Trump +2 in CNN/ORC National Poll
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:05:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  Trump +2 in CNN/ORC National Poll
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Author Topic: Trump +2 in CNN/ORC National Poll  (Read 5591 times)
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: September 06, 2016, 05:58:59 PM »

Ugh, no. Unskewing is a very specific process based on the GOP obsession that 2004 was a default and 2008/12 were flukes. I'll wager a decent whack of money that the 2016 electorate is closer to 2012 than 2000/2004.
So what you're doing right now is not unskewing, Mr. Unskever himslelf? Smiley
Logged
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,069
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: September 06, 2016, 06:01:05 PM »

Can you not unskew polls? It's bad enough when Trump supporters do it, but when Clinton supporters do it on national television it's even worse. We get that this poll is an outlier and probably junk, but you don't need to fix it to what it "should" be.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: September 06, 2016, 06:02:55 PM »

Can you not unskew polls? It's bad enough when Trump supporters do it, but when Clinton supporters do it on national television it's even worse. We get that this poll is an outlier and probably junk, but you don't need to fix it to what it "should" be.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,624
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: September 06, 2016, 06:03:29 PM »

Even if the electorate looks exactly like 2012, a four point lead two months out is not at all secure and Clinton should be very worried.

Because there are so many times when a candidate ahead by 4 points by Labour Day lost the election, amirite?
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,935
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: September 06, 2016, 06:04:49 PM »

LOL Grin

Dems on Atlas, you are not alone! MSNBC are with you, my dear unskewers!

#UnskewCNN


That isn't unskewing, that is actually forecasting based on how the actual electorate will look. Gallup got into trouble last cycle because they had a bad forecast of the electorate.

Because we know for a fact that the 2016 electorate will look exactly like the 2012 electorate, right?

This is exactly what the unskewers have done in the past - weigh the poll to the results they want instead of the results the poll gets.


Did you not learn anything from 2012? You were predicting a Romney win, because the electorate surely couldn't look like 2008 and would be whiter. I don't have to remind anyone how that election turned out, but the fact of the matter is the electorate never regresses in presidential elections.

The electorate never regresses in Presidential elections?  What does that mean?  We've certainly had years when the electorate did shrink, and keep in mind that party self-ID is fluid.  You're absolutely doing the same kind of unskewing Romney supporters did in 2012.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/regress

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You're welcome. With that said, unskewing was totally based on the concept of party ID and nothing else. If you are talking about the actual demographics of the election, then that is where polls can end up being wrong. I'm talking about what Gallup did when they assumed that the 2012 electorate would look like 2000. It has nothing to do with party and everything to do with demographics.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: September 06, 2016, 06:06:42 PM »

Even if the electorate looks exactly like 2012, a four point lead two months out is not at all secure and Clinton should be very worried.

Because there are so many times when a candidate ahead by 4 points by Labour Day lost the election, amirite?
There is a difference, when you lead +4 and there is 5% undeciders/other
and
when you lead by +4 and there is 15-20 undeciders/other. amirite? Smiley
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: September 06, 2016, 06:12:10 PM »

You're welcome. With that said, unskewing was totally based on the concept of party ID and nothing else. If you are talking about the actual demographics of the election, then that is where polls can end up being wrong. I'm talking about what Gallup did when they assumed that the 2012 electorate would look like 2000. It has nothing to do with party and everything to do with demographics.

But CNN didn't specify anything but self-reported party identification Huh

At least I failed to find demographics. Can you link to it?
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: September 06, 2016, 06:56:45 PM »

LOL Grin

Dems on Atlas, you are not alone! MSNBC are with you, my dear unskewers!

#UnskewCNN


That isn't unskewing, that is actually forecasting based on how the actual electorate will look. Gallup got into trouble last cycle because they had a bad forecast of the electorate.

Because we know for a fact that the 2016 electorate will look exactly like the 2012 electorate, right?

This is exactly what the unskewers have done in the past - weigh the poll to the results they want instead of the results the poll gets.


Did you not learn anything from 2012? You were predicting a Romney win, because the electorate surely couldn't look like 2008 and would be whiter. I don't have to remind anyone how that election turned out, but the fact of the matter is the electorate never regresses in presidential elections.

I'm not going to go back to my 2012 posts, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't predicting anything, let alone a Romney win.  I rarely make predictions here.  Did I hope Romney would win?  Of course.  But I don't unskew polls.

My attitude towards polls is been pretty much the same that it has always been - it is a snapshot of the electorate at a given time, using the methodology the pollster used.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  I don't get worked up about one particular poll because it is only one data point of many.  But, unlike 538, I've never put too much stock in a particular pollster's track record because past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.  And I tend to care more about trends from one poll by the same pollster to another than the toplines - because even if a pollster's methodology sucks, it's likely to suck in a uniform way.
Logged
SirMuxALot
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 368


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: September 06, 2016, 07:15:36 PM »

One thing I've noticed coming back here from 4 years ago is that there seems to be some undue overconfidence in polling.

Just because we've had 3 presidential cycles in a row where both the projected winner and the margin were fairly close, we think that old polling dragon is slayed forever.

But then we have outcomes like UK'15 and Brexit'16.

And we tell ourselves, "well those Brits don't have the same robust methodology we have over here."  But is that true?

This already is looking like the most volatile year since 1980.  And volatile years tend to trip up the pollsters.  What makes us so sure we can't have a 1980-sized polling miss?
Logged
dspNY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,802
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: September 06, 2016, 07:20:41 PM »

I think we should set a standard of posting the RV numbers and LV numbers together in future polls if they have both sets of numbers. Remember in 2012, the RV numbers were correct
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: September 06, 2016, 07:42:25 PM »

The one thing I find fascinating about the crosstabs is that the age gap is huge. Trump is winning those 65+ years old 55/38 (and that age group has the smallest MOE, so largest share of sample), and winning 50-64 years old 53/38. Among 35-49 years old, the race is Trump 45/44.

That would mean Hillary would have to be winning Millenials by a an absolutely huge margin to get the overall race to 45/43 Trump! If they are so small a segment as to not be reported out separately, then they cannot be closer than a 35 point Clinton lead, at the smallest.
1) Historically young people don't vote.
2) Statistically, young people are most likely to vote third party.
3) A lot of the young people were Bernie supporters.

Do the math on the conclusion from that.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: September 06, 2016, 07:44:39 PM »

CNN wants to keep the horse race going, which explains this poll.
No. The race is likely in a Trump +2 to Hillary +5 range is what I take from the entirety of the polling in the recent week. That includes 3 of the 4 trackers, as Reuters is MIA.
Logged
PresidentSamTilden
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 507


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: September 06, 2016, 07:52:07 PM »

1) Historically young people don't vote.

Young people do usually have the lowest turnout, as far as I know. A little off topic, but is that true historically, or is that a more recent phenomenon? 
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: September 06, 2016, 08:02:39 PM »

1) Historically young people don't vote.

Young people do usually have the lowest turnout, as far as I know. A little off topic, but is that true historically, or is that a more recent phenomenon? 
Historically. And it's getting worse as the population lives longer.

You'll get like 15-20% from 18-29. 45+ will make up 50-55% (or more) of the electorate.

65+ will almost always edge out 18-24 by about 5 points in recent years as a group.
Logged
PresidentSamTilden
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 507


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: September 06, 2016, 08:07:24 PM »


Historically. And it's getting worse as the population lives longer.

You'll get like 15-20% from 18-29. 45+ will make up 50-55% (or more) of the electorate.

65+ will almost always edge out 18-24 by about 5 points in recent years as a group.

Yeah, I guess that does make sense. Dang, that's kinda disappointing. Doesn't exactly create a dynamic environment for politics in America...
Logged
Southern Delegate matthew27
matthew27
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,668
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: September 06, 2016, 08:20:08 PM »

LOL Grin

Dems on Atlas, you are not alone! MSNBC are with you, my dear unskewers!

#UnskewCNN


That isn't unskewing, that is actually forecasting based on how the actual electorate will look. Gallup got into trouble last cycle because they had a bad forecast of the electorate.

Also there will be 2% less whites and 2% more non-whites in the 2016 election compared to 2012. So it maybe even slightly better for Clinton.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: September 06, 2016, 09:50:25 PM »

One thing I've noticed coming back here from 4 years ago is that there seems to be some undue overconfidence in polling.

Just because we've had 3 presidential cycles in a row where both the projected winner and the margin were fairly close, we think that old polling dragon is slayed forever.

But then we have outcomes like UK'15 and Brexit'16.

And we tell ourselves, "well those Brits don't have the same robust methodology we have over here."  But is that true?

This already is looking like the most volatile year since 1980.  And volatile years tend to trip up the pollsters.  What makes us so sure we can't have a 1980-sized polling miss?

     2014 was also a major polling failure, which makes this especially hilarious. Republicans overperformed the polls in many Midwestern states.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: September 06, 2016, 10:14:16 PM »

unskewing outliers are pretty silly.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: September 06, 2016, 10:29:18 PM »

Even if the top line is an outlier, there's no excuse for the R nominee having a 15 point advantage on who you trust more on the economy for chrissakes. Particularly, given that the past two R presidents have been utter disasters for the economy, while the past two D's have pulled the economy out from recession into (in one case, the best times this country saw in a generation; in the other case, the best that could have been expected given the massive structural obstructions he faced).
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: September 06, 2016, 10:31:07 PM »

Even if the top line is an outlier, there's no excuse for the R nominee having a 15 point advantage on who you trust more on the economy for chrissakes. Particularly, given that the past two R presidents have been utter disasters for the economy, while the past two D's have pulled the economy out from recession into (in one case, the best times this country saw in a generation; in the other case, the best that could have been expected given the massive structural obstructions he faced).

The GOP candidate has a default advantage on economic matters, regardless of reality, because people are morons. Add in the pretty R-friendly sample of this poll, it's not surprising he's over-performing.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: September 06, 2016, 10:34:25 PM »

My only point is, the last D president who was bad for the economy was Jimmy Carter, and he actually had a stellar job creation record. If the party had a shred of competence, they would own this issue.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: September 06, 2016, 10:36:39 PM »


I know what "regress" means (as my next sentence made obvious), but what are you claiming?  That it's impossible for the electorate to shrink in a way that decreases the proportion of non-white demographics more than their 18+ growth rate?

With that said, unskewing was totally based on the concept of party ID and nothing else. If you are talking about the actual demographics of the election, then that is where polls can end up being wrong. I'm talking about what Gallup did when they assumed that the 2012 electorate would look like 2000. It has nothing to do with party and everything to do with demographics.

Unskewing was not just about party ID -- quite a lot of it also involved insisting that, regardless of what Likely Voter polls showed, the electorate would revert to have many fewer black voters (and non-whites in general) because 2008 was an unusually elevated turnout.  You're also doing a touch of that.  It's reasonable to weigh by demographics, but it's not reasonable to assert with certitude that the electorate will look like 2012 even if, say, polls are showing depressed enthusiasm and higher rates of failing LV screens among certain groups.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: September 06, 2016, 10:39:30 PM »

My only point is, the last D president who was bad for the economy was Jimmy Carter, and he actually had a stellar job creation record. If the party had a shred of competence, they would own this issue.

I don't think you can blame the Dems for this, it's that the GOP is so much better and far more shameless in their marketing. It's just that the left will likely NEVER be regarded as the better economic stewards, when the default view of what that means, lines up with GOP rhetoric.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: September 06, 2016, 11:27:14 PM »

My only point is, the last D president who was bad for the economy was Jimmy Carter, and he actually had a stellar job creation record. If the party had a shred of competence, they would own this issue.

Carter's economic problem was that he appointed a hawk like Volcker who strangled his economy with super-high interest rates, he was advised not to appoint him in the first place. Yet even despite that, he was still ahead in the early polls vs. Reagan, he only collapsed due to the iranian situation, if he had simply bombed Iran, he would've won as a war-time president a la Bush '04, who also had a medicore economy.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: September 07, 2016, 12:13:09 AM »

LOL Grin

Dems on Atlas, you are not alone! MSNBC are with you, my dear unskewers!

#UnskewCNN


That isn't unskewing, that is actually forecasting based on how the actual electorate will look. Gallup got into trouble last cycle because they had a bad forecast of the electorate.

Also there will be 2% less whites and 2% more non-whites in the 2016 election compared to 2012. So it maybe even slightly better for Clinton.
I'm not sure if that's true, mainly because the white vote may have been understated by a few percentage points in 2012.

VNS didn't do exit polls in a good number of states, for starters, such as Georgia and Texas.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 14 queries.