politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Mobile phones and habits of millennials vex US pollsters
Source:
Reuters via Financial Times
URL Source: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/09fc ... dd-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2.html
Published: Jan 25, 2016
Author: Shawn Donnan and Sam Fleming
Post Date: 2016-01-25 07:45:32 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 1663
Comments: 5
From the UK to Israel and Spain, pollsters have called the outcome of recent elections dramatically wrong. One week before the Iowa caucuses mark the start of the US election's primary season, US pollsters are anxious to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the 2016 campaign. “There are a lot of people working hard to make sure similar mis-steps don’t happen here,” says Mollyann Brodie, who oversees polling at the Kaiser Family Foundation and is president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. But America’s pollsters, she and other experts concede, are confronting methodological challenges as complex as any they have faced since the arrival of mass-market mobile phones a generation ago. From millennials who do not answer the phone to “likely voter” models with a chequered history and falling sample sizes due to squeezed news budgets, this year’s polls provide plenty of grist for critics. In an election cycle where polls have helped reinforce the insurgencies of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Democratic outsider Bernie Sanders there is plenty of risk that pollsters could again be left with egg on their face. “Seriously CNN?” Joel Benenson, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, tweeted last week after the network released a poll showing Mr Sanders leading the former secretary of state 51-43 in Iowa. His main complaint: a sample size of little more than 300, most of whom were men. In early states such as Iowa and New Hampshire pollsters have already conducted more polls this election cycle than they did in the year before the 2012 caucuses and primaries. But the average sample size has fallen. In New Hampshire in 2012 the average pool of Republican voters interviewed was 590, according to a Financial Times analysis of data collected by Real Clear Politics. So far this year it stands at 490. The result is less precise polls. Margins of error of plus or minus 5 per cent have become common, a problem when most candidates in the crowded Republican field poll in single digits. The growing role of aggregators such as Real Clear Politics and Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight.com, which combine polls or build elaborate prediction models on the back of them, has arguably helped offset any fall in quality. But structural issues remain. Behind the smaller sample sizes, for example, is the rising cost of opinion research in the US thanks to the increasing difficulty of reaching voters. “The number of telephone calls you have to dial to complete a single interview has tripled over the last 10 years . . . and that has led to a doubling in cost,” says David Dutwin, chief methodologist at SSRS which conducts the respected CBS/New York Times survey. Pollsters now make 30-35 calls to complete a single interview versus 10 a decade ago, he says. To interview a thousand voters — only 400 of which may be likely to vote Republican — they have to dial up to 35,000 numbers. The big question is always who gets left out and whether that leaves certain groups under-represented and polls skewed. There is evidence, pollsters say, that millennials prefer text messages to calls and are less likely to answer their phones than other age groups. Some studies point to similar issues with Hispanic voters. Such questions are particularly relevant in the wake of an inquiry into UK polling that last week released its initial findings. It found that pollsters undercounted Conservative voters and engaged in “herding” by tweaking numbers to avoid looking like an outlier. A predicted dead heat ahead of the May 2015 election turned into a decisive Conservative win and a 12-seat majority. Similar polling hazards have dogged US votes in the recent past. Ahead of the 2012 general election, polls underestimated the turnout of young voters and other enthusiastic backers of President Barack Obama, while overstating support for Republican challenger Mitt Romney. In the January 2008 New Hampshire primary all 13 polls in a final round of pre-election surveys predicted an Obama win, but Hillary Clinton emerged the victor. Michael Traugott of the University of Michigan, who investigated the 2008 New Hampshire episode says primary polling is particularly challenging. Turnouts are invariably low and support often fluid, particularly in early contests involving many candidates. To compensate, pollsters use elaborate “likely voter” models. But Mr Traugott says getting more accurate results really means spending longer polling and using more modes of contact. “Both of those things take time and money and that is what runs counter to the current economic situation in the news business,” he said. Faced with such challenges some leading polling groups are staying out of the horse-race altogether this year. Gallup, which suffered the embarrassment of calling the 2012 presidential election wrong, is focusing on issues rather than who is leading where this year. Frank Newport, editor in chief, insists the shift in emphasis is not related to 2012 and “does not reflect a lack of confidence in the methods that pollsters use”. The non-partisan Pew Research Center is choosing a similar path. The sheer volume of horse-race polls this cycle have made that an easy decision, says Michael Dimock, its president, but so too has his feeling that too many do too little to inform voters. “I’m kind of a polling junkie,” he says. Yet, “I don't feel like I know more or less than I did eight years ago.” Poster Comment: Gallup isn't polling primaries and won't commit to polling the general election, the first time in its history. Many other big polling firms are closing or falling by the wayside. The "polls" we see now are often self-selected Facebook surveys conducted by companies that no one ever heard of a year or two ago. Lots of polling industry insider info in this piece that helps explain how wobbly political polling has become. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
Facebook ? Millenials are leaving Facebook in droves. Not sure if they are polling at Snapchat and Instagram . But that is where the kids are flocking . If I were to believe the polls ,the Baby Boomer candidates and the septuagenarian socialist have all the support of the millenials .
#2. To: tomder55 (#1)
I think a lot of polling is just biased propaganda. They drive the pollees in the direction they want public opinion to move, mostly by how they write their hotbutton questions. Almost none of these current polling organization have been around for even a presidential cycle. Among the most active is PPP and I don't think they did any polling before 2010 though they had a good polling year in 2012 and did fairly well in 2014. Now they are far less prominent. Quinnipiac? Didn't we used to joke about them? Now they are a venerable established poll apparently. Monmouth? Who the hell has even heard of them? PollMonkey and SurveyMonkey? None of them has any track record. The entire bunch combined has less credibility than Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com. Should we just rely on Drudge's online self-selected overnight post-debate polls? Drudge does has as much a track record as 80% of the polling organizations we hear quoted constantly. Pew is still around but they are Lefty push-pollers and the results of their polling reads like a dream wishlist of the DNC. Obviously, this polling racket is a pet peeve of mine.
I saw a tidbit today over at HotAir from a poll. If you need some conversation fodder during commercial breaks, here’s an interesting result from the new Purple Strategies national poll showing Trump leading the field by 20 points: These numbers are interesting too. This is a poll of Republican primary voters, mind you: While Nate Silver gives this Purple polling bunch a 'C' in his pollster ratings, it was still an interesting result. As I thought, Palin actually hurts Trump. She brought him no new voters he didn't already have and her own negatives seem to hurt Trump by association.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Replies to Comment # 1.
#3. To: tomder55 (#1)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]