• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump catches up to Clinton, latest Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chakan

Member
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has pulled into an effective tie with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, erasing a substantial deficit as he consolidated support among his party’s likely voters in recent weeks, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos national tracking poll released Friday.

The poll showed 40 percent of likely voters supporting Trump and 39 percent backing Clinton for the week of Aug. 26 to Sept. 1. Clinton's support has dropped steadily in the weekly tracking poll since Aug. 25, eliminating what had been a eight-point lead for her.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1182PT

The wall just got a bit higher.
 
Their model is all kinds of screwy.

Ya'll want to know why the Ipsos State polls (and probably tracking) are pure and total shit. They adjusted their model for turnout in bizzaro land.

"In this scenario: Currently, Reuters/Ipsos estimates overall turnout at around 60%, although that rate varies among different demographic groups. Minority turnout, for example, is expected to be about 43%, while about 59% of African-American women and 69% of White men are projected to cast ballots."

So, let's break this down.

60% turnout? So, this election is going to have higher turnout than 2012? And 2008? And 2004? and 2000 alllllll the way back to 1968. That's the last time turnout hit 60%. But, okay, so let's say I buy that turnout is going to be 5 points from 2012.

Second problem. Minority turnout is going to be about 43%. I can give you individual breakdowns by year and race, but I'm going to do just an average:

2012: 51.9%
2008: 54.5%
2004: 49.8%
2000: 44.5%

So, they expect a lower minority participation rate than in any year since 2000. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever to suggest this is the case. We've seen an increase in registration among people of color, particularly Hispanic voters. We just had an election in which one candidate's coalition was predominately people of color and they easily came out and dominated a coalition that was white and disproportionally male.

Problem the 3rd, their model originally called for 70% turnout among all eligible white males. They adjusted it down to a far more reasonable 69%

WOCvoters_web2.png


This is from 2012. If 69% of white males vote, then the non-participation rate among registered, white male voters would be 3.2%. THREE PERCENT. Not only that, but overall participation would have to jump by almost 7% among white men.

Problem the 4th, that participation rate among African American women is disgusting, and anyone who came up with that number is bad and should feel bad. In 2012, African American women broke the 70% participation rate for the first time ever. As in....ever. No other group has done that. But, somehow, Hillary's best demographic, the corner stone of her coalition is suddenly going to stay home when the alternative is DONALD TRUMP? The man with an approval rating among African Americans so small that it looks huge in his tiny little baby hands?

Bitch please. IPSOS, get your shit together. Find Jesus. Do something, girl.

In general, tracking polls really aren't that great anyway, but Reuters has been way off this time around. These are the same guys who were showing Clinton at like +10 when everyone else was showing +1 or tied bad in June. It got so bad they had to correct their entire method for doing polls.
 

Evolved1

make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
How.

How is that possible.

Edit: so... methodology, apparently.
 
There's one thing that matters, the electoral college. That's. It.

And based on that, Trump has almost no chance at winning, and he never has.

In fact, the Republicans, regardless of candidate, never have had a glimmer of hope. Cruz, Rubio, it doesn't matter, they all would have lost.
 
Their polls are strange. Are 20-ish percent of people who can vote either voting for 3rd party or not voting? Sounds very silly.
 
Their model is all kinds of screwy.



In general, tracking polls really aren't that great anyway, but Reuters has been way off this time around. These are the same guys who were showing Clinton at like +10 when everyone else was showing +1 or tied bad in June. It got so bad they had to correct their entire method for doing polls.
Goddamn, adam's post informative and sassy as hell. I live, naturally.
 

weekev

Banned
Even though the numbers are clearly wrong because the poll is skewed, this shit is disgusting. Doing a poll must mean they asked folks how they'd vote. More people said Trump than Hillary? Come the fuck on America, show the world you are better than this.
 
Behold the power of the big lie in politics combined with right wing personality cults. They've been blasting 'Clinton is dirty!' for so long that folks believe it even without actual proof of wrong doing.
 
Hard to vote for someone you don't like, and republicans are better at holding their noses.

Literally, not even like anything close to what 99% of polls tell us, including this one. Intention to vote has been higher with Democrats than Republicans. Here's data from the stupid USC Panel that's mostly trash, but interesting for watching tracking.

IPSOS data isn't even accurate anymore, because Hillary retook the lead as of today. I posted the issues with the assumptions they make about the electorate. They've been terribly inconsistent. This goes back to the primary as well, not just the general.
 
A good tip is when a poll shows an 8 point swing in a week and a campaign ending event didn't happen during the time of the poll, you should always be a bit skeptical.

Heck, even if there was a campaign ending event during the poll, you should still raise an eyebrow at a sudden 8 point swing.
 

Slayven

Member
"In this scenario: Currently, Reuters/Ipsos estimates overall turnout at around 60%, although that rate varies among different demographic groups. Minority turnout, for example, is expected to be about 43%, while about 59% of African-American women and 69% of White men are projected to cast ballots."
In what timeline is this?
 
We're all gonna laugh at how tame these Clinton "scandals" were after we see what Trump does with the power of the Presidency. It will be truly hilarious.
 

jchap

Member
Any other candidate than Clinton and this would be a historic landslide with massive repercussions. The only candidate that Trump could hope to beat is Clinton and vise versa. Two party system at work.
 

Velcro Fly

Member
Trump climbs in the polls because he acts like a normal candidate for a while.

Also the electoral map and state polls are still heavily in her favor
 
In what timeline is this?

Exactly.

And there are other problems as well. Their likely Hispanic voters total a massive 164 respondents out of 7279 possible likely voter respondents. African Americans are slightly better represented at 564 respondents.

Just to be clear, that means Hispanic voters who make up at least 10% of the electorate make up 2% of their sample. African American voters who make up at least 13% of the electorate make up 7% of the sample. They sample more Asian likely voters (254) than Hispanics.
 

Zukkoyaki

Member
Their daily tracking had Clinton +2 today... So they have multiple polls going on at the same time? And then there's their 50 state model that takes samples of like 200 and uses them to project.
 
Any other candidate than Clinton and this would be a historic landslide with massive repercussions. The only candidate that Trump could hope to beat is Clinton and vise versa. Two party system at work.

I've only seen one poll that did this but Obama would only be running 5 points ahead of Clinton in Ohio against Trump. And those kinds of polls typically overstate the hypothetical candidates support because people see it as a fictional scenario so they say sure I'd vote for this hypothetical candidate.
 

ModBot

Not a mod, just a bot.
If you want to discuss every poll, feel free to drop in on the PoliGAF community thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom