What’s With That LA Times Poll

LA Times Poll

The Los Angeles Times is hardly a conservative newspaper. Yet if you look at their polling for this presidential election, it’s bizarre. Let’s look at Real Clear Politics right now:

PPP: Clinton +4
LA Times: Trump +5
Reuters: Clinton +6
Quinnipiac: Clinton +1
Bloomberg: Tie
Monmouth: Clinton +3
Economist: Clinton +4
NBC News: Clinton +7
ABC News: Clinton +2
McClatchy: Clinton +7

Don’t think that there’s a trend there. It’s not that the PPP poll is an outlier and that Trump is really taking off after his amazing Twitter storm yesterday. This is the way that it’s been for months. So today I decided that I would look into it.

Why Polls Differ

The truth is that there are many reasons that polls differ. The biggest is just that samples vary. If you pick 500 people in a truly random way, they are likely to be a good representation of the population as a whole. But that isn’t always the case. that’s what margins of error are about. I get so sick of hearing people say that this or that poll is outside the margin of error and so means that this or that candidate is ahead. All the margin of error gives you is a measure of how likely a poll is to be right.

When it comes to political polling, there is a whole other can of worms. It doesn’t matter who a voter would vote for if they don’t vote. So each polling company has to come up with their own system for determining who is likely to vote. In the 2012 election, Obama did better than many expected because of a surprising number of people who said they weren’t likely to vote who did indeed vote.

None of this much matters in the present case. These two uncertainties probably explain why PPP and Reuters disagree by two percentage points. But it doesn’t explain why PPP — one of the most respected and careful polling company around — has a 9 percentage point difference with the LA Times.

LA Times Poll Is Different

The LA Times poll is curious, as they admit themselves, Why the USC/LA Times Tracking Poll Differs From Other Surveys. It does things that other polls don’t do. One is that it is tracking poll. It uses roughly 3,000 people for its poll and it uses these same people week after week. Now in one way, that’s a good because it allows us to see what the actual trend is in the thinking of the voters.

There’s a bad thing about it, though: if the sample itself is not a good one, then all of the numbers are going to be skewed. On the plus side, the bias is going to be consistent. So again: it’s good for looking at trends. But it isn’t much use for looking at how people are going to vote. And that’s especially true because the people picked for the poll were based on how they said they voted in 2012. This may not seem like a big deal, but it is well documented that people lie about (or just forget) who they voted for in the last election.

The other major thing in this poll is that it doesn’t just ask people who they are planning to vote for. It asks them to provide an estimate — from 0 to 100 — as to how likely they are to vote for the candidates. Nate Silver rather likes this idea. I don’t. I think it adds complication without adding clarity. If someone says they are 75% certain to vote for Trump, you know they are going to vote for Trump barring his death or video showing that it was actually him who killed Vince Foster.

Polling Averages

FiveThirtyEight provides a list of what they think each polling company’s implicit bias is. But remember, they aren’t trying to biased. PPP has a Trump 1.2 percentage point bias, and they are generally considered a liberal outfit. But LA Times has a 6.1 percentage point bias — the highest of any that FireThirdEight follows.

What this all comes down to is that one should never look at a single poll. Real Clear Politics currently gives Hillary Clinton a 2.9 percentage point advantage. And that seems about right. Any given given poll can be off by a long way. But it’s much harder for hundreds of polls from dozens of polling companies to be off by much.

This entry was posted in Politics by Frank Moraes. Bookmark the permalink.

About Frank Moraes

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor online and in print. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, throughout the computer industry, and as a college physics instructor. Find out more at About Frank Moraes.

7 thoughts on “What’s With That LA Times Poll

  1. As you said, it doesn’t count turnout efforts. So the fact that Clinton does have a ground game and is clearly already banking votes (she literally sent all of her rally attendees down the street to vote in Iowa since they already have early voting.) Almost all of the people there who did vote, voted for her. Did they vote for Patty Judge the lady running against Chuck Grassley? Maybe.

    So it is things like that that will change how the race will turn out. Will it be close? Probably. Why will it be close? The reasons have been amply explored here and elsewhere.

    I am at the point of wanting it to be over. I am so tired of the constant revelations about how horrible Donald Trump is.

    • Unfortunately the revelations won’t stop, I fear. He’ll find a way to stay in the news until he’s too old or in jail.

        • I’m convinced that’s why he won’t release them. He’s an utter wreck of a businessman, who’s solvent because he’s a landlord. All his big projects fail miserably. I imagine he’s done well with his golf courses lately, as rich people resorts have been raking in money the last few years. But his “visionary” ideas are garbage.

          Did you read that NYT article? Even his accountant thought Trump was a sleaze bag!

    • I hope they voted for Patty Judge. I now officially have a crush on her.

      Just imagine if Clinton came into the election 5 points ahead and then managed to get a 2-5 point bump from turnout? That would be great. Of course, I don’t know if the turnout effort is going to be reflected in the poll. I think the polls will all use previous elections to model that. But they must know at least that Trump will under-perform there.

  2. I heard (so take with a grain of salt) that the LA Times’s sample has only two black people, and one of them is a Trump supporter. Scaling up, that would mean there are only about 200,000 black people in the country, and half of them support Trump. That’s obviously wrong, and would undoubtedly bias the results towards Trump.

    • Like I said, it works as a trend. After the DNC, I think the LA Times even had Clinton slightly ahead.

      But what you are saying is shocking. As far as I can tell, the people doing the poll are pros. But they may not have cared about the makeup of the sample. Given that it is a tracking poll, they may just be interested in trends. Just the same, you would want a fairly good distribution.

      So when you say you “heard,” what exactly are you saying? I don’t want you to get in trouble or anything. Are you from Southern California? Is there word on the street? Are you at USC?!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *