Pretty dang confused about polling results.

[Mother Of Four]

I have three kids in college, one that just graduated this year. None of their friends, NO ONE they know, supports HRC. All of them voting age, none of them have been polled. The vast majority support Bernie.

Of the adults I personally know, NONE of them support HRC. Again, none of them have been polled. The vast majority? Unaffiliated, and uninspired by the R candidates. Heck, we know one young lady who is looking to become way more active as an R, but even by her own definition she's centrist/moderate. She wants to change the face of the RNC drastically. Supports all equal rights, voting rights, right to choice etc. It's only her fiscal policies that are considered conservative. She's against war, wants our infrastructure rebuilt, wants both support for the 99 percent AND businesses without gutting either. And guess what? She'll vote Bernie before either Carson or Trump hands down. But she (in her own words) Will never, ever vote HRC.

I mean, get this from the News and Observer in my state on Nov 2nd: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article42288303.html

"Consider: According to data from Republican consultant Paul Shumaker, unaffiliated voters now outnumber Republicans in 33 of 100 N.C. counties. They outnumber Democrats in 16 counties, and they outnumber both in four counties.

Over the past 10 years, Shumaker says, Republicans have lost ground in 66 N.C. counties. Democrats have lost ground in 99 counties (the one county where they haven’t? Mecklenburg!). Unaffiliated voters, in contrast, have gained ground in all 100 counties. Soon there will be more registered unaffiliated voters than Republican ones statewide."

Who exactly are they polling? Sure, HRC polls well within the Dem party - but we need a heck of alot more than just the party to win in the GE. (sighs) Anyway, I know there's probably no real answer to this. I just hate that a good majority of the voters that support Bernie are treated as though they are invisible.

[ViseGrip]

1. No one that I know has been polled either!

[2pooped2pop]

2. they set the scene with false poll results

so we won't question when elections are stolen.

[RichVRichV]

20. A lot of the polling is innacurate.

I won't go into any claims of manipulation, but there's definitely something wrong with the sampling and weighting. That isn't conspiracy theory or opinion. I've been doing the math on a lot of Iowa polls all election cycle. There is a consistent trend of under-counting people under age 50 and over-counting people over 50. In some cases it's been egregious. Why this matters is because Bernie does great with the younger crowd and Hillary does great with the older crowd.

To calculate what age groups should be getting votes, I took the Iowa census demographic information (adjusted for 2014, latest info), then weighted each age group based on voting percentages in the 2008 presidential election. The youngest age group voted about 48% of the time. 70% of the 65+ age group voted. So I weighted each age group demographic by those amounts. Even after weighting for the fact young people vote less (which benefits older voting blocks), the polls still consistently overvalue the 50+ crowd.



I just recalculated a CBS/YouGov poll from Nov 15th to 19th. It lists vote counts based on age demographics. It has Hillary ahead in Iowa by 9 points overall. The 18-29 age group went 70/30 to Bernie and was under-polled by 15%. The 30-44 went 51/47 to Bernie and was under-polled by 41%. The 45-64 age group went 51/40 to Hillary and was over-polled by 13%. The 65+ age group went 65/30 to Hillary and was over-polled by 15%.

When I corrected the voting totals to account for 2008 presidential weighting of age groups, Hillary's lead fell from 9 points down to 4 points, which was within the margin of error for the poll.




This isn't even close to the worst poll I've found for miss-representing age demographics (just the latest one I've done). I've seen some polls where the 65+ crowd was over sampled 5 times what they should have been versus the younger age groups. These are the polls that show Hillary with 30 and 40 point leads. I would love to calculate national polls, but most of them refuse to actually put voting totals based on age demographics into their statistics.


None of this takes into account that I expect the 2016 young voters to surpass the 2008 young voters in turnout this primary season, which will further benefit Bernie.

[restorefreedom]

24. do really think that will happen?

i can't honestly say that i am unconcerned.

[2pooped2pop]

25. I think that always happens.

definitely since Bush. I don't know about before that. Yes, I believe all of our elections are stolen or attempted.

[restorefreedom]

27. (shudder). i know bush did it, but i had hoped

it was a relatively isolated incident. now that i see the corporate collusion against bernie, i think anything is possible.

[LiberalArkie]

3. K&R

[jalan48]

4. Unfortunately, many Americans are disengaged from politics.

They will vote for a known brand like Pepsi or Coke. They aren't even aware that there are other better choices available. That's one big reason the Democratic leadership has limited the debates and the news media has had a virtual blackout on Sanders. Trump is there to steal the headlines and the debates are few and scheduled during hours most people aren't watching TV. Bernie is waking people up though. Even if Hillary wins she won't see the overwhelming support Obama had after eight years of Bush. Things aren't getting any better and the 1% hopes voters will fall for the brand name Clinton and the "Madam President" line.

[jeff47]

5. The common mechanic for doing this is poor methodology combined with likely voter screens

Virtually every poll relies on landlines for the majority, if not all, of their responses. The "good" polls use only 80% landline.

How many of your kids and their friends have a landline? And how many of them would answer when caller ID shows and unfamiliar number?

The other major problem is most polls are applying some form of "likely voter" screen. They only take answers from people who they feel are likely to vote. Some of these screens are very poorly designed - for example, some polls require respondents to have voted in the last contested presidential primary to be considered a likely voter. Which means they had to vote in 2008, effectively excluding everyone who's under 26 from their poll.

Even when the likely voter screen is not that badly designed, they generally exclude "unaffiliated" voters, or voters who just recently changed their registration.

So polls reflect the results of asking people who still have a landline, are willing to answer an unknown phone call, are willing to spend a decent chunk of time answering the poll, and pass a potentially lousy likely voter screen.

As a result, polls in general have gotten less and less accurate over the last 30 years. 30 years ago, they were very close to the election result. Now? The majority of polls are off by quite a bit. It's obvious that polls are going to become hopelessly inaccurate at some point. We'll see if this election is that point.

[Mother Of Four]

6. Good points

None of the people I mentioned have land lines, and I'm pretty sure most of them wouldn't answer an unknown number.

They need to either seriously update their screening process, or not rely on them so heavily.

[Fawke Em]

9. Get this: I vote every election, I have a landline, I sometimes have to

answer unknown calls because of my work and would love to take a poll.

Have I ever been polled for a national election? Nope.

I've had some push-polling done for local elections, but never get polled by anyone I recognize for state and national elections.

So much for the polling.

[peacebird]

28. I have voted in every election for 40 years, have landline, have never been polled either

You would think once in 40 years I would've been polled. Also only called once for jury duty.

[retrowire]

7. I'm in north Carolina as well!

hello! ive never been polled either!

the polls are lies.

[HerbChestnut]

8. Here's an article I read on RealClearPolitics yesterday.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/24/early-state_polls_arent_predictive_--_yet__128828.html

It's about the Republican primary, but can be applied to the Democratic primary as well. Basically it says that the polls aren't very accurate until a couple of weeks after Thanksgiving (or a month before votes are cast, which in this case might mean January). It's for the reasons you might expect. Most people aren't paying attention or won't engage in politics until the last minute. It's actually quite encouraging for Bernie considering how close he is in Iowa and New Hampshire. Don't give up!

[SamKnause]

10. I have a landline, no cell phone.

I have never been polled by the Democratic Party !!!!

I have received calls from the Republican Party.

I have lived at the same address for 14 years.

I do not know a single person who supports Hillary.

[SmittynMo]

11. Remember

The media controls what you see and hear. And they are controlled by 6 people.

I can't wait for the primary. It's going to be amazing. I think people are really concerned with their future, and the last 40 years of corrupt politics has got to go.

It's time for a political revolution.!!!!

[Capt.Rocky300]

12. I have spoken with a half a dozen friends of like mind about Bernie......

and all said they will not vote for HRC under any circumstances, not even in the general. My sister-in-law, said she'd vote for Trump before she'd vote for Hillary. I can't recall a more polarizing Democratic candidate than HRC in my 65 years.

[SoapBox]

21. Multiple neighbors and co-workers

get all red in the face, when they talk Hill...they cannot stand her.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. gallup will not do national polls this year becuse they admit their methodology

has not caught up to the times.

It's a stunning move for an organization that built its reputation on predicting the winners of presidential elections. But it comes at a time of unusual tumult in the polling world. Other top-level brands like the nonprofit Pew Research Center have yet to poll the horse race, and still others have expressed concern about the accuracy of polling at a time when fewer people are reachable or willing to talk to pollsters.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/gallup-poll-2016-pollsters-214493#ixzz3t0VLXUuw

There are reasons for this and it is not just an American problem. Polls are increasingly less and less reliable. At times they still hit it on the nose. But seemingly just as often, they tend to miss it these days.

They are still relying on land lines and those are less and less frequent. And many of us simply refuse to talk to pollsters for the color of the sky, let alone the latest issues.

Increasingly some of the polling companies are starting to develop methodology that will include online (you will have trouble voting more than once) interactive polls. But I do not expect to have the Gallup standard for at least two more cycles.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. Hey there!

Missed you!

[SoapBox]

22. I want to add a, Hey You!, to Nadine as well.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Another thing to keep in mind about Gallup -

The Gallup family and Bush Family evil empire are best of friends.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. While there is some to that

They were (and continue to be) the gold standard. These days it is about issues them and PEW are the go to for those

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. What they're trying to do is make Hillary look "inevitable" with BOGUS polls. Things to keep in mind

CORPORATIONS control ALL of our media. TeeVee, radio and Newspapers. CORPORATIONS want/NEED/MUST HAVE Hillary elected in order to continue their Oligarchic control. Every MSM pollster is completely owned by a CORPORATION. None of their polls are legitimate. They have also admitted their methodology us severely flawed because they poll LANDLINE phone owners.

51.7% of the population do NOT own or use a landline phone. OVER HALF THE COUNTRY CAN'T BE POLLED BY THE CORPORATE OWNED POLLSTERS.

In Bernie's favor, and it's A HUGE favor:

87.4% of the population uses the INTERNET. Bernie has a HUGE MAJORITY of support online.

My advice, and this is what I do, IGNORE THEIR BOGUS POLLS.

[CoffeeCat]

31. I don't necessarily think the polls are bogus...

I think most of the polls are authentic. Most are being conducted legitimately.

However, here's the reality. Most of America is not tuned into politics right now. The primaries in their states are months away. So, when Democrats are polled many pick Hillary because she's been touted as the inevitable 2016 Dem candidate since the day Obama took office in 2008.

Those polls reflect the media meme. People, by default, pick Hillary. It's not authentic, enthusiastic support.

The same EXACT thing happened in 2008. Hillary was winning every national poll and all state polls.

But we don't have a national voting day. We have state-by-state primaries. And when the primary campaigns pulled into those states and people began paying attention--Obama won.

The same thing will happen this time around too. Support for Hillary was soft in 2008 (you can only get so far on inevitability). But her support is even softer this time.

I'm seeing this in Iowa--where the caucus season has just begun to ramp up. Bernie was polling at 4 percent last spring. He's now within single digits in most Iowa polls.

So...I don't think that most polls are bogus--but I think the results are bogus--because Hillary has had several years to position herself as the frontrunner. YEARS. That's why her camp loves to tout those national polls--that mean zilch.

Soon, we'll see how meaningless those polls are--as Bernie's campaign explodes.

[LiberalArkie]

18. They used to do mail out polls, but calling on the phone was cheaper.

The mail out polls were pretty damn accurate.

[Bernin4U]

19. What’s the Matter With Polling?

OVER the past two years, election polling has had some spectacular disasters. Several organizations tracking the 2014 midterm elections did not catch the Republican wave that led to strong majorities in both houses; polls in Israel badly underestimated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strength, and pollsters in Britain predicted a close election only to see the Conservatives win easily. What’s going on here? How much can we trust the polls as we head toward the 2016 elections?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html?_r=0

If polling has become so lousy, why is it still popular and expensive? For one, it creates its own feedback loop.

If your candidate is shown to be winning by 20 or 30 or 40 points, it generates more momentum for you. People are far more inclined to jump on your bandwagon.

So if you're HRH or the MSM, you'll gladly pay for the results that you want the world to hear, accuracy be damned.

[eridani]

23. Forget about polls. Stick to campaigning on issues n/t

[thereismore]

26. Is NC open or closed primary? nt

[CoffeeCat]

29. I am seeing anecdotal evidence of this in Iowa...

We've heard that Hillary bought Twitter followers and a man who works for a global PR agency has revealed that he was hired by the Clinton camp to post positive messages about Hillary and disseminate her talking points. We've also seen questionable polls, that were funded by a PAC supporting Hillary.

I think her campaign engages in all kinds of puffery, designed to make it appear that she has more support than she does.

I noticed in Iowa that she rarely holds rallies. If she does, they are at very small venues. Meanwhile, back in July--Bernie had thousands attending his Iowa events. Some of these well-attended events were in very red areas of our state (Steve King territory). When the caucus season peaks (in a few weeks) Bernie will have monster crowds. I doubt Clinton will. The optics will be incredibly damaging to Hillary's campaign. Maybe she'll ask the Pope to headline her events?

At the JJ event in Des Moines--Hillary had Katy Perry perform right before Hillary went on. Bill Clinton spoke as well. Bernie Sanders didn't have any pop superstars that went on before him. It was just Bernie. Clinton and Sanders had similar crowd numbers. What would have been Hillary's crowd size had Perry not been there?

It's very strange. Hillary's strategy must be to convince the world that she has support. But phantom support doesn't show up and caucus for you, or vote.

It's very bizarre.

[antigop]

30. Hillary's Campaign Manager: "A lot of the public polling is not very reliable"'

Hillary Clinton Aides Shed Light on Bill’s Role in Her Campaign
http://time.com/3920153/bill-clinton-hillary-campaign-adviser/

Mook also dismissed recent poll numbers that suggest Hillary Clinton’s favorability numbers are slipping. According to a CNN poll published last week, 57% of Americans think the former secretary of state is not trustworthy. “A lot of the public polling is not very reliable,” Mook said. “I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to it.”