Is Ackman Facing A Liquidity Crunch: CP Files Shelf With Pershing As Selling Shareholder

It is often said that on Wall Street there are no guarantees. That is wrong: there is nothing more certain in the realm of big money than carnivorous predators surrounding and tearing apart any hedge fund that bleeds in the water by shorting its longs and forcing a squeeze of its shorts, until and past the point of max pain, which forces the fund to liquidate and hit any bid or lift any offer, traditionally at extremely preferential terms to everyone on the other side of the trade.

For the sake of simplicity, “predators” include any and all hedge funds, especially those which the target assumed it was friendly with and until recently was inviting to his or her “idea dinners.” In fact the only catalyst predators typically need is any confirmation that the prey is crippled, at which point the last dance begins. In other words, any “blood in the water” usually means the different between life and death; and in these violently fast markets, the time from life to death may be counted in milliseconds.

Which is why any time a distressed hedge fund finds itself in liquidity difficulties or faces a surge redemption requests, its first priority is to hide these as well as possible. The problem is that it still has to sell something to free up liquidity, and once it starts doing that, the prime brokers make sure it is marketwide news within minutes.

One such hedge fund, of course, is Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square, which thanks to just one stock, Valeant, has found itself in a heap of trouble, and as of a week ago was down -17.3% for 2016 after tumbling 20% in 2015; worse, after the latest rout in Valeant stock, we expect the fund to report it is down over 20% YTD when it issues its weekly update for the week ended March 1 overnight.

However, despite the massive performance rout Pershing Square has experienced, so far there had been no hints it may be impacting either the fund’s liquidity or, so far at least, redemption requests.

That may have changed today when earlier this afternoon, Pershing Square portfolio company (long 13.9 million shares) Canadian Pacific filed a $1.5 billion mixed Shelf statement which covered everything from Common to Preferred to Warrants and Units.

As a reminder, a shelf, or S-3 filing, is a type of public offering where certain issuers are allowed to offer and sell securities to the public without a separate prospectus for each act of offering. Instead, there is a single prospectus for multiple, undefined future offerings.

In effect, it gives the seller a green light to approach the market at will.

What was curious about the CP shelf is the following disclosure:

Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (“CPRL” or the “Corporation”) may from time to time offer common shares (“Common Shares”), first preferred shares (“First Preferred Shares”), second preferred shares (“Second Preferred Shares”), subscription receipts (“Subscription Receipts”), warrants (“Warrants”) and units (“Units”) of CPRL (collectively, Common Shares, First Preferred Shares, Second Preferred Shares, Subscription Receipts, Warrants and Units are referred to herein as the “Securities”) having an aggregate offering price of up to US$1,500,000,000 or its equivalent in any other currency. Certain funds managed by Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. (“Pershing Square”) or its affiliates or their respective permitted assignees (collectively, the “Selling Shareholder”) may also from time to time offer and sell Common Shares pursuant to this prospectus. See “Selling Shareholder”.

And this:

SELLING SHAREHOLDER

 

As at the date hereof, based on publicly available information, the Selling Shareholder beneficially owns 13,940,890 Common Shares, which is approximately 9.1% of the outstanding Common Shares. The Selling Shareholder may sell some, all or none of their Common Shares covered by this prospectus.

 

Pershing Square, a registered investment advisor under the United States Investment Advisors Act of 1940, is the investment advisor to each of Pershing Square, L.P. (“PS”), Pershing Square II, L.P. (“PS II”), Pershing Square International, Ltd. (“Pershing Square International”) and Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd. (“Pershing Square Holdings” and, together with PS, PS II and Pershing Square International, the “Pershing Square Funds”). PS Management GP, LLC (“PS Management”) is the sole general partner of Pershing Square. Pershing Square GP, LLC (“Pershing Square GP”), a registered investment advisor under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, is the sole general partner of each of PS and PS II. Pershing Square has investment discretion with regards to 13,940,890 Common Shares, which Common Shares are directly owned by the Pershing Square Funds. The Common Shares were acquired during the period from September 23, 2011 to February 2, 2012. William A. Ackman is the Chief Executive Officer of Pershing Square and the managing member of each of PS Management and Pershing Square GP. Mr. Ackman is also a director of CPRL. Paul Hilal, a former Partner at Pershing Square, served as a director of CPRL from 2013 until his resignation from CPRL’s Board of Directors on January 26, 2016. Pershing Square is a Delaware limited partnership and its address is 888 Seventh Avenue – 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019.

In other words, the selling shareholder quietly tacked on to the CP Shelf is not just the company, but a major investor, in this case the second largest investor in CP after T. Rowe Price which is Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square which owns just over $1.7 billion in common stocks, or roughly enough to fill the entire shelf.

Why go this circuitous route to sell shares directly? The simplest answer is also the most disturbing for Pershing Square LPs – Ackman’s liquidity breaking point has come, and the fund is quietly starting to liquidate positions directly to the market bypassing prime brokers. Of course, if that is indeed the case, then Ackman would promptly deny any interest in using this shelf for liquidation purposes.

Not surprisingly that is precisely what he did moments ago, when as Bloomberg reported:

  • PERSHING HAS NO CURRENT PLANS TO SELL CANADIAN PACIFIC SHRS

Then why file it?

Perhaps Ackman is telling the truth, but we wonder how much lower the stock price of VRX will have to drop before Pershing does precisely the opposite when faced with a major margin call on its option-based position, and maybe a better question – how much lower can Pershing’s P&L drop before Ackman is finally flooded with terminal redemption requests by investors who by now must have lost all their hair using Ackman as a levered bet on the survival of a company which with every passing day smells increasingly more like fraud.

In the meantime keep an eye on Pershing Square’s weekly performance updated on the following site, because while the credibility of Ackman’s word is “fluid”, numbers – especially negative ones – are always ironclad.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1QS8dmY Tyler Durden

Launching a Real Third Party in Election Year: Even with Trump as a Motivator, Near Impossible

Nick Gillespie wrote earlier today about libertarian legal whiz Randy Barnett’s call in today’s USA Today for a new, anti-Trump party dedicated to the Constitution to provide a home for voters who can’t stomach him or, presumably, a Party whose voters nominated him.

I wrote back in January about some of the legal and cost barricades toward Michael Bloomberg’s talk of an independent presidential run. Even today, none of them are impossibly insurmountable if you have a ton of money to hire people to run signature-collecting drives.

However, running an entire new third party with a slate of candidates beyond just the president, as Barnett is suggesting, is an even more difficult legal row to hoe, and in fact seems to likely be full on impossible starting from March 1.

A brief survey of such legal issues, focusing on ballot access signature collection and deadlines, follows, with facts derived from a not-online issue of the irreplaceable Ballot Access News.

Deadlines for signature collection are already past or utterly impossible for full party slates in these states: Alabama (today), Arizona (two days from now), California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oklahoma (today), Utah, and Vermont. Montana and South Dakota both have deadlines before the end of this month that are likely not possible.

And for 21 states, the signature requirements are higher, often very much higher, for full party slates than for just presidential candidates.

And according to Richard Winger, longtime editor of Ballot Access News, there isn’t even any legal way to start in a presidential election year and get on the ballot as a new party in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

Winger clarifies in an email, in most of those states:

the group must first nominate candidates and then circulate a candidate petition. And if the candidate receives a certain percentage of the vote, then and only then does the group become a qualified party.

So, qualified party status is impossible to attain, for the group’s first election.

It’s even worse in New York, Indiana, and Kentucky.  A group formed in a presidential year cannot attain qualified party status in New York or Indiana before that presidential election, and furthermore no matter how well its candidates do in that presidential year election (even if it wins!) it still can’t be a qualified party for another 2 years.  New York requires a certain vote for Governor, which of course only comes up once every 4 years.  Indiana is the same, but the office is Secretary of State, also a midterm year-only office.

Barnett has been long and loudly on record as objecting to the existence of a third party that seems, on the surface at least, to do what he’s asking: the Libertarian Party (L.P.).

In the past it has been, roughly, because he believed the existence of the L.P. inevitably peeled voters away from the Republicans, the very voters who supported positive, libertarian-leaning (dare I say, mostly constitutionalist?) tendencies and candidates in that Party, thus making one of the only parties that can win elections in our non-parliamentary system worse in liberty terms.

Now that he’s explicitly saying that we need a Party to do such peeling of voters with such commitments from a Trumpized GOP, he still won’t just say that such voters might want to think of going for the already existing Party that’s already leaped over all these Third Party ballot access barricades detailed above in 34 states for this year, according to Ballotpedia, down from its 2012 48 states.

I will suggest that such voters who can’t imagine supporting Trump, or the Party that nominated him, do remember that the Libertarian Party already exists. That’s certainly a more realistic choice than launching another third party with constitutionalist convictions. (Though Barnett has previously, in a non-Trump context, made convincing arguments that actual libertarian change in American politics in anything like our current situation will likely require electing politicans who are not hardcore libertarian.)

Curiously, there already was a “major party” in recent American history with the name that Barnett uses to refer to his fantasy one. The national Constitution Party (a largely religious-based right-wing party) has a Colorado branch whose official name is “American Constitution Party.”

And after they ran once-and-future Republican Tom Tancredo for governor on their ticket in 2010, they got 36 percent of the vote, trouncing Republican Dan Maes’ 11 percent. Beating 10 percent in the governor’s race got them official major party ballot status in the state, which they lost in 2014 when they didn’t even run anyone for governor.

In an amusing irony, as related in this Associated Press account from 2011, the legal requirements for being a major party in the state weighed heavily on this very small and underfinanced operation:

With only 4,134 members, the ACP has had to create a 21-member central committee, elect an executive committee and set up party committees in each of Colorado’s 64 counties. In exchange, the party gets a place at or near the top of the ballot in the next gubernatorial election in 2014.

“We keep asking Secretary of State Scott Gessler what’s the benefit of being a major party. We get a higher position on the ballot, but if that’s the only thing, it’s not worth it,” said Amanda Campbell, the ACP’s treasurer and an executive board member.

Being a major party brings major responsibilities, like filing detailed campaign finance reports, hiring lawyers to interpret complicated state and federal reporting requirements, and holding primaries and caucuses.

But according to the secretary of state’s website, the ACP had just $817 in the bank as of April 15….

I wrote back in 2004 on third parties as a consumption expense.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/21ATOkb
via IFTTT

Crude Crushed After API Reports Biggest Inventory Build In 11 Months

Following last week's builds overall and at Cushing, and Genscape's Cushing build warnings, expectations were for a 3.3m build overall (and 700k build at Cushing). API reported a massive 9.9mm build – the largest since April 2015; and a yuuge build at Cushing of 1.8mm (most in 3 months). Gasoline saw a draw but Distilates a notable build. Following today's v-shaped recovery in WTI, and NYMEX close ramp, the API data has sent crude reeling.

API:

  • Crude +9.9mm (+3.3mm exp)
  • Cushing +1.8mm (+700k exp)
  • Gasoline -2.2mm (-1.1mm exp)
  • Distillates +2.7

And the reaction in Crude is clear…

 

Charts: Bloomberg


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1oNfXKk Tyler Durden

The Entire System Is Rigged Against Your Prosperity

Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

On January 26, 1841, two years into the First Opium War between China’s Qing Dynasty and the British Empire, Commodore Sir Gordon Bremer hoisted the British flag above Possession Point in Hong Kong.

At the time the island’s population numbered less than 10,000. Most were illiterate fishermen.

Hong Kong was also devoid of any meaningful natural resources except for well-placed geography.

So when the war ended in 1842 and British diplomats formally annexed Hong Kong into their empire, they turned it into a free port almost immediately.

This means that no taxes were charged on goods traded in Hong Kong—an anomaly back then.

Governments routinely squeezed trading posts for tax revenue, taking a cut of all goods shipped through the port.

Governments still do this today, charging custom duties and other taxes on imported goods crossing their borders.

As a free port, Hong Kong immediately attracted entrepreneurs and speculators from all over the world to set up their operations.

People were attracted to the low tax environment, and the fact that the imperial government bureaucrats were over 5,000 miles away.

Trade quickly flourished. And as commercial activity grew, the island prospered and rapidly became more developed.

People migrated to Hong Kong based on the premise that, just like in America, they could work hard and make a life for themselves.

Within 20 years the population had increased over ten-fold. And it kept growing.

Hong Kong became a boomtown, earning a reputation as a swashbuckling paradise for risk-takers.

This freewheeling, Wild East attitude paid off.

Today Hong Kong is one of the wealthiest places in the world, with a GDP per capita and standard of living that outpaces most of the West.

It’s modern and advanced; the city skyline is beautiful– there are 50% more skyscrapers here than in New York City.

Taxes in Hong Kong are still among the lowest in the world.

Yet the government is awash with cash and regularly sends surpluses back to its citizens.

They maintain almost unparalleled financial reserves.

And instead of having to pay interest on debt, Hong Kong generates substantial income from interest and investment gains on its huge pool of savings.

Hong Kong is far from perfect. But this illiterate fishing village did pretty well for itself. And it’s not hard to figure out why: freedom.

“Freedom” is an often-misunderstood word.

As G. Edward Griffin, author of the wonderful book The Creature from Jekyll Island told us over the weekend, people think that they’re free as long as they’re not in jail.

And while that may be true, it doesn’t scratch the surface of what it means to be free.

Freedom also means being able to make mistakes… to take risks… and either suffer the consequences of bad decisions or enjoy the rewards of good ones.

This has been a huge part of Hong Kong’s success. And it used to be part of America’s as well.

This isn’t rocket science. The Universal Law of Prosperity is very clear– in order to build wealth you have to produce more than you consume.

But the more rules, regulations, and taxes there are, the more difficult it is to produce.

This is precisely the economic problem in the Land of the Free today.

They’ve created a political system that churns out 80,000+ pages of regulations each year, making people less free and more encumbered to produce.

And these regulations require more government, which can only be funded by more debt and more tax revenue.

Yet at the same time, their monetary system of ultra-low interest rates encourages people to spend money and go into debt.

This system makes the US, and most Western countries, easy to be a consumer. But it’s becoming more difficult to be a producer.

They reinforce this early, sending police to shutter children’s lemonade stands who didn’t apply for a permit. Or calling Homeland Security on teenagers selling snow-shoveling service door-to-door.

This entire system is rigged against the Universal Law of Prosperity.

And when all the incentives make it easier to consume than produce, it’s not hard to figure out where this destructive path will ultimately lead.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/21Gc0p9 Tyler Durden

Worst Global Economic Data In 4 Years Sparks Stocks Best Day In 6 Months

Dudley's "Downside Risks" and Draghi's "No Limits" were all it took to trump the worst global macro data since 2012 (JPM Global PMI) and send stocks soaring… Some quick thoughts from (ironically) 1930…

Worst global economy since 2012…

 

Best day for Nasdaq in six months…(and best first day of a month since 2013)

 

Futures show what really happened…

 

The Dow soared over 400 points off overnight lows, surging to the lows from the first trading of 2016… Bad News Is Great News once again!!

 

With financials leading the ripfest…

 

With financials managing to tag the 50DMA…

 

But seriously – are we going to fall for this again?

 

Ripped higher on the back of USDJPY…(but even that decoupled in the last hour as 114.000 capped the gains)…

 

As the crude correlation broke shortly after EU close…

 

This was not a short-squeeze per se – but as the day went on the "most shorted" names did start to suffer…

 

But we do note that once again the "weakest momentum" stocks notably outperformed (messing with quant funds again)

 

VIX broke to a 17 handle following trail of its tails…

 

Breaking back below its 200-day moving-average for the first time in 2016…

 

Lots of chatter today about liquidations of VRX positions (and the SPY market hedges with them) – driving VRX lower and the market higher… until we tweeted about it…

 

Treasury yields exploded higher on the weak data this morning

 

The USD Index slid back to unchanged on the week today after an early bounce on JPY weakness which was trujmped by EUR strength after Europe closed)…

 

Commodities were mixed today: PMs very modstly lower, copper and crude higher – bnut we note the broad based flush ast around 8ET…

 

And finally there was Nattie – which popped and dropped and popped on weather changes, hedge fund rumors, and force majeurs…

 

Charts: Bloomberg


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1XYJH32 Tyler Durden

Explaining Trump’s Success In One Chart

We’ve said it over and over again. 

The “protest” vote – as exemplified by the American electorate’s support for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders – reflects a backlash against the deeply entrenched political aristocracy and a revolt against business as usual inside the Beltway. 

But it’s not just politics as usual that voters are protesting with their support for Trump and Sanders. Their strong poll numbers also reflect a rebellion against a system that “everyday” Americans feel like has utterly failed them

Wall Street nearly collapsed the global economy in 2008 and Main Street never got a reprieve after the post-Lehman chaos wiped away 50% of Americans’ 401ks. 

Meanwhile, the Jamie Dimons and Lloyd Blankfeins of the world have become billionaires – literally. Ben Bernanke will tell you that this isn’t his fault, but if you want to understand why America is prepared throw the establishment out of office, look no further than the follwoing chart, which shows that since 2006, only the rich have seen their incomes climb.

Perhaps we should ask “courageous” Ben if this is what he set out to achieve with the “wealth effect.” 

Whether or not Trump (or “the Bern”) can remedy this rather deplorable situation remains to be seen, but the bottom line is this: Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired and they seem to believe Trump has the cure.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1LuRe7V Tyler Durden

Downside Risk Escalates As “New Highs” Falter

Submitted by Eric Bush via Gavekal Capital blog,

We have had a nice little bounce in the equity market over the past two and half weeks. Since making a multi-year low on 2/11, our GKCI United States Index has rallied by nearly 7%. From the May 2015 peak to the February trough, the index fell by almost 16%. So has the latest rally kicked the equity market correction to curb and have equity markets entered into a new bull phase? Unfortunately, one of the more reliable market internal data points is indicating to us that there is probably further downside ahead in the short-term for investors.

When at least 55% of US stocks are making new 20-day highs, this is a sign that the overall asset class is in demand and that stocks are being widely bought. In other words, this is a sign that equities are in a bull market and investors should be participating. In the chart below, we plot new 20-day highs against the GKCI United States Price Index and we have added a line at 55% to mark when new highs hit this threshold. Granted, this indicator missed the 06-07 rally (perhaps a sign of the narrowness of that bull market), but otherwise it has generally been correct in identifying when stocks are in a bull market.

One of the reasons we are holding back our enthusiasm for this latest rally is the fact that new 20-day highs only reached a peak of 33% last week and have since fallen to just 22%. This is a sign to us that the distribution phase of the correction isn’t over yet and the market hasn’t moved into a broad accumulation phase.

1 - Copy - Copy (2)

 

In addition, not only are we not seeing an expansion in new highs in the US, we aren’t seeing it anywhere in the world. New 20-day highs hit just 31% in this latest rally in Japan, 27% in the UK, and just 23% overall for all stocks in the developed market.

1 - Copy - Copy 1 - Copy (2) - Copy 1 - Copy (2)

When the market finally makes the bullish turn in earnest, we expect new 20-day highs to be an early sign post that we are headed in the right direction.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1REzma5 Tyler Durden

Google Releases Its Robotic Dog In The Wild, Leads To The Following “Close Encounter”

One week ago we showed a clip by Google-owned Boston Dynamics in which a 5’9″, 180lbs humanoid robot called Atlas engaged in various human activities, such as walking, picking itself up, opening doors, and carrying heavy loads. The robot in question, clearly an old prototype (which prompted many to wonder just how far advanced is the underlying technology now if Google has no industrial espionage concerns with this particular specimen) was not only this close from putting millions of workers in menial, repetitive occupations out of a job, but could easily serve as a solider in any army that has a “lower” standard of acceptance.

It was the latter which led to visceral reactions among viewers, some of whom complained that the clip was “disturbing”, “frightening” and outright “terrifying”, and if there is anything Google does not want, it is to scare the general public with its arsenal of “disturbing” robots.

Which may explain the resulting attempt at damage control, because one week after GOOG shocked the public with the eerie-looking “Atlas”, it has now gone the cuteness route and released another clip, this time of Spot, Google’s electronic dog, which is seen in the following clip in “the wild”, engaged in a close encounter with an actual terrier belonging to Android cofounder Andy Rubin.

The terrier’s less than enthusiastic reaction is about what one would expect.

While the clip is also disturbing, as BGR puts, it, “watching a dog play with a robot is far more enjoyable than watching a bunch of humans abuse a robot.”

From the description:

The robot’s lifelike movement catches the attention of a real dog. The uncanny uncanine valley. This is the latest quadruped robot from Google’s Boston Dynamics group, and the only one outside of the military

See spot… do whatever it is robotic dogs do.

 

A demonstration of the new dog on the block, the Spot robot by Boston Dynamics. The military has all of the other ones.

 

 

We can’t wait to see what the “uncute” military version out in the wild next.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1WTMqJY Tyler Durden

Trump Feeling Super on Super Tuesday, Rubio Braces for Disappointment, Dark Tower Movie in the Works: P.M. Links

  • |||Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump widely expected to win big on Super Tuesday.
  • Marco Rubio is preparing for the worst.
  • Meanwhile, a lot of Republicans are saying #NeverTrump.
  • Bernie Sanders is plotting a comeback. It will be tough.
  • In non-political news… just kidding, here’s some more Trump stuff.
  • Okay for real this time: a film adaptation of Stephen King’s Dark Tower series is in the works. Idris Elba and Mattthew McConaughey are confirmed to star as Roland and the Man in Black, respectively.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1QlgDQw
via IFTTT

What Are the Polls Telling Us to Expect from Today’s Super Tuesday Contests?

Voters in a dozen states are weighing in on who they want to be their parties’ nominee, and if the polls are right, it seems likely to be a very good night for Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton. But are the polls right?

I’ve written extensively about how little you can really learn from primary polling and how difficult polling in general has become in the modern world. There are good reasons to be skeptical that we’re getting an accurate read on the true electorate in any given attempt to measure voter attitudes. Yet one of the best ways to overcome problems like random error and “house effects” (that is, the ways a polling firm’s biases and methodological quirks influence its numbers) is to look at what’s happening across a number of different surveys taken by a number of different outfits.

Right now, the consensus is that Trump and Clinton look strong. An online survey of 1,254 Republicans conducted for Bloomberg Politics recently found Trump leading his rivals with 37 percent of the vote in the Super Tuesday states; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz received 20 percent apiece. A smaller national telephone survey from CNN/ORC released yesterday also had Trump ahead by double digits. Meanwhile, the blog FiveThirtyEight views Clinton as the overwhelming favorite in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

If any poll average is going to correctly predict the outcome in a particular race, it will be the poll average as it stands right before voters actually cast their ballots. When the National Council on Public Polls calculates how far off the industry was in a particular year, it uses the final poll from each outlet to do it—because polling becomes more predictive the closer you get to Election Day. As I’ve observed previously, RealClearPolitics‘ David Byler has crunched the numbers and found that, in fact, during the last three cycles, polls’ “predictive power” increased from about 0.6 out of 1.0 shortly after Thanksgiving to well above 0.9 out of 1.0 at the time of the first primaries and caucuses.

But there are real problems with the current state-specific polling averages. Namely, they’re averaging an awfully small number of data points. In Virginia, RCP is making use of a grand total of four surveys taken since January 1 on the Republican side. In Alabama, there have been just three. The only poll of Arkansas GOP voters conducted in 2016 happened nearly a month ago.

Texas and Georgia are a little bit better. But consider that in Iowa, more than two dozen surveys were conducted in just the month leading up to the GOP caucuses, including a couple that finished fielding on January 31, one day before voting occurred—and pollsters still missed the scale of Cruz’s last-minute surge. (The final GOP RCP average in the state had Trump up by nearly 5 percentage points. Instead, he lost by 3.)

There are admittedly some places where one candidate is so far ahead it seems almost inconceivable that anyone else could win. But in states where minimal polling has taken place, even a big lead is not a sure bet—a lesson we should have learned well from Eric Cantor. The former Virginia congressman was, you may recall, expected to easily win re-election in 2014. An internal poll his campaign took in late May of that year reportedly found him crushing his primary opponent by better than a 2–1 margin; two weeks later, he was defeated by a stunning 11 points.

Primary polling is harder than general election polling for a variety of reasons. For one thing, voters are more likely to change their mind at the last second. Most people are pretty firmly aligned with one party or the other, and in November they’re highly likely to vote the way they did in previous years. But in a nominating contest, all the candidates are (ostensibly) members of the same party, so voter has to look deeper in trying to decide who he or she likes best. This makes their preferences more fluid.

For another thing, turnout is a lot lower in off-year and primary elections than in presidential generals, and that makes separating the wheat (people who will actually turn out on Election Day and thus people whose opinions you want in your survey) from the chaff (people who say they plan to vote but actually won’t, and who should ideally be excluded from your survey) simultaneously more difficult and more important to getting the call right.

And then there’s the fact that state-wide surveys often involve fewer interviews than national ones. Consequently, they have larger margins of error.

Of course, just because a poll has a high margin of error doesn’t mean it’s necessarily wrong. Just because a poll was taken days or weeks before the voting happens doesn’t mean people necessarily decided to support someone else in the interim. And when a lot of different polls from a lot of different pollsters are all pointing in the same direction—in this case, toward a good night for Trump and Clinton—the odds are that they’re right.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1TPl6OU
via IFTTT