NV SEN UNIVISION SEN.CCM +2

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/midterm-elections-nevada-senate-governor-hispanic-voters-univision-poll


SEN CCM 44
LAXALT 42
Undecided 15

LATINOS 60 CCM
27 Laxalt

[Person Man]

https://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/midterm-elections-nevada-senate-governor-hispanic-voters-univision-poll


SEN CCM 44
LAXALT 42


LATINOS 60 CCM
27 Laxalt

14% don’t know or care 2 weeks before polls close.

[MT Treasurer]

Biden favorability among Latinos is +26 (61/35) here. Just saying for the "NV polls always underestimate Democrats" crowd.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Univision is probably better than average for a NV pollster since presumably they would have no problems reaching Latinos and Spanish-speakers, a repeated issue for NV polling in general.

[Unelectable Bystander]

They are saying Laxalt is at 27% with Latinos when Trump won 35%. They are saying Abbott is at 28% with Latinos when Trump won 41%. This is either meaningless, or possibly an awful poll for CCM.

[kwabbit]

Univision is probably better than average for a NV pollster since presumably they would have no problems reaching Latinos and Spanish-speakers, a repeated issue for NV polling in general.

Hispanic specialty pollsters have often been worse than typical pollsters. IIRC there were Hispanic specialty polls having Clinton winning Hispanics 75-15, Biden 75-20. While conducting interviews in Spanish is intelligent, these pollsters will often neglect getting a representative sample in other aspects.

Conducting in English might yield a slightly pro Republican sample because English speaking Hispanics are more Republican. However, when you conduct interviews in Spanish and weight on it, then you resolve that issue but cause another one in the process. Then you have Democratic overestimates like you do with non-College Whites because of issues with ‘social trust’.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Univision is probably better than average for a NV pollster since presumably they would have no problems reaching Latinos and Spanish-speakers, a repeated issue for NV polling in general.

Hispanic specialty pollsters have often been worse than typical pollsters. IIRC there were Hispanic specialty polls having Clinton winning Hispanics 75-15, Biden 75-20. While conducting interviews in Spanish is intelligent, these pollsters will often neglect getting a representative sample in other aspects.

Conducting in English might yield a slightly pro Republican sample because English speaking Hispanics are more Republican. However, when you conduct interviews in Spanish and weight on it, then you resolve that issue but cause another one in the process. Then you have Democratic overestimates like you do with non-College Whites because of issues with ‘social trust’.

I wonder if there's any pollsters who have a history of balancing English and Spanish Latinos and also trying to get more representative samples more broadly.
Might that be too much work?

[Lief 🗽]

Looking closer and closer to Lean D here.

[wbrocks67]

They are saying Laxalt is at 27% with Latinos when Trump won 35%. They are saying Abbott is at 28% with Latinos when Trump won 41%. This is either meaningless, or possibly an awful poll for CCM.

LOL, because there's no way it could be "good" for Masto, right? Come on now.

[Unelectable Bystander]

They are saying Laxalt is at 27% with Latinos when Trump won 35%. They are saying Abbott is at 28% with Latinos when Trump won 41%. This is either meaningless, or possibly an awful poll for CCM.

LOL, because there's no way it could be "good" for Masto, right? Come on now.

First of all, pot meet kettle. Second of all, yes there are several red flags here for her if you want to take the poll seriously: 44% as an incumbent, not winning by more than Biden despite supposedly cleaning up with Hispanics (possibly implying low Clark turnout), and being 6 points to the left of Texas to name a few. I’m not going to read too far into a bad poll though. I think it’s more likely that it tells us nothing.

[Figueira]

They are saying Laxalt is at 27% with Latinos when Trump won 35%. They are saying Abbott is at 28% with Latinos when Trump won 41%. This is either meaningless, or possibly an awful poll for CCM.

LOL, because there's no way it could be "good" for Masto, right? Come on now.

First of all, pot meet kettle. Second of all, yes there are several red flags here for her if you want to take the poll seriously: 44% as an incumbent, not winning by more than Biden despite supposedly cleaning up with Hispanics (possibly implying low Clark turnout), and being 6 points to the left of Texas to name a few. I’m not going to read too far into a bad poll though. I think it’s more likely that it tells us nothing.

You can't just believe one crosstab and not another.