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
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
Tue Sep 22, 2015, 11:57 AM Sep 2015

Is this new? "How CNN Doctored up a 'Hillary Bounce' and Got Away with it"

How CNN Doctored up a “Hillary Bounce” and Got Away with it
September 22, 2015 * Accidental Socialist

Like many firm supporters of Bernie Sanders these days,one of my first activities after rolling out of bed is to Google Bernie’s name and click the “news” tab. I woke up today to the top story from CNN titled “Poll: Hillary Clinton’s lead over Bernie Sanders Grows.” Having become used to this type of treatment of Bernie from the corporate media, I clicked it to read and examine whether the headline actually matches the content. My first impression was that this “lead growth” isn’t really very conclusive. Then I looked more closely at the data, and I realized something I could hardly believe – they skewed the results.

The gist of the story was that Clinton’s lead over Sanders, which had been 37% to 27% in this poll, had grown to 42% to 24%. However, the story went on, when Biden is not included on the ballot, that lead balloons to a whopping 57% to 28%. Initially I was willing to take these figures at face value because they comported with the facts that I believe to be true at the moment. The CNN poll has a margin of +/- 5% for this particular question, and both Hillary’s and Bernie’s numbers were within those margin. Secondly, other polls had demonstrated that Joe Biden’s support has significant overlap with Hillary Clinton’s and that his candidacy siphons far more votes away from Clinton than Sanders.

However, something just didn’t sit right with me. Since the previous CNN poll had been taken, Bernie Sanders didn’t have a noteworthy gaffe, and Hillary Clinton didn’t leave a particularly positive impression either at an interview or at a town hall meeting. In fact, most of the news coverage has been on the Republicans because, thanks to our illustrious DNC Chair, the Democrats are receiving a fraction of the media attention due to a limited number of debates. That’s why I decided to delve into the details of the poll, the numbers behind the numbers, and compare the old poll released September 10th and this new one with Clinton’s allegedly increased lead.

Like any respected poll, CNN lays out its methodology to tell you who they interviewed, how many of each group (Democrats, Republicans, independents and so on) and the margins of error. Both polls are prefaced by this statement. Read this one carefully because it contains the key to understanding what CNN did here.

“Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with “N/A”.


http://www.accidentalsocialist.com/how-cnn-doctored-up-a-hillary-bounce-and-got-away-with-it/
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is this new? "How CNN Doctored up a 'Hillary Bounce' and Got Away with it" (Original Post) 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 OP
Funny it doesn't mention the most important aspect of the poll, that it represented only registered still_one Sep 2015 #1
Thats pretty common Travis_0004 Sep 2015 #4
Good point. I do find it strange though that it appeared that those less than 50 were not still_one Sep 2015 #5
under 50 were 25% of respondents questionseverything Sep 2015 #8
Good find. Thanks still_one Sep 2015 #9
Funny how they forgot to poll enough people to represent a sample size for people under 50 jkbRN Sep 2015 #2
That is the most troubling aspect of the poll, and why it may not be an accurate picture of things still_one Sep 2015 #6
Totally agree jkbRN Sep 2015 #7
Several in GD-P have "explained" this phenomenon... mak3cats Sep 2015 #3
Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast Sep 2015 #10
What was there motivation? Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #11

still_one

(92,190 posts)
1. Funny it doesn't mention the most important aspect of the poll, that it represented only registered
Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:01 PM
Sep 2015

Last edited Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)

voters.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
4. Thats pretty common
Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:42 PM
Sep 2015

It makes sense to poll only people who are likely to vote, and being registered goes a way to showing some intent to vote.

If there was somebody who was 40 and never registed to vote, I would assume the odds of them actually voting is quite low.

still_one

(92,190 posts)
5. Good point. I do find it strange though that it appeared that those less than 50 were not
Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:53 PM
Sep 2015

included in this poll. That implies that those less than 50 were not registered in significant numbers, and that in itself may indicate this poll is an outlier

questionseverything

(9,654 posts)
8. under 50 were 25% of respondents
Tue Sep 22, 2015, 01:21 PM
Sep 2015

we know approximately how many were polled in 2 columns,the 2 over 50

8moe 156
8.5moe 138
=294 over 50

392-294=98

98 =25% of 392 total voters

of those under 50 voters, 47 vote for bernie ,37 hc,14 others

i was mistaken earlier thinking it showed even lower but a 75/25 split is not a good sample

http://www.lifestylesurvey.org.uk/05_methods/sampsize.html

jkbRN

(850 posts)
2. Funny how they forgot to poll enough people to represent a sample size for people under 50
Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:06 PM
Sep 2015

...in a national poll

still_one

(92,190 posts)
6. That is the most troubling aspect of the poll, and why it may not be an accurate picture of things
Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:55 PM
Sep 2015

mak3cats

(1,573 posts)
3. Several in GD-P have "explained" this phenomenon...
Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:11 PM
Sep 2015

...and how it all makes sense. Whatever.

And don't forget - CNN is the network that attributed yesterday's stock declines in Pharma/biotech to one single tweet by Hillary. (Not that universal public outrage over recent obscene drug price-gouging, expressed by many in the media and politics, had AAAAAAANY-thing to do with it.)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Is this new? "How CN...