Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 09, 2019, 10:32:48 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  Pennsylvania - Emerson Polling: Clinton + 3
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Pennsylvania - Emerson Polling: Clinton + 3  (Read 4278 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,970


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 29, 2016, 08:07:51 am »

Yeah, Emerson, we're going to need to see some crosstabs to understand what you are seeing.
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,107


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 29, 2016, 08:50:34 am »

"Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only."
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,861
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 29, 2016, 08:57:37 am »

Trump's favorables are definitely too high
Logged
dspNY
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,574
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 29, 2016, 08:57:48 am »

"Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only."

So a robopoll
Logged
heatcharger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,231
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 29, 2016, 08:59:16 am »

lol Emerson. Am I really supposed to believe Portman is up 15 and Toomey is up 7? Nope, straight in the trash. Junk poll!
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,905
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2016, 09:09:49 am »

IVR landline only poll and with Toomey up way more than plausible. Trump still losing here is a big problem.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,861
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2016, 09:17:35 am »


Slightly worse than Clinton's, as they are in every other poll. If his favorables are too high, then her favorables are too high too.
Nah the polls are showing Clinton unpopular but for Trump much worse.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2016, 09:19:00 am »

They did, but for clients like Daily Kos. They were universally terrible.
Final pre-election Daily Kos/SEIU State of the Nation poll: Obama 50-48
5 november 2012. Not that bad.
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,107


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2016, 09:34:08 am »

Demographics, party ID, regional breakdown and methodology look sound. Also, this sample voted for Obama 52-46.6 - matching the 2012 results.

Well, they reweighted the data to get the sample's reported 2012 votes to match the actual 2012 results: "Data was weighted by 2012 election results and Michigan results included regional weights."

This practice is somewhat dubious (as pointed out in the LA Times tracking poll thread) since it's impossible to verify whether the respondents really did vote the way they said they did.
Logged
Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2016, 10:02:20 am »

Excuse me but since when Emerson polls became the gospel of truth?
These guys were among the worst during the primaries.
I thought they were amongst the worst in the primaries, but at second glance, they were the second-most accurate (behind Gravis of all people) according to Bloomberg and a tick better than the other university pollers (Monmouth, Marist) and significantly better than Quinnipiac when it came to average margin.
Logged
Fusionmunster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2016, 10:07:13 am »

Excuse me but since when Emerson polls became the gospel of truth?
These guys were among the worst during the primaries.
I thought they were amongst the worst in the primaries, but at second glance, they were the second-most accurate (behind Gravis of all people) according to Bloomberg and a tick better than the other university pollers (Monmouth, Marist) and significantly better than Quinnipiac when it came to average margin.

They were among the worst. Just because the end results lined up doesnt mean they weren't releasing huge outliers leading into it.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2016, 10:10:42 am »
« Edited: August 29, 2016, 10:12:22 am by LittleBigPlanet »

Excuse me but since when Emerson polls became the gospel of truth?
These guys were among the worst during the primaries.
I thought they were amongst the worst in the primaries, but at second glance, they were the second-most accurate (behind Gravis of all people) according to Bloomberg and a tick better than the other university pollers (Monmouth, Marist) and significantly better than Quinnipiac when it came to average margin.

They were among the worst. Just because the end results lined up doesnt mean they weren't releasing huge outliers leading into it.
Evidence?
Every pollster might have some outliers, but according to this article, they were OK.
Logged
Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 29, 2016, 02:15:43 pm »

Excuse me but since when Emerson polls became the gospel of truth?
These guys were among the worst during the primaries.
I thought they were amongst the worst in the primaries, but at second glance, they were the second-most accurate (behind Gravis of all people) according to Bloomberg and a tick better than the other university pollers (Monmouth, Marist) and significantly better than Quinnipiac when it came to average margin.

They were among the worst. Just because the end results lined up doesnt mean they weren't releasing huge outliers leading into it.
The margins were pretty consistent, although, on balance better on the GOP side.

I don't deny the R+1.3 house effect, however, I don't think these polls are total garbage either. Just another datapoint for the relevant states.
Logged
psychprofessor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 29, 2016, 02:28:03 pm »

Are we still that behind in the times to not understand that robo calls of landlines only is probably one of the worst ways to collect polling data?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,044
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 29, 2016, 03:55:02 pm »

Yeah, Emerson, we're going to need to see some crosstabs to understand what you are seeing.

Here you go for cross tabs. The PA bottom line result is in line with the cross tabs. It shows Trump holding on to the Mittens numbers in the Philly metro area. Of course, the whole thing could be GIGO, but it seems to be internally consistent GIGO, if it is GIGO.
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,086
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2016, 04:31:50 pm »

Anyway,
PPP will post their results for the general election this week, so if indeed the race has tightened, PPP will be a good indicator!

One of the problems with Emerson is not necessarily just their methodology, but the fact that this is their first poll of these three states, so it doesn't really give us any trend lines to compare against.

Contrast this with Marist, "Q", Marist and PPP that have conducted multiple polls of Ohio and PA over the past few months.

So yes, a new PPP poll of PA will give us an indicator, not just in terms of topline numbers but also any trending that could indicate a tightening of the statewide race.

Logged
Pro-Life Single Issue Voter
ExtremeRepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,275


Political Matrix
E: 8.39, S: 7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 29, 2016, 06:43:19 pm »

Going along with what I have been noticing concerning the age gap (or lack there of):

18-34: Clinton +2.5
35-54: Trump +3.2
55-74: Clinton +5.5
75+: Clinton +23.4

Any guesses as to what is going on here?  And, I've seen the same general pattern several times of Trump competitive with young voters, ahead with middle-aged voters, and getting trounced with older voters.

Senate race age breakdown if that helps:

18-34: Toomey +12.5
35-54: Toomey +13.9
55-74: McGinty +7.0
75+: McGinty +2.7

So, Toomey is far out performing Trump with everyone but 55-74 year-olds, and the younger voters are among the most Republican.
Logged
Arch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,639
United States


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2016, 06:44:27 pm »

Going along with what I have been noticing concerning the age gap (or lack there of):

18-34: Clinton +2.5
35-54: Trump +3.2
55-74: Clinton +5.5
75+: Clinton +23.4

Any guesses as to what is going on here?  And, I've seen the same general pattern several times of Trump competitive with young voters, ahead with middle-aged voters, and getting trounced with older voters.

Senate race age breakdown if that helps:

18-34: Toomey +12.5
35-54: Toomey +13.9
55-74: McGinty +7.0
75+: McGinty +2.7

So, Toomey is far out performing Trump with everyone but 55-74 year-olds, and the younger voters are among the most Republican.

That is very weird.
Logged
Pro-Life Single Issue Voter
ExtremeRepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,275


Political Matrix
E: 8.39, S: 7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2016, 06:50:47 pm »

Going along with what I have been noticing concerning the age gap (or lack there of):

18-34: Clinton +2.5
35-54: Trump +3.2
55-74: Clinton +5.5
75+: Clinton +23.4

Any guesses as to what is going on here?  And, I've seen the same general pattern several times of Trump competitive with young voters, ahead with middle-aged voters, and getting trounced with older voters.

Senate race age breakdown if that helps:

18-34: Toomey +12.5
35-54: Toomey +13.9
55-74: McGinty +7.0
75+: McGinty +2.7

So, Toomey is far out performing Trump with everyone but 55-74 year-olds, and the younger voters are among the most Republican.

That is very weird.

The same phenomenon is actually more extreme in Michigan and exists but not as much in Ohio.
Logged
Horus
Sheliak5
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,986
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2016, 07:10:19 pm »

Going along with what I have been noticing concerning the age gap (or lack there of):

18-34: Clinton +2.5
35-54: Trump +3.2
55-74: Clinton +5.5
75+: Clinton +23.4

Any guesses as to what is going on here?  And, I've seen the same general pattern several times of Trump competitive with young voters, ahead with middle-aged voters, and getting trounced with older voters.

Senate race age breakdown if that helps:

18-34: Toomey +12.5
35-54: Toomey +13.9
55-74: McGinty +7.0
75+: McGinty +2.7

So, Toomey is far out performing Trump with everyone but 55-74 year-olds, and the younger voters are among the most Republican.

That is very weird.

The same phenomenon is actually more extreme in Michigan and exists but not as much in Ohio.

Both Ohio and Michigan, and to a lesser extent Pennsylvania, are suffering from brain drains.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,501
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2016, 07:38:17 pm »

Honestly.... I think just bad samples. You can explain a lot with this or that, but to that degree?
Logged
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,354
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2016, 11:29:35 pm »

Going along with what I have been noticing concerning the age gap (or lack there of):

18-34: Clinton +2.5
35-54: Trump +3.2
55-74: Clinton +5.5
75+: Clinton +23.4

Any guesses as to what is going on here?  And, I've seen the same general pattern several times of Trump competitive with young voters, ahead with middle-aged voters, and getting trounced with older voters.

Senate race age breakdown if that helps:

18-34: Toomey +12.5
35-54: Toomey +13.9
55-74: McGinty +7.0
75+: McGinty +2.7

So, Toomey is far out performing Trump with everyone but 55-74 year-olds, and the younger voters are among the most Republican.

That is very weird.

The word you're looking for is "inaccurate".
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 30, 2016, 12:21:35 am »

Honestly.... I think just bad samples. You can explain a lot with this or that, but to that degree?
Not just samples.  Literally everything samples,  landlines only,  reweighting seem... at least very very strange.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,517
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 31, 2016, 10:17:09 am »

...Clinton up 3 in Pennsylvania but down 1.5% in North Carolina? Junk, unless America is becoming less polarized. 
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