Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

molova

(543 posts)
Sun Sep 4, 2016, 11:04 AM Sep 2016

I told you Emerson is junk (Clinton ahead in NC by 4% in YouGov/CBS)

I recently noted that Emerson is a crappy outlier-producing machine.
Today a respectable pollster has Clinton ahead in NC by 4%. Emerson found Trump ahead here by 2%
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-north-carolina-pennsylvania-email-questions-linger/

Do not forget to dismiss Emerson every time it releases a poll anywhere. Thanks.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I told you Emerson is junk (Clinton ahead in NC by 4% in YouGov/CBS) (Original Post) molova Sep 2016 OP
Thanks for sharing, molova! writes3000 Sep 2016 #1
And vadermike Sep 2016 #2
I don't know much about Emerson. But I am automatically skeptical of YouGov internet polls. tritsofme Sep 2016 #3
Bloomberg said Emerson most accurate in primaries but their general election method is stupid Cicada Sep 2016 #4
538 gives them a "B" rating progressoid Sep 2016 #5
No worries, Hill's got this. oasis Sep 2016 #6

vadermike

(1,417 posts)
2. And
Sun Sep 4, 2016, 01:19 PM
Sep 2016

Hillary is ahead in Pa big time yougov as well No matter what the GOP throws out there she's fighting !!! GOP has a sad lol this makes me feel good GOTV

tritsofme

(17,479 posts)
3. I don't know much about Emerson. But I am automatically skeptical of YouGov internet polls.
Sun Sep 4, 2016, 01:28 PM
Sep 2016

It'll be interesting to see how they perform this cycle.

Cicada

(4,533 posts)
4. Bloomberg said Emerson most accurate in primaries but their general election method is stupid
Sun Sep 4, 2016, 01:37 PM
Sep 2016

For the general election they weight for 2012 v toe, party ID, sex and gender. But we know from prior polls that more say the voted for the winner than actually did. So the Obama voters in their sample include some who in fact did not vote for Obama. Thus the real Obama voters are underemployed. Also party ID is not a fixed trait. If you support Hillary you might be a FORMER republican. So if more favor Hillary there will be too few "democrats." And they don't weight for race. Maybe minorities are less likely to respond. So we have concerns over their method.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I told you Emerson is jun...