Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 26, 2019, 05:11:52 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1  (Read 2754 times)
Gass3268
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,275
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2016, 10:10:22 pm »

lol Gravis

By the way, where's ARG? It was active in the primaries and I don't think this election has enough junk polls.

No We Ask America either.
Logged
Fmr Deputy Speaker Spark498
Spark498
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,336
United States


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2016, 10:11:36 pm »

Great poll. It's actually tied, won't be the case on election day though. Probably will still be close.
Logged
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,881


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2016, 11:22:36 pm »

Great poll. It's actually tied, won't be the case on election day though. Probably will still be close.

If Trump is tied in a North Carolina poll that has a 10% African American electorate...
Logged
VirginiŠ
Virginia C
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,214
Ukraine


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2016, 11:29:58 pm »

Love this poll.  Only 10% black when the state was 23% in 2012. 

This poll does appear to be a bit crap if they are that far off among AA voters, especially in a Southern State.... although it is a B- Pollster with a +1.1% R house effect overall, but still an epic fail on the demographic breakdown of the electorate.

All being said, it does look like the NBC/Marist poll was a bit high for Clinton, and considering that Nate Silver is indicating it does look like a +5-6 Clinton lead nationally, PPPs NC poll is probably closer to the actual current state of the race, and Clinton is likely up about 2-3%.

Do any of these outfits ever actually explain why their demographic samples are so off? I try not to nitpick polls too often, but some of them have ludicrous samples that are blatantly not representative of the actual electorate.

So I have to ask.. why? How can they mess something like this up? It doesn't take a genius to put the numbers together beforehand. I just don't get it. Even a crappy firm should be able to do this without an issue. All I can think of is that they are terribly managed and staffed by idiots who just don't care. If that's not it, then I got nothing.
Logged
Fubart Solman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,919
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2016, 12:33:34 am »

Of course Gravis polled Stein even though she's not on the ballot.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,657
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2016, 06:46:04 am »
« Edited: August 22, 2016, 06:48:39 am by LittleBigPlanet »

Love this poll.  Only 10% black when the state was 23% in 2012.  

This poll does appear to be a bit crap if they are that far off among AA voters, especially in a Southern State.... although it is a B- Pollster with a +1.1% R house effect overall, but still an epic fail on the demographic breakdown of the electorate.

All being said, it does look like the NBC/Marist poll was a bit high for Clinton, and considering that Nate Silver is indicating it does look like a +5-6 Clinton lead nationally, PPPs NC poll is probably closer to the actual current state of the race, and Clinton is likely up about 2-3%.

Do any of these outfits ever actually explain why their demographic samples are so off? I try not to nitpick polls too often, but some of them have ludicrous samples that are blatantly not representative of the actual electorate.

So I have to ask.. why? How can they mess something like this up? It doesn't take a genius to put the numbers together beforehand. I just don't get it. Even a crappy firm should be able to do this without an issue. All I can think of is that they are terribly managed and staffed by idiots who just don't care. If that's not it, then I got nothing.
It's a random survey. Randomness and the fact that some groups is less likely to participate in polls implies that crosstabs might be skewed. So it's pollster's job to weight accordingly to voter history/pattern/their intention to vote etc.
Quote
The polls were conducted using automated telephone calls, internet panels of cell phone respondents, and weighted by voting patterns.
Gravis indeed weighted, but I prefer when pollster publish their "after-weghted-data" for more transporacy. Their SC crosstabs looks better.

Nate Silver about unskewing/crosstabs.
Quote
Donít get lost in the crosstabs.
Donít get lost in the crosstabs. Trust us ó you donít want to take the route of scrutinizing the pollís crosstabs for demographic anomalies, hoping to ďproveĒ that it canít possibly be right. Before long, youíll wind up in the Valley Of Unskewed Polls. Sample sizes are one issue. If a 600-person poll breaks out the results for men, women, Hispanics, blacks, Democrats, Republicans, older voters, younger voters and so forth, those subsamples will have extremely high margins of error, pretty much guaranteeing there will be some strange-looking results. Also, these comparisons are often circular. It might be asserted that a poll must be wrong because its demographics donít match other polls. But no one poll is a gold standard ó exit polls certainly arenít. There are also legitimate disagreements over methodology ó some polls weight by partisan identification and some donít, for example. Although some of these debates may be important in the abstract, our experience has been that they involve a lot of motivated reasoning when raised in the middle of the horse race.

With that being said, Gravis is B- pollster with R-house effect and should be treated accordingly.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,531
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2016, 12:22:48 pm »

With that being said, Gravis is B- pollster with R-house effect and should be treated accordingly.

Basic tie with a proclivity for R house effects... North Carolina is "barely Clinton". 
Logged
PikaTROD
Rookie
*
Posts: 25
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2016, 08:01:28 pm »

I'm of the opinion that any poll (other than Utah) that has both candidates below 40% isn't worth my time.

Amen to that!
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