NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:32:44 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
  NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: NC-Gravis Marketing: Trump+1, Clinton+1  (Read 4264 times)
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2016, 10:10:22 PM »

lol Gravis

By the way, where's ARG? It was active in the primaries and I don't think this election has enough junk polls.

No We Ask America either.
Logged
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.00


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2016, 10:11:36 PM »

Great poll. It's actually tied, won't be the case on election day though. Probably will still be close.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2016, 11:22:36 PM »

Great poll. It's actually tied, won't be the case on election day though. Probably will still be close.

If Trump is tied in a North Carolina poll that has a 10% African American electorate...
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2016, 11:29:58 PM »

Love this poll.  Only 10% black when the state was 23% in 2012. 

This poll does appear to be a bit crap if they are that far off among AA voters, especially in a Southern State.... although it is a B- Pollster with a +1.1% R house effect overall, but still an epic fail on the demographic breakdown of the electorate.

All being said, it does look like the NBC/Marist poll was a bit high for Clinton, and considering that Nate Silver is indicating it does look like a +5-6 Clinton lead nationally, PPPs NC poll is probably closer to the actual current state of the race, and Clinton is likely up about 2-3%.

Do any of these outfits ever actually explain why their demographic samples are so off? I try not to nitpick polls too often, but some of them have ludicrous samples that are blatantly not representative of the actual electorate.

So I have to ask.. why? How can they mess something like this up? It doesn't take a genius to put the numbers together beforehand. I just don't get it. Even a crappy firm should be able to do this without an issue. All I can think of is that they are terribly managed and staffed by idiots who just don't care. If that's not it, then I got nothing.
Logged
Fubart Solman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,697
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2016, 12:33:34 AM »

Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2016, 06:46:04 AM »
« Edited: August 22, 2016, 06:48:39 AM by LittleBigPlanet »

Love this poll.  Only 10% black when the state was 23% in 2012.  

This poll does appear to be a bit crap if they are that far off among AA voters, especially in a Southern State.... although it is a B- Pollster with a +1.1% R house effect overall, but still an epic fail on the demographic breakdown of the electorate.

All being said, it does look like the NBC/Marist poll was a bit high for Clinton, and considering that Nate Silver is indicating it does look like a +5-6 Clinton lead nationally, PPPs NC poll is probably closer to the actual current state of the race, and Clinton is likely up about 2-3%.

Do any of these outfits ever actually explain why their demographic samples are so off? I try not to nitpick polls too often, but some of them have ludicrous samples that are blatantly not representative of the actual electorate.

So I have to ask.. why? How can they mess something like this up? It doesn't take a genius to put the numbers together beforehand. I just don't get it. Even a crappy firm should be able to do this without an issue. All I can think of is that they are terribly managed and staffed by idiots who just don't care. If that's not it, then I got nothing.
It's a random survey. Randomness and the fact that some groups is less likely to participate in polls implies that crosstabs might be skewed. So it's pollster's job to weight accordingly to voter history/pattern/their intention to vote etc.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Gravis indeed weighted, but I prefer when pollster publish their "after-weghted-data" for more transporacy. Their SC crosstabs looks better.

Nate Silver about unskewing/crosstabs.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

With that being said, Gravis is B- pollster with R-house effect and should be treated accordingly.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2016, 12:22:48 PM »

With that being said, Gravis is B- pollster with R-house effect and should be treated accordingly.

Basic tie with a proclivity for R house effects... North Carolina is "barely Clinton". 
Logged
PikaTROD
Rookie
**
Posts: 25
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2016, 08:01:28 PM »

I'm of the opinion that any poll (other than Utah) that has both candidates below 40% isn't worth my time.

Amen to that!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« 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 0.223 seconds with 13 queries.