Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll

[Erich Maria Remarque]

They were awful in the primaries, they are awful now. ALL DAILY TRACKERS ARE AWFUL.

No, you're wrong!

Am I? Which daily tracker is any good?

Leave The LA Times Poll Alone!
Instead of arguing about it or ignoring it, adjust for it.

By Nate Silver

If I have to personally adjust 6 points for one candidate in order to correct flawed methodology and to assume im getting more accurate results, the poll is junk.

Sigh...
Clearly, Trump is underperforming among uneducated

[Fusionmunster]

They were awful in the primaries, they are awful now. ALL DAILY TRACKERS ARE AWFUL.

No, you're wrong!

Am I? Which daily tracker is any good?

Leave The LA Times Poll Alone!
Instead of arguing about it or ignoring it, adjust for it.

By Nate Silver

If I have to personally adjust 6 points for one candidate in order to correct flawed methodology and to assume im getting more accurate results, the poll is junk.

Sigh...
Clearly, Trump is underperforming among uneducated

Hes got your support, doesnt he?

[Seriously?]

They were awful in the primaries, they are awful now. ALL DAILY TRACKERS ARE AWFUL.

No, you're wrong!

Am I? Which daily tracker is any good?

I honestly could not tell you what's right and what's wrong at this point until we have a lot more LV polls from the companies that conduct primarily live interview calls.

As of right now, these internet poll/daily trackers with either panels or groups of voters are all LV and seem to favor Trump the most. The primarily internet polls over a few day span come next, then the traditional telephone polls.

We'll get a better idea of possible methodological bias once the telephone polls start employing LV screens.

Honestly though, at the end of the day, I do think the Hillary lead will be around 3-points in the 4-way and 5-points in the 2-way when the LV screen is employed and the variance among most non-outlier polls will be narrower.

[Seriously?]

Current
2-way (% change from 8/25) Clinton +0.6%
Clinton            39.7% (-1.7%)
Trump             39.1% (+3.0%)
Other              8.8% (+0.2%)
Refused           7.5% (-1.1%)
Wouldn’t Vote  4.9% (-0.5%)

1,397 LV (August 25-29, 2016)

4-way (% change from 8/25) Clinton +1.5%
Clinton                       39.5% (-0.3%)
Trump                        38.0% (+1.6%)
Johnson                      5.7% (-0.8%)
Stein                          2.1% (-0.7%)
Don’t Know/Refused    7.3% (-1.0%)
Other                          3.6% (+1.3%)
Wouldn’t Vote              3.8% (-0.6%)

1,400 LV (August 25-29, 2016)

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Ipsos is the best pollster I know. After LA Times

[The Other Castro]

Ipsos is the best pollster I know. After LA Times

I guess you only know two pollsters then.

[Tender Branson]

I don't understand how a "likely voter", who first answers that he's likely to vote, then says "wouldn't vote" in the GE question ...

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Ipsos is the best pollster I know. After LA Times

I guess you only know two pollsters then.

Dems have no sense of humor, are they?

[Seriously?]

I don't understand how a "likely voter", who first answers that he's likely to vote, then says "wouldn't vote" in the GE question ...

I don't either. Those respondents should be thrown in the trash for that question. How can they get past a LV screen if they don't intend to vote?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I don't understand how a "likely voter", who first answers that he's likely to vote, then says "wouldn't vote" in the GE question ...

Leave it blank and vote on the other questions?

[Tender Branson]

I don't understand how a "likely voter", who first answers that he's likely to vote, then says "wouldn't vote" in the GE question ...

I don't either. Those respondents should be thrown in the trash for that question. How can they get past a LV screen if they don't intend to vote?

I can only think of this: First, the person says he's likely to vote but when presented with the 4 candidates, he's like "meh, I won't vote at all for these people" ...

[Maxwell]

Once again, Reuters/Ipsos is just legitimately bad at this. They're bad when Clinton is up 14 and bad when Trump is up 2.

but keep on pointing on these polls as the reason things are TIGHTENING FOLKS.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

About 6% of LV are not RV according to IPSOS. I thought, that non-RV don't get through screening

And if you switch LV to LV&RV, "Wouldn't Vote" option loses 2% on average, from 4% to 2%.  

[jimrtex]

I don't understand how a "likely voter", who first answers that he's likely to vote, then says "wouldn't vote" in the GE question ...

84% said that they are registered to vote.
67% said that they are likely to vote.
62% said that they are registered AND likely to vote.

So 62/84 of registered voters said that they are likely to vote.
But 5/16 of non-registered voters said that they are likely to vote.

So Clem says: I meant to register after I moved here.
Interviewer: When was that?
Clem: Back in '78. I really liked Reagan and would have voted for him, but I somehow didn't get around to it. Then Bush came along and I kind of lost interest in politics, but with Trump I'm kind of getting excited (scratches himself).

Among the 67% likely voters, 3.8% said they "Wouldn't Vote". Among the 62% who were registered and likely, 1.9% said they wouldn't vote. So among the 5% Likely, but Unregistered, 27% said they "Wouldn't Vote".

I could not find the text of the questions asked, but they presumably asked whether someone was likely to vote and registered to vote before they started asking other questions.

Are you likely to attempt to lose weight in the next six months?
Do you currently exercise most days?
If you were to attempt to lose weight, would you walk, swim, jog, go to a gym, do yoga, reduce your food consumption, some other exercise, don't know, or wouldn't lose weight?

Answers of Yes, No, and Wouldn't are totally consistent.

[Seriously?]

Oh Reuters, showing a poll through 9/4 right now with 171 respondents with Clinton +12 in the two-way and +11 in the 4-way...

Holding before posting because, well, it's not 9/4.

[Ebsy]

Oh Reuters, showing a poll through 9/4 right now with 171 respondents with Clinton +12 in the two-way and +11 in the 4-way...

Holding before posting because, well, it's not 9/4.

Are you maybe starting to understand why the rest of us don't trust Reuters?

[Seriously?]

Oh Reuters, showing a poll through 9/4 right now with 171 respondents with Clinton +12 in the two-way and +11 in the 4-way...

Holding before posting because, well, it's not 9/4.

Are you maybe starting to understand why the rest of us don't trust Reuters?

I understand why you don't trust Reuters. A data point is a data point. I am merely posting them without comment, generally.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Oh Reuters, showing a poll through 9/4 right now with 171 respondents with Clinton +12 in the two-way and +11 in the 4-way...

Holding before posting because, well, it's not 9/4.

Link?

[Seriously?]

Oh Reuters, showing a poll through 9/4 right now with 171 respondents with Clinton +12 in the two-way and +11 in the 4-way...

Holding before posting because, well, it's not 9/4.

Link?

They've since modified the Polling Explorer website and took it off and on intermittently. you may or may not catch it.

2-way
http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_DS_13/filters/LIKELY:1/type/week/dates/20160801-20160930/collapsed/true/spotlight/1

4-way
http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_26/filters/LIKELY:1/type/week/dates/20160801-20160901/collapsed/true/spotlight/1

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Oh Reuters, showing a poll through 9/4 right now with 171 respondents with Clinton +12 in the two-way and +11 in the 4-way...

Holding before posting because, well, it's not 9/4.

Link?

They've since modified the Polling Explorer website and took it off and on intermittently. you may or may not catch it.

2-way
http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_DS_13/filters/LIKELY:1/type/week/dates/20160801-20160930/collapsed/true/spotlight/1

4-way
http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_26/filters/LIKELY:1/type/week/dates/20160801-20160901/collapsed/true/spotlight/1

But it is just weekly view. Aug 29 - Sep 4. But they've probably only realised for one day (29). Nothing strange IMHO.

[Seriously?]

Oh Reuters, showing a poll through 9/4 right now with 171 respondents with Clinton +12 in the two-way and +11 in the 4-way...

Holding before posting because, well, it's not 9/4.

Link?

They've since modified the Polling Explorer website and took it off and on intermittently. you may or may not catch it.

2-way
http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_DS_13/filters/LIKELY:1/type/week/dates/20160801-20160930/collapsed/true/spotlight/1

4-way
http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_26/filters/LIKELY:1/type/week/dates/20160801-20160901/collapsed/true/spotlight/1

But it is just weekly view. Aug 29 - Sep 4. But they've probably only realised for one day (29). Nothing strange IMHO.

Probably another methological change. They got rid of the daily data points. We'll see what happens when they get it right.

[Seriously?]

Current
2-way (% change from 8/29) Trump +1%
Trump             40% (+1.0%)
Clinton            39% (-1.0%)

1,804 LV (August 26-September 1, 2016)

4-way (% change from 8/29) TIED
Clinton                       39% (-1%)
Trump                        39% (+1%)
Johnson                      7% (+1%)
Stein                          2% (--%)

1,804 LV (August 26-September 1, 2016)

Seems like a methodological change from 5-day to 7-day rolling average.

*-Don't know, refused and other not disclosed.
Polling Explorer not updated.

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-catches-clinton-latest-reuters-ipsos-poll-finds-215514755.html?ref=gs

[Terry the Fat Shark]

major news

[The Other Castro]

Reuters once again strutting it's junkiness.

[Ebsy]

How do you change methodologies in the poll like 9 times in a summer?