Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 21, 2019, 01:10:27 am
News: 2020 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  WI-PPP: Clinton +12, at 50%
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: WI-PPP: Clinton +12, at 50%  (Read 1531 times)
dspNY
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,574
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 19, 2016, 03:32:27 pm »

Clinton 50, Trump 38.

Poll done for the group End Citizens United

Feingold leads by 6 in the Senate race (47-41)

http://endcitizensunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ECU-WI-poll-Oct19.pdf
Logged
rafta_rafta
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 926


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2016, 03:32:59 pm »

Are they a reputed Pollster
Logged
dspNY
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,574
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2016, 03:34:33 pm »


PPP? They're a great pollster. Of the major national pollsters, they have almost no statistical bias. This poll is probably a couple of points more Democratic than it should be because it was done for a liberal advocacy group but PPP is solid.

Additionally, they didn't ask any of their funny questions that troll Republican voters. They just took a regular sample
Logged
HillOfANight
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,460
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2016, 03:34:54 pm »

They didn't bother polling the third parties ?
Logged
BoAtlantis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2016, 03:35:21 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.
Logged
Arch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,622
United States


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2016, 03:35:31 pm »

Beautiful
Logged
rafta_rafta
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 926


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2016, 03:39:40 pm »


PPP? They're a great pollster. Of the major national pollsters, they have almost no statistical bias. This poll is probably a couple of points more Democratic than it should be because it was done for a liberal advocacy group but PPP is solid.

Additionally, they didn't ask any of their funny questions that troll Republican voters. They just took a regular sample

Oops I misread. I thought End Citizens United was the pollster.

PPP are a great pollster of course
Logged
psychprofessor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2016, 03:40:36 pm »


PPP? They're a great pollster. Of the major national pollsters, they have almost no statistical bias. This poll is probably a couple of points more Democratic than it should be because it was done for a liberal advocacy group but PPP is solid.

Additionally, they didn't ask any of their funny questions that troll Republican voters. They just took a regular sample

Oops I misread. I thought End Citizens United was the pollster.

PPP are a great pollster of course

Eh, they are robo calls mixed with Internet samples. Typically low balls HRC, esp with POC. Has had a Trump lean all cycle.
Logged
dspNY
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,574
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2016, 03:40:43 pm »

Even if the Clinton +8 polls are right, there could be a crazy divergence between WI and IA this year which makes less than zero sense
Logged
ProudModerate2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,248
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2016, 03:41:07 pm »

Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,236
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2016, 03:42:36 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

Image Link

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.
Logged
HokeyDood
HockeyDude
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,727
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2016, 03:46:31 pm »

SMASHING, MY DEAR FELLOWS! 

Another brick to solidify the Wisconsin stretch of Das Freiwall. 
Logged
BoAtlantis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2016, 03:47:21 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.


PPP has been accused of fabricating data and polls by some people. I'll take their words for what they are but PPP polls have never been too persuasive to me.
Logged
Scott 🤡🌏
Ascott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,038
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2016, 03:48:21 pm »

So I guess Feingold won't be outperforming Clinton.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,362
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2016, 03:49:02 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.


PPP has been accused of fabricating data and polls by some people.
Much as I admire Nate, he's wrong this time.
Logged
HokeyDood
HockeyDude
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,727
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2016, 03:51:17 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.


PPP has been accused of fabricating data and polls by some people. I'll take their words for what they are but PPP polls have never been too persuasive to me.

No... they failed to release a correct poll because they assumed it was way off.  They didn't fabricate anything. 
Logged
‼realJohnEwards‼
MatteKudasai
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,868
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.87


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2016, 03:53:21 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.


PPP has been accused of fabricating data and polls by some people. I'll take their words for what they are but PPP polls have never been too persuasive to me.

No... they failed to release a correct poll because they assumed it was way off.  They didn't fabricate anything. 
Yeah... plus it was a private poll. It seems right to assume that your methodology is off in a case like this.
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,236
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2016, 03:54:00 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.


PPP has been accused of fabricating data and polls by some people.
Much as I admire Nate, he's wrong this time.

How is he wrong?  Also, which Nate are you talking about?  Both Cohn and Silver have criticized PPP.  Tongue


No... they failed to release a correct poll because they assumed it was way off.  They didn't fabricate anything. 

A pollster not releasing a poll because they don't think it looks right is absolutely dishonest.
Logged
BoAtlantis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2016, 03:59:22 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.


PPP has been accused of fabricating data and polls by some people. I'll take their words for what they are but PPP polls have never been too persuasive to me.

No... they failed to release a correct poll because they assumed it was way off.  They didn't fabricate anything. 

But I'm always fascinated by how they get such good results. IVR/Online are same methodology that Rasmussen uses and we all know how bad they are.

It would not surprise me a bit if PPP tweaks their numbers to herd.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,531
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 19, 2016, 04:13:36 pm »

If they're showing Clinton at 12% while other pollsters show her more like 7% up, then it seems obvious that they aren't cooking their books anymore.
Logged
Deranged California Suburbanite
Fubart Solman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,264
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2016, 04:18:18 pm »

They didn't bother polling the third parties ?

It seems like they do this with a lot of their privately commissioned polls.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 19, 2016, 04:22:07 pm »

They are good, but definitely not great. And their "funny" questions might hurt them in the future.
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,236
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 19, 2016, 04:24:44 pm »

If they're showing Clinton at 12% while other pollsters show her more like 7% up, then it seems obvious that they aren't cooking their books anymore.

That's totally possible.  My point is that if they were indeed herding, then we can't assess their current accuracy based on how they performed in past elections.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,362
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2016, 04:26:57 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.


PPP has been accused of fabricating data and polls by some people.
Much as I admire Nate, he's wrong this time.

How is he wrong?  Also, which Nate are you talking about?  Both Cohn and Silver have criticized PPP.  Tongue


No... they failed to release a correct poll because they assumed it was way off.  They didn't fabricate anything. 

A pollster not releasing a poll because they don't think it looks right is absolutely dishonest.

My point is, I think this is more PPP being very Bayesian versus fudging the numbers.
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,236
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 19, 2016, 04:35:55 pm »


Called every swing state correctly in 2012, with some dead on.

Yes, but they've been criticized for potentially cooking the books in order to match the polling average:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=197049.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=179353.0

They should not be able to get that close to the polling averages by chance, given their sample sizes.  Same applies to other robo-pollsters, for that matter.


PPP has been accused of fabricating data and polls by some people.
Much as I admire Nate, he's wrong this time.

How is he wrong?  Also, which Nate are you talking about?  Both Cohn and Silver have criticized PPP.  Tongue


No... they failed to release a correct poll because they assumed it was way off.  They didn't fabricate anything. 

A pollster not releasing a poll because they don't think it looks right is absolutely dishonest.

My point is, I think this is more PPP being very Bayesian versus fudging the numbers.

What do you mean by "being very Bayesian"?  I mean, any kind of pollster methodology that takes the results from other polls into account is inherently dishonest, unless I'm missing something here?
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