USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 11/7 - Trump +3.2

[JerryArkansas]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

You do realize that 1: this is a seven-day running average (as has been discussed in this thread already), and 2: because of that fact, Trump's convention bump in this poll didn't even BEGIN until AFTER the convention was over, and by analogy, Clinton's shouldn't begin until tomorrow's tracking numbers, right? No?

Also the poll itself is just sh**t. 

I'm not convinced of that. Perhaps it has a bias, but that doesn't mean it is useless. It seems to capture trends pretty well (if late).

Not really.  It is a sham compared to what they had four years ago.  Shouldn't have launched it until after the conventions at the least.

[Mallow]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

You do realize that 1: this is a seven-day running average (as has been discussed in this thread already), and 2: because of that fact, Trump's convention bump in this poll didn't even BEGIN until AFTER the convention was over, and by analogy, Clinton's shouldn't begin until tomorrow's tracking numbers, right? No?

Also the poll itself is just sh**t. 

I'm not convinced of that. Perhaps it has a bias, but that doesn't mean it is useless. It seems to capture trends pretty well (if late).

Not really.  It is a sham compared to what they had four years ago.  Shouldn't have launched it until after the conventions at the least.

"It's a sham because I don't believe assumptions X, Y, and Z" reeks of "unskewing". I'm not prepared to make such a bold statement about any poll just yet.

[JerryArkansas]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

You do realize that 1: this is a seven-day running average (as has been discussed in this thread already), and 2: because of that fact, Trump's convention bump in this poll didn't even BEGIN until AFTER the convention was over, and by analogy, Clinton's shouldn't begin until tomorrow's tracking numbers, right? No?

Also the poll itself is just sh**t. 

I'm not convinced of that. Perhaps it has a bias, but that doesn't mean it is useless. It seems to capture trends pretty well (if late).

Not really.  It is a sham compared to what they had four years ago.  Shouldn't have launched it until after the conventions at the least.

"It's a sham because I don't believe assumptions X, Y, and Z" reeks of "unskewing". I'm not prepared to make such a bold statement about any poll just yet.

No, because they won't release the cross tables of the poll.  Why should I trust something just based on the numbers without seeing who they are polling.

[cinyc]

If you decimals, it's Trump 46.7, Clinton 40.6,

[PaperKooper]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

You do realize that 1: this is a seven-day running average (as has been discussed in this thread already), and 2: because of that fact, Trump's convention bump in this poll didn't even BEGIN until AFTER the convention was over, and by analogy, Clinton's shouldn't begin until tomorrow's tracking numbers, right? No?

Also the poll itself is just sh**t. 

I'm not convinced of that. Perhaps it has a bias, but that doesn't mean it is useless. It seems to capture trends pretty well (if late).

Not really.  It is a sham compared to what they had four years ago.  Shouldn't have launched it until after the conventions at the least.

"It's a sham because I don't believe assumptions X, Y, and Z" reeks of "unskewing". I'm not prepared to make such a bold statement about any poll just yet.

No, because they won't release the cross tables of the poll.  Why should I trust something just based on the numbers without seeing who they are polling.

The "detailed data" tab has sample sizes. 

[Mallow]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

You do realize that 1: this is a seven-day running average (as has been discussed in this thread already), and 2: because of that fact, Trump's convention bump in this poll didn't even BEGIN until AFTER the convention was over, and by analogy, Clinton's shouldn't begin until tomorrow's tracking numbers, right? No?

Also the poll itself is just sh**t. 

I'm not convinced of that. Perhaps it has a bias, but that doesn't mean it is useless. It seems to capture trends pretty well (if late).

Not really.  It is a sham compared to what they had four years ago.  Shouldn't have launched it until after the conventions at the least.

"It's a sham because I don't believe assumptions X, Y, and Z" reeks of "unskewing". I'm not prepared to make such a bold statement about any poll just yet.

No, because they won't release the cross tables of the poll.  Why should I trust something just based on the numbers without seeing who they are polling.

The "detailed data" tab has sample sizes. 

Yeah I pretty much tuned out of the conversation when he said that...

[JerryArkansas]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

You do realize that 1: this is a seven-day running average (as has been discussed in this thread already), and 2: because of that fact, Trump's convention bump in this poll didn't even BEGIN until AFTER the convention was over, and by analogy, Clinton's shouldn't begin until tomorrow's tracking numbers, right? No?

Also the poll itself is just sh**t. 

I'm not convinced of that. Perhaps it has a bias, but that doesn't mean it is useless. It seems to capture trends pretty well (if late).

Not really.  It is a sham compared to what they had four years ago.  Shouldn't have launched it until after the conventions at the least.

"It's a sham because I don't believe assumptions X, Y, and Z" reeks of "unskewing". I'm not prepared to make such a bold statement about any poll just yet.

No, because they won't release the cross tables of the poll.  Why should I trust something just based on the numbers without seeing who they are polling.

The "detailed data" tab has sample sizes. 

Yeah I pretty much tuned out of the conversation when he said that...

At this point, you seem like an idiot who wants to believe this damn poll.  So, I'll leave you in your "poll".

Also, they didn't have that when I first looked at this poll and threw it in the garbage.  Havent looked since.  But think what you want to think.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

You do realize that 1: this is a seven-day running average (as has been discussed in this thread already), and 2: because of that fact, Trump's convention bump in this poll didn't even BEGIN until AFTER the convention was over, and by analogy, Clinton's shouldn't begin until tomorrow's tracking numbers, right? No?

Also the poll itself is just sh**t. 

I'm not convinced of that. Perhaps it has a bias, but that doesn't mean it is useless. It seems to capture trends pretty well (if late).

Not really.  It is a sham compared to what they had four years ago.  Shouldn't have launched it until after the conventions at the least.

"It's a sham because I don't believe assumptions X, Y, and Z" reeks of "unskewing". I'm not prepared to make such a bold statement about any poll just yet.

No, because they won't release the cross tables of the poll.  Why should I trust something just based on the numbers without seeing who they are polling.

The "detailed data" tab has sample sizes. 

Yeah I pretty much tuned out of the conversation when he said that...

At this point, you seem like an idiot who wants to believe this damn poll.  So, I'll leave you in your "poll".

Also, they didn't have that when I first looked at this poll and threw it in the garbage.  Havent looked since.  But think what you want to think.

So you threw it in the garbage, because they did't have it [at the very start], but now, when they do have it, you don't care.

Ok!

[Terry the Fat Shark]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (7/29):
Trump - 47 (+/-)
Clinton - 42 (+1)
(#) denotes change from previous day

[Gass3268]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (7/29):
Trump - 47 (+/-)
Clinton - 42 (+1)
(#) denotes change from previous day

Movin' On Up!

[Terry the Fat Shark]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (7/29):
Trump - 47 (+/-)
Clinton - 42 (+1)
(#) denotes change from previous day

Movin' On Up!

I believe this will put Clinton in the lead on the RCP national head to head average unless another poll comes out today that shows good results for trump.

[cinyc]

Trump 46.6, Clinton 41.7, for those who decimals.

[President Johnson]

They're doing a poll every day now?

[Dr. Arch]

They're doing a poll every day now?

This poll is trash

[President Johnson]

They're doing a poll every day now?

This poll is trash

LA Times? Why? Because TRUMP is leading?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

They're doing a poll every day now?

This poll is trash

No

[Flake]

They're doing a poll every day now?

This poll is trash

LA Times? Why? Because TRUMP is leading?

Well the poll is contradicting nearly every other poll taken since it became a Clinton/Trump election and the demographics of the United States just wouldn't allow for a Trump margin to be this large.

[Mallow]

They're doing a poll every day now?

This poll is trash

LA Times? Why? Because TRUMP is leading?

Well the poll is contradicting nearly every other poll taken since it became a Clinton/Trump election and the demographics of the United States just wouldn't allow for a Trump margin to be this large.

There seems to be a pretty substantial R bias in their sample, but the trends seem reasonable if you account for the lag (it's a 7-day running average, so the "7/29" number is an average of 7/23-7/29).

[Mehmentum]

So basically Clinton's bounce is 2 points so far, and we've got another 6 days before they completely capture the bounce.

[Mallow]

So basically Clinton's bounce is 2 points so far, and we've got another 6 days before they completely capture the bounce.

Yep. Trump's full bounce wasn't registered until 6 days after the end of the RNC. That suggests Clinton's will have to wait 'til the 7/28-8/3 number released on August 4th.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

They're doing a poll every day now?

This poll is trash

LA Times? Why? Because TRUMP is leading?

Well the poll is contradicting nearly every other poll taken since it became a Clinton/Trump election and the demographics of the United States just wouldn't allow for a Trump margin to be this large.

There seems to be a pretty substantial R bias in their sample, but the trends seem reasonable if you account for the lag (it's a 7-day running average, so the "7/29" number is an average of 7/23-7/29).

Yes. Trends!

So basically Clinton's bounce is 2 points so far, and we've got another 6 days before they completely capture the bounce.

Yep. Trump's full bounce wasn't registered until 6 days after the end of the RNC. That suggests Clinton's will have to wait 'til the 7/28-8/3 number released on August 4th.

Yes. We can actually calculate, what the last day approximately shows (~ 300 sample):

Trump today:
(6*46.7 + Trump*1)/7 = 46.6 (7 day rolling)
=> Trump = 46.6*7 - 6*46.7 = 46%

Clinton today:
(6*40.6 + Clinton*1)/7 = 41.7 (7 day rolling)
=> Clinton = 7*41.7 - 6*40.6 = 48.3%

But since the sample is so small (~300) the MOE is YUUUGE!

[Mehmentum]

They're doing a poll every day now?

This poll is trash

LA Times? Why? Because TRUMP is leading?

Well the poll is contradicting nearly every other poll taken since it became a Clinton/Trump election and the demographics of the United States just wouldn't allow for a Trump margin to be this large.

There seems to be a pretty substantial R bias in their sample, but the trends seem reasonable if you account for the lag (it's a 7-day running average, so the "7/29" number is an average of 7/23-7/29).

Yes. Trends!

So basically Clinton's bounce is 2 points so far, and we've got another 6 days before they completely capture the bounce.

Yep. Trump's full bounce wasn't registered until 6 days after the end of the RNC. That suggests Clinton's will have to wait 'til the 7/28-8/3 number released on August 4th.

Yes. We can actually calculate, what the last day approximately shows (~ 300 sample):

Trump today:
(6*46.7 + Trump*1)/7 = 46.6 (7 day rolling)
=> Trump = 46.6*7 - 6*46.7 = 46%

Clinton today:
(6*40.6 + Clinton*1)/7 = 41.7 (7 day rolling)
=> Clinton = 7*41.7 - 6*40.6 = 48.3%

But since the sample is so small (~300) the MOE is YUUUGE!

Interesting, that would be a 9 point bounce, right in line with RABA.

[Wells]

Using the LittleBigPlanet's equation above, I bring you yesterday's demographics.

Age
18-34: 51.2 Clinton, 42.3 Trump
35-64: 48.7 Trump, 45.5 Clinton
65+: 52.2 Clinton, 45.1 Trump

Education
HS or less: 54.6 Trump, 40.4 Clinton
some college: 53.2 Trump, 43.7 Clinton
BA+: 61.3 Clinton, 29.8 Trump

Household Income
$0-35k: 48.6 Clinton, 42.9 Trump
$35-75k: 50.5 Trump, 41.8 Clinton
$75k+: 52.3 Clinton, 43.5 Trump

Race
White: 55.2 Trump, 39 Clinton
African American: 89.1 Clinton, 2.3 Trump
Other ethnicity: 48.3 Trump, 45.9 Clinton
Hispanic: 64.6 Clinton, 35.4 Trump

Gender
Female: 50 Clinton, 46.9 Trump
Male: 46.9 Clinton, 45.4 Trump

But with a 300ish sample size, the margins of error are monstrous. That's what any abnormalities can be contributed to, FTR.

[Monstro Believed in a Blue Georgia (and a Blue Texas)]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (7/30):
Trump - 46.1 (-.5)
Clinton - 41.9 (+.2)
(#) denotes change from previous day

[Soonerdem]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (7/30):
Trump - 46.1 (-.5)
Clinton - 41.9 (+.2)
(#) denotes change from previous day

Smaller change then you would expect