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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 09:57:40 PM
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 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 11/7 - Trump +3.2  (Read 85424 times)
psychprofessor
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,293


« on: August 04, 2016, 10:51:25 AM »

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.
Logged
psychprofessor
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,293


« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2016, 11:26:56 AM »

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.
Logged
psychprofessor
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,293


« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2016, 09:22:44 PM »

LA Times tracking poll:  Trump +5
LA Times EV projection: Clinton 352, Trump 186
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-here-s-our-final-electoral-map-of-the-1478473458-htmlstory.html
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.029 seconds with 13 queries.