Reuters/Ipsos: (Most) States

[Erich Maria Remarque]

OK, I dialed in these turnout projections:

White male: 63%
White female: 66%
Black male: 55%
Black female: 75%
Hispanic male: 45%
Hispanic female: 55%
So still some weakness for Clinton in northern rust belt states but greater strength in states with more African Americans

Romney unskewed polls in 2012, Dems in 2014, you now... Sigh

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I don't understand why the model has Hispanic turnout at just 32% when it was 48% last time. Black turnout is down from 66% to 41% etc.

Because voters say so. As in 2012, as in 2014, when polls were better than convential wisdom...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

This model has white turnout at 69%, African-American turnout at 56% and Hispanic turnout at 32%. That is never happening. Even in 2012, when GWB won by 2.5%, white turnout was 67.2%, African-American turnout was 60% and Hispanic turnout was 47.2%. Hispanic turnout is expected to spike dramatically this election to at worst 55% (and in the mock turnout model I used, I had Hispanic turnout at 50%). African-American turnout will also remain high, well north of 60%

Who expect it? Not polls, that ask voters.

I expect, for instance, that silent majority will stand up and vote for You Know Who

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I do enjoy Trump touting a 1-point lead in Utah.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Is it head-to-head numbers?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Go to the turnout model and reduce everyone to 0 but Hispanics to 100. I can't do that right now but last time ir showed that there was not enough in the sample to measure for states like NM

Yes, and your point is?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

For the record, this is their turnout projection....



So yeah. If we adjust it to the 2000-2012 average, then it's 2012 less Vermont (ugh), Iowa, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.

In the PV it's 46-40 to Clinton.

Unskewers detected...

If you reduce turnout to 0 for everyone and up to 100% for Hispanics, then Reuters have insufficient data for all states bar California, Texas, Colorado, Mississippi, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Yes, so? They have low sample. Is it so difficult to understand, Red Hacks?

For instance in NM, that you referenced to, it was totally~120. Is it so strange?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Go to the turnout model and reduce everyone to 0 but Hispanics to 100. I can't do that right now but last time ir showed that there was not enough in the sample to measure for states like NM

Yes, and your point is?

The point is child, that in the past two weeks out of 4,899 respondents, only 162 respondents are Hispanic. That's 3%. That sample isn't accurate enough to give you an accurate national poll, never mind states ones.

Yes, Hispanics are undersampled in most polls (not just IPSOS, not just this year). So are those under 34 years-old (not just IPSOS, not just this year).

BREAKING NEWS, lol

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Go to the turnout model and reduce everyone to 0 but Hispanics to 100. I can't do that right now but last time ir showed that there was not enough in the sample to measure for states like NM

Yes, and your point is?

The point is child, that in the past two weeks out of 4,899 respondents, only 162 respondents are Hispanic. That's 3%. That sample isn't accurate enough to give you an accurate national poll, never mind states ones.

By the way, where did you find those numbers? Ipsos doesn't make it simple to find it

[Erich Maria Remarque]

How is pointing out that a sample size is too low 'unskewing'? i said nothing about what the sample says, what the results are, just simply that is too low. Would I be 'unskewing' a poll if 25% of the respondents were women and i thought it should be closer to 50%

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Lol, neither you or I were talking about the sample.

You tried to "adjust" their turnout model. How is that not an unskewing?

It reminds me of this

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Affie - don't bother. Any poll, no matter how dodgy, needs to be accepted and ANY attempts to try to make sense of them is unskewing.

Lol, Mr. Unskever.

You still has not answered me, what change in CBS methodology (compared to 2012/08 etc) you doesn't like

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you were complaining about CBS/NYT methodology back in 2012? If not, what did they change in their methodology, that you don't like?

So tell me, what oddities in their method you have found, but are so unwilling to reveal for us?

Or you can admit, that you don't like the results

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Go to the turnout model and reduce everyone to 0 but Hispanics to 100. I can't do that right now but last time ir showed that there was not enough in the sample to measure for states like NM

Yes, and your point is?

The point is child, that in the past two weeks out of 4,899 respondents, only 162 respondents are Hispanic. That's 3%. That sample isn't accurate enough to give you an accurate national poll, never mind states ones.

Not if you reweigh those Hispanics to the equivalent of your suggested turnout model, which it appears that Reuters has done. So Reuters in essence takes the 162 Hispanics and extrapolates them to the real number which is likely about 400 or so.

Whether they did it on a micro level for each state is the only real question that you have when attempting to reskew these polls.

These numbers fundamentally are fine and in line with most state polls within the margins. Of the four companies doing these 50-state polls (Morning Consult, Google, Survey Monkey and Reuters), the way Reuters is doing it makes the most sense to give you the most up-to-date polls possible.

It's the states with 6 or fewer EVs where you start to run into issues methodologically.

Where can one see Ipsos' crosstabs?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Wait, they're projecting that Hispanic turnout will go down!? Hah! They're in for a rude awakening.

You think, Hispanics [and Whites] lie? As far as I know, the answers to the questions ("Will you vote Nov 8?" and "How enthusiastic are you about the election?") are the most important to decide likelihood.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Wait, they're projecting that Hispanic turnout will go down!? Hah! They're in for a rude awakening.

You think, Hispanics [and Whites] lie? As far as I know, the answers to the questions ("Will you vote Nov 8?" and "How enthusiastic are you about the election?") are the most important to decide likelihood.

Listen, Trump has literally targeted Hispanics with his rhetoric. From my communication with Hispanic leaders all over my state and with friends and family in places like Florida and New York, the sentiment is not that of passing on voting, but on stopping Trump cold. If you think a community that's being threatened at a national level will not turn out more than in times that they weren't, then you don't understand or you just don't want to consider it, plain and simple.

More to consider, polls in places like FL aren't taking into account the large population influx of Puerto Rican Hispanics who vote overwhelmingly D. You can go to the FL poll thread that I elaborated more on this if you want more information.

Lastly, I remember reading on this forum even that Hispanic voter registration has skyrocketed in places like Colorado and Nevada.

The same applies to African-Americans, who have now been reminded of Trump's birtherism once more (those that forgot). Hillary is well-known and trusted among this community, and Obama is on the trail campaigning for her. I doubt voter turnout there will be suppressed much either.

If they project lower turnout in light of all this, they're not going to get a good screen and so their topline numbers and projections will suffer.

There are a lot of reasons why turnout among non-white might be lower than 2012. If almost all the polls show [right now] that, why would you not believe them?

They [all pollsters, not just Ipsos] might be wrong, of course, but it is more likely that they are right.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it sound familiar, Arch?

I am not saying it is the case this year, but pollsters on average are better than conventional wisdom and "Hispanic leaders" (who the hell are they anyway?)

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It's not polls which are showing lower turnout, it is Ipsos's weighting scheme.

Explain

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Pollsters re-weight their poll results to match a pre-determined demographic breakdown, which varies from pollster to pollster based on their own assumptions of the race. If they didn't, the raw numbers would be all over the place, since the sample size isn't large enough to capture the proper demographic proportions. This is not the same thing as the "registered" versus "likely" voter issue--that's based on the questions you were discussing earlier, but not the demographic breakdown.

"Unskewing," at least as it pertains to the action often derided here and in political polling circles in general, usually involves saying you don't believe a poll because they didn't sample enough Latinos, or blacks, or something along those lines. That is not the same as what's being done here, which is arguing that the poll's demographic weighting seems unreasonable.

Lol, what? 99% of pollsters re-weight RV demographic to match RV Census Bureau statistic. Own assumption LMAO

#uneducatedUnskewersHillary2016

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I'm talking about the pollsters' demographic turnout breakdown.

= LV-model

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Google's samples are 1-week and generally too small in smaller states. Google just balances their samples based on age and gender. They don't even ask any other questions.

Google doesn't balance by racial demographics?  

Wow, no wonder their polls are so useless...

It's literally like a 3-4 question poll.. Likelihood to vote, Voter Intention, Gender and Age.

I don't mind any polls, but Google is weird (though it has B rating on 538). One can probably use it apple-to-apple comparison (as 538 does). But... it still is weird...

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Seriously? Do you have a link so I can pull up the statewide numbers.

As an older man my eyesight isn't nearly as good as it used to be and wanted to be able to update my spreadsheet without squinting.

http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I haven't followed this one closely.  The latest numbers look pretty good for Clinton in isolation, but how are the trends from previous datasets?

They didn't change any 538's models. OK, by 0.1%.
But 538 already was pretty good for Trump, giving him about 20% chance of winning.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

But 538 already was pretty good for Trump, giving him about 20% chance of winning.

A 1 in 5 chance of winning is pretty good?

Noone in the world would have better chances after all the scandals

Joking aside, you are right. I meant relatively good [compared to other models].