GriffGraph: June Presidential Election Polling History & PP

[Adam Griffin]

The Graph:

A total of eight polls conducted from April 22 - June 6 were used for the following graph. All these polls were deemed to have similar or identical questions (i.e.: "Who will you vote for?") and with the exception of Oakvale and the first poll, all four listed individuals appeared in all polls.

7-Poll Average:

Napoleon - 29.0%
Clarence - 26.9%
Oakvale - 16.4%
Tweed - 15.1%

GriffGraph Possibility Points™:

Napoleon - 203
Clarence - 188
Oakvale - 115
Tweed - 106

...

Napoleon - 203
Clarence - 188
Oakvale - 115
Tweed - 106

GriffIntrade Rankings:

Napoleon - 51.9%
Clarence - 48.1%

[Donerail]

This is actually a really neat graph. Thanks for pulling this together!

[Oakvale]

That's actually really interesting, Adam. Kudos!

[Adam Griffin]

Yeah, I really wanted to be able to see the flow of things. Much harder to do without a visual aid!

[Oakvale]

Will this be like the RealClearPolitics of Atlasia? Presumably without the right-wing slant.

[Adam Griffin]

Will this be like the RealClearPolitics of Atlasia? Presumably without the right-wing slant.

No slants here, just numbers! RCP would be a good model to imitate, with just a dash of GriffIntrade.

[Adam Griffin]

Added a second graph above with smoother trend lines.

[Donerail]

What are you doing with the votes for other candidates (20RP12, Ben, Snowstalker)?

[Napoleon]

How did you come up with the rankings?

[Adam Griffin]

What are you doing with the votes for other candidates (20RP12, Ben, Snowstalker)?

Are any of them still in the race? I hope I haven't missed anyone. I picked Clarence, Napoleon, Oakvale and Tweed due to them still being in the race and being in virtually all general preference polls.

Since we're only showing support as a %, I didn't include any scenarios involving "Other/NOTA". The number of individuals in each of the eight polls do fluctuate but in terms of actual support for an individual candidate, I feel it's a decent average measurement. Also, because I can't really quantify with accuracy how others' votes for different candidates will translate (if they in fact get behind another candidate later on), I thought it to be unnecessary.

If the "Other/NOTA" were proportionally allocated based on the polling average between the four main contenders, we would see a result like this:

Napoleon: 33.17%
Clarence: 30.72%
Oakvale: 18.79%
Tweed: 17.32%

How did you come up with the rankings?

A simple projection off of a two-man scenario using the Possibility Points™, which of course are a proprietary secret.

[Adam Griffin]

I would also like to reiterate that in the spirit of fairness and consistency, the first poll taken with Napoleon, Clarence and Tweed in it does not factor into the Possibility Points, GriffIntrade Rankings or polling averages mentioned above. Due to Oakvale not being in the first poll (he hadn't announced at the time), the data is not included in the final averages and calculations. It is, however, included in the graphs for your aesthetic pleasure.

[Donerail]

What are you doing with the votes for other candidates (20RP12, Ben, Snowstalker)?

Are any of them still in the race? I hope I haven't missed anyone. I picked Clarence, Napoleon, Oakvale and Tweed due to them still being in the race and being in virtually all general preference polls.

Since we're only showing support as a %, I didn't include any scenarios involving "Other/NOTA". The number of individuals in each of the eight polls do fluctuate but in terms of actual support for an individual candidate, I feel it's a decent average measurement. Also, because I can't really quantify with accuracy how others' votes for different candidates will translate (if they in fact get behind another candidate later on), I thought it to be unnecessary.

If the "Other/NOTA" were proportionally allocated based on the polling average between the four main contenders, we would see a result like this:

Napoleon: 33.17%
Clarence: 30.72%
Oakvale: 18.79%
Tweed: 17.32%

No, they're not in the race anymore, but they used to be contenders and were (probably) included in the polling. I know we did a poll suggesting that around 35% of the 20RP12 support would go to Oakvale, 29% to Clarence, and about 18% each to Napoleon and Tweed, but we didn't do that for Snowstalker/Ben supporters.

[Napoleon]

That poll had more voters than 20RP12 had in any poll.

[Donerail]

That poll had more voters than 20RP12 had in any poll.

It did; I would assume the proportions would apply the same, however.

[Napoleon]

That poll had more voters than 20RP12 had in any poll.

It did; I would assume the proportions would apply the same, however.

Im not sure why you would.

[Donerail]

That poll had more voters than 20RP12 had in any poll.

It did; I would assume the proportions would apply the same, however.

Im not sure why you would.

Do you have any better data?

[Adam Griffin]

That poll had more voters than 20RP12 had in any poll.

It did; I would assume the proportions would apply the same, however.

Im not sure why you would.

Do you have any better data?

I wish we all did. If we had extensive polling history on these things, it'd be easier. The four candidates cumulatively had about 85% (average) prior to the "poll slumber" in May regarding first preference. After that (and after 2012RP dropped out), the final poll taken is showing the four candidates tying up the electorate.

If we go by the poll showing how 2012RP's voters would supposedly split and apply that to the average, we get the following:

Napoleon: 30.89%
Clarence: 30.46%
Oakvale: 20.32%
Tweed: 17.42%

Of course, we're now getting into even deeper regions of Assumption Territory.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

That poll had more voters than 20RP12 had in any poll.

It did; I would assume the proportions would apply the same, however.

Im not sure why you would.

Do you have any better data?

I wish we all did. If we had extensive polling history on these things, it'd be easier. The four candidates cumulatively had about 85% (average) prior to the "poll slumber" in May regarding first preference. After that (and after 2012RP dropped out), the final poll taken is showing the four candidates tying up the electorate.

If we go by the poll showing how 2012RP's voters would supposedly split and apply that to the average, we get the following:

Napoleon: 30.89%
Clarence: 30.46%
Oakvale: 20.32%
Tweed: 17.42%

Of course, we're now getting into even deeper regions of Assumption Territory.

That poll is junk, unfortunately.

[Donerail]

That poll had more voters than 20RP12 had in any poll.

It did; I would assume the proportions would apply the same, however.

Im not sure why you would.

Do you have any better data?

I wish we all did. If we had extensive polling history on these things, it'd be easier. The four candidates cumulatively had about 85% (average) prior to the "poll slumber" in May regarding first preference. After that (and after 2012RP dropped out), the final poll taken is showing the four candidates tying up the electorate.

If we go by the poll showing how 2012RP's voters would supposedly split and apply that to the average, we get the following:

Napoleon: 30.89%
Clarence: 30.46%
Oakvale: 20.32%
Tweed: 17.42%

Of course, we're now getting into even deeper regions of Assumption Territory.

Okay, in the last poll before 20RP12 dropped out, he had 4 voters (him, his running mate, Mechaman, and myself). Add 2 to Oakvale and 1 to Tweed (since 20RP12 will not be voting with us)?

[Adam Griffin]

That poll had more voters than 20RP12 had in any poll.

It did; I would assume the proportions would apply the same, however.

Im not sure why you would.

Do you have any better data?

I wish we all did. If we had extensive polling history on these things, it'd be easier. The four candidates cumulatively had about 85% (average) prior to the "poll slumber" in May regarding first preference. After that (and after 2012RP dropped out), the final poll taken is showing the four candidates tying up the electorate.

If we go by the poll showing how 2012RP's voters would supposedly split and apply that to the average, we get the following:

Napoleon: 30.89%
Clarence: 30.46%
Oakvale: 20.32%
Tweed: 17.42%

Of course, we're now getting into even deeper regions of Assumption Territory.

That poll is junk, unfortunately.

Aren't they all? I was suspicious of it the second I saw the number of voters (17) in it.

[Adam Griffin]

Okay, in the last poll before 20RP12 dropped out, he had 4 voters (him, his running mate, Mechaman, and myself). Add 2 to Oakvale and 1 to Tweed (since 20RP12 will not be voting with us)?

I can't really do that. Since the polls used to measure the averages have a wide range of voters in each one (and were done based on % of vote received in each poll and not # of votes in each poll), it would be futile to attempt to add a nominal amount of votes to any candidate.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

To be fair... almost all Atlasian polls are junk...

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

To be fair... almost all Atlasian polls are junk...

Yeah.  I do them mostly for fun, now.