NYT/Siena Polls of 6 Battleground States
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:50:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  NYT/Siena Polls of 6 Battleground States
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7
Author Topic: NYT/Siena Polls of 6 Battleground States  (Read 13202 times)
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2019, 09:49:24 AM »

And it's important to note that Siena's polls for Senate races last year were biased toward Republicans. They had McSally and Heller winning, as well as having Cruz up 8%.

This is a pollster connected the New York Times who employers Nate Silver who went off on Twitter using the right-wing slang ""libs". Not sure it's wise to buy into these polls considering that.
 
Logged
Holy Unifying Centrist
DTC
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,201


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.54

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: November 04, 2019, 09:51:06 AM »

And it's important to note that Siena's polls for Senate races last year were biased toward Republicans. They had McSally and Heller winning, as well as having Cruz up 8%.

This is a pollster connected the New York Times who employers Nate Silver who went off on Twitter using the right-wing slang ""libs". Not sure it's wise to buy into these polls considering that.
 

Their aggregate house race polls were super accurate.

They undersampled Hispanics in those states.
Logged
slothdem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2019, 09:51:44 AM »

And it's important to note that Siena's polls for Senate races last year were biased toward Republicans. They had McSally and Heller winning, as well as having Cruz up 8%.

This is a pollster connected the New York Times who employers Nate Silver who went off on Twitter using the right-wing slang ""libs". Not sure it's wise to buy into these polls considering that.
 

They were the single best pollster of last cycle. And yes, Democrats over perform their polls in heavily Hispanic areas. This is known.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: November 04, 2019, 09:53:30 AM »



While I doubt it would happen, something weird like this map (Trump 275-Dem 263) can't be ruled out. It'd be a HELL of a post-election discussion.

Dems gotta do better in FL/GA/NC. That simple. Its like in 2004 when we came to the conclusion that Dems gotta do better in NV/NM/CO. They did.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: November 04, 2019, 09:54:17 AM »

And it's important to note that Siena's polls for Senate races last year were biased toward Republicans. They had McSally and Heller winning, as well as having Cruz up 8%.

This is a pollster connected the New York Times who employers Nate Silver who went off on Twitter using the right-wing slang ""libs". Not sure it's wise to buy into these polls considering that.
 

They were the single best pollster of last cycle. And yes, Democrats over perform their polls in heavily Hispanic areas. This is known.

Maybe that's enough that Arizona flips.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: November 04, 2019, 09:56:08 AM »

These numbers are weird, to say at least. Only FL and NC seem about accurate. But MI to the right of AZ and FL? Nah, not happening.

I might add that I don't buy the MI/WI/PA numbers showing Dems ahead by double digits for a minute. These polls here may overestimate Trump like him leading Warren by 6 in MI, but overall closer than Emerson's recent MI GE poll numbers.
Logged
heatcharger
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,238
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: November 04, 2019, 09:58:52 AM »

And it's important to note that Siena's polls for Senate races last year were biased toward Republicans. They had McSally and Heller winning, as well as having Cruz up 8%.

This is a pollster connected the New York Times who employers Nate Silver who went off on Twitter using the right-wing slang ""libs". Not sure it's wise to buy into these polls considering that.
 

Highly deranged stuff. You can also pretty easily check who Nate Silver is employed by currently.
Logged
SN2903
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,676
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: 3.91

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: November 04, 2019, 10:00:32 AM »

Amazing #s for Trump.

Just what I thought Warren is a horrible fit for Michigan. Trump up 7 on her wow.
Logged
SN2903
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,676
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: 3.91

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: November 04, 2019, 10:02:42 AM »

These numbers are weird, to say at least. Only FL and NC seem about accurate. But MI to the right of AZ and FL? Nah, not happening.

I might add that I don't buy the MI/WI/PA numbers showing Dems ahead by double digits for a minute. These polls here may overestimate Trump like him leading Warren by 6 in MI, but overall closer than Emerson's recent MI GE poll numbers.
Michigan could vote to the right of PA and WI in 2020. It's possible although Trump is likely to win all 3 again.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: November 04, 2019, 10:05:39 AM »

And it's important to note that Siena's polls for Senate races last year were biased toward Republicans. They had McSally and Heller winning, as well as having Cruz up 8%.

This is a pollster connected the New York Times who employers Nate Silver who went off on Twitter using the right-wing slang ""libs". Not sure it's wise to buy into these polls considering that.
 

Highly deranged stuff. You can also pretty easily check who Nate Silver is employed by currently.

The fact that you feel the need to call me deranged for not believing a poll says more about you than it does about me. If you want to hear deranged go listen to the audio of conservative leader Richard Spencer ranting after Charlottesville. But that's off topic so I won't dwell on it here.

Knock off the insults.
Logged
slothdem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: November 04, 2019, 10:08:14 AM »

And it's important to note that Siena's polls for Senate races last year were biased toward Republicans. They had McSally and Heller winning, as well as having Cruz up 8%.

This is a pollster connected the New York Times who employers Nate Silver who went off on Twitter using the right-wing slang ""libs". Not sure it's wise to buy into these polls considering that.
 

Highly deranged stuff. You can also pretty easily check who Nate Silver is employed by currently.

The fact that you feel the need to call me deranged for not believing a poll says more about you than it does about me. If you want to hear deranged go listen to the audio of conservative leader Richard Spencer ranting after Charlottesville. But that's off topic so I won't dwell on it here.

Knock off the insults.

He didn't call you deranged because you don't "believe" a poll. He called you deranged because you think the poll is the result of a pro-Trump conspiracy, ran by the NY Times because they once employed Nate Silver (who was not involved in the poll!), because he used the word "lib" in a tweet recently.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: November 04, 2019, 10:10:22 AM »

These numbers are weird, to say at least. Only FL and NC seem about accurate. But MI to the right of AZ and FL? Nah, not happening.

I might add that I don't buy the MI/WI/PA numbers showing Dems ahead by double digits for a minute. These polls here may overestimate Trump like him leading Warren by 6 in MI, but overall closer than Emerson's recent MI GE poll numbers.
Michigan could vote to the right of PA and WI in 2020. It's possible although Trump is likely to win all 3 again.

Trump isn't "likely" to win all 3 again. There's a remote chance it happens again, and if he's reelected, at least one of these states will go for him. WI is the most likely one, with PA and MI following, respectively.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: November 04, 2019, 10:12:05 AM »

And it's important to note that Siena's polls for Senate races last year were biased toward Republicans. They had McSally and Heller winning, as well as having Cruz up 8%.

This is a pollster connected the New York Times who employers Nate Silver who went off on Twitter using the right-wing slang ""libs". Not sure it's wise to buy into these polls considering that.
 

Highly deranged stuff. You can also pretty easily check who Nate Silver is employed by currently.

The fact that you feel the need to call me deranged for not believing a poll says more about you than it does about me. If you want to hear deranged go listen to the audio of conservative leader Richard Spencer ranting after Charlottesville. But that's off topic so I won't dwell on it here.

Knock off the insults.

He didn't call you deranged because you don't "believe" a poll. He called you deranged because you think the poll is the result of a pro-Trump conspiracy, ran by the NY Times because they once employed Nate Silver (who was not involved in the poll!), because he used the word "lib" in a tweet recently.

I never said anything about a pro-Trump conspiracy, I just said pollsters involved with a newspaper are going to push the narrative of a competitive race. That is good for headlines. Stop creating your own fairy tale about what I actually said. This board is insufferable.
Logged
heatcharger
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,238
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: November 04, 2019, 10:14:06 AM »

And it's important to note that Siena's polls for Senate races last year were biased toward Republicans. They had McSally and Heller winning, as well as having Cruz up 8%.

This is a pollster connected the New York Times who employers Nate Silver who went off on Twitter using the right-wing slang ""libs". Not sure it's wise to buy into these polls considering that.
 

Highly deranged stuff. You can also pretty easily check who Nate Silver is employed by currently.

The fact that you feel the need to call me deranged for not believing a poll says more about you than it does about me. If you want to hear deranged go listen to the audio of conservative leader Richard Spencer ranting after Charlottesville. But that's off topic so I won't dwell on it here.

Knock off the insults.

And it’s been pointed out to you why, you should probably take this poll seriously based on the pollster’s overall track record rather than cherry-picked races, as well as their methodology that picks up more non-college white voters, something many other pollsters fail to do. You don’t need to Baghdad Bob everything.

And I know all about Charlottesville lol. Setting yourself up to be compared with white nationalist lunatics wasn’t what you wanted here. Bad!
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: November 04, 2019, 10:14:44 AM »

To be a bit contrarian, I don't think an incumbent doing in the mid-40s against a few people who have not even unified their own party is all that great for him. The Dem numbers in this poll are basically irrelevant, all that matters is that Trump is within the same 1-2 points against all of them. Again, the candidates with the most name recognition among the Dems will benefit the most. The difference there is with the Hispanic and "Other" vote, who are the most marginalized and also the group undersampled by Siena in 2018.

That may explain some of their misses in House races too: In Texas, they had Gina Ortiz Jones down by 9 and she ended up losing by 0.5; they had Lizzie Fletcher down by 1 and 3, and she ended up winning by 5.
Logged
Skye
yeah_93
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,579
Venezuela


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: November 04, 2019, 10:17:27 AM »

Stop creating your own fairy tale about what I actually said. This board is insufferable.


Dude, read your post again. It reads like an OC post, seriously.
Logged
bilaps
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,789
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: November 04, 2019, 10:19:25 AM »

To be a bit contrarian, I don't think an incumbent doing in the mid-40s against a few people who have not even unified their own party is all that great for him. The Dem numbers in this poll are basically irrelevant, all that matters is that Trump is within the same 1-2 points against all of them. Again, the candidates with the most name recognition among the Dems will benefit the most. The difference there is with the Hispanic and "Other" vote, who are the most marginalized and also the group undersampled by Siena in 2018.

That may explain some of their misses in House races too: In Texas, they had Gina Ortiz Jones down by 9 and she ended up losing by 0.5; they had Lizzie Fletcher down by 1 and 3, and she ended up winning by 5.

I don't know but individual house races seem to me like much harder to poll than states in a presidential contest.. Also, how did Siena poll FL races in 2018?
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: November 04, 2019, 10:23:12 AM »

And it's important to note that Siena's polls for Senate races last year were biased toward Republicans. They had McSally and Heller winning, as well as having Cruz up 8%.

This is a pollster connected the New York Times who employers Nate Silver who went off on Twitter using the right-wing slang ""libs". Not sure it's wise to buy into these polls considering that.
 

Highly deranged stuff. You can also pretty easily check who Nate Silver is employed by currently.

The fact that you feel the need to call me deranged for not believing a poll says more about you than it does about me. If you want to hear deranged go listen to the audio of conservative leader Richard Spencer ranting after Charlottesville. But that's off topic so I won't dwell on it here.

Knock off the insults.

And it’s been pointed out to you why, you should probably take this poll seriously based on the pollster’s overall track record rather than cherry-picked races, as well as their methodology that picks up more non-college white voters, something many other pollsters fail to do. You don’t need to Baghdad Bob everything.

And I know all about Charlottesville lol. Setting yourself up to be compared with white nationalist lunatics wasn’t what you wanted here. Bad!

You had no call to refer to me as deranged. I didn't cherrypick races, I referred to their record in 2018 in statewide races.

Deranged is what your what your side of the aisle has become. Projection won't change that. But God bless you and have a blessed day.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: November 04, 2019, 10:25:30 AM »

Stop creating your own fairy tale about what I actually said. This board is insufferable.


Dude, read your post again. It reads like an OC post, seriously.

I apologize if I've offended you. It breaks my heart for blue avatars to be upset with me.
Logged
Gracile
gracile
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,047


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: November 04, 2019, 10:30:05 AM »

To be a bit contrarian, I don't think an incumbent doing in the mid-40s against a few people who have not even unified their own party is all that great for him. The Dem numbers in this poll are basically irrelevant, all that matters is that Trump is within the same 1-2 points against all of them. Again, the candidates with the most name recognition among the Dems will benefit the most. The difference there is with the Hispanic and "Other" vote, who are the most marginalized and also the group undersampled by Siena in 2018.

That may explain some of their misses in House races too: In Texas, they had Gina Ortiz Jones down by 9 and she ended up losing by 0.5; they had Lizzie Fletcher down by 1 and 3, and she ended up winning by 5.

NYT/Siena's House polls were kind of a mixed bag - it seems like they fell into many of the same traps that other pollsters had wrt Hispanic constituencies and polling of those constituencies was pretty off-base. Overall, though, most of their polls were within the margin of error of the actual result, especially in the Midwest.

Also, going by that same logic, I think there is a case to be made that the Arizona numbers are the one piece of good news out of this whole slew of polls for the Democrats, and that Democratic strength in Arizona may be underestimated.
Logged
Pollster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,756


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: November 04, 2019, 10:34:33 AM »

These look like numbers with undecided leaners not pushed. I've done a bit of work in Michigan this cycle so far and we have yet to see any of the top three Dems fall under 48% when leaners were pushed.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: November 04, 2019, 10:37:05 AM »

These look like numbers with undecided leaners not pushed. I've done a bit of work in Michigan this cycle so far and we have yet to see any of the top three Dems fall under 48% when leaners were pushed.

Leaners were definitely not pushed in this poll.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,102
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: November 04, 2019, 10:58:09 AM »

One crosstab is wrong. Trump won whites without a college degree by 37 points in 2016, not 26. That's a substantial swing back to the Democrats.
Logged
SN2903
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,676
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: 3.91

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: November 04, 2019, 11:01:42 AM »
« Edited: November 04, 2019, 11:06:47 AM by SN2903 »

These numbers are weird, to say at least. Only FL and NC seem about accurate. But MI to the right of AZ and FL? Nah, not happening.

I might add that I don't buy the MI/WI/PA numbers showing Dems ahead by double digits for a minute. These polls here may overestimate Trump like him leading Warren by 6 in MI, but overall closer than Emerson's recent MI GE poll numbers.
Michigan could vote to the right of PA and WI in 2020. It's possible although Trump is likely to win all 3 again.


Trump isn't "likely" to win all 3 again. There's a remote chance it happens again, and if he's reelected, at least one of these states will go for him. WI is the most likely one, with PA and MI following, respectively.
You're wrong and clearly didn't watch the 2016 election. If Trump is winning WI he is likely winning MI and PA. There are similar voters in the Midwest.
Logged
heatcharger
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,238
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -1.04, S: -0.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: November 04, 2019, 11:04:48 AM »

One crosstab is wrong. Trump won whites without a college degree by 37 points in 2016, not 26. That's a substantial swing back to the Democrats.

He's using 2016 pre-election polls as a reference, not exit polls. That's a better point of comparison.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 13 queries.