Ipsos/Reuters Polls (through DNC week): Clinton +6 (tied 4-way)

[Seriously?]

This thing remains a mess. The old poll had 4-way with a Clinton lead and 2-way with a Trump lead. The new poll has the opposite.

It's almost like they are polling two separate samples.

Hopefully they get their methodology right.

[Seriously?]

Tender Branson sweating LIKE A DOG over Clinton's lead--SAD!

She was down by 2 and is now up by 5 with likely voters, a 7 point convention bounce already! But this is bad news because reasons!

Once again, why are you ignoring Johnson and Stein ? They are also on the ballot.

And in this case, the race is a tie.

We need more polls, but the evidence so far shows that Trump got a 4-5% bump and Clinton roughly the same one.

It's all back to the Clinton+4 race like before the conventions (or even less than that).

This thing doesn't really measure the Clinton bounce as the speech ended after 11:00 pm yesterday on the East coast.

It's contradictory, befuddling and lacks logic.

How do Trump's numbers RISE when you go from 2-way to 4-way for starters? I simply don't understand the methodology.

If you believe this poll, there's a bounce in the 2-way and a negative bounce in the 4-way. Yeah OK.

[Seriously?]

Trump gains two points when Johnson and Stein are added lol.

Yeah, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Allow people to vote for Johnson and Stein, and somehow MORE people vote for Trump? How does that work, exactly?

This thing remains a mess. The old poll had 4-way with a Clinton lead and 2-way with a Trump lead. The new poll has the opposite.

It's almost like they are polling two separate samples.

Hopefully they get their methodology right.

They do actually use different samples.

Head-to-Head:
(Asked of registered voters, n=1,290)

Including Johnson & Stein:
(Asked of registered voters, n=1,788)

But why? It's weird :/

And they seem to change theirs methodology for Head-to-Head only. What the hell are they doing?!

Then there's this:

These are findings from an Ipsos poll conducted for Thomson Reuters July 25-29, 2016. For the survey, a sample of 2,157 Americans, including 899 Democrats, 753 Republicans, and 266 Independents ages 18+ were interviewed online. The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points for all adults, 3.7 percentage points for Democrats, 4.1 percentage points for Republicans, and 6.9 percentage points for Independents. For more information about credibility intervals, please see the appendix.

Unless just some folks are answering the 4-way and not the 2-way, this doesn't make sense.

[Seriously?]

OK, now Reuters says Clinton is actually up by 6 (2-way, LV)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1092M5

They really need to get their s--t together.

Well that solves the divergence between 2-way and 4-way.. per the link... Two separate polls.

Why would they have two DIFFERENT samples?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Seriously?]

OK, now Reuters says Clinton is actually up by 6 (2-way, LV)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1092M5

They really need to get their s--t together.

Well that solves the divergence between 2-way and 4-way.. per the link... Two separate polls.

Why would they have two DIFFERENT samples?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They probably think, that othervice it might affect the outcome?

If one first chooses X in head-to-head question, one might choose X in 4-way with higher probability than, if there was 4-way question only. Something like this :/

Kudos on figuring that out before Reuters decided to be candid about what they are doing.

I still don't get why you'd want a different poll for the different question. You literally get to basically see the MOE at play with these two different polls more or less.

Most pollsters wouldn't do this because it's a waste of money, for starters.

[Seriously?]

This explains what happened to the methodology of the Reuters poll and how the numbers changed retroactively.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The source is what it is to you red avatars, but Caddell is widely respected on both side of the aisle when it comes to polling.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/30/exclusive-pat-caddell-blasts-reuters-back-rigging-polls-to-show-clinton-winning/

[Seriously?]

Why would they release a poll showing Trump in the lead then?

None of us in the original Reuters thread on polling could figure out why they would do what they did midstream. Changing the methodology in the middle of the two convention weeks especially was very odd. You couldn't accurately measure an apples-to-apples bounce.

And as far as Brietbart goes, it is what it is. It was Caddell's comments that matter here. I believe he was Carter's pollster.

[Seriously?]

Seriously?, plenty of us red avatars have rightfully called out Reuters for the trash that it is.

I am well aware. It is what it is with that. This was originally posted in the 2016 election thread, but moved here.

The reason I posted the original article was that it explained what Reuters did to give color as to why the results got screwey, which wasn't Kosher. And trust me, I'd be saying the same exact thing if a pollster did this and put Trump in the lead.

With that said, I know what the opinion of most red avatars on here is about Brietbart, so I was being preemptive. Caddell is no dummy when it comes to polling.