Monmouth-AZ Biden+4

[Horus]

Not a great poll for Biden, but maybe we were getting spoiled.

[VAR]

I still don't understand how somehow both high and low likely turnout help Trump rather than Biden? We saw in 2018 that higher than normal turnout helped Dems...

No, we didn't see that.

It's always difficult to say whether high turnout helped one party or the other. What is true that in almost all Monmouth polls in 2018 we saw that the higher turnout model gave Democrats better margins.

That being said I feel that these kind of likely voter models are the main reason that Democrats usually outperform in states that have many Hispanics like NV, AZ, CA or TX

AZ polls were spot on in 2018 and underestimated Trump in 2016.

RCP average

I thought we agreed as a community that RCP averages aren’t reliable. You should look at the 538 average. See my post

Going by the 538 average,

Sinema +1.8 in 2018 (result: Sinema +2.4)
Trump +2.3 in 2016 (result: Trump +3.5)

[GeorgiaModerate]

420 registered/likely voters

The poll includes a question about marijuana legalization.  Somebody at Monmouth has a sense of humor...

[xavier110]

People are crazy if they think Biden is going to win by any more than 3-4 points here. All the Dems that recently won statewide were basically capped at 49-50%, and Biden (and Kelly) will be little different.

All that matters is Maricopa though. AZ could be a lean D state, but it may be decided by a smaller margin than other, more 'tossup' states, just because the fix is in with Maricopa.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Not a great poll for Biden, but maybe we were getting spoiled.

Yes we are. McSally led in rcp, this state overpolls the gop.

[ultraviolet]

Trump fav: 40/51 (-11, was 41/50)
Biden fav: 42/47 (-5, was 36/38)
McSally fav: 40/42 (-2, was 35/39)
Kelly fav: 48/29 (+19, 41/17)
Sinema fav: 38/21 (+17)
Ducey fav: 33/46 (-13)

Maricopa: Biden 50-41
Nonwhites: Biden 67-28

Sample: I 39, R 35, D 25 | 70 white, 30 nonwhite | 65 no degree, 35 4-year degree

Jesus Christ, those Kelly and Sinema favorables.  BEAST

Sinema is like the perfect senator for Arizona, in my outsider opinion. If she doesn’t become pres/VP, I could see her becoming the Dem senate leader, although she may be a bit too conservative for that.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Trump fav: 40/51 (-11, was 41/50)
Biden fav: 42/47 (-5, was 36/38)
McSally fav: 40/42 (-2, was 35/39)
Kelly fav: 48/29 (+19, 41/17)
Sinema fav: 38/21 (+17)
Ducey fav: 33/46 (-13)

Maricopa: Biden 50-41
Nonwhites: Biden 67-28

Sample: I 39, R 35, D 25 | 70 white, 30 nonwhite | 65 no degree, 35 4-year degree

Jesus Christ, those Kelly and Sinema favorables.  BEAST

Sinema is like the perfect senator for Arizona, in my outsider opinion. If she doesn’t become pres/VP, I could see her becoming the Dem senate leader.

She's too far to the right as a Democrat to become Majority Leader or a POTUS/VP nominee.

[ultraviolet]

Trump fav: 40/51 (-11, was 41/50)
Biden fav: 42/47 (-5, was 36/38)
McSally fav: 40/42 (-2, was 35/39)
Kelly fav: 48/29 (+19, 41/17)
Sinema fav: 38/21 (+17)
Ducey fav: 33/46 (-13)

Maricopa: Biden 50-41
Nonwhites: Biden 67-28

Sample: I 39, R 35, D 25 | 70 white, 30 nonwhite | 65 no degree, 35 4-year degree

Jesus Christ, those Kelly and Sinema favorables.  BEAST

Sinema is like the perfect senator for Arizona, in my outsider opinion. If she doesn’t become pres/VP, I could see her becoming the Dem senate leader.

She's too far to the right as a Democrat to become Majority Leader or a POTUS/VP nominee.

Yeah, I realized that right after I wrote that. But she could move to the left over time, maybe as Arizona does as a whole.

[The Mikado]

Sinema has rising star all over her, and, well, the fact that she's a bisexual atheist ex-lefty activist type can really help her project a culturally left vibe while still having a reassuringly conservative actual record. It's a useful combo. She can credibly say to both sides "Look, I know there are worrisome signs for you, but I'm really one of you."

[xavier110]

Sinema has rising star all over her, and, well, the fact that she's a bisexual atheist ex-lefty activist type can really help her project a culturally left vibe while still having a reassuringly conservative actual record. It's a useful combo. She can credibly say to both sides "Look, I know there are worrisome signs for you, but I'm really one of you."

And you know once AZ veers even more blue that she will re-(Gilli)brand herself.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Yeah, I realized that right after I wrote that. But she could move to the left over time, maybe as Arizona does as a whole.

Sinema has rising star all over her, and, well, the fact that she's a bisexual atheist ex-lefty activist type can really help her project a culturally left vibe while still having a reassuringly conservative actual record. It's a useful combo. She can credibly say to both sides "Look, I know there are worrisome signs for you, but I'm really one of you."

And you know once AZ veers even more blue that she will re-(Gilli)brand herself.

Yeah, she would have to move to the left to be viable.

[ElectionsGuy]

We should really be reporting likely voters at this point. It's really quite questionable that they come out with two likely voter models instead of just settling on one number, but if anything we should just split the difference and assume "normal" turnout. Biden is up 1 point in AZ according to the poll, not 4.

I still don't understand how somehow both high and low likely turnout help Trump rather than Biden? We saw in 2018 that higher than normal turnout helped Dems...

No, we didn't see that.

It's always difficult to say whether high turnout helped one party or the other. What is true that in almost all Monmouth polls in 2018 we saw that the higher turnout model gave Democrats better margins.

That being said I feel that these kind of likely voter models are the main reason that Democrats usually outperform in states that have many Hispanics like NV, AZ, CA or TX

AZ polls were spot on in 2018 and underestimated Trump in 2016.

RCP average

I thought we agreed as a community that RCP averages aren’t reliable. You should look at the 538 average. See my post

Going by the 538 average,

Sinema +1.8 in 2018 (result: Sinema +2.4)
Trump +2.3 in 2016 (result: Trump +3.5)

They want to have it both ways. They want to point to RCP averages to prove polls underestimate Dems in Arizona*, they want to point to 538 as the "real" "reliable" source that regularly is 1-3 points more Dem despite it being less accurate overall in 2016/18.

[wbrocks67]

Not a great poll for Biden, but maybe we were getting spoiled.

When Biden +4 polls in *Arizona* are somehow bad...

[kph14]

We should really be reporting likely voters at this point. It's really quite questionable that they come out with two likely voter models instead of just settling on one number, but if anything we should just split the difference and assume "normal" turnout. Biden is up 1 point in AZ according to the poll, not 4.

I still don't understand how somehow both high and low likely turnout help Trump rather than Biden? We saw in 2018 that higher than normal turnout helped Dems...

No, we didn't see that.

It's always difficult to say whether high turnout helped one party or the other. What is true that in almost all Monmouth polls in 2018 we saw that the higher turnout model gave Democrats better margins.

That being said I feel that these kind of likely voter models are the main reason that Democrats usually outperform in states that have many Hispanics like NV, AZ, CA or TX

AZ polls were spot on in 2018 and underestimated Trump in 2016.

RCP average

I thought we agreed as a community that RCP averages aren’t reliable. You should look at the 538 average. See my post

Going by the 538 average,

Sinema +1.8 in 2018 (result: Sinema +2.4)
Trump +2.3 in 2016 (result: Trump +3.5)

They want to have it both ways. They want to point to RCP averages to prove polls underestimate Dems in Arizona*, they want to point to 538 as the "real" "reliable" source that regularly is 1-3 points more Dem despite it being less accurate overall in 2016/18.

C'mon the difference is rather obvious. 538 corrects polls for House effects and is not just a simple average. When do that you have a more reliable prediction than RCP. That does not change the fact that the polls had to be corrected in the first place.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Not passing 1200 stimulus and wasting time on voting for judges, and McConnell is complaining about Ds CRT packing
 The Rs have packed the Crts since Obama didnt even tr to Recess Appoint Garland

[ElectionsGuy]

We should really be reporting likely voters at this point. It's really quite questionable that they come out with two likely voter models instead of just settling on one number, but if anything we should just split the difference and assume "normal" turnout. Biden is up 1 point in AZ according to the poll, not 4.

I still don't understand how somehow both high and low likely turnout help Trump rather than Biden? We saw in 2018 that higher than normal turnout helped Dems...

No, we didn't see that.

It's always difficult to say whether high turnout helped one party or the other. What is true that in almost all Monmouth polls in 2018 we saw that the higher turnout model gave Democrats better margins.

That being said I feel that these kind of likely voter models are the main reason that Democrats usually outperform in states that have many Hispanics like NV, AZ, CA or TX

AZ polls were spot on in 2018 and underestimated Trump in 2016.

RCP average

I thought we agreed as a community that RCP averages aren’t reliable. You should look at the 538 average. See my post

Going by the 538 average,

Sinema +1.8 in 2018 (result: Sinema +2.4)
Trump +2.3 in 2016 (result: Trump +3.5)

They want to have it both ways. They want to point to RCP averages to prove polls underestimate Dems in Arizona*, they want to point to 538 as the "real" "reliable" source that regularly is 1-3 points more Dem despite it being less accurate overall in 2016/18.

C'mon the difference is rather obvious. 538 corrects polls for House effects and is not just a simple average. When do that you have a more reliable prediction than RCP. That does not change the fact that the polls had to be corrected in the first place.

How do you explain the RCP polling average being more accurate than 538 in... most elections I've then? I've looked at 538's polling averages and their modeled median predictions for states and compared them to RCP's averages in 2016 and 2018. The few times 538 was more on point - Southwestern states that usually overestimate Republicans in polling, and some exceptions elsewhere.

[President Johnson]

It's really telling Trump struggles to lead a poll in this state. Lean Biden.

[pbrower2a]

RV: Biden 48, Trump 44
"High Likely Turnout": Biden 48, Trump 46
"Low Likely Turnout": Biden 47, Trump 47

I still don't understand how somehow both high and low likely turnout help Trump rather than Biden? We saw in 2018 that higher than normal turnout helped Dems...

Basically, Trump cannot get any help from getting out any big drive to get out new voters or those who vote rarely. He needs to find ways in which to discourage voting.

Trump won heavily on fear in 2016; now many more American fear him than the trumped-up fears that Trump exploited in 2016. Fear is like fire; one must use it carefully to be sure that it does not burn what one cherishes.

[Storr]

As was predicted in the early 2000s, Arizona continues to slip further away from Republicans--and the Southwest's 30-year shift toward Democrats continues.

California, check.
New Mexico, check.
Colorado, check.
Nevada, check.
Arizona, almost.
Texas, you're next.

After Texas....Montana? lol

[Gustaf]

If one wants to evaluate whether raw polling favours one party or other in a specific state, RCP is more reasonable to use than 538, since the former is an average of raw polling while the latter adjusts for exactly the sort of thing we're talking about. Having a discussion about how raw polling can be systematically wrong also straightforwardly makes the case for why one would prefer 538 to RCP.

Even the few Republicans who can formulate a few coherent sentences really don't do very well when it comes to thinking.

[GeorgiaModerate]

If one wants to evaluate whether raw polling favours one party or other in a specific state, RCP is more reasonable to use than 538, since the former is an average of raw polling while the latter adjusts for exactly the sort of thing we're talking about. Having a discussion about how raw polling can be systematically wrong also straightforwardly makes the case for why one would prefer 538 to RCP.

Even the few Republicans who can formulate a few coherent sentences really don't do very well when it comes to thinking.

The first part might be true if RCP included all polls, but they don't.  They exclude some in a non-transparent way that appears to prefer R-leaning pollsters.

[VAR]

If one wants to evaluate whether raw polling favours one party or other in a specific state, RCP is more reasonable to use than 538, since the former is an average of raw polling while the latter adjusts for exactly the sort of thing we're talking about. Having a discussion about how raw polling can be systematically wrong also straightforwardly makes the case for why one would prefer 538 to RCP.

Even the few Republicans who can formulate a few coherent sentences really don't do very well when it comes to thinking.

The first part might be true if RCP included all polls, but they don't.  They exclude some in a non-transparent way that appears to prefer R-leaning pollsters.

This, and RCP included only the last 6 polls in 2018, leaving out fairly recent and high-quality polls like CNN, NBC/Marist, and CBS/YouGov.

Even the few Republicans who can formulate a few coherent sentences really don't do very well when it comes to thinking.

I wouldn’t mind this if your claim that RCP is an innocent “average of raw polling” was actually true. But it’s a bit off-putting when someone rebuts you with a claim that is false then insults your intelligence.