FL-Associated Industries of Florida: Clinton +3
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:56:01 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
  FL-Associated Industries of Florida: Clinton +3
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: FL-Associated Industries of Florida: Clinton +3  (Read 525 times)
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 25, 2016, 07:23:56 PM »

Clinton - 44%
Trump - 41%
Johnson - 4%
Stein - 1%

As I mentioned in the senate thread, this is another pollster engaging in Party ID weighting:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poll of likely voters was conducted on October 19.

http://static.politico.com/8a/b1/6632d7e147899c4489dd14a84e17/161024-states-statewidetrack.pdf
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2016, 07:24:51 PM »

-sigh- Party ID weighing. Still, HRC lead.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2016, 07:27:31 PM »

Is there a reason they weight to a number they think is unlikely to be correct? At any rate, that's a very good number for Clinton, and confirms what we're seeing on the ground (~+5)
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2016, 07:49:18 PM »

Is there a reason they weight to a number they think is unlikely to be correct? At any rate, that's a very good number for Clinton, and confirms what we're seeing on the ground (~+5)
They are just making s[Inks] up, a tried and true method for pollsters.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2016, 07:50:34 PM »

Is there a reason they weight to a number they think is unlikely to be correct? At any rate, that's a very good number for Clinton, and confirms what we're seeing on the ground (~+5)
They are just making s[Inks] up, a tried and true method for pollsters.

Don't get me wrong, I get that problem in general, but then why literally say that the ID weight you've used is going to be wrong?
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2016, 08:02:58 PM »

Is there a reason they weight to a number they think is unlikely to be correct? At any rate, that's a very good number for Clinton, and confirms what we're seeing on the ground (~+5)
They are just making s[Inks] up, a tried and true method for pollsters.

Don't get me wrong, I get that problem in general, but then why literally say that the ID weight you've used is going to be wrong?
The party ID in 2012 was 35 D, 33 R, 33 I.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2016, 08:05:18 PM »

Is there a reason they weight to a number they think is unlikely to be correct? At any rate, that's a very good number for Clinton, and confirms what we're seeing on the ground (~+5)
They are just making s[Inks] up, a tried and true method for pollsters.

Don't get me wrong, I get that problem in general, but then why literally say that the ID weight you've used is going to be wrong?
The party ID in 2012 was 35 D, 33 R, 33 I.

Right...but that isn't the number they weighted to, nor is it the number they themselves say they expect on election day.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.211 seconds with 13 queries.