2nd wave of YouGov/CBS News/NYT polls out

[Senator Cris]

Governors numbers?

Iowa and Michigan instantly discredit this

Why? I think that in Iowa there is a dead heat, a tie, but this numbers (Braley + 2) are plausible.

[eric82oslo]

Alaska went from Begich +12% in the last YouGov poll to Sullivan +6% now. That's a shift of 18%. Pretty weird, when the internet sample should be more or less the same folks.

[Morning in Atlas]

Alaska went from Begich +12% in the last YouGov poll to Sullivan +6% now. That's a shift of 18%. Pretty weird, when the internet sample should be more or less the same folks.

Yeah, throw this in the trash. Most of this data looks decent, but Alaska, Michigan, and Louisiana look like junk.

[Free Bird]

Alaska went from Begich +12% in the last YouGov poll to Sullivan +6% now. That's a shift of 18%. Pretty weird, when the internet sample should be more or less the same folks.

Yeah, throw this in the trash. Most of this data looks decent, but Alaska, Michigan, and Louisiana look like junk.

Throw out Iowa in my book

[Maxwell]

Rhode Island closer than West Virginia... throw it in the trash!

[Vern]

NC age gap is crazy as well: 18-29: +30 dem, 30-44: +12 dem, 45-64: +1 rep, 65+: +27 rep

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Well, while this wave is better than the last one, here's some results I don't believe:

AL - A senator who no one wanted to challenge, yet 46% of the state says they would be at least willing to consider another candidate (other + undecided)?
KS - Invalid due to failure to include Orman
LA - Did not test runoff, so this part is worthless. As far as the jungle goes, Landrieu will get a lot higher than 33% (yougov figure) in the jungle. In fact she's almost certain to win the jungle due to split opposition, but she isn't going to reach 50% most likely and therefore will have to get through a runoff.
MA is closer than ME?
Reed only getting one point more than Merkley? (52% vs. 51%)
SC-Graham only one point wider than OR? And only a 13 point lead for Graham?
Land leading?
TX, TN, SC-Scott, SC-Graham, SD, RI, NJ, NM, IL, MS, MT, and DE ALL closer than WV? What?

----------------

Add that to the odd crosstabs others mentioned, and this entire set of polls sees the trash can yet again.

Note: There will be governor polling, but it hasn't yet been released yet.

[eric82oslo]

Difference between the youngest (18-29) and the oldest (65+) voters in the states where there are stats on both:

New Jersey: 72%
Georgia: 63%
Texas: 58%
North Carolina: 55%
Virginia: 53%
South Carolina: 51%
Colorado: 47%
Mississippi: 46%
Illinois: 45%
Idaho: 44%
Oregon: 43%
Iowa: 33%
Louisiana: 32%
Arkansas: 31%
Alaska: 27%
Kentucky: 26%
Massachusetts: 26%
Minnesota: 26%
Michigan: 23%
Delaware: 22%
New Hampshire: 22%
Nebraska: 19%
West Virginia: 16%
New Mexico: 11%
Maine: 7%
Rhode Island: -2%

Some states don't have a sufficiently large sample of 18-29 year olds, so in those cases I can only compare the second youngest demographic (30-44) with the oldest one (65+):

Wyoming: 54%
Hawaii: 38%
Kansas: 31%
South Dakota: 25%
Montana: 23%
Oklahoma: 19%
Tennessee: 5%

I did not include Alabama, since the senator is running unopposed there.

Clearly, Cory Booker has a massive fan base with younger voters! His lead with 18-29 year olds in NJ is a whooping 73-8. And with blacks, it's 87-0.

The median difference between the youngest and the oldest age cohorts is 31.5%. The only state where the old group was just as liberal, or perhaps even slightly more so (although it's way within the margin of error), than the youngest voters, is Rhode Island. In the other 32 states, young voters were always, and usually substantially (with the exceptions of Tennessee and Maine), more Democratic-friendly.

If these stats can tell us something about the bigger political picture in the states surveyed, including something about where the states are headed, partisanly speaking, we can probably expect the following six states to either remain where they are now or head in a more conservative, Republican-friendly direction: Rhode Island, Tennessee, Maine, New Mexico, West Virginia and Nebraska.

On the other hand, the following 13 states will almost certainly drift in a more Democratic direction over the next 5-10-15-20 years: New Jersey, Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, Wyoming, Virginia, South Carolina, Colorado, Mississippi, Illinois, Idaho, Oregon and Hawaii. Notice that 6 of these 13 states are located in the south, clearly the region where Democrats have the most potential of further gains in the future. Also, 7 of the 13 (NC included) are currently Republican states [at the presidential level at least]. The fact that only two states show more potential for Democratic growth than Texas, seems to counteract all the naysayers who keep claiming that there's no way that the Republican advantage in the state will loosen considerably over the next decade (or two). Young voters are already voting Democratic in Texas, at least if we are to believe this YouGov poll.

However it is true, according to the poll, that Georgia has come a much longer way than Texas when it comes to turning into a purple state. There are two main reasons for that. The first, and less important, is that whites in Texas are slightly more Republican-friendly than in Georgia, plus the obvious fact that Hispanics in Texas will never become as Democratic as blacks in Georgia. The more important reason is that the demographic tilt is much younger in Texas than in Georgia. With that I mean that the dividing line seems to be at about 50 years in Georgia. Those older than 50 are usually voting Republican, while those younger are mostly voting Democratic. In Texas, the diving line is a whole 10 years younger, at about 40 years. So those younger than 40 in Texas more often than not vote Democratic. So once Georgia turns in to a battleground, we'd have to expect to wait at least (or about) 10 more years in order to see the same phenomenon happen in Texas.

[KCDem]

They weigh by party ID. These "polls" are absolute garbage.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

They weigh by party ID. These "polls" are absolute garbage.

All of today's polls are. That includes the NBC/Marist polls that came out.

Now I know why they call it a poll dump.

[eric82oslo]

Here are the leads among 18-29 year olds in each state (with a large enough sample):

New Jersey: Booker +65%
Virginia: Warner +44%
Massachusetts: Markey +38%
Illinois: Durbin +38%
Oregon: Merkley +37%
North Carolina: Hagan +29%
Delaware: Coons +28%
Georgia: Nunn +25%
New Mexico: Udall +23%
Colorado: Udall +22%
Minnesota: Franken +22%
New Hampshire: Shaheen +21%
Arkansas: Pryor +21%
Iowa: Braley +20%
Alaska: Begich +19%
Rhode Island: Reed +15%
Louisiana: Landrieu +14% (though +25% with leaners)
Michigan: Peters +14%
Texas: Alameel +12%
Mississippi: Travis Childers +6%
Kentucky: Grimes +3%
Idaho: Nels Mitchell +2%

Nebraska: Ben Sasse (R) +8%
West Virginia: Moore Capito (R) +18%
Maine: Collins (R) +25%

And for those states without a sufficient sample, these are their leads in the 30-44 age cohort:

Hawaii: Schatz +58%
South Carolina: Brad Hutto +14% (!)
Kansas: Chad Taylor +7%

South Carolina: Tim Scott (R) +1%
South Dakota: Mike Rounds (R) +2%
Wyoming: Mark Enzi (R) +8%
Montana: Steve Daines (R) +11%
Tennessee: Alexander (R) +15%
Oklahoma: Jim Inhofe (R) +21%
Oklahoma: James Lankford (R) +23%

In at least 25 out of the midterm's 36 senate races (35 without Alabama), the Democratic candidate is ahead among the youngest cohort. We can probably add Tim Scott's seat and South Dakota as well, since they're both tossed up among the 30-44 year olds. That would make it 27 out of 35/36. Then there are the possibilities of Democratic leads among the youngest in Wyoming and Montana as well - at least they should be close to toss up.

On the other hand, there's no shed of a doubt of who young voters prefer in three states; Maine, West Virginia and Oklahoma. Nebraska and Tennessee also seem pretty secure in the Republican column when it comes to the youngest.

What really should worry Republicans, are the numbers in battleground or Republican states like Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Iowa, Alaska and even South Carolina! Lindsey Graham seems truely despised by most voters younger than 45 years old, if we are to believe this poll at least. Texas doesn't seem as vulnerable as many other states yet, though Cornyn is only leading among voters older than 45.

[Panda Express]

Difference between the youngest (18-29) and the oldest (65+) voters in the states where there are stats on both:

New Jersey: 72%
Georgia: 63%
Texas: 58%
North Carolina: 55%
Virginia: 53%
South Carolina: 51%
Colorado: 47%
Mississippi: 46%
Illinois: 45%
Idaho: 44%
Oregon: 43%
Iowa: 33%
Louisiana: 32%
Arkansas: 31%
Alaska: 27%
Kentucky: 26%
Massachusetts: 26%
Minnesota: 26%
Michigan: 23%
Delaware: 22%
New Hampshire: 22%
Nebraska: 19%
West Virginia: 16%
New Mexico: 11%
Maine: 7%
Rhode Island: -2%

Some states don't have a sufficiently large sample of 18-29 year olds, so in those cases I can only compare the second youngest demographic (30-44) with the oldest one (65+):

Wyoming: 54%
Hawaii: 38%
Kansas: 31%
South Dakota: 25%
Montana: 23%
Oklahoma: 19%
Tennessee: 5%

I did not include Alabama, since the senator is running unopposed there.

Clearly, Cory Booker has a massive fan base with younger voters! His lead with 18-29 year olds in NJ is a whooping 73-8. And with blacks, it's 87-0.

The median difference between the youngest and the oldest age cohorts is 31.5%. The only state where the old group was just as liberal, or perhaps even slightly more so (although it's way within the margin of error), than the youngest voters, is Rhode Island. In the other 32 states, young voters were always, and usually substantially (with the exceptions of Tennessee and Maine), more Democratic-friendly.

If these stats can tell us something about the bigger political picture in the states surveyed, including something about where the states are headed, partisanly speaking, we can probably expect the following six states to either remain where they are now or head in a more conservative, Republican-friendly direction: Rhode Island, Tennessee, Maine, New Mexico, West Virginia and Nebraska.

On the other hand, the following 13 states will almost certainly drift in a more Democratic direction over the next 5-10-15-20 years: New Jersey, Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, Wyoming, Virginia, South Carolina, Colorado, Mississippi, Illinois, Idaho, Oregon and Hawaii. Notice that 6 of these 13 states are located in the south, clearly the region where Democrats have the most potential of further gains in the future. Also, 7 of the 13 (NC included) are currently Republican states [at the presidential level at least]. The fact that only two states show more potential for Democratic growth than Texas, seems to counteract all the naysayers who keep claiming that there's no way that the Republican advantage in the state will loosen considerably over the next decade (or two). Young voters are already voting Democratic in Texas, at least if we are to believe this YouGov poll.

However it is true, according to the poll, that Georgia has come a much longer way than Texas when it comes to turning into a purple state. There are two main reasons for that. The first, and less important, is that whites in Texas are slightly more Republican-friendly than in Georgia, plus the obvious fact that Hispanics in Texas will never become as Democratic as blacks in Georgia. The more important reason is that the demographic tilt is much younger in Texas than in Georgia. With that I mean that the dividing line seems to be at about 50 years in Georgia. Those older than 50 are usually voting Republican, while those younger are mostly voting Democratic. In Texas, the diving line is a whole 10 years younger, at about 40 years. So those younger than 40 in Texas more often than not vote Democratic. So once Georgia turns in to a battleground, we'd have to expect to wait at least (or about) 10 more years in order to see the same phenomenon happen in Texas.

I wouldn't worry about trying to analyze/draw conclusions from these, dude. These are crappy internet polls.

[Tender Branson]

CBS has a better chart out (right-click for big version):

[Tender Branson]

Governors numbers?

The page says "coming soon".

Probably today.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I can't believe the NYT even published this crap, to be honest.

[Miles]

One of the Republican-leaning NC analyists breaks down the NC poll; he suggests undecideds would be more favorable to Hagan:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/09/07/battleground-tracker-2014-michigan/

[Morning in Atlas]

So we've seen. Still looking for confirmation.

[KCDem]

Joke result from joke 'polling' firm. Moving along...

[Lief 🗽]

So we're adding these polls to the database right? I'll work on putting them all in on Wednesday if no one else has by then.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So we're adding these polls to the database right? I'll work on putting them all in on Wednesday if no one else has by then.

The first wave was never put into the database, so if I were you I'd wait until Branson/Dave can offer an official opinion on whether these polls should be added.

[Dixie Reborn]

Iowa and Michigan instantly discredit this

The Iowa and Michigan numbers should be switched, then these results would appear legitimate.

[Tender Branson]

So we're adding these polls to the database right? I'll work on putting them all in on Wednesday if no one else has by then.

The first wave was never put into the database, so if I were you I'd wait until Branson/Dave can offer an official opinion on whether these polls should be added.

Dave has already said that it's OK to enter them to the database:

Hi,
Been traveling -
I'm ok adding these to the database at this time.  Please include the methodology as part of the article upon entering.  I do plan to create a weighting method based on past accuracy at some point.

Thanks,
Dave

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kansas has

Roberts 47
Taylor 35
3rd party 0
Other 2

Fail for the pollster.

[dmmidmi]

Governors numbers?

Iowa and Michigan instantly discredit this

Why? I think that in Iowa there is a dead heat, a tie, but this numbers (Braley + 2) are plausible.

Because they are the only firm to show a Land lead since April 15th (and have done so twice). So either they're right and everybody else is wrong, or it's the other way around.