GA-ACE polling- Perdue and loeffler +4

[Matty]

https://www.openmodelproject.org/inhouse/

[VAR]

Loeffler, Kelly Candidate Quality^TM: meh  -> inspiring 

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

"We further attempted to experiment with novel weights not used by other pollsters, such as weighing on social trust, socioeconomic attitudes, and religious attitudes as measured by the General Social Survey, correcting for polling's tendency to oversample atheists and people with high social trust. We also weighed by Facebook usage, correcting for polls tending to oversample online voters."


Not sure if this is genius or stupid. We'll see come January

[Bootes Void]

Who is this pollster?

[Sir Mohamed]

Not that I really care about the polls, but it's likely going to be a 52-48 R senate.

[Pollster]

Extremely interesting weighting choices, interested in seeing if they’re onto something. I definitely see the range of outcomes being between 52/48 in either direction, so this could be right on the mark.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Not buying this poll, just like the other polls had it 2, weeks ago, both Perdue and Loeffler were up by 3 pts, D's are gonna win

It's still a margin of error race, D's can win

[Tintrlvr]

"We further attempted to experiment with novel weights not used by other pollsters, such as weighing on social trust, socioeconomic attitudes, and religious attitudes as measured by the General Social Survey, correcting for polling's tendency to oversample atheists and people with high social trust. We also weighed by Facebook usage, correcting for polls tending to oversample online voters."


Not sure if this is genius or stupid. We'll see come January

They might be right that polls are incorrectly oversampling such voters (I have never seen a regular political poll even break down religious affiliation to the point of identifying atheists, who are too small a group to make any real difference anyway, but "high social trust" definitely seems relevant), but those topics are just too nebulous to establish meaningful weights for. You can't definitively assert that 38% of voters, or 21% of voters, or 83% of voters, will be "high social trust" voters in the way that you can talk about race or gender or education in relatively definite terms. We know with pretty good certainty what the actual demographics of the population are independent of polling and can make reasonable assumptions about turnout, but we don't actually know how many people, or how many voters, are "high social trust".

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

"We further attempted to experiment with novel weights not used by other pollsters, such as weighing on social trust, socioeconomic attitudes, and religious attitudes as measured by the General Social Survey, correcting for polling's tendency to oversample atheists and people with high social trust. We also weighed by Facebook usage, correcting for polls tending to oversample online voters."


Not sure if this is genius or stupid. We'll see come January

They might be right that polls are incorrectly oversampling such voters (I have never seen a regular political poll even break down religious affiliation to the point of identifying atheists, who are too small a group to make any real difference anyway, but "high social trust" definitely seems relevant), but those topics are just too nebulous to establish meaningful weights for. You can't definitively assert that 38% of voters, or 21% of voters, or 83% of voters, will be "high social trust" voters in the way that you can talk about race or gender or education in relatively definite terms. We know with pretty good certainty what the actual demographics of the population are independent of polling and can make reasonable assumptions about turnout, but we don't actually know how many people, or how many voters, are "high social trust".

Yeah, I'm leaning towards it being stupid, but who knows what is going on in this world anymore

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No

[Malarkey Decider]

No

That's it, end the website now. There is nothing left to discuss, for our king has spoken.

[SCNCmod]

How accurate has this group been in prior polling?   Although Republicans winning 52-48 is possible, it doesn't seem probable that R's will win both races by 4 pts (especially the Loeffler/Warnock race). 

Also- I wonder if the poll's findings vary much between Dec 21 & Dec 27.  There seems to have been a slight shift in momentum between the 21st & the 27th.

Trafalgar "seems" to have been the most accurate in Swing states that have voted Republican in the past- maybe due to their focus on uncovering the hidden Trump vote (which seems to account for why some of the polling has been off a bit in the past 4 years... and could be relevant regarding Loeffler's support levels). 

The Trafalgar poll results for the runoff also seem to match the feel regarding momentum shifts in the runoff... their polls basically indicate: an early lead for Dems ---> swing to R's before Christmas ---> swing back to Dems currently.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Let's remember Survey USA polls always had Ossoff and WARNOCK has been leading in the polls

[Stranger in a strange land]

"We further attempted to experiment with novel weights not used by other pollsters, such as weighing on social trust, socioeconomic attitudes, and religious attitudes as measured by the General Social Survey, correcting for polling's tendency to oversample atheists and people with high social trust. We also weighed by Facebook usage, correcting for polls tending to oversample online voters."


Not sure if this is genius or stupid. We'll see come January

It might not work, but I don't think it's stupid for them to try: we have to fix polling somehow, and until then we just have to throw ideas at the wall until something sticks.