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

[The Other Castro]

A good piece by Nate Silver:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

I'd be fine with it except for the fact that it's throwing off the RCP average.

[Mallow]

A good piece by Nate Silver:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

I'd be fine with it except for the fact that it's throwing off the RCP average.

The RCP average has always been prone to bias in its polling averages, because of the way they choose which polls to include and which polls not to include. As nice as it would be to have a simple polling average that was not prone to bias (though I think that's what 538's "polls-only" forecast attempts to represent), it's simply not what RCP does (nor do they claim to). We should always keep that caveat in mind when analyzing their polling average.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

A good piece by Nate Silver:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

Ahaha. Nate is saying EXACTLY what I've been saying for WEEKS.


Me ↓↓↓

Clinton +1 is laughable. I thought the LA Times is a liberal newspaper.

You mean that liberal newspapers use a liberal methodologies in their liberal polls?

It is not really a poll. They use the same members all over again. It means that such polls will have an inbuilt bias (it seems like it favors 5-6 pps towards Trump), but it will probably better on "catching trends" (but with 7 day lagging).

Nate ↓↓↓

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Red hacks on this forum make me believe that Trump is not doing well enough with uneducated

[Panda Express]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/22) Clinton +0.2%
Clinton: 44.2% (+0.7%)
Trump: 44.0% (-0.6%)

The lead goes back to Clinton.

[Mallow]

A good piece by Nate Silver:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

Ahaha. Nate is saying EXACTLY what I've been saying for WEEKS.


Me ↓↓↓

Clinton +1 is laughable. I thought the LA Times is a liberal newspaper.

You mean that liberal newspapers use a liberal methodologies in their liberal polls?

It is not really a poll. They use the same members all over again. It means that such polls will have an inbuilt bias (it seems like it favors 5-6 pps towards Trump), but it will probably better on "catching trends" (but with 7 day lagging).

Nate ↓↓↓

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Red hacks on this forum make me believe that Trump is not doing well enough with uneducated

Not to get into a pissing contest, but since we're handing out kudos to ourselves, I'll point out that this has been my position for (actual) weeks (your quote is from six days ago). See the conversation that begins here, on July 29th.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=240856.msg5187774#msg5187774

And I'm a proud "red hack"

[Wells]

I've decided that I would start using the formula to figure out the approximate numbers for 8/22.

Clinton 48%
Trump 40%

[The Other Castro]

I've decided that I would start using the formula to figure out the approximate numbers for 8/22.

Clinton 48%
Trump 40%

What formula is that? +8 is a bit extreme, probably closer to +5 or +6.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

A good piece by Nate Silver:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

Ahaha. Nate is saying EXACTLY what I've been saying for WEEKS.


Me ↓↓↓

Clinton +1 is laughable. I thought the LA Times is a liberal newspaper.

You mean that liberal newspapers use a liberal methodologies in their liberal polls?

It is not really a poll. They use the same members all over again. It means that such polls will have an inbuilt bias (it seems like it favors 5-6 pps towards Trump), but it will probably better on "catching trends" (but with 7 day lagging).

Nate ↓↓↓

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Red hacks on this forum make me believe that Trump is not doing well enough with uneducated

Not to get into a pissing contest, but since we're handing out kudos to ourselves, I'll point out that this has been my position for (actual) weeks (your quote is from six days ago). See the conversation that begins here, on July 29th.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=240856.msg5187774#msg5187774

And I'm a proud "red hack"

I'm sexy and I know it!

Meaning, you're Shy Trump supporter!

[Mallow]

I'm sexy and I know it!

Meaning, you're Shy Trump supporter!

As a reasonable human being, if forced with the choice of being shot dead or voting for Trump, I would choose to be shot dead.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I'm sexy and I know it!

Meaning, you're Shy Trump supporter!

As a reasonable human being, if forced with the choice of being shot dead or voting for Trump, I would choose to be shot dead.

Words hurt, you know!

[Mallow]

I'm sexy and I know it!

Meaning, you're Shy Trump supporter!

As a reasonable human being, if forced with the choice of being shot dead or voting for Trump, I would choose to be shot dead.

Words hurt, you know!

I do! Which is precisely why I could never support Trump.

[The Other Castro]

YUGE swing coming.

[Dr. Arch]

YUGE swing coming.

?

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/23) Clinton +2.1%
Clinton: 45.3% (+1.1%)
Trump: 43.2% (-0.8%)

[Lief 🐋]

Trump is collapsing. Sad!

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The trend is consistent with Ipsos

[Wells]

8/23 Approximate Numbers

Clinton 52% (+4)
Trump 38% (-2)

I've decided that I would start using the formula to figure out the approximate numbers for 8/22.

Clinton 48%
Trump 40%

What formula is that? +8 is a bit extreme, probably closer to +5 or +6.

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!

It's not perfect, but it gives you some idea.

[Devout Centrist]

The trend is consistent with Ipsos

[The Other Castro]

Oh I had misread that as you trying to adjust the rolling numbers for accuracy, not for individual dates.

[IceSpear]

Poor Seriously. lol

[The Other Castro]

8/23 Approximate Numbers

Clinton 52% (+4)
Trump 38% (-2)

I've decided that I would start using the formula to figure out the approximate numbers for 8/22.

Clinton 48%
Trump 40%

What formula is that? +8 is a bit extreme, probably closer to +5 or +6.

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!

It's not perfect, but it gives you some idea.

I might be missing something, but doesn't this fail to account for the oldest poll dropping off the average in exchange for the newest one? That would change the average of the previous polls.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

8/23 Approximate Numbers

Clinton 52% (+4)
Trump 38% (-2)

I've decided that I would start using the formula to figure out the approximate numbers for 8/22.

Clinton 48%
Trump 40%

What formula is that? +8 is a bit extreme, probably closer to +5 or +6.

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!

It's not perfect, but it gives you some idea.

I might be missing something, but doesn't this fail to account for the oldest poll dropping off the average in exchange for the newest one? That would change the average of the previous polls.

Yes, the assumption is that dropped day is "average" one, which of course is not true. So we're actually kind of calculating difference between dropped day and new one. So Clinton's numbers today are +5 compared to the day exactly one week before. If I'm  not completely wrong

[nirvanayoda]

The problem with trying to figure out each day is that you have to make an assumption about what the day that rolled off contained.  I tried to do this for Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls in 2008 and realized that it was sort of pointless because the poll started with multiple days, so it was impossible to tell exactly what day rolled off.

[Seriously?]

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 8/24) Clinton +0.3%
Clinton: 44.3% (-1.0%)
Trump: 44.0% (+0.8%)

[Wells]

Trump 49% (+11)
Clinton 38% (-14)

I'll try and come up with a new formula that takes into account the days dropping off.