FL: PPP: GILLUM +5

[President Johnson]

Maybe Gillium will drag Nelson across the finish line.

It may be the biggest story on election night if we end up with Governor-elect Gillum and Senator-elect Scott.

[Zaybay]

Maybe Gillium will drag Nelson across the finish line.

It may be the biggest story on election night if we end up with Governor-elect Gillum and Senator-elect Scott.

Unlikely, FL is way too polarized. That would require one of the candidates to break the D hold on Latinos, like Rubio did. Otherwise, the two will go the same way.

[President Johnson]

Maybe Gillium will drag Nelson across the finish line.

It may be the biggest story on election night if we end up with Governor-elect Gillum and Senator-elect Scott.

Unlikely, FL is way too polarized. That would require one of the candidates to break the D hold on Latinos, like Rubio did. Otherwise, the two will go the same way.

Maybe some Berniecrats don't vote for Nelson because he's too moderate for them? But I agree, it's unlikely. But who thought Gillum would win? American politics is always good to surprise anyone. Never say never.

[Donerail]

Unlikely, FL is way too polarized. That would require one of the candidates to break the D hold on Latinos, like Rubio did. Otherwise, the two will go the same way.

... and what Scott's campaign is actively trying to do, yes.

[Zaybay]

Unlikely, FL is way too polarized. That would require one of the candidates to break the D hold on Latinos, like Rubio did. Otherwise, the two will go the same way.

... and what Scott's campaign is actively trying to do, yes.

According to polling, its not working, so, thats good.

[Beet]

Guys, Republicans break the "D hold on Latinos" all the time in FL. There is no such "D hold" in Florida. And I don't know why Dems are so obsessed with a 13% slice of the electorate. 69% of Florida voters are white. As long as DeSantis can win them by 25 points, he's probably going to get in.

[Devils30]

A lot of the undecideds are younger, I think Nelson and Gillum could both win and be within 0.5-1% of each other

[Arkansas Yankee]

Let us stop all bull.

Florida is the most difficult state in the country to poll.

PPP was way off the mark in Florida in 2016.  Rasmussen was off in at least 2012.  If you look at the polls 2016: they were all over the place.

I believe until all the polls substantially line up with one person ahead by a lest 4, it is proper to call the Florida Senate and Gubernatorial races toss ups.

Any other call is really a call of your heart.

[Zaybay]

Let us stop all bull.

Florida is the most difficult state in the country to poll.

PPP was way off the mark in Florida in 2016.  Rasmussen was off in at least 2012.  If you look at the polls 2016: they were all over the place.

I believe until all the polls substantially line up with one person ahead by a lest 4, it is proper to call the Florida Senate and Gubernatorial races toss ups.

Any other call is really a call of your heart.

....Your kidding right? FL is not at all difficult to poll, in fact, demographics make it a more R leaning bias in polling(retirees are more likely to answer a robo-call). There are 3 states that are difficult to poll. NV, IN, and ND, due to polling laws, and, in NV's case, the FL problem.

And for being off in 2016, they were good in the senate race, and PPP didnt do the actual general, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Suburbia]

It's late August 2018.

Check back with me in mid-September.

Hillary was leading Trump in August 2016. Trump was leading in September.

Still tossup.

[Chief Justice Keef]

It's late August 2018.

Check back with me in mid-September.

Hillary was leading Trump in August 2016. Trump was leading in September.

Still tossup.

You could basically say this about any poll ever

[2016]

PPP isn't reliable at all. You probably can put PPP & NBC/Marist in the same box IMO.

[Chief Justice Keef]

"But muh FBI"

[Zaybay]

PPP isn't reliable at all. You probably can put PPP & NBC/Marist in the same box IMO.

Marist is one of the most reliable polls of all time, so I dont know what you are trying to say.

[ON Progressive]

PPP isn't reliable at all. You probably can put PPP & NBC/Marist in the same box IMO.

Marist is one of the most reliable polls of all time, so I dont know what you are trying to say.

It’s downright hilarious how frothing at the mouth conservatives get over PPP polls. PPP is a good (not great) firm, yet they treat them like they’re worse than Surveymonkey.

[Politician]

PPP isn't reliable at all. You probably can put PPP & NBC/Marist in the same box IMO.

So butthurt. PPP and Marist are way better than Gravis, SurveyMonkey, Zogby, Rasmussen, Emerson, Morning Consult, Trafalgar, etc. Just because they show D-friendly numbers doesn't make them "junk".

[Gass3268]

PPP isn't reliable at all. You probably can put PPP & NBC/Marist in the same box IMO.

So butthurt. PPP and Marist are way better than Gravis, SurveyMonkey, Zogby, Rasmussen, Emerson, Morning Consult, Trafalgar, etc. Just because they show D-friendly numbers doesn't make them "junk".

Don't forget FAU, St. Pete Polls, and SEA.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Yeah, I totally trust a partisan poll (who has been caught red-handed manipulating their results) taken the day after both primaries and one of the nominees having his words twisted by the media.

Also LOL Nelson.

Well, let's look at this a little further.  Your article says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From PPP's website:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's possible that the article's information is merely outdated (it is, after all, five years old, which is an eternity in political terms) rather than deliberately incorrect in order to mislead, although The New Republic is not exactly an unbiased source.  But it's clear from the above that the article's information is untrustworthy.  If you want to keep making this argument, it would be advisable to find a better reference and not cite that one again.

The constant ragging on PPP from the right is tiresome.  If you guys don't want to believe them, that's your prerogative.  But those of us who try to be objective about data know this: PPP is a good pollster.  They have a long track record of good results (even your dubious article admits they nailed it in 2012).  538's pollster ratings give them a B, with a slight D bias (+0.3) that's on the low side of biases for either party.  This is based on over 400 polls, which is in the top five in terms of volume in 538's database.

Yes, PPP's owner is a liberal.  This doesn't affect their polls.  Fox News is conservative, but their polling is good too.  Professionals don't let their personal feelings influence their work (a concept that eludes many on the right, see e.g. Trump's view of the FBI, but that's another topic). 

Even when polling for advocacy groups, PPP almost always asks the top-line question first, before any others that might push the respondent in a particular direction.  Their results are solid.  Now, it's certainly possible that when they're used for a campaign's internal polls, it's reasonable to adjust the result away from that candidate, for the simple reason that campaigns tend to release only the favorable results they get and bury the unfavorable ones.  This is a reasonable adjustment regardless of who conducted the poll.  But for a PPP poll that does get released by a campaign, you can be confident that those are the honest results that PPP found, not something that was fudged.

Again, if you want to discount PPP polls, that's your prerogative.  Everybody makes their own value judgments on different pollsters; there are certainly some that I consider to be of little or no value (*cough* McLaughlin).  But please stop trying to convince everyone that PPP is a bad or biased pollster, because they're not.

[GeorgiaModerate]

PPP isn't reliable at all. You probably can put PPP & NBC/Marist in the same box IMO.

From those who actually look at data about such things (538):

PPP: B rating with D+0.3 bias based on 411 polls.

Marist: A rating with R+0.5 bias based on 159 polls.

Next.

[2016]

PPP isn't reliable at all. You probably can put PPP & NBC/Marist in the same box IMO.

So butthurt. PPP and Marist are way better than Gravis, SurveyMonkey, Zogby, Rasmussen, Emerson, Morning Consult, Trafalgar, etc. Just because they show D-friendly numbers doesn't make them "junk".

Marist had Evers leading Walker by 13. Nuff said.

[2016]

PPP isn't reliable at all. You probably can put PPP & NBC/Marist in the same box IMO.

From those who actually look at data about such things (538):

PPP: B rating with D+0.3 bias based on 411 polls.

Marist: A rating with R+0.5 bias based on 159 polls.

Next.

Marist was the worst Pollster in the 2014 MidTerms & 2016 Presidential by waaay oversampling Democrats.

[Xing]

B-b-b-but unelectable joker Gillum makes this race Likely R!!!!

/s

Great poll for Gillum, but still a Toss-Up for now.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

B-b-b-but unelectable joker Gillum makes this race Likely R!!!!

/s

Great poll for Gillum, but still a Toss-Up for now.

The voters want change and you got states like FL that supports Gillam and also GA who supports Abrams and MD who hasn't elected a statewide black, like Jealous, supporting Hogan again.

[Roblox]

B-b-b-but unelectable joker Gillum makes this race Likely R!!!!

/s

Great poll for Gillum, but still a Toss-Up for now.

[Politician]

PPP isn't reliable at all. You probably can put PPP & NBC/Marist in the same box IMO.

So butthurt. PPP and Marist are way better than Gravis, SurveyMonkey, Zogby, Rasmussen, Emerson, Morning Consult, Trafalgar, etc. Just because they show D-friendly numbers doesn't make them "junk".

Marist had Evers leading Walker by 13. Nuff said.

"I don't believe it to be possible so it's junk"