Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Reuters-Ipsos curiosities, continued

The Reuters-Ipsos interactive interface for the organization's national presidential tracking poll is a composite of the results obtained from the 50 states and DC. The national sample of likely general election voters totals 22,846; the sum of the states over this same period of time comes to 23,310. It's unclear where those additional 464 participants come from. My guess is that it's the consequence of some coding errors or a few respondents being double-counted, but at 2% of the total, it's a trivial difference.

The three most heavily sampled states are, from the top, New Jersey, Virginia, and Minnesota. These states are the 11th, 12th, and 21st most populous in the country, respectively. The latter two are blueish-purple states and the first is, while relatively amenable to Trump compared to previous Republican candidates, deeply blue.

It's an inconvenient week to have the schedule loaded up because this really feels like something worth getting a handle onR-I only applies weights to the following four variables: Gender, Age, Education, and Ethnicity. A 40 year-old white male college graduate from Mississippi and a 40 year-old white male college graduate from Minnesota aren't necessarily interchangeable.

I remember hearing exasperation during the primaries from pundits who couldn't figure out why Trump's performance among "white Evangelicals" in South Carolina was so much better than it was in Wisconsin (ie relative to previous Republican presidential candidates, Trump resonates especially well with 'Scots-Irish' from Appalachia). If these professional prognosticators don't have a clue, how unreasonable is it to wonder if the pollsters do?

How much is the fact that Trump isn't a generic Republican candidate disrupting the utility of standard polling models? It's an important question. As commenter pyrrhus alluded to, polling outfits have to draw the line somewhere, but the unusual nature of this election could be causing these polling models to be missing the mark in a systematic way.

Then again, this could just be wishful thinking on this Trump supporter's part. This weekend I'll compare the R-I samples by state with votes cast in 2012 by state to present a fuller quantitative picture. Any help making sense of this in the comments is appreciated.

8 comments:

Joshua Sinistar said...

These polls are purposely weighted towards Granny. They have to hide it in the demographics for statisticians to not see them, but this misguided attempt to demoralize Trump's base should backfire badly. They're cheating like crazy but all this happy talk about Granny having it in the bag should make a lot of her lukewarm base stay home.

Anonymous said...

Minnesota is the cuckiest state in the country - the absolute cuckiest.

Audacious Epigone said...

Minnesota is the most Midwestern-nice, for which there is a lot of overlap with cuckiness, but Utah has to be the absolute cuckiest state in the country.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

While it's obvious the polls are rigged, it's very difficult to really determine how the election will really turn out and to be fair, it would be difficult for polls to gauge things accurately since this is a very unconventional election. Lots and lots of enthusiastic Trump supporters, lots of packed rallies, way more signage than I've seen for any candidate since the 2000 election when I started paying attention to this stuff, etc. but how much of the "monster vote" will really materialize?

Optimistically, I see lots of people who have never voted in their lives (including my family) excited for vote for Trump. Many of them already voted. My father never voted in his life and he voted for Trump, which is truly unreal. Optimistically, many white women I've come across truly don't care about voting for the first woman president like blacks did for the first black president. Maybe if the candidate was someone other than Hillary Clinton, it would be a different story.

As a pessimist, the "monster vote" may just be a couple million people, maybe just enough to offset the scared cucks and Mormon losers who will either stay home or vote for Egg McMuffin. I'm an optimist in the end so I think a few million more whites will show up, which will throw the likes of Nate Silver spinning. The Democrat election calculus is to assume that there will be a decreasing quantity (not just percentage) of white voters. To see them go back to the drawing board will be interesting. Will they try to be more white friendly or have they cast their entire lot in with a horde of migrants? My money is on the latter but they play a risky game. If more and more whites find out that their leadership wants them dead and gone, everyone but the ultra liberal and ultra cucked will switch Republican, giving them a good few election cycles of dominance until the black pill known as Hispanic birthrates wrestles the control out of Republican hands.

Also as someone with friends, family, and co-workers from Minnesota, it's a lost cause. Trump's non-immigration beliefs should appeal to their more altruistic nature but they think he's too loud and too mean so therefore they will vote for a criminal instead. Blows your mind until you realize that these people willingly accept Somali immigrants, then you realize that if they want open borders with the third world, they should get it good and hard.

chris said...

"Optimistically, many white women I've come across truly don't care about voting for the first woman president like blacks did for the first black president."

Race is a tribe, gender is not.

Many "right-wing misogynists" would happily vote for Sarah Palin because she is on their tribe. Hence exposing the feminist lie that women are their own class/tribe separate from their men.

Cicatrizatic said...

How bout that ABC tracking poll? From Clinton +12 to Clinton +4 in 5 days.

Notice that the number of polls being conducted in the swing states is down drastically from 2012. The volume of polling is about 50% of what it was. Many pollsters are likely sitting this one out.

From CNBC, AI that correctly predicted 2004, 2008, and 2012 predicts a Trump win:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/donald-trump-will-win-the-election-and-is-more-popular-than-obama-in-2008-ai-system-finds.html

Add that to the Lichtman and Norpoth models, and the LA Times/USC poll (Trump +2 today).

I think the RCP average will shrink to Clinton +3 by election day, and will be still be off by about 5-6 pts.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Tim Kaine cancelled a rally in Sarasota, FL. In a recent rally, only a couple dozen showed up and some of them heckled him. Conversely, Pence doesn't draw yuge crowds like Trump but at least they are well into the hundreds or thousands.

http://ijr.com/2016/10/721188-tim-kaines-rally-may-have-just-been-the-saddest-ever-compare-to-mike-pences-on-the-same-day/

It is really tough to buy the narrative that Hillary is leading. She is practically a no show, preferring fundraisers to rallies, and her VP can't get more than 30 people to show up. The enthusiasm just isn't there. Now with the Anthony Weiner scandal, Hillary might have to actually attend a rally or two to shore up her flagging base for these final days. Meanwhile enthusiasm for Trump is white-hot.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Similar family experience--my mother was a Never Trumper in the beginning, but by the time the Kansas caucuses rolled around had become a strong, vociferous Trump supporter and has remained so to such an extent that I still find it surprising given her generally demure temperament. I've converted my dad and brother as well, and even my wife who'll vote Trump more for me than for herself.

It's the hundreds of thousands and even millions of stories like ours that may be enough to make the difference.

Related to the embarrassingly small turnouts, tonight most of the leading comments on Hillary's facebook feed are pro-Trumpian. The most recent comment has 2500 likes. Hillary's actual post only has 7100.

Cicatrizatic,

The Indian who created the AI for that prediction did better in the primaries than Nate Silver did because he considered things like social media engagement that Silver (and traditionally polling models) do not. PredictIt now has it closing on 70%-30% Hillary, from 85%-15% Hillary less than a week ago.

Chris,

Exactly. Do most heterosexual white men identify more with Obama or Palin? Do most black women identify more with Obama or Palin? Both rhetorical, of course.