Reuters/Ipsos: (Most) States

[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.

[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.

[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???

[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....

[NOVA Green]

It's actually a bit more interesting to look at these in terms of overall trends, rather than getting fixated on some of the individual state numbers, and some apparent outliers.

So, if we look at the swing states we see some patterns that appear to support what we have seen elsewhere:

Ohio- Numbers have fluctuated a bit, but it looks like Trump has consolidated much of the wavering Republican base over the past few weeks and Clinton is basically holding steady at around 46/47%.

Florida- Clinton's numbers have held relatively steady, with a slight drop to undecideds and Trump has consolidated much of the Republican base.

Virginia- Numbers have held remarkably steady for the past month with Trump stuck at about 37% and down ~10%. Trump can't break through in NOVA?

Pennsylvania- Clinton is basically holding at slightly under 50% and Trump has been stuck in the lower 40%. He can't break through in suburban Philly?

North Carolina- Clinton has lost a few points to undecideds, but Trump has been stuck at 44% for a month. Comparing with other polls it's really looking like he has virtually maxed out his support and Clinton is holding a slight structural advantage with the remainder of the electorate.

Michigan- There hasn't been much movement over the past month, although it appears that Trump has lost a few points with Clinton holding steady. Surprised at the large number of undecideds in their polls, but historically this is a state that tends to close strong for Dems in the GE.

Wisconsin- Looks a little weird in all of their polls over the past month, but not implausible considering other polls and some likely Bernie holdouts, and also a state that tends to close strong for the Dems in the GE.

Iowa--- Seems about right with a narrow Trump lead and huge number of undecided voters.

Georgia--- There has been a significant drop of Clinton supporters to undecided voters over the past month with Trump gaining a few points and getting closer to the magic 50% number.

Other Notes---

1.) It looks like Ipsos does have some issues polling Spanish language speaking voters judging from some dubious numbers in Texas and New Mexico, as well as some odd swings in Nevada and Colorado.

2.) Major shifts from Clinton to Trump in Kentucky, Missourri, and some Republican plains states (Nebraska, Oklahoma, Montana.)

3.) Odd numbers in a few Deep South states (Louisiana and Mississippi @ +20-29 Trump) compared to Arkansas (+6-+9 Trump) and Alabama (+13-+9 Trump), as well as a few other miscellaneous places (CT and IN).

[NOVA Green]

Arkansas and Alabama have been oddly close... I can kind of get AR (home state, plus elasticity) but AL makes no sense. Then again this is Ipsos...

Well, unfortunately we haven't really seen any decent polls from 'Bama this GE election cycle, but Ipsos seems to be the best available, compared against the likes of Google Consumer Surveys, or the one Survey Monkey poll.

However, it should be noted that Bill Clinton only lost "Bama by 7 points in both '92 and '96 in a 3-Person race, and even Gore only lost by 14 points in 2000.

'Bama swung hard to the right in 2004 (37-62 George W.) and was basically static in '08 and '12, with slight improvements for the Dems, likely as a result of high Black turnout....

The key for a Dem to make Alabama a single digit state is to pull back Whites in Northern Alabama, which historically has been a region of the state where voters never really bought the Republican Southern strategy agenda.

Arkansas is an interesting contrast, and a state that until just recently would elect Democratic governors and US Senators.... Even John Kerry only lost Arkansas by 9 points in '04. .

There hasn't been a single poll showing Trump up by double-digits other than a couple of junk "Google Analytics Polls".

I could easily see this closing out as only a +6-7 Trump win come November, and if his national numbers start collapsing (Clinton +8) move into relatively close race....

[NOVA Green]

Reading this correctly, it's Battleground Michigan for all the marbles.

Seriously? Do you have a link so I can pull up the statewide numbers.

As an older man my eyesight isn't nearly as good as it used to be and wanted to be able to update my spreadsheet without squinting.

[NOVA Green]

Seriously? Do you have a link so I can pull up the statewide numbers.

As an older man my eyesight isn't nearly as good as it used to be and wanted to be able to update my spreadsheet without squinting.

http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/

Thanks Little Big!

You are absolutely adorable, especially on the polling threads....