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

[psychprofessor]

Nate Cohn pointed out that it looks like this pollster is weighting it's results to conform to 2012's 51-47 Presidential outcome, which partly explains the big Republican slant since some people in most polls tend to say they voted for the winner when they did not.

This pollster is using the same modeling that RAND used in 2012 when they nailed the election with pretty good accuracy. This is a test to see if it they were just lucky or good. One would assume the same "voted for the winner" in 2008 bias for the 2012 cycle.

Obviously, the jury is still out on this type of polling, generally.

Once again, this is not a poll. It is a pre-selected panel, which as Nate Cohn pointed out, is weighted to conform to 51-47 2012 results. This thread and panel poll is meaningless.

[Mallow]

Nate Cohn pointed out that it looks like this pollster is weighting it's results to conform to 2012's 51-47 Presidential outcome, which partly explains the big Republican slant since some people in most polls tend to say they voted for the winner when they did not.

This pollster is using the same modeling that RAND used in 2012 when they nailed the election with pretty good accuracy. This is a test to see if it they were just lucky or good. One would assume the same "voted for the winner" in 2008 bias for the 2012 cycle.

Obviously, the jury is still out on this type of polling, generally.

Once again, this is not a poll. It is a pre-selected panel, which as Nate Cohn pointed out, is weighted to conform to 51-47 2012 results. This thread and panel poll is meaningless.

I don't think it's meaningless at all. Indeed, this method is probably a stronger indicator of trends than standard polling, since the sample does not change. One just needs to be aware of the potential built-in bias inherent in the sample.

[psychprofessor]

Nate Cohn pointed out that it looks like this pollster is weighting it's results to conform to 2012's 51-47 Presidential outcome, which partly explains the big Republican slant since some people in most polls tend to say they voted for the winner when they did not.

This pollster is using the same modeling that RAND used in 2012 when they nailed the election with pretty good accuracy. This is a test to see if it they were just lucky or good. One would assume the same "voted for the winner" in 2008 bias for the 2012 cycle.

Obviously, the jury is still out on this type of polling, generally.

Once again, this is not a poll. It is a pre-selected panel, which as Nate Cohn pointed out, is weighted to conform to 51-47 2012 results. This thread and panel poll is meaningless.

I don't think it's meaningless at all. Indeed, this method is probably a stronger indicator of trends than standard polling, since the sample does not change. One just needs to be aware of the potential built-in bias inherent in the sample.

It is indeed meaningless when used as a poll. That's what this thread is all about. We don't have a "trends" thread. And when looked at from the guise of a "poll" it shows a head heat. So, yes, this is meaningless when looked at as a poll.

[Mallow]

Nate Cohn pointed out that it looks like this pollster is weighting it's results to conform to 2012's 51-47 Presidential outcome, which partly explains the big Republican slant since some people in most polls tend to say they voted for the winner when they did not.

This pollster is using the same modeling that RAND used in 2012 when they nailed the election with pretty good accuracy. This is a test to see if it they were just lucky or good. One would assume the same "voted for the winner" in 2008 bias for the 2012 cycle.

Obviously, the jury is still out on this type of polling, generally.

Once again, this is not a poll. It is a pre-selected panel, which as Nate Cohn pointed out, is weighted to conform to 51-47 2012 results. This thread and panel poll is meaningless.

I don't think it's meaningless at all. Indeed, this method is probably a stronger indicator of trends than standard polling, since the sample does not change. One just needs to be aware of the potential built-in bias inherent in the sample.

It is indeed meaningless when used as a poll. That's what this thread is all about. We don't have a "trends" thread. And when looked at from the guise of a "poll" it shows a head heat. So, yes, this is meaningless when looked at as a poll.

That's also not true. A poll that is consistently biased in favor of one candidate, but is otherwise very precise (that is, less noisy than others), is actually significantly more useful than a poll that has no bias but very low precision (swings wildly due to noise). If that's the case with this particular poll, then it is very meaningful as long as you sufficiently account for the bias.

[Republicans for Biden]

Wow, even this whacky pro Trump outlier now has Hillary ahead, sad!

[dspNY]

Clinton 45.2, Trump 44.6 in today's iteration

[BlueSwan]

That's also not true. A poll that is consistently biased in favor of one candidate, but is otherwise very precise (that is, less noisy than others), is actually significantly more useful than a poll that has no bias but very low precision (swings wildly due to noise). If that's the case with this particular poll, then it is very meaningful as long as you sufficiently account for the bias.

I agree, this is very useful for seeing trends due to them pollling the same people over and over. So the question is how big the Trump bias is. Trump was ahead by 7 in this poll, but he was arguably never ahead by more than a point or so based on polls in general. Would it be excessive to give this poll a Trump +6 house effect? If we did that then Clinton would be at +7 right now, which seems fairly close to the overall polls right now.

[Seriously?]

With the trendline changes. Pretty much a wash.

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/4)
Clinton: 45.2 (+0.4)
Trump: 44.6 (-0.4)

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/5)
Clinton: 44.6 (-0.6%)
Trump: 44.2 (-0.4%)

[ProgressiveCanadian]

This poll needs a daybreak!

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/6)
Clinton: 44.7 (+0.1%)
Trump: 44.0 (-0.2%)

[Devout Centrist]

What's wrong with their methodology? Their base consists of people who think their candidate's going to win at that moment?

[Crumpets]

I can understand the methodology, but I don't get why poll aggregates are using these when they're not really "polls" per se in the classic sense.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/7)
Clinton: 45.0 (+0.3%)
Trump: 43.8 (-0.2%)

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/8)
Clinton: 45.1 (+0.1%)
Trump: 43.4 (-0.4%)

[Monstro]

So Trump is back to where he was before the RNC while Hillary sustained her decent DNC bounce. Sounds about right.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/9)
Clinton: 44.9 (-0.2%)
Trump: 43.5 (+0.1%)

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/10)
Clinton: 44.8 (-0.1%)
Trump: 43.3 (-0.2%)

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/11) Clinton +1.1%
Clinton: 44.2 (-0.6%)
Trump: 43.1 (-0.2%)

[The Other Castro]

In 538's polls-only forecast, they adjust this poll to usually 5 points more for Clinton.

[Gass3268]

In 538's polls-only forecast, they adjust this poll to usually 5 points more for Clinton.

Yup, when she was up by about 4 hear they did reduce that down to a 4 point addition. Today it's only a 3 point addition. I wonder what their methodology is here.

[Seriously?]

Either Clinton had a good day or this thing is finally realigning to where the other polls are.

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/12) Clinton +3.5%
Clinton: 45.7% (+1.5%)
Trump: 42.2% (-0.9%)

[Devout Centrist]

Either Clinton had a good day or this thing is finally realigning to where the other polls are.

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/12) Clinton +3.5%
Clinton: 45.7% (+1.5%)
Trump: 42.2% (-0.9%)

Or daily tracking is a poor way to monitor the election.

[Monstro]

Biggest gain for Hillary since July 15. Its getting harder and harder for Trump surrogates to continue citing this poll

[King]

why are millenials so conservative in this sample? they made a huge mistake there and their concept doesn't allow for it to be corrected.