Monmouth National: Clinton +7

[Seriously?]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does that mean Monmouth actually admits to adjusting for self-ID D/R/I with this poll or are they talking about the recorded Party ID (not self-id) voter sample they should have gotten using random sampling from the voter list vs. what they drew from the poll?

E.G. When cross-referencing voter lists, Sample should be X% D, Y% R, Z% I from registration lists, but was A% D, B% R, C% I.

It was an R+2 sample, which ended up D+4 after the reweighs. Note that this is a question to some of you that are more versed at polling adjustments than I am, not a comment on the subject or the underlying polling itself.

[Seriously?]

Also note, they did poll the 2-way and LV vs. RV.

LV favors Trump by 2 points in 2-way, no effect in 4-way.

2-way RV (802 RV) Clinton +9
Donald Trump   38% (+2)
Hillary Clinton   47% (-3)
Other                 4% (--)
Undecided          7% (+1)
No one               4% (--)

2-way LV (689 LV) Clinton +7
Donald Trump   42% (+2)
Hillary Clinton   49% (-5)
Other                 4% (+1)
Undecided          5% (+2)
No one               0% (--)

4-way RV (802 RV) Clinton +7
Donald Trump    36% (+2)
Hillary Clinton    43% (-3)
Gary Johnson      8% (+1)
Jill Stein              2% (--)
Other                  1% (+1)
Undecided           7% (+1)
No one                4% (--)

4-way LV (689 LV) Clinton +7
Donald Trump   39% (+2)
Hillary Clinton   46% (-4)
Gary Johnson     7% (--)
Jill Stein             2% (--)
Other                 1% (+1)
Undecided          5% (+2)
No one               0% (--)

[Seriously?]

What's interesting is that these favorability ratings predicted the correct winner in each election and came pretty close to predicting the pop vote margin.

Since everything but 1992, 1996, 2000 Gallup Poll and the 2016 Monmouth poll was an actual exit poll, I would hope the correct winner in each election would be chosen as well as the popular vote margin.

Obviously, the polls in 1992, 1996 and 2000 were the final polls of the cycle, not August.

[Seriously?]

What's interesting is that these favorability ratings predicted the correct winner in each election and came pretty close to predicting the pop vote margin.

Since everything but 1992, 1996, 2000 Gallup Poll and the 2016 Monmouth poll was an actual exit poll, I would hope the correct winner in each election would be chosen as well as the popular vote margin.

Obviously, the polls in 1992, 1996 and 2000 were the final polls of the cycle, not August.

These are favorability ratings, not actual "who did you vote for" polls, though. I mentioned in a previous thread that favorability rankings are more predictive than actual polls right now - and as you can see above, the favorability ratings come pretty close to the actual pop vote margin.

In this cycle Hillary seems to run 8-12 points more favorable than Trump.

I understand that, but the net favorables should lie with the candidate that you pulled the lever for in most polls come election day.

The problem with this cycle is that both candidates are not liked very much by the electorate, so it math fails. Neither won't get 35% of the vote.

[Seriously?]

Inconsistent with the Emerson polls of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Yes. This poll showed 6 points swing towards Trump, while Emerson polls didn't?

Emerson's polls were their first general election polls of the cycle.

[Seriously?]

Mr Neither is most favorable candidate!

What's interesting is that these favorability ratings predicted the correct winner in each election (Gore in 2000!) and came pretty close to predicting the pop vote margin.

Congratulations, President Neither!

None of the Above from "Brewster's Millions." A valid option in Nevada, IIRC.