Reuters/Ipsos: (Most) States

[Seriously?]

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.

A lot of this is just polling around the MOE. You also have to keep in mind that about 2 1/2 of each 51 polls will fail as a matter of science.

The methodology is also a little unique based on sample sizes recorded in any given state over a period of time.

Each state sample must have 500 likely voters to get a one week result. If that number is not met, the poll goes out to a two week or three week sample. If they can't get a sample with 70% of the simulations has one candidate winning over another over two or  three-weeks, the state goes to "insufficient data." It also goes to insufficient data is the sample size is less than 60.

As a result, there's a bit of a lag in real time with some of these states, hence the Clinton +3 sample with the "State of Polls" result while it's Trump +1 in the nationwide Reuters "Polling Explorer."

If you keep all of those variables in mind, you get a better idea of how this poll works and how you can have some of the variances we are seeing.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/states-of-the-nation-explainer/#sidebar-methodology

[Person Man]

What do you think the PVI map will look like this election?

[Devout Centrist]

What do you think the PVI map will look like this election?

NH: +25R

[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.

A lot of this is just polling around the MOE. You also have to keep in mind that about 2 1/2 of each 51 polls will fail as a matter of science.

The methodology is also a little unique based on sample sizes recorded in any given state over a period of time.

Each state sample must have 500 likely voters to get a one week result. If that number is not met, the poll goes out to a two week or three week sample. If they can't get a sample with 70% of the situations has one candidate winning over another over two or  three-weeks, the state goes to "insufficient data." It also goes to insufficient data is the sample size is less than 60.

As a result, there's a bit of a lag in real time with some of these states, hence the Clinton +3 sample with the "State of Polls" result while it's Trump +1 in the nationwide Reuters "Polling Explorer."

If you keep all of those variables in mind, you get a better idea of how this poll works and how you can have some of the variances we are seeing.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/states-of-the-nation-explainer/#sidebar-methodology

Thanks Seriously!

That's the best explanation I have seen thus far....

Just because you have a "Blue" avatar and I have a "Red" avatar doesn't mean that there isn't at least a common area of legitimate discussion.

If your man loses.... don't blame me I voted for Bernie.

[Seriously?]

Thanks Seriously!

That's the best explanation I have seen thus far....

Just because you have a "Blue" avatar and I have a "Red" avatar doesn't mean that there isn't at least a common area of legitimate discussion.

If your man loses.... don't blame me I voted for Bernie.

For me there's a difference between the academics of polling on this board and the partisanship that goes on in the 2016 elections board. A lot of folks can't grasp that there are differences between these two boards and think that if I am hackish when I support my candidate, that I can't be reasonable when it comes to numbers.

Numbers are numbers as far as I am concerned. The only real difference is your interpretation of them at the end of the day.

With that said, like You Gov four years ago, these Reuters samples will be hit or miss, but provide data points that may be otherwise lacking in smaller states. I just wish I didn't have to go to 538 to get the relevant sample sizes.

[Seriously?]

Here's an analysis of the Reuters States polls.

As you can see, the biggest seven states (CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH) generally get 1 week surveys.

Thirteen states from 10 to 16 EVs (Georgia to Minnesota), with the exception of Maryland are on a two-week cycle.

Maryland and states generally from 5 to 9 EVs are on a three-week polling cycle.

When you get to about 6 EVs, the polling gets a little unreliable, where sample sizes will be in the 100s, hence the MOEs for these states increases significantly.

Most states with 3 or 4 EVs do not get polled, however, IA, ME and NH are exceptions. NM is the only 5 EV state without polling.



Sourcing for LV and length of poll is 538. Population totals are from the Census 2015 estimate. MOE calculated at 50% interval at 95% confidence based on number of persons surveyed. EVs and polling data are from the Reuters Data for 1, 2 or 3 week period ending 9/1.

[Fargobison]

Donnie is really using these garbage polls to promote himself?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/772812917175562241

[Seriously?]

Donnie is really using these garbage polls to promote himself?

Statistically speaking, the Ohio poll is not that terrible. It's 1 week poll with the MOE ~ +/- 5%

[Fargobison]

Donnie is really using these garbage polls to promote himself?

Statistically speaking, the Ohio poll is not that terrible. It's 1 week poll with the MOE ~ +/- 5%

He has moved all in on cherry picking the sea of trash that are these polls...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/772863407620034560

[heatcharger]

I'm mad 538 ever brought these junk polls to light. It was only a matter of time where Trump went dumpster-diving and bragged on Twitter.

[Dr. Arch]

This man is like a rampant child with no adult supervision.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Btw, the Ohio poll only polled 375 LV. Not anything to brag about lol

[Devout Centrist]

Btw, the Ohio poll only polled 375 LV. Not anything to brag about lol

375?! Jesus, that's downright unethical.

[heatcharger]

Btw, the Ohio poll only polled 375 LV. Not anything to brag about lol

375?! Jesus, that's downright unethical.

It's part of a larger national tracking poll, which is why including it in the 538 model as a state poll is so dumb.

[Devout Centrist]

Nate Silver should be ashamed of himself. If he had an ounce of integrity, he would have resigned his post at 538 and killed himself long ago.

That made me laugh pretty hard.

[Skye]

But it shows NV at Clinton+7 so itt's probably not that junk according to Atlas.

[Speed of Sound]

But it shows NV at Clinton+7 so itt's probably not that junk according to Atlas.

*Walks into thread with everyone calling it junk except Trump*

*Complains that nobody will call it junk*

Okay.

[Vosem]

I do enjoy Trump touting a 1-point lead in Utah.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I do enjoy Trump touting a 1-point lead in Utah.

[The Other Castro]

No more Nate Bronze I guess? I wonder how /r/The_Donald feels about this...

[Person Man]

He realises that he's still below 250, even with all the ties breaking for him.

[Skye]

But it shows NV at Clinton+7 so itt's probably not that junk according to Atlas.

*Walks into thread with everyone calling it junk except Trump*

*Complains that nobody will call it junk*

Okay.

It was a joke. Respectable pollsters have polled NV and have shown a close race, so users here call those junk because they don't show a larger Clinton lead since they don't have the option of taking the poll in Spanish.

[NOVA Green]

Here's an analysis of the Reuters States polls.

As you can see, the biggest seven states (CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH) generally get 1 week surveys.

Thirteen states from 10 to 16 EVs (Georgia to Minnesota), with the exception of Maryland are on a two-week cycle.

Maryland and states generally from 5 to 9 EVs are on a three-week polling cycle.

When you get to about 6 EVs, the polling gets a little unreliable, where sample sizes will be in the 100s, hence the MOEs for these states increases significantly.

Most states with 3 or 4 EVs do not get polled, however, IA, ME and NH are exceptions. NM is the only 5 EV state without polling.



Sourcing for LV and length of poll is 538. Population totals are from the Census 2015 estimate. MOE calculated at 50% interval at 95% confidence based on number of persons surveyed. EVs and polling data are from the Reuters Data for 1, 2 or 3 week period ending 9/1.

Cool.... so a one week polling period at least sounds somewhat reasonable, but even then there are odd results...

California--- Ok can see huge margins here for Hillary and extremely low numbers for Trump, but Clinton numbers appear to be significantly higher than expected considering a large Bernie primary percentage, that in many other states are still heavily flirting with 3rd parties.

Texas--- Trump top-line numbers look realistic assuming a consolidation of the Republican base, which appears to be a major factor in Trump polling improvements over the past few weeks. Clinton's numbers look excessively low (32%) considering that this was her best state in the primaries, and she has likely consolidated both minority voters, but also older Anglos that voted for Bernie, as well as many younger minority voters. Texas for Dems is usually a high floor/ Low Ceiling state where a dogcatcher could still win 40% of the Dem vote running for governor.

Florida--- Actually looks about right, although it might be 1-2% in either direction.

New York--- Looks realistic, although Trump obviously has significant room to add to the base, but overall margins seem about right.

Illinois--- looks about right.... solid Republican base, lots of Bernie holdouts, but ultimately will be likely +15-17 Dem at minimum come November.

PA---- Clinton +6 about right, considering what we have seen in state/national polls. Surprised at the high percentage of voters that are firm on a Dem/Rep race and not undecided or looking at 3rd parties.

OH--- Honestly, I could see Trump narrowly ahead at this point in the race in some polls, and once again it looks like this state will be quite dramatic come November, with current national polling averages.

GA--- Looks slightly Trump heavy, although assuming he is consolidating Republicans not totally unrealistic although I suspect is slightly +2-3% Trump.

So, even we toss the >1 week surveys into the trash, there are some legit discussions regarding what appear to be some weird numbers from Cali and Tejas compared to some of the other states in the one week polls....

thoughts anyone???

[Seriously?]

My take from all of this are that the polls in the smaller states <6 EV are unreliable and that's why we're seeing weird results in New Hampshire and Utah, for example.

The other polls are generally OK if you take trends into account.

[NOVA Green]

My take from all of this are that the polls in the smaller states <6 EV are unreliable and that's why we're seeing weird results in New Hampshire and Utah, for example.

The other polls are generally OK if you take trends into account.

Sounds reasonable overall and let's see what the polls look like in a week or two ....

Tick tock goes the clock....