NH-UMass Lowell: Tied

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Tell me if you see anything wrong here:

10/13 poll: Clinton +6
-Party ID: 44% for Dems and GOP each, 12% Indy
-Party Reg: 28% Dems, 27% GOP, 45% Indy

11/3 poll: Tie
-Party ID: 48% GOP, 40% Dems, 12% Indy
-Party Reg: 30% GOP, 26% Dems, 44% Indy

The first one completly wrong Party reg (D+1), while the second one a little bit R-friendly. (R+)

It's R+2.8% party reg. But Indis way too big in both.
http://sos.nh.gov/NamesHistory.aspx

Where have you been?

It has been that way, since I registred here

I'm talking about these specific NH polls. Please don't take my post and try to turn it into some new part of your unending insults of Atlas and its users.

What is so specific about those polls?
Atlas has always rejected Trump friendly polls. Why would it Atlas make an exception to this ones?

[Xing]

Oh this is lovely. That's what? 4 polls now showing the race at a statistical tie?

This could happen: http://www.270towin.com/maps/gBON2

If it does I'll be in my apocalypse safe bunker.

Trump is more likely to lose Texas than win Nevada.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

but now suddenly a painfully opaque letter from Comey that signifies pretty much nothing except that there are some more emails on top of the thousands of emails everyone already knew about, and suddenly the floor drops out? What the heck is that about.

It is not about new emails. It is about old ones. What would happen to Bill's favorability ratings if Monica Lewinsky would by any reasons get to the BREAKING news and stayed there in a week? It would completely unrelated to Bill, but his rating would suffer.

And in this case, it was not completely unrelated to Hillary.




I wounder who is more sad today, Democrats or TN Volunteer

[JJC]

Oh this is lovely. That's what? 4 polls now showing the race at a statistical tie?

This could happen: http://www.270towin.com/maps/gBON2

If it does I'll be in my apocalypse safe bunker.

Trump is more likely to lose Texas than win Nevada.

No.

[Dr. Arch]

Lol, people here havent learned anything from 2012 and 2014, have they? Maine, Virginia, Michigan and Minnesota flip before NH.

TNVol is the Ralston of NH. I'll take his word on it. He's proven himself right enough times.

[Pandaguineapig]

Clinton is planning an election day stop in nh with Obama, so her polling reflects this too

[JJC]

but now suddenly a painfully opaque letter from Comey that signifies pretty much nothing except that there are some more emails on top of the thousands of emails everyone already knew about, and suddenly the floor drops out? What the heck is that about.

It is not about new emails. It is about old ones. What would happen to Bill's favorability ratings if Monica Lewinsky would by any reasons get to the BREAKING news and stayed there in a week? It would completely unrelated to Bill, but his rating would suffer.

And in this case, it was not completely unrelated to Hillary.

You don't go through the effort of setting up a private server (that you KNOW is illegal) unless you are trying to hide something. You don't go through the effort of deleting emails AFTER they are subpoenaed (ILLEGAL) unless you are guilty of something.

The Clinton Foundation is shell for pay-to-play politics and the selling of American foreign policy to the highest bidder, that much is patently obvious.

[Virginiá]

Lol, people here havent learned anything from 2012 and 2014, have they? Maine, Virginia, Michigan and Minnesota flip before NH.

TNVol is the Ralston of NH. I'll take his word on it. He's proven himself right enough times.

Perhaps, but all it takes now is one Democrat statewide loss to shatter a worldview he has been cultivating for what seems like years now.

That's some dangerous footing and I don't want to be around when the reality comes crashing down in the TN-verse.

[Xing]

Oh this is lovely. That's what? 4 polls now showing the race at a statistical tie?

This could happen: http://www.270towin.com/maps/gBON2

If it does I'll be in my apocalypse safe bunker.

Trump is more likely to lose Texas than win Nevada.

No.

I'll just leave these here for your reference:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nv/nevada_mccain_vs_obama-252.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/nv/nevada_senate_angle_vs_reid-1517.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nv/nevada_romney_vs_obama-1908.html

Looking at the EV as well, Trump is cooked in Nevada, not like he ever had a chance.

[DavidB.]

Considering moving this to a tossup.

[Moderate Pennsylvanian]

Surprised that Clinton can be winning women by 19% in two way and Trump lead men by 16% and somehow Trump ahead.  Isn't it typical for women to be somewhere between 51-52% of electorate?

The poll has Trump leading men by 19 (53-34) and Clinton leading women by 16 (53-37).

[win win]

there never was a firewall

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Surprised that Clinton can be winning women by 19% in two way and Trump lead men by 16% and somehow Trump ahead.  Isn't it typical for women to be somewhere between 51-52% of electorate?

The poll has Trump leading men by 19 (53-34) and Clinton leading women by 16 (53-37).

Another prediction of mine coming true! I've been saying since June that NH white men going for Trump by a larger margin than white women going for Hillary would give it to Trump, in fact I made a thread about it at the time. I wonder if I'll still be a troll when undecideds/Johnson voters nationwide run to Trump and he racks up 300+ EVs on Tuesday.

[Hammy]

Oh this is lovely. That's what? 4 polls now showing the race at a statistical tie?

This could happen: http://www.270towin.com/maps/gBON2

If it does I'll be in my apocalypse safe bunker.

Trump is more likely to lose Texas than win Nevada.

No.

I'll just leave these here for your reference:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nv/nevada_mccain_vs_obama-252.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/nv/nevada_senate_angle_vs_reid-1517.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nv/nevada_romney_vs_obama-1908.html

Looking at the EV as well, Trump is cooked in Nevada, not like he ever had a chance.

Why is there consistently such a large (5-7%) R bias in the polls there?

[Speed of Sound]

NV's existence allows me to more easily be skeptical about NH's standing. I think NH will be close (although Clinton's crew and GOTV in a tiny state should give them an ED edge for sure), but I'm glad NV and, suddenly but still to a lesser extent, FL are making NH less and less of a factor.

[SirMuxALot]

The first one completly wrong Party reg (D+1), while the second one a little bit R-friendly. (R+)

It's R+2.8% party reg. But Indis way too big in both.
http://sos.nh.gov/NamesHistory.aspx

This puzzled me as well.  Are we sure they weren't actually asking two party-affiliation *questions*...i.e., first ask the respondent what party they identify with, then secondly ask them which party they are registered with?  (Both have self-reporting error/bias, of course.)

Because that's the only explanation for those registration numbers differing.

[SirMuxALot]

Lol, people here haven't learned anything from 2012 and 2014, have they?

Too many people here have only had lessons from 2012/2014 (and 2008).

Lots of folks who haven't learned or remembered the lesson of 1980.  And many who know the lesson, but think it couldn't happen again anyway.

Not saying it will happen this year.   But there will be, in most of our lifetimes, another election that is a massive polling miss.

[Lief 🗽]

1980 wasn't a massive polling miss.

[SirMuxALot]

1980 wasn't a massive polling miss.

Oh, not this crap again.  Do you guys ever actually go back and pull the raw information yourselves rather than just reading some leftist website talking points?

It was a big miss.  Final result was R+10.  Gallup was R+3 in their final poll.  If we had an RCP average back then, it would have shown about R+2 to R+4 at best, with the handful of public polls we had back in those days.

Gallup was regarded by the public as the only "professional" pollsters back then, and their next to last poll was Carter +8, less than two weeks to election.

And the point isn't about how the pollster's Tuesday morning election polls performed.  The point is about how high a probability of error exists for the polls one week out (about where we are now).

It's worth remembering how Pat Caddell describes the Carter internal polls in 1980.  "Saturday [before election day] we were tied.  Sunday we were down 5.  Monday we were down 10.  The bottom fell out that fast."  (Paraphrased quote from a podcast interview I heard him on yesterday.)

That is my very point.  At this exact point in 1980, we would have all been saying "way too close to call" and "Carter firewall will hold".  And this board would have had its hair on fire about how big a surprise the actual outcome of R+10 was.

[Lief 🗽]

Carter trailed for basically the entire race.  Reagan gained in the final week.

[Lachi]

Tell me if you see anything wrong here:

10/13 poll: Clinton +6
-Party ID: 44% for Dems and GOP each, 12% Indy
-Party Reg: 28% Dems, 27% GOP, 45% Indy

11/3 poll: Tie
-Party ID: 48% GOP, 40% Dems, 12% Indy
-Party Reg: 30% GOP, 26% Dems, 44% Indy

I see more than a few things wrong here...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tell me if you see anything wrong here:

10/13 poll: Clinton +6
-Party ID: 44% for Dems and GOP each, 12% Indy
-Party Reg: 28% Dems, 27% GOP, 45% Indy

11/3 poll: Tie
-Party ID: 48% GOP, 40% Dems, 12% Indy
-Party Reg: 30% GOP, 26% Dems, 44% Indy

So all the swing here was caused by a shift in the electorate. Presumably Republicans were more motivated to answer, while Democrats stayed out.

This might signal lack of enthusiasm for Hillary, but my hunch is that Dem voters will ultimately turn out normally.

[SirMuxALot]

Carter trailed for basically the entire race.  Reagan gained in the final week.

Perhaps I'm not stating my point well.  I'm not claiming that Carter had a lead and a win Reagan win shocked everyone.  I'm claiming that only the absolute final 1980 polls (literally the weekend conducted and Mon/Tuesday released polls) caught wind of what was about to happen.  There was a broad consensus that election night 1980 was going to be a long one, a nail-biter.  It turned out we all went to bed fairly early that night.

Let me try to state it this way:

Lots of people here have only learned the lessons of 2008 & 2012.  That is, the polls one or two weeks out are stable and fairly accurate.  The implied assumption being that a late break of 5-10 points just doesn't happen (anymore).

Don't mistake my point as being that Carter was ahead and lost.  I am not claiming that.  My point is that Carter and Reagan were very close, within the margin of error through all of Sept/Oct.  "Too close to call" was the wide consensus through the entire fall of 1980.

Yet a late break led to a R+10 result.

My point being, plenty of people here don't know what a late break like 1980 looks like.  It's made more difficult by the change in polling methodology and the sheer quantity of publicly available polls now (that we didn't have in 1980).

It *might* (emphasis on might) be that a late break in the modern polling era looks a lot like what we are having now.  Big volatility in polls, "outliers" galore, and relatively wildly divergent models showing us irreconcilable differences like we are getting this week.  This is conjecture on my part, I readily concede that.  But I lived through 1980 and remember how shocking the R+10 result was on election night.  Not so much that Reagan won, but that he won so big.

I'm not proposing Trump can win by 10 here.  I'm am proposing that 1980 race shows us that Clinton +2 to +4 right now may not be as safe as it seems.

We'll know in only days.

[Seriously?]

Freedom Poll of bellwether New Hampshire.