Reuters/Ipsos: (Most) States

[Xing]

Can we stop cherry picking results that we like from this poll, and just toss it all in the trash?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Can we stop cherry picking results that we like from this poll, and just toss it all in the trash?

     We should do that, but hacks gonna hack.

[afleitch]

There is an issue with turnout filters clearly. Bring everything up to 100% (i.e not making assumptions and just using the data you have), the map is a little better.

[Seriously?]

Can we stop cherry picking results that we like from this poll, and just toss it all in the trash?

Actually, I don't think that's the right answer.

So long as you understand that out of the 50 states+DC, there are going to be an average of 2.5 polls that fail as a matter of science, the model they are using for turnout and know the MOE in the thinly polled states, these polls won't be terrible.

Like anything else, they are simply data points at the end of the day, so long as they are put in the right context. Hopefully, the thinly polled states will get some heft to them in the upcoming weeks.

If you put it into that context, we may laugh at a number of the results, but they are not absolutely terrible as a matter of science to be completely discounted as a whole. The ones where they have a decent sample should be somewhat decent polls.

[IceSpear]

What in god's name is this pile of junk?!

I really think people should stop trying to poll all 50 states. It never seems to go well. Though these make the Morning Consult ones look excellent by comparison.

[OneJ]

-In Alabama, Trump is leading Hillary by six points in another batch of polls? (#LeaninBama)

- Hillary is losing to Trump by three points in Wisconsin? (#SwingOnTreesWI)

-Hillary is only up by three points in Colorado? (#NoCollegeForCO - Despite its high college educated % going Mormon on Trump)

-Trump leads Hillary BIGLY in New Hampshire by 14 points. (#NHWomenMarryTrump)

Bunch of BS if you ask me.

[Seriously?]

What in god's name is this pile of junk?!

I really think people should stop trying to poll all 50 states. It never seems to go well. Though these make the Morning Consult ones look excellent by comparison.

It's the MOE fluctuations from a small sample size that's the issue here. If they can increase the number of people polled, they may have the start of something decent here. I don't think any internet polling outfit, including YouGov has quite gotten there yet though. The smaller states just have outrageous MOEs, which make the poll useless.

There should, however, be some heft to the larger states with bigger sample sizes.

[MT Treasurer]

Update:

Maine: Trump 42%, Clinton 42%
New Hampshire: Clinton 44%, Trump 45%
Pennsylvania: Clinton 48%, Trump 42%
Ohio: Clinton 43%, Trump 46%
Michigan: Clinton 41%, Trump 42%
Wisconsin: Clinton 38%,  Trump 38%
Virginia: Clinton 50%, Trump 37%
Florida: Clinton 48, Trump 45%
Iowa: Clinton 41%, Trump 44%
North Carolina: Clinton 49%, Trump 44%
Colorado: Clinton 45%, Trump 39%

Clinton: 273 EV
Trump: 182 EV

[dspNY]

Update:

Maine: Trump 42%, Clinton 42%
New Hampshire: Clinton 44%, Trump 45%
Pennsylvania: Clinton 48%, Trump 42%
Ohio: Clinton 43%, Trump 46%
Michigan: Clinton 41%, Trump 42%
Wisconsin: Clinton 38%,  Trump 38%
Virginia: Clinton 50%, Trump 37%
Florida: Clinton 48, Trump 45%
Iowa: Clinton 41%, Trump 44%
North Carolina: Clinton 49%, Trump 44%
Colorado: Clinton 45%, Trump 39%

Clinton: 273 EV
Trump: 182 EV

Adjust those numbers for 60% white male non-college turnout instead of the unrealistic 70% that Reuters is using and those numbers fall right in line with expectations. I'll demonstrate in another post

[afleitch]

Update:

Maine: Trump 42%, Clinton 42%
New Hampshire: Clinton 44%, Trump 45%
Pennsylvania: Clinton 48%, Trump 42%
Ohio: Clinton 43%, Trump 46%
Michigan: Clinton 41%, Trump 42%
Wisconsin: Clinton 38%,  Trump 38%
Virginia: Clinton 50%, Trump 37%
Florida: Clinton 48, Trump 45%
Iowa: Clinton 41%, Trump 44%
North Carolina: Clinton 49%, Trump 44%
Colorado: Clinton 45%, Trump 39%

Clinton: 273 EV
Trump: 182 EV

Adjust those numbers for 60% white male non-college turnout instead of the unrealistic 70% that Reuters is using and those numbers fall right in line with expectations. I'll demonstrate in another post

I don't understand why the model has Hispanic turnout at just 32% when it was 48% last time. Black turnout is down from 66% to 41% etc.

[dspNY]

OK, I dialed in these turnout projections:

White male: 63%
White female: 66%
Black male: 55%
Black female: 75%
Hispanic male: 45%
Hispanic female: 55%

and got these numbers in the swing states and marginal swing states:

Arizona: Trump 44, Clinton 42
Colorado: Clinton 45, Trump 38
Florida: Clinton 49, Trump 43
Georgia: Clinton 45, Trump 44
Iowa: Trump 44, Clinton 43
Maine: Clinton 43, Trump 41
Michigan: Clinton 43, Trump 40
Minnesota: Clinton 43, Trump 33
Missouri: Trump 49, Clinton 37
Nevada: Clinton 46, Trump 32
New Hampshire: Trump 46, Clinton 43
North Carolina: Clinton 51, Trump 42
Ohio: Clinton 45, Trump 45
Pennsylvania: Clinton 49, Trump 41
Virginia: Clinton 51, Trump 37
Wisconsin: Clinton 38, Trump 38

So still some weakness for Clinton in northern rust belt states but greater strength in states with more African Americans

[Erich Maria Remarque]

OK, I dialed in these turnout projections:

White male: 63%
White female: 66%
Black male: 55%
Black female: 75%
Hispanic male: 45%
Hispanic female: 55%
So still some weakness for Clinton in northern rust belt states but greater strength in states with more African Americans

Romney unskewed polls in 2012, Dems in 2014, you now... Sigh

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I don't understand why the model has Hispanic turnout at just 32% when it was 48% last time. Black turnout is down from 66% to 41% etc.

Because voters say so. As in 2012, as in 2014, when polls were better than convential wisdom...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dspNY]

This model has white turnout at 69%, African-American turnout at 56% and Hispanic turnout at 32%. That is never happening. Even in 2012, when GWB won by 2.5%, white turnout was 67.2%, African-American turnout was 60% and Hispanic turnout was 47.2%. Hispanic turnout is expected to spike dramatically this election to at worst 55% (and in the mock turnout model I used, I had Hispanic turnout at 50%). African-American turnout will also remain high, well north of 60%

[Erich Maria Remarque]

This model has white turnout at 69%, African-American turnout at 56% and Hispanic turnout at 32%. That is never happening. Even in 2012, when GWB won by 2.5%, white turnout was 67.2%, African-American turnout was 60% and Hispanic turnout was 47.2%. Hispanic turnout is expected to spike dramatically this election to at worst 55% (and in the mock turnout model I used, I had Hispanic turnout at 50%). African-American turnout will also remain high, well north of 60%

Who expect it? Not polls, that ask voters.

I expect, for instance, that silent majority will stand up and vote for You Know Who

[Dr. Arch]

According to 538 http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/updates/#plus, it looks like Ipsos has made another results dump ranging from Aug26-Sept1. Here are the states ranked by lead order; take it as you may:

D States:
CA: C+38
NY: C+22
MD: C+20
MA: C+16
IL: C+13
VA: C+13
NJ: C+11
WA: C+10
MN: C+9
CT: C+8
NV: C+8
PA: C+6
CO: C+6
NC: C+5
OR: C+5
FL: C+4

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ States:
ME: C+1
MI: T+1
NH: T+1
WI: T+1
UT: T+1

R States:
IA: T+3
OH: T+3
AZ: T+3
SC: T+3
AR: T+5
KY: T+5
GA: T+6
NE: T+7
OK: T+12
AL: T+12
MO: T+15
KS: T+15
WV: T+17
TX: T+17
TN: T+18
LA: T+20
IN: T+24
MS: T+28
ID: T+30

[Gass3268]

The only positive of this poll series is it helps provide some data in states that don't get polled enough or at all.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

UT: T+1
AR: T+5

Classic! That should be enough to tell you all you need to know.

[The Other Castro]

And of course 538 adds them.

[Dr. Arch]

#OH right of UT

[Ebsy]

And of course 538 adds them.

That's actually awful.

[Seriously?]

Complete List

This assumes Hillary +3 (Hillary 44, Trump 41)

NAME   CLINTON   TRUMP
Alabama   39%   52%
Alaska   —   —
Arizona   41%   45%
Arkansas   42%   48%
California   63%   24%
Colorado   45%   39%
Connecticut   47%   39%
Delaware   —   —
Florida   48%   45%
Georgia   41%   47%
Hawaii   —   —
Idaho   28%   58%
Illinois   50%   37%
Indiana   32%   56%
Iowa   41%   44%
Kansas   37%   52%
Kentucky   42%   46%
Louisiana   37%   57%
Maine   42%   42%
Maryland   52%   32%
Massachusetts   48%   32%
Michigan   41%   42%
Minnesota   42%   33%
Mississippi   30%   59%
Missouri   35%   51%
Montana   —   —
Nebraska   38%   45%
Nevada   43%   35%
New Hampshire   44%   45%
New Jersey   47%   36%
New Mexico   —   —
New York   50%   28%
North Carolina   49%   44%
North Dakota   —   —
Ohio   43%   46%
Oklahoma   37%   48%
Oregon   44%   39%
Pennsylvania   48%   42%
Rhode Island   —   —
South Carolina   45%   48%
South Dakota   —   —
Tennessee   31%   49%
Texas   32%   49%
The District of Columbia   —   —
Utah   34%   35%
Vermont   —   —
Virginia   50%   37%
Washington   45%   35%
West Virginia   38%   55%
Wisconsin   38%   38%
Wyoming   —   —

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

LOL @ Utah to the left of Arizona, NH to the right of NC, MI/WI to the right of NE-02, SC to the left of GA, and pretty much everything else. HP

[Associate Justice PiT]

The only positive of this poll series is it helps provide some data in states that don't get polled enough or at all.

     The data sucks, though. We could just make up numbers and it would be about as useful.

[NOVA Green]

And of course 538 adds them.

So can anyone explain why Ipsos/Reuters have an A- ranking from 538?

These statewide polls leave a bit of something for everyone when it comes to cherrypicking individual state polling numbers, but their results are so far off the map when it comes to not only comparing states in terms of national PVI. but additionally the numbers from even large states like California and Texas, let alone random inexplicable numbers between Arkansas/Kentucky and Louisiana/Mississippi for example.

Differences between Nebraska/Kansas don't appear intuitively appear to make sense....

So, we'll see but when you do the state by state comparisons these results don't make much logical sense.