So Much for the Beast's Bounce: Last 2 Polls

[toomuchtime_]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

The LA Times Poll is useless because it's model is scewed, but the Economist you gov is interesting because it shows Hillary's margin as exactly the average of the two previous econ you gov polls taken before the convention.

And that might support my "hunch" that Hillary's convention didn't give her a real bounce. It may have hurt Donald, but more so it may have stemmed the bleeding from Comey. That is, the polls may essentially be back to where they were before either convention.

The question will be next week's polls and whether they show whether Donald's recent miscues have cost him.

The LATIMES poll is a rolling average of daily polls of likely voters over the last seven days, so it is hardly useless. The Economist/YouGov poll is a snapshot of registered voters, not likely voters. The two polls are simply not comparable.

The problem with the LA Times poll is that it takes forever to update based on changes in the race and it interviews the same 2000 people over and over again. That means if you took a shitty sample at the beginning of the polling that the sample will continue to be shitty. Whereas other polls may have a shitty sample as a one off, they likely aren't going to do it during every new poll.

That's not quite accurate. What if some one they called yesterday is not picking up today? Do they just not take the poll? All pollsters seek a representative sample of the population they want to learn about, and for a rolling poll it doesn't matter if it is the same sample as yesterday or a new one as long as it is representative. The LATimes poll and the Economist poll are looking at different populations. The LATimes poll is looking at likely voters and determined by the criteria they have established and the Economist poll is looking at registered voters regardless of whether they think this person will vote or not.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

The LA Times Poll is useless because it's model is scewed, but the Economist you gov is interesting because it shows Hillary's margin as exactly the average of the two previous econ you gov polls taken before the convention.

And that might support my "hunch" that Hillary's convention didn't give her a real bounce. It may have hurt Donald, but more so it may have stemmed the bleeding from Comey. That is, the polls may essentially be back to where they were before either convention.

The question will be next week's polls and whether they show whether Donald's recent miscues have cost him.

The LATIMES poll is a rolling average of daily polls of likely voters over the last seven days, so it is hardly useless. The Economist/YouGov poll is a snapshot of registered voters, not likely voters. The two polls are simply not comparable.

It's been reported for some times that the LA times poll sample is skewed. It is a useless poll, but it may have some use in cancelling any bias in other polls using the avg of all polls.

That claim comes from the WND in 2004, 12 years ago.

 

[AceRothstein]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

You should take a closer look at the LA Times poll. It isn't good news for Trump.

No, of course his being +1 against the Beast is a catastrophe.

It is a tracking poll, they report the prior 7 day's results every morning. So today's poll is reflecting interviews from 7/27-8/2. Tomorrow will be 7/28-8/3 and so on. Because of this, the poll isn't even fully taking into account the entire DNC and Trump has already lost 5 points during that time. He's dropping like a stone.

Not according to polls posted here. You're just repeating horseshit expecting it to be taken as truth eventually, Herr Goebbels. And what for? Nobody but idiots get that spun up so early.

I described exactly what the LA Times poll posted here is. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the facts.

The USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll | Understanding America Study

 

[AceRothstein]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

The LA Times Poll is useless because it's model is scewed, but the Economist you gov is interesting because it shows Hillary's margin as exactly the average of the two previous econ you gov polls taken before the convention.

And that might support my "hunch" that Hillary's convention didn't give her a real bounce. It may have hurt Donald, but more so it may have stemmed the bleeding from Comey. That is, the polls may essentially be back to where they were before either convention.

The question will be next week's polls and whether they show whether Donald's recent miscues have cost him.

The LATIMES poll is a rolling average of daily polls of likely voters over the last seven days, so it is hardly useless. The Economist/YouGov poll is a snapshot of registered voters, not likely voters. The two polls are simply not comparable.

The problem with the LA Times poll is that it takes forever to update based on changes in the race and it interviews the same 2000 people over and over again. That means if you took a shitty sample at the beginning of the polling that the sample will continue to be shitty. Whereas other polls may have a shitty sample as a one off, they likely aren't going to do it during every new poll.

That's not quite accurate. What if some one they called yesterday is not picking up today? Do they just not take the poll? All pollsters seek a representative sample of the population they want to learn about, and for a rolling poll it doesn't matter if it is the same sample as yesterday or a new one as long as it is representative. The LATimes poll and the Economist poll are looking at different populations. The LATimes poll is looking at likely voters and determined by the criteria they have established and the Economist poll is looking at registered voters regardless of whether they think this person will vote or not.

The LA Times poll interviews each person once a week.

 

[Iceweasel]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

The LA Times poll is up 6 points (in Clinton's favor) from last week.

She

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

You should take a closer look at the LA Times poll. It isn't good news for Trump.

No, of course his being +1 against the Beast is a catastrophe.

It is a tracking poll, they report the prior 7 day's results every morning. So today's poll is reflecting interviews from 7/27-8/2. Tomorrow will be 7/28-8/3 and so on. Because of this, the poll isn't even fully taking into account the entire DNC and Trump has already lost 5 points during that time. He's dropping like a stone.

Not according to polls posted here. You're just repeating horseshit expecting it to be taken as truth eventually, Herr Goebbels. And what for? Nobody but idiots get that spun up so early.

I described exactly what the LA Times poll posted here is. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the facts.

The USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll | Understanding America Study

I just said nobody but idiots get spun up about it this early and here you are. LOL

 

[AceRothstein]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

The LA Times poll is up 6 points (in Clinton's favor) from last week.

She

You should take a closer look at the LA Times poll. It isn't good news for Trump.

No, of course his being +1 against the Beast is a catastrophe.

It is a tracking poll, they report the prior 7 day's results every morning. So today's poll is reflecting interviews from 7/27-8/2. Tomorrow will be 7/28-8/3 and so on. Because of this, the poll isn't even fully taking into account the entire DNC and Trump has already lost 5 points during that time. He's dropping like a stone.

Not according to polls posted here. You're just repeating horseshit expecting it to be taken as truth eventually, Herr Goebbels. And what for? Nobody but idiots get that spun up so early.

I described exactly what the LA Times poll posted here is. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the facts.

The USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll | Understanding America Study

I just said nobody but idiots get spun up about it this early and here you are. LOL

I'm spun up about nothing, just proving your dumbass wrong.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

The LA Times Poll is useless because it's model is scewed, but the Economist you gov is interesting because it shows Hillary's margin as exactly the average of the two previous econ you gov polls taken before the convention.

And that might support my "hunch" that Hillary's convention didn't give her a real bounce. It may have hurt Donald, but more so it may have stemmed the bleeding from Comey. That is, the polls may essentially be back to where they were before either convention.

The question will be next week's polls and whether they show whether Donald's recent miscues have cost him.

The LATIMES poll is a rolling average of daily polls of likely voters over the last seven days, so it is hardly useless. The Economist/YouGov poll is a snapshot of registered voters, not likely voters. The two polls are simply not comparable.

The problem with the LA Times poll is that it takes forever to update based on changes in the race and it interviews the same 2000 people over and over again. That means if you took a shitty sample at the beginning of the polling that the sample will continue to be shitty. Whereas other polls may have a shitty sample as a one off, they likely aren't going to do it during every new poll.

That's not quite accurate. What if some one they called yesterday is not picking up today? Do they just not take the poll? All pollsters seek a representative sample of the population they want to learn about, and for a rolling poll it doesn't matter if it is the same sample as yesterday or a new one as long as it is representative. The LATimes poll and the Economist poll are looking at different populations. The LATimes poll is looking at likely voters and determined by the criteria they have established and the Economist poll is looking at registered voters regardless of whether they think this person will vote or not.

The LA Times poll interviews each person once a week.

The complaints about the LATIMES poll are based entirely on a WND claim in 2004 that Democrats were over represented in their sample.

 

[candycorn]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

Your cherrypicking of 2 polls ? Likely rely on a broader sample…

Oh….something like this:

Don’t worry; nationwide polls are meaningless at this point.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

Your cherrypicking of 2 polls ? Likely rely on a broader sample…

Oh….something like this:

View attachment 84191

Don’t worry; nationwide polls are meaningless at this point.

The two latest polls.

 

[bendog]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

The LA Times Poll is useless because it's model is scewed, but the Economist you gov is interesting because it shows Hillary's margin as exactly the average of the two previous econ you gov polls taken before the convention.

And that might support my "hunch" that Hillary's convention didn't give her a real bounce. It may have hurt Donald, but more so it may have stemmed the bleeding from Comey. That is, the polls may essentially be back to where they were before either convention.

The question will be next week's polls and whether they show whether Donald's recent miscues have cost him.

The LATIMES poll is a rolling average of daily polls of likely voters over the last seven days, so it is hardly useless. The Economist/YouGov poll is a snapshot of registered voters, not likely voters. The two polls are simply not comparable.

It's been reported for some times that the LA times poll sample is skewed. It is a useless poll, but it may have some use in cancelling any bias in other polls using the avg of all polls.

That claim comes from the WND in 2004, 12 years ago.

wow.

 

[candycorn]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

Your cherrypicking of 2 polls ? Likely rely on a broader sample…

Oh….something like this:

View attachment 84191

Don’t worry; nationwide polls are meaningless at this point.

The two latest polls.

Not good news either:

 

[nat4900]

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Spread
RCP Average 7/25 - 8/2 -- -- 46.5 42.0 Clinton +4.5
Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1
CBS News 7/29 - 7/31 1131 RV 3.0 47 41 Clinton +6
CNN/ORC 7/29 - 7/31 894 RV 3.5 52 43 Clinton +9
PPP (D) 7/29 - 7/30 1276 LV 2.7 50 45 Clinton +5
NBC News/SM 7/25 - 7/31 12742 RV 1.2 50 42 Clinton +8
Reuters/Ipsos 7/25 - 7/29 1050 LV 3.5 40 35 Clinton +5
Rasmussen Reports 7/26 - 7/27 1000 LV 3.0 43 42 Clinton +1

 

[AceRothstein]

The LA Times Poll is useless because it's model is scewed, but the Economist you gov is interesting because it shows Hillary's margin as exactly the average of the two previous econ you gov polls taken before the convention.

And that might support my "hunch" that Hillary's convention didn't give her a real bounce. It may have hurt Donald, but more so it may have stemmed the bleeding from Comey. That is, the polls may essentially be back to where they were before either convention.

The question will be next week's polls and whether they show whether Donald's recent miscues have cost him.

The LATIMES poll is a rolling average of daily polls of likely voters over the last seven days, so it is hardly useless. The Economist/YouGov poll is a snapshot of registered voters, not likely voters. The two polls are simply not comparable.

The problem with the LA Times poll is that it takes forever to update based on changes in the race and it interviews the same 2000 people over and over again. That means if you took a shitty sample at the beginning of the polling that the sample will continue to be shitty. Whereas other polls may have a shitty sample as a one off, they likely aren't going to do it during every new poll.

That's not quite accurate. What if some one they called yesterday is not picking up today? Do they just not take the poll? All pollsters seek a representative sample of the population they want to learn about, and for a rolling poll it doesn't matter if it is the same sample as yesterday or a new one as long as it is representative. The LATimes poll and the Economist poll are looking at different populations. The LATimes poll is looking at likely voters and determined by the criteria they have established and the Economist poll is looking at registered voters regardless of whether they think this person will vote or not.

The LA Times poll interviews each person once a week.

The complaints about the LATIMES poll are based entirely on a WND claim in 2004 that Democrats were over represented in their sample.

This isn't even the same poll or type of poll, nobody is bringing up 2004.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

538 Clinton 70.4 Trump 29.6

This thread is dead.

 

[candycorn]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

Meanwhile, there is this:

Election Update: Clinton’s Bounce Appears Bigger Than Trump’s

Our forecasts for Nov. 8 haven’t changed as much yet. Clinton is a 62 percent favorite according to our polls-plus forecast, which adjusts the polls for potential convention bounces. That should be a familiar figure, since Clinton has been between 60 and 63 percent in the polls-plus forecast every day since July 17. Finally, our polls-only forecast is the most stubborn of the bunch, showing Clinton as only a 53 percent favorite. Let me try to walk you through the “thinking” of each model:

 

[toomuchtime_]

The LATIMES poll is a rolling average of daily polls of likely voters over the last seven days, so it is hardly useless. The Economist/YouGov poll is a snapshot of registered voters, not likely voters. The two polls are simply not comparable.

The problem with the LA Times poll is that it takes forever to update based on changes in the race and it interviews the same 2000 people over and over again. That means if you took a shitty sample at the beginning of the polling that the sample will continue to be shitty. Whereas other polls may have a shitty sample as a one off, they likely aren't going to do it during every new poll.

That's not quite accurate. What if some one they called yesterday is not picking up today? Do they just not take the poll? All pollsters seek a representative sample of the population they want to learn about, and for a rolling poll it doesn't matter if it is the same sample as yesterday or a new one as long as it is representative. The LATimes poll and the Economist poll are looking at different populations. The LATimes poll is looking at likely voters and determined by the criteria they have established and the Economist poll is looking at registered voters regardless of whether they think this person will vote or not.

The LA Times poll interviews each person once a week.

The complaints about the LATIMES poll are based entirely on a WND claim in 2004 that Democrats were over represented in their sample.

This isn't even the same poll or type of poll, nobody is bringing up 2004.

And yet the complaint about it comes from the WND complaint in 2004 that the Democrats were over represented in the poll then.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz]

I got 347-191 in favor of the Madam from Arkansas/New York

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is America going to do about this:

Economist/YouGov 7/30 - 8/1 933 RV 4.1 46 43 Clinton +3
LA Times/USC 7/27 - 8/2 2188 LV -- 44 45 Trump +1

Bounce on this, Gassy.

Fox News Poll: Clinton leads Trump by 10 points, both seen as flawed | Fox News

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We'll get a much better feel of how the election will ultimately go once the debates begin.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I got 347-191 in favor of the Madam from Arkansas/New York

And you may very well be right.