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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:26:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 11/7 - Trump +3.2
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 29
Author Topic: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 11/7 - Trump +3.2  (Read 83684 times)
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #500 on: October 03, 2016, 02:15:56 AM »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/2) Trump +4.6%
Trump: 47.0% (+0.1)
Clinton: 42.4% (+0.2)

It's worth noting that the sample has six of the seven debate days in it now (with the seventh day being debate night). There really is no significant statistical change outside of basic noise with this survey. (Trump netted 1.1% over the week.)

Trump was at 46.2 before the debate (9/26) and is at 47 now. Clinton was at 42.7 before the debate and is at 42.4% now. This poll, at least, has the debate as a non-event, which is in step with the polling after most debates.
Logged
Warren 4 Secretary of Everything
Clinton1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,203
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #501 on: October 03, 2016, 02:17:36 AM »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/2) Trump +4.6%
Trump: 47.0% (+0.1)
Clinton: 42.4% (+0.2)

It's worth noting that the sample has six of the seven debate days in it now (with the seventh day being debate night). There really is no significant statistical change outside of basic noise with this survey. (Trump netted 1.1% over the week.)

Trump was at 46.2 before the debate (9/26) and is at 47 now. Clinton was at 42.7 before the debate and is at 42.4% now. This poll, at least, has the debate as a non-event, which is in step with the polling after most debates.
And is out of step with all other polling after this debate
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #502 on: October 03, 2016, 02:23:29 AM »
« Edited: October 03, 2016, 02:35:51 AM by Seriously? »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/2) Trump +4.6%
Trump: 47.0% (+0.1)
Clinton: 42.4% (+0.2)

It's worth noting that the sample has six of the seven debate days in it now (with the seventh day being debate night). There really is no significant statistical change outside of basic noise with this survey. (Trump netted 1.1% over the week.)

Trump was at 46.2 before the debate (9/26) and is at 47 now. Clinton was at 42.7 before the debate and is at 42.4% now. This poll, at least, has the debate as a non-event, which is in step with the polling after most debates.
And is out of step with all other polling after this debate
Not necessarily. UPI hasn't shown that much of a net shift (pro-Trump, actually). I also believe Trump closed the gap with Reuters. There was slight movement to Hillary with the People's Pundit Daily results.

The NOLA sample seems to be pro-Clinton, as does Rasmussen, Morning Consult and Fox News.

PPP polled the race, but doesn't have a good pre-debate poll for comparison.

I was shocked that NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC didn't release polls over the weekend.
Logged
Wiz in Wis
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,711


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #503 on: October 03, 2016, 09:27:35 AM »
« Edited: October 03, 2016, 09:39:02 AM by Wiz in Wis »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/2) Trump +4.6%
Trump: 47.0% (+0.1)
Clinton: 42.4% (+0.2)

It's worth noting that the sample has six of the seven debate days in it now (with the seventh day being debate night). There really is no significant statistical change outside of basic noise with this survey. (Trump netted 1.1% over the week.)

Trump was at 46.2 before the debate (9/26) and is at 47 now. Clinton was at 42.7 before the debate and is at 42.4% now. This poll, at least, has the debate as a non-event, which is in step with the polling after most debates.
And is out of step with all other polling after this debate
Not necessarily. UPI hasn't shown that much of a net shift (pro-Trump, actually). I also believe Trump closed the gap with Reuters. There was slight movement to Hillary with the People's Pundit Daily results.

The NOLA sample seems to be pro-Clinton, as does Rasmussen, Morning Consult and Fox News.

PPP polled the race, but doesn't have a good pre-debate poll for comparison.

I was shocked that NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC didn't release polls over the weekend.


I think there is one reason to assume that Seriously? is right about the lack of a bounce following the debate based on the LATimes/USC poll, but a couple more reasons to push back.

I do think that the LAT Poll, as a panel, has the potential to smooth out the effects of differential non-response bias. That may explain a good deal of what we're seeing in the other polls. Panels, in theory, should be immune to that. However, knowing that this panel must lose participants through attrition, then new participants have to be added. This must be in part responsible for the wiggle in this poll compared to what you might expect with a more traditional panel. Opting in may be adding a layer of differential non response. New participants are more likely to be pro-Trump as pro-Hillary panelists drop out (rather, they were up to this point).

Additionally, the weights include 2012 vote. That would necessarily mute some swing based on enthusiasm as well. Finally, we know that this poll is showing much more minority support for Trump than nearly all the others. I don't want to unskew, but that is worth noting as well.

In short, I think that the daily internet panels aren't the most likely candidates to show a big bump, but then, that doesn't mean they aren't subject to their own issues.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #504 on: October 03, 2016, 10:13:15 AM »
« Edited: October 03, 2016, 10:15:57 AM by Seriously? »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/2) Trump +4.6%
Trump: 47.0% (+0.1)
Clinton: 42.4% (+0.2)

It's worth noting that the sample has six of the seven debate days in it now (with the seventh day being debate night). There really is no significant statistical change outside of basic noise with this survey. (Trump netted 1.1% over the week.)

Trump was at 46.2 before the debate (9/26) and is at 47 now. Clinton was at 42.7 before the debate and is at 42.4% now. This poll, at least, has the debate as a non-event, which is in step with the polling after most debates.
And is out of step with all other polling after this debate
Not necessarily. UPI hasn't shown that much of a net shift (pro-Trump, actually). I also believe Trump closed the gap with Reuters. There was slight movement to Hillary with the People's Pundit Daily results.

The NOLA sample seems to be pro-Clinton, as does Rasmussen, Morning Consult and Fox News.

PPP polled the race, but doesn't have a good pre-debate poll for comparison.

I was shocked that NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC didn't release polls over the weekend.


I think there is one reason to assume that Seriously? is right about the lack of a bounce following the debate based on the LATimes/USC poll, but a couple more reasons to push back.

I do think that the LAT Poll, as a panel, has the potential to smooth out the effects of differential non-response bias. That may explain a good deal of what we're seeing in the other polls. Panels, in theory, should be immune to that. However, knowing that this panel must lose participants through attrition, then new participants have to be added. This must be in part responsible for the wiggle in this poll compared to what you might expect with a more traditional panel. Opting in may be adding a layer of differential non response. New participants are more likely to be pro-Trump as pro-Hillary panelists drop out (rather, they were up to this point).

Additionally, the weights include 2012 vote. That would necessarily mute some swing based on enthusiasm as well. Finally, we know that this poll is showing much more minority support for Trump than nearly all the others. I don't want to unskew, but that is worth noting as well.

In short, I think that the daily internet panels aren't the most likely candidates to show a big bump, but then, that doesn't mean they aren't subject to their own issues.
I have to amend what I said after Morning Consult (and to a lesser extent Red Oak) came out this morning. There appears to be a bounce at least in internet polling. It's odd though that the trackers haven't picked up on it.

I think a lot of it has to do with enthusiasm right now for the self-identifieds. IIRC Morning Consult was as low as D+3 and is at D+9 right now.
Logged
PollsDontLie
nirvanayoda
Rookie
**
Posts: 87


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #505 on: October 03, 2016, 10:24:36 AM »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/2) Trump +4.6%
Trump: 47.0% (+0.1)
Clinton: 42.4% (+0.2)

It's worth noting that the sample has six of the seven debate days in it now (with the seventh day being debate night). There really is no significant statistical change outside of basic noise with this survey. (Trump netted 1.1% over the week.)

Trump was at 46.2 before the debate (9/26) and is at 47 now. Clinton was at 42.7 before the debate and is at 42.4% now. This poll, at least, has the debate as a non-event, which is in step with the polling after most debates.
And is out of step with all other polling after this debate
Not necessarily. UPI hasn't shown that much of a net shift (pro-Trump, actually). I also believe Trump closed the gap with Reuters. There was slight movement to Hillary with the People's Pundit Daily results.

The NOLA sample seems to be pro-Clinton, as does Rasmussen, Morning Consult and Fox News.

PPP polled the race, but doesn't have a good pre-debate poll for comparison.

I was shocked that NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC didn't release polls over the weekend.


I think there is one reason to assume that Seriously? is right about the lack of a bounce following the debate based on the LATimes/USC poll, but a couple more reasons to push back.

I do think that the LAT Poll, as a panel, has the potential to smooth out the effects of differential non-response bias. That may explain a good deal of what we're seeing in the other polls. Panels, in theory, should be immune to that. However, knowing that this panel must lose participants through attrition, then new participants have to be added. This must be in part responsible for the wiggle in this poll compared to what you might expect with a more traditional panel. Opting in may be adding a layer of differential non response. New participants are more likely to be pro-Trump as pro-Hillary panelists drop out (rather, they were up to this point).

Additionally, the weights include 2012 vote. That would necessarily mute some swing based on enthusiasm as well. Finally, we know that this poll is showing much more minority support for Trump than nearly all the others. I don't want to unskew, but that is worth noting as well.

In short, I think that the daily internet panels aren't the most likely candidates to show a big bump, but then, that doesn't mean they aren't subject to their own issues.
I have to amend what I said after Morning Consult (and to a lesser extent Red Oak) came out this morning. There appears to be a bounce at least in internet polling. It's odd though that the trackers haven't picked up on it.

I think a lot of it has to do with enthusiasm right now for the self-identifieds. IIRC Morning Consult was as low as D+3 and is at D+9 right now.

That would make sense.  People who are part of a panel that is regularly called may just answer the call out of habit, whereas people who are randomly called may decline the call for lack of enthusiasm.  However, it's probably also safe to assume that those same people may not vote for lack of enthusiasm as well.  I think it's clear that Clinton has a lead now and that not much, aside from astonishing Wikileaks information or an unbelievably poor debate, will change that.
Logged
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,069
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #506 on: October 03, 2016, 03:07:54 PM »

8/2 Trump +4
Trump 47% (-1)
Clinton 43% (+1)
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #507 on: October 04, 2016, 05:41:32 AM »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/3) Trump +3.9%
Trump: 46.6% (-0.4)
Clinton: 42.7% (+0.3)
Logged
Rand
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,089
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #508 on: October 04, 2016, 06:58:49 AM »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/3) Trump +3.9%
Trump: 46.6% (-0.4)
Clinton: 42.7% (+0.3)

It won't be long before Sniffles McPorn Star is tweeting this as the only "good" poll.
Logged
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,069
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #509 on: October 04, 2016, 02:21:51 PM »

10/3 Trump +1
Trump 45% (-2)
Clinton 44% (+1)
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #510 on: October 04, 2016, 03:55:48 PM »


What happens once Trumpy loses this one?  What unskewed Truth-O-Meter will he be tweeting about on a daily basis?
Logged
PollsDontLie
nirvanayoda
Rookie
**
Posts: 87


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #511 on: October 04, 2016, 04:40:13 PM »


What happens once Trumpy loses this one?  What unskewed Truth-O-Meter will he be tweeting about on a daily basis?

The numbers that Mike Wells for Northern Assembly posted and that you quoted aren't real.  That said, your question still is a good one, as it's likely that he will lose the lead in this one too sooner or later.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #512 on: October 05, 2016, 02:13:26 AM »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/4) Trump +3.6%
Trump: 46.5% (-0.1)
Clinton: 42.9% (+0.2)
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #513 on: October 05, 2016, 02:27:08 AM »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/4) Trump +3.6%
Trump: 46.5% (-0.1)
Clinton: 42.9% (+0.2)

Great poll! Trump is imploding like one of his Atlantic City casinos.
Logged
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,069
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #514 on: October 05, 2016, 03:57:40 PM »

10/4 Trump +2
Trump 46% (+1)
Clinton 44% (=)
Logged
PollsDontLie
nirvanayoda
Rookie
**
Posts: 87


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #515 on: October 05, 2016, 04:24:57 PM »


Why do you keep posting fake numbers?
Logged
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,069
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #516 on: October 05, 2016, 04:33:44 PM »


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.

I'll try and come up with a new formula that takes into account the days dropping off.
Logged
PollsDontLie
nirvanayoda
Rookie
**
Posts: 87


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #517 on: October 05, 2016, 04:38:09 PM »
« Edited: October 05, 2016, 04:39:42 PM by nirvanayoda »


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.

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

 

My sincere apologies. I didn't realize you were calculating daily results.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #518 on: October 05, 2016, 04:55:52 PM »

They're not fake numbers, they are the computed 1-day tracking average for the 7-day tracker.
Logged
PollsDontLie
nirvanayoda
Rookie
**
Posts: 87


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #519 on: October 05, 2016, 05:15:26 PM »

They're not fake numbers, they are the computed 1-day tracking average for the 7-day tracker.

Yeah, I realized that after he posted again. It's interesting, assuming that the numbers are correct.
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #520 on: October 06, 2016, 03:18:46 AM »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/5) Trump +4.0%
Trump: 46.6% (+0.1)
Clinton: 42.6% (-0.3)
Logged
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,069
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #521 on: October 06, 2016, 02:35:32 PM »

10/5 Trump +5
Trump 47% (+1)
Clinton 42% (-2)
Logged
Seriously?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #522 on: October 07, 2016, 02:15:36 AM »
« Edited: October 08, 2016, 02:12:54 AM by Seriously? »

USC/LA Times national tracking poll (through 10/6) Trump +2.6%
Trump: 46.2% (-0.4)
Clinton: 43.6% (+1.0)
Logged
Smeulders
Rookie
**
Posts: 108
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #523 on: October 07, 2016, 03:05:28 AM »

Seriously? Can you check the dates on the results? You have 2 "through 10/5"'s in a row. Your results for the first 10/5 (Clinton 42.6, Trump 46.6) also differs from the one on the "LA Times Poll dashboard", there it says C:42.9, T:46.5 "as of 5 October", which coincides with your "through 10/4" number.
Logged
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,069
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #524 on: October 07, 2016, 10:24:36 AM »

10/6 Clinton +2
Clinton 47% (+5)
Trump 45% (-2)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 29  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 13 queries.