Thursday, August 20, 2015

CNN vs Quinnipiac: Choose Your Reality

Good we go again with more horrendous results from Quinnipiac delivered via another laughably biased press release:
“Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers are like a leaky faucet: drip…drip... drip. She is now getting less than half the vote in all three states’ Democratic primaries.”
Lower than 50%? Okay, sure. But in the three states that they polled (Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania) Clinton is still beating Sanders by anywhere from 26 to 33 points. What's different here is that in each of these states, Biden is getting close to the same level of support as Sanders despite very little indication that he will even run. And boy does Quinnipiac want him to run!
“Who gets the love? The one guy who hasn’t declared. Vice President Joseph Biden, a Scranton boy made good, is perhaps becoming a more important player in the 2016 presidential race, with a solid grip on the ‘from the gut’ support of Pennsylvanians.”
What does that last part even mean?

On the general election side, it's once again an unmitigated nightmare for Democrats across the board. But just as a case study, let's look at Pennsylvania where they have Jeb beating Hillary by 3 points. Pennsylvania has leaned a few points more Democratic than the rest of the nation during the last few presidential elections, so this is just beyond awful. But wait, didn't CNN/ORC come out with a national poll just yesterday that had Hillary crushing Jeb by 9 points? Yes they did. By that logic, Hillary should be leading Bush by around 12 points in Pennsylvania.

The CNN and Quinnipiac polls cannot exist in the same reality. Republicans are of course free to go with Quinnipiac if they so choose, but they may be setting themselves up for another disappointment because Pennsylvania hasn't gone red since 1988.

Anyway, life is too short to try to make sense of the Quinnipiac numbers month after miserable month. But if you'd like to wade through the mess relatively quickly while we wait for a poll that isn't completely whacked out, here you go.

UPDATE: Ed Kilgore at Washington Monthly also covered this and later received some interesting information.
I received an email from Alan Abramowitz of Emory University that likely explains the Q-PAC mystery: their samples in FL, OH, and PA don’t much resemble the general electorate as it appeared in 2012. For example, the PA sample is 86% white; the 2012 exit poll showed an electorate that was 78% white. More egregiously, Q-PAC’s PA sample shows a tie on party identification whereas in 2012 Democrats had a ten point advantage. All three state samples in the Q-Pac poll include larger percentages of voters 65 and older than the exit polls. All these variances could likely explain better Republican performances than in other polls.

UPDATE 2: More evidence that Quinnipiac is wrong: In Wisconsin, Hillary is +5 on Bush, +10 on Walker, +12 on Cruz and +16 on Trump!


  1. Hey Scan what were the voter turnout models in FL for 2008 and 2012? In this rigged poll they have sampled 132 more Republicans than Democrats?? 477 to 345--and why doesn't the media ever point this out?

    1. Why should they? If the toplines support their chosen narrative, they won't question it.

  2. Hey Scan I called Quinnipiac today to complain about their rigged polled. The pollster hung up in my face when I complained that the sampling for ex in FL was skewed Republican 58% (R) and only 42% (D). He said they don't consider party ID and no other polls do--I told him WRONG Rasmussen does. The arrogance of these people when confronted with their BS can sink a battleship.