Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
robert1965

can you believe the polls

4 posts in this topic

how are the polls taken? I just have a cell phone, no one has ever called me. so if they don't have access to cell phone listings, who are they calling. are they calling just land lines? so if Obama is ahead in many key states, is it because they cant call your cell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah no kidding. So many people have only cell phones. Particularly younger people. Plus they miss out on all the college demographic and people without phones. Gonna be bias in any poll no matter how well you conduct it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from the pew research center, I've read other studies that come to similar conclusions.

Cell Phones and the 2008 Vote: An Update

by Scott Keeter, Michael Dimock and Leah Christian, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

September 23, 2008

PrintEmailShare

From: To:

Figure

Current polling in the 2008 presidential election shows a very tight race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. In part because of the strong support Obama is attracting among younger voters, and as the number of Americans who are reachable only by cell phones rises, interest continues to grow in the question of whether public opinion polls that do not include cell phones are accurately measuring the relative levels of support for the two candidates.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has conducted three major election surveys with both cell phone and landline samples since the conclusion of the primaries. In each of the surveys, there were only small, and not statistically significant, differences between presidential horserace estimates based on the combined interviews and estimates based on the landline surveys only. Yet a virtually identical pattern is seen across all three surveys: In each case, including cell phone interviews resulted in slightly more support for Obama and slightly less for McCain, a consistent difference of two-to-three points in the margin.

For example, in Pew's latest poll, conducted Sept. 9-14 with 2,509 registered voters, including 549 reached by cell phone, 46% backed Obama and 44% backed McCain. Among the landline respondents, the candidates were tied at 45% each. The same 2-point differential is seen if the analysis is restricted to likely voters - in this case, the candidates are tied in the combined sample, while McCain has a two-point lead among landline respondents.

Similar differences were seen in August and June. In August, Obama led by 3 points (46%-43%) in the combined sample of registered voters, while the landline sample showed the race tied at 45% each. In June, Obama led by eight points (48% to 40%) in the combined sample, and by five points (46% to 41%) in the landline sample alone. In all three cases, the overall horserace differences between the landline and combined samples are not statistically significant, but adhere to the same pattern.1

As implied by these results, in each of the three polls, the cell-only respondents were significantly more supportive of Obama (by 10-to-15 percentage points) than respondents in the landline sample. For example, in the September survey Obama led McCain by a 55%-to-36% margin among cell only voters, but the candidates were tied at 45% in the landline sample.

In large part, this reflects the fact that a substantial minority of the cell-only sample is younger than 30 - a demographic group that has consistently backed Obama this year. Traditional landline surveys are typically weighted to compensate for age and other demographic differences, but the process depends on the assumption that the people reached over landlines are similar politically to their cell-only counterparts. These surveys suggest that this assumption is increasingly questionable, particularly among younger people.

Figure

A Closer Look at Young People

To analyze differences in young people reached in a landline survey with those who are cell-only, the samples for the August and September surveys were pooled to increase the number of young people available for analysis. In the pooled data, cell-only young people are considerably less likely than young people reached by landline to identify with or lean to the Republican Party, and even less likely to say they support John McCain. Among landline respondents under age 30, there is an 18-point gap in party identification - 54% identify or lean Democratic while 36% are Republican. Among the cell-only respondents under age 30, there is a 34-point gap - 62% are Democrats, 28% Republican. The difference among registered voters on the horserace is similar: 39% of registered voters under 30 reached by landline favor McCain, compared with just 27% of cell-only respondents. Obama is backed by 52% of landline respondents under 30, compared with 62% of the cell-only.

Figure

These kinds of differences can lead to substantially different estimates of the youth vote. Weighted data from the August and September combined surveys show Obama with a 27-point lead among voters ages 18-29. A weighted estimate derived solely from young people reached by landline would show an Obama lead of 15 points. There are no differences between the combined and landline sample estimates for any of the older age groups.

Figure

Young voters may play a critical role on Election Day. But will cell-only young people turn out at the same rate as those with a landline phone? While 18-29-year-olds reached by cell phone tend to have less experience voting than their landline counterparts, they are just as interested in the 2008 campaign, and express just as much intention to vote this year. The clearest difference is on past voting behavior. Just 23% of cell-only young respondents say they "always vote," compared with 41% among the landline respondents. There are small - and statistically non-significant - differences in the share who voted in the 2004 election and who have previously voted in their precinct. Yet at the same time, most cell-only young people are registered to vote, have given a lot of thought to the election, and say they definitely will vote - factors that are also closely associated with turnout.

Conclusion

Even though the omission of cell phones from election polls does not currently make a large difference in the substantive results, Pew's surveys this year suggest at least the possibility of a small bias in landline surveys. Such a bias could be consequential in an election that appears to be very competitive right now, especially if significant numbers of young people turn out to vote. In particular, the research suggests that estimates of the candidate preferences of young voters may be biased if cell phone interviewing is not included in the survey.

These problems are all the more pressing as the number of Americans who are reachable only by cell phones increases. U.S. government surveys estimated that about 15% of adults were "cell only" in the fall of 2007 and the rate of increase since 2004 has been at least 2% a year, meaning that the number may be as high as 17% in this election cycle.

Many polling organizations are including cell phones in their samples this fall, and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press will include cell phone samples in all of its remaining election polls.

For a broader discussion of the cell phone issue see these earlier Pew Research Center studies:

The Impact of "Cell-Onlys" on Public Opinion Polling

Research Roundup: Latest Findings on Cell Phones and Polling

Figure

Notes

1 In all cases, comparisons are between the weighted combined survey results and the results of the landline interviews; each sample is weighted independently to the same demographic targets. The significance test accounts for the overlapping cases in these samples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post, blueroof. I took a polling class long, long, long ago in college & have been wondering how they dealt with cell phones, but not enough to seek out the answer myself. And here it is, no effort at all. smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Where did the 7 million come from to save the jobs?  My understanding it came from tax subsidies from the state of Indiana, if that's true it would seem to me that Trump would of had nothing to say about it and he is not empowered yet to be bailing out companies. Sounds to me as if this whole thing was probably hashed out and settled a long time ago and this is just a See how I keep my promise that Carrier wasn't going to go to Mexico.
    • I suspect she had help with that article   
    • The guy at Scheels told me the new battery fits the old model augers.  I've got the original Ion as well and asked about it.  Verify, but that's what I was told. 
    • It's been a joke forever but I guess if you are a believer then you don't find it funny. I highly doubt "most people believe" but it's not like they have truly been given any options. The parties are breaking up right in front of our eyes, it is very entertaining to watch. I suspect they don't last 10 more years at this rate.
    • Sorel Pac Boot.  My search ended on those 15 years ago.  I haven't battled cold feet ever since.  No need for special fabric or battery powered socks or toe warmers.    I have to also mention, understand the body's thermal system.  Long ago, Modern Marvels did a show on it.  The short version is that you have to keep your core and vital organs warm.  Then your body will send surplus heat to your head, fingers, toes, and other regions you wish didn't sweat so much.  Big part of that is blocking the wind. 
    • Food plots are no more threat than farm fields or logged land.  If you're really concerned about food plots spreading CWD, you better get on the horn with the University of MN ag program and urge them to kill off their cover crop program and quit promoting the idea to farmers.  And bait piles, should farmers should be fined for missing the silage wagon with the chopper, or the semi with the grain auger?  Should it then be illegal to no-till farm?  Should alfalfa be banned completely from agriculture?    This whole thing is a joke predicated on shaky at best science driven by fear.  Eat that deer, it could kill you.  If you don't shoot every deer, it could kill you.  If you enjoy your hunt, you have too many deer.  It's just too convenient they found 2 positives right in the middle of the two zones they've been trying to clean out for years.  Ten tags per guy didn't do it I guess, so they decided to pull out the nuclear option.    Meanwhile, no monitoring is being done on the Wisconsin border from the twin cities to Duluth where WI has border counties with CWD.  So I ask, are they really trying to stop the spread?   MN banned the import of carcass parts from out of state months earlier.  Were they really serious about preventing infected animal parts from entering the state?  Because it sure seems like there was zero effort to police the borders or even get some messaging up along the main roads.    So, we're left to draw one of two conclusions.  They're either very poor at running a conspiracy, or they're completely unqualified to tackle this threat.  Either way, I see no reason to put any faith in what the DNR says or does.  I'm not going to shoot a doe and neither is anyone else in my party.  And I will champion that message to every person that will listen. 
    • There is no way whatsoever the queen of word salads put together and uttered that sentence.
    • Glad to hear, now any insights as to how the carrier deal is helping to save our country?
    • Nope,. Doing well.  Trump will be President and my vote helped save the country.      
    • Well, if you assume the govt is better off giving tax breaks to one company to keep 1000 jobs, then you should be able to safely assume they would also be better off to give all companies tax breaks to keep jobs here..   Why single out one company for special treatment?
  • Our Sponsors