Trump back on top in LA Times poll

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Remember the awful tornado damage in Joplin MO when the delusional majority slammed Obama for going into a disaster zone and taxing already taxed resources?

So polls good now. Trump's back on top.

This election cycle is like a xbox vs Playstation battle.

Fanboys on either sides are just as annoying.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Cool. Lets see if it lasts more than a day this time.

As I said before though, I think you guys should hold off the back slapping and hurrahs until there is more than a .006% difference in the polls. You may want to also check more than just one poll.

I lose no matter which one of the two party representative scum of the earth is leading so in my opinion it is pretty ridiculous seeing either party doing their happy dance and trying to gloat over such minuscule number differences.

RE: graphics.latimes.com...

Why is it that the more educated a voter is, the more likely he/she supports Hillary Clinton? Are highly educated people too busy to think for themselves, and just buy the bull that CNN is selling?

a reply to: Konduit

Ask Karl Rove where that type of thinking will lead you.

originally posted by: Konduit
Hasn't it already been proven time and again that these major media polls are bunk.

I remember one time President Obama was so amazed at how wrong the polls were (in 2012?), that he publically stated the next day how stunned he was by the arse kicking that Americans delivered to the Democratic party, all over the country.

a reply to: Grimpachi

As I said before though, I think you guys should hold off the back slapping and hurrahs until there is more than a .006% difference in the polls. You may want to also check more than just one poll.

i'm not slapping anyone's back just pointing out that your 4th and 12th points were not the current standings in the poll.

I lose no matter which one of the two party representative scum of the earth is leading so in my opinion it is pretty ridiculous seeing either party doing their happy dance and trying to gloat over such minuscule number differences.

i guess you've never seen any posts i've made concerning either hump or bilary. i think both suck. but if i had to choose i would go with hump any day over the bilary. she is the most evil wicked scum of the earth. we know her record in government, we have no idea how well trump can lead a nation.

other than that i'm right there with you in the fact that the country is going to sh@@ with the caliber of the two main candidates

The LA Times poll is never in sync with the rest of national polling. They do it an odd way by asking people who they voted for before and the building a panel based on that and the surveying parts of that panel online. Nobody else does anything like this and results are often not in sync will more reputable national polling. The LA Time knows it survey is the odd man out but, kind of looks at this a long term experiment. In the LA Time polling Trump has lead Clinton since the beginning in polling which as well all know is the exact opposite of all other polling.

I expect in the next round of more reputable polling will see Trump stabilize. That drop has to stop at some point. Making up that ground is going to be the hard part.

You type in "Trump" as your search term in either Google News or Bing News and you have go through 4 pages of results before reaching something positive..and that's his visit to Louisiana this week.

With the Mainstream Media against him.. and now, even the major internet search engines, it's amazing that Donald is even close to Hillary in the ratings. She must be absolutely despised by voters.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Aug 4th poll

That LA times poll is sort of old. LA times has a new poll on Aug 12 and he is losing.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

Actually the LA Times/USC is a daily poll.
As of today Trump pis 2 points up.

originally posted by: MrSpad
The LA Times poll is never in sync with the rest of national polling. They do it an odd way by asking people who they voted for before and the building a panel based on that and the surveying parts of that panel online. Nobody else does anything like this and results are often not in sync will more reputable national polling. The LA Time knows it survey is the odd man out but, kind of looks at this a long term experiment. In the LA Time polling Trump has lead Clinton since the beginning in polling which as well all know is the exact opposite of all other polling.

I expect in the next round of more reputable polling will see Trump stabilize. That drop has to stop at some point. Making up that ground is going to be the hard part.

Not true, the LA Times Poll showed a massive swing of 12 points towards Clinton and had her 5 points ahead last week.
This trend matched the trend of others coming out of the DNC conventions and the 2 week barrage against Trump following the Khan comments.
Trump has reversed that trend and the poll now shows a 7 point swing back towards him, to leave him 2 points ahead.



The methodology is different to the random polls we see that you call 'reputable', even though most of them have oversampling of democrat registered voters. The LA Times poll is based on the same method as the RAND American Life Panel poll that was very accurate in the 2012 election, notably having Obama wining all the way from April 2012, when other polls were showing Romney ahead. It uses the SAME people each day in the poll and tracks their changing opinion over time. The sample set is weighted according to demographics and party registration.

According to the RAND poll in 2012, just before election day, they had
Obama 49.4%
Romney 46.8%
Other 3.8%

The actual results according to WaPo were
Obama 50.6%
Romney 47.8%
Other 1.6%

They predicted a finish of +2.6% for Obama and it turned out +2.8%.

There is no evidence for 2016 that the LA Times poll is any more inaccurate / accurate than any other poll right now - we only know it uses a different methodology which has proved to be accurate in the past.

If you look into the research on probabilistic polls (which the LA Times poll is) vs standard polls, it's suggested that they are actually more accurate further out from an election than random sampling and non probabilistic methods (most polls) but the advantage of the method disappears as the election looms (a month out) when people are more decided. I can link some papers if it's interesting.

I see Trump sign all over. In one neighbourhood 3/4 homes have a yard sign.

a reply to: JaMeDoIt

Maybe we should vote according to the amount of lies that are told.

At least Trumps lies haven't got thousands killed.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MrSpad
The LA Times poll is never in sync with the rest of national polling. They do it an odd way by asking people who they voted for before and the building a panel based on that and the surveying parts of that panel online. Nobody else does anything like this and results are often not in sync will more reputable national polling. The LA Time knows it survey is the odd man out but, kind of looks at this a long term experiment. In the LA Time polling Trump has lead Clinton since the beginning in polling which as well all know is the exact opposite of all other polling.

I expect in the next round of more reputable polling will see Trump stabilize. That drop has to stop at some point. Making up that ground is going to be the hard part.

Not true, the LA Times Poll showed a massive swing of 12 points towards Clinton and had her 5 points ahead last week.
This trend matched the trend of others coming out of the DNC conventions and the 2 week barrage against Trump following the Khan comments.
Trump has reversed that trend and the poll now shows a 7 point swing back towards him, to leave him 2 points ahead.

The methodology is different to the random polls we see that you call 'reputable', even though most of them have oversampling of democrat registered voters. The LA Times poll is based on the same method as the RAND American Life Panel poll that was very accurate in the 2012 election, notably having Obama wining all the way from April 2012, when other polls were showing Romney ahead. It uses the SAME people each day in the poll and tracks their changing opinion over time. The sample set is weighted according to demographics and party registration.

According to the RAND poll in 2012, just before election day, they had
Obama 49.4%
Romney 46.8%
Other 3.8%

The actual results according to WaPo were
Obama 50.6%
Romney 47.8%
Other 1.6%

They predicted a finish of +2.6% for Obama and it turned out +2.8%.

There is no evidence for 2016 that the LA Times poll is any more inaccurate / accurate than any other poll right now - we only know it uses a different methodology which has proved to be accurate in the past.

If you look into the research on probabilistic polls (which the LA Times poll is) vs standard polls, it's suggested that they are actually more accurate further out from an election than random sampling and non probabilistic methods (most polls) but the advantage of the method disappears as the election looms (a month out) when people are more decided. I can link some papers if it's interesting.

Not according the LA Times, they have a nice article on why they are always off the norm this election. It is not on purpose but, they see how it could happen in the initial screening when asking people who they voted for last election and then building their demographics on that. Thus their survey has been off of everybody else this entire election cycle. In the future they will have to find a new way of screening people. Because they only use that same group the entire time. So an initial screw up in screening throws the numbers off permanently which we have seen this entire time. Random sampling can give you a out of sync poll now and again if do the demos wrong but, you will always see a correction. You will never see that if you have one group and bad demos from the outset.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MrSpad
The LA Times poll is never in sync with the rest of national polling. They do it an odd way by asking people who they voted for before and the building a panel based on that and the surveying parts of that panel online. Nobody else does anything like this and results are often not in sync will more reputable national polling. The LA Time knows it survey is the odd man out but, kind of looks at this a long term experiment. In the LA Time polling Trump has lead Clinton since the beginning in polling which as well all know is the exact opposite of all other polling.

I expect in the next round of more reputable polling will see Trump stabilize. That drop has to stop at some point. Making up that ground is going to be the hard part.

Not true, the LA Times Poll showed a massive swing of 12 points towards Clinton and had her 5 points ahead last week.
This trend matched the trend of others coming out of the DNC conventions and the 2 week barrage against Trump following the Khan comments.
Trump has reversed that trend and the poll now shows a 7 point swing back towards him, to leave him 2 points ahead.

The methodology is different to the random polls we see that you call 'reputable', even though most of them have oversampling of democrat registered voters. The LA Times poll is based on the same method as the RAND American Life Panel poll that was very accurate in the 2012 election, notably having Obama wining all the way from April 2012, when other polls were showing Romney ahead. It uses the SAME people each day in the poll and tracks their changing opinion over time. The sample set is weighted according to demographics and party registration.

According to the RAND poll in 2012, just before election day, they had
Obama 49.4%
Romney 46.8%
Other 3.8%

The actual results according to WaPo were
Obama 50.6%
Romney 47.8%
Other 1.6%

They predicted a finish of +2.6% for Obama and it turned out +2.8%.

There is no evidence for 2016 that the LA Times poll is any more inaccurate / accurate than any other poll right now - we only know it uses a different methodology which has proved to be accurate in the past.

If you look into the research on probabilistic polls (which the LA Times poll is) vs standard polls, it's suggested that they are actually more accurate further out from an election than random sampling and non probabilistic methods (most polls) but the advantage of the method disappears as the election looms (a month out) when people are more decided. I can link some papers if it's interesting.

Not according the LA Times, they have a nice article on why they are always off the norm this election. It is not on purpose but, they see how it could happen in the initial screening when asking people who they voted for last election and then building their demographics on that. Thus their survey has been off of everybody else this entire election cycle. In the future they will have to find a new way of screening people. Because they only use that same group the entire time. So an initial screw up in screening throws the numbers off permanently which we have seen this entire time. Random sampling can give you a out of sync poll now and again if do the demos wrong but, you will always see a correction. You will never see that if you have one group and bad demos from the outset.

Here is what LA Times said on August 9th.
www.latimes.com...

Since July 28, when Hillary Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination, she has gained five points in the USC Dornsife/LA Times Daybreak tracking poll of the election. That’s similar to Clinton’s gain in other measures of the race, including the 538.com polling forecast (4.5-point gain) and the Real Clear Politics average (2.9-point gain). But although the trend lines are similar, the Daybreak tracking poll shows a smaller lead for Clinton. As of today, the tracking poll shows Clinton leading by two percentage points, 45% to 43%, compared with a nine-point lead in the Huffington Post polling average (48% to 39%), an eight-point lead in the Real Clear Politics average (48% to 40%) and a seven-point lead in 538.com’s model of national polls (45% to 38%). Why the difference? Part of the answer is simply statistical noise — all these differences are within the polls’ margins of error. But another part involves the post-convention bounce that Clinton has been enjoying. Typically, candidates get a boost after their conventions, and typically that increase fades pretty quickly. The Daybreak poll is built in a way that mutes the impact of bounces and temporary shifts in candidate support.

Here is more on the methodology and further links:
cesrusc.org...

Here's what NYT wrote on August 8th:

No matter the cause (of the variance between LA Times poll and other polls), the U.S.C./LAT panel is still useful. Since it recontacts the same voters, it’s easier to distinguish actual shifts among voters from changes in who is responding to a poll. So while the poll may show Mrs. Clinton up by only 1 point, the trend line — an eight-point shift from Mr. Trump’s seven-point lead after the convention — is still very telling.

The shift recently has been 7 points to Trump.

In the LA Times the initial sample set is clearly important (although they add samples), but it's their weighting that makes the difference.

There is the possibility of a skew using their weighting (though not conclusive right now), just as there is with random sampling. The democrat representation in most every poll available right now is too high (and varied) according to the actual Gallup numbers. The survey sample sizes mean that a 2-3 point swing in representation can occur, which actually means a 4-6 point variance to reality, which makes a big difference to outcome.
By the way, LA Times sample was also random, just weighted according to 2012 voting patterns.

There is simply no way of being definitive about which poll is right - sorry but anyone who claims otherwise is making it up. I am not saying LA Times is correct, just pointing out that your dismissal of it is bogus. We'll know which polls were the most accurate when the results come in.

I will also point out again that the LA Times poll is following the same trend as the other polls , it just polls at a slightly higher level for Trump.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Hope YOU guys like Obama if Trumps elected ,GOSH we sure have enjoyed him...
www.worldpoliticus.com...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

www.snopes.com...

Took me 2 min.
Why would he move when he will be fine regardless and be able to rack in the dough in the states doing speeches and what not..

a reply to: Sremmos80

OH sure rain on my parade...THAT'S it ,no fruit cake THIS year either... they already elected one anyway.
SNOPES is not reliable,like Fox news to you and IT IS humor,WE ALL know Canada HAS an extradition treaty.

Just another point on polling accuracy.

In Pennsylvania, the national polling organisations have Clinton with a big lead (NBC has her 11 points up).

Then you see new (non MSM sponsored) polling organisations start to chip in...

www.cbs8.com...

They say Trump +5.

Who's right? We'll see.

a reply to: UKTruth

You'd think SOMEONE would hold the dart board STILL.