It looks very much like their “methodology” is simply to decide that other polls are “skewed” by the exact figure that would put their preferred candidate on top.
In other words, if other polls have Clinton + 6.5, then they decide the “skew” is 7.0, and simply report Trump up by 0.5. It’s quite a simple process really.
That may be true, but longroom’s STATED process for unskewing polls is a little more interesting in its stupidity.
They adjust polling results based on party identification (“do you identify as R or D or …?”). Their complaint is that the polls are interviewing too many Ds and not enough Rs based on data from the various Secretaries of State.
This sounds plausible, until you realize that party identification is a) fluid to some degree and b) heavily correlated with one’s preferred candidate. In other words, if HRC is getting more polling approval, it should not be surprising that Ds get more party identification.
Source: 538 Elections Podcast
Especially amusing is that they believe that the Fox News poll is one of the most heavily biased against Trump.
Fivethrityeight.com has a chart of bias from the poling agencies. One technical difference. On theirs, the bias is calculated about parties, not individuals. One significant difference. On theirs, the bias runs in both directions. One gigantic difference. On theirs, the bias is a constant. It doesn’t get bigger if Clinton does better.
Like my bias? If you handle it more it gets bigger.
What has happened with Indiana in the past few years? They went Obama in 2008, but even now, are pretty strongly in the Trump column. Seems sort of weird that Clinton is, based on current polling, expanding Obama’s map (or Trump is contracting it) by potentially getting Georgia and regaining North Carolina which he lost in 2012, but not getting back Indiana.
What polls are you looking at? The only two I see on Real Clear from Indiana are four months old.
Indiana is traditionally a pretty red state. 2008 is the only D candidate to carry it since at least 1964.
That’s not impossible. Fox News runs reliable, well designed polls, whatever their news broadcasts sound like, and they have been among Clinton’s better numbers.
They aren’t biased by ten points, of course. 538 does usually figure them for a one point Clinton bias, IIRC.
Heck, Fox News doesn’t have to care about the actual numbers. If 5% of respondents have a negative view of Clinton, that’s more than enough to lead a report with “People are saying Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be President…”
Numbers just confuse the narrative.
It also treats party registration way more importantly than it should be. People don’t necessarily vote in the primary of the party they agree with most. In 2012, the unskewers treated the fact that more people were registering as Republicans as very significant, when actually all it meant was that the Republicans had an interesting primary and the Democrats didn’t.
I think (hope) we’re seeing the unraveling of Julian Assange coincide with the unraveling of Donald Trump – although I have no doubt that some will buy into conspiracy theories.
There was a time when I actually sympathized with the mission of Wikileaks even if I didn’t always agree with what they were leaking and how they potentially exposed individuals in dangerous places. I had thought of Assange as a kind of crusading truth teller, but I guess there comes a point when human frailty reveals itself.
I said it here on one of the other threads: Assange is probably motivated by money, but more so, I’m guessing he’s probably being manipulated by Ecuador, who at any time can decide to turn him over to the British authorities (and eventually, American hands). It’s no secret that the US (under Clinton and other Secs of State) has had some testy relations with Ecuador and much of Latin America.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not beyond a high profile politician or a political group to whack an operative, but this charge is so ‘out there’ he needs to back it up. “We’re still researching” or whatever is malarkey. It means 'We got nothing but let’s see if it catches on."
Silver fills us in … the Bloomberg-Selzer poll gets heavily weighted for its trendline comparison:
A fairly minor quibble: the June and March polls were two-way and while a current two-way result is available from Selzer (Clinton +6) Silver now prefers three or four-way when the same house does more than one match-up. The logic for that preference is very understandable but trendlines are perhaps still best kept apples to apples. Nevertheless a significant change to less strongly positive than past polling.
Larry Sabato currently ranks 269 electoral college votes as “Safe” or “Likely” Democratic.
“Likely” and “Safe” are awfully different.
I’m not sure who this guy is or whether or not I agree with his analysis. He classifies South Carolina as safely Trump, which a lot of analysts are not so sure about. He classified New Hampshire merely as “leans” Democratic, which I guess is a safe call but the post-convention polling in New Hampshire has strongly suggested it’s not close right now.
Before Nate Silver splashed on the scene , Sabato’s “crystal ball” was probably the best regarded election prediction sites.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/
I don’t know if they explicitly say as such but, traditionally on these styles of map:
Safe is +10 or better
Likely is +5 to +9
Leans is +1 to +4
Sabato’s site seems to put weight into other factors than merely polling aggregates though so it’s not quite so clear.
Saboto’s map is showing the states divided into two categories - Red & Blue, for Rep & Dem, respectively - and each of the two categories is subdivided into three shades light to dark, showing Leans, Likely and Safe.
Saboto’s 269 number comes from him counting only the Safe and Likely Blue States. If you add in the Blue Leaning States - that’s another 78 EVs. Totalling all the Blue states, it’s 347 Electoral Votes for the Democrats.
Sam Wang’s current number put’ Clinton at 341 EVs. The difference is Iowa, which Wang has Red and Saboto has Blue Lean.
http://election.princeton.edu/faq/
Just for my own clarity.
Sabato is a political scientist and professor, and heads the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. He’s published a number of books, as well as a newsletter on projections for political races (to which CarnalK linked above). He’s been a longtime contributor / analyst for CBS News – I initially became familiar with him because I listen to WBBM (Chicago’s all-news station) as I get ready for work in the morning, and frequently hear him there.
Fivethirtyeight.com did an investigation of them coming to the conclusion that the site is a hoax or parody or election “fan-fiction.” The founders don’t appear to exist. The site is currently unavailable. Like Republican morality.