White House Watch: Clinton 41%, Trump 39%, Johnson 9%, Stein 3%

[HonestJohn]

Well worth repeating. The GOP primary turnout was way up. While detractors note Trump got relatively small total percent in winning, he got the biggest popular vote ever, for primaries. And there were 17 candidates to begin, and several stayed in a long time.

For the dems, even with Sanders, they had dismal totals.

But the professional polling formulas apply the same GOP/dem/other weighting, as used in 2012. IOW they do NOT account for the additions for Trump.

And the democrat weighting does NOT account for the fact Sanders voters may not support her cankleness. Some progressives go to Jill Stein, some even to Gary Reefertarian Johnson.

GOP turnout was way up... record numbers of GOP primary voters came out to vote against Trump.

[Longmire]

But the professional polling formulas apply the same GOP/dem/other weighting, as used in 2012. IOW they do NOT account for the additions for Trump.

And the democrat weighting does NOT account for the fact Sanders voters may not support her cankleness. Some progressives go to Jill Stein, some even to Gary Reefertarian Johnson.

@truth_seeker Yep...that's one of the ways the media pollsters 'cook' their numbers. I don't think the USC/LAT poll uses the same methodology and as a result  their daily tracking poll seems to be quite predictive...ymmv

[sinkspur]

@truth_seeker Yep...that's one of the ways the media pollsters 'cook' their numbers. I don't think the USC/LAT poll uses the same methodology and as a result  their daily tracking poll seems to be quite predictive...ymmv

Yeah.  Really predictive.  Trump's support among blacks jumped from 4 to 14 points IN ONE DAY in this foolish poll. 

This could be an outlier, but if there has been similar double-digit shift to a Republican candidate and from a Democratic candidate among black voters in at least the past 40 years of presidential polling during the final 90 days before the election, I don't recall it.

You don't recall it because it's never happened and indicates the faulty methodology of the LA Times poll.

[Longmire]

Yeah.  Really predictive.  Trump's support among blacks jumped from 4 to 14 points IN ONE DAY in this foolish poll. 

Who knows maybe they started polling some actual black people for a change. 

Trump's been courting the inner city voters so maybe you'll see this trend start showing up in other polls.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You guys have to be careful about hanging anything on outliers. They're called outliers for a reason.

[jmyrlefuller]

Actually Dem turnout was down 20% and GOP turnout was up 60% this cycle and many polls haven't taken that into consideration.

Turnout was only supposedly higher in the 2016 race because the race wasn't already clinched halfway through the primary process, thus big states like New York still had competitive races—not because of any greater enthusiasm.

I still question your statistics, though, considering I remember Breitbart was the one who came up with them.

[Longmire]

Turnout was only supposedly higher in the 2016 race because the race wasn't already clinched halfway through the primary process, thus big states like New York still had competitive races—not because of any greater enthusiasm.

@jmyrlefuller

New York was never competitive...the turnout there was for native son Trump, but you may have a point about the length of the 2016 primary season.

I believe the comparison Breitbart makes is between 2008 and 2016 and one difference is that in 2008 California moved their primary up to sometime in early February while in 2016 it was in June, well after Trump had clinched. Over a million more voters participated in the 2008 primary than in 2016. Other states may also have changed their dates, but you get the idea.

So it may not be entirely fair to say the turnout was greater in 2016 because the race was competitive longer, when there are anomalies like California involved which add at least a million extra votes to the 2008 turnout total.