HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Ipsos/Reuters Poll w/ Fil...

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 04:57 PM

 

Ipsos/Reuters Poll w/ Filters Cleared: Bernie 34%, Hillary 32%, O'M 6%

http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR131/dates/20150808-20160125/type/smallest

Has basically the same number of responses as the other poll recently posted. Let's not overreact to polls...

15 replies, 1108 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

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:00 PM

1. I clicked your link and it says 44-26 Hillary.

A lot of people aren't voting which drives her numbers even higher. And the numbers are jumping all over the place. What is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:01 PM

2. I just clicked my link to be sure, and it says 34-32 Bernie. Weird.

 

Jumping numbers are probably a result of low response rates and typical polling variation (exacerbated by low response rates)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:02 PM

4. It seems to be rotating.

Maybe it's a partial days results?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:15 PM

11. If you accidentally drag your mouse over the graph, it gives you the data from the date where your

mouse is touching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:13 PM

9. Also make sure the results are being displayed for December 1st.

 

If you move your mouse around the graph the results will show from previous dates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:13 PM

10. That is what I saw when I first went to the same site less than an hour ago...

Now when I went there again I see the same results the OP reported so it looks like the numbers changed drastically for no clear reason. Also if you put on the "Tea Party affiliated" filter it shows Hillary getting 43% among Tea Party affiliated voters, I know she is conservative but even so I have a really hard time believing she has 43% support from Teabaggers. The numbers in this poll do not make sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:02 PM

3. "Likely Democratic Primary Voters" seems like a meaningful one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:26 PM

12. Reuters is reporting its poll as 57% Clinton to 29% Sanders (i.e., no real change). The reason why

Reuters is reporting its own poll contrary to the way that you would like to read it is because if you put the "likely voter" filter on (which is a good filter if the polling is broad enough to successfully apply the filter), it reduces and skews the sample size so that the data is no longer reliable.

I suspect that DemocratSinceBirth is well aware of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:06 PM

5. well, it changes- Clinton 42.4 Sanders min 25.7

Overall

RESPONDENTS

Former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton42.4%
Wouldn’t vote26.9%
Ver. Sen. Bernie Sanders25.7%
Mar. Gov. Martin O’Malley2.5%
NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo1.2%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:08 PM

7. Wouldn't vote should be ignored completely

Meaning that all candidates numbers go up.

The 26.9% that won't vote don't count. So Hillary is 42.4 of 73.1 (100-26.9). 58%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:12 PM

8. That puts up wh r e she has been running.

The polls seem to be very stable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:06 PM

6. Just figured it out. Unfiltered means unweighted. And that's for part of one day.

"Wouldn't vote" is in there which doesn't normally count. This means that actual numbers for all candidates are higher.

5 day average of just Registered Democrats: 62-29
5 day average of all Democrats: 57-29
5 day average of likely Dem voters: 77-17

This is a pretty handy application.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:31 PM

13. The problem si that the sample size of registered and likely Democrats is too small (and too

divergent from the population) and so Reuters is publishing the all Democrats number.

You can look at the cross-tabs but the more you drill down, the smaller the sample size.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 05:41 PM

15. LOL no. I posted it in response to the other poll.

 

The reason being is that other OP is basing results off of 111 respondents to the poll, which is an absurdly low number. My OP has 113 respondents, which is why I mentioned them. So if you look at it that way they two are comparable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread