About that "41% Lead" in Iowa . . .

[markpkessinger]

. . . In a thread in GDP, Jeff47 correctly pointed out that that Monmouth University poll was skewed because its qualifying criteria effectively excluded any voters under the age of 26. Another DUer asked for a citation. Here is the text of my post in response:

From page 4 of Monmouth University's release of the poll (on Monmouth's domain):

The Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute from October 22 to 25, 2015 with a statewide random sample of 400 Iowa voters drawn from a list of registered Democratic voters who voted in at least one of the last two state primary elections and indicate they are likely to attend the Democratic presidential caucuses in February 2016. This includes 300 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 100 contacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. . . .

As Jeff47 explains above in message #7, the bolded text above, by definition, means that it must be someone who is at least 25 (okay, so 26 is off by one year). Remember, there was no presidential primary in 2012, because we ran an incumbent. That means every recipient had to have voted in either 2004 or 2008. If someone was 18 in 2008, they are 25 now, and will be 26 in 2016.

Fut here is what I found even more telling: the table indicating the distribution of respondents by age group (also from page 4 of the linked document):

POLL DEMOGRAPHICS (weighted)
44% Male; 56% Female
96% White, non-Hispanic; 5% Other

7% 18-34
17% 35-49
37% 50-64
39% 65+

But of course, we know that 7% of voters who are "18-34" is really 7"25-34," because of the requirement of having voted in one of the last two Democratic primaries (in either 2004 or 2008). Yet, according to the Pew Research Center, the 17-29 age group comprised 22% of the total Democratic turnout in 2008, and 17% in 2004. So how can a poll that so negatively weights its sampling of the younger vote group with a 15-percentage point lower representation than that group had in the last Democratic Primary possibly be considered to be a valid poll?

[markpkessinger]

1. Just noticed an error, but it doesn't really change anything . . .

The qualifying criteria for the Monmouth poll specify that the respondents must have voted in one of the last two state primaries, not presidential primaries. So, actually, the poll would have included voters who are at least 21 (who were 18 in 2012). But that correction only makes the Monmouth poll demographics that much worse, given that voters in the "18-34" group in the Monmouth poll comprised only 7% of respondents, when the 17-29 group comprised 22% of the last Iowa Democratic presidential primary.

[thesquanderer]

6. There was a state primary in 2014

https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterinformation/primary2014.html

[SandersDem]

2. in addition

2/4 to 4/4 are considered "likely voters" The 2/2 folks are those who typically only vote in Presidential election years. They are PRIME GOTV targets in off years the next time around.

With Bernie bringing many new voters into the fold, and not just in the 18 to 25 age group, along with your observations, I will bet the HRC internals tell a different story and show Bernie gaining ground slowly, but surely and that is why they are making up the sexist tripe. They are testing the waters for backlash. Go to Shrocks twitter and see how riled up people are over their comment of 'condescending'...they are taking heat, deservedly so.

[Scootaloo]

3. Also this; '96% White, non-Hispanic"

I can only IMAGINE if a poll showed Sanders in the lead, with 96% of the respondents being white non-hispanics.

[Scuba]

4. It's also heavy on women voters.

[stillwaiting]

5. This poll and the other which used similar methodologies were meant to MANIPULATE and DISCOURAGE.

Nothing more.

The results are not credible or meaningful.

If these results manipulate some to support HRC and discourage some Bernie voters then the polls achieved their very clear and very transparent motives.

[mike dub]

7. I'd been wondering about this very thing, stillwaiting.

Seeing your post, now, I totally Agree ! I think on Primary days, the results from actual votes counted will be quite different (favoring Bernie) than what the MSM / third way power elite would have folks believe.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

9. We are seeing deception from corporate media,

as well as other Establishment elements and of course, from the candidate herself.

If history is a predictor, this will escalate into illegal activities like voter suppression. Some candidates will do literally anything to try to get elected.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

8. Dewey Defeats Truman! n/t