Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 12, 2019, 10:06:04 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 11/7 - Trump +3.2
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 30 Print
Author Topic: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 11/7 - Trump +3.2  (Read 63300 times)
psychprofessor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #175 on: August 04, 2016, 10:51:25 am »

Nate Cohn pointed out that it looks like this pollster is weighting it's results to conform to 2012's 51-47 Presidential outcome, which partly explains the big Republican slant since some people in most polls tend to say they voted for the winner when they did not.
This pollster is using the same modeling that RAND used in 2012 when they nailed the election with pretty good accuracy. This is a test to see if it they were just lucky or good. One would assume the same "voted for the winner" in 2008 bias for the 2012 cycle.

Obviously, the jury is still out on this type of polling, generally.

Once again, this is not a poll. It is a pre-selected panel, which as Nate Cohn pointed out, is weighted to conform to 51-47 2012 results. This thread and panel poll is meaningless.
Logged
Mallow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 739
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #176 on: August 04, 2016, 11:19:30 am »

Nate Cohn pointed out that it looks like this pollster is weighting it's results to conform to 2012's 51-47 Presidential outcome, which partly explains the big Republican slant since some people in most polls tend to say they voted for the winner when they did not.
This pollster is using the same modeling that RAND used in 2012 when they nailed the election with pretty good accuracy. This is a test to see if it they were just lucky or good. One would assume the same "voted for the winner" in 2008 bias for the 2012 cycle.

Obviously, the jury is still out on this type of polling, generally.

Once again, this is not a poll. It is a pre-selected panel, which as Nate Cohn pointed out, is weighted to conform to 51-47 2012 results. This thread and panel poll is meaningless.

I don't think it's meaningless at all. Indeed, this method is probably a stronger indicator of trends than standard polling, since the sample does not change. One just needs to be aware of the potential built-in bias inherent in the sample.
Logged
psychprofessor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #177 on: August 04, 2016, 11:26:56 am »

Nate Cohn pointed out that it looks like this pollster is weighting it's results to conform to 2012's 51-47 Presidential outcome, which partly explains the big Republican slant since some people in most polls tend to say they voted for the winner when they did not.
This pollster is using the same modeling that RAND used in 2012 when they nailed the election with pretty good accuracy. This is a test to see if it they were just lucky or good. One would assume the same "voted for the winner" in 2008 bias for the 2012 cycle.

Obviously, the jury is still out on this type of polling, generally.

Once again, this is not a poll. It is a pre-selected panel, which as Nate Cohn pointed out, is weighted to conform to 51-47 2012 results. This thread and panel poll is meaningless.

I don't think it's meaningless at all. Indeed, this method is probably a stronger indicator of trends than standard polling, since the sample does not change. One just needs to be aware of the potential built-in bias inherent in the sample.

It is indeed meaningless when used as a poll. That's what this thread is all about. We don't have a "trends" thread. And when looked at from the guise of a "poll" it shows a head heat. So, yes, this is meaningless when looked at as a poll.
Logged
Mallow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 739
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #178 on: August 04, 2016, 02:01:27 pm »

Nate Cohn pointed out that it looks like this pollster is weighting it's results to conform to 2012's 51-47 Presidential outcome, which partly explains the big Republican slant since some people in most polls tend to say they voted for the winner when they did not.
This pollster is using the same modeling that RAND used in 2012 when they nailed the election with pretty good accuracy. This is a test to see if it they were just lucky or good. One would assume the same "voted for the winner" in 2008 bias for the 2012 cycle.

Obviously, the jury is still out on this type of polling, generally.

Once again, this is not a poll. It is a pre-selected panel, which as Nate Cohn pointed out, is weighted to conform to 51-47 2012 results. This thread and panel poll is meaningless.

I don't think it's meaningless at all. Indeed, this method is probably a stronger indicator of trends than standard polling, since the sample does not change. One just needs to be aware of the potential built-in bias inherent in the sample.

It is indeed meaningless when used as a poll. That's what this thread is all about. We don't have a "trends" thread. And when looked at from the guise of a "poll" it shows a head heat. So, yes, this is meaningless when looked at as a poll.

That's also not true. A poll that is consistently biased in favor of one candidate, but is otherwise very precise (that is, less noisy than others), is actually significantly more useful than a poll that has no bias but very low precision (swings wildly due to noise). If that's the case with this particular poll, then it is very meaningful as long as you sufficiently account for the bias.
Logged
Suburban Cincinnati Soccer Moms for Beshear
Zyzz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,847


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #179 on: August 04, 2016, 04:10:50 pm »

Wow, even this whacky pro Trump outlier now has Hillary ahead, sad!
Logged
dspNY
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,574
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #180 on: August 05, 2016, 05:42:35 am »

Clinton 45.2, Trump 44.6 in today's iteration
Logged
BlueSwan
blueswan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,942
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #181 on: August 05, 2016, 07:43:35 am »

That's also not true. A poll that is consistently biased in favor of one candidate, but is otherwise very precise (that is, less noisy than others), is actually significantly more useful than a poll that has no bias but very low precision (swings wildly due to noise). If that's the case with this particular poll, then it is very meaningful as long as you sufficiently account for the bias.
I agree, this is very useful for seeing trends due to them pollling the same people over and over. So the question is how big the Trump bias is. Trump was ahead by 7 in this poll, but he was arguably never ahead by more than a point or so based on polls in general. Would it be excessive to give this poll a Trump +6 house effect? If we did that then Clinton would be at +7 right now, which seems fairly close to the overall polls right now.
Logged
Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #182 on: August 05, 2016, 09:51:08 am »

With the trendline changes. Pretty much a wash.

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/4)
Clinton: 45.2 (+0.4)
Trump: 44.6 (-0.4)
Logged
Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #183 on: August 06, 2016, 02:13:58 am »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/5)
Clinton: 44.6 (-0.6%)
Trump: 44.2 (-0.4%)
Logged
ProgressiveCanadian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,692
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #184 on: August 06, 2016, 05:42:34 am »

This poll needs a daybreak!
Logged
Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #185 on: August 07, 2016, 02:13:41 am »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/6)
Clinton: 44.7 (+0.1%)
Trump: 44.0 (-0.2%)
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #186 on: August 07, 2016, 02:15:22 am »

What's wrong with their methodology? Their base consists of people who think their candidate's going to win at that moment?
Logged
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,469
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.16, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #187 on: August 07, 2016, 02:34:57 am »

I can understand the methodology, but I don't get why poll aggregates are using these when they're not really "polls" per se in the classic sense.
Logged
Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #188 on: August 08, 2016, 12:55:16 pm »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/7)
Clinton: 45.0 (+0.3%)
Trump: 43.8 (-0.2%)
Logged
Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #189 on: August 09, 2016, 02:20:37 am »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/8)
Clinton: 45.1 (+0.1%)
Trump: 43.4 (-0.4%)
Logged
Interlocutor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 981


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #190 on: August 09, 2016, 02:42:44 am »

So Trump is back to where he was before the RNC while Hillary sustained her decent DNC bounce. Sounds about right.
Logged
Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #191 on: August 10, 2016, 02:13:24 am »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/9)
Clinton: 44.9 (-0.2%)
Trump: 43.5 (+0.1%)
Logged
Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #192 on: August 11, 2016, 02:16:11 am »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/10)
Clinton: 44.8 (-0.1%)
Trump: 43.3 (-0.2%)
Logged
Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #193 on: August 12, 2016, 02:16:58 am »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/11) Clinton +1.1%
Clinton: 44.2 (-0.6%)
Trump: 43.1 (-0.2%)
Logged
The Other Castro
Castro2020
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,953
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #194 on: August 12, 2016, 08:25:50 am »

In 538's polls-only forecast, they adjust this poll to usually 5 points more for Clinton.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,359
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #195 on: August 12, 2016, 08:29:50 am »
« Edited: August 12, 2016, 08:31:27 am by Gass3268 »

In 538's polls-only forecast, they adjust this poll to usually 5 points more for Clinton.

Yup, when she was up by about 4 hear they did reduce that down to a 4 point addition. Today it's only a 3 point addition. I wonder what their methodology is here.
Logged
Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #196 on: August 13, 2016, 02:18:21 am »

Either Clinton had a good day or this thing is finally realigning to where the other polls are.

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/12) Clinton +3.5%
Clinton: 45.7% (+1.5%)
Trump: 42.2% (-0.9%)
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #197 on: August 13, 2016, 02:19:17 am »

Either Clinton had a good day or this thing is finally realigning to where the other polls are.

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/12) Clinton +3.5%
Clinton: 45.7% (+1.5%)
Trump: 42.2% (-0.9%)
Or daily tracking is a poor way to monitor the election.
Logged
Interlocutor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 981


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #198 on: August 13, 2016, 03:06:52 am »

Biggest gain for Hillary since July 15. Its getting harder and harder for Trump surrogates to continue citing this poll
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,410
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #199 on: August 13, 2016, 07:20:12 am »

why are millenials so conservative in this sample? they made a huge mistake there and their concept doesn't allow for it to be corrected.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 30 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