Imagine my surprise when they released a poll showing Clinton back up by five points today in the two way race (it was four points last week, and 11 the week before). Wow, what a one day jump? So I went back to the daily tracking link, and low and behold, the entire movement over the past week for Trump was gone? Interesting...
Well.. then I read this story "also" released today:
In a nutshell - allowing for the choice of "neither" was causing an issue:
From the beginning of June until the middle of July, the Reuters/Ipsos survey showed consistently lower support for Trump than other polls were capturing.I guess this didn't really phase them. However:
More recently, the “Neither/Other” option appeared to lead to an underreporting of Clinton’s support in the run-up to the Democratic convention, said Cliff Young, pollster and president of Ipsos Public Affairs, which partners with Reuters on the poll.Of course it did... certainly the FBI report and the Republican Convention had nothing to do with her being "underreported". Either way, underreporting for Trump. No big deal. Underreporting for Clinton? Well that needs to be addressed and pronto!
Now I won't get into the details, because quite frankly they didn't really make much sense. But they apparently went through three different versions or reestablishing of the numbers (retroactively no less) and were able to find a new formula that effectively put Clinton back up to a five point lead, giving her a one point bump over last weeks polling.
Now this actually doesn't effect my spreadsheet, because when given the option I use the four way results. In the four way race, it is still showing the race effectively tied when rounded (Clinton had had a four point lead a week ago). Not sure if this is because there is really a five point spread between the two polls, or if they have not gotten around to "tweaking" their four way race, as they did their two way race. Either way, I provided the polling chart from Reuters on the four way race. This is almost identical to what the two way race looked like, as of earlier today (only Trump was up by a point).
 |
| Has the four way race not been adjusted yet? |
Let's see if this one changes as well?
37 comments:
Sounds like a classic case of changing the method because you don't like the result.
The neither category is valid because it really is not a binary choice.
Johnson and Stein will be on the ballot in all 50 states.
It's is interesting how deeply normally Democrat voters would rather vote for somebody other than Clinton.
Right now the Libertarians are on 36 states and Greens are on 23
in
the
tank
for the hildebeast.
Literally the same link showed Trump up a point earlier today. The exact same link has a completely different history as well. No reference to the fact Trump was up.
Literally the same link showed Trump up a point earlier today. The exact same link has a completely different history as well. No reference to the fact Trump was up.
early 41 percent of likely voters favor Clinton, 35 percent favor Trump, and 25 percent picked "Other," according to the new July 25-29 online poll of 1,043 likely voters, which overlapped with the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
The poll has a credibility interval of 4 percentage points.
The presidential tracking poll reflects a slight change of wording from previous surveys, replacing the “Neither/Other” option given to respondents with just “Other.” An internal review had found the word “Neither” has, at times, siphoned support away from one or the other candidate. [nL4N1AB4I6]
Former Secretary of State Clinton delivered an upbeat keynote address at the Democratic convention on Thursday night, as she became the first woman to accept the presidential nomination from a major party. [nL1N1AD041]
In the biggest speech of her more than 25-year-old career in the public eye, Clinton, 68, cast herself as a steady leader at a "moment of reckoning" for the country, and contrasted her character with what she described as Trump's dangerous and volatile temperament.
Trump, a 70-year-old New York businessman and former reality TV show host who has never held political office, responded in a Twitter post late on Thursday that "Hillary's vision is a borderless world where working people have no power, no jobs, no safety."
Both candidates were on the campaign trail on Friday, kicking off what is expected to be a hotly contested general election battle.
A separate Reuters/Ipsos survey that provided respondents with the option to choose from Clinton, Trump, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, has Clinton and Trump tied at 37 percentage points.
Of the alternative party candidates, Johnson came in third with 5 percentage points, followed by Stein at 1 percentage point, according to the July 25-29 survey of 1,426 likely voters, which has a credibility interval of 3 percentage points.
You always find a way to dispute any poll that gives numbers that you don't like.
Roger - facts are facts - the same poll as of this morning showed Trump up by 1 point. That number was being tracked by others as well...
Either way, in a four way race, they show them tied, which is a four point swing for Trump over the past week!
Virginia 42.3 37.0 Clinton +5.3
North Carolina 44.0 42.0 Clinton +2.0
Georgia 41.5 46.0 Trump +4.5
Missouri 38.0 44.3 Trump +6.3 Trending Down
Colorado 44.6 36.6 Clinton +8.0
Nevada 41.7 43.7 Trump +2.0
Arizona 43.5 43.0 Clinton +0.5
Nevada is trouble but the rest look good. PA is also in Clinton's favor at this time. Trump needs to run the mid west, including Michigan and Wisconsin and of course Iowa.
If it was held today, Clinton would win.
By Monday I expect to see a 4%+ bounce. Despite how you want to see it.
Fresh results.
25%30%35%40%07/2207/29
Select both start date and end date.
Time Frame: Jun 29, 2016 - Jul 29, 2016 (5 Day Rolling)
July 29, 2016
1,555 Respondents
Hillary Clinton (Democrat) 37.1%
Other/Wouldn't vote/refused 32.6%
Donald Trump (Republican) 30.3%
CHT Can we get a thread to discuss the newest discloser on Hillbilly un able to secure any data given to her.
"
The computer network used by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign was hacked as part of a broad cyber attack on Democratic political organizations, people familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The latest attack, which was disclosed to Reuters on Friday, follows reports of two other hacks on the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, and the party’s fundraising committee for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.
A Clinton campaign spokesman said in a statement late on Friday that an analytics data program maintained by the DNC and used by the campaign and a number of other entities "was accessed as part of the DNC hack."
"Our campaign computer system has been under review by outside cyber security experts. To date, they have found no evidence that our internal systems have been compromised," said Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill.
The U.S. Department of Justice national security division is investigating whether cyber attacks on Democratic political organizations threatened U.S. security, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday."
LOL, this is just Karma Biting her right in that fat old ass
Well Roger - I only see what exists - not hypothetical. I am not making any predictions. Unlike you I will wait to see what happens.
Kerry in a landslide?
However -
Reuters shows a 2 point bounce for the head to head from Friday to Friday (but that comes from them changing their methodology - not an actual change numbers). They show a four point loss for Clinton in the four way from Friday to Friday. I guess if you average that out... is there even a bounce?
Trump is +6 in the LA Times poll since last Friday. Are you expecting a ten point swing over the next three days?
Rasmussen shows a two point swing and won't poll again for another week or so...
If you average out those three pollsters (four polls) you have +2 -4 -6 and +2 - that's an average of a negative 1.5 point bump so far.
CNN, Gravis, You Gov, and Survey Monkey are the only other pollsters that polled in between the two conventions. Those four would have to average around 8-10 points in bump to get to four.
What I can tell you is that my 20+ polling average showed about a 2.1 percent bump for Trump from Monday before to Monday after.
Right now... the number has continued in Trumps favor by another 0.2% - There would need to be some serious polling over the next three days to put her in the same basic ball park.
It's not unusual to see different results in different polls. They use different methods of getting their results. The question I have to ask. Why did Reuters revise previous polls. Logically it was fixing mistakes. What other reasons? Go figure.
33% other/wouldn't vote/refused? And that's supposed to indicate the candidate with 37% would win if the election occurred today? Get real.
33% other/wouldn't vote/refused? And that's supposed to indicate the candidate with 37% would win if the election occurred today? Get real.
Roger is emotional, not bright
Roger is emotional, not bright
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
when you take your inspiration from 'occupy democrats,' you're running an intellectual deficit right from the start.
Trump up by 1 point
And you who allegedly are an expert in statistics, never changed anything after further analysis. You've become a hack, CH, blinded by trump who is now claiming his speech was better than hers due to a few more viewers!!! lolol
Opie - I have been watching polls since 2004. Nobody has ever before retroactively changed polling results of a tracking poll such as this.
Holy crap. batman, Ch has been watching polls since 2004 and in his opinion, a poll was never changed before. I'm sure you can prove that with real data, not your flawed memory. LOL BTW, NC which may have been in play just got caught, doing what we all have know as selective voting rights. Idiots.
he scurrilous attempt by North Carolina Republicans to suppress the rising power of black voters was struck down on Friday by a federal appeals court that concluded that the state’s voting strictures “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”
The decision means that the voting power of black citizens in the important swing state will not be hobbled in November by a repressive 2013 law that the court found was steeped in blatant racism, in violation of the Constitution. “Because of race, the Legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history,” the court ruled.
The court, in finding that the law was designed as a deliberate tool to reduce the African-American vote, is the latest to beat back attempts by Republican statehouses to interfere with minority and new voters.
A court in Wisconsin just overturned another racist vote restriction law.
I've never heard of published polls retroactively corrected. At the least, you have to question the pollster's credibility after something like that.
A court in Wisconsin just overturned another racist vote restriction law.
The silence on this new and improved blog set up for cogent discussions is deafening. Just looked at the 1.2 % thread and realized the is just a single post that actually makes a decent post. The rest are rat, being rat and looking like the insolent fool he is. Good job CH, your idea is dependent on good people and your audience leaves a whole lot of stupid posted here.
RCP average is once again showing Clinton ahead. By only 0.4%, but we shall see by Monday or Tuesday, the size of the convention bump. Once two of those posted are post convention polls.
The Los Angeles Times post, loved by our esteemed host shows Trump ahead, the poll he hates has exactly in reverse.
Anonymous wphamilton said...
I've never heard of published polls retroactively corrected.
At least I think you have more cred's than CH, but the fact remains, it is your opinion and I sincerely doubt polls have never been changed. Words such as in my recollection, I am not aware of any poll ever being changed instead of "never". JMHO!
wp, I have the same question. But I have to ask why they did it.
Most on the right claim it was done to make Clinton look better. But Reuters isn't a partisan outfit. I would suggest that they found errors and fixed them.
Why else?
One of the largest newspapers in all of Texas, which previously endorsed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, has now officially endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
They doubled down on Trump. Irresponsible, unfit, etc
A new poll of Missouri shows real trouble brewing for Republicans as Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by a single point in a state that Mitt Romney won by ten points in 2012.
Mason-Dixon Polling found that Trump is losing in a state that President Obama lost in 2008 and 2012. Technically, the results are a statistical tie, but Trump is underperforming Romney by eleven points in a state that Republicans thought they could count on in November. The two main issues for Trump in Missouri are that he is less popular than Clinton in the state and that he is getting less Republican support than Clinton is getting Democratic support.
While Clinton is a net (-3) favorable/unfavorable split (42%/45%), Donald Trump is a net (-18) favorable/unfavorable split (33%-51%). Democrats are more unified around Clinton (87%) than Republicans are around Trump (79%). Hillary Clinton is getting 97% of the African-American vote to Trump’s 1%, and Trump is only leading Clinton by 8 points with Independents.
Rhut rho!
Blogger Roger Amick said...
wp, I have the same question. But I have to ask why they did it.
Most on the right claim it was done to make Clinton look better. But Reuters isn't a partisan outfit. I would suggest that they found errors and fixed them.
"Why" the poll wording was changed isn't as much a question to me, because I have no way of knowing that, and it doesn't make the poll any more or less valid.
But correcting the earlier poll results, to make them more in line with a new poll, that just doesn't have any credibility. You can only annotate those polls with the changing wording, to put the interpretation of results in context, but you can't credibly change the data. That's a fudge, a questionable one IMO.
This is the last place you’d expect to find John Stubbs or Ricardo Reyes, two former George W. Bush administration officials and ardent Republicans who retired from politics years ago, is at the Democratic National Convention in 2016.
And yet here they are, posted up in a rented house in downtown Philadelphia, tirelessly promoting their grassroots organization, R4C16, which they launched last month with a singular goal in mind: to get their fellow Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton in November.
“If you’d told me five years ago this is where I’d be today…” said Reyes, breaking into a laugh. He glanced across the kitchen table at Stubbs, who shrugged ruefully.
“Look, if the Republicans had nominated anyone else, we’d be voting for them,” Stubbs said.
In an interview Tuesday, both men appeared to struggle, almost physically, to describe their reasons for disliking Republican nominee Donald Trump, eventually arriving at a one-two punch. Trump, they said, is dangerous, not only to the free-market values of traditional Republicanism, but also to the security and integrity of the United States.
And the only reasonable alternative, they went on, is Hillary Clinton.
The point of launching R4C16, the explained, was to trumpet the idea to their fellow Republicans that it’s not enough to not vote. And it’s not enough to vote for a third-party. “That strikes me as petulant and irresponsible,” Stubbs said, “and a missed opportunity.”
“A protest vote in any other election would be fine,”Reyes agreed. “But this is too important. People need to put aside their personal feelings and look at what’s best for this country. The Republican leadership is right: this is a binary decision.”
Stubbs’ and Reyes’ decision to launch R4C16 nearly five weeks ago was a reluctant one. After meeting in the early 2000s, when both were working for the Bush administration—Stubbs as senior advisor to the U.S. Trade Representative and Reyes as a USTR deputy assistant for public and media affairs—both “happily retired” from politics, as Reyes put it, years ago. Neither had any interest in returning to the fray, but Trump’s nomination forced their hand.
“At first we were watching with amusement, and then with alarm, and then with true worry at what could happen here,” Reyes said. “Finally we came out and said, ‘We have to do something.”
Fine wp, but again, what motivated them?
And yet here they are, posted up in a rented house in downtown Philadelphia, tirelessly promoting their grassroots organization, R4C16, which they launched last month with a singular goal in mind: to get their fellow Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton in November.
The 4th circuit's decision on the NC voter ID law you posted is exhibit A as to why no Republican should ever vote for Hillary Clinton and why any "Republican" who does can't call themselves that any longer.
"Why" the poll wording was changed isn't as much a question to me, because I have no way of knowing that, and it doesn't make the poll any more or less valid.
Yeah, I am not sure why that is so hard for Roger to grasp. Why they manipulated their previous results is irrelevant as to whether or not a pollster ever should do such a thing. They took tangible real results and replaced them with a "modeled" response for all practical purposes. Not that some people don't find this perfectly acceptable statistical science.
But I will point out... that they changed the wording to remove the choice of "neither" - when actually refusing to place a vote for a particular race is not only a legitimate response but a fairly well used one (There have been congressional races where over 10% of the voters chose not to cast a vote). To argue that there is no way that 3-4 percent will actually choose to leave the choice for President blank on election day is dubious at best. But to pretend that there is no way that 3-4 percent of the public is thinking at this time has no credibility.
I see 538 now gives Trump a 48% chance of winning. That should go down in the next few days as post-DNC polls come out, but I think this will remain a close race at least until the debates.
"This is the last place you’d expect to find John Stubbs or Ricardo Reyes, two former George W. Bush administration officials and ardent Republicans who retired from politics years ago, is at the Democratic National Convention in 2016."
Taking James' place?
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Fine wp, but again, what motivated them?
If they screwed up the earlier polls so badly that it's better for them to be disregarded now, than to try to bluff it out, then I could see it.
But how could anyone believe their poll now, after that?
Post a Comment