Reuters/Ipsos: (Most) States

[Mallow]

"Only NM,"

-looks at WI and CO-

lol

Yep, NM, WI, CO, and to a lesser degree, VA, all look way off. But in a poll this big, you're bound to get some oddities.

[Mallow]

New numbers:

Pennsylvania: 46% Clinton, 44% Trump
Ohio: 47% Clinton, 44% Trump
Florida: 50% Trump, 46% Clinton
Colorado: 43% Trump, 40% Clinton
New Mexico: 43% Trump, 40% Clinton
Nevada: 41% Trump, 38% Clinton
Michigan: 44% Trump, 44% Clinton
Wisconsin: 43% Clinton, 40% Trump
Maine: 41% Clinton, 40% Trump
North Carolina: 46% Clinton, 44% Trump
Iowa: 49% Trump, 41% Clinton

Apparently, Trump is leading in Vermont. lol

Trump: 243 EV
Clinton: 242 EV

Did they not poll Latinos?

This is pretty much exactly what I thought as well. It seems like these polls are actually very consistent, if you HEAVILY undersample the Latino vote. That would account for NM (the most Hispanic state) being where it is, as well as NV, CO, and even FL.

[Mallow]

It's not polls which are showing lower turnout, it is Ipsos's weighting scheme.

Explain

Pollsters re-weight their poll results to match a pre-determined demographic breakdown, which varies from pollster to pollster based on their own assumptions of the race. If they didn't, the raw numbers would be all over the place, since the sample size isn't large enough to capture the proper demographic proportions. This is not the same thing as the "registered" versus "likely" voter issue--that's based on the questions you were discussing earlier, but not the demographic breakdown.

"Unskewing," at least as it pertains to the action often derided here and in political polling circles in general, usually involves saying you don't believe a poll because they didn't sample enough Latinos, or blacks, or something along those lines. That is not the same as what's being done here, which is arguing that the poll's demographic weighting seems unreasonable.

[Mallow]

Pollsters re-weight their poll results to match a pre-determined demographic breakdown, which varies from pollster to pollster based on their own assumptions of the race. If they didn't, the raw numbers would be all over the place, since the sample size isn't large enough to capture the proper demographic proportions. This is not the same thing as the "registered" versus "likely" voter issue--that's based on the questions you were discussing earlier, but not the demographic breakdown.

"Unskewing," at least as it pertains to the action often derided here and in political polling circles in general, usually involves saying you don't believe a poll because they didn't sample enough Latinos, or blacks, or something along those lines. That is not the same as what's being done here, which is arguing that the poll's demographic weighting seems unreasonable.

Lol, what? 99% of pollsters re-weight RV demographic to match RV Census Bureau statistic. Own assumption LMAO

#uneducatedUnskewersHillary2016

I'm talking about the pollsters' demographic turnout breakdown. That being said, I am not sure where I remember reading about that (FiveThirtyEight?), and it's very possible I'm remembering wrong. Memory is a fickle thing. If that's the case, disregard my previous message.

That being said, your attitude is out of line (if I'm wrong, a simple correction would have sufficed). Have a nice election season.