why are you bringing things up from 4 years ago. After watching the herding last cycle... I now require the polls to reveal their templates to be considered non crap poll.s I already explained this to you... and I pointed out some non crap polls to you.
and remember we predicted the herding. We predicted the polls would unskew in front of the election. Nate calls it herding... I call it dishonest unskewing.
You've referenced Rasmussen multiple times in this thread to support your argument that Trump is ahead or the race is close.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...rump-points/fobYE8hDXzrosyLIqRyJOM/story.html Two polls show Clinton leading Trump in N.H. 88 Comments Print Lucy Nicholson/REUTERS U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton greeted the crowd after speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco, California. By James Pindell Globe Staff October 14, 2016 A pair of new polls give Democrat Hillary Clinton a modest lead over Republican Donald Trump in the presidential swing state of New Hampshire. A UMass Lowell/7News poll released late Thursday night gave Clinton a six-point lead: 45 percent to 39 percent lead. A WBUR/MassINC poll out Friday morning said Clinton led by 4 percent, just within the poll’s margin of error, 41 to 37 percent. These fresh poll numbers come as many in the state and nationally are trying to analyze the fallout of bad week for Trump. Since a videotape emerged late last week in which Trump made crude comments about women, numerous high-profile Republicans have dropped their support for his campaign.
Latest polls spark fears among Trump and his allies 10/14/16 09:20 AM By Steve Benen There was a time, not too long ago, when Donald Trump loved pollsters and their findings. During the Republican presidential primaries, when Trump was dominating, just about every speech, press conference, and interview featured proud boasts about how great Trump was doing in the polls. The GOP nominee is far less impressed with public-opinion surveys now. Trump told supporters this week independent public-opinion polls are “crooked” and part of a “rigged system.” Bloomberg Politics added this week that members of Trump’s inner circle are “increasingly divorced from mainstream perceptions of the state of the race, with some members rejecting public polls on the basis of their ‘flawed model.’” I seem to recall Mitt Romney’s supporters saying something similar four years ago. Of course, the GOP campaign’s resistance to the latest evidence is understandable given that the polling shows Trump falling further behind Hillary Clinton with time running out. Fox News, which is apparently part of the same “rigged system” by Trump’s reasoning, released new national results late yesterday. In a four-way contest: Clinton: 45% Trump: 38% In a head-to-head match-up: Clinton: 49% Trump: 41% Note, this survey was in the field on Monday through Wednesday, so it came after both the debate and the revelations about Trump’s predatory remarks towards women. The Fox poll also asked respondents whether or not the candidates are a good role model. A 54% majority said Clinton is, while 77% said Trump is not. As for the overall averages, the major poll aggregators now show Clinton with a lead between five and eight points, which is her best advantage in quite a while. As a historical matter, since the dawn of modern polling, no presidential candidate has won after trailing by this much with four weeks remaining.
and the last two national polls on real clear politics are tied and trump in lead. so what. that does not mean they reveal their templates and are good polls. (LA times which has them tied may reveal their template.) that fox poll didn't show their template either. but they admitted that trump and hillary are tied with independents. now that means the race is close. so that fox polled is likely very skewed.
You seem to love crap polls jem.The jem honest Rasmussen and Gallup and now LA times/USC which is probably the biggest crap poll in RCP history http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/u...-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html How One 19-Year-Old Illinois Man Is Distorting National Polling Averages There is a 19-year-old black man in Illinois who has no idea of the role he is playing in this election. He is sure he is going to vote for Donald J. Trump. And he has been held up as proof by conservatives — including outlets like Breitbart News and The New York Post — that Mr. Trump is excelling among black voters. He has even played a modest role in shifting entire polling aggregates, like the Real Clear Politics average, toward Mr. Trump. How? He’s a panelist on the U.S.C. Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Daybreak poll, which has emerged as the biggest polling outlier of the presidential campaign. Despite falling behind by double digits in some national surveys, Mr. Trump has generally led in the U.S.C./LAT poll. He held the lead for a full month until Wednesday, when Hillary Clinton took a nominal lead. Our Trump-supporting friend in Illinois is a surprisingly big part of the reason. In some polls, he’s weighted as much as 30 times more than the average respondent, and as much as 300 times more than the least-weighted respondent. Alone, he has been enough to put Mr. Trump in double digits of support among black voters. He can improve Mr. Trump’s margin by 1 point in the survey, even though he is one of around 3,000 panelists. He is also the reason Mrs. Clinton took the lead in the U.S.C./LAT poll for the first time in a month on Wednesday. The poll includes only the last seven days of respondents, and he hasn’t taken the poll since Oct. 4. Mrs. Clinton surged once he was out of the sample for the first time in several weeks. How has he made such a difference? And why has the poll been such an outlier? It’s because the U.S.C./LAT poll made a number of unusual decisions in designing and weighting its survey. It’s worth noting that this analysis is possible only because the poll is extremely and admirably transparent: It has published a data set and the documentation necessary to replicate the survey. Not all of the poll’s choices were bound to help Mr. Trump. But some were, and it all combined with some very bad luck to produce one of the most persistent outliers in recent elections. Tiny Groups, Big Weights Just about every survey is weighted — adjusted to match the demographic characteristics of the population, often by age, race, sex and education, among other variables. The U.S.C./LAT poll is no exception, but it makes two unusual decisions that combine to produce an odd result. ■ It weights for very tiny groups, which results in big weights. A typical national survey usually weights to make sure it’s representative across pretty broad categories, like the right number of men or the right number of people 18 to 29. The U.S.C./LAT poll weights for many tiny categories: like 18-to-21-year-old men, which U.S.C./LAT estimates make up around 3.3 percent of the adult citizen population. Weighting simply for 18-to-21-year-olds would be pretty bold for a political survey; 18-to-21-year-old men is really unusual. On its own, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with weighting for small categories like this. But it’s risky: Filling up all of these tiny categories generally requires more weighting. A run of the U.S.C./LAT poll, for instance, might have only 15 or so 18-to-21-year-old men. But for those voters to make up 3.3 percent of the weighted sample, these 15 voters have to count as much as 86 people — an average weight of 5.7. When you start considering the competing demands across multiple categories, it can quickly become necessary to give an astonishing amount of extra weight to particularly underrepresented voters — like 18-to-21-year-old black men. This wouldn’t be a problem with broader categories, like those 18 to 29, and there aren’t very many national polls that are weighting respondents up by more than eight or 10-fold. The extreme weights for the 19-year-old black Trump voter in Illinois are not normal. ■ It weights by past vote. The U.S.C./LAT poll does something else that’s really unusual: It weights the sample according to how people said they voted in the 2012 election. Its weights are such that Obama voters represent 27 percent of the sample and Romney voters represent 25 percent, reflecting the split of 51 to 47 percent among actual voters in 2012. The rest include those who stayed home or who are newly eligible to vote. I’m not aware of any reputable public survey that weights self-reported past vote back to the actual reported results of an election. You can read more about the U.S.C./LAT “past vote” issue in this August article, but the big problem is that people don’t report their past vote very accurately. They tend to over-report three things: voting, voting for the winner and voting for some other candidate. They underreport voting for the loser. The same thing is true in the U.S.C./LAT poll. If the survey didn’t include a past vote weight, the past vote of its respondents would be Obama 38, Romney 30. This is a lot like national surveys that were published around the same time as the U.S.C./LAT poll, like those from NBC/WSJ or the NYT/CBS News. By emphasizing past vote, they might significantly underweight those who claim to have voted for Mr. Obama and give much more weight to people who say they didn’t vote. Two Key Factors These two factors — an overweighted sample and the use of past vote — seem to explain the preponderance of the difference between the U.S.C./LAT poll and other surveys. If the poll was weighted to a generic set of census categories like most surveys (four categories of age, five categories of education, gender and four categories of race and Hispanic origin), Mrs. Clinton would have led in every iteration of the survey except the period immediately after the Republican convention. The U.S.C./LAT poll weights for all of these demographic categories; it just weights to smaller groups. About half of the difference is attributable to the small demographic categories that lead the 19-year-old black Trump voter in Illinois to get huge weights. The other half of the difference is because of the past vote weight. Of the two factors, it was probably inevitable that using “past vote” would create a problem. The potential biases of weighting by past vote are pretty well established. But the costs of the U.S.C./LAT poll’s extensive weighting were not so inevitable. Jill Darling, the survey director at the U.S.C. Center for Economic and Social Research, noted that they had decided not to “trim” the weights (that’s when a poll prevents one person from being weighted up by more than some amount, like five or 10) because the sample would otherwise underrepresent African-American and young voters. This makes sense. Gallup got itself into trouble for this reason in 2012: It trimmed its weights, and nonwhite voters were underrepresented. In general, the choice in “trimming” weights is between bias and variance in the results of the poll. If you trim the weights, your sample will be biased — it might not include enough of the voters who tend to be underrepresented. If you don’t trim the weights, a few heavily weighted respondents could have the power to sway the survey. The poll might be a little noisier, and the margin of error higher (note that the margin of error on the U.S.C./LAT poll for black voters surges every time the heavily weighted young black voter enters the survey). But the U.S.C./LAT poll is a panel — which means it recontacts the same voters over and over — and so it wound up with the worst of both worlds. If the U.S.C./LAT poll were a normal poll, the 19-year-old from Illinois might have been in the poll only once. Most of the time, the heavily weighted young black voters would lean toward Mrs. Clinton — ensuring that the poll both had the appropriate number of black voters, and a relatively representative result. But the U.S.C./LAT poll had terrible luck: The single most overweighted person in the survey was unrepresentative of his demographic group. The people running the poll basically got stuck at the extreme of the added variance. By design, the U.S.C./LAT poll is stuck with the respondents it has. If it had a slightly too Republican sample from the start — and it seems it did, regardless of weighting — there was little it could do about it.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-heavily-favored-win-electoral-college-poll-175440119.html Clinton heavily favored to win Electoral College: poll October 15, 2016 By Maurice Tamman NEW YORK (Reuters) - After a brutal week for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Democrat Hillary Clinton maintained a substantial projected advantage in the race to win the Electoral College and claim the U.S. presidency, according to the latest results from the Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project released on Saturday. If the election were held this week, the project estimates that Clinton's odds of securing the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency at more than 95 percent, and by a margin of 118 Electoral College votes. It is the second week in a row that the project has estimated her odds so high. The results mirror other Electoral College projections, some of which estimate Clinton's chance of winning at around 90 percent. For the Trump campaign there are a handful of states the Republican candidate must win if he is to cobble together enough states to win the White House. Among them is Florida, but numerous recent visits to the Sunshine State by Trump and his vice-presidential running mate Mike Pence did little to dent Clinton’s advantage in the contest for the state’s 29 Electoral College votes. She leads by 6 percentage points, about the same lead she enjoyed last week. Still, the race tightened in Ohio, another important state for Trump. Both Ohio and Nevada were leaning toward Clinton last week but are now toss-ups. However, Clinton’s support grew in North Carolina and Colorado, both of which moved from toss-ups to leaning Clinton. In the last week, the Trump campaign struggled to respond to allegations from several women that Trump had groped them or made unwanted sexual advances over several decades. Trump said the reports were lies and part of a media conspiracy to defeat him. All of the allegations came after The Washington Post disclosed a video from 2005 of Trump describing how he tried to seduce a married woman and bragged in vulgar terms how his celebrity allowed him to kiss and grope women without permission. The accusations overshadowed what might otherwise have been a difficult week for Clinton. Her campaign manager’s email account was apparently hacked and thousands of his emails were released by Wikileaks. U.S. officials say the Russian government sanctioned the electronic break-in. The emails have been trickling out for two weeks. Included in the hacked emails were undisputed comments that Clinton made to banks and big business in a 2014 speech. In those comments, Clinton said she supports open trade and open borders, and takes a conciliatory approach to Wall Street, both positions she later backed away from. Since that release, waves of other emails have been released, among which were some that suggested Clinton had inappropriately received questions in advance of a debate with Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primaries. Without Trump’s own woes, the Clinton emails may well have become the central issue in the campaign. Yet with just over three weeks to go until the Nov. 8 election, Trump does not have much time to turn the race around. According to the project, Trump trails by double-digits among women and all minority groups. Among black voters he trails by nearly 70 points. To a large extent his support is almost entirely dependent on white voters. And while Trump's support among white men is strong, among white women his lead is negligible.
from your article --- "It’s worth noting that this analysis is possible only because the poll is extremely and admirably transparent: It has published a data set and the documentation necessary to replicate the survey." so not only do they have great transparency they responded to the criticism and adjusted their poll as I told you a few posts ago. here is the analysis... "The same thing is true in the U.S.C./LAT poll. If the survey didn’t include a past vote weight, the past vote of its respondents would be Obama 38, Romney 30. This is a lot like national surveys that were published around the same time as the U.S.C./LAT poll, like those from NBC/WSJ or the NYT/CBS News. By emphasizing past vote, they might significantly underweight those who claim to have voted for Mr. Obama and give much more weight to people who say they didn’t vote." Jem conclusion. 1. nbc and nyt polls overweight democrats right now - there is no way demcrats are going to vote in 20% greater numbers than republicans. Now hillary could win and they will therefore be considered good per ignorant analysis... but.. i also bet they "herd" between now and the election if Trump starts doing a bit better. . 2. this la times poll may or may not work because the article did have a point about overweighting tiny segments of the population... I read they recently corrected that one glaring issue about the young black guy voting for trump. So this LA times poll is now likely very accurate when they say in terms of the national vote is tied up. 3. How do I know that ? almost every poll shows that 85% to 90% of the people are going to vote their party. and that independents were going for trump and its now tied. So on a national level the race is very close... right now.