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

[Ljube]

It's just impossible to like Hillary, and I say this as someone who probably lines up with her views fairly closely (before she bent over and adopted some of sanders positions).

Sorry Dukey it isn't but that's your loss, my friend

I'm just destined to not vote in this election, so it seems. I haven't heard a compelling case yet that convinces me to vote for her.

     I suspect that a significant proportion of the huge undecideds in polls now will end up not voting. People aren't very happy with the choices that are presented.

Indeed. With two unpopular candidates running and the campaign destined to be negative, we should expect many people to stay home. Turnout will be much lower than in the previous two elections.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (7/27):
Trump - 47 (+/-)
Clinton - 40 (+/-)
(#) denotes change from previous day

[Seriously?]

Trump now up by 7. Still want to defend this trash heap?

If one is intrested in trend, it indeed gives some information. I don't believe, Trump is +7 now, but I don't believe either, Clinton was +12 as ABC/Washington and Ipsos/Reuters showed.

Or is ABC pollster a trash heap as well?

Clinton was never ahead by that much.

Clinton was +15 with LV in the Reuters pile of garbage and +12 in the ABC/WashPo trash heap of an outlier poll.

An honest assessment had it at about Hillary! +5 or +6 at one point, just like an honest assessment right now has it at about Trump +1 or Trump +2.

Not to say that this LA Times poll is rubbish. The track record for this methodology was pretty strong in 2012. However, until we have more LV data points, I look at this thing similarly to how I look at the Reuters poll -- for trendlines.

(Keep in mind most other national polls (aside from Rasmussen) are RV right now. Reuters just started quoting LV in their press articles. It's an apples and oranges kind of thing until the polling methodology switch completely changes over in the next few weeks to a month.)

Overall, it suggests roughly a 4-point bounce from the poll's inception and a 7-point bounce from 7/20, the only day Hillary! lead in the survey.

The overall bounce is pretty much in line with what we've been seeing from peak Hillary!

For those into decimals, it's 47.4% Trump, 40.1% Clinton in this latest dump, the trendline is still moving up slightly for the Donald.

[Simfan34]

And here come Atlas's resident Baghdad Bobs to come in and yell, "junk poll!" Shades of 2012 Romneyites and the "unskewing" of polls.

I agree. It's questionable.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

And here come Atlas's resident Baghdad Bobs to come in and yell, "junk poll!" Shades of 2012 Romneyites and the "unskewing" of polls.

I agree. It's questionable.

Again... No. "Unskewing" was based on the GOP fever dream that a) the 2008 electorate was a fluke and b) not understanding anything about how party self-ID had changed. What most of us are doing is when the core datasets that make up the poll are wonky to an extreme, when compared to what we know about the state of the race, then I'm calling BS.

[afleitch]

The internals are legitimately bad (dive in and look) whereas Reuters aren't.

[amdcpus]

And here come Atlas's resident Baghdad Bobs to come in and yell, "junk poll!" Shades of 2012 Romneyites and the "unskewing" of polls.

I agree. It's questionable.

Again... No.

Can you even vote in this election?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

And here come Atlas's resident Baghdad Bobs to come in and yell, "junk poll!" Shades of 2012 Romneyites and the "unskewing" of polls.

I agree. It's questionable.

That's the best you got?
Again... No.

Can you even vote in this election?

[amdcpus]

And here come Atlas's resident Baghdad Bobs to come in and yell, "junk poll!" Shades of 2012 Romneyites and the "unskewing" of polls.

I agree. It's questionable.

That's the best you got?
Again... No.

Can you even vote in this election?

So no?

[Simfan34]

There's no logical reason for this election to be close, yes. But it is. As distressing as that may be we shouldn't nitpick about crosstabs, while sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the broader trend. I mean, people are now trying to claim RCP are right wing hacks. RCP!

There's little we can do to impact the outcome of the election, but no good will come out of dismissing or ignoring the polls we don't like; God willing, this won't haplen, but if we continue in this manner, we on the Atlas may be in for a devastating shock on election day-- despite the polls having forcasted it.

[Devout Centrist]

There's no logical reason for this election to be close, yes. But it is. As distressing as that may be we shouldn't nitpick about crosstabs, while sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the broader trend. I mean, people are now trying to claim RCP are right wing hacks. RCP!

There's little we can do to impact the outcome of the election, but no good will come out of dismissing or ignoring the polls we don't like; God willing, this won't haplen, but if we continue in this manner, we on the Atlas may be in for a devastating shock on election day-- despite the polls having forcasted it.

This election may not be close in the end. Almost every election has a period where it's close. Historically, it was very common to see wild swings in polling before things settled down.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I mean, people are now trying to claim RCP are right wing hacks. RCP!

In fairness, RCP is a Republican propaganda machine.

[Devout Centrist]

I mean, people are now trying to claim RCP are right wing hacks. RCP!

In fairness, RCP is a Republican propaganda machine.

RCP is conservative, by and large. Their aggregate, however, is not biased.

[JerryArkansas]

I mean, people are now trying to claim RCP are right wing hacks. RCP!

In fairness, RCP is a Republican propaganda machine.

RCP is conservative, by and large. Their aggregate, however, is not biased.

It picks and chooses polls, yeah it is just as biased.

[The Vorlon]

I mean, people are now trying to claim RCP are right wing hacks. RCP!

In fairness, RCP is a Republican propaganda machine.

RCP is conservative, by and large. Their aggregate, however, is not biased.

It picks and chooses polls, yeah it is just as biased.

538's "Nowcast" says Hildebeast would win the popular vote by 0.2%
The RCP average has Trump up by 0.9%

1.1% is noise, not bias.

[IceSpear]

The internals are legitimately bad (dive in and look) whereas Reuters aren't.

I'm not sure about now, but before Reuters had ridiculous Democratic registration advantages. Like D+15 at one point I think. They're dreadful.

[IceSpear]

There's no logical reason for this election to be close, yes. But it is. As distressing as that may be we shouldn't nitpick about crosstabs, while sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the broader trend. I mean, people are now trying to claim RCP are right wing hacks. RCP!

There's little we can do to impact the outcome of the election, but no good will come out of dismissing or ignoring the polls we don't like; God willing, this won't haplen, but if we continue in this manner, we on the Atlas may be in for a devastating shock on election day-- despite the polls having forcasted it.

There is a logical reason for it to be close: 45% of the country will vote for any Republican under any circumstances, and convention bounces almost always happen. Seriously, how can people who have been around the block for many elections be SURPRISED by a convention bounce? I genuinely do not get it.

As for RCP, it is a good source that I use, but it is objectively a right wing site. Their editorials are like 90% conservative. They try not to screw with the data too much, which is nice, but there are definitely times every once in a while when they have their thumb on the scale.

[afleitch]

The internals are legitimately bad (dive in and look) whereas Reuters aren't.

I'm not sure about now, but before Reuters had ridiculous Democratic registration advantages. Like D+15 at one point I think. They're dreadful.

That's why I said the internals are fine. Do the internals 'add up' to an accurate national Clinton v Trump share? No. That's in the weighting,

[The Vorlon]

The internals are legitimately bad (dive in and look) whereas Reuters aren't.

I'm not sure about now, but before Reuters had ridiculous Democratic registration advantages. Like D+15 at one point I think. They're dreadful.

That's why I said the internals are fine. Do the internals 'add up' to an accurate national Clinton v Trump share? No. That's in the weighting,

Unless you have a %$%#&ing  HUGE sample, the internals simply cannot add up.

You balance your sample to the national data points (age, race, education, rural, urban, suburbs, etc) but the regional samples are simply too small to be balanced.

To make an extreme illustration if you did a "poll" of 8 people in the US there should be 1 african american (Blacks are about 12.2% of the population in the US) - So if you broke the US into 4 zones of 2 people each, one zone would have to be 50% black (wrong!) and the other 3 zones would be 0% black (wrong!) - but the overall sample would be ok.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (7/28):
Trump - 47 (+/-)
Clinton - 41 (+1)
(#) denotes change from previous day

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

[Fusionmunster]

Clinton convention bump, HUUUGGEE!!!

Im so happy your back...

[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?

[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. 

[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).