So let's do that. RealClearPolitics shows a Clinton nationwide lead right now of .9 percentage points. Basically, a tie. Now, look under the surface. What the hell is going on with the LA Times? They are the ones showing Trump leads. Why? We don't know. Here is where polling methodologies matter.
1) Sampling. The LA Times could have a different sampling methodology that is more likely to pick up Trump supporters for whatever reason.
2) Likely voter screens. They might have a different method of figuring out who is more likely to vote, and that method may be more likely to include Trump supporters, for whatever reason.
3) Sample weights. Nobody ever gets a truly random sample, and their method might be giving more weight to the Trump supporters, for whatever reason.
Those are the main reasons. Are they right? Who knows. That's why we look at polling averages. My point is that it is weird. Note, though, that Trump has also been gaining in swing states, and those polls are not being done by the LA Times, so we can't write this whole thing off as just a fluke of the LA Times and their weird methodology, but it is worth noting that the situation is not clear.
Betting markets are still favoring Clinton, but the odds are narrowing, as well they should. Just because the LA Times is the outlier here doesn't mean they are wrong, and the state-by-state polls by other organizations back them up. See, for example, these numbers in Ohio.
State-by-state polls are harder to do, but we really should be looking at them...
1) Sampling. The LA Times could have a different sampling methodology that is more likely to pick up Trump supporters for whatever reason.
2) Likely voter screens. They might have a different method of figuring out who is more likely to vote, and that method may be more likely to include Trump supporters, for whatever reason.
3) Sample weights. Nobody ever gets a truly random sample, and their method might be giving more weight to the Trump supporters, for whatever reason.
Those are the main reasons. Are they right? Who knows. That's why we look at polling averages. My point is that it is weird. Note, though, that Trump has also been gaining in swing states, and those polls are not being done by the LA Times, so we can't write this whole thing off as just a fluke of the LA Times and their weird methodology, but it is worth noting that the situation is not clear.
Betting markets are still favoring Clinton, but the odds are narrowing, as well they should. Just because the LA Times is the outlier here doesn't mean they are wrong, and the state-by-state polls by other organizations back them up. See, for example, these numbers in Ohio.
State-by-state polls are harder to do, but we really should be looking at them...
