MI & PA (PPP) (D): Biden +7/+5

[Buzz]

Conducted for a Democratic firm
https://twitter.com/american_bridge/status/1319354404257079297?s=21

[Alben Barkley]

I've noticed a consistent trend that Biden tends to get a slightly higher percentage but slightly lower margin in PA polls vs. MI/WI. I guess that speaks to fewer undecideds/more entrenched Trump support in PA.

[ProgressiveModerate]

These are just "eh" polls honestly, but it's funny that Biden only leading in the rust belt by the mid single digits is considered bad.

[Person Man]

This would map to what? With 2016 PVI, a Biden +9 race? I could see it this time meaning that we really have a 52/46 race.

[It’s so Joever]

It’s a D pollster.

[jd7171]

Solid leads by Biden. I feel that some of these state polls might seem to think that PA,WI, and MI are going to vote a little further right than the nation.  I feel all 3 will vote pretty close together. My prediction for PA is 6-8/ 7-9 Biden win.

[Horus]

Average the Michigan poll with Trafalgar and that's likely the final margin. Michigan will vote for Biden. Pennsylvania is starting to worry me just a little.

[WD]

Average the Michigan poll with Trafalgar and that's likely the final margin. Michigan will vote for Biden. Pennsylvania is starting to worry me just a little.

Trafalgar is absolute garbage and ought to be regarded as such. It shouldn’t be given any credence.

[It’s so Joever]

Average the Michigan poll with Trafalgar and that's likely the final margin. Michigan will vote for Biden. Pennsylvania is starting to worry me just a little.

Other way around.

[Hammy]

Average the Michigan poll with Trafalgar and that's likely the final margin. Michigan will vote for Biden. Pennsylvania is starting to worry me just a little.

Trafalgar is absolute garbage and ought to be regarded as such. It shouldn’t be given any credence.

Neither should "Clinton 50 Trump 44" PPP. Or do they get a pass for putting out garbage polls because red avatars want to believe them?

[Person Man]

Average the Michigan poll with Trafalgar and that's likely the final margin. Michigan will vote for Biden. Pennsylvania is starting to worry me just a little.

Trafalgar is absolute garbage and ought to be regarded as such. It shouldn’t be given any credence.

PPP has a B from 538 and Trafalgar has a C-.
Neither should "Clinton 50 Trump 44" PPP. Or do they get a pass for putting out garbage polls because red avatars want to believe them?

[Buzz]

This is not only PPP, but also done for a Democratic firm.  Definitely some bias involved.

[Hammy]

Average the Michigan poll with Trafalgar and that's likely the final margin. Michigan will vote for Biden. Pennsylvania is starting to worry me just a little.

Trafalgar is absolute garbage and ought to be regarded as such. It shouldn’t be given any credence.

PPP has a B from 538 and Trafalgar has a C-.
Neither should "Clinton 50 Trump 44" PPP. Or do they get a pass for putting out garbage polls because red avatars want to believe them?

I'm assuming that was intended to be outside the quotes.

Overall grade is meaningless when polls seem to have regional strength--PPP did well in the same places Trafalgar did poorly in, and vice versa. PPP was one of the only polls in fact that had Clinton at 50% going into election day in Rust Belt states that she lost and no amount of "but this isn't 2016" or 538 grades is an excuse for that large of an over-sampling when ~90% of polling errors were due to undecideds and under-sampling.

If this is the best they can do then Biden really is in trouble in these states.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I see it's bedwetting o'clock again.

[Hammy]

I see it's bedwetting o'clock again.

PPP should've been discredited and out of business after 2016.

[Horus]

I see it's bedwetting o'clock again.

PPP should've been discredited and out of business after 2016.

No firm causes this board to show its bias more than PPP. They are literally a left wing Trafalgar.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I see it's bedwetting o'clock again.

PPP should've been discredited and out of business after 2016.

No firm causes this board to show its bias more than PPP. They are literally a left wing Trafalgar.

That's demonstrably untrue.  Morris, Silver, etc. have noted that PPP has a house effect of around D+2-3, while Trafalgar has a house effect of at least R+5-6.  PPP's house effect is probably due to design choices (similar to the D lean shown by Quinnipiac) while Trafalgar's methodology is clearly unsound and biased, and got them kicked out of the Economist averages. 

[Alben Barkley]

Average the Michigan poll with Trafalgar and that's likely the final margin. Michigan will vote for Biden. Pennsylvania is starting to worry me just a little.

Trafalgar is absolute garbage and ought to be regarded as such. It shouldn’t be given any credence.

PPP has a B from 538 and Trafalgar has a C-.
Neither should "Clinton 50 Trump 44" PPP. Or do they get a pass for putting out garbage polls because red avatars want to believe them?

I'm assuming that was intended to be outside the quotes.

Overall grade is meaningless when polls seem to have regional strength--PPP did well in the same places Trafalgar did poorly in, and vice versa. PPP was one of the only polls in fact that had Clinton at 50% going into election day in Rust Belt states that she lost and no amount of "but this isn't 2016" or 538 grades is an excuse for that large of an over-sampling when ~90% of polling errors were due to undecideds and under-sampling.

If this is the best they can do then Biden really is in trouble in these states.

But this ISN'T 2016. Pollsters have changed their methodologies accordingly, including PPP. If anything I think they might have overcompensated and Biden will outperform his polls. Also, look at the other polls. If you think PPP is so crap and should be out of business, why does it matter what they say at all? Biden has comfortable leads and is over 50 with few undecideds in higher rated polls with less bias. Totally different situation from 2016. So no, regardless of how valid these PPP polls are, it does not mean "Biden really is in trouble in these states." That is not a logical conclusion that follows from your own statements.

[Hammy]

I see it's bedwetting o'clock again.

PPP should've been discredited and out of business after 2016.

No firm causes this board to show its bias more than PPP. They are literally a left wing Trafalgar.

That's demonstrably untrue.  Morris, Silver, etc. have noted that PPP has a house effect of around D+2-3, while Trafalgar has a house effect of at least R+5-6.  PPP's house effect is probably due to design choices (similar to the D lean shown by Quinnipiac) while Trafalgar's methodology is clearly unsound and biased, and got them kicked out of the Economist averages. 

That's actually quite bad--isn't the Economist a generally conservative-leaning publication?

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I see it's bedwetting o'clock again.

PPP should've been discredited and out of business after 2016.

No firm causes this board to show its bias more than PPP. They are literally a left wing Trafalgar.

I'm not going to deny that PPP blew a bunch of races in MUH 2016, when lots of other pollsters had the same problem, but their historical record is far less one-sided than Trafalgar. They actually under-estimated Obama across multiple states in 2012 (WA, OR, NV, IA ,WI, MI, NH, ME). They aren't the greatest polling firm in the world, not by a long shot, but the idea that they are eternally off in one direction the way Trafalgar is just isn't based in facts.

[Hammy]

I see it's bedwetting o'clock again.

PPP should've been discredited and out of business after 2016.

No firm causes this board to show its bias more than PPP. They are literally a left wing Trafalgar.

I'm not going to deny that PPP blew a bunch of races in MUH 2016, when lots of other pollsters had the same problem, but their historical record is far less one-sided than Trafalgar. They actually under-estimated Obama across multiple states in 2012 (WA, OR, NV, IA ,WI, MI, NH, ME). They aren't the greatest polling firm in the world, not by a long shot, but the idea that they are eternally off in one direction the way Trafalgar is just isn't based in facts.

This is patently false considering the polling errors were a combination of under-polling and undecideds, and miscalculating where the undecideds would break. PPP continually over-polled Hillary by 4-5 points--something literally no other pollster did in 2016.

[Alben Barkley]

I see it's bedwetting o'clock again.

PPP should've been discredited and out of business after 2016.

No firm causes this board to show its bias more than PPP. They are literally a left wing Trafalgar.

I'm not going to deny that PPP blew a bunch of races in MUH 2016, when lots of other pollsters had the same problem, but their historical record is far less one-sided than Trafalgar. They actually under-estimated Obama across multiple states in 2012 (WA, OR, NV, IA ,WI, MI, NH, ME). They aren't the greatest polling firm in the world, not by a long shot, but the idea that they are eternally off in one direction the way Trafalgar is just isn't based in facts.

This is patently false considering the polling errors were a combination of under-polling and undecideds, and miscalculating where the undecideds would break. PPP continually over-polled Hillary by 4-5 points--something literally no other pollster did in 2016.

Fine, point stands that other pollsters are finding far fewer undecideds and far more polls with Biden breaking 50 than they did in 2016. So even if we are to assume that PPP is the Democratic Trafalgar that will always be biased in favor of Democrats no matter what, it stands to reason that they may end up happening to be right simply because this is a Democratic year, just like Trafalgar happened to be right in 2016 because it was a Republican year.

It does NOT stand to reason that slightly underwhelming PPP polls mean Biden is in trouble, not when their polls roughly match other pollsters' findings (not significantly to the left of them, in some cases even to the right) and especially not if you're saying PPP is junk in general. You can't have it both ways.

Also, as has been pointed out to you, 2016 is not the only election in history. PPP did in fact underestimate Obama somewhat in 2012, so unlike Trafalgar, they do not have a record of constantly being blatantly biased in one direction, even if they were in 2016. That might have something to do with why they are rated higher, so now we're back where we started.

TL;DR: Doomer "logic" from green Georgia avatars is garbage as always.

[Hammy]

I see it's bedwetting o'clock again.

PPP should've been discredited and out of business after 2016.

No firm causes this board to show its bias more than PPP. They are literally a left wing Trafalgar.

I'm not going to deny that PPP blew a bunch of races in MUH 2016, when lots of other pollsters had the same problem, but their historical record is far less one-sided than Trafalgar. They actually under-estimated Obama across multiple states in 2012 (WA, OR, NV, IA ,WI, MI, NH, ME). They aren't the greatest polling firm in the world, not by a long shot, but the idea that they are eternally off in one direction the way Trafalgar is just isn't based in facts.

This is patently false considering the polling errors were a combination of under-polling and undecideds, and miscalculating where the undecideds would break. PPP continually over-polled Hillary by 4-5 points--something literally no other pollster did in 2016.

Fine, point stands that other pollsters are finding far fewer undecideds and far more polls with Biden breaking 50 than they did in 2016. So even if we are to assume that PPP is the Democratic Trafalgar that will always be biased in favor of Democrats no matter what, it stands to reason that they may end up happening to be right simply because this is a Democratic year, just like Trafalgar happened to be right in 2016 because it was a Republican year.

It does NOT stand to reason that slightly underwhelming PPP polls mean Biden is in trouble, not when their polls roughly match other pollsters' findings (not significantly to the left of them, in some cases even to the right) and especially not if you're saying PPP is junk in general. You can't have it both ways.

Also, as has been pointed out to you, 2016 is not the only election in history. PPP did in fact underestimate Obama somewhat in 2012, so unlike Trafalgar, they do not have a record of constantly being blatantly biased in one direction, even if they were in 2016. That might have something to do with why they are rated higher, so now we're back where we started.

TL;DR: Doomer "logic" from green Georgia avatars is garbage as always.

First off, I don't think Trump is going to win Michigan or the votes cast in Pennyslvania (though I worry about the counting of said PA votes) and I have been one of the ones pointing out this is not 2016.

In my case this is not doomer logic regarding PPP--they need to be treated like the complete disaster they are. The double standards in these polling threads is getting absurd, where red avatars fawn over every bad pollster's results that they like, and complain about "how do we have this many pages" when they don't like the results from other bad pollsters.

Regarding 2012, I have a long standing belief (that dates back to 2004) that when you have an incumbent running for reelection, the undecideds will general favor the incumbent, even if it's only marginally, so that's not really a good argument as to why Trump will somehow under-perform.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

For the American Bridge PAC (D)
October 21-22

MI
https://americanbridgepac.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/MichiganResults.pdf

804 voters
Changes with September 30-October 1 poll for Progress Michigan (D)

Biden 50% (n/c)
Trump 43% (-1)
Unsure 6% (+3)

Jorgensen previously at 2% and Hawkins previously at 1%

PA
https://americanbridgepac.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PennsylvaniaResults.pdf

980 voters
Changes with April 20-21 poll for Protect Our Care (D)

Biden 51% (n/c)
Trump 46% (+2)
Unsure 4% (-1)

[VAR]

Trump approval:
MI - 44/53 (-9)
PA - 47/49 (-2)