IA-Emerson: Trump +5

[DS0816]

Iowa has had a Democratic tilt in every presidential election since 1984.

Iowa had performed like a bellwether state in every presidential election since 1992.

A winning Democrat should carry Iowa easily.

Is this state politically changing?

[Matty]

Iowa has had a Democratic tilt in every presidential election since 1984.

Iowa had performed like a bellwether state in every presidential election since 1992.

A winning Democrat should carry Iowa easily.

Is this state politically changing?

No, it is going back to its traditional GOP roots.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Whelp, looks like Atlas posters calling this poll junk so far has not stopped RCP, 538, and everyone else in existence from using them in their averages. I can't believe the nerve of these polling aggregates for ignoring the will of the Atlas posters!

Junk polls should still be included in averages. Luckily though, 538 uses weights in their averages and adjusts for pollster biases, so this poll can be dealt with.

538 changed this form T+5 to T+4.

[NOVA Green]

Even if we operate on the assumption that this poll is accurate, even the polls own findings appear to indicate that Hillary is having a harder time consolidating the Democratic base than Trump with the Republican base.

Point being, it looks like Clinton has more room to grow in Iowa than Trump at this time...

How did you come to this conclusion?

From Emerson's website:

Iowa voters do not appear happy with either Presidential candidate. Trump holds a 37% favorable
opinion and a 58% unfavorable while Clinton is even further behind with a 35% favorable and 62%
unfavorable.  In the Senate race the
voters have a positive opinion of Grassley 48% to 39% but Judge
finds herself underwater
with a 34% favorable and 36% unfavorable opinion.
Clinton is having difficulty securing the Democrat vote as currently she is at 78% while Trump is taking
86% of the
GOP vote. Independents are breaking for Clinton 34% to 33% with 16% voting for Johnson.
Once again 34% of Sanders voters
are supporting another candidate other than Clinton.
Gender continues to be a significant variable as women are breaking for Clinton 47
% to 39% but males
are breaking for Trump 51% to 30%. 
Clinton wins the younger vote (18
-
34 year olds) 47% to 37% but Trump continues to hold his lead with
voter 35
-
54 at 47% to 32%. Clinton is doing better with the white voter losing 44% to 41%. Clinton
is
doing well in the Northeast (39% to 32%) and the Southwest (46% to 43%) but is losing in the Southeast
59% to 31% and in the Northwest (43% to 40%).

[Erich Maria Remarque]

why are white people so crazy?

Because Blacks are criminals, Mexicans are rapist and Muslims are terrorists, racist!

...

What? You are fine with racism towards Whites, but not vice versa? That's why you've got Trump in first place

[NOVA Green]

Even if we operate on the assumption that this poll is accurate, even the polls own findings appear to indicate that Hillary is having a harder time consolidating the Democratic base than Trump with the Republican base.

Point being, it looks like Clinton has more room to grow in Iowa than Trump at this time...

Iowa is one of the few states where the gop "establishment" has been supportive of donald since the primary.

No question that this is the case, and that is likely the reason why Trump has been able to consolidate Republican support much more easily than in many other states....

What is also interesting, is that Iowa appears to be one of the few states thus far, where not only is Hillary doing worse than Trump in consolidating their respective party bases, but additionally that there are still such a large number of Bernie holdouts (34% according to this poll).

[NOVA Green]

Iowa has had a Democratic tilt in every presidential election since 1984.

Iowa had performed like a bellwether state in every presidential election since 1992.

A winning Democrat should carry Iowa easily.

Is this state politically changing?

No, it is going back to its traditional GOP roots.

I believe it is a bit of both.... as I commented on other threads, Trumps blend of economic protectionism/populism and generally isolationist rhetorical positions generally plays well in this state, which historically has been relatively dovish/isolationist and has a decent industrial/manufacturing base in the Eastern Part of the state, where Democrats have performed quite well since '88.

[KingSweden]

Even if we operate on the assumption that this poll is accurate, even the polls own findings appear to indicate that Hillary is having a harder time consolidating the Democratic base than Trump with the Republican base.

Point being, it looks like Clinton has more room to grow in Iowa than Trump at this time...

How did you come to this conclusion?

From Emerson's website:

Iowa voters do not appear happy with either Presidential candidate. Trump holds a 37% favorable
opinion and a 58% unfavorable while Clinton is even further behind with a 35% favorable and 62%
unfavorable.  In the Senate race the
voters have a positive opinion of Grassley 48% to 39% but Judge
finds herself underwater
with a 34% favorable and 36% unfavorable opinion.
Clinton is having difficulty securing the Democrat vote as currently she is at 78% while Trump is taking
86% of the
GOP vote. Independents are breaking for Clinton 34% to 33% with 16% voting for Johnson.
Once again 34% of Sanders voters
are supporting another candidate other than Clinton.
Gender continues to be a significant variable as women are breaking for Clinton 47
% to 39% but males
are breaking for Trump 51% to 30%. 
Clinton wins the younger vote (18
-
34 year olds) 47% to 37% but Trump continues to hold his lead with
voter 35
-
54 at 47% to 32%. Clinton is doing better with the white voter losing 44% to 41%. Clinton
is
doing well in the Northeast (39% to 32%) and the Southwest (46% to 43%) but is losing in the Southeast
59% to 31% and in the Northwest (43% to 40%).

Get Sanders to Iowa immediately, in that case.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Even if we operate on the assumption that this poll is accurate, even the polls own findings appear to indicate that Hillary is having a harder time consolidating the Democratic base than Trump with the Republican base.

Point being, it looks like Clinton has more room to grow in Iowa than Trump at this time...

How did you come to this conclusion?

From Emerson's website:

Iowa voters do not appear happy with either Presidential candidate. Trump holds a 37% favorable
opinion and a 58% unfavorable while Clinton is even further behind with a 35% favorable and 62%
unfavorable.  In the Senate race the
voters have a positive opinion of Grassley 48% to 39% but Judge
finds herself underwater
with a 34% favorable and 36% unfavorable opinion.
Clinton is having difficulty securing the Democrat vote as currently she is at 78% while Trump is taking
86% of the
GOP vote. Independents are breaking for Clinton 34% to 33% with 16% voting for Johnson.
Once again 34% of Sanders voters
are supporting another candidate other than Clinton.
Gender continues to be a significant variable as women are breaking for Clinton 47
% to 39% but males
are breaking for Trump 51% to 30%.  
Clinton wins the younger vote (18
-
34 year olds) 47% to 37% but Trump continues to hold his lead with
voter 35
-
54 at 47% to 32%. Clinton is doing better with the white voter losing 44% to 41%. Clinton
is
doing well in the Northeast (39% to 32%) and the Southwest (46% to 43%) but is losing in the Southeast
59% to 31% and in the Northwest (43% to 40%).

Fair enough.
But the MOE of each group should be huge.

Recent poll from yougov that showed tie from    AUG. 17-19
Clinton D 80, I 31, R 4
Trump D 9,   I 39,  R 76

Here from QU, showing Clinton +2, from    AUG. 9-16

Clinton D 97, I 41, R 8
Trump D    1, I 45, R 85

As Nate Silver says:
Do not overanalyze samples.

EDIT:
Don't also forget, where house effect is probably coming from in that particular poll. Landslide only = old = more pro Trump. You can not both adjust for house effect and draw conclussions from the sample.

[Wells]

why are white people so crazy?

Because Blacks are criminals, Mexicans are rapist and Muslims are terrorists, racist!

...

What? You are fine with racism towards Whites, but not vice versa? That's why you've got Trump in first place

I have never expressed support for any racism.

[SWE]

why are white people so crazy?

Because Blacks are criminals, Mexicans are rapist and Muslims are terrorists, racist!

...

What? You are fine with racism towards Whites, but not vice versa? That's why you've got Trump in first place

Racism against whites isn't a thing

[NOVA Green]

Even if we operate on the assumption that this poll is accurate, even the polls own findings appear to indicate that Hillary is having a harder time consolidating the Democratic base than Trump with the Republican base.

Point being, it looks like Clinton has more room to grow in Iowa than Trump at this time...

How did you come to this conclusion?

From Emerson's website:

Iowa voters do not appear happy with either Presidential candidate. Trump holds a 37% favorable
opinion and a 58% unfavorable while Clinton is even further behind with a 35% favorable and 62%
unfavorable.  In the Senate race the
voters have a positive opinion of Grassley 48% to 39% but Judge
finds herself underwater
with a 34% favorable and 36% unfavorable opinion.
Clinton is having difficulty securing the Democrat vote as currently she is at 78% while Trump is taking
86% of the
GOP vote. Independents are breaking for Clinton 34% to 33% with 16% voting for Johnson.
Once again 34% of Sanders voters
are supporting another candidate other than Clinton.
Gender continues to be a significant variable as women are breaking for Clinton 47
% to 39% but males
are breaking for Trump 51% to 30%.  
Clinton wins the younger vote (18
-
34 year olds) 47% to 37% but Trump continues to hold his lead with
voter 35
-
54 at 47% to 32%. Clinton is doing better with the white voter losing 44% to 41%. Clinton
is
doing well in the Northeast (39% to 32%) and the Southwest (46% to 43%) but is losing in the Southeast
59% to 31% and in the Northwest (43% to 40%).

Fair enough.
But the MOE of each group should be huge.

Recent poll from yougov that showed tie from    AUG. 17-19
Clinton D 80, I 31, R 4
Trump D 9,   I 39,  R 76

Here from QU, showing Clinton +2, from    AUG. 9-16

Clinton D 97, I 41, R 8
Trump D    1, I 45, R 85

As Nate Silver says:
Do not overanalyze samples.

EDIT:
Don't also forget, where house effect is probably coming from in that particular poll. Landslide only = old = more pro Trump. You can not both adjust for house effect and draw conclussions from the sample.

I totally get the MOE and subsample concept Mr. LittleBigOctopus, but party self-identification is not a small subsample but rather one of the largest samples (Other than Gender) so again regardless of the critique of IVR polls, which generally this season appear to have a +2-3 Trump lean, as well as methodology of this particular pollster, I generally agree with the argument that Trump currently has a narrow lead in Iowa, and that is mainly a result of Trump having solidified the Republican base and Clinton has not. Hence my statement that Clinton appears to have more room to expand her base in Iowa than Trump.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

a) Not small? 200 gives MoE about 7% (or?)
b) Have you missed the others polls with similar total results T vs C, but very different result if you look on subsamples?

It's like if Trump shows in some poll, that he's getting 10% of blacks in subsample of 200... In one single poll...

[NOVA Green]

a) Not small? 200 gives MoE about 7% (or?)
b) Have you missed the others polls with similar total results T vs C, but very different result if you look on subsamples?

It's like if Trump shows in some poll, that he's getting 10% of blacks in subsample of 200... In one single poll...

So Bernie supporters are being over-sampled in Iowa in a land-line only poll, when his largest base of support are from Millennials that tend to only own cell-phones these days???

Are you saying that Democrats were oversampled in this poll that shows your man up???

Honestly, not sure where you're going with all this....

Are you saying that Clinton has consolidated her Democratic base in Iowa and Trump has not???

[Erich Maria Remarque]

a) Not small? 200 gives MoE about 7% (or?)
b) Have you missed the others polls with similar total results T vs C, but very different result if you look on subsamples?

It's like if Trump shows in some poll, that he's getting 10% of blacks in subsample of 200... In one single poll...

So Bernie supporters are being over-sampled in Iowa in a land-line only poll, when his largest base of support are from Millennials that tend to only own cell-phones these days???

Are you saying that Democrats were oversampled in this poll that shows your man up???

Honestly, not sure where you're going with all this....

Are you saying that Clinton has consolidated her Democratic base in Iowa and Trump has not???

Did you check other polls?
Do you understand that if Trump is now getting X% of Democratic base, it doesn't mean that thay still just "consolidate" them back.

You are just playing with crosstabs of one single poll.
Whatever. I give up

[Maxwell]

why are white people so crazy?

Because Blacks are criminals, Mexicans are rapist and Muslims are terrorists, racist!

you left out Asians you god damn racist

[Erich Maria Remarque]

why are white people so crazy?

Because Blacks are criminals, Mexicans are rapist and Muslims are terrorists, racist!

you left out Asians you god damn racist

Asians are OK!

[SirMuxALot]

Hence my statement that Clinton appears to have more room to expand her base in Iowa than Trump.

Would this also mean Trump has more room to expand his base everywhere else?  If not, why not?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Hence my statement that Clinton appears to have more room to expand her base in Iowa than Trump.

Would this also mean Trump has more room to expand his base everywhere else?  If not, why not?

Exactly, LOL

[Senator-elect Spark]

Big R trend, and Trump not hurting himself.

[NOVA Green]

Hence my statement that Clinton appears to have more room to expand her base in Iowa than Trump.

Would this also mean Trump has more room to expand his base everywhere else?  If not, why not?

Actually, as a fellow Oregonian, I not only believe that is the case, but additionally I would also make the argument this is the major driver behind Trump's dramatically improved state and national polling numbers.

Additionally, it appears, although I have not yet run the numbers through my private software, that Hillary has dropped a couple points of the Democratic Party numbers over the past few weeks as a result of continued media coverage of "Clinton scandals" while Trump, until Yesterday didn't create any new controversy.

I have long made the argument that Clinton is significantly under-performing in Southern Oregon (Where Trump could potentially exceed Romney '12 number), but is significantly expanding beyond Obama '12 numbers in Washington and Clackamas Counties Oregon (Suburban/Exurban Portland), where a huge chunk of the state population actually lives.

[President Johnson]

The bad news for Donny is that Iowa won't decide the election. All he needs are the big three. Iowa in addition only expands his victory from 273 to 279 electoral votes. If he fails in the big three, these six votes will be useless for him.

[Dumbo]

The bad news for Donny is that Iowa won't decide the election.

Yes, but IA +5 could be a sign that Wisconsin is in play for Trump, and
this is bad news for the Clintons.

[pbrower2a]

Let's take a look at the overall activity of the pollster. It hasn't done any polling in a long time and suddenly gives us a large number of polls that show Donald Trump doing much better, and very suddenly, for no apparent reason for him to be doing better.  Every poll looks like veritable wish-fulfillment for a Trump fan.

There is no indication that Donald Trump is doing anything better than he has since the primaries. Really, one could hardly dream up more sympathetic polls after some indication that Hillary Clinton is on a pace to win at least as strongly as Barack Obama in 2008. After one week? Where is the smoking gun?


Yes, PPP did deliver a large number of polls on behalf of an organization whose objective is the raising of the minimum wage, and those suggest no real change. But my rules indicate that because they are for a special-interest group with a partisan bias and they do not fit a need to fill in a poll (in accordance with the principle that beggars can't be choosers, so I would have to accept just about anything involving some states that get polled rarely).

Either there is an inexplicable surge by Donald Trump or there is something screwy with these polls. They have some odd weighting and are land-line only; they do not offer an option for a response in Spanish (important for reaching people who might consider any call in English by a complete stranger as junk).

There likely will be little polling over the weekend, but a poll from New Hampshire shows Hillary Clinton winning the state by a landslide margin while landslide margins by which she was allegedly winning in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all but vanished.
   

[Erich Maria Remarque]

So you CHOOSE to believe the polls you like, right?

There are A nationall polls.
There are A WI polls.
There are plenty of B polls.

Almost all showing the race tightening (some slightly, some considerably).

But muh, NH poll with 400 sample size knows best!