Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 19, 2019, 06:08:37 am
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 (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 11/7 - Trump +3.2  (Read 63128 times)
Wiz in Wis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,521


WWW
« on: July 21, 2016, 09:45:14 am »

Interestingly, this is probably a better reflection of "conversion" rather than "excitement."  A lot of bounce in polls from week to week is who feels more excited about their candidate, or angrier about the opposition, and will finish a survey. Not a whole ton of people honestly change their minds from week to week, but they do change their enthusiasm. This poll's structure is better at looking into actual preferences, since it's a panel. So, the GOP convention isn't just depressing GOP enthusiasm, it's also pushing Trump's voters to undecided/3rd party voters, and undecided/3rd party voters to Clinton as well.

Way to go Donnie!
Logged
Wiz in Wis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,521


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2016, 10:24:26 am »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/18) Clinton +1.2%
Clinton: 44.6% (+0.6%)
Trump: 43.4% (--%)

HILLARY DOUBLES HER MARGIN OVERNIGHT! - If Hillary tweeted.
Logged
Wiz in Wis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,521


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2016, 04:08:12 pm »

If anyone is interested... it looks like Trumps latest surge in this poll is almost 100% due to a surge among African Americans... all the way up to nearly 20%. I'm a tad skeptical.

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Logged
Wiz in Wis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,521


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2016, 08:54:56 am »

Despite it's immediately obvious shortcoming(s), this poll is actually useful.

That's what I've been trying to say this whole time Tongue

It's the classic illustration of precision vs. accuracy. The poll seems like it may be highly precise, and consistently inaccurate. It's like trying to hit the center of the dart board, but always being two inches down and to the left. But as long as you know that the bias is consistent, you can just correct for that bias and then you have highly valuable, useful information.

I tend to agree, but the fact that the recent shift towards Trump was driven by a huge swing among African Americans in this panel undercuts the "precision" argument a bit.
Logged
Wiz in Wis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,521


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2016, 09:06:25 am »

Despite it's immediately obvious shortcoming(s), this poll is actually useful.

That's what I've been trying to say this whole time Tongue

It's the classic illustration of precision vs. accuracy. The poll seems like it may be highly precise, and consistently inaccurate. It's like trying to hit the center of the dart board, but always being two inches down and to the left. But as long as you know that the bias is consistent, you can just correct for that bias and then you have highly valuable, useful information.

I tend to agree, but the fact that the recent shift towards Trump was driven by a huge swing among African Americans in this panel undercuts the "precision" argument a bit.

Yeah, I was saying that under the assumption that the results were consistently biased. If they're not, that's a different story. Of course, the small sample size for AA's could be the reason for the funky-looking crosstabs. It's still possible that the overall results are precise, but the specifics when it comes to racial breakdown are wonky. That's why caution is always advised when trying to "unskew" based on crosstab data.

Oh, I agree... I just think we've all bought into the "accuracy" of this poll a bit too much. I'm not calling for unskewing, just skepticism of the idea that this method is better at certain things than we have any reason to think it is.
Logged
Wiz in Wis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,521


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2016, 08:33:26 am »

Oddly, no. They haven't updated yesterday's numbers. I think they tried to, but somehow swung and missed. Neither the LA Times or the USC site has updated numbers yet.

God, I hope they're not messing with their methodology or something. Fingers crossed this is just a blip.
Logged
Wiz in Wis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,521


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2016, 09:49:49 am »

Oddly, no. They haven't updated yesterday's numbers. I think they tried to, but somehow swung and missed. Neither the LA Times or the USC site has updated numbers yet.

God, I hope they're not messing with their methodology or something. Fingers crossed this is just a blip.

This happened once before, but the LA Times got the numbers out somehow.

USC updated the data files when they were supposed to at midnight PST, but they didn't contain the 9/22 data. I am sure once it's early enough on the West coast, someone will notice the error and they'll fix it.

Cool... I would anticipate a small shift to Clinton... yesterday was the last day that a big Trump day looked to be added a week ago.
Logged
Wiz in Wis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,521


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2016, 08:42:41 am »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 9/28) Trump +3.8%
Trump: 46.7% (--%)
Clinton: 42.9% (+0.3%)

Not bad considering the day that dropped was one of Clinton's best in recent weeks.
Logged
Wiz in Wis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,521


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2016, 09:27:35 am »
« Edited: October 03, 2016, 09:39:02 am by Wiz in Wis »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/2) Trump +4.6%
Trump: 47.0% (+0.1)
Clinton: 42.4% (+0.2)

It's worth noting that the sample has six of the seven debate days in it now (with the seventh day being debate night). There really is no significant statistical change outside of basic noise with this survey. (Trump netted 1.1% over the week.)

Trump was at 46.2 before the debate (9/26) and is at 47 now. Clinton was at 42.7 before the debate and is at 42.4% now. This poll, at least, has the debate as a non-event, which is in step with the polling after most debates.
And is out of step with all other polling after this debate
Not necessarily. UPI hasn't shown that much of a net shift (pro-Trump, actually). I also believe Trump closed the gap with Reuters. There was slight movement to Hillary with the People's Pundit Daily results.

The NOLA sample seems to be pro-Clinton, as does Rasmussen, Morning Consult and Fox News.

PPP polled the race, but doesn't have a good pre-debate poll for comparison.

I was shocked that NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC didn't release polls over the weekend.


I think there is one reason to assume that Seriously? is right about the lack of a bounce following the debate based on the LATimes/USC poll, but a couple more reasons to push back.

I do think that the LAT Poll, as a panel, has the potential to smooth out the effects of differential non-response bias. That may explain a good deal of what we're seeing in the other polls. Panels, in theory, should be immune to that. However, knowing that this panel must lose participants through attrition, then new participants have to be added. This must be in part responsible for the wiggle in this poll compared to what you might expect with a more traditional panel. Opting in may be adding a layer of differential non response. New participants are more likely to be pro-Trump as pro-Hillary panelists drop out (rather, they were up to this point).

Additionally, the weights include 2012 vote. That would necessarily mute some swing based on enthusiasm as well. Finally, we know that this poll is showing much more minority support for Trump than nearly all the others. I don't want to unskew, but that is worth noting as well.

In short, I think that the daily internet panels aren't the most likely candidates to show a big bump, but then, that doesn't mean they aren't subject to their own issues.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
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