Friday, August 12, 2016

Timing is everything?

Last Five Polls released:
  • LA Times Tracking (8/11) - Clinton +1
  • UPI/Voter (8/11) - Clinton +4
  • Rasmussen (8/10) - Clinton +3
  • Ispos/Reuters* (8/10) - Clinton +5
  • Bloomberg* (8/8) - Clinton +4
Average of the last five polls: Clinton + 3.4
*using four way race rather than head to head

Now this could mean something, or this could simply be a timing issue. But the double digit leads that were being touted by Hillary Supporters have been offset by a variety of polls showing a close race. If I go back a little further, I see three polls with polling through 8/7 - all showing Clinton leading by 6 points, none of them showing her over 45%.  Those eight polls (added together) would show a Clinton lead of around 4.4%. Meanwhile... 
  • RCP shows an average of a 6.3% lead. 
  • Pollster.com/HP shows a 7.7% lead. 
  • Nate Silver is projecting a 7.6% lead for Clinton. 
I won't question this for now. As I have often stated, I let the polling and numbers tell me what is happening, not the other way around. I try very hard not to use my own speculation as a means to modify the statistics of these equations. That being said, my own spreadsheet shows a smaller 5.4 point lead for Clinton, and my cross tabs projection is sitting at 4.6%. This is simply because I am running an unweighted 30 day average rather than a seven day average or a weighted average, and my cross tabs does not allow for demographic changes in individual pollster to effect the average.  

Bottom line: With how the two conventions were reported, and how Trump has been pounded on relentlessly over the past couple of weeks, I find it interesting that gravity seems to continue to take hold of the polls and pull them down towards earth. 

Again, much too early to look at five polls as some sort of trend, but if history has anything to say about this race... it may likely look a lot different come November, than it does in August. I'd say that we are a long ways from being able to make any declarations of "landslides". 

39 comments:

Commonsense said...

Presidential elections are won in the electoral college and right now that landscape doesn't look good for Trump.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Ch, I'd consider this something of a declaration/prediction/indication of a landslide:

Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight

Who will win the presidency?
Chance of winning

Hillary Clinton
87.5%

Donald Trump
12.5%

C.H. Truth said...

Look at Nate Silver's view of Florida (for instance).

The past ten polls in ascending order for Clinton:

Clinton +5
Clinton +5
Clinton +5
Clinton +4
Clinton +3
Clinton +1
Tie
Tie
Trump +5
Trump +5

That's an average of Clinton +1.3%

After Silver gets done with his "adjustments" it turns into Clinton +5.4%

Silver has literally multiplies the margin by over four times.

Anonymous said...

After Silver gets done with his "adjustments" it turns into Clinton +5.4%
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

never forget that silver was a card-carrying member of journOlist.

that tells you all you need to know about his 'honest and objective' analysis and predictions.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The LA Times poll has been an outlier for months. Take that out and it goes up 4.4. But looking beyond that is the new NBC poll showing Clinton leading in almost every swing state. I'm sticking with my count posted on the real ope blog.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

From my fearless forecast.

First, this is an unique contest. Second, this is how I see Trump's issues. I will see if it gets past the censor.

In the last two weeks, 50 Republican national security experts, who served under Republican Presidents since Reagan, issued a strongly worded letter that for many reasons, that Donald J. Trump is not qualified to be President. One of the most respected Republican pundits, Charles Krauthhammer made it clear that although he would not vote for Clinton, he could not support Donald J. Trump for most of the same reasons the experts made.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - I swear you have brought up the 50 Republican deal so often that you must be dreaming about it when you sleep. Take a close look at that list, and you find predominately Bush 43 appointees. If you recall correctly, not only did Trump go after Jeb, but he openly stated that George Bush lied us into war. I thought it would hurt him in South Carolina. I was wrong.

But why would it surprise you that people associated with the Bush family would not be supportive of the man who openly attacked their administration.

The only thing I find odd about this election, is that there are not more predominant Democrats who take issue with their own candidate. Their ability to circle the wagons no matter what show me that they have no integrity. At least the GOP has some people who will take a stand that they see as Principled.

C.H. Truth said...

The LA Times poll is unique in that it literally polls the same people over and over.

Whereas other pollsters have a tendency to end up with a large variety of demographic break downs (which tends to create larger swings)... the only time the LA Times tracking poll will move is when the people "within" the polling sample actually change their minds.

When you have a pollster that has a poll one week that is made up of 39% Democrats, 31% Republicans, and 30% Independents.... then the next week, it's 43% Democrats, 29% Republicans. and 28% Independents, it causes larger swings. Obviously the demographics of the nation do not change from week to week.

It's probably not all that ironic that the LA Times poll started off as a dead heat, went in favor of Trump during and after the RNC, Clinton came back after the DNC and took a small lead... and now it's settled back to within a point or so.

Indy Voter said...

Ummm... The RCP average includes only four Florida polls all released within the last month. The last poll showing Trump ahead was completed before the Fourth of July.

C.H. Truth said...

Silver lists the last 10 polls on his site, Indy. I was taking the information from that. He adjusts each poll as it goes. Taking one of the polls where Trump is up 5 and moves it to "tie" as an example.

I understand that there is a method to his madness, I just don't believe that the hypersensitive statistical maneuvering is actually helpful. I am a much stronger believer in the whole ebb and flow of elections, and that polling that takes place "before" an ebb can still have relevance, because more often than not, these circumstantial shifts are temporary rather than a new reality.

Silver treats every movement as if it was a permanent change. I tend to believe that there is a baseline area that is almost magnetic in how it pulls voters back. Yes, there are times when there is real movement that sticks, but not as often as there is ebb and flow.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I think Trump is trying to set it up so if he loses, that he was cheated. No matter what the margin is.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

In the second week after the Democratic national convention in 2008, Obama lead by 3.3%. The 3.6% lead is the highest since 2000. Mitt Romney lead in North Carolina and went on to win the state. The electoral college margin was much closer, but today it's much better for Clinton was Obama versus Romney. Unless Trump can find a way to turn it around, he's not going to have a chance.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The last time Pennsylvania voted for a Republican presidential candidate was in 1988.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

As of today, the RCP average is back up to 3.8%. It looks like you cherry picked out one day to back up your premise. The swing state polls are all showing Clinton's lead is solid and firm. We are closing in on labor day weekend, where since I believe, is 1952, when the leading candidate at that time, lost to Dwight David Eisenhower. And one thing is certain, Donald J. Trump is no Eisenhower.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - Al Gore led by seven points (Gallup) on labor day weekend. Ronald Reagan was down four points (Gallup) to Jimmy Carter on labor day weekend.

Pretty sure both of those polls were wrong, and I am pretty sure they both happened since 1952.

So it has actually happened twice since 1980 (two of the past nine elections). Not to mention there has been double digit swings between labor day and election day.

wphamilton said...

There is no "solid lead" in swing states when the polls are highly variable in short time frames. As is the case currently.

This "inevitability" narrative - such as this "solid lead" phrasing that's just started to pop up - isn't playing as well in the general election as it did in the Primaries where the DNC could control it. It's not so easy when the vast majority of the target audience dislikes and distrusts the candidate.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Al Gore actually won the popular vote. It was stolen by the Republican party controlled " unclear ballot" counters in Florida. Al Gore did the right thing and conceded gracefully. Trump will be screaming that it was stolen!!!!!!!!

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - Al Gore lost a seven point labor day lead... You stated that such a thing never happens.

As far as the "unclear ballots" - if Democrats were as smart as Republicans, they would have been able to properly fill out the ballots.

KD, Algore is a world class Polluter said...

OMG, what a cry baby of a sissy boy.


Bush won.

Gore lost, but he is ok, he bought a tv channel, sold it to Muslims made 100's millions and is not burning jet fuel like it is on sale.


KD said...

Bill the Rapist CLinton is now bashing as bullshit what FBI Director said about his wife, the Crooked one.

Now that is so funny, oh and on the topic of hacks and emails, Nancy Polosi was hacked, is there any Dem that can keep national secrets , protected???

Commonsense said...

All of those "unclear ballot counters" were in Democratic counties selected by Gore himself because he thought it would give him the advantage.

Why do you insist on being embarrassed by the facts.

Al Gore actually won the popular vote. It was stolen by the Republican party controlled " unclear ballot" counters in Florida.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Since 1992 the Republican candidate has gotten the popular vote was in 2004.

In 2016 that will continue that tend, but by a substantial margin. I know, our esteemed host is convinced that predictions in August are likely to be a mistake. This time, there is NO way.

And anyone that allows a post with "Rapist Clinton' and didn't allow one of mine, makes me wonder if he isn't exhibiting cognitive dissonance.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - I wonder if you really even understand what the term Cognitive Dissonance even means.

Commonsense said...


Remember, KD is using Hillary Clinton's own standard that the victim of rape must always be believed and using that standard, Bill Clinton is a rapist.

And anyone that allows a post with "Rapist Clinton' and didn't allow one of mine, makes me wonder if he isn't exhibiting cognitive dissonance.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Roger understands it. You practice it.

KD said...

When ONE woman makes a claim you raped her, there may be some doubt, when two make that claim, they are more believed then not, when a third or more make the claim. You are a Rapist, Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby, both Rapists.


Hillary never defended those woman that accused Bill, why not, easy she is drunk with power and lust of money.

KD, HB can you answer this question said...

OH HB, I notice the part of my statement you took issue with, very cute of you, not that a Former President with a wife that is Running currently for president attacked the Sitting FBI Director.

Why not defend Comey?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Speaking of practicing it.

"The only thing I find odd about this election, is that there are not more predominant Democrats who take issue with their own candidate."

In a five minute Google search, anyone who doesn't have cognitive dissonance, can find literally hundreds of Republicans, from US Senators, congressmen, security experts from the Reagan administration to George W Bush, who oppose Donald J. Trump.

Now according to our esteemed host, every one of them was forced to come out in opposition to Donald J. Trump. Cohesion is the term he uses.

If you do a five minute Google search for "Prominent Democrats who oppose Hillary Rodham Clinton", you will not find a single Democratic United States Senator, or congressman or security experts, from the Clinton administration to that of President Barack Hussein Obama who have been by cohersion, forced to oppose Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I rest my case your honor.

That my friends, is indisputable evidence of cognitive dissonance.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - where have I ever suggested that anyone was "coerced" to come out against Trump? I have stated over and over that it does not surprise me that the other Candidates he went after (such as Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush) are opposed to him. It does not surprise me that members of the Bush administrations have come out against Trump, seeing as he has suggested that Bush "lied us into war". It does not surprise me that prominent Republicans have come out against a candidate that has views that are different, and has been less than a good Republican soldier.

If the GOP had overwhelming cognitive dissonance... I would expect that they would all fall in line, lock step... and support him no matter what. The fact that the Party is split on him, shows that as a larger group, they do have the ability to think for themselves a bit.

The fact that nobody within the Democratic Party takes issue with a candidate who has a long history of scandals, just got out of a criminal investigation, is currently fighting off another (Clinton foundation), was chastised by the FBI director, called 'unsophisticated" with National Security secrets... tells us that the Party is controlled by Cognitive dissonance.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I didn't say that the Republican party suffered from cognitive dissonance. I said that you do.

C.H. Truth said...

Well Roger...

I believe this is a choice between bad and worse.

You believe one of these candidates is actually good.


The former opinion is rooted in reality. The latter requires a substantial amount of cognitive dissonance.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Ch, how is it possible that you can think a Trump victory stands a ghost of a chance, when right now recent polling tells us he doesn't have a lead in any of the states he needs to win, and in several important states he's significantly trailing Clinton?

Care to explain that to us without using your usual obfuscatory blather?

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

No, Ch, we believe that one of the candidates is far far far far far far far far far far WORSE in many many many many many many many many respects..

It takes a WHOLE lot of cognitive dissonance to fail to see THAT.

C.H. Truth said...

James

First, I have neither predicted a Trump victory, nor am I ready to declare any sure winners in August. Look at Nate Silver. Three weeks ago, he showed Trump with a 60% chance of Victory. Today it's 11%.

That should tell us exactly how volatile the race actually is.

But in the real world, where we don't adjust our polls for bias and move margins because of our personal feelings... we still live in a world where you have to go back to 1988 to find a candidate who did not win at least 19 states. Even as it stands right now, the polling is showing a margin somewhere between Obama's victory over McCain and his victory over Romney. That's not exactly a landslide, and it's not exactly irreversible over the next three months.

Me, I expect a wild ride, with many more twists and turns. You can believe that the next three months don't matter, if it makes you feel better.

Commonsense said...

Yeah, and all the objective evidence suggest that candidate is Hillary Clinton.

No, Ch, we believe that one of the candidates is far far far far far far far far far far WORSE in many many many many many many many many respects..

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

All the OBJECTIVE evidence suggests the exact opposite, and even you know it.

KD, said...

IS part of the evidence is that she took $28 Million from Wall Street Banks and the Elite Rich?

or how about this evidence:

Hillbilly "donated" $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, taking that "donation" as a YUGE tax deduction from their taxes.

C.H. Truth said...

- Which candidate has been under no less than three criminal investigations?
- Which candidate has a history of failed political policies?
- Which candidate lied to the parents of dead Americans (at the funeral)? - Which candidate has taken tens of million in foreign contributions?
- Which candidate put our national security at risk by putting classified information on a private server?
- Which candidate is so rude as to have her detail considered punishment for Secret Service agents?

Corruption and dishonesty is not an objective quality for an American Preside

Commonsense said...

James has no answer.