***(CVOTER/UPI (moonies)) national poll goes from Hillary +1.25% lead to Hillary +3.34% lead***

[Dem2]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3214801-US5th-Nov-Report.html

Yet her odds drop?



Note that Nate's adjusted lead went from +3 to +5, the sample size was larger and her average lead is just under 3%, thus this poll HAD to increase her odds, no? The WAPO poll did earlier. It's not logical that this dropped her odds. Can a statistician here please explain this to me?

[smorkingapple]

1. C+ Poll probably replaced an older higher rated one. His model thinks momentum matters too much

[Stallion]

2. The Data in Post Says Otherwise

Clinton posted better than last 4 polling periods

[Dem2]

4. His model has a massive inertia problem!

You call it momentum, I call it inertia, we are in agreement here, just using different words to mean basically the same thing. The swings are too wild compared to the actual polling averages seen at, say, Huffpo that doesn't use garbage polls.

The new poll should replace the poll from the same pollster, which you see the old poll's weight go to almost zero when replaced with a newer from the same pollster, thus is really should have given her a double boost - it's not logical!!!

Huffpo (4-way):

[Dem2]

6. A "D" rated poll of Michigan just upped her overall odds of winning the election by 0.4%

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/updates/

It was also a +2 swing toward Hillary from the same pollster's previous release. I know state polls carry more weight, but his model does account for "a rising tide lifts all ships" model of national polls, that +2 improvement day-to-day in cvoter should have raised her odds.

[Doctor Jack]

3. Im sure 538 will drop Clinton by 5 more percentage points

Because it is more evidence of "uncertainty" in the polls or some bullshit