NYT/Siena: Biden +14

[soundchaser]

...well, gotta admit I’m not quite as worried about that wonky Arizona sample as I was yesterday.

[Sir Mohamed]

I'm starting to get the feeling that this won't be a pure tossup close election.

What a huge margin I didn't expect. A "sleeping" or a "bidon (french)" Joe Biden is crushing Trump. I can't imagine what the margin'd be if there's a political animal (Truman, LBJ or Bill Clinton) or a charismatic guy (JFK or Obama).

More and more people think Trump's presidency is a miserable failure. If the results are like this poll, it'd be the worst defeat for an incumbent president since Hoover.

I'm waiting polls in the states.

I would say Bill Clinton was both a political animal and a charismatic guy.

Also yeah this would be the biggest defeat for an incumbent in terms of popular vote since Hoover, but as pointed out above due to polarization it wouldn't be quite as big as 1980 in the EC.

I'm not sure these factors matter that much this time. As long as Biden doesn't have major scandals or extreme gaffes, results like this here is probably close to maxed out for Dems. Mr. Trump most likely is at or close to his bedrock support in a majority of current polls.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I'm starting to get the feeling that this won't be a pure tossup close election.

What a huge margin I didn't expect. A "sleeping" or a "bidon (french)" Joe Biden is crushing Trump. I can't imagine what the margin'd be if there's a political animal (Truman, LBJ or Bill Clinton) or a charismatic guy (JFK or Obama).

More and more people think Trump's presidency is a miserable failure. If the results are like this poll, it'd be the worst defeat for an incumbent president since Hoover.

I'm waiting polls in the states.

I would say Bill Clinton was both a political animal and a charismatic guy.

Also yeah this would be the biggest defeat for an incumbent in terms of popular vote since Hoover, but as pointed out above due to polarization it wouldn't be quite as big as 1980 in the EC.

I'm not sure these factors matter that much this time. As long as Biden doesn't have major scandals or extreme gaffes, results like this here is probably close to maxed out for Dems. Mr. Trump most likely is at or close to his bedrock support in a majority of current polls.

I think his bedrock is 38% (N.B. I think he will safely avoid this - >95% chance - but suspect it's where the floor is), but that implies a number of people switching to support third party candidates who just can't stomach voting for a Democrat (so at least ~5% for Libertarian/Green/other in this election).

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1275800849407713283

[Sir Mohamed]

https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1275800849407713283

Comparing polling and political fundamentals from 32 years ago with today is like comparing computers from the 1990s with today's.

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1275772807016787969
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1275773513102745602
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1275777842861793280

[Crumpets]

The white backlash against Trump for allowing Antifa to run through the streets and tear down our statues is really coming back to bite him.

[Pollster]

Some oddities going on with this poll:

First, it appears to be 61% white (way too low), but at a deeper glance it appears to be 61 White/12 Black/12 Hispanic/12 Other. This leaves 3% unaccounted for - way too large to be rounding error.

The age breakdown is 16/23/33/24 - 4% unaccounted for.

Party ID is 35/26/33 - 6% unaccounted for.

Not sure what is causing this, but looks like incredibly sloppy work from the NYTimes.

[2016]

The Republican Party needs to ABANDON Trump right now!

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1275800849407713283

Just keep Joe away from the tanks. 

[Adam Griffin]

Some oddities going on with this poll:

First, it appears to be 61% white (way too low), but at a deeper glance it appears to be 61 White/12 Black/12 Hispanic/12 Other. This leaves 3% unaccounted for - way too large to be rounding error.

The age breakdown is 16/23/33/24 - 4% unaccounted for.

Party ID is 35/26/33 - 6% unaccounted for.

Not sure what is causing this, but looks like incredibly sloppy work from the NYTimes.

I don't know what "Other" constitutes here, but there's no way that 12% of the country's voters are non-white and not categorized as either Asian Latino or Black (according to exit polling, this number was around 70/12/11/7 in 2016). Chances are this has something to do with state-by-state voter file classifications and the overwhelming chunk of these "others" (and unknowns) are in effect white. However, I can't make that guarantee with absolute certainty (but in states where voters are classified by race via their voter registrations, a lot of others/unknowns mimic their local constituent racial/ethnic breakdowns proportionally).

Anyway, if you assume basically all of the unaccounteds + half of the discrepancy between 2016 and this poll are white, then that's a 67% white electorate - which with very high turnout, isn't unfathomable.

[BobbieMac]

https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1275800849407713283

Comparing polling and political fundamentals from 32 years ago with today is like comparing computers from the 1990s with today's.

Ross Perot had a 13 point lead in June 1992 - third party surge due?!

[Darthpi - Crush the Oligarchy]

https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1275800849407713283

Acting like Biden is down ten would involve me giving up on the race, like a normal person. Terrible advice.

[Devout Centrist]

Some oddities going on with this poll:

First, it appears to be 61% white (way too low), but at a deeper glance it appears to be 61 White/12 Black/12 Hispanic/12 Other. This leaves 3% unaccounted for - way too large to be rounding error.

The age breakdown is 16/23/33/24 - 4% unaccounted for.

Party ID is 35/26/33 - 6% unaccounted for.

Not sure what is causing this, but looks like incredibly sloppy work from the NYTimes.

They do weigh these things, you know:

The sample was weighted to match the composition of registered voters by age, race, region, turnout, partisanship, gender, census block group density, marital status, home ownership and education. The national survey was also weighted by metropolitan status and whether at least 20 percent of cellphone records on the L2 voter file had a confidence code of “2”, which strongly correlated with higher state productivity in the May 2020 test.

[Pollster]

Some oddities going on with this poll:

First, it appears to be 61% white (way too low), but at a deeper glance it appears to be 61 White/12 Black/12 Hispanic/12 Other. This leaves 3% unaccounted for - way too large to be rounding error.

The age breakdown is 16/23/33/24 - 4% unaccounted for.

Party ID is 35/26/33 - 6% unaccounted for.

Not sure what is causing this, but looks like incredibly sloppy work from the NYTimes.

They do weigh these things, you know:

The sample was weighted to match the composition of registered voters by age, race, region, turnout, partisanship, gender, census block group density, marital status, home ownership and education. The national survey was also weighted by metropolitan status and whether at least 20 percent of cellphone records on the L2 voter file had a confidence code of “2”, which strongly correlated with higher state productivity in the May 2020 test.

Yes - extremely sloppy weighting, which was a hallmark of the live Congressional polls they did in 2018 as well. Note that this doesn't necessarily make the toplines inaccurate, it has a much bigger impact on the crosstabs.

[Pollster]

Some oddities going on with this poll:

First, it appears to be 61% white (way too low), but at a deeper glance it appears to be 61 White/12 Black/12 Hispanic/12 Other. This leaves 3% unaccounted for - way too large to be rounding error.

The age breakdown is 16/23/33/24 - 4% unaccounted for.

Party ID is 35/26/33 - 6% unaccounted for.

Not sure what is causing this, but looks like incredibly sloppy work from the NYTimes.

I don't know what "Other" constitutes here, but there's no way that 12% of the country's voters are non-white and not categorized as either Asian or Black (according to exit polling, this number was around 70/12/11/7 in 2016). Chances are this has something to do with state-by-state voter file classifications and the overwhelming chunk of these "others" (and unknowns) are in effect white. However, I can't make that guarantee with absolute certainty (but in states where voters are classified by race via their voter registrations, a lot of others/unknowns mimic their local constituent racial/ethnic breakdowns proportionally).

Anyway, if you assume basically all of the unaccounteds + half of the discrepancy between 2016 and this poll are white, then that's a 67% white electorate - which with very high turnout, isn't unfathomable.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you here. Turnout would have to be damn near stratospheric for race figures like that, though.

[Devout Centrist]

Some oddities going on with this poll:

First, it appears to be 61% white (way too low), but at a deeper glance it appears to be 61 White/12 Black/12 Hispanic/12 Other. This leaves 3% unaccounted for - way too large to be rounding error.

The age breakdown is 16/23/33/24 - 4% unaccounted for.

Party ID is 35/26/33 - 6% unaccounted for.

Not sure what is causing this, but looks like incredibly sloppy work from the NYTimes.

They do weigh these things, you know:

The sample was weighted to match the composition of registered voters by age, race, region, turnout, partisanship, gender, census block group density, marital status, home ownership and education. The national survey was also weighted by metropolitan status and whether at least 20 percent of cellphone records on the L2 voter file had a confidence code of “2”, which strongly correlated with higher state productivity in the May 2020 test.

Yes - extremely sloppy weighting, which was a hallmark of the live Congressional polls they did in 2018 as well. Note that this doesn't necessarily make the toplines inaccurate, it has a much bigger impact on the crosstabs.

Well certainly, but these are crosstabs at the end of the day. I'd be hesitant to believe any numbers for those groups without disproportionate sampling.

[brucejoel99]

This is the realm of TX & GA going (non-Atlas) blue & Biden sailing over 400 electoral votes.

[SaneDemocrat]

My guess for Wisconsin MU law is Biden 46-41 based on this

[Adam Griffin]

Some oddities going on with this poll:

First, it appears to be 61% white (way too low), but at a deeper glance it appears to be 61 White/12 Black/12 Hispanic/12 Other. This leaves 3% unaccounted for - way too large to be rounding error.

The age breakdown is 16/23/33/24 - 4% unaccounted for.

Party ID is 35/26/33 - 6% unaccounted for.

Not sure what is causing this, but looks like incredibly sloppy work from the NYTimes.

I don't know what "Other" constitutes here, but there's no way that 12% of the country's voters are non-white and not categorized as either Asian or Black (according to exit polling, this number was around 70/12/11/7 in 2016). Chances are this has something to do with state-by-state voter file classifications and the overwhelming chunk of these "others" (and unknowns) are in effect white. However, I can't make that guarantee with absolute certainty (but in states where voters are classified by race via their voter registrations, a lot of others/unknowns mimic their local constituent racial/ethnic breakdowns proportionally).

Anyway, if you assume basically all of the unaccounteds + half of the discrepancy between 2016 and this poll are white, then that's a 67% white electorate - which with very high turnout, isn't unfathomable.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you here. Turnout would have to be damn near stratospheric for race figures like that, though.

MoEs have to be taken into account as well. If trends from the past few presidential elections hold, then expecting a 68% white electorate would be basically standard fare. If/when accounting for the unreasonably high unknown segment being disproportionately white and raising the figure to 66-67%, that's quite acceptable within the confines of polling.

The high rate of undecideds is the biggest issue with this poll in my opinion.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Some oddities going on with this poll:

First, it appears to be 61% white (way too low), but at a deeper glance it appears to be 61 White/12 Black/12 Hispanic/12 Other. This leaves 3% unaccounted for - way too large to be rounding error.

The age breakdown is 16/23/33/24 - 4% unaccounted for.

Party ID is 35/26/33 - 6% unaccounted for.

Not sure what is causing this, but looks like incredibly sloppy work from the NYTimes.

I don't know what "Other" constitutes here, but there's no way that 12% of the country's voters are non-white and not categorized as either Asian or Black (according to exit polling, this number was around 70/12/11/7 in 2016). Chances are this has something to do with state-by-state voter file classifications and the overwhelming chunk of these "others" (and unknowns) are in effect white. However, I can't make that guarantee with absolute certainty (but in states where voters are classified by race via their voter registrations, a lot of others/unknowns mimic their local constituent racial/ethnic breakdowns proportionally).

Anyway, if you assume basically all of the unaccounteds + half of the discrepancy between 2016 and this poll are white, then that's a 67% white electorate - which with very high turnout, isn't unfathomable.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you here. Turnout would have to be damn near stratospheric for race figures like that, though.

MoEs have to be taken into account as well. If trends from the past few presidential elections hold, then expecting a 68% white electorate would be basically standard fare. If/when accounting for the unreasonably high unknown segment being disproportionately white and raising the figure to 66-67%, that's quite acceptable within the confines of polling.

The high rate of undecideds is the biggest issue with this poll in my opinion.

It's not that 14% are undecided - 2% say they won't vote, 3% are backing another candidate and 9% are undecided. I would expect the 3rd party margin to shrink as election day approaches.

[Adam Griffin]

Some oddities going on with this poll:

First, it appears to be 61% white (way too low), but at a deeper glance it appears to be 61 White/12 Black/12 Hispanic/12 Other. This leaves 3% unaccounted for - way too large to be rounding error.

The age breakdown is 16/23/33/24 - 4% unaccounted for.

Party ID is 35/26/33 - 6% unaccounted for.

Not sure what is causing this, but looks like incredibly sloppy work from the NYTimes.

I don't know what "Other" constitutes here, but there's no way that 12% of the country's voters are non-white and not categorized as either Asian or Black (according to exit polling, this number was around 70/12/11/7 in 2016). Chances are this has something to do with state-by-state voter file classifications and the overwhelming chunk of these "others" (and unknowns) are in effect white. However, I can't make that guarantee with absolute certainty (but in states where voters are classified by race via their voter registrations, a lot of others/unknowns mimic their local constituent racial/ethnic breakdowns proportionally).

Anyway, if you assume basically all of the unaccounteds + half of the discrepancy between 2016 and this poll are white, then that's a 67% white electorate - which with very high turnout, isn't unfathomable.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you here. Turnout would have to be damn near stratospheric for race figures like that, though.

MoEs have to be taken into account as well. If trends from the past few presidential elections hold, then expecting a 68% white electorate would be basically standard fare. If/when accounting for the unreasonably high unknown segment being disproportionately white and raising the figure to 66-67%, that's quite acceptable within the confines of polling.

The high rate of undecideds is the biggest issue with this poll in my opinion.

It's not that 14% are undecided - 2% say they won't vote, 3% are backing another candidate and 9% are undecided. I would expect the 3rd party margin to shrink as election day approaches.

Yes: 9% is substantially higher than what the bulk of credible pollsters are currently showing as undecided. Some top-rated pollsters are showing smaller percentages of undecided+third party voters than this poll shows in undecideds alone.

[WD]

I heard that we’re getting a nation poll and other state polls from NYT/Siena is this true and when?

[ltomlinson31]

I heard that we’re getting a nation poll and other state polls from NYT/Siena is this true and when?

Their swing state polls (MI, PA, WI, AZ, FL and NC) are being released tomorrow.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I heard that we’re getting a nation poll and other state polls from NYT/Siena is this true and when?

The national poll is the one already discussed in this thread.  The state polls will be released tomorrow.