Talk Elections

NH:

RV:

Clinton 37%
Trump 36%
Johnson 17%
Stein 3%

LV:

Clinton 39%
Trump 37%
Johnson 15%
Stein 3%


AZ:

RV:

Clinton 37%
Trump 37%
Johnson 13%
Stein 4%

LV:

Trump 40%
Clinton 38%
Johnson 12%
Stein 3%

GA:

RV:

Clinton 41%
Trump 40%
Johnson 11%

LV:

Trump 44%
Clinton 42%
Johnson 10%

NV:

RV:

Clinton 41%
Trump 39%
Johnson 9%
Stein 3%

LV:

Trump 42%
Clinton 41%
Johnson 8%
Stein 3%

Senate:


NH:

RV:

Ayotte 51
Hassan 44

LV:

Ayotte 52
Hassan 44

AZ:

RV:

McCain 57%
Kirkpatrick 38%

LV:

McCain 57%
Kirkpatrick 38%

NV:

RV:

Masto 46%
Heck 45%

LV:

Heck 47%
Masto 45%


GA:

RV:

Isakson 50%
Barksdale 38%

LV:

Isakson 53%
Barksdale 38


All polls were done September 6-8.

They clearly forgot to poll angry women.

That NH number is terrible for Hillary, but those GA and AZ numbers are Terrible for Trump.

Edit: You dont feel like posting the LV numbers? Why post anything then?

I don't see these numbers. Where are you getting them from?

amdcpus must be some insider because I'm not seeing these polls anywhere on Twitter yet. I'm sure we'll see links in like 10 minutes or so though.

Fine, wait a minute, I'll post them.

I dont see a link, but I trust amdcpus's thread with no link more than your insight into angry New Hampshire women.

Posted

Source?

Thanks for posting the LV numbers. If true, not great for either candidate.

Thanks for posting this. It gives me hope lol.

No way are NV/NH and AZ/GA that close to each other.

Mark Murray hasnt said anything about a poll, and hes usually my go to guy for NBC polls. But maybe they got leaked?

Johnson at 10+. Useless polls.

NBC polls are almost always tweeted from his account, usually with prior warning. Nothing so far on these.

There is no way Georgia, NH, NV are all within 1-2% of each other. None. Poster might be a troll

Possibly, but then why does only OP have the numbers? I don't see anything about any Marist polls anywhere. I'm inclined to believe them though, because he found the ABC/WaPo poll early.

The OP is down with Wikileaks? :)

Very laughable Nevada numbers.  Is Marist one of those racist pollsters that doesn't poll in Spanish?

Yeah, that makes zero sense. For reference, in the previous two elections, the margin for each state compared to the national margin for the respective election have been....
AZ: R+15.7, R+12.9
GA: R+12.5, R+11.7
...
NH: D+2.4, D+1.7
NV: D+5.2, D+2.8

For Trump to be +2 in AZ and +1 in NV, those two states would have to swing more than 14 points with respect to each other in one cycle, which has happened once since 1940 (1976 -> 1980). The second largest swing was about 13 points with respect to each other between 2004 and 2008. Most swings have been significantly smaller--since 1940, not including the 13 and 15 point swings previously mentioned, the average swing has been 4.9 points from one election to the next.

Likewise, GA and NH would have to swing more than 9 points with respect to each other, which hasn't happened since the 1992 -> 1996 elections. They've actually been remarkably steady with respect to each other since 1996 (varying between a 10 and 18 point margin separation)

None of this would surprise me except NH, looking at LV... it would mean we were back to Clinton+6 or so, with an expanded education gap. But I'm not sure I trust these numbers with no source...

Yea one sec

AZ and NV are neighbors too, they shouldn't have wild counter swings.

Trump up 1 in Nevada, up 2 in Georgia & Arizona, and down 2 in NH...

()

NH:

RV:

Ayotte 51
Hassan 44

LV:

Ayotte 52
Hassan 44

wtf

Switched, I posted it incorrectly at first. Ayotte is leading.

Uh... link?

That was in response to these polls in general, but thanks.

AZ:

RV:

McCain 57%
Kirkpatrick 38%

LV:

McCain 57%
Kirkpatrick 38%

So McCain is outperforming Trump by 17 points... yeah, I need a link for this ASAP.

Climbin' Ayotte!

Wasnt Marist just going into the field this weekend? I think it'd be to soon for any numbers.

NV:

RV:

Masto 46%
Heck 45%

LV:

Heck 47%
Masto 45%

If Ayotte is up 7 there but down in every other poll you know its an outlier. I think this poster is making stuff up

McCain for whatever his shortcomings are is the incumbent. I don't doubt these numbers if he got ABC News right first.

These polls do sound off but I love the rush of Hillary supporters trying to unskew any poll that shows a negative result for her

GA:

RV:

Isakson 50%
Barksdale 38%

LV:

Isakson 53%
Barksdale 38%

OP is probably making sh*t up

I dont think this is legit, arent they just going into the field now?

All were done September 6-8.

You'd think NBC would want something for Meet the Depressed in the morning. OP did nail the WaPo numbers.

That's my thinking. Do we have a link for these?

What on Earth are you talking about? Most in this thread said exactly what you said (that the polls "sound off"), or expressed no opinion on the poll's merits one way or the other. Where's this supposed "rush of Hillary supporters trying to unskew" the polls, exactly? In fact, I don't think there's a single post in here (amongst either Clinton or Trump supporters) that tries to adjust the polling numbers based on demographics, or anything else.

Not believing this until I get a link.

Senate:


NH:

RV:

Ayotte 51
Hassan 44

LV:

Ayotte 52
Hassan 44

AZ:

RV:

McCain 57%
Kirkpatrick 38%

LV:

McCain 57%
Kirkpatrick 38%

NV:

RV:

Masto 46%
Heck 45%

LV:

Heck 47%
Masto 45%


GA:

RV:

Isakson 50%
Barksdale 38%

LV:

Isakson 53%
Barksdale 38


All polls were done September 6-8.

http://m.imgur.com/mMfRFIz

That's not a link...

Sorry, but that's the most I'll show you. You can verify for yourself when they release.

not sure being in the margin of error in two states Romney won by nearly 10 points could possibly be considered "a negative result".

You honestly could have copy-pasted a poll from earlier into a text editor and changed the indicated date before uploading. I'll need to see something with a bit more reliability.

No.  The Cook PVI (http://cookpolitical.com/file/filename.pdf) for Arizona is R+7 and Georgia is R+6.  New Hampshire is D+1 and Nevada is D+2.  You are talking about the margin, not the PVI, which is usually about double the PVI.

I see.

I guess we'll see tomorrow.

Probably an embargoed copy.

Mirrors the sample shown here for the RV polls on 8/15 to some extent, but that poll was LV: http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/FLpolls/FL160803/NBC%20News_WSJ_Marist%20Poll_Florida%20Nature%20of%20the%20Sample%20and%20Tables_August%202016.pdf#page=2

It would take a lot of work to cut and paste things and additional LV language to just show that page for Georgia.

http://m.imgur.com/rsGEIRd,NmTzMej

^ Okay. That being said someone needs to hyper-analyze the crosstabs for NH and AZ when they are released.

RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight doesn't seem to have the polls yet. I think we all know where this is going...

I'd tend to agree, but the OP did have the WaPo numbers before they were released as well. The WaPo jumped the gun on the embargo, but he had the numbers before that story was posted.

RCP is notoriously erratic when it comes to posting polls. People more conspiratorially-minded than I might point out that they're often posted when someone with insider knowledge could make the most money on Predictit, but I digress.

These polls make zero sense.  All of these within 2 to 3 points of each other.  Yeah that don't sound right.

OP is having an affair with Frank Underwood.

I'm talking about the margin less the national margin, not the margin alone. The former is closely related to the PVI--as you say, it's about double the PVI. I'll modify my original post to clarify that.

My calculations are all based on the margin minus the national margin, so my conclusions are unchanged by the wording changes.

Yes, your conclusions are unchanged - unless you think the electorate is going to change in a manner that makes past PVI/net margin calculations meaningless.  That is more possible this cycle than in the past.

If you want me to say it's not impossible... well, it's not impossible. There are examples of such swings in the past. But given a) the rarity with which it happens, b) the relative steadiness of two of the states' PVIs (GA and NH) in the past several elections, c) other polling which disagrees, and d) demographic arguments, it seems highly improbable.

If Georgia or Arizona is close, then New Hampshire is a D blowout. 

If Nevada or New Hampshire is close, Georgia and Arizona is an R blowout

If all 4 are close, Ohio implodes.

Of course they are. Georgia and Arizona were never truly competitive.

Would you please be so kind and post a link for these results ?

Thx.

He's not able or willing to do so.

I found these on Scribd.com:
https://www.scribd.com/document/323578461/NBC-News-WSJ-Marist-Poll-Arizona-Annotated-Questionnaire-September-2016
https://www.scribd.com/document/323578643/NBC-News-WSJ-Marist-Poll-Georgia-Annotated-Questionnaire-September-2016
https://www.scribd.com/document/323578717/NBC-News-WSJ-Marist-Poll-Nevada-Annotated-Questionnaire-September-2016
https://www.scribd.com/document/323578761/NBC-News-WSJ-Marist-Poll-New-Hampshire-Annotated-Questionnaire-September-2016

All were posted by a Vaughn Ververs.  Somebody by that name works at NBC as a political editor., according to LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/vaughn-ververs-4b31939).  So this probably checks out.

Then it's probably right.

But bad for this political editor to post the results before his company even released them.

You just said what I thought. Didn't want to out the guy. I thank him for the gift though.

If these are added to the database, Hillary will fall below 270 EV again for the first time in a few months ... (because NV goes from Clinton to tossup).

I'd wait for the official releases, even if this seems credible.

NV should roughly be in the tossup range right now looking at the state of recent data. There are two datapoints (both small internet polls, one Ipsos, one Google, one pro-Trump, one-pro Clinton) that shows a lead outside of 5% on either side with 538 total. Not sure what our definition is here, but for me it's +5 to get it out of tossup, with a tossup/slight lean designation at about +2/3.

Alright, these polls are real, but still incredibly sketchy. Yes, they're data points and should be added, but I'll be stunned if these four states are anywhere near each other. NV/NH should be substantially more Democratic than AZ/GA.

2016 has been a very...abnormal? year

Does Marist usually publish a poll on Saturday night?

Remember when everyone was preparing for a Bush vs. Clinton snoozefest?

No, but I guess they do on Sunday.

Also notice that the guy from MSNBC (if this account is real) posted it yesterday, because he probably thought that nobody would find it anyway ...

If true, TN volunteer, delete your account immediately! :D

Don't forget, that Marist also had D+2 house effect.

I guess these are the head to heads.
Among registered voters:
AZ: HRC 41, Trump 40
GA: Trump 44, HRC 44
NV: HRC 46, Trump 41
NH: HRC 40, Trump 40
Among Likely Voters:
AZ: Trump 42, HRC 41
GA: Trump 46, HRC 43
NV: HRC 45, Trump 44
NH: HRC 42, Trump 41

https://mobile.twitter.com/mmurraypolitics?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Edit: Oh, these might just be head to heads.

Good news are the presidential numbers but I highly doubt the Senate numbers.

We're a week past Labor Day and Johnson is still in the 8-17% range in all of these states. Just saying.

So it is true :o
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-trump-deadlocked-battleground-states-polls-n646216 (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-trump-deadlocked-battleground-states-polls-n646216)

2-way:




4-way, LV:
Arizona                T+2
Georgia               T+2
Nevada                T+1
New Hampshire    C+2

Pretty good numbers for Trump, if you take Marist D +2.0 house effect (according to 538) into account :D

According to 538 before Marist polls, Polling average/Adjusted polling average:
AR: T+1.5/T+2.8
GA: T+2.6/T+3.6
NE: C+1.5/C+0.9
NH: C+6.3/T+5.7

LOL. First you use the poll to make that argument, then you ignore the poll. Good job

Thx for adding them, but I don't agree with your reasoning.

You are now ignoring 2 candidates, not just 1. Johnson is getting double-digits in NV, so this poll should have been added. Just leave away the Stein percentage.

PS: I find it funny that pollsters have no clue which candidates are on the ballot in some states ... :P

Nope, just leave her out.

Add Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Undecided.

Doesn't matter if it's not adding up to 100%.

Yep, NV is still close.

News at 11.

Let's just assume that you are right here - Why would you post this? What purpose does it serve to out him? What if he gets in trouble? What purpose did it serve to put him through that trouble? You don't need to post links or names to verify it.

You & users quoting you should delete your posts on this.

NBC http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-regrets-calling-half-trump-supporters-basket-deplorables-n646126 (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-regrets-calling-half-trump-supporters-basket-deplorables-n646126) has those links as well...

It's not necessarily about those links but the person's name and association to this stuff+forum. I thought I was pretty clear on that?

The source link was already out on other websites, including RRHelections, before I posted it. 

Scribd is a public website.  It's newsworthy if someone with connections to a pollster or news organization publicly posts polls there.  And people were looking for a source for these polls.

As I stated before, it's not really about the scibd links so much as the guy's name. If you think that guy = amdcpus (??), why would you post it telling everyone? Why not respect the guy's privacy? Unless he publicly states/allows it, it's no one's business to go posting user's names here.

I don't think the guy is amdcpus.  amdcpus had the ABC News poll early, too, because of a Washington Post screw-up.

The guy's name is relevant because anyone can post to scribd.  All scribd posts are associated with an account.  If it is some pollster or media member's account, it is more likely that the poll isn't made up.  Thus, it is relevant information - and nothing that someone who didn't click on the scribd link couldn't find out.

fair enough

As for the polls, NH is an outlier.

The other three are interesting though, and we keep on seeing this very narrow Clinton lead bordering on a tie in NV coupled with a very narrow Trump lead bordering on a tie in AZ. Nevada was 15 points to the left of Arizona in 2012, so what gives here?

First Marist poll of these states so we can't really compare their polling history in any of these states.

However, results look consistent with a Trump +3-4 lead in Arizona looking at other recent pollsters and national numbers. Georgia, Trump +4-5 in Georgia with consolidation of the Republican base and relatively low levels of 3rd party support.

Nevada seems consistent with other pollsters, however as we have discussed elsewhere there are likely issues surveying Spanish language Latino voters, so inherent Republican skew.

New Hampshire looks a bit off... it does make intuitive sense that the race has tightened there, mainly because of a dropoff of Clinton supporters to 3rd party candidates, but not buying it being this close.

NH seems too generous to Trump, AZ and GA seem way to generous to Clinton.

Marist uses live interviewers and interviews in Spanish.  So there should be no issue surveying Spanish language Latino voters.

Thanks for the correction!

So--- is Nevada basically a toss-up or just that undecideds  tend to break Democrat?

This is basically the best polling firm to survey Nevada in some time, and I'm completely buying the "non-college white voter theory" for this state in particular yet, so curious what explanations there would be for this result.

Nevada is a toss-up. We've known that for a while now.

Education gap, plus abysmal Hispani turnout in AZ.

538 added +2 towards Trump.

The RV numbers for reference

Arizona

Clinton 41, Trump 40 (2-way)
Clinton 37, Trump 37, Johnson 13, Stein 4 (4-way)

Georgia

Clinton 44, Trump 44 (2-way)
Clinton 42, Trump 41, Johnson 11 (4-way)

Nevada

Clinton 46, Trump 41 (2-way)
Clinton 41, Trump 39, Johnson 9, Stein 3 (4-way)*

New Hampshire

Clinton 40, Trump 40 (2-way)
Clinton 37, Trump 36, Johnson 17, Stein 3 (4-way)

*Stein is not on the ballot in NV

Hmmm....

So now we're back to more of a "traditional" scenario where Dems do better with RVs than LVs, so pollster LV modeling starts to move front and center.

Additionally, it looks like turnout and GOTV could actually make GA and AZ competitive, despite Trump's recent consolidation of Republican support in many states.

We are going to get at least one state where the polls are off by 7% on election night

Nevada usually breaks D late. Harry Reid has won some elections that the experts expected him to lose due to slight leads for opponents. 

Any crosstabs?

Stein shouldn't have been included in the NV poll, as she is not on the ballot. NOTA however should have.

I don't trust the Nv results. Clinton is very likely ahead 3-4 points.

Why because you don't like the results?

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/911-trump-and-clinton-in-close-contests-in-arizona-georgia-nevada-and-new-hampshire/

Marist has them. Interesting look at Georgia. Sadly surprised how much white college grads are sticking with Trump. I called out some numbers.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/GAPolls/GA160906/NBC%20News_WSJ_Marist%20Poll_Georgia_Nature%20of%20the%20Sample%20and%20Tables%20of%20Adults%20and%20Registered%20Voters_September%202016.pdf

Whites
Clinton 24
Trump 64

Whites college graduates
Clinton 31
Trump 56

Whites non college graduate
Clinton 19
Trump 70

Conservative
Clinton 22
Trump 70

I know you shouldn't get too bogged down by crosstabs, but Clinton is doing better among Likely Voters in Washoe County, NV than Clark County, NV. lol

Gass is again on the mark.... unique to NV but still gets anywhere from 1-4% on any given Presidential GE.

That means 25% of whites for Clinton (20% in 2012; 23% in 2004/2008), with enough left to potentially get her to 27%. Twenty-seven is the magic number in Georgia this year...arguably even less if anywhere near 10% of voters actually go for Johnson.

Not sure if it makes a difference, but I realized I was using the registered voter pdf. This is likely voter.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/GAPolls/GA160906/NBC%20News_WSJ_Marist%20Poll_Georgia_Nature%20of%20the%20Sample%20and%20Tables%20of%20Likely%20Voters_September%202016.pdf

Whites
Clinton 24
Trump 65

Whites college graduates
Clinton 32
Trump 57

Whites non college graduate
Clinton 18
Trump 72

Conservative
Clinton 18
Trump 75

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/09/11/donald-trump-opens-campaign-headquarters-in-sandy-springs/
Trump is also opening a Sandy Springs office to shore up his weak support among the educated in North Fulton.

Some context to this poll and the other Georgia polls...

Trump is opening a campaign office in Sandy Springs (just north of ATL) so the smoke about Georgia being a battleground is now fire because he is more reluctant to open campaign offices

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/09/11/donald-trump-opens-campaign-headquarters-in-sandy-springs/

We just opened an office in Hudson, MA so does that mean that it's Battleground MA

You're just wasting money

Hillary has an office in Boston, does that mean that she is wasting money?

Yes, Massachusetts is noncompetitive, unlike Georgia

Nothing is wrong with opening offices in "safe states" assuming that those resources are primarily aimed at phone banking for actual swing states, and plus some resources going into supporting competitive Senate/House and state elections.