Your Daily Polling Update for Thursday, October 29, 2020
TRUMP JOB APPROVAL: AVERAGE 45%
Same as yesterday
RON’S COMMENT: Today’s average is based on six polls, ranging from 42% (Reuters, Economist) to 52% (Rasmussen). Without these extremes it would still be 45%…. Trump’s disapproval rating averages 53% today (+1 from yesterday)…. See the trend in Trump’s job approval average since the beginning of 2020 at approval trend.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Among general election voters
Nationwide Popular Vote
(Boston Herald/FPU): Biden +14 (53-39-3)
(CNN): Biden +12 (54-42)
(USC): Biden +12 (54-42)
(Reuters): Biden +10 (52-42)
(USA Today): Biden +8 (52-44)
(Tufts): Biden +7 (52-45)
(IBD/TIPP): Biden +5 (50-45-3)
(Rasmussen): Biden +1 (48-47)
Average of today’s polls: Biden +8.6
RON’S COMMENT: Biden continues to post average leads within the 7- to 9-point window…. He’s at or above 50% in seven of these eight polls…. The USA Today/Suffolk poll shows the following favorability ratings––
- Trump: 40% favorable/54% unfavorable
- Biden: 47% favorable/44% unfavorable
- Democratic Party: 42% favorable/45% unfavorable
- Republican Party: 39% favorable/49% unfavorable
In the States
States Trump carried in 2016
WISCONSIN (Marquette): Biden +5
WISCONSIN (Trafalgar-R): Biden +1
MICHIGAN (Mitchell): Biden +10
MICHIGAN (NYT): Biden +8
FLORIDA (Reuters): Biden +2 (49-47)
FLORIDA (NBC): Biden +4 (51-47)
GEORGIA (PPP-D): Biden +2
GEORGIA (Monmouth): Biden +4
ARIZONA (Reuters): Biden +2
OHIO (Gravis): Trump +2
SOUTH CAROLINA (ECU): Trump +7
ALASKA (Gravis): Trump +9
ARKANSAS (Ark. Poll): Trump +33
States Clinton carried in 2016
MINNESOTA (SurveyUSA): Biden +5 (47-42)
MINNESOTA (Trafalgar-R): Biden +3 (48-45)
RON’S COMMENT: The best news for Trump today is the Ohio poll, which has him leading a large, important state (albeit by a small margin) that could swing either way. Other than that, It’s hard to find much Trump swing-state momentum. Only Trafalgar polls are producing numbers that are encouraging for him, and even they show Biden slightly ahead in the two states they’re reporting…. The Monmouth poll in Georgia shows Biden gaining strength, moving ahead by 5 points among registered voters and 4 points among likely voters. Trump won the state by 5 points four years ago…. Biden holds the advantage in critical Michigan and Wisconsin, although Trafalgar has it tight in Wisconsin…. Biden holds small leads over Trump today in Arizona and Florida; the NBC poll is most encouraging for him…. Biden is ahead in Minnesota, a state Clinton won in 2016 by a small margin.
SENATE ELECTIONS
Among voters in each state
IOWA (WHO-TV)
Theresa Greenfield (D) over Sen. Joni Ernst (R): +6 (51-45)
RON’S COMMENT: This battle has been going back and forth. Greenfield regains a lead in this survey.
GEORGIA Special Election Open Primary (Monmouth)
Raphael Warnock (D): 41%
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R): 22%
Doug Collins (R): 19%
RON’S COMMENT: Democrat Warnock looks like he’s locked up first place, but the fight still rages between Republicans Loeffler and Collins for second spot and a January runoff berth. Polls have been fluctuating.
GEORGIA Regular Election
(Monmouth) Jon Ossoff (D) over Sen. David Perdue (R): +2 (49-47)
COMMENT: This poll shows Ossoff overtaking incumbent Perdue. If this is accurate and Democrats pull off this win on Tuesday, it would be a big one for them. Ossoff’s lead among likely voters is slightly smaller than among registered voters (+2 vs. +3).
MINNESOTA (SurveyUSA)
Sen. Tina Smith (D) over Jason Lewis (R): +3 (45-42)
RON’S COMMENT: What’s going on here? Three polls show a tightening race. This SurveyUSA poll has incumbent Smith ahead by 3 points and a prior KSTP-TV poll had her ahead by only 1 point. An earlier Minnesota Post poll had her ahead by 4 points. But, two other polls (Civiqs, Gravis) showed wide 11- to 14-point leads for Smith. Something’s screwy.
MICHIGAN (NYT)
Sen. Gary Peters (D) over John James (R): +8 (49-41)
RON’S COMMENT: Incumbent Peters remains ahead, with a lead ranging between 6 and 9 points in most polls.
NORTH CAROLINA (Civitas)
Cal Cunningham (D) over Sen. Thom Tillis (R): +3 (46-43)
COMMENT: Numbers keep fluctuating, but Cunningham has a slight edge in this poll. Expect this one to go to the wire.
POLL WATCHING IN THE HOME STRETCH
by Ron Faucheux
Election Day is almost here. Poll numbers are flying. Just when you think there is a trend, a new poll comes along showing something different. It’s hard to know what’s really happening.
The best advice: Don’t take any one poll to heart. Don’t assume any one poll is always right or wrong. Look at polls in context, look for trends. That’s why averaging polls is useful.
You ask: Why do survey results differ so much? There are a variety of reasons.
First, there is always the possibility of sampling error, which is part of the scientific method. That explains why multiple polls taken the same time can differ a few points without any of them being wrong.
Second, there is a quality factor. How survey questions are worded, samples selected and interviews conducted can all impact results. High-quality polls cost more; doing a live interview with a cell phone is twice as costly as doing it with a landline, and even more expensive than doing it online.
Also look out for pollsters who cut corners throughout an entire election cycle and then conduct their final poll properly. If that final poll comes close to the actual results, they will be praised for “correctly calling” the election, even though their previous work was shoddy and frequently off beam.
Third, timing matters. Polls are snapshots, not crystal balls. They tell you where things were at the time they when taken; they don’t predict the future. A good example was Wisconsin in the 2016 presidential race. The last two polls had Hillary Clinton ahead by an average of seven points. But––these two polls were completed about a week before the election, and that was before late-deciders broke for Trump, who won the state by a tiny margin.
Fourth, some polls are just flat-out wrong. There’s no sugar coating flawed survey research, especially when questionnaires are biased and samples are out of whack.
While legitimate pollsters always want their work to be accurate, sometimes there are rewards for substandard work. Bad polls are frequently outliers. And, an outlier will often get more media attention than a poll that’s consistent with other surveys. When outliers are released, they hit like bombshells. The media uses them to heighten the drama (“Has Reagan Lost His Lead?”) and partisans use them to prop up optimism when the results favor their side (“New Poll Shows McGovern Has a Chance”).
Of course, just because a poll is an outlier doesn’t mean it’s wrong; it could be the canary in the coal mine.
After the 2016 election, there was a common misperception that the ection polls were terribly wrong. In truth, they weren’t.
Of the 13 final polls that measured the national popular vote four years ago, 12 put Hillary Clinton ahead by 3.1 points. When the votes were counted, she won the national popular vote by 2.1 points. She lost the presidency because of Trump’s edge in key states that won for him a majority of the electoral votes.
Polls in those key states also came close. In Florida, the average of the final three polls had Trump ahead by three-tenths of a point. He won it by 1.2 points. Ohio’s last poll gave Trump a seven-point lead, and he carried it by 8.1 points. The final polls in Pennsylvania and Michigan showed them to be one- or two-point races, and they were.
Another reason polls got a bad rap in 2016 had nothing to do with actual polling, but with predictive modeling that was often confused with polling.
Well-known modelers––including Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight, Upshot at the New York Times and the Princeton Election Consortium––incorrectly predicted Clinton would win. They were also far off in key states. Some observers erroneously equated these “black box” predictions with poll results.
Predictive modeling and election betting markets are based on educated guesswork, not representative samples. They may be fun to discuss, but they should not be taken too seriously.
Election-watchers, especially my friends who read this newsletter, are transfixed on every new poll number. But after we review the numbers, let’s all take a breath and relax. The actual results will come soon enough––and when they do, we will all be prepared to say, “I told you so.”
A version of this piece was published today in the Times-Picayune. Click here
SOURCES
Presidential job rating average based on recent nationwide polls.
NATIONAL PRESIDENTIAL: Boston Herald/Franklin Pierce U., Oct. 23-27;CNN, Oct. 23-26;; USC Dornsife, Oct. 15-28; Reuters, Oct. 23-27; USA Today, Oct. 23-27; Tufts, Oct. 25; IBD/TIPP, Oct. 24-28; Rasmussen, Oct. 26-28
STATE POLLS: Pollsters indicated along with results; most interviewing done within the last week, or otherwise noted.
Subscription note: If you ever stop receiving Lunchtime Politics, check your spam or junk folders. Sometimes, for mysterious reasons, the newsletter may re-route to there. Please know that we will never take you off our subscriber list unless you ask us to do so.
Publication schedule: Lunchtime Politics publishes daily, Monday thru Friday, between now and the Nov. 3 election. Thanks to all our readers and best of health, Ron
Follow here to get the latest updates on the Lunchtime Politics.
Be the first to comment