Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumIs 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 itSeptember 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 Bernies name and click the news tab. I woke up today to the top story from CNN titled Poll: Hillary Clintons 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 isnt 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 Clintons 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 Hillarys and Bernies numbers were within those margin. Secondly, other polls had demonstrated that Joe Bidens support has significant overlap with Hillary Clintons and that his candidacy siphons far more votes away from Clinton than Sanders.
However, something just didnt sit right with me. Since the previous CNN poll had been taken, Bernie Sanders didnt have a noteworthy gaffe, and Hillary Clinton didnt 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. Thats 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 Clintons 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/
still_one
(92,190 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 22, 2015, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)
voters.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)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)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)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
still_one
(92,190 posts)jkbRN
(850 posts)...in a national poll
still_one
(92,190 posts)jkbRN
(850 posts)mak3cats
(1,573 posts)...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.)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Ratings and eyeballs, presumably.