HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Page 7 New CNN poll ..NOB...

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:41 AM

Page 7 New CNN poll ..NOBODY POLLED UNDER 50yrs Old

Get that? ........... nobody was polled under 50 years old


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/20/dempoll.pdf

288 replies, 16702 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 289 replies Author Time Post
Reply Page 7 New CNN poll ..NOBODY POLLED UNDER 50yrs Old (Original post)
Ichingcarpenter Sep 2015 OP
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #1
rpannier Sep 2015 #54
peacebird Sep 2015 #81
Snotcicles Sep 2015 #95
merrily Sep 2015 #129
still_one Sep 2015 #119
peacebird Sep 2015 #124
still_one Sep 2015 #131
PotatoChip Sep 2015 #206
still_one Sep 2015 #207
roguevalley Sep 2015 #218
Gormy Cuss Sep 2015 #276
840high Sep 2015 #256
PatrynXX Sep 2015 #258
merrily Sep 2015 #128
still_one Sep 2015 #134
merrily Sep 2015 #141
still_one Sep 2015 #144
merrily Sep 2015 #155
sabrina 1 Sep 2015 #245
questionseverything Sep 2015 #165
still_one Sep 2015 #171
questionseverything Sep 2015 #174
Aerows Sep 2015 #237
OilemFirchen Sep 2015 #241
Aerows Sep 2015 #242
OilemFirchen Sep 2015 #249
Aerows Sep 2015 #251
Robbins Sep 2015 #2
merrily Sep 2015 #132
Snotcicles Sep 2015 #153
merrily Sep 2015 #162
Snotcicles Sep 2015 #164
TexasTowelie Sep 2015 #3
abelenkpe Sep 2015 #4
Ichingcarpenter Sep 2015 #6
99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #46
Honeylies Sep 2015 #66
99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #68
roguevalley Sep 2015 #76
demwing Sep 2015 #67
99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #69
JHB Sep 2015 #80
99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #86
passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #238
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #49
Name removed Sep 2015 #91
Mr.Bill Sep 2015 #99
IronLionZion Sep 2015 #244
SonderWoman Sep 2015 #5
MADem Sep 2015 #7
Ichingcarpenter Sep 2015 #8
MADem Sep 2015 #18
Ichingcarpenter Sep 2015 #29
virtualobserver Sep 2015 #45
thesquanderer Sep 2015 #50
demwing Sep 2015 #70
DallasNE Sep 2015 #148
Name removed Oct 2015 #287
thesquanderer Oct 2015 #289
Gormy Cuss Sep 2015 #275
jeff47 Sep 2015 #74
thesquanderer Sep 2015 #133
jeff47 Sep 2015 #139
Name removed Oct 2015 #280
zeemike Sep 2015 #61
Ed Suspicious Sep 2015 #107
Bubzer Sep 2015 #259
stevenleser Sep 2015 #233
MADem Sep 2015 #236
stevenleser Sep 2015 #239
questionseverything Sep 2015 #254
stevenleser Sep 2015 #264
questionseverything Sep 2015 #268
stevenleser Sep 2015 #269
questionseverything Sep 2015 #270
stevenleser Sep 2015 #271
questionseverything Sep 2015 #272
Gormy Cuss Sep 2015 #274
MADem Sep 2015 #279
DetlefK Sep 2015 #9
SonderWoman Sep 2015 #14
TM99 Sep 2015 #17
restorefreedom Sep 2015 #19
SonderWoman Sep 2015 #31
restorefreedom Sep 2015 #32
bobclark86 Sep 2015 #88
restorefreedom Sep 2015 #137
SwampG8r Sep 2015 #180
Bubzer Sep 2015 #260
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #51
Gormy Cuss Sep 2015 #277
hack89 Sep 2015 #63
Bucky Sep 2015 #190
Agschmid Sep 2015 #198
Bucky Sep 2015 #215
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #10
Ichingcarpenter Sep 2015 #12
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #28
roguevalley Sep 2015 #79
pnwmom Sep 2015 #225
demwing Sep 2015 #82
TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #267
pnwmom Sep 2015 #224
stevenleser Sep 2015 #234
Name removed Oct 2015 #283
cascadiance Sep 2015 #11
Ichingcarpenter Sep 2015 #15
virtualobserver Sep 2015 #55
WinkyDink Sep 2015 #57
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #60
virtualobserver Sep 2015 #85
mythology Sep 2015 #108
virtualobserver Sep 2015 #112
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #118
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #116
jeff47 Sep 2015 #78
virtualobserver Sep 2015 #98
jeff47 Sep 2015 #102
Elmer S. E. Dump Sep 2015 #100
DCBob Sep 2015 #13
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #22
Ichingcarpenter Sep 2015 #25
DCBob Sep 2015 #26
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #34
DCBob Sep 2015 #35
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #43
demwing Sep 2015 #77
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #83
artislife Sep 2015 #167
pnwmom Sep 2015 #226
Name removed Oct 2015 #282
randr Sep 2015 #16
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #20
restorefreedom Sep 2015 #21
LonePirate Sep 2015 #23
questionseverything Sep 2015 #65
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #103
pnwmom Sep 2015 #227
Name removed Oct 2015 #288
DCBob Sep 2015 #24
dsc Sep 2015 #27
JackInGreen Sep 2015 #30
roguevalley Sep 2015 #84
PatrickforO Sep 2015 #33
in_cog_ni_to Sep 2015 #36
Enthusiast Sep 2015 #263
Fawke Em Sep 2015 #37
INdemo Sep 2015 #38
Betty Karlson Sep 2015 #39
berni_mccoy Sep 2015 #40
Pope Sweet Jesus Sep 2015 #41
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #52
Hiraeth Sep 2015 #56
Travis_0004 Sep 2015 #42
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #47
kenn3d Sep 2015 #75
OilemFirchen Sep 2015 #89
DCBob Sep 2015 #105
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #53
stevenleser Sep 2015 #235
Skwmom Sep 2015 #44
pnwmom Sep 2015 #228
NorthCarolina Sep 2015 #48
wilsonbooks Sep 2015 #58
treestar Sep 2015 #59
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #64
BeanMusical Sep 2015 #93
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #104
BeanMusical Sep 2015 #106
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #110
BeanMusical Sep 2015 #113
merrily Sep 2015 #136
PosterChild Sep 2015 #230
merrily Sep 2015 #265
merrily Sep 2015 #266
PosterChild Sep 2015 #273
hack89 Sep 2015 #62
think Sep 2015 #72
Fawke Em Sep 2015 #96
think Sep 2015 #120
DanTex Sep 2015 #71
DCBob Sep 2015 #97
Mass Sep 2015 #73
riversedge Sep 2015 #94
fredamae Sep 2015 #87
Name removed Sep 2015 #90
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #92
Android3.14 Sep 2015 #101
demwing Sep 2015 #109
unblock Sep 2015 #111
Scuba Sep 2015 #114
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #121
still_one Sep 2015 #127
workinclasszero Sep 2015 #115
still_one Sep 2015 #122
noiretextatique Sep 2015 #243
still_one Sep 2015 #117
George II Sep 2015 #123
BeanMusical Sep 2015 #125
merrily Sep 2015 #126
DCBob Sep 2015 #130
still_one Sep 2015 #135
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #138
DCBob Sep 2015 #140
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #143
DCBob Sep 2015 #150
demwing Sep 2015 #156
demwing Sep 2015 #152
NuclearDem Sep 2015 #142
demwing Sep 2015 #145
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #151
NuclearDem Sep 2015 #175
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #192
druidity33 Sep 2015 #222
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #149
sabrina 1 Sep 2015 #247
Trajan Sep 2015 #146
questionseverything Sep 2015 #158
stillwaiting Sep 2015 #216
Beartracks Sep 2015 #147
drm604 Sep 2015 #154
DemocraticWing Sep 2015 #157
questionseverything Sep 2015 #163
OilemFirchen Sep 2015 #177
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2015 #159
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #161
questionseverything Sep 2015 #173
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2015 #203
questionseverything Sep 2015 #211
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2015 #214
questionseverything Sep 2015 #217
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2015 #219
questionseverything Sep 2015 #253
stevenleser Sep 2015 #250
Name removed Oct 2015 #284
Sunlei Sep 2015 #160
Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #166
Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #168
senz Sep 2015 #169
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #170
DCBob Sep 2015 #172
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #176
DCBob Sep 2015 #178
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #182
DCBob Sep 2015 #183
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #185
DCBob Sep 2015 #187
progressoid Sep 2015 #193
DCBob Sep 2015 #194
progressoid Sep 2015 #197
DCBob Sep 2015 #200
progressoid Sep 2015 #204
DCBob Sep 2015 #205
progressoid Sep 2015 #208
DCBob Sep 2015 #209
pnwmom Sep 2015 #229
senz Sep 2015 #195
DCBob Sep 2015 #196
senz Sep 2015 #199
DCBob Sep 2015 #201
stevenleser Sep 2015 #252
David__77 Sep 2015 #179
DCBob Sep 2015 #181
David__77 Sep 2015 #184
liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #189
DCBob Sep 2015 #191
Name removed Sep 2015 #186
Bucky Sep 2015 #188
valerief Sep 2015 #202
Puzzledtraveller Sep 2015 #210
GeorgeGist Sep 2015 #212
pnwmom Sep 2015 #232
SidDithers Sep 2015 #213
blackspade Sep 2015 #220
Segami Sep 2015 #221
pnwmom Sep 2015 #223
progree Sep 2015 #231
stevenleser Sep 2015 #240
progree Sep 2015 #246
Name removed Oct 2015 #285
stevenleser Oct 2015 #286
Gormy Cuss Sep 2015 #278
rladdi Sep 2015 #248
Gman Sep 2015 #255
PatrynXX Sep 2015 #257
C Moon Sep 2015 #261
Enthusiast Sep 2015 #262
Name removed Oct 2015 #281

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:44 AM

1. That's Hillarious!

So in order to maintain the 42%-24% lead, they had to sample exclusively from people with whom a certain candidate does better, and exclude those who are tending to support a different candidate?

Bwahahahah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:46 AM

54. You mean

that's Hillary-ous as in do whatever it takes to make her look unbeatable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rpannier (Reply #54)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:30 AM

81. Absolutely Hillary-ous!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #81)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:53 AM

95. Looks to me like non were under 65. Edited

 

That was for second choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snotcicles (Reply #95)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:25 AM

129. Over 65 AND didn't really care all that much about expanding OASDI, I assume.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #81)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:19 AM

119. It was of REGISTERED Democrats, and what it means is that Bernie supporters had better register to

vote, because you cannot vote unless you are registered.

So laugh away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #119)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:22 AM

124. We laugh as we register new voters, we laugh as we get voters to sign petitions to get Bernie on

Ballots.

We Sanders supporters laugh a lot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #124)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:26 AM

131. Well, this poll indicates that there were NOT a significant number of REGISTERED Bernie supporters

You don't think it is valid, that is your right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #131)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 02:12 PM

206. Or it could just simply mean that the polling firm

was instructed to ask for registered voters aged 50 or older. If no one within the household fit the criteria, the pollster would have politely disengaged and moved on.

Different demographics of all sorts, including age, are often selected for (whatever) reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PotatoChip (Reply #206)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 02:16 PM

207. Possible, or it can indicate that people under 50 are not registered to vote in meaningful numbers

yet according to the poll.

That could be a possibility, since the midterm turnout was 41% the turnout in 2010, and the lowest in 70 years.

My only point is that it would be in everyone's interest to get as many people registered to vote, especially in the less than 50 year old demographic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #207)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 06:49 PM

218. I've been dumped over age and other criteria. They polled for what they wanted

and weeded out the inconvenient truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #218)

Fri Sep 25, 2015, 12:09 PM

276. No. You were screened out because they had already interviewed enough people like you.

Had they just polled without screening for gender,age, race, or other key demographics the poll results would be heavily skewed. For example, women are more likely to agree to be interviewed than men, and seniors more likely that twenty-somethings. If the polls are conducted with the first 1000 people who agreed, the researchers may find that they have a mostly female, mostly older set of opinions, which limits the usefulness of the data. By using screening questions up front the pollsters can control for that upfront by actively seeking out people who are from other demographics and in the end have a nationally representative sample.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PotatoChip (Reply #206)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:55 PM

256. ...^ that

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #124)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:40 AM

258. that wasn't well written was it

yeah I can laugh at how after Obama set records registering young voters they suddenly aged 30 years. this isn't a Soap Opera...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #119)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:24 AM

128. Then tell DWS she should have scheduled the first debate earlier than she did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #128)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:27 AM

134. That is a different issue. The respective campaigns should be working to register as many voters as

they can

Even if it means sending out a cost effective email to their supporters to get them to push other supporters to register

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #134)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:35 AM

141. Very related issues. She's depressing the vote, esp among Bernie's demographics.

I am sure the campaigns are doing what they can to registers voters. I do that for every election, no matter what. I work on getting absentee ballots for those who need them, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #141)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:40 AM

144. No offense, but if that is the case it sure represents a shallowness and lack of maturity in the

potential voting public, and they will get the government they deserve

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #144)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:46 AM

155. Why would your incorrect statement about the voting public offend me?

Everyone is not a politics addict. People have day jobs, sometimes several, families, hobbies other than politics, etc. This is no surprise to anyone. This rigging the debate schedule shit is on DWS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #144)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:48 PM

245. No offense, but when the chair of the DNC suppresses the people's right to hear all candidates

I don't think it's the voters who are immature NOR do they 'deserve' to be bamboozled by someone who has already lost us the House and Senate and is about to lose the Dem Party, the WH. This is pure corruption, so blatant that anyone can see it, and they ARE seeing, by the millions. And one thing is for sure, it isn't helping her candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #119)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:09 PM

165. not all registered dems..from the poll

BASED ON 261 REGISTERED VOTERS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS DEMOCRATS AND
131 REGISTERED VOTERS WHO DESCRIBED THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN
DEMOCRATIC, FOR A TOTAL OF 392 REGISTERED DEMOCRATS-- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 5%
PTS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #165)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:22 PM

171. True. The poll indicates that there are not enough registered voters under 50. I read that as

there needs to be an effort to register Democrats for voting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #171)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:26 PM

174. dems should always be registering peops to vote ,that much is true

but the pollsters know the age demographic before they call

the under 50 set was definitely under sampled

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #119)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:51 PM

237. Well considering that in quite a few states

 

that deadline to register is before we even have the first Democratic debate, which is where a lot of voters get their first view of what the candidates stand for, you can thank the idiots that planned the schedule if it's hard to get people registered.

How in the hell does the DNC think it is benefiting GOTV efforts if people haven't even seen the candidate before the registration deadline?

Or has everyone decided that Democrats have a better chance to win if fewer people are registered to vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #237)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:04 PM

241. Which states require registration more than a year before an election?

You don't have to list them all. Just a few would suffice.

TIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #241)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:16 PM

242. To vote in the Democratic Primary.

 

New York - deadline is in 17 days.

Source: http://voteforbernie.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #242)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:28 PM

249. Your post said nothing about Primaries.

Nonetheless, one is not "quite a few".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #249)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:33 PM

251. Oh well, OilemFirchen

 

You caught me. I didn't mention the word "Primary" and I used the word "few".

Please feel free to give me plenty of lashes with a wet noodle.

How dare anyone complain about the debate schedule.

That's perilously close to criticizing Hillary Clinton and good Dems should shut up prepare to vote for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:47 AM

2. MSM cooking poll

they didn't poll Bernie's best group In order to have headline Hilary lead grows.

the Hilary supporters on DU won't mention it.granted i put a lot of them on my ignore list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robbins (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:27 AM

132. So many things about this season have been rigged against Bernie, it's disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #132)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:45 AM

153. I gotta a survey/begging this weekend from the DNC so I took

 

my extra bold sharpie and wrote "REMOVE ME FROM THE DNC's MAILING LIST (I'll reconsider if the DNC becomes Democratic again"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snotcicles (Reply #153)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:05 PM

162. Great, when you can do that on something asking for money. Or a call.

They're getting like crooked televangelists who took money and checks out of envelopes, then discarded the envelopes with the prayer requests still in them. What DWS did with the debates proves they could care less. So do all the bs memes they try to use to brainwash.

Save your money for individual candidates---although they've rigged so even donating to an individual candidate gets money to DINOs in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #162)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:09 PM

164. Yep you know they are going to look at it because they want credit card #'s. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:48 AM

3. Also interesting is that everyone attended college.

Talk about stratified samples.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:48 AM

4. Nobody under 50 would answer a number

From a source they don't recognize. Telephone polls will always skew older.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:51 AM

6. You know that because?

Of what data ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:34 AM

46. Probably only polled land-lines, I'm guessing, not cell phone users. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #46)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:15 AM

66. Cell phones were included

"This sample includes 606 interviews among landline respondents and 400 interviews among cell phone respondents." See page 1.

I believe most top political polls since 2008 have included cell and landlines.

Anyway, awesome catch by OP on the age skew for this poll. I wonder how they managed to exclude younger participants? I can't imagine it was luck of the draw, did they target them?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeylies (Reply #66)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:19 AM

68. Cool. I guessed wrong. my bad. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #68)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:27 AM

76. I have been asked age and dropped because I am

Too old. They do age skewed polls. So sad, this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #46)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:17 AM

67. Guess again...read page 5, first paragraph

 

"A total of 1,006 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones"

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/20/dempoll.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #67)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:21 AM

69. OK. Thanks for clearing that up. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #46)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:30 AM

80. About 40% were cell phones, according the linked PDF

Interviews with 1,006 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORC
International on September 17 - 19, 2015. The margin of sampling
error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage
points.
The sample also includes 924 interviews among registered voters (plus
or minus 3 percentage points).
This sample includes 606 interviews among landline respondents and
400 interviews among cell phone respondents.


However, the "N/A"s for the age groups under 50 (and some other breakdown categories) are more than a little curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #80)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:37 AM

86. Got it. Thanks. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #86)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:56 PM

238. Should I tell you one more time

Just in case?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:43 AM

49. I will, but I haven't lately.

On the other hand, I'm 46 or 47 (I don't bother to keep track much these days) so I'm closing in on 50, and I do have a landline. I like answering polls. I did my part a few years back to claim curling and archery were the most popular winter and summer olympic games among left leaning midwestern follks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #4)


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:59 AM

99. When election day comes

people under 50 won't vote when they find out they can't do it on Facebook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:39 PM

244. Personal experience

I've gotten numerous missed calls from Gallup who for some reason decides NOT to leave a voicemail or call back number to let me take the survey when I come home after work. So instead, I managed to take a cell phone survey while driving home one night, against my better judgment. It's an idiotic practice that definitely misses a lot of people who work during typical working/commuting hours. So those types of surveys would skew towards older or stay-at-home types.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:50 AM

5. And they included Biden.

 

It would be nice if they waited until Biden announced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:51 AM

7. Some one w/polling expertise needs to translate this.

I think they interviewed them, they just can't be sure of the accuracy of the results with them...?

Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of
+/- 8.5 percentage points or less.
Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with
an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error
larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A"



I don't know if this poll is very accurate, in any event, with such a big sampling error.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:53 AM

8. I took two semesters on polling for political science

the poll is worthless even their sample size is marginal never mind their chronological absence of a real sample of the the voting public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:02 AM

18. It looks like they did interview people of all ages, not sure where the data is though.

According to this poll --assuming we take N/A as meaning "not included" (and I don't think that' s what is meant, here) --they only interviewed people with college educations, and they aren't from any segment of the country either, if we're looking at all those N/As.

I think they're using all the data but they're only putting their money where their polling is on some segments of it.

I don't think polling data is worth an awful lot at these early stages--they pretty much show who's getting talked about...or more significantly, who is NOT getting talked about. Webb and Chaffee need to go home if they don't start making the rounds soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #18)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:12 AM

29. N/A means not available or not applicable

The poll is worthless

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:32 AM

45. good catch- 18-50 is half of the US adult population

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:44 AM

50. That's not exactly what N/A means in this case

Again...

results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A"


So it doesn't mean that there was no info on those groups, or that that info wasn't used in the aggregate figures... only that the statistical accuracy for that subgroup is not sufficient for them to provide the number broken out by itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #50)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:23 AM

70. the #1 reason for that high of an error margin

 

is because the sample size was too small.

In other words:

"We didn't poll enough people under 50, therefore the MOE was extremely high. So, instead of polling more under 50 voters, we just ignored them."

Shameless...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #50)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:42 AM

148. Great Point On "The Aggregate"

But some of the areas marked N/A are areas that demonstrate a serious problem with the methodology used. The 18-50 age group would be well over half of the voting age population as would those without a college degree so how could their sample size be too small to show a breakout. Does this mean that too many of these people refused to be polled or that they knew the demographics ahead of time for those called. Whatever the reason, this poll is highly unreliable because of the lack of balance in those polled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #50)


Response to Name removed (Reply #287)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 09:47 PM

289. I debunked it first ;-)

Really, it's self-evident to anyone who actually reads the poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #29)

Fri Sep 25, 2015, 12:00 PM

275. In this situation it means that reporting the data sliced that finely would be irresponsible

because the margin of error is too large to report the opinions as nationally representative.

It does not mean that the overall poll is worthless. It means that the methodology was constructed to provide info on opinions at broad level but not at finer cuts. It would be easy to do the latter, it just costs a lot more money to construct the sample and to find sufficient respondents in each targeted category (i.e., quota group) to minimize the margin of error.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #18)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:26 AM

74. My guess is they got so few respondents that they couldn't get

a statistically significant sample size.

So they got a few non-college-educated, and a few younger-than-50, but not enough for their answers to be usable. So they weren't used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #74)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:27 AM

133. They were used.

Again looking at the text supplied, it sounds like people from all categories were used in determining the overall results; but in some cases, there were not enough people in a particular demographic to be able to make a meaningful statement about their preferences apart from the whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #133)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:33 AM

139. And they shouldn't have been without a bigger sample.

The results were crap, so they did not put them in a crosstab.

If the results are too crappy for a crosstab, they're too crappy to put in the "headline" results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #18)


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:01 AM

61. Not worthless to some.

I imagine to some it is worth what it cost to get it made and more.
Popularity like consent can be manufactured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #61)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:07 AM

107. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:50 AM

259. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:34 PM

233. 1006 were asked about Obama. Only 392 Democrats & Leaners were polled about Democratic nomination

 

Breaking those down into age groups and various other categories would produce in some cases numbers that were too small to present as representative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #233)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:45 PM

236. But that doesn't mean they didn't interview anyone UNDER fifty yes?

It's just that they can't get declarative about what direction those groups are trending towards...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #236)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:58 PM

239. Correct. And we can make some assumptions based on...

 

"All respondents were asked questions concerning basic demographics, and the entire sample was weighted to reflect national
Census figures
for gender, race, age, education, region of country, and telephone usage"

Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of
+/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with
an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error
larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A".

and

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf <--- national census figures for gender and sex at least

which tells us that
22% of the population is age 18-34 that would have been only 86 folks out of the 392.

and

23% of population is 35-49 which would have been 90 out of the 392.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #239)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:46 PM

254. so 176 when you combine the 2 n/a groups or 45%

but looks more like 98 peops for both groups combined

the breakdown is 25% under 50,75% over 50

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #254)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 09:14 AM

264. Not if they went with census figures as they say they did. It's 176. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #264)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 01:13 PM

268. we know the numbers (approximately) for 2 columns

8moe 156
8.5moe 138
=294 over 50

392-294=98

98 =25% of 392 total voters

of those under 50 voters, 47 vote for bernie ,37 hc,14 others

i was mistaken earlier thinking it showed even lower but a 75/25 split is not a good sample

http://www.lifestylesurvey.org.uk/05_methods/sampsize.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #268)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 01:30 PM

269. I think you are trying to back into the sample size in a way that may not be right.

 

The only definitive thing we know about the sample size is that they weighed the sample to produce demographics that match the latest census.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #269)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 01:36 PM

270. are you saying the link i posted has wrong cut offs for moe?

or that we do not know the moe rates for 2 columns?

or that cnn mislabeled their columns?

or that i have confused which columns are labeled?

it is really simple math, if you think i am wrong explain why

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #270)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 01:49 PM

271. Mine is also simple math and has the advantage of going by what they said they did.

 

Prove mine wrong first, then I'll work on yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #271)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 02:49 PM

272. for anyone that might be interested

pg 7 of the poll

look at the middle graph

the last 2 columns are under 50 n/a, over 59 +/-6.0 moe

+/-6.0 cut off is 277 sample size ,when the poll breaks apart over 50s into 2 groups we get an +/-8.0 and +/-8.5 with respective cut offs at 156 and 138,which is were i get the 294 number,which is with in the +/-6.0 grouping

we know the entire group polled consisted of 392 dem/dem leaning voters

392-294=98

98 peops in sample size would be a +/-10moe past the cut off cnn reports which is why there is an n/a label on the under 50 group

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #7)

Fri Sep 25, 2015, 11:52 AM

274. It means they are using a best practice in terms of reporting results.

It's hard for me to describe this without jargon so I'll use a very simplistic and not totally accurate way to describe it. The poll has a relatively small number of respondents but enough to make reasonable national estimates of opinion by applying weights to adjust for small discrepancies in the number of respondents by category. However, once the data is segmented into subcategories (like a cross tabulation of support for each candidate by age group of the respondent), the actual number of people polled may be too low to report as representative of that group. Best practice is to state as ORC did that the sampling error was too large to report results. It does not mean that they did not interview people under age 50. If the poll had more responses, say 1000, there would be a better chance that cross tabs could be weighted to be representative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #274)

Fri Sep 25, 2015, 10:21 PM

279. Thank you!! That was a great explanation, it's what I

thought was going on, but I didn't have the verbal skills to say what I was thinking!

That was a very clear explanation--if you don't teach this stuff, you should!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:55 AM

9. An overview on who was polled:

These are the people who were polled about the democratic primary:
- nobody under 50 (page 7)
- nobody without college-degree (page 7)
- nobody from rural areas (page 8)
- no non-whites (page 9, but on page 11)
- no Independents (page 10, but on page 12)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #9)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:59 AM

14. Shouldn't that make this poll skewed towards Bernie?

 

White, city liberals, with college education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:01 AM

17. Disproves that mythic meme, doesn't it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:02 AM

19. millenials are for bernie

this skews it to hillary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #19)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:14 AM

31. Millenials are split about 50/50 and...

 

Are also the least reliable voting bloc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #31)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:15 AM

32. i think this time

they are pretty jazzed.

if you check out pics of his events, lots of young people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #32)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:42 AM

88. Compared to Obama? No n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #88)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:32 AM

137. have you seen pics of his events?

majority are millenials
and who is spreading the word on social media? It's the young ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #88)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:31 PM

180. As the hillarians are quick to point out

Obama isn't running this time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:55 AM

260. Those are interesting claims. Where are your links to back your position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #9)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:44 AM

51. One poster is claiming that they were polled, but were under a very small error range.

Either way, it's pretty skewed. Whether the numbers polled of those categories were '0' or just 'really close to '0', it's not much difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #51)

Fri Sep 25, 2015, 12:16 PM

277. No- skewed would be reporting the crosstabs for small cell sizes.

What's going on here is that the sample was set up to be nationally representative for the whole set of answers but not for every gradation of subcategory. Thus the distribution of responses is good enough with some weighting to report overall opinion but not good enough to slice it finely. Had they polled 1000 Dems using the same other demographic quotas the pollsters would have been able to report more data in crosstabs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #9)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:04 AM

63. Wrong - you need to read the methodology section again

all those groups were polled. It specifically says so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #9)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:53 PM

190. I think most of those demogs should skew toward Clinton

- nobody under 50 (older voters favor Clinton)
- nobody without college-degree (more educated voters favor Clinton (sorry! but college educated also skews Republican))
- nobody from rural areas (probably not much of a factor among registered Democrats)
- no non-whites (that should skew to Sanders)
- no Independents (this only slightly to Sanders, as it includes as many moderates as lefties)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #190)


Response to Agschmid (Reply #198)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 05:22 PM

215. Going to college does NOT mean smarter. It means more income, tho.

But oops, yes, it looks like my information is like 20 years old. Ha ha. Historically, a family being able to afford college had a strong correlation to being Republican. For instance, contrary to pop cultural stereotypes of Yippees and HardHarts, support for the Vietnam War cut strongly along formal education lines, with about 2/3s of college grads (a much smaller portion of the population then) tending to support the war in 1964-69 surveys.

As of the early 90s, registered Republicans still significantly outnumbered registered Democrats among those with Bachelor degrees, although those with graduate degrees were just as strongly pro-Democratic (both splits were at about 60-40). But in the Clinton years, the trend largely reversed direction, with college education starting to trend Democratic. Remember that, while the knee jerk response is "Oh, smart people are just naturally gonna vote Democratic" remember the Ben Carson rule: even people with post graduate degrees can believe in fucked up shit. Or, more helpfully, think of all those evangelicals with their business degrees climbing the corporate ladders and donating money to Pat Robertson, Mitt Romney, and Jeb Bush.

If you go back to 1992, when California was just starting to become a Democratic-leaning state, the Democratic Senate candidate Boxer, got 50-44% of all voters, but only an advantage of 51% to 43% among college graduates. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/CA/polls/CA92SH.html

In his elections, Dubya actually managed to reverse that education trend briefly. But in 2008 Obama flipped the trend back ( http://www.wiredtoshare.com/estelles/the_strained_correlation_between_school_and_political_affiliation ).

But the correllation is not as strong as we'd expect: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
In 2008 Obama got 51% of those with "some college education" and 53% of those with "college degree or more" formal education. Compare that to his overall cut of 53% vs 46% for McCain. In other words, it's a demographic preference that barely registers above the overall population trend.

Another useful article.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

The bias comes in correlating education to wisdom (or even to clarity of self-interest). College taught me to think critically, but I don't have any illusions that a lot of folks I knew back in my salad days matriculated without questioning how the economy or global diplomacy really works. Them right there are your Republican voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:55 AM

10. The sub sample is too small to be broken out.

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #10)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:58 AM

12. Their conclusions are statistically irrelevant

since they polled no one under 50

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #12)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:12 AM

28. They polled people under fifty. The sample was just too small to be broken out.

More importantly the findings confirm the findings of other pollsters in the field at the same time:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html#polls


In fact it's a tad bit bearing for Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #28)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:30 AM

79. that could mean 1 person over 50. crap poll

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #79)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:52 PM

225. The numbers were significant enough to lower Hillary's numbers from the

50 and up scores every time. Something was lowering Hillary's overall score significantly, and that was the scores she must have had with the under 50's.

Take a look at the numbers again and you'll see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #28)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:31 AM

82. Nonsense polling

 

CNN is basically saying:

"We didn't poll enough people under 50, therefore the MOE was extremely high. So, instead of polling more under 50 voters, we just ignored them."

Shameless...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #28)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:52 PM

267. What is the difference for practical application? The distinction seems to make no difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #10)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:50 PM

224. Finally! Someone who actually read the report. Thank you

for restoring my faith in DU.

From page 5:

Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #10)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:35 PM

234. Yep, this is not an uncommon thing in polling. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #10)


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:56 AM

11. Makes you wonder what percentage of phone no's polled were land lines...

 

... versus mobile numbers too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #11)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:00 AM

15. Page one gives you that

Interviews with 1,006 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORC
International on September 17 - 19, 2015. The margin of sampling
error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage
points.
The sample also includes 924 interviews among registered voters (plus
or minus 3 percentage points).
This sample includes 606 interviews among landline respondents and
400 interviews among cell phone respondents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:48 AM

55. 60% landlines- I barely know anyone who has a land line

 

and the ones that I do know are all over 65

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #55)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:51 AM

57. Guilty as charged. Is it a moral offense now to have a landline? Do I live an inferior lifestyle?

 

I have a tablet, so can I at least watch the cool kids play "Candy crush"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #57)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:01 AM

60. not a moral offense to have a landline. Just shows how narrow the sampling is. That's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #57)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:36 AM

85. The point is that a larger percentage of the younger population do not have land lines

 

There is a secondary category of people who have land lines and do not answer them.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #85)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:07 AM

108. As somebody else has pointed out, 60% is fairly accurate

 

As for the potential of that causing the poll to skew away from younger voters, younger voters (I am one myself) don't regularly vote. As such undersampling them as compared to their percentage of the overall population, as long as it's in line with their historical voting percentage is fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #108)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:12 AM

112. only fine as long as the sampling represents the underlying reality

 

when the assumptions that must go into every poll suddenly do not reflect reality, then you get interesting surprises.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #112)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:19 AM

118. Yes, there are lots of surprised people when actual voting results don't match polling.

Not so surprising if you realize how skewed polling is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #108)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:16 AM

116. No it is not okay to leave groups of people out of polls. I am 39 and don't have a landline.

I am not one of the youngsters that never votes. It is not okay to leave my age group out of it. And by the way college kids are waking up to the fact that they are gathering more college debt than they will likely be able to pay for and only part time and low wage jobs waiting for them when they do graduate. They are becoming extremely frustrated and are starting to pay more attention. I think the more debt they accrue the more young voters we will start seeing actually voting. Things are changing fast in this country. You can't necessarily count on things happening just as they always have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #55)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:29 AM

78. 60% actually fits the overall statistics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #78)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:59 AM

98. it does, but younger people are unlikely to have land lines

 

and there is a third group that has "unanswered" land lines.

there has been a steady movement away from land lines

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #98)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:01 AM

102. True. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #11)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:59 AM

100. 60 / 40 in favor of land lines

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:58 AM

13. That makes zero sense

I think its just a typo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:06 AM

22. See Post 7

First of all it is a random sample so that means every member of the universe to be sampled which in this instance is Democratic primary voters has the same theoretical chance of being polled.

Also, just start willy nilly calling people on your phone. You aren't going to reach four hundred people and none of them will be under fifty years old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:11 AM

25. The poll is worthless

I stand by that statement after looking at their data

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:11 AM

26. Yep.. also see my last post.

Sept 10 CNN poll had same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #26)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:18 AM

34. That poll is actually a little bearish for Ms. Clinton

That poll is actually a little bearish for Ms. Clinton. She is doing a bit better in the RCP Poll Of Polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html#polls


and the Huff Po Poll of Polls:


http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary


Both RCP and Huff Po are using some variation of the Law Of Large Numbers; by averaging polls or samples you get a bigger poll or sample and consequently more robust or meaningful results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #34)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:19 AM

35. Agreed... just noting that they also didn't include % of respondents under 50.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #35)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:29 AM

43. They did. The sample was small to break out.

Similar to throwing Asians, African Americans, Hispanics, and Others into one big subgroup called "non-white".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #43)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:28 AM

77. In other words...

 

"We didn't poll enough people under 50, therefore the MOE was extremely high. So, instead of polling more under 50 voters, we just ignored them."

Shameless...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #77)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:31 AM

83. Let's throw out that poll and use the other polls of recent vintage:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:12 PM

167. Yup

 

I let unknown numbers go to voice mail, especially if the area code is strange. or 800 type.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:53 PM

226. You're right, and it's untrue. The OP thinks N/A means that no one was in

that category, and this is what it actually means.

"Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A"."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #13)


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:01 AM

16. Pollsters are paid for their work

and they are paid by the people who want the polls to be slanted toward them. The "science" of polls is to return the results you are looking for.
This is the reason that in the final analysis the polls are generally wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:02 AM

20. Here is a link to the Real Clear Politics "Poll of Polls"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html#polls

The findings from the most recent CNN poll confirm the findings of other polls taking during roughly the same time period. The Law Of Large Numbers suggest as your sample grows your results become more robust, i.e. meaningful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:05 AM

21. its all bullshit

and cnn is pro corporate so we know what that means

bernie and his supporters are fighting a megaoligarchy with a lot to lose

DID WE REALLY THINK THEY WOULDN'T PULL THIS SHIT??

its kind of good news

if they have to rig the polls to get Hillary even competitive, things are way better for Bernie than we thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:08 AM

23. People under 50 were polled.

Compare the numbers for 50+ with the total/final numbers and you will see the impact of the under 50 crowd. I'm not saying the 49 and under numbers are large; but they certainly exist in this poll, even if they are not included in the age demo breakdowns near the end of the report.

On page 11, Clinton shows 57% total but 64% for 50+. Sanders has 28% total but 21% for 50+. If no one over 50 was polled, those pairs of numbers would be identical (ie Clinton's total and her 50+ number would be the same). The fact that the pairs of numbers do not match suggests (proves?) there were significant numbers of under 50 respondents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #23)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:09 AM

65. depends on what you call significant

7% of 329 dems or indys leaning dem were under 50...so we are talking 28 peops?

since we do not elect presidents nationally the poll is meaningless anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #65)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:02 AM

103. exactly. You can skew a poll to make it say anything you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #23)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:55 PM

227. Exactly! Thank you for getting it right.

And there is also this explanation in the report. The "N/A" notations did not mean there were no respondents in the category, as the OP and others seem to think.

From page 5:

Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #23)


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:10 AM

24. The Sept 10th poll had same issue.

Page 30..
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/10/demsclinton.pdf

Not sure why but seems like a non-issue to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:12 AM

27. someone is cooking the books

but it isn't CNN. It says on page 5 that crosstabs were only included if the MOE was under +/- 8.5. Page 6 has crosstabs for ages you say they didn't poll. The didn't poll enough of that category to keep the MOE under +/- 8.5 but they did poll some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:14 AM

30. Oh that's rich

I cone in to see the Hillionares flag waving, figured it'd be cooked books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackInGreen (Reply #30)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:32 AM

84. it is. crap as usual. they are trying to reassert

Inevitability

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:17 AM

33. Somebody's on the gravy train doing polls like this...

Waste of money for whomever paid for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:20 AM

36. So that's how they plan to keep Hill's numbers up.

We should have known have known they'd even cheat in polling.

There's now more Millennials than Baby Boomers and Millennials do NOT support Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in_cog_ni_to (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 04:26 AM

263. +100%!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:22 AM

37. Perception, perception, perception.

CNN looks to be "all in" for the next anti-Sanders meme: "I like him, but he can't win."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:23 AM

38. Sssssssssshh

Don't say too much about that you are spoiling all those wet dreams of the corporate media....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:24 AM

39. Most trusted name in news, everybody!

 

Even the onion is more reliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:24 AM

40. AND Sample Size was 392 which yields +/- 5% error

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:29 AM

41. Is that the poll where every Clintonite DU'er

 

claims that Clinton is rising?

Bad poll! No soup for you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pope Sweet Jesus (Reply #41)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:45 AM

52. I think it was a poll OF every Clintonite DUer ;) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pope Sweet Jesus (Reply #41)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:49 AM

56. I am wondering the same thing. I think it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:29 AM

42. Page 6 clearly shows that they did poll from all age group

 

Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error
larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #42)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:35 AM

47. If we could resurrect Elisabeth Kübler-Ross she would say some folks are still in the Denial Stage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #47)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:27 AM

75. Ummm... please look again.

The RCP composite does now include the new CCN poll, but the reported spread has actually decreased by 1% to Clinton +19.5. Not sure why yet... ? (This indicates that the lead she has over Sanders is still decreasing, but that's not what I would expect from the raw results).

The HuffPollster composite has not yet included the new CNN results (as of this writing). Stay tuned.

There seems to be some doubt about the validity of the new CNN poll samples and/or methods, but I'm inclined to believe that they are still among the most reliable pollsters, and if anything this poll might be something of an outlier due to normal random sampling not producing sufficient data samples for an acceptable MOE in several subcategories. It happens.

In any case, this one national poll so far out, still tells us very little beyond how many people know who Sen Sanders is.... So nobody in either camp should declare victory or defeat based on it.

Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenn3d (Reply #75)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:43 AM

89. Biden's numbers are up. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenn3d (Reply #75)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:06 AM

105. Has anyone declared "victory or defeat" based on this poll or any other single poll??

That would be ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #42)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:46 AM

53. oh, so every other group just happened to have a sampling error larger than

+/-8.5 percent? Pretty fishy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #53)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:37 PM

235. Nope, not fishy. Common issue with polls when a small sample size is broken down further. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:32 AM

44. So under 50 were polled? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skwmom (Reply #44)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:57 PM

228. Yes , they were, which is why all the overall results for Hillary were LOWER than the

results for ages 50 and over. People under 50 were pulling her scores down.

The OP mistakenly thought there were no respondents under 50 because those groups were labeled, "N/A." But this is what N/A means:

Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:37 AM

48. It's a poll with an agenda. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:56 AM

58. I took a poll

And all my friends and family will be voting for Bernie. I did hear that there was an elderly couple in the next town over that are supporting Clinton, they must have called them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:00 AM

59. Lie; they were polled, but their subgroup not broken out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #59)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:07 AM

64. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair...

To paraphrase Upton Sinclair never try to get somebody to believe something their whole world view hinges on not believing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #64)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:49 AM

93. Lol, the irony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeanMusical (Reply #93)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:05 AM

104. I am probably the most literal person on this board and the person's whose real life persona...

I am probably the most literal person on this board and the person's whose real life persona is most like his internet one.

KISSES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #104)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:06 AM

106. Love you too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeanMusical (Reply #106)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:09 AM

110. Have a terrific week

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #110)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:13 AM

113. Buh-bye, literal man!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #64)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:30 AM

136. Sinclair said "salary," not world view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #136)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:09 PM

230. S/he said it was a paraphrasing nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PosterChild (Reply #230)


Response to PosterChild (Reply #230)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:43 PM

266. That was not a paraphrase of what Sinclair said, though.

A paraphrase does not change the meaning of the original statement, only rewords, usually to make the original statement more clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #266)

Thu Sep 24, 2015, 10:02 PM

273. Thanks for the tip eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:01 AM

62. Wrong - go read the methodology description again

you will see your error there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #62)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:26 AM

72. "Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs

 

with an acceptable sampling error."

Methodology

A total of 1,006 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones.
Among the entire sample, 26% described themselves as Democrats, 23% described themselves as Republicans, and 51% described
themselves as independents or members of another party.
All respondents were asked questions concerning basic demographics, and the entire sample was weighted to reflect national
Census figures for gender, race, age, education, region of country, and telephone usage.
Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of
+/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with
an acceptable sampling error.
Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error
larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A".

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/20/dempoll.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #72)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:54 AM

96. So, basically, they still didn't poll very many people under 50.

That really doesn't change things.

Maybe they polled 1. Maybe they polled 10. Who knows?

The point is that they've over polled people over 50.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #96)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:20 AM

120. Yep. CNN chose not to show a breakdown by age group which is telling.

 

It is obvious that they didn't poll a significant number of people under 50 for whatever reason....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:24 AM

71. Of course they polled people under fifty, they just don't have the breakdown.

Notice that the full population results are different than the over 50 results on page 7. If they only polled over 50, they'd be the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #71)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:56 AM

97. Correct obviously.

Amazing how clueless people become when they don't like a particular result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:26 AM

73. They were polled. The subsamples were too small to be significant.

CNN has a very small sample to start with. Numbers on the subsamples are mostly not significant, and they made the choice not to post those where the MOE was higher than 8.5 %.

The CNN poll has a MOE that is 5 %, which makes the results hardly reliable (same for their Republican poll)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #73)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:50 AM

94. " makes the results hardly reliable (same for their Republican poll)"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:38 AM

87. Reminder

Polls are only as reliable/credible as the person/group paying for them is honest. Polls are "gerrymandered" in both script and geography in order to elicit a particular desired response.

And this goes across the board...including the ones we Hate and the ones we Love.
"Trust but Verify" all
Just my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:49 AM

92. I once was on a sports board and a poster wrote that Shaquille O'Neal ...

I once was on a sports board and a poster wrote that Shaquille O'Neal had a better three point shooting average than LeBron James because he misplaced a decimal point.

It was something like this:

Lebron- .325
Shaq- .0325


His mistake was pointed out to him and he eventually admitted he was mistaken.


There is a moral to that story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:59 AM

101. That's how you keep the veil of legitimacy in polling

 

You can pay pollsters for any results you want. All you have to do is filter the population down to a pool of individuals from which you can then draw "random" responses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:09 AM

109. Perspective: # of registered voters in the US

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2014/tables.html

According to the official record, there were just over 142 million registered voter in the US as of 2014. Of those, about 54.7 million are younger than 45 (the data groups break at the 45 year old mark, not 50).

That's upwards of 38.5% of registered voters who were ignored in this poll.

And yet CNN's excuse was "Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error"?

38% is too small?

More shameful behavior from those who know no shame...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:10 AM

111. well, of course! they said "adults"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:14 AM

114. Many (most?) polls are designed to influence opinion, not measure it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #114)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:20 AM

121. +1000000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #114)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:24 AM

127. This is a poll of registered Democratic voters. It is pointing out that in this sampling there were

not many registered Sander's supporters. To ignore it would be very foolish, and it would be prudent for Bernie supporters to get out a registration effort

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:15 AM

115. If Bernie is depending on the youth vote...he's screwed

 

Issued April 2014

Young-Adult Voting: An Analysis of
Presidential Elections, 1964–2012
By Thom File


Voting rates, which represent the
number of voters relative to a given
population or subpopulation, have
varied across recent election cycles
with the general outcome being
that voting rates increase with age.

In every presidential election since
1964, young voters between the
ages of 18 through 24 have consistently
voted at lower rates than all
other age groups, although young adult
voting rates have fluctuated
from one election to another.

Overall, America’s
youngest voters have moved
towards less engagement over
time, as 18- through 24-year-olds’
voting rates dropped from 50.9
percent in 1964 to 38.0 percent in
2012.

The decline in voting rates
discussed in this first section is
partially due to the increase in the
noncitizen population, which by
definition does not vote.


https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #115)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:21 AM

122. The poll was of REGISTERED Democratic voters, and what it implies is that Sander's supporters have

not registered to vote in significant numbers.

A lot of people on this thread are laughing about it, but at their own peril

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #122)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:27 PM

243. it could also mean no sanders supporters were contacted

for the poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:18 AM

117. The key word is REGISTERED Democrats. Those who are not registered were not included in that series

that involved who they would prefer as the nominee.

In the question regarding Approval For President Obama, registration was not a factor, and they were included:

Where:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

18-34 35-49 followed by other age groups
55% 36%
36% 54%

For those Bernie supporters who choose to laugh at this poll, I suggest you it would be in your interest NOT to ignore it, and get as many Bernie supporters registered as possible, because what the poll indicates is those Bernie supporters haven't registered to vote, and you cannot vote unless you are registered

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:21 AM

123. The document says "N/A", if there were none it would say 0%

The document probably had a bug when converted to the PDF. There are lots of illogical "N/A"s in the tables. Look at the next page where they talk about the location of those polled - "N/A" for Northeast, Midwest, South, West. So where did they poll, London? I doubt it.

Look for a modified release with complete data.

Easy to jump on something and not try to understand that there's something wrong with the document.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:22 AM

125. I wonder if they polled DWS and all her DNC friends too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:23 AM

126. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:26 AM

130. Here's the key comment from the methodology..

"All respondents were asked questions concerning basic demographics, and the entire sample was weighted to
reflect national Census figures for gender, race, age,
education, region of country, and telephone usage."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #130)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:30 AM

135. The question regarding the Democratic candidates involved only registered Democratic voters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #130)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:32 AM

138. There is no way to rationalize leaving out millions of people in a poll.

It will only lead to the polls being wrong. You can't possibly predict how an election will turn out when you leave that many people out of the polling. Someone said that polls are designed to influence voters, not monitor them. I believe that. It is a marketing tool that campaigns use to discourage voters and influence them to switch their vote. There is no way in hell I am switching my vote, not even at the caucus. I remember my very first caucus. I was stunned at how much bullying goes on to get people to switch their vote. The way we hold elections in this country is so screwed up. It's no wonder so many people don't vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #138)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:34 AM

140. They were not left out.

They were just not displayed in the crosstabs section due to large error rate. The overall survey result includes them. This only impacts the crosstabs breakdown. Its a survey science thing... if the error rate is very high don't even show it because it could be misleading. This is a good poll.. imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #140)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:39 AM

143. Why was the error rate so high? How many people over 50 did they poll versus people under 50?

Never mind. I'm done arguing. You can justify it any way you want. Many of us know better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #143)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:43 AM

150. Do you actually believe any pollster would conduct a poll leaving out half the population??

Ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #150)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:47 AM

156. "Ridiculous"

 

Yes, the poll is ridiculous

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #143)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:45 AM

152. THIS is the correct question

 

Why was the MOE so high?

According to the poll, it's because the under 50 group was not sufficiently polled.

The pollster had two choices - Do more polling to rectify the error, or just say "fuck it" and toss the results.

Apparently, they took the "fuck it" route...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:35 AM

142. This thread is a good argument for mandatory college-level statistics courses.

 

N/A doesn't mean nobody was polled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #142)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:40 AM

145. It means the MOE for the under 50 group was too high to include

 

which means that not enough people under 50 were polled, despite the fact that they make up about 40% of registered voters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #145)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:44 AM

151. Exactly. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #145)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:27 PM

175. Which is a common problem with random sampling.

 

Under 50 might make up 40% of the population, but the results of random sampling might not reflect that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #175)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:58 PM

192. "Under 50 might make up 40% of the population."

Under 50 might make up 40% of the population.



Actually, we are looking for those 18-49 as those under 18 can not vote .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #175)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:19 PM

222. Actually that's around 40% of REGISTERED voters. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #142)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:43 AM

149. How many people in each age group were polled?

Are you telling me you can't skew poll results by making the margin of error what you want it to be by only sampling a few people in one group and a lot of people in the other?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #142)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:51 PM

247. What it's a good argument for is that political operatives trying to skew results are going to be

caught because we don't live in the dark ages anymore.

All these attempts to 'control' the 'message' are failing. Which is a good argument for just being HONEST.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:41 AM

146. Fuck the media

 

We've gotten this far through sheer force of will ... Through a message that resounds and a messenger that garners respect for his courage and integrity ...

It's going to be a long slog ... This is just beginning, so push forward with confidence ...

Bernie WILL win ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #146)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:50 AM

158. in a way the poll is good news for bernie

shows the ptb are past the ignore,ridicule stage and are at the fight stage

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #158)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 05:24 PM

216. Yes. This. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:41 AM

147. I sure hope the younger folks are getting registered.

Not only will non-registered people possibly be ignored for certain polls, but they will most definitely be ignored on Election Day!

===============

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:46 AM

154. On page 6 of that PDF it shows a breakdown by age, starting with the 18-34 range.

The lowest age group is 18-34.

It shows these breakdowns: 18-34, 35-49, 50-64, 65+. It also breaks it down into two groups; under 50 and over 50.

Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:47 AM

157. I'm sorry but you got it wrong

Polls frequently don't include crosstabs of subgroups, especially the smaller ones like 18-34, nonwhites, etc. who are lower parts of the sample because turnout among those groups is relatively very low. When you have such a small subsample, the MOE is so high that the number is basically worthless for that specific group.

The polls goes so far to say this on Page 5.

I think the poll seems about right anyway, Clinton's been in the mid 40s for a while and Sanders has been in the Mid 20s for a while. Both numbers dipped slightly as Biden's support has ticked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocraticWing (Reply #157)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:06 PM

163. technically the op is wrong but a sample of 21 or 22 voters for the under 50 set is worthless

329 dems or dem leaning indys were polled

there is a difference of 7% from hillarys total support to her over 50 support,same with bernies

so 7% of the 329 were under 50

which is 21 peops

national polls are meaningless anyway since we elect presidents state by state

but it gave cnn the headline the ptb needed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #163)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:29 PM

177. Wow.

Seriously.

Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:52 AM

159. They polled between 90 and 114 Democrats/Democratic leaners under 50

When they do give a sampling error, that allows you to put the sample size in a range, given from these figures: http://www.lifestylesurvey.org.uk/05_methods/sampsize.html (and the general formula is SS = 10000/(SE*SE)

They quote the confidence interval to the nearest 0.5%. They tell us they polled 392 Democrats/Democrat leaners; with the 50+ group at +/- 6.0, that's up to 302 in that age group, so 90 or more under 50. 65+ is +/- 8.0, so that's at least 147 polled; 50-64 is +/- 8.5, so that's at least 131. So the most of 'under 50' they polled was (392-147-131)=114.

They say they weight the results according to census figures. We have to take their word that they've done that correctly. What this does show, however, is that they didn't get very many answers from people under 50, so it may not be that accurate a poll of Democratic voters (according to the 2012 exit poll, about 60% of Obama's vote was under 50).

There is a difference between primary voters and those who vote for a party in a general election, of course; it's possible that those bothering to vote in primaries are older than in a general election. If anyone knows rough figures for that, it might help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #159)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:03 PM

161. Thank you for those numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #159)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:24 PM

173. disagree

BASED ON 261 REGISTERED VOTERS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS DEMOCRATS AND
131 REGISTERED VOTERS WHO DESCRIBED THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN
DEMOCRATIC, FOR A TOTAL OF 392 REGISTERED DEMOCRATS-- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 5%
PTS.

if the moe is 8% then the under 50 is less than 8% or it would not be described as n/a

in my earlier posts i had transposed the 392 to 329 so my math was a little off but still .08 of 392 is 32 peops at .07 it would be 28 peops

the entire poll leans conservative since over a 1000 voters were polled and only 392 identified as dem/leaning

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #173)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 02:03 PM

203. No, that's not how sample errors work

"if the moe is 8% then the under 50 is less than 8% or it would not be described as n/a"

No. As the PDF says, they write "N/A" for any group with a moe above 8.5%. That means a sample of 130 or under - see http://www.lifestylesurvey.org.uk/05_methods/sampsize.html .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #203)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 04:03 PM

211. look at page 11 in the poll

we know the whole number is 392

hc receives 57% overall but receives 64% in the 50 plus group

bs receives 28% overall but receives 21% in the 50 plus group

both exactly a 7% exchange...there are only 2 groups to look at under 50 and over 50, so what else besides the under 50s could account for the difference?

heck if cnn wanted us to know how many under 50 were polled they could of just told us...lol

they did not follow your pdf too closely because 392 should be 5.5 moe not 5 (thats 400)

anyways national polls are meaningless but here is a whole number break down

hc@57%=223
om@2%=8
sanders@28%=109
nobody/someone else/no choice @13%=50

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #211)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 04:52 PM

214. What you say in #173 doesn't make much sense

so I'm having to try to interpret what you wrote, but:

"BASED ON 261 REGISTERED VOTERS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS DEMOCRATS AND
131 REGISTERED VOTERS WHO DESCRIBED THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN
DEMOCRATIC, FOR A TOTAL OF 392 REGISTERED DEMOCRATS-- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 5%
PTS.

if the moe is 8% then the under 50 is less than 8% or it would not be described as n/a "

I don't know where you've got your '8%' from. No, the N/A is used in the following situation - this is a direct quote from the poll:

Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of
+/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with
an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error
larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A".

They look at the sampling error that applies to each subgroup, based on its unweighted size. For 392, it would be the square root of (10000/392) = 5.05; they rounded that to the nearest half percentage point, ie 5.0%.

" .08 of 392 is 32 peops at .07 it would be 28 peops "

I can't tell what you were trying to say here. Neither 32 nor 28 turn up in your post after this, nor in the poll.

As for this latest post:

Yes, the under 50s are what makes the difference between the overall result and the over 50s result. Of course. But that doesn't tell us anything about the size of the under 50 sample. As someone has already pointed out, I think, " the entire sample was weighted to reflect national Census figures for gender, race, age, education, region of country, and telephone usage." Notice the quote above talks about the unweighted subgroups' size.

We can't tell, from this difference alone, whether there's a large weighting for the under 50s for which the figure wasn't too far off from the over 50 one (eg if it had equal weighting, you'd have HC at 50% for that question, and BS 35%, so that those figures are an equal distance from the overall candidate figures as the over 50s), or if it's a smaller weighting, but the differences were larger (eg if the under 50s were only one third of the total weighting, then their figure would be twice as far from the average - so that would be HC=43%, BS=42%).

But even if we knew the weighting, that wouldn't give us the unweighted sample size. The point is that the pollster has to make up for getting fewer answers than they'd like from younger people by making that weight up to the Census level.

"heck if cnn wanted us to know how many under 50 were polled they could of just told us...lol "

Yes, they could have, but they didn't. It's annoying. I did the calculation to try and find out what the number polled was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #214)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 06:47 PM

217. no time now but can we agree on the whole numbers the poll produced?

hc@57%=223
om@2%=8
sanders@28%=109
nobody/someone else/no choice @13%=50

it only adds up to 390 but it is pretty close

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #217)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 07:30 PM

219. If you want - those numbers have nothing to do with how many under 50s were polled

but if what you wanted was the number of people replying with each answer in that question, then I'd say that's right (after their weighting).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #219)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:38 PM

253. 25% of respondents were under 50

8moe 156
8.5moe 138
=294 over 50

392-294=98

98 =25% of 392 total voters

of those under 50 voters, 47 vote for bernie ,37 hc,14 others

i was mistaken earlier thinking it showed even lower but a 75/25 split is not a good sample

thanks for the lessons!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #173)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:32 PM

250. See her #159 again and my #239 above where I show the numbers of

 

Folks under 50 they would have polled if they used the census results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #159)


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:01 PM

160. looks like if Joe Biden became VP for Senator Sanders, that 'team' could win the primary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:11 PM

166. BREAKING: "9 out of 10 Hillary Clinton supporters, support Hillary Clinton!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:12 PM

168. ...They also polled people with "aol.com" email addresses

Dont tell me that's not a representative sample, sonny!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:17 PM

169. Grossly lopsided sample, worthless poll.

 

To give it any usefulness at all, they should have put the selected demographic in the heading. If you observe the "N/A" counts, you see that no one under 50 AND no non-college graduates were included.

This poll does NOT even come close to representing all Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #169)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:19 PM

170. exactly. If they want to poll a certain demographic then say so. Don't make it sound like

you are sampling everybody when you are clearly sampling a certain demographic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #169)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:23 PM

172. How about this poll?



This is previous CNN poll showing Bernie closing within 10 points. It also did not show respondents under 50 in the crosstabs. Worthless also??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #172)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:28 PM

176. if they only polled a couple dozen in one group and a couple hundred in another group then yes

it is worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #176)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:30 PM

178. Ok, so its not a conspiracy... just CNN is a crap polling outfit.

Is that correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #178)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:34 PM

182. You were making a point about Bernie supporters complaining about that poll and not another.

Does that mean Hillary supporters won't complain if she wins the nomination and the Republicans run skewed polls against her? Polls can be and often are skewed based on who is asked and how the questions are asked. I think we all know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #182)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:35 PM

183. Do you think CNN purposely skewed this poll?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #183)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:41 PM

185. It is either a conspiracy or the entire polling system is screwed which is probably true which means

we can't count on any polls. If that is true why do we have polls? What is the purpose of having polls if the sampling size is so off? How can you have an accurate poll when you poll 20 people in one group and 200 in another? And what happens if those 20 people represent a group of people that make up nearly half of the population? How is that an accurate representation of the voters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #185)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:47 PM

187. I have to admit I do not know why they were not able to poll enough under 50 respondents..

to get a acceptable error level at each age group but I do know this can happen in surveys and they simply deal with it the way CNN did it. Weight the data but don't show the numbers in crosstabs. Its still considered legit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #172)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:59 PM

193. Yes, worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #193)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 01:00 PM

194. So throw out all CNN polls?? Seems this is their standard methodology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #194)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 01:25 PM

197. If that is their standard methodology, yes

18-44 year olds represented 45% of voters in 2014. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577.pdf

Would we want a poll that ignores all boomer voters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to DCBob (Reply #200)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 02:05 PM

204. I get it. Large error rate. Small sample size.

A voting block that consists of nearly have of voters and they couldn't get a sample to produce an error rate better than -/+8.5%?

Maybe try harder next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #204)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 02:08 PM

205. I dont think you understand its weighted to deal with that..

So its legit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #205)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 02:42 PM

208. Weighted for a small sample size.

The lower the sample size, the higher the margin of error and lower the confidence level.

I'm not denying they were included in the survey. Weighting a demographic that can't meet a MOE of 8.5% isn't very reassuring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #208)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 02:43 PM

209. That I will agree with you on.

But it does seem that is a somewhat normal procedure... at least for CNN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #204)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:59 PM

229. Older people are more likely to be registered to vote. Young people can change the situation

by registering and voting in higher numbers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/29/young-voters-fewer-are-registered_n_1924181.html

Young voters turned out in droves to help propel Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008. While Obama still holds a huge chunk of support from young people, fewer are registered and they're less engaged than older demographics, according to new polling from the Pew Research Center.

Only 50 percent of people ages 18-29 are registered to vote -- a full 11 percent lower than in 2008 and the lowest number in the past 16 years of Pew's polling. The number of young people registered to vote hasn't been this low since 1999. The Pew Research Center noted young adults are at their "lowest registration rate of the last five presidential elections."

The overall voter registration number currently sits at 72 percent. All other age demographics have at least 70 percent registered to vote, although each age group is down slightly from 2008 levels.


SNIP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #172)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 01:14 PM

195. Yes. CNN should be held to account for their shoddy methodology and presentation.

 

In Bernie's case, DCBob, the truth would almost certainly have been even better for him, as a huge part of his following is with younger Democrats (as well as Independents).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #195)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 01:19 PM

196. CNN is one of the highest ranked polling outfits by 538 with an A- ranking.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

If you throw them out you have to throw a bunch more since I think their methodology is standard survey science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #196)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 01:32 PM

199. Well they screwed up here. As I said, it's either methodology or presentation or both.

 

They could have saved face by putting the sample demographic (or irregularities encountered) in the headline and in the report. As it is, they misled their audience.

BUT -- your assumption that I or anyone else is suggesting that CNN be entirely "thrown out" as a polling organization is simply jumping to conclusions.

They need to correct their error, apologize, and in the future pay closer attention to what they're doing and how they report their findings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #199)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 01:35 PM

201. Not a screw up.. seems just the way they do polling..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #169)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:34 PM

252. Not correct. See #s 159 and 239 above. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:30 PM

179. I don't think that's true.

According to the survey details located at http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/20/dempoll.pdf:

Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of +/-8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error.


What this does tell me is that there were more people surveyed in the 50-64 age group than in the 18-49 age group, and there were more people surveyed in the 65+ age group than in the 18-49 age group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #179)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:34 PM

181. I think you have that correct..

Then they adjusted (weighted) the data to reflect the real world.. Here's the statement from the methodology..

"All respondents were asked questions concerning basic demographics, and the entire sample was weighted to
reflect national Census figures for gender, race, age, education, region of country, and telephone usage."

This is normal survey science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #181)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:41 PM

184. Reweighting the groups makes sense to me.

I do find it interesting that there were more 50-64 aged respondents than 18-49 aged respondents. Reweighting conceptually addresses the skew compared with the population. At the same time, the low statistical precision of the 18-49 group means that the actual preferences are relatively likely to be quite different from the sample preferences for that age group. Certainly that happens with small demographic groups in a survey population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #184)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:48 PM

189. Thank you such a thoughtful and informative post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #184)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:53 PM

191. Yes, that is not clear to me either.

I don't know why they were not able to poll enough from those age groups but as far as I know, the way they handled it, is legit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #179)


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 12:48 PM

188. "sample includes 606 interviews among landline respondents and 400 interviews among cell phone"

Who answers their cell phone from an out of state caller they don't recognize? Just us dinosaurs. Yall whippersnappers are all too busy texting while you drive your mopeds over to your part time jobs.

Yes, this survey is tragically skewed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 01:52 PM

202. Poll dancing again. Page 7 says it all. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 04:03 PM

210. They know how to cook em!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 04:07 PM

212. Under 50yr olds don't count according to this disclaimer.

page 5
Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A".
IOW useless poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #212)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:28 PM

232. Wrong. That is not what the disclaimer means. They obviously count

because the overall results for Hillary are always lower than her results for over 50. It is the results of people under 50 that are pulling her scores down.

But why are there fewer people under 50? Young people are much less likely to be registered.'

And this is a study of registered voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 04:47 PM

213. Shouldn't you be editing your OP...

Now that it's been shown that you're wrong?



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 07:36 PM

220. Nothing to see here, move along....

Damn kids!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 07:51 PM

221. K&R

 

Nothing here to be surprised at. They are panicking. It won't be long before the rest of the nation will experience 'that moment' of clarity & truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 08:44 PM

223. Can't anyone read? That is not what these results say.

Last edited Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:22 PM - Edit history (1)

1) The study DOES include some respondents under 50.

N/A does not mean there were no respondents in that group. According to the report, it means that the margin of error in the group was larger than 8.5%.

But even without knowing that, obviously there were respondents under the age of 50, because the overall results for Hillary were always lower than her scores among people over 50. What was pulling her overall score down? People under the age of 50.

2) This is a study of registered voters and the younger age groups are less likely to be registered.


From page 5:

Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A".


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/29/young-voters-fewer-are-registered_n_1924181.html

Young voters turned out in droves to help propel Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008. While Obama still holds a huge chunk of support from young people, fewer are registered and they're less engaged than older demographics, according to new polling from the Pew Research Center.

Only 50 percent of people ages 18-29 are registered to vote -- a full 11 percent lower than in 2008 and the lowest number in the past 16 years of Pew's polling. The number of young people registered to vote hasn't been this low since 1999. The Pew Research Center noted young adults are at their "lowest registration rate of the last five presidential elections."

The overall voter registration number currently sits at 72 percent. All other age demographics have at least 70 percent registered to vote, although each age group is down slightly from 2008 levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 09:18 PM

231. Page 8 - Hmm, no Republicans, nor anyone from the Northeast, Midwest, South, or West either

Page 5 - Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "N/A".

Oh, that's what N/A means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #231)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:00 PM

240. Yep, OP didn't read what they linked to and made wild conspiratorial assumptions instead. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #240)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 10:49 PM

246. Well, sadly, that's standard DU. The really aggravating part is OP's refusal to fix the OP

when all this is pointed out to him/her. That's a bit exceptional. Or maybe I'm just being too persnickety.

I don't know if it is exceptional or not that so many swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Too often, people are willing and eager to believe anything, no matter how ludicrous, if it fits preconceived notions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #240)


Response to Name removed (Reply #285)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 09:37 PM

286. Hillarious! Thanks for posting! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #231)

Fri Sep 25, 2015, 12:19 PM

278. That's the crosstab that should be a giant clue that "N/A" doesn't mean nobody interviewed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:01 PM

248. I suspect the GOP primary polls are much worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Mon Sep 21, 2015, 11:50 PM

255. LOL! There's going to be a lot of under 50 people saying

You mean I can't vote for Sanders unless I register as a Democrat???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:32 AM

257. face palm n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 02:17 AM

261. I was watching CNN today (at the gym—and I say that because I NEVER watch it at home)...

and CNN was talking about (of course) Trump and the other GOP candidates.
But whenever they DID mention the Democratic candidates, they only showed pictures/video of Clinton.

Then, they announced a segment on the Democratic candidates—and even then they only showed pictures of Clinton and Binden before the break.

Finally, they mentioned Sanders and showed his photo...but it was only to say that the latest "CNN poll" put Hillary further ahead of Bernie.

CNN is obviously no longer news, it's advertising.
And I believe (after seeing the skewed polls in the last presidential election) the CNN polls are controlled and contrived.

To me, CNN is closing in on FOX.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Sep 22, 2015, 04:21 AM

262. That seems fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Reply to this thread