Using the CNN poll data, it appears Bernie is ahead of Hillary among young voters NATIONALLY!!!

[reformist2]

These two lists below are the actual published results:

ALL VOTERS:

Hillary: 42%
Bernie: 24%
Biden: 22%
Other: 12%

VOTERS 50+ YRS

Hillary: 48%
Bernie: 19%
Biden: 21%
Other: 12%

Then, for voters younger than 50 years old, CNN oddly decided to hide the numbers with a bunch of "NA"s, meaning not statistically meaningful.

However, it is possible to tease out the results, statistically shaky as they are. Anyone knows that if you have polling data from two groups of equal size, then the overall polling results will be the average of the two data sets. So all you need to do is to plug in the numbers for the young voters, that when averaged with the numbers for the old voters, produce the CNN polling results.

Here's what I get:

VOTERS UNDER 50 YRS (assuming they made up 1/2 of people polled)

Hillary: 36%
Bernie: 29%
Biden: 23%
Other: 12%

And this assumes the two groups were of equal size. Since CNN obviously didn't have young voters in their poll, let's say the under 50 crowd made up only 1/3 of those polled. In that case, I get the following numbers:

VOTERS UNDER 50 YRS (assuming they made up 1/3 of people polled)

Bernie: 34%
Hillary: 30%
Biden: 24%
Other: 12%

Here's the upshot. It appears BERNIE IS SLIGHTLY AHEAD OF HILLARY AMONG YOUNG VOTERS NATIONALLY.

Maybe that's why they hid the numbers!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Sorry, that doesn't fit the media narrative

that Bernie has 'peaked' and is now sliding downhill as Hillary 'regroups'.

[Maedhros]

2. Your analysis is interesting, but very speculative.

That said, I believe that young people are behind Sanders in much larger numbers than Hillary. Nobody wants to discuss this, though, because it counters the prevailing manufactured narrative.

[reformist2]

3. True. But if Bernie's 19% number among seniors is meaningful, and his 24% overall is meaningful...

...then estimating he has at least 29% support among young (under 50) voters makes perfect sense, and seems just as meaningful a number as the other two. Extrapolating higher is a bit risky, I'll grant you that.

[Maedhros]

16. I agree with you that your conclusion seems to be correct, and your method for arriving at it sound.

Personally, I agree with the other poster who said that polling firms deliver the results requested by their employer. Sometimes that requires massaging the data a bit, such as cutting out a demographic or two.

[MANative]

4. Lovely - but only means something if he can actually...

persuade them to get off their asses and to the polls. Hillary's stronger support in older demographics - well, those are the people who are more reliably "likely voters."

[reformist2]

8. That's not even true. 56% of voters in 2012 were under 50. Only 44% were 50 or more.

Just add up the little numbers next to the age groups, and see for yourself.

[LiberalArkie]

11. So younger than 40 won it for Obama. Interesting.

[reformist2]

17. The youth voting bloc is underappreciated, isn't it. And yet it's already elected a president. Twice

[hack89]

5. Given that groups abysmal historical voting rate

It remains to be seen if it actually means anything significant. If history holds true than the election will be decided by voters 50 and older.

[treestar]

7. 50 and older is baby boomer, too

probably a much higher number of individual voters.

[reformist2]

10. The voter breakdown in 2012 - 56% of voters were under 50. Only 44% were 50 or more.

[hack89]

12. Huge difference between GE and primaries

not only significantly fewer voters (as low as 10% in many states) but many times a completely different demographic. In California, for example, primary voters are clearly not a microcosm of the larger GE electorate.

Thus far we have shown that turnout in California’s primary elections has been declining over time relative to turnout in the general elections, and that the state’s new open primary system may not be able to reverse this trend. Is the smaller electorate that turns out in the primary simply a microcosm of the larger one that turns out in the fall?

In terms of basic demographics, there is little question that primary electorates have included fewer young people, Latinos, and Asian Americans than the general electorate in the fall (Figure 5). The difference is largest for Latinos, whose share of the electorate has been about seven percentage points higher in the two most recent fall presidential elections. But there are clear differences for young people and Asian Americans as well.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_514EMR.pdf

With significantly fewer voters, voting rates with in various groups takes on greater importance.

[reformist2]

13. That's a good point. So maybe the CNN poll is tailored to reflect likely primary voters?

Even so, it's kind of sad that they won't do a survey thoroughly enough to break down the numbers by age...

[HereSince1628]

15. In primaries, in WI, minority voters also tend to have a low voting history

Frankly, in WI primary voter turnout is crap for every demographic.

This state will go to whoever captures enthusiasm or discourages the most of other's voting base.

Being that WI votes late, discouragement could factor large

[Tommy2Tone]

6. "Maybe that's why they hid the numbers!"

and..maybe since you had no data you just made it up?

[reformist2]

9. No. If Hillary got 42% nationally, and got 48% among the older half, then you can calculate

with reasonable certainty that she got 36% among the younger half. It's easy to do this calculation.

[bvar22]

14. At this stage of the game,

the numbers are not important.
The TREND is what is important.

[PowerToThePeople]

18. 62% of polls over 50 is about the break even point.

At 87.5% over 50 Hillary goes negative percentage with the under 50 crowd.

How many young people were polled?