IA-Selzer: Trump +7

[Sir Mohamed]

21 Pages

I think this one is an outlier for crosstabs and undecideds alone, but I was always confident Trump would take IA and OH. Former is going to way of MO. Not that it matters for the final outcome. It's for sure NOT an indicator WI is seeing a last minute shift for Trump. It's actually the opposite that happened by looking at recent polling, with Biden +17 being an outlier equally. Even A+ pollsters have outliers or get stuff wrong.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Selzer's willingness to reveal this poll says a lot about her integrity.

[ExSky]

Gotta keep this one alive through E Day. Gonna be quite the threat to run through in a few hours.

[psychprofessor]

Gotta keep this one alive through E Day. Gonna be quite the threat to run through in a few hours.

2024 gold standard RABA

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

21 Pages

I think this one is an outlier for crosstabs and undecideds alone, but I was always confident Trump would take IA and OH. Former is going to way of MO. Not that it matters for the final outcome. It's for sure NOT an indicator WI is seeing a last minute shift for Trump. It's actually the opposite that happened by looking at recent polling, with Biden +17 being an outlier equally. Even A+ pollsters have outliers or get stuff wrong.

You really are 🐻 bearish on Biden chances in IA and OH and GREENFIELD has lead I'm 6/9, polls reminds me of Elections Guy, Xing and Icespear on how wrong they were on KY Gov Bevin

The D House delegation is gonna be the same after the election 3/1 and Gov Chet Culver D from IA 1999/2007 likes to say hi.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

Well...

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

Selzer remains the gold standard. Practically dead on.

[kwabbit]

All hail Selzer lol. After the anti-doomers so viciously attacked literally the best pollster in the industry, guess who was right?

Not that I thought Trump would do so well, but folks (especially wbrocks67) attacking good pollsters who didn't have favorable enough numbers for Biden look so ridiculous.

[VAR]

Remember all the smears against Queen Ann ?

I do.

[BlueSwan]

Selzer attains almost goddess like status after this.

I mean Robert C. Cahaly might have gotten a bunch of states right, but his methodology still reeks of partisan hackery.

[President Johnson]

I wonder whether there was last minute shift toward Trump, since their September poll showed a de facto tie? Trump was certainly gaining a little in national polls to the end.

[ElectionsGuy]

Ann Selzer aces again!

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I look forward to mocking Selzer in a few days

[BlueSwan]

Ann Selzer really should start polling the entire midwest. Nobody else seems to know what they are doing in that region.

[Hope For A New Era]

um, well

[Skye]

We were wrong to doubt our Queen.

[2016]

So Ann Seltzer strikes again! Respect!

[RI]

That Selzer was right and so many others were wrong may suggest education weighting is not the panacea so many thought. Selzer doesn't do it.

[Hope For A New Era]

That Selzer was right and so many others were wrong may suggest education weighting is not the panacea so many thought. Selzer doesn't do it.

This poll will be famous, that's for sure.

[RI]

Something I posted a few weeks back:

We've been over this.

The problem with 2016 was that pollsters were not controlling for education because historically, education level was not a reliable predictor of voting patterns. That has changed, and now the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote Democrat.

That gap is especially true among white voters.

Pollsters are now controlling for education.

So unless there's something else they're missing, they're probably not overestimating Biden's white support.

Here's the thing: weighting by education only solves your problem if the small sample of non-college voters you do successfully get is conditionally representative of the non-responsive non-college population.

As I doubt pollsters' ability to reach non-college whites has increased since 2016, this means inflating the importance of the few non-college respondents you do have, which is a group which tends to be disproportionately elderly. If, for example, elderly non-college voters have moved left since 2016 while others have not (or even moved right), education weighting may actually make polls less accurate than without education weighting.

[Kuumo]

Selzer remains the gold standard. Practically dead on.

Dread it, run from it, Republican Iowa arrives all the same. Selzer knows Iowa best.

[Burke Bro]

Incredible

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

That Selzer was right and so many others were wrong may suggest education weighting is not the panacea so many thought. Selzer doesn't do it.

Something I posted a few weeks back:

We've been over this.

The problem with 2016 was that pollsters were not controlling for education because historically, education level was not a reliable predictor of voting patterns. That has changed, and now the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote Democrat.

That gap is especially true among white voters.

Pollsters are now controlling for education.

So unless there's something else they're missing, they're probably not overestimating Biden's white support.

Here's the thing: weighting by education only solves your problem if the small sample of non-college voters you do successfully get is conditionally representative of the non-responsive non-college population.

As I doubt pollsters' ability to reach non-college whites has increased since 2016, this means inflating the importance of the few non-college respondents you do have, which is a group which tends to be disproportionately elderly. If, for example, elderly non-college voters have moved left since 2016 while others have not (or even moved right), education weighting may actually make polls less accurate than without education weighting.

This seems spot on. It seems that polls in general currently have a significant problem with non-response bias. The problem is that the overall response rate to polls is so low (and continuously going lower) that even a fairly small response bias can significantly bias the results.

Polls should be treated with a lot more general skepticism for the time being unless/until pollsters can come up with an alternative way of reaching people that can attain a higher general response rate while also achieving a truly randomized and representative sample.

Methods like post-stratification are very nice to paper things over and try to get at least something filling in the response gaps, but it is still very easy for small numbers of respondents from a demographic with a low response rate to not be representative of the demographic as a whole, which is precisely the conditional unrepresentativeness problem that you rightly highlight.

[MT Treasurer]

That Selzer was right and so many others were wrong may suggest education weighting is not the panacea so many thought. Selzer doesn't do it.

This poll will be famous, that's for sure.

This entire thread will be famous.

[lfromnj]

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=251190.msg7710734#msg7710734

Heres the poll from 2016 and forum reaction.

I think people should genuinely take this as a small yellow flag atleast. Im still pretty sure Biden wins but its absurd gaslighting to say one should just entirely discount this poll.

Hopefully Maine is next

No, but WI, MI and MN are in play. Probably NH.

Michigan Wisconsin and Minnesota are not in play.

We don't know that. If this Iowa result is right, then theu are in play along with Pennsylvania, while Ohio is safe Trump.

Seems like I got the correct assumptions from this poll right, I even warned about the sample size for the districts. I still think I have overestimated Biden in the Midwest with my guess being +4.5 biden in PA and MI.