Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumWhy has there been so little (no??) discussion...
... of a possible Michigan replay when talking about the polls and future primaries? Do we yet understand what went wrong with the pollsters?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 1356 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why has there been so little (no??) discussion... (Original Post)
LAS14
Mar 2016
OP
My guess is that Dems thought Hillary would win and voted against Trump in the Repub primary
upaloopa
Mar 2016
#2
Multiple factors: polling Dems only, and not Indies, for open primary; no polling after major debate
CalvinballPro
Mar 2016
#4
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)1. From 538: Why The Polls Missed Bernie Sanders’s Michigan Upset
Why The Polls Missed Bernie Sanderss Michigan Upset
Here is our initial assessment of some possible explanations, along with comments from some of the pollsters who had reported a big Clinton lead:
Pollsters underestimated youth turnout. Voters under 30 made up 19 percent of Democratic primary voters, nearly as large a share as voters 65 or older, according to exit polls. Mitchell Research and Communications, which showed a 37 percentage point Clinton lead in a poll conducted Sunday, found that people younger than 50 would make up less than a quarter of all voters; they made up more than half instead. Mitchell was one of the only pollsters in the state to poll using only calls to landlines, and most Americans younger than 45 live in households without landlines. But even Monmouth, which dialed cellphones, too, underestimated the turnout among younger voters. Perhaps all the polls showing a big Clinton lead sowed complacency among Clinton supporters, who skew older though big leads in polls in Southern states didnt stop her supporters from helping her romp to big victories.
Pollsters underestimated Sanderss dominance among young voters. Not only did more young voters turn out than expected, but Sanders won 81 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds. A YouGov poll showed him winning 66 percent.1
Pollsters underestimated the number of independent voters who would participate in the primary. YouGov expected Sanders to beat Clinton by 38 percentage points among independent voters participating in the open Democratic primary. He won those voters by 43 percentage points. But no one expected independents to make up 27 percent of voters; YouGov expected about 12 percent. There were too many Democrats in the poll, said Will Jordan, elections editor at YouGov.
Here is our initial assessment of some possible explanations, along with comments from some of the pollsters who had reported a big Clinton lead:
Pollsters underestimated youth turnout. Voters under 30 made up 19 percent of Democratic primary voters, nearly as large a share as voters 65 or older, according to exit polls. Mitchell Research and Communications, which showed a 37 percentage point Clinton lead in a poll conducted Sunday, found that people younger than 50 would make up less than a quarter of all voters; they made up more than half instead. Mitchell was one of the only pollsters in the state to poll using only calls to landlines, and most Americans younger than 45 live in households without landlines. But even Monmouth, which dialed cellphones, too, underestimated the turnout among younger voters. Perhaps all the polls showing a big Clinton lead sowed complacency among Clinton supporters, who skew older though big leads in polls in Southern states didnt stop her supporters from helping her romp to big victories.
Pollsters underestimated Sanderss dominance among young voters. Not only did more young voters turn out than expected, but Sanders won 81 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds. A YouGov poll showed him winning 66 percent.1
Pollsters underestimated the number of independent voters who would participate in the primary. YouGov expected Sanders to beat Clinton by 38 percentage points among independent voters participating in the open Democratic primary. He won those voters by 43 percentage points. But no one expected independents to make up 27 percent of voters; YouGov expected about 12 percent. There were too many Democrats in the poll, said Will Jordan, elections editor at YouGov.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)3. Is there reason to think...
... that current polls have addressed these problems?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)7. I don't think 538 will get caught with their pants down again.
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)6. Thanks for posting
Polls will be wrong if they don't know who is going to vote. Campaigns should ignore the polls and work like they are behind 10 points behind.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)2. My guess is that Dems thought Hillary would win and voted against Trump in the Repub primary
I was listening to Mark Thompson that night and he always asks callers to say who they voted for
Many Dems said they voted in the repubs primary against Trump
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)4. Multiple factors: polling Dems only, and not Indies, for open primary; no polling after major debate
Basically just imagine every way a pollster can be caught flat-footed and it happened in MI.
Iamaartist
(3,300 posts)5. I did talk about Mich I am from Michigan
here is a link that shows there was voters suppression in Mich also we think also its wide spread
we do have to vote again in GE
https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/tag/michigan/