Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 12, 2019, 01:57:44 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  FL-Associated Industries of Florida: Clinton +3
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: FL-Associated Industries of Florida: Clinton +3  (Read 458 times)
The Other Castro
Castro2020
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,938
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
Arch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,611
United States


P
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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,183
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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,815
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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,183
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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,815
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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,183
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] 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