46
Logged
Ebsy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 14, 2016, 11:22:15 pm »

Their junkiest results have to be for Mississippi.
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,740
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 15, 2016, 02:55:54 am »

I finished plugging the holes here. I don't know why you guys didn't just go in alphabetical order. Tongue

CO is now strong D on the Atlas map, while NM is lean D. lol
Logged
Ebsy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2016, 03:36:12 am »

I finished plugging the holes here. I don't know why you guys didn't just go in alphabetical order. Tongue

CO is now strong D on the Atlas map, while NM is lean D. lol
It's very ironic (and unsurprising) that Colorado seems to be Clinton's best swing state at the moment. The ability of certain idiots in bad atlas to call them wrong with consistency is remarkable.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2016, 07:47:04 pm »
« Edited: July 16, 2016, 10:57:18 am by pbrower2a »

For what it is worth, here is the collection of Morning Consult polls of all 50 states.



margin   saturation

30+          9
15-29       7
9-14         6
5-8           5
4              4 (usual margin of error)
1-3           2
tie            white  


Useful only in the absence of other evidence. But this said, no way is Hillary Clinton winning New Mexico by a mere 3% or Delaware by a mere 5% or Donald Trump winning Idaho by a mere 11% or Oklahoma by a mere 14%. No way, also, is Hillary Clinton winning Georgia while losing North Carolina.
Logged
yeah_93
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,989
Venezuela


Political Matrix
E: 3.29, S: -1.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2016, 08:16:18 pm »

lol @ Trump getting 20% in DC.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,046
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 16, 2016, 12:43:41 am »

I thought Alaska would be much closer (Trump+10 or something) and Maine seems a bit off as well.

Other than that, not bad results.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,771
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 17, 2016, 06:32:19 pm »

Can we try to do editorialize in the headlines for this subforum? Let's try to stick with 'just the facts' (eg. "Pollster: State/National: Candidate +x"
the previous title was factual tho…?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 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