Reuters/Ipsos: (Most) States

[afleitch]

There is an issue with turnout filters clearly. Bring everything up to 100% (i.e not making assumptions and just using the data you have), the map is a little better.

[afleitch]

Update:

Maine: Trump 42%, Clinton 42%
New Hampshire: Clinton 44%, Trump 45%
Pennsylvania: Clinton 48%, Trump 42%
Ohio: Clinton 43%, Trump 46%
Michigan: Clinton 41%, Trump 42%
Wisconsin: Clinton 38%,  Trump 38%
Virginia: Clinton 50%, Trump 37%
Florida: Clinton 48, Trump 45%
Iowa: Clinton 41%, Trump 44%
North Carolina: Clinton 49%, Trump 44%
Colorado: Clinton 45%, Trump 39%

Clinton: 273 EV
Trump: 182 EV

Adjust those numbers for 60% white male non-college turnout instead of the unrealistic 70% that Reuters is using and those numbers fall right in line with expectations. I'll demonstrate in another post

I don't understand why the model has Hispanic turnout at just 32% when it was 48% last time. Black turnout is down from 66% to 41% etc.

[afleitch]

The turnout model  (Hispanics at 30%) crazify some of these state results.

[afleitch]

On FiveThirtyEight, an Ipsos poll has Trump leading here. Is this legit or no?

Answer in bold.

[afleitch]

Go to the turnout model and reduce everyone to 0 but Hispanics to 100. I can't do that right now but last time ir showed that there was not enough in the sample to measure for states like NM

[afleitch]

For the record, this is their turnout projection....



So yeah. If we adjust it to the 2000-2012 average, then it's 2012 less Vermont (ugh), Iowa, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.

In the PV it's 46-40 to Clinton.

If you reduce turnout to 0 for everyone and up to 100% for Hispanics, then Reuters have insufficient data for all states bar California, Texas, Colorado, Mississippi, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

[afleitch]

Go to the turnout model and reduce everyone to 0 but Hispanics to 100. I can't do that right now but last time ir showed that there was not enough in the sample to measure for states like NM

Yes, and your point is?

The point is child, that in the past two weeks out of 4,899 respondents, only 162 respondents are Hispanic. That's 3%. That sample isn't accurate enough to give you an accurate national poll, never mind states ones.

[afleitch]

How is pointing out that a sample size is too low 'unskewing'? i said nothing about what the sample says, what the results are, just simply that is too low. Would I be 'unskewing' a poll if 25% of the respondents were women and i thought it should be closer to 50%

[afleitch]

How is pointing out that a sample size is too low 'unskewing'? i said nothing about what the sample says, what the results are, just simply that is too low. Would I be 'unskewing' a poll if 25% of the respondents were women and i thought it should be closer to 50%

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not unskewing the sample. Again, I have no issue with the numbers they are getting. It's instead looking at how they are applying a LV model.

[afleitch]

Right,

We have White turnout at 68%, Black turnout at 52%, Asian and other turnout at 40% and Hispanic turnout at 36%. So again historic highs for white voters and historic lows, bordering on mid term lows for everyone else...

[afleitch]

Adjust racial turnouts to 2012 levels, then it's 2012 with Clinton picking up NC, SC (SC which we can perhaps ignore) but losing Iowa and with Colorado being a tie.