PPP: FL (Biden +4), DE (Biden +21), NY (Biden +31)

[wbrocks67]

FL
Biden 48
Trump 44

DE
Biden 58
Trump 37

NY
Biden 63
Trump 32

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/new-york-wants-trump-in-florida-florida-wants-trump-in-new-york-delaware-wants-biden-in-delaware/

[wbrocks67]

Huge swings for Biden, especially in DE and NY. DE was Clinton +11 and NY was Clinton +22.5. Nearly doubling Clinton in DE and close to 10% above Clinton in NY

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

August 21-22, 2020

DE:
710 voters
MoE: 3.7%

Biden 58
Trump 37
Unsure 5

FL:
671 voters
MoE: 3.8%

Biden 48
Trump 44
Unsure 7

NY:
1029 voters
MoE: 3.1%

Biden 63
Trump 32
Unsure 5

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Kent County, DE (one of my favorite counties in the entire nation ❤️) keeps its bellwether streak with these numbers - - provided Biden wins the election.

I'd predict Sussex to push single digits, though it's still a pretty ruby-red county.  

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Is this the first PPP survey for Florida this cycle? I can't seem to find any previous ones.

[Calthrina950]

Huge swings for Biden, especially in DE and NY. DE was Clinton +11 and NY was Clinton +22.5. Nearly doubling Clinton in DE and close to 10% above Clinton in NY

This is not surprising. Delaware is clearly a native son effect for Biden, who was the state's Senator for 36 years, and this poll indicates that it will at least revert back to how it voted in 2012, if not 2008. Biden stands a very strong chance of garnering more than 60% of the vote there. Trump is extremely unpopular in New York, particularly in New York City and its suburbs (although polls have shown that he is also doing worse in Upstate than last time), and the state has recoiled at his coronavirus response. New York too, looks set to revert back to its 2008/2012 voting patterns, when Obama got more than 60% of the vote there.

[New York En Marche!]

NY
Biden 63
Trump 32

Hmm do I believe this or do I believe uncited, unreleased, likely fictitious GOP polling? 

[Podgy the Bear]

RCP: Even though the poll was scientifcally performed, it's a Democratic pollster--so we won't include it in our averages.  We don't want bias.

[Sbane]

RCP: Even though the poll was scientifcally performed, it's a Democratic pollster--so we won't include it in our averages.  We don't want bias.

But they will include Republican pollsters all day long. Hack site!

[Calthrina950]

RCP: Even though the poll was scientifcally performed, it's a Democratic pollster--so we won't include it in our averages.  We don't want bias.

Once again, I don't understand the dislike on here for Real Clear Politics. But I digress.

[wbrocks67]

RCP: Even though the poll was scientifcally performed, it's a Democratic pollster--so we won't include it in our averages.  We don't want bias.

Once again, I don't understand the dislike on here for Real Clear Politics. But I digress.

People just want a clean aggregate. 538 is better now since they launched their polling averages page, but RCP will quite often include R pollsters but not include D pollsters. They literally included the OANN Gravis polls but wouldn't add Morning Consult or PPP polls, amongst others.

[GeorgiaModerate]

RCP: Even though the poll was scientifcally performed, it's a Democratic pollster--so we won't include it in our averages.  We don't want bias.

Once again, I don't understand the dislike on here for Real Clear Politics. But I digress.

People just want a clean aggregate. 538 is better now since they launched their polling averages page, but RCP will quite often include R pollsters but not include D pollsters. They literally included the OANN Gravis polls but wouldn't add Morning Consult or PPP polls, amongst others.

Not only that, they won't even reveal what their criteria actually are for including polls in the aggregate (people like Harry Enten and Nate Cohn have tried to find out from RCP).  This says to me that the criteria are arbitrary and subjective.  No, thanks.

[n1240]

RCP: Even though the poll was scientifcally performed, it's a Democratic pollster--so we won't include it in our averages.  We don't want bias.

Once again, I don't understand the dislike on here for Real Clear Politics. But I digress.

People just want a clean aggregate. 538 is better now since they launched their polling averages page, but RCP will quite often include R pollsters but not include D pollsters. They literally included the OANN Gravis polls but wouldn't add Morning Consult or PPP polls, amongst others.

Not only that, they won't even reveal what their criteria actually are for including polls in the aggregate (people like Harry Enten and Nate Cohn have tried to find out from RCP).  This says to me that the criteria are arbitrary and subjective.  No, thanks.

They're also not including polls from pollsters they were including in their 2016 average 6 like Reuters/Ipsos and USC Dornslife. It's very disappointing how often it's still used as a go-to aggregate for more casual followers.

[Sir Mohamed]

Nice numbers!

Biden's performance in NY will probably be closer to Obama '12 rather than HRC '16. Latter was underwhelming due to medicore turnout in NYC and poor showing in Upstate. I can see Biden taking back some Upstate Trump/Schumer voters.

I maintain suspicious about FL polls since Dems were overestimated in previous election cycles. Biden would, with a high likelyhood, take FL by 2-3 pts if the election was held today.

[GeorgiaModerate]

RCP: Even though the poll was scientifcally performed, it's a Democratic pollster--so we won't include it in our averages.  We don't want bias.

Once again, I don't understand the dislike on here for Real Clear Politics. But I digress.

People just want a clean aggregate. 538 is better now since they launched their polling averages page, but RCP will quite often include R pollsters but not include D pollsters. They literally included the OANN Gravis polls but wouldn't add Morning Consult or PPP polls, amongst others.

Not only that, they won't even reveal what their criteria actually are for including polls in the aggregate (people like Harry Enten and Nate Cohn have tried to find out from RCP).  This says to me that the criteria are arbitrary and subjective.  No, thanks.

They're also not including polls from pollsters they were including in their 2016 average 6 like Reuters/Ipsos and USC Dornslife. It's very disappointing how often it's still used as a go-to aggregate for more casual followers.

TBF, USC still hasn't released topline numbers for that poll, so it's not showing up in anyone's aggregate yet.

[DaleCooper]

RCP: Even though the poll was scientifcally performed, it's a Democratic pollster--so we won't include it in our averages.  We don't want bias.

Once again, I don't understand the dislike on here for Real Clear Politics. But I digress.

People just want a clean aggregate. 538 is better now since they launched their polling averages page, but RCP will quite often include R pollsters but not include D pollsters. They literally included the OANN Gravis polls but wouldn't add Morning Consult or PPP polls, amongst others.

Not only that, they won't even reveal what their criteria actually are for including polls in the aggregate (people like Harry Enten and Nate Cohn have tried to find out from RCP).  This says to me that the criteria are arbitrary and subjective.  No, thanks.

It's also an extremely obnoxious site to navigate. 538's aggregates are much more user-friendly.

[ProudModerate2]

Florida continues to be a Biden Tilt/Lean state.

[SaneDemocrat]

RCP does not even include echelon

[Rand]

#BidenUnder90InHomeState

[Arizona Iced Tea]

When has PPP ever showed a bad poll for Biden and the Democrats?

[wbrocks67]

RCP: Even though the poll was scientifcally performed, it's a Democratic pollster--so we won't include it in our averages.  We don't want bias.

Once again, I don't understand the dislike on here for Real Clear Politics. But I digress.

People just want a clean aggregate. 538 is better now since they launched their polling averages page, but RCP will quite often include R pollsters but not include D pollsters. They literally included the OANN Gravis polls but wouldn't add Morning Consult or PPP polls, amongst others.

Not only that, they won't even reveal what their criteria actually are for including polls in the aggregate (people like Harry Enten and Nate Cohn have tried to find out from RCP).  This says to me that the criteria are arbitrary and subjective.  No, thanks.

They're also not including polls from pollsters they were including in their 2016 average 6 like Reuters/Ipsos and USC Dornslife. It's very disappointing how often it's still used as a go-to aggregate for more casual followers.

TBF, USC still hasn't released topline numbers for that poll, so it's not showing up in anyone's aggregate yet.

I honestly don't know what USC is doing. Their whole roll out of this "poll" has been really confusing. They never even put out toplines for their first release last week

[Use Your Illusion]

The FL poll seems about right. You've got a tilt within the MoE and a figure that's not high single digits. That's FL within a nutshell. That's a good poll for Biden on any given day. Let's hope it holds til November

[scutosaurus]

But Trump told me he was going to win New York

[wbrocks67]

When has PPP ever showed a bad poll for Biden and the Democrats?

There's been plenty where they've shown the Democrat down.

[Alben Barkley]

But... but... boaters?