2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Iowa polls out today used the same methodology.
There's multiple threads about the Monmouth poll, but here's the methodology of the Loras College poll.
Note on Methodology:
The Loras College Poll surveyed 1,000 likely 2016 caucus voters (500 likely Republican voters, 500 likely Democratic voters). The survey was conducted October 19-22, 2015. Both subsamples of party caucus participants include no-party registrants who passed likely voter screen (see below). Margin of error for full sample results is +/- 3.1 percent, while for the party subsamples the margin of error is +/- 4.4 percent. All results calculated at a 95 percent confidence interval.
Survey conducted with a random sample of registered voters, with phone numbers drawn from official Iowa Secretary of State voter files of those who voted in either the 2012 or 2014 general election or who had registered since December 1, 2014.
Likely caucus voter was defined as those indicating they were definitely or very likely to vote in the 2016 Iowa Caucus. Those indicating they were somewhat likely were subjected to further screen questions regarding their general interest in politics. Only those indicating they were very interested in politics were then accepted within the sample as a likely caucus voter.
The statewide sample was balanced for gender and divided evenly across Iowas four congressional districts. Age was balanced to approximate past caucus entrance polling.
Survey included both landlines and cell phones.
The survey was conducted using live operator interviews through a contracted professional call center.
Script development and methodology used for the survey received input from Republican campaign consultant Brian Dumas and Democratic campaign consultant Dave Heller.
What this means is that Hillary is winning with old people who typically show up to vote. Every poll out there shows Bernie winning the youth vote and usually by wide margins. Younger voters, GET OUT AND VOTE ON ELECTION DAY. Same goes to anyone who supports Bernie but doesn't typically get involved in the political process. This is what his campaign is all about. VOTE.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)50 is old? Shit, I must be ancient then.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)You know, like a fine wine.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)He didn't want to believe the scientific polls either...then he and Anne looked so shell-shocked on election night...the polls were right after all
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)which means in Iowa you need to get young people to the caucuses. Which is not likely to happen based on prior history. There is no evidence that Bernie is a transformational candidate that will rewrite the rules.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)He's shown that he can increase the voter turnout significantly. He did so in Vermont where he won his first election by 10 votes, then subsequent elections by 20-30% due to an increase in the number of people voting. He also was able to get a wave of progressive candidates elected after a couple years in office. People are showing up in the hundreds of thousands to see him speak, and a large portion of those are people who aren't typically involved in the political process. They're being registered, and instructed on how to vote in their state. I think the Bernie campaign is going to surprise a lot of people in Iowa and the rest of the country.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that everyone swears will rewrite electoral history. Until they don't.
If Bernie was truly a transformational character in American history, he would have had an impact by now instead of being an obscure and relatively ineffective politician from a small state for 25 years.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)In a government that is control absolutely by the two major political parties, we can only imagine the types of obstacles Bernie encountered when trying to get things done in Congress. The difference now is that he finally has a national voice, and people are responding to it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it remains to be seen if Bernie has a national voice. The excuse for low polling numbers was that no one knows who he is (which is odd for a transformational figure) .... now that more people know who he is and would appear to be rejecting him (see support among POC for exhibit 1) it will be interesting to see what the excuse will be going forward. Ronmeyesque "unskewing" of poll results seems to be the immediate response.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)40%+ in several states is not low. At this point his biggest obstacle is overcoming the expectation by most that Hillary will win. He does that by winning Iowa and New Hampshire. It won't be easy.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and that demographic does not represent the electorate that will be deciding the winner.
Iowa and NH are in Bernie's demographic sweet spot - ie predominately white. Winning there means nothing when Super Tuesday rolls around and the electorate drastically changes. Bernie does not have significant support in many Super Tuesday states.
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)We can't get a handle on the turnout of the "young people" who tend to be enthusiastic, all over social media, and not very good at all at the mechanics of the primary. All the enthusiasm is great, but showing up to vote seems to be something they don't quite commit to. We can't quantify an unknown. So far, enthusiasm off the charts, internets are dominated, but actual systemic, door to door voter turnout, not so much. It's a wild card. With Howard Dean, they did not show up, or were just run over in caucus states. With Obama, they showed up , with the help of an awesome turnout machine. Most of those guys in that turnout machine work for Hillary today. So, like everything with young people, we just don't know.
LexVegas
(6,005 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)You're right that if the turnout is different than in previous caucuses, then this poll or others won't give accurate estimates. However, the youth vote was pretty excited about Obama in 2008, so I'm not sure you can argue that 2016 will be hugely different.
Another interesting thing: the Loras Poll included cross-tabs, and even for the 18-35 group, Hillary was up 62-33.
http://loras.edu/LorasCollege/files/a2/a25b395d-257a-48e7-b082-68e8d10aa95c.pdf
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Disappointing, but fair. Bernie's got some work to do.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm guessing that the reason that they differ so much from other polls we've seen is because they target likely caucus voters rather than registered voters. Though I haven't checked the other polls.
That could explain the difference between the 5-10ish lead Hillary had in other recent polls and this 40. Still, a jump to 40 seems like a lot. Then again, there are now two of these polls showing the same thing.
There will be more polls. We'll see.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Case closed.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Wow if Bernie doesn't have these people, uh...yeah its looking really grim for him.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)We need to do everything we can to help get young Iowa Bernie supporters to the Caucuses.
onenote
(42,383 posts)and 43 percent of the Iowa caucus goers were first time participants.
Under the circumstances, I would suggest that while Clinton almost certainly leads in Iowa, the most recent polls probably should be taken with a grain of salt given that history.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/IA.html