2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPage 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
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)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.
rpannier
(24,511 posts)that's Hillary-ous as in do whatever it takes to make her look unbeatable
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)That was for second choice.
merrily
(45,251 posts)still_one
(94,874 posts)vote, because you cannot vote unless you are registered.
So laugh away
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Ballots.
We Sanders supporters laugh a lot!
still_one
(94,874 posts)You don't think it is valid, that is your right
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)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.
still_one
(94,874 posts)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
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)and weeded out the inconvenient truth.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)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.
840high
(17,196 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)yeah I can laugh at how after Obama set records registering young voters they suddenly aged 30 years. this isn't a Soap Opera...
merrily
(45,251 posts)still_one
(94,874 posts)they can
Even if it means sending out a cost effective email to their supporters to get them to push other supporters to register
merrily
(45,251 posts)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.
still_one
(94,874 posts)potential voting public, and they will get the government they deserve
merrily
(45,251 posts)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.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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.
questionseverything
(9,956 posts)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.
still_one
(94,874 posts)there needs to be an effort to register Democrats for voting
questionseverything
(9,956 posts)but the pollsters know the age demographic before they call
the under 50 set was definitely under sampled
Aerows
(39,961 posts)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?
OilemFirchen
(7,148 posts)You don't have to list them all. Just a few would suffice.
TIA.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)New York - deadline is in 17 days.
Source: http://voteforbernie.org/
OilemFirchen
(7,148 posts)Nonetheless, one is not "quite a few".
Aerows
(39,961 posts)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.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)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.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)my extra bold sharpie and wrote "REMOVE ME FROM THE DNC's MAILING LIST (I'll reconsider if the DNC becomes Democratic again"
merrily
(45,251 posts)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.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)TexasTowelie
(115,307 posts)Talk about stratified samples.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)From a source they don't recognize. Telephone polls will always skew older.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Of what data ?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Honeylies
(77 posts)"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?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Too old. They do age skewed polls. So sad, this
demwing
(16,916 posts)"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
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)JHB
(37,291 posts)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.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Just in case?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)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
Response to abelenkpe (Reply #4)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Mr.Bill
(24,601 posts)people under 50 won't vote when they find out they can't do it on Facebook.
IronLionZion
(46,707 posts)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.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)It would be nice if they waited until Biden announced.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think they interviewed them, they just can't be sure of the accuracy of the results with them...?
+/- 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.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)the poll is worthless even their sample size is marginal never mind their chronological absence of a real sample of the the voting public.
MADem
(135,425 posts)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.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)The poll is worthless
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)thesquanderer
(12,241 posts)Again...
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.
demwing
(16,916 posts)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...
DallasNE
(7,508 posts)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.
Response to thesquanderer (Reply #50)
Name removed Message auto-removed
thesquanderer
(12,241 posts)Really, it's self-evident to anyone who actually reads the poll.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)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.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)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.
thesquanderer
(12,241 posts)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.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)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.
Response to MADem (Reply #18)
Name removed Message auto-removed
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I imagine to some it is worth what it cost to get it made and more.
Popularity like consent can be manufactured.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Breaking those down into age groups and various other categories would produce in some cases numbers that were too small to present as representative.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's just that they can't get declarative about what direction those groups are trending towards...?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)"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.
questionseverything
(9,956 posts)but looks more like 98 peops for both groups combined
the breakdown is 25% under 50,75% over 50
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)questionseverything
(9,956 posts)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
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The only definitive thing we know about the sample size is that they weighed the sample to produce demographics that match the latest census.
questionseverything
(9,956 posts)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
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Prove mine wrong first, then I'll work on yours.
questionseverything
(9,956 posts)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
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)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.
MADem
(135,425 posts)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!!
DetlefK
(16,437 posts)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)
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)White, city liberals, with college education.
TM99
(8,352 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)this skews it to hillary
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Are also the least reliable voting bloc.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)they are pretty jazzed.
if you check out pics of his events, lots of young people.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)majority are millenials
and who is spreading the word on social media? It's the young ones.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Obama isn't running this time
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)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.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)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.
hack89
(39,179 posts)all those groups were polled. It specifically says so.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)- 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)
Response to Bucky (Reply #190)
Agschmid This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)eom
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)since they polled no one under 50
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)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.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)pnwmom
(109,388 posts)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.
demwing
(16,916 posts)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...
TheKentuckian
(25,710 posts)pnwmom
(109,388 posts)for restoring my faith in DU.
From page 5:
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #10)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... versus mobile numbers too.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)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.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and the ones that I do know are all over 65
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)I have a tablet, so can I at least watch the cool kids play "Candy crush"?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)There is a secondary category of people who have land lines and do not answer them.
mythology
(9,527 posts)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.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)when the assumptions that must go into every poll suddenly do not reflect reality, then you get interesting surprises.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Not so surprising if you realize how skewed polling is.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)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.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)At least, according to this article from 2014: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-landlines-survey-20140708-story.html
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and there is a third group that has "unanswered" land lines.
there has been a steady movement away from land lines
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)I think its just a typo.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)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.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)I stand by that statement after looking at their data
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Sept 10 CNN poll had same.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)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.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)Similar to throwing Asians, African Americans, Hispanics, and Others into one big subgroup called "non-white".
demwing
(16,916 posts)"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...
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)Let's throw out that poll and use the other polls of recent vintage:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html#polls
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary
I actually like them better
artislife
(9,497 posts)I let unknown numbers go to voice mail, especially if the area code is strange. or 800 type.
pnwmom
(109,388 posts)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"."
Response to DCBob (Reply #13)
Name removed Message auto-removed
randr
(12,457 posts)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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)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.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)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.
LonePirate
(13,806 posts)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.
questionseverything
(9,956 posts)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
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)pnwmom
(109,388 posts)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:
Response to LonePirate (Reply #23)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DCBob
(24,689 posts)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.
dsc
(52,491 posts)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.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)I cone in to see the Hillionares flag waving, figured it'd be cooked books.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Inevitability
PatrickforO
(14,961 posts)Waste of money for whomever paid for it.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)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.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)CNN looks to be "all in" for the next anti-Sanders meme: "I like him, but he can't win."
INdemo
(7,002 posts)Don't say too much about that you are spoiling all those wet dreams of the corporate media....
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Even the onion is more reliable.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Pope Sweet Jesus
(62 posts)claims that Clinton is rising?
Bad poll! No soup for you!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)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".
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)Here is a link to the RCP Poll of Polls and the Huff Po Poll of Polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html#polls
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary
kenn3d
(486 posts)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
OilemFirchen
(7,148 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)That would be ridiculous.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)+/-8.5 percent? Pretty fishy.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)pnwmom
(109,388 posts)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:
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)wilsonbooks
(972 posts)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.
treestar
(82,383 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)To paraphrase Upton Sinclair never try to get somebody to believe something their whole world view hinges on not believing.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)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
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)eom
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Response to PosterChild (Reply #230)
merrily This message was self-deleted by its author.
merrily
(45,251 posts)A paraphrase does not change the meaning of the original statement, only rewords, usually to make the original statement more clear.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)hack89
(39,179 posts)you will see your error there.
think
(11,641 posts)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
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)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.
think
(11,641 posts)It is obvious that they didn't poll a significant number of people under 50 for whatever reason....
DanTex
(20,709 posts)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.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Amazing how clueless people become when they don't like a particular result.
Mass
(27,315 posts)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)
riversedge
(72,046 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)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.
Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)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.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)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.
demwing
(16,916 posts)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...
unblock
(53,916 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)still_one
(94,874 posts)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
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Issued April 2014
Young-Adult Voting: An Analysis of
Presidential Elections, 19642012
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, Americas
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
still_one
(94,874 posts)not registered to vote in significant numbers.
A lot of people on this thread are laughing about it, but at their own peril
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)for the poll.
still_one
(94,874 posts)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
George II
(67,782 posts)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.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)"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."
still_one
(94,874 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)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.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)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.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Never mind. I'm done arguing. You can justify it any way you want. Many of us know better.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Ridiculous.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Yes, the poll is ridiculous
demwing
(16,916 posts)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...
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)N/A doesn't mean nobody was polled.
demwing
(16,916 posts)which means that not enough people under 50 were polled, despite the fact that they make up about 40% of registered voters
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Under 50 might make up 40% of the population, but the results of random sampling might not reflect that.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,988 posts)Actually, we are looking for those 18-49 as those under 18 can not vote .
druidity33
(6,515 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)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?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)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 ...
questionseverything
(9,956 posts)shows the ptb are past the ignore,ridicule stage and are at the fight stage
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Beartracks
(13,240 posts)Not only will non-registered people possibly be ignored for certain polls, but they will most definitely be ignored on Election Day!
===============
drm604
(16,230 posts)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?
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)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.
questionseverything
(9,956 posts)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
OilemFirchen
(7,148 posts)Seriously.
Wow.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,108 posts)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.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)questionseverything
(9,956 posts)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
muriel_volestrangler
(102,108 posts)"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 .
questionseverything
(9,956 posts)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
muriel_volestrangler
(102,108 posts)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:
+/- 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.
questionseverything
(9,956 posts)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
muriel_volestrangler
(102,108 posts)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).
questionseverything
(9,956 posts)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!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Folks under 50 they would have polled if they used the census results.
Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #159)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Dont tell me that's not a representative sample, sonny!
senz
(11,945 posts)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.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)you are sampling everybody when you are clearly sampling a certain demographic.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)This is previous CNN poll showing Bernie closing within 10 points. It also did not show respondents under 50 in the crosstabs. Worthless also??
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)it is worthless.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Is that correct?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)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.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)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?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)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.
progressoid
(50,428 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)progressoid
(50,428 posts)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?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)progressoid
(50,428 posts)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.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)So its legit.
progressoid
(50,428 posts)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.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)But it does seem that is a somewhat normal procedure... at least for CNN.
pnwmom
(109,388 posts)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
senz
(11,945 posts)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).
DCBob
(24,689 posts)If you throw them out you have to throw a bunch more since I think their methodology is standard survey science.
senz
(11,945 posts)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.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)David__77
(23,863 posts)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.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)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.
David__77
(23,863 posts)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.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)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.
Response to David__77 (Reply #179)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bucky
(55,334 posts)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.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,386 posts)page 5
pnwmom
(109,388 posts)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.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Now that it's been shown that you're wrong?
Sid
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Damn kids!
Segami
(14,923 posts)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.
pnwmom
(109,388 posts)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.
progree
(11,449 posts)Oh, that's what N/A means.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)progree
(11,449 posts)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.
Response to stevenleser (Reply #240)
Name removed Message auto-removed
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)rladdi
(581 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)You mean I can't vote for Sanders unless I register as a Democrat???
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)C Moon
(12,474 posts)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 candidatesand 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.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed