Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 11-29-2007, 12:11 AM
Max Raker Max Raker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 708
Default Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly are you confused about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Polls try to predict the results of elections right?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-29-2007, 12:18 AM
Max Raker Max Raker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 708
Default Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are there any actual Hillary supporters on this forum? I know our resident leftists are big fans of ending the war and european-style health care, are there any Democrats here who aren't fans of Obama and Kucinich?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a supporter of John Edwards. Hillary voters tend to be older and less educated than the typical internet forum poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are you getting the less educated part? Are Hillary supporters less educated than those who support other candidates? Or are you saying that internet forum users are more educated than the supporters of any candidate?
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-29-2007, 12:30 AM
NickMPK NickMPK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,626
Default Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...

[ QUOTE ]

Are Hillary supporters less educated than those who support other candidates?
Or are you saying that internet forum users are more educated than the supporters of any candidate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both. Internet forum users tend to be well educated.
Well-educated Dems tend to disproportionately support Obama, while less-educated Dems disproportionately support Clinton.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-29-2007, 01:17 AM
Jeremy517 Jeremy517 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,083
Default Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly are you confused about?

[/ QUOTE ]
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-29-2007, 01:58 AM
iron81 iron81 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Resident Donk
Posts: 6,806
Default Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...

The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-29-2007, 02:49 AM
Jeremy517 Jeremy517 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,083
Default Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...

[ QUOTE ]
The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things...

"Likely voters" aren't determined simply by just asking someone if they're likely to show up. That wouldn't be accurate enough, as people on average tend to overstate their intentions. It is usually one of the questions they ask, but there are usually five or ten more questions also. But that isn't really relevant to my point anyways.

More importantly, my point was about turnout, and turnout isn't going to be determined by "likely voters". The likely voters are just that... likely voters. In 2004, voter turnout was about 55%. In 2000, it was about 51%. In 1996, it was under 50%. The difference isn't in the percentage of "likely voters", but rather the people who wouldn't be qualify as "likely voters". They might be considered more of "possible voters", "might vote", "occasional voters", etc. The likely voters are going to vote no matter what; it is the non-likely voters that influence the turnout rate.

I think this topic has been beaten to death. I don't think she can win a general election, others do. Neither one of us is likely to change the others mind, so be it.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-29-2007, 02:58 AM
Max Raker Max Raker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 708
Default Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things...

"Likely voters" aren't determined simply by just asking someone if they're likely to show up. That wouldn't be accurate enough, as people on average tend to overstate their intentions. It is usually one of the questions they ask, but there are usually five or ten more questions also. But that isn't really relevant to my point anyways.

More importantly, my point was about turnout, and turnout isn't going to be determined by "likely voters". The likely voters are just that... likely voters. In 2004, voter turnout was about 55%. In 2000, it was about 51%. In 1996, it was under 50%. The difference isn't in the percentage of "likely voters", but rather the people who wouldn't be qualify as "likely voters". They might be considered more of "possible voters", "might vote", "occasional voters", etc. The likely voters are going to vote no matter what; it is the non-likely voters that influence the turnout rate.

I think this topic has been beaten to death. I don't think she can win a general election, others do. Neither one of us is likely to change the others mind, so be it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should start your own polling company. I think you have identified a major flaw in the way all polls work.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-29-2007, 03:01 AM
NickMPK NickMPK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,626
Default Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things...

"Likely voters" aren't determined simply by just asking someone if they're likely to show up. That wouldn't be accurate enough, as people on average tend to overstate their intentions. It is usually one of the questions they ask, but there are usually five or ten more questions also. But that isn't really relevant to my point anyways.

More importantly, my point was about turnout, and turnout isn't going to be determined by "likely voters". The likely voters are just that... likely voters. In 2004, voter turnout was about 55%. In 2000, it was about 51%. In 1996, it was under 50%. The difference isn't in the percentage of "likely voters", but rather the people who wouldn't be qualify as "likely voters". They might be considered more of "possible voters", "might vote", "occasional voters", etc. The likely voters are going to vote no matter what; it is the non-likely voters that influence the turnout rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the screen for likely voters (in a general election) is typical just "How likely are you to vote" (only asking people who are already registered). Many firms use an additional screen for "definite voters", which may rely on past voting history, etc, but this is almost never used/reported by the media. And of course, there are various things that pollsters do to weight survey respondents by likelihood to vote, etc, but again, the polls you see in the media are usually not that sophisticated.

People do overstate their intentions, as you say, so the screen for "likely voters" used by most polling firms nets the vast majority of people who end up voting. It is much more probable that a "likely voter" will end up not voting than than that an "unlikely voter" will vote.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-29-2007, 03:05 AM
Jeremy517 Jeremy517 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,083
Default Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the screen for likely voters (in a general election) is typical just "How likely are you to vote" (only asking people who are already registered). Many firms use an additional screen for "definite voters", which may rely on past voting history, etc, but this is almost never used/reported by the media. And of course, there are various things that pollsters do to weight survey respondents by likelihood to vote, etc, but again, the polls you see in the media are usually not that sophisticated.

People do overstate their intentions, as you say, so the screen for "likely voters" used by most polling firms nets the vast majority of people who end up voting. It is much more probable that a "likely voter" will end up not voting than than that an "unlikely voter" will vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check out the Gallup standards from 2004: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/...oters_i_1.html

[ QUOTE ]
Although Gallup has made minor modifications, the questions and procedures that Perry described 44 years ago remain in use by the Gallup Poll today. Among those who say they are registered to vote (or who plan to do so before the election), Gallup uses the following questions to create a scale that varies from 0 to 7:

1) How much have you thought about the upcoming elections for president, quite a lot or only a little? (Quite a lot = 1 point)

2) Do you happen to know where people who live in your neighborhood go to vote? (Yes = 1 point)

3) Have you ever voted in your precinct or election district? (Yes = 1 point)

4) How often would you say you vote, always, nearly always, part of the time or seldom (Always or nearly always = 1 point)

5) Do you plan to vote in the presidential election this November? (Yes = 1 point)

6) In the last presidential election, did you vote for Al Gore or George Bush, or did things come up to keep you from voting?" (Voted = 1 point)

7) If "1" represents someone who will definitely not vote and "10" represents someone who definitely will vote, where on this scale would you place yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]

New York Times says that places use past voting habits, length of residency registrations status, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...gstandards.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-29-2007, 03:08 AM
Jeremy517 Jeremy517 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,083
Default Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...

[ QUOTE ]
You should start your own polling company. I think you have identified a major flaw in the way all polls work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a flaw, it is by design. I would guess that most years, it works fine. But you weren't really interested in that, you just wanted to make a smarmy comment...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.