Who refuse to participate in polls. I simple don't answer the phone for pollsters or any phone number I don't recognize.

Yup, you said it, if I don't know the number, they get my voicemail

Haven't had a landline for nearly 15 years. (Wow, people thought it was weird back then.) Haven't answered the phone for strangers (unless it's local and I'm selling something on C/L) in at least 5. These days, I barely can be arsed to answer it at all. (So nobody calls anymore, which is fine.)

My experience with how Millenials approach using the phone is very much the same.

And I really don't mind that my kids won't be tying up the only line in the house for hours, the way their parents did at their ages.

is that the argument here?

people who use cell phones are being under reported.

it is not like this is a new issue - there were many polls using similar process that were very accurate during the last two presidential elections.

Off her landline.

She greatly prefers using her cell, as it's always in her pocket, and can be adjusted for volume.

But she insists to keep her landline, same number they've had since 1970, "just in case". And of course she can't not answer it, no matter that it's harder to get to, and every single call is junk mail. (Often somewhat extortionist, such as, "We've detected a virus on your computer, and can help to fix it". Never mind that she doesn't own a computer.)

Gives her something to talk about, anyway...

It's part of my cable/Internet package and doesn't really cost anything, so I keep it.

But, the ONLY person who ever calls me on that phone, besides telemarketers, is my Mom.

nt

is fail.

and use techniques considered the most accurate and reliable by the scientific community as a whole, not by people who believe in "unskewing" and don't understand the basic concepts of controls and sampling.

So, too bad the polls aren't telling you what you want to hear, and you would be much more effective spending your energy building a ground game for your candidate than attempting to invalidate one of the most important fields of math and science.

Democrat lost badly. Same story as 2014. Same story with Eric Cantor. Polls are not measuring enthusiasm or lack of it. People say what they want to believe about themselves not what they're actually going to do. Phone polls are not in depth enough to catch the discrepancies that would indicate that dissonance.

Here's the poll seven days before the election: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/10/28/4109888/bluegrass-poll-jack-conway-maintains.html

Jack Conway had a slight lead (45-40 percent) over Matt Bevin.

What actually happened?

Bevin beat Conway by more than 9 percentage points: 53-44 percent.

This should serve as a warning to Democrats in two ways:

1. Poll models are getting outdated. We can make fun of Mitt Romney all we want, but his campaign wasn't wrong in the way most of us on this board THINK they were - that the Romney campaign believed that there was a vast conservative underground. They were wrong because the biggest flaw in their polling was the failure to predict the demographic composition of the electorate. This is not to say polls don't show trend-lines or that they're absolutely full of bunk, but when pollsters keep using landlines in the majority of their polling even in the face of non-political statistics that show landlines are dying, rapidly, we're going to see a split from reality - and soon (possibly not this election cycle, but possibly so).

2. Democrats need to make a clear distinction between themselves and the Republicans.

The Democrats ran a milquetoast, re-hashed, tired, Third Way moderate candidate who drew virtually no enthusiasm from the liberal base and, guess what? They didn't go out and vote. Only 30 percent of registered Kentucky voters went to the polls even KNOWING that a Republican-controlled state government will start dismantling Kynect, the state's "Obamacare" health exchange.

Why?

Well, why would they? The candidate foisted upon the liberal base by the DNC is only marginally better than the Republican.

Yawn.

I realize it's Sanders supporters (me included) who keep trying to explain to supporters of that other candidate that if she grabs the nomination, the enthusiasm will hiss out of the balloon. It's not that we think that she can't run a campaign or doesn't have excellent team members: it's that she's status quo and that excites pretty much no one. The ONLY thing she has that isn't "status quo" is her gender and, while that might get some Boomer women out to vote, it's not going to matter much to the Millennials. Millennials aren't so hung up in gender or sexuality or a lot of the things that have divided the nation previously.

But one thing is for sure, if Millennials DO get out to vote, they would outnumber the Boomers, now. However, without someone to excite them, I don't see them doing so.

Precautionary tale.

that science isn't entirely true considering the same exact poll said the same thing about Obama in 2007.
Real science and math basically say that people who use cell phones are under reported and in the case of these polls, that is a fact.

Thanks for the thread, pinebox.

And if someone will share with me Mr. Goodman's credentials in social science and social science research I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you in advance.

just see the graphic up top. Also know that same poll had the same scores for Obama in 2007 in Iowa

It would be akin to me challenging an oncologist by saying the black spot on the lungs of a patient in an ex-ray is benign when he or she says it's malignant.

Credible pollsters go to great lengths to ensure their polls are accurate and they are measuring what they are intended to measure. If they polls are wrong they will suffer. That's how Gallup lost its contract with CNN and USA Today.

I don't get the reference to IA. At this point in the 08 primary season HRC had a four or so point lead on Obama:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html#polls


She now has a lead of 24 points:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html

So, even if the Vermont independent followed the same trajectory as Barack Obama he would lose IA by ten points.

H.A. Goodman is a dolt ...How confident am I in making that assertion . I will wager $1,000.00 that Hillary Clinton wins the primary. If I win I will give the money away to charity. I am not interested in pecuniary gain or filthy lucre. Money is an encumbrance to me. If I lose the person can keep the money to do with what he or she pleases.

P.S. I will even do a "loser leaves the internet" match with Mr.Goodman. E-mail him my post

"lol@unskewed polls

Check it

You are almost as good at casuistry, obscurantism, and sophistry as H A Goodman...

Let me remake my points. I have already provided the data. I am not going to post it again.

1) I took the five IA polls from this time period; two before this date in 07 and two after it. HRC had a lead of 4.5 points. If anybody believes I am lying[/b ]they can repeat the exercise I did.

2) She was a 24 point lead now. If anybody believes I am lying they can look at the links.

3) So even if the septuagenarian senator from Vermont duplicates Barack Obama's performance he still lose by ten points. We won't even get into the basis for believing that in the first place.

4) H.A. Goodman relies on a a little casuistry, a modicum of sophistry, and a whole lot of obscurantism to make what he believes are points.

5) It is in their self interests for pollsters to be as accurate as possible. Their livelihoods depend on it.

6) I will wager $1,000.00 that Hillary Clinton wins the primary. If I win I will give the money away to charity. I am not interested in pecuniary gain or filthy lucre. Money is an encumbrance to me. If I lose the person can keep the money to do with what he or she pleases.

7) I will even do a "loser leaves the internet" match with Mr.Goodman. E-mail him my post.

You guys are hilarious, whenever someone posts something from Goodman, you Hillary supporters act rabid lol

Look at the poll I posted, the numbers are almost completely identical.

It is what it is.

If you can show me once place where I was less than candid and straightforward you will have a Gold Star that I will provide you by donating to DU...


Everybody can see this challenge. DemocratSInceBirth is passionate but he is also unfailingly honest.


Thank you in advance.

I would be surprised if he ever took a Poli Sci or Stat course but I won't discount the possibility as he might be motivated by naked disingenuousness.

Wow

Several times in past elections...but....all the polls we like are "true" and all the ones we don't like are "crap". But in reality there Are factors contributing to and Skewing the desired results.

I have long contended and posted many times: Polls are only as reliable as the person/group who commissions them are Honest.
I place very little credibility in polls...especially when in person feedback in my community supports my theory.

not doing well shifts. From no name recognition to not enough debates to shewed polls to land lines only to seniors only to not enough Milineals.
Reality is Bernie does not apeal to a big enough base of support.
I am sure we will have new reasons in the near future.

Our children give them to us.