Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said it was pro-Clinton. Doesn't take much to notice that now that Clinton is going to lose Ohio, they no longer consider it an important state. Nonsense.
No president has won the election without taking Ohio, for the last 66 years.
Yes, but it no longer holds the same importance anymore. Democrats don't require it anymore. Republicans however do. And just because something doesn't happen that often, doesn't mean it never happens. Ohio isn't important this year. Look at CO, NC, and Fl. Those are the three states that matter.
Yeah, and? It's a 7 day average and heavily Trump leaning anyway. You likely won't see any movement there until next week. Same thing happened after her health scare as well. LA Times went one way and the other polls went the opposite.
That poll tracks the same 3,000 voters over the course of the campaign season. They poll a random sample of 400 from that universe of 3,000 every day. That's not nearly as reliable, imo, as polling different people week after week after week. The LA Times just continues to poll a sample of a sample whose composition will not change between now and November 8. That's probably why it seems to skew away from so many other polls.
Quote:
The USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll asks more than 400 people each day about their voting intentions. The poll is part of the Understanding America Study (UAS) at the University of Southern California's Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research.
Each day's poll respondents are a subset of the UAS election panel, roughly 3000 U.S. citizens who were randomly recruited from among all households in the United States. Respondents are asked three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that... (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win?
That poll tracks the same 3,000 voters over the course of the campaign season. They poll a random sample of 400 from that universe of 3,000 every day. That's not nearly as reliable, imo, as polling different people week after week after week. The LA Times just continues to poll a sample of a sample. That's probably why it seems to skew away from so many other polls.
At any rate, the election won't be decided by a national poll.
It has either one of three issues, or both of them together. First, the original panel might of had more Trump leaners then Clinton which would skew results in his favor more often. Second, It doesn't ask people how they choose to vote, rather it asks on a scale of 0-100. So even if you get a Clinton and Trump voter that both say they are going to vote the voter that rates their support at 90 gets more weight than the one that rates it at 60. Lastly, it weights to 2012 self reported voting. Something major pollsters don't do anymore. The reason is people tend to lie on who they voted for. Their panel has it pretty much where the final results of 2012 were. Which sounds good in theory but it also means that they are giving more weight to Republican voters.
I would imagine it's likely a mixture of issues going on with it. It is good for trends but now seems to be a lot slower to react to that then other polls. It's pretty off, which is obvious though. Exactly how much that will turn out to be we won't know until election day.
LOL, LA Times isn't liberal enough for you? If they say it's 5 pts it's probably closer to 10 pts.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune stopped posting national polls about 2 weeks ago so I figure that is when Trumps lead because significant.
Now they just post Minnesota Polls. But Minnesota would vote for Justin Bieber if he was a Democrat.
You do realize that LA times does not run the poll right? It's run by an outside company that partners with the LA Times. The same thing that all media companies do when they run their polls. This is also a panel which is a lot different. The aggregate of polling has her up. Which is matched by state polling. But if you want to believe in a fantasy that Trump is going to win by +10 then more power to you I guess.
LOL, LA Times isn't liberal enough for you? If they say it's 5 pts it's probably closer to 10 pts.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune stopped posting national polls about 2 weeks ago so I figure that is when Trumps lead because significant.
Now they just post Minnesota Polls. But Minnesota would vote for Justin Bieber if he was a Democrat.
I guess you missed the part about it being a tracking poll. That means they are polling the same people each week.
There are some benefits to that, imv. You can see how opinions change along a time continuum as opposed to conventional polling which only provides a snapshot of public opinion at a fixed point in time. The downside, however, is obvious; you're not interviewing any more than 3,000 people over a period of months.
I've been looking at a lot of the polls today, and one thing I see is that Trump's numbers are not dropping as much as Clinton's are rising. She's up about 2.5 since Monday, and he's down about 1.1. That's significant, because it means that most of her bump is coming from undecideds or from voters who are defecting from Johnson or Stein. And the reason that's significant is because the voters Trump most needs to convince are reacting to the debate by rejecting him and turning to Hillary. So it's not just about the numbers, it's about where those numbers are coming from - and those numbers are not good news for The Donald, at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
