This week's CNN Poll re: Reid v. Angle Didn't Poll ANYONE Under Age 35

[Clio the Leo]

More fun and fascinating facts on polling with specific focus on the NV Senate race....

Jon Ralston: The consequences of flawed public polling
By Jon Ralston (contact)
Friday, Oct. 8, 2010 | 2:02 a.m.

Polling is arcane to most laymen — and, alas, to most media folks. But public polling, which is as flawed this cycle as any I have covered, can create and drive a narrative.

If you think I am alone in my observation about public polls, consider what the inestimable pundit Charlie Cook wrote a couple of weeks ago:

“More than in any previous cycle that we’ve witnessed, perceptions of the ebb and flow of races are being driven by state- and district-level polling. This does not mean that there is better polling, just more … Probably 90 percent of the public polling in statewide and district races is mediocre at best, and much of it is very close to worthless.”

Exactly. And why? Because it is done on the cheap and the internals of the poll often expose, as Cook and others (including yours truly) have pointed out, why they are worthless.

Cook made another key point — that polling done for news organizations often is less than reliable:

“I should echo an argument made several weeks ago by my good friend and competitor Stu Rothenberg. He scoffed at those who mistakenly believed that polls conducted independently from the candidates and parties were inherently better or more reliable than campaign polling. My view is that most academic polling, as well as the polling sponsored by local television stations and newspapers, is dime-store junk.”

Mason-Dixon, driving the Las Vegas Review-Journal narrative in this contest, has used an array of samples and ballot tests, without much consistency. But it’s not just local news organizations that are doing a disservice and driving a narrative — let’s look at the polls released this week:

• CNN: 42-40, Angle. The survey did not poll anyone under 35 — some of those young ’uns do vote — and even worse, it gave independent voters (only 15 percent of the electorate here) comparable weight as Democrats and Republicans, who have twice the registration of nonpartisans.

• Fox: 49-46, Angle. These are push-button polls by an offshoot of Rasmussen Reports. This one surveyed more men than women (no one thinks that will be the actual composition) and more Republicans than Democrats (even Republican strategists don’t think the enthusiasm gap will make up for a 5 percentage point deficit in registration).

• Rasmussen: 50-46, Angle. Rasmussen, another auto-dialer company, has long been thought to skew GOP, although it has had some success in calling races. But the ballot test here is off by not having a “none of the above” option and not listing the other candidates.

As Cook put it: “The far more sophisticated polling is done by top-notch professional polling firms for campaigns, parties and major business and labor organizations. These polls are considerably more expensive and the methodology is more rigorous.

“Most of these surveys are not made public, but insiders can be made aware of them.”

So, as Cook points out, there are two separate conversations, the public and private. And the private one is that Reid is slightly ahead, not Angle. I would bet a lot of money both campaigns think he is slightly ahead.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/08/jon-ralston-consequences-flawed-public-polling/

And this is the CNN poll to which I'm referring...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/cnntime-poll-angle-leads-reid-by-two-points.php

[FrenchieCat]

1. But we let them get away with it.....

and we don't say BOO!
Instead, such polls are posted for discussion.

The ask us to bend down, and we respond "from the waist, or down our on knees?"

We are weak.

[jaysunb]

16. +1

:thumbsup:

[tblue37]

2. The polls set the stage to legitimize the hacked votes that will give the races to the Repubs

[necso]

3. Being negatively influenced

(in any way!) by polls (...) is inutile.

Fight; vote; get others to.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Polls are used to create a narative...

that the media finds beneficial to their bottom line, while others use polls to drive public perception, such as the perception of an inevetible Republican wave and deep voter discontent with Democrats and Obama.

If you repeat a lie often enough...

[book_worm]

5. If you bring up each of the polls for Time/CNN (NV, CT, MO, etc) it shows n/a for each state

for 18-34. I highly doubt they didn't poll any 18-34 year olds in each of those states--my guess is that they didn't have the data available. I also think that someone like Keith or Rachel would have pointed that out if it were the case.

[rasputin1952]

6. The ONLY poll worth a damn is when you walk into a polling place...

All the rest is overload produced by a media that wants to rake in cash.

VOTE!!! Stand in line, in the sun, the rain, listening to an i-pod...but VOTE!!!

[Vogon_Glory]

7. You're So Right!

You're so right. Progressive and Democratic voters who go to the polls in sufficient numbers can upend any news media polling results.

And wouldn't it be de-lovely to see enough Democratic wins this November to smear egg all over the corporate media's faces?

:evilgrin:

[Jennicut]

8. So those of us 18 to 34 somehow don't count? Thanks CNN.

I mean, you couldn't even poll those of us 30 to 34? We are not exactly college kids!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. NO, it's just there are none in that age group in Nevada

I had to go there for a conference (We have Mandatory CLE here) and the average age of the people I saw there was greater than their waistlines, but only slightly.

[thewiseguy]

9. I am sure they do poll the under 35 folks

If you look at the crosstabs for CNN's poll you will see that they have listed N/A for the 18-34 and 34-50 category. They have not listed those numbers.

Charlie Cook is a moron.

[depakid]

10. Nice to see people finally coming around to this realization

[Avalux]

11. I still don't know the answer to this question.....

do polling outfits call cell phone numbers? I, like most of the people I know and probably all young people do not have land lines. I don't see how polls can be accurate unless there's a way to reach this group.

[FBaggins]

13. I'm afraid that Ralston doesn't know what he's talking about.

It isn't that they "Didn't Poll ANYONE Under Age 35" - it's that that subgroup wasn't large enough for the sample to give statistically significant cross-tabs. In some of their polls (this release polled races in four different states), even the 35-49 age group isn't large enough to be significant. You can see that 35-49 in the Reid/Angle poll has a MOE of 8.5% - there's little point in even reporting that.

Some simple math will demonstrate this. They only poll people 18 and over. The 35-49 group shows an Angle lead of 50-42, but the "Under 50" group shows her leading 47-43. If they polled NOBODY under 35, the results should be the same. I'm sure that we can agree that "under 50" is made up exclusively of people who fall into the "18-34" group and people in the "35-49" group, no?

In 2008, the 18-35 age group made up about 15% of Nevada voters. This poll had 789 likely voters. Even if younger voters were as likely to vote this time as in 2008 (and other polls indicate that isn't the case), their subsample for this group would be about 118 respondents. That gives you a margin of error of just a smidge under 10%, which makes the data essentially worthless. So they report it as "N/A"...

...which does not mean "there weren't any".

Looks like their cuttoff for reporting required a subgroup of at least 150-175 respondents.

[old mark]

14. Pre-election polls are released mostly for propaganda purposes - the one that counts

is November 2.
Please vote this year - we need every one.
Don't be discouraged by their lies - be angry and fight back!

mark

[impik]

15. It's one be fucking conspiracy

[Odin2005]

17. Poll are there to create opionion, not show it.