Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 16, 2019, 11:28:03 pm
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  Quinnipiac: Clinton +2 in NC, +1 in FL
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Quinnipiac: Clinton +2 in NC, +1 in FL  (Read 2501 times)
heatcharger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,217
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 07, 2016, 07:48:00 am »

https://poll.qu.edu/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2401

North Carolina:

Clinton 47%
Trump 45%
Johnson 3%

Florida:

Clinton 46%
Trump 45%
Johnson 2%
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2016, 07:49:14 am »

Sad
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,614
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2016, 07:49:52 am »

it's giving me good vibrations....
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2016, 07:52:05 am »
« Edited: November 07, 2016, 08:00:07 am by Little Big BREXIT »

Compared to ther last polls OCT. 27-NOV. 1

Florida: unchaged
NC:       +1 towards Trump




Florida
White 64%
Black 14
Hispanic 16
Other/DK/NA 6


NC
White 67%
Black 20
Hispanic 6
Other/DK/NA 7


Two way:
Florida: TIE
NC:       C+3


Early Voters:
Florda: C+4  (Rubio +2)
NC:      +12
Logged
Dave Leip
leip
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,361
United States


P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2016, 08:00:40 am »

New Poll: Florida President by Quinnipiac University on 2016-11-06

Summary: D: 46%, R: 45%, U: 5%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details
Logged
alomas
Full Member
***
Posts: 239
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2016, 08:00:57 am »

We'll see if the black number stays. In 2012 they were 13% in FL now they show 14% in exit poll. Also they show a decrease in whites in NC while there was an increase in early voting.
Logged
Dave Leip
leip
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,361
United States


P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2016, 08:01:42 am »

New Poll: North Carolina President by Quinnipiac University on 2016-11-06

Summary: D: 47%, R: 45%, U: 4%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details
Logged
BlueSwan
blueswan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,907
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2016, 08:04:23 am »

I actually think those numbers are semi-bad for Clinton. Was hoping for better. Quinnipiacs last numbers were better for her and her numbers with early voters in Florida doesn't look as good as hoped.
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 #8 on: November 07, 2016, 08:09:16 am »

Incredible! Can't wait to see how unskewing Trump shill liberals hero statistical genius Nate Silver handles these.
Logged
Fusionmunster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2016, 08:10:59 am »

I actually think those numbers are semi-bad for Clinton. Was hoping for better. Quinnipiacs last numbers were better for her and her numbers with early voters in Florida doesn't look as good as hoped.

What the heck are you talking about?
Logged
BlueSwan
blueswan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,907
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2016, 08:13:25 am »

I actually think those numbers are semi-bad for Clinton. Was hoping for better. Quinnipiacs last numbers were better for her and her numbers with early voters in Florida doesn't look as good as hoped.

What the heck are you talking about?
1) The number are slightly worse than Q's numbers for those two states in early november, even though there is the perception that Clinton has had a slight rebound.

2) The early vote lead in Florida is MoE stuff. We were already expecting Clinton to outpace Trump during early voting, the question was more whether she could get a big enough cushion before election day.
Logged
Fusionmunster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2016, 08:15:12 am »

I actually think those numbers are semi-bad for Clinton. Was hoping for better. Quinnipiacs last numbers were better for her and her numbers with early voters in Florida doesn't look as good as hoped.

What the heck are you talking about?
1) The number are slightly worse than Q's numbers for those two states in early november, even though there is the perception that Clinton has had a slight rebound.

2) The early vote lead in Florida is MoE stuff. We were already expecting Clinton to outpace Trump during early voting, the question was more whether she could get a big enough cushion before election day.

Or your looking for negatives where there are none.
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2016, 08:16:44 am »
« Edited: November 07, 2016, 08:20:29 am by Little Big BREXIT »

I actually think those numbers are semi-bad for Clinton. Was hoping for better. Quinnipiacs last numbers were better for her and her numbers with early voters in Florida doesn't look as good as hoped.

What the heck are you talking about?
1) The number are slightly worse than Q's numbers for those two states in early november, even though there is the perception that Clinton has had a slight rebound.

2) The early vote lead in Florida is MoE stuff. We were already expecting Clinton to outpace Trump during early voting, the question was more whether she could get a big enough cushion before election day.
By the way according to QU Trump takes 10% of D vs Clinton 7 of Reps.

It is self-reported though, but one can get a clue Tongue


And among early voters:
Presideent DK/NA 6%
Senate      DK/NA 4%
2% that say who they voted in senate, doesn't say whom the they voted for in president race Roll Eyes
Logged
HokeyDood
HockeyDude
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,725
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2016, 08:19:08 am »

POSITIVELY SENSATIONAL!!!
Logged
Ozymandias
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 470


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2016, 11:42:35 am »

https://poll.qu.edu/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2401

FLORIDA

Of the 65% (575/884) of respondents who said they voted early:

Clinton - 47
Trump - 43
Johnson - 2
Stein - 0
Other - 1

Rubio - 48
Murphy - 46
Other - 2

NORTH CAROLINA

Of the 67% (583/884) of respondents who said they voted early:

Clinton - 52
Trump - 40
Johnson - 2
Other - 2

Ross - 51
Burr - 43
Other - 2

Cooper - 56
McCrory - 40
Other - 1


 
Logged
Ozymandias
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 470


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2016, 11:45:53 am »

2) The early vote lead in Florida is MoE stuff. We were already expecting Clinton to outpace Trump during early voting, the question was more whether she could get a big enough cushion before election day.

Actually, there are enough  early voters now that their MOW isn't much less than the overall MOE.

And you're right, this poll has a lower EV lead for Clinton than several other Florida polls.

But I guess the upside is that if they are under-predicting her EV lead, then she'll have an even bigger overall lead than she does now...
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2016, 11:51:46 am »

And you're right, this poll has a lower EV lead for Clinton than several other Florida polls.

But I guess the upside is that if they are under-predicting her EV lead, then she'll have an even bigger overall lead than she does now...
Which means that that poll has a lower ED lead for Trump than several other Florida polls.

But I guess the upside is that if they are under-predicting his ED lead, then he'll have an even bigger overall lead than he does now...

It works both ways, you know Roll Eyes
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,419
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.63, S: -6.13

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2016, 12:20:27 pm »

Clinton should win both, though I do think NC will be closer.
Logged
Ozymandias
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 470


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2016, 12:44:01 pm »

And you're right, this poll has a lower EV lead for Clinton than several other Florida polls.

But I guess the upside is that if they are under-predicting her EV lead, then she'll have an even bigger overall lead than she does now...
Which means that that poll has a lower ED lead for Trump than several other Florida polls.

But I guess the upside is that if they are under-predicting his ED lead, then he'll have an even bigger overall lead than he does now...

It works both ways, you know Roll Eyes

But surely you see the advantage of Clinton having votes banked and going into Election Day already having a lead?  Especially when she's the one with the better ground game than Trump?
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,335
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2016, 12:50:55 pm »

Good news everyone!
Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2016, 01:09:13 pm »

But surely you see the advantage of Clinton having votes banked and going into Election Day already having a lead?
 
Yes, it is true.
But on other hand if Clinton was so good on turning in "unlikely" voters, she'd grow in polls, right? That's not what we seen so far; polls on average shows the same picture as before/at the start of EV, Trump's probably even gained a bit.

Except national polls. They are bringing are very dark news for Trump. And I am the one who relies more heavily on national polls trends Sad

And I'm actually very worried that after today's Clinton +4-7, some Reps won't turn up + polls missing Hispanics Sad

Especially when she's the one with the better ground game than Trump?
My opinion has always been that ground-game is
a) highly overrated
b) partly backed-in in polls (specially when so many EV:ed)

Clinton's best asset has always been Trump (females and Hispanics).
Logged
Absolution9
Full Member
***
Posts: 132


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2016, 01:15:41 pm »

https://poll.qu.edu/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2401

FLORIDA

Of the 65% (575/884) of respondents who said they voted early:

Clinton - 47
Trump - 43
Johnson - 2
Stein - 0
Other - 1

Rubio - 48
Murphy - 46
Other - 2

NORTH CAROLINA

Of the 67% (583/884) of respondents who said they voted early:

Clinton - 52
Trump - 40
Johnson - 2
Other - 2

Ross - 51
Burr - 43
Other - 2

Cooper - 56
McCrory - 40
Other - 1


 

So in the presidential race only 92% of Florida respondents and 94% of NC respondent (who claimed they already voted) were willing to tell who they voted for.  That means that there is a pretty good bit of uncertainty in the result, with respect to how this block actually voted.
Logged
Ozymandias
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 470


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2016, 01:26:24 pm »

https://poll.qu.edu/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2401

FLORIDA

Of the 65% (575/884) of respondents who said they voted early:

Clinton - 47
Trump - 43
Johnson - 2
Stein - 0
Other - 1

Rubio - 48
Murphy - 46
Other - 2

NORTH CAROLINA

Of the 67% (583/884) of respondents who said they voted early:

Clinton - 52
Trump - 40
Johnson - 2
Other - 2

Ross - 51
Burr - 43
Other - 2

Cooper - 56
McCrory - 40
Other - 1


 

So in the presidential race only 92% of Florida respondents and 94% of NC respondent (who claimed they already voted) were willing to tell who they voted for.  That means that there is a pretty good bit of uncertainty in the result, with respect to how this block actually voted.

If you include "Other" and rounding errors it's actually 94% of FL EV and 96% of NC EV, but yes, that's right-- there's consistently a few % of EVs who don't reveal who they voted for.

As I've said before, I really don't understand why they don't just throw these non-respondents out of the poll. (Perhaps it's because they did respond to SEN or GOV candidate questions?)
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