OH-Bloomberg: Trump +5/+5

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It is f**king Selzer! Third best pollster according to 538.

Bull****

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Favorables:
Clinton 40/57
Trump  45/52

Obama 46/51
Kasich  59/35

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It is f**king Selzer! Third best pollster according to 538.

Bull****

If I see anything that supports this, fine. Until then, it's an outlier.

I don't care who does the poll, if it skews HARD against the conventional wisdom I'll await further information.

Have you missed another A pollster QU? They founded Trump +4. And yes — deplorables/pneumania

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Clinton doesn't need Ohio, Iowa and Florida.
She has to win the Kerry states 2004 + Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia,
then she ends with 273 EV.

Stop pretending like Ohio is in vacuum. If Trump's gained here 3-4%, he's probably gained 2-3% in many other states as well, in Wisconsin for instance.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Clinton doesn't need Ohio, Iowa and Florida.
She has to win the Kerry states 2004 + Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia,
then she ends with 273 EV.

Stop pretending like Ohio is in vacuum. If Trump's gained here 3-4%, he's probably gained 2-3% in many other states as well, in Wisconsin for instance.

Wisconsin is out of reach for him as is Pennsylvania. And if doesn't win Florida, he's done.

They were out of reach when Clinton lead by 3-5. If the race is a tie (recent polls might indicate it), so are WI and PA

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I don't buy this lead unless PPP polls it. And she is doing well in VA.  This is very similar to the Quinnipiac poll.

I see, Dems've got a new favorite pollster. It was Marist until last week

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Ok, love the 43R to 36D breakdown in party id numbers in the poll.  Really makes it seem valid.

This junk is needed to be unskewed!

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Ok, love the 43R to 36D breakdown in party id numbers in the poll.  Really makes it seem valid.

This junk is needed to be unskewed!

No unskewing, just a critique on the poll.

It is. You are Shy Unskewer

You didn't criticise methodology (controlled by pollster), you criticized the results ("controlled" by voters).
When people switch between candidate, they likely switch their selfreported party identification as well. It is not strange at all. It'd be strange, if they didn't.

But yeah, the natural noise in this poll is probably Trump-friendly.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Ok, love the 43R to 36D breakdown in party id numbers in the poll.  Really makes it seem valid.

This junk is needed to be unskewed!

No unskewing, just a critique on the poll.

It is. You are Shy Unskewer

You didn't criticise methodology (controlled by pollster), you criticized the results ("controlled" by voters).
When people switch between candidate, they likely switch their selfreported party identification as well. It is not strange at all. It'd be strange, if they didn't.

But yeah, the natural noise in this poll is probably Trump-friendly.

I was critiquing what method they are using for the LV screen.  But again keep posting the sh**t that you spew all each and every day.  It really makes you look great.

What's wrong with their method? Results, I guess?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

OK, I give up. Selzer is junk. Red hacks here are experts.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The American people want Trump and are looking for any excuse to vote him.  It's like that pack of cigarettes that you know will kill you eventually but who cares.  It's like, cigarettes are cool and the media keeps showing them in movies, TV shows, etc as such.  Meanwhile Clinton is a kale salad.  Yeah it's good for you, but who wants a kale salad; you can't be enthusiastic for that.  Also some junk magazine said 'Is Kale really that good for you?' and that's enough to cast doubt on it and say 'meh, what's the difference; at least I feel good after smoking/voting for Trump.'

[Erich Maria Remarque]

A lot of text.

Firstly, turnout might change. The biggest "homogeneous" group in 2012 was non-college-educated Whites. And they had a very low turnout (56%).

Secondly, exit-polls usually underestimates non-college-educated Whites.

Thirdly, looking at selfreported party identification in a LV-model is exactly what unskewing is about.


And yeah. You should be consistent. Why do red hacks always unskew only Trump-friendly polls?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It's not the sample... it's the LV screen. Lean Trump voters are more likely to say they will vote right now than Lean Clinton, at least using their screen. It's not rocket science.

We don't know it. It might be both.

And Selzer is that good, because their LV-model is good

[Erich Maria Remarque]

A lot of text.

Firstly, turnout might change. The biggest "homogeneous" group in 2012 was non-college-educated Whites. And they had a very low turnout (56%).

Secondly, exit-polls usually underestimates non-college-educated Whites.

Thirdly, looking at selfreported party identification in a LV-model is exactly what unskewing is about.

Not "unskewing." If the election were held today, I'd bet Trump wins OH. But, the LV screen is definitely picking up differential enthusiasm to answer polls, or self-rate their probability of voting higher among GOPers.

It is.  You don't have evidence, that it will go back to normal. LV model tryies to predict turnout, what's wrong here?

That is not the same as voters switching to Trump from Clinton.

And?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Interesting.

Trump might get a few days of good polling now, but Hillary should recover when the debates start or when Obama campaigns the full month of October with her ...

Why? And the LV/RV divergence didn't started today, not even yesterday. It started for 2-3 weeks ago, i.e. it more or less started when all "A" pollsters switched to LV and Trump's biggest gaffes faded away.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Firstly, turnout might change. The biggest "homogeneous" group in 2012 was non-college-educated Whites. And they had a very low turnout (56%).

Well, you are just as entitled to your opinion just as I am. We will just have to see. I'm rather excited for this election in the sense that it means that one way or another, the Republican wet dream of forever-2004 electorates, with minorities once again retreating from the polls on election day, will finally be put to the test.

The difference is that I'm not trying to misscredit polls because of my beliefs (and I also believe in Shy Trumpers )

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Let me say it one more time. That poll is probably a tiny outlier, but it is unskewing to look at self-reported party identification. Why? Because if Trump really gained by any reason it would be reflected in party identification numbers as well. Those who vote Trump will likely identify them as Republicans and vice versa.

So it is a cyclic argument. Kind of.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I fail to see what Donald Trump has to offer. Were I thirty years younger I would be preparing to emigrate. A Trump Presidency will be the worst four years of American history since the Civil War. Heck, at least the Depression began with peace and honest government under Hoover, and people saw steady improvements in their lives before Pearl Harbor. The Gilded Age was at the least a time of unbridled opportunity.

OK!