Monmouth Poll: Clinton +4 in Ohio

[IceSpear]

Ohio probably would be safe R if Kasich was the nominee, which would've been a major coup for the GOP even if his nationwide numbers came back down to earth (and they almost certainly would have.)

[Fargobison]

If Kasich had won the nomination:

Kasich 57
Clinton 33

B-b-but the base would have stayed home!!11!

Donnie probably shouldn't have called Kasich a disgusting slob.

[OwlRhetoric]

If Kasich had won the nomination:

Kasich 57
Clinton 33

B-b-but the base would have stayed home!!11!

Guy was a literally who also ran for most voters. That's why his favorables are so high. The Kasich cult of personality was non-existent outside Ohio for good reason.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Johnson's numbers will decrease by election day.

[heatcharger]

Johnson's numbers will decrease by election day.

Which would help Clinton. BAD!

[Seriously?]

It seems like there's some controversy over the methodology here.

Monmouth's unweighed poll - results being results, which red avatars preach on here....
33R/29D/36I. Trump with a 2-point lead.

After Monmouth's special sauce was added, it became
29R/33D/37I. Clinton leading by 4.

Monmouth claims that the poll was reweighed for region, sex, race, age and polling vote history/registration. Their critics claim otherwise.

You'd think polling vote history/registration would be baked into the LV screen to begin with and would not need adjustment.

I'll be honest, I don't see how you can get to an 8% shift in the electorate by adjusting for race and age.

I think race was off by a few points, age a few points as well.

Sex seems to be on par between the weighted and unweighted samples.

It's possible it's a regional thing, which isn't released in the results.

[Wells]

It seems like there's some controversy over the methodology here.

Monmouth's unweighed poll - results being results, which red avatars preach on here....
33R/29D/36I. Trump with a 2-point lead.

After Monmouth's special sauce was added, it became
29R/33D/37I. Clinton leading by 4.

Monmouth claims that the poll was reweighed for region, sex, race, age and polling vote history/registration. Their critics claim otherwise.

Can you unskew the YouGov Clinton +6 Ohio poll?

[IceSpear]

It seems like there's some controversy over the methodology here.

Monmouth's unweighed poll - results being results, which red avatars preach on here....
33R/29D/36I. Trump with a 2-point lead.

After Monmouth's special sauce was added, it became
29R/33D/37I. Clinton leading by 4.

Monmouth claims that the poll was reweighed for region, sex, race, age and polling vote history/registration. Their critics claim otherwise.

[NOVA Green]

Monmouth is an A+ Pollster according to 538, although I don't know their track record of polling in Ohio.

These results do seem to match what we would expect with an LV screen and national polling averages, along with some general assumptions and conventional wisdom regarding the Trump appeal in places like SE OH and possibly some historical mfg areas in Eastern/NE Ohio where we could expect to see a heavier Republican swing than in some of the previous election cycles....

That being said, it looks like Trump gains in certain parts of Ohio are likely being offset in some of the more affluent suburbs of Cleveland and even possibly Columbus (Although there are probably fewer potential Democratic votes to mine when looking at the past few election cycles so might be close to being tapped out for Hillary expansion).

[The Other Castro]

I wonder who is more reputable, the director of an A+ rated poll or the comment section of /r/The_Donald and theconservativetreehouse.com. I think I'll go with the guy that actually understands what he's doing.

[Seriously?]

It seems like there's some controversy over the methodology here.

Monmouth's unweighed poll - results being results, which red avatars preach on here....
33R/29D/36I. Trump with a 2-point lead.

After Monmouth's special sauce was added, it became
29R/33D/37I. Clinton leading by 4.

Monmouth claims that the poll was reweighed for region, sex, race, age and polling vote history/registration. Their critics claim otherwise.

Please don't "unskew" the polls. It's already bad enough when all the Democrats here do it.

I take offense to this unskewing bullcrap claimed on here by others when there's a legitimate question in this particular poll with methodology.

I am not the pollster that got one result in their raw numbers and changed the result after special saucing the poll.

Pointing out that there is a debate over the numbers is hardly "unskewing" the numbers either. I did not advance the ball that Trump was up here. I pointed out that there's an academic debate over the numbers of this particular poll.

It's one thing if the deviance between the raw numbers and the reweighed numbers are a few points off. It's quite another, academically, when a poll is so bad that there is an 8% reweighing done by the pollster.

[Devout Centrist]

It seems like there's some controversy over the methodology here.

Monmouth's unweighed poll - results being results, which red avatars preach on here....
33R/29D/36I. Trump with a 2-point lead.

After Monmouth's special sauce was added, it became
29R/33D/37I. Clinton leading by 4.

Monmouth claims that the poll was reweighed for region, sex, race, age and polling vote history/registration. Their critics claim otherwise.

I'll be honest, I don't see how you can get to an 8% shift in the electorate by adjusting for race an age.

You'd think polling vote history/registration would be baked into the LV screen to begin with and would not need adjustment.

I think race was off by a few points, age a few points as well.

Sex seems to be on par between the weighted and unweighted samples.

It's possible it's a regional thing, which isn't released in the results.

2004 was rigged!

[Seriously?]

It seems like there's some controversy over the methodology here.

Monmouth's unweighed poll - results being results, which red avatars preach on here....
33R/29D/36I. Trump with a 2-point lead.

After Monmouth's special sauce was added, it became
29R/33D/37I. Clinton leading by 4.

Monmouth claims that the poll was reweighed for region, sex, race, age and polling vote history/registration. Their critics claim otherwise.

Can you unskew the YouGov Clinton +6 Ohio poll?

Of course not. I am pointing out the reweigh on this poll and that it is a significant reweigh. It's not like we're talking a few percentage points here.

[The Other Castro]

The "academic debate" you are citing is some angry Trump supporters tweeting at Patrick Murray based on a faulty article from a conservative website trying to unskew a poll.

[Dr. Arch]

It seems like there's some controversy over the methodology here.

Monmouth's unweighed poll - results being results, which red avatars preach on here....
33R/29D/36I. Trump with a 2-point lead.

After Monmouth's special sauce was added, it became
29R/33D/37I. Clinton leading by 4.

Monmouth claims that the poll was reweighed for region, sex, race, age and polling vote history/registration. Their critics claim otherwise.

Can you unskew the YouGov Clinton +6 Ohio poll?

Of course not. I am pointing out the reweigh on this poll and that it is a significant reweigh. It's not like we're talking a few percentage points here.

Can we get a Seriously? is evolving to StatesPoll gif?

[Seriously?]

It seems like there's some controversy over the methodology here.

Monmouth's unweighed poll - results being results, which red avatars preach on here....
33R/29D/36I. Trump with a 2-point lead.

After Monmouth's special sauce was added, it became
29R/33D/37I. Clinton leading by 4.

Monmouth claims that the poll was reweighed for region, sex, race, age and polling vote history/registration. Their critics claim otherwise.

I'll be honest, I don't see how you can get to an 8% shift in the electorate by adjusting for race an age.

You'd think polling vote history/registration would be baked into the LV screen to begin with and would not need adjustment.

I think race was off by a few points, age a few points as well.

Sex seems to be on par between the weighted and unweighted samples.

It's possible it's a regional thing, which isn't released in the results.

2004 was rigged!

No one is saying any election was rigged here. No one is saying that Trump leads here either.

An 8% deviance from your raw unweighed D/R/I numbers to your weighed D/R/I numbers is a lot in any poll and neither normal nor typical.

[Wells]

It seems like there's some controversy over the methodology here.

Monmouth's unweighed poll - results being results, which red avatars preach on here....
33R/29D/36I. Trump with a 2-point lead.

After Monmouth's special sauce was added, it became
29R/33D/37I. Clinton leading by 4.

Monmouth claims that the poll was reweighed for region, sex, race, age and polling vote history/registration. Their critics claim otherwise.

Can you unskew the YouGov Clinton +6 Ohio poll?

Of course not. I am pointing out the reweigh on this poll and that it is a significant reweigh. It's not like we're talking a few percentage points here.

I'm sure you are an expert at polling, especially compared to those idiots at an A+ pollster. If you think they reweighed the poll wrong, then they did. They should hire you, since you obviously understand so much about polls.

[Seriously?]

The "academic debate" you are citing is some angry Trump supporters tweeting at Patrick Murray based on a faulty article from a conservative website trying to unskew a poll.

It's one thing if it's a point or two deviance. It's quite another when you are talking about 8-points. Something is amiss in the sample at that point if you have to make that much of an adjustment.

Again, I am not unskewing a thing. I am not attempting to advocate that Trump leads here. I am not calling anyone either a partisan or a hack. I am not attacking Monmouth. I am just pointing out the unusual reweighing of this particular poll.

You do not usually see that much reweighing done with most polls. Something was not quite right with the underlying sample if that much massaging had to be done to get the numbers in line with Monmouth's turnout assumptions for race, age, gender, etc.

[Devout Centrist]

It's always hilarious when Atlas posters think they are experts at polling, when in fact most people here couldn't conduct a poll if their life depended on it.

Aw, I just started a poll with my shell company, "DC Polling." Here's a sample question:

"TN Volunteer hates women! Do you think he's good for the women of New Hampshire?"

[The Other Castro]

It's always hilarious when Atlas posters think they are experts at polling, when in fact most people here couldn't conduct a poll if their life depended on it.

Most would probably forget to poll anger level in women, rendering the polls useless.

[ElectionsGuy]

So if Pew is to be believed, Ohio has an even PVI this election.

Maybe a point or two to the right.

[NOVA Green]

The "academic debate" you are citing is some angry Trump supporters tweeting at Patrick Murray based on a faulty article from a conservative website trying to unskew a poll.

It's one thing if it's a point or two deviance. It's quite another when you are talking about 8-points. Something is amiss in the sample at that point if you have to make that much of an adjustment.

Again, I am not unskewing a thing. I am not attempting to advocate that Trump leads here. I am not calling anyone either a partisan or a hack. I am not attacking Monmouth. I am just pointing out the unusual reweighing of this particular poll.

You do not usually see that much reweighing done with most polls. Something was not quite right with the underlying sample if that much massaging had to be done to get the numbers in line with Monmouth's turnout assumptions for race, age, gender, etc.

Seriously?

Let's face it--- this is actually a pretty decent poll for your man Trump, considering we have had four polls from Ohio starting from 7/30 through 8/21 and Trump is getting the best weighted result among LVs compared to the A- Q, B YouGov, and the A Marist (RV only).

It's lonely in the wilderness sometimes, and as a Bernie supporter in the primaries I know that on the forum sometimes even reasonable attempts at political discussion will occasionally be met by sarcasm and ridicule, during the heat of election season.

I don't agree with attempting to unskew a particular poll from a top pollster based upon "party self-identification" when as we all know most Americans will self-identify to a pollster, regardless of party registration when they are leaning towards or planning to vote for the figurehead of the party...

What I will say is this.... there will be plenty more decent polls of Ohio hopefully before Labor Day (But not holding my breath) and we should have a clearer picture of the state of the race in Ohio shortly.

Objectively, it does appear that Hillary is now about 3-4% up in Ohio *at this time*, and attempting to reweigh a poll is not going to chance the statistical consensus, regardless of whatever candidate one chooses to support.

[Ebsy]

The thing is Seriously?, 2012 exit polls and actual polls of likely/registered voters showed there to be more Democrats than Republican in Ohio. Why would Monmouth find there to be more Republicans?

[The Other Castro]

The thing is Seriously?, 2012 exit polls and actual polls of likely/registered voters showed there to be more Democrats than Republican in Ohio. Why would Monmouth find there to be more Republicans?

To be fair, his concern seems to be with the level of the shift taken from the unweighted numbers, not with the Party ID numbers in general. Not that I think that concern is really warranted though.

[Seriously?]

The thing is Seriously?, 2012 exit polls and actual polls of likely/registered voters showed there to be more Democrats than Republican in Ohio. Why would Monmouth find there to be more Republicans?

They got a crap underlying sample here. That's my point. There was a lot of massaging to make this thing even workable. I am well aware that the exit poll numbers were in the D+7 or so range. They massaged this poll to D+4. The raw sample was R+4.