LIKELY VOTER Harris X Aug.23-26: Biden 36%, Sanders 14%, Warren 14%, Harris 6%, Buttigieg 5%

[highplainsdem]

Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2019, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)

FiveThirtyEight added this LV poll result today

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

after posting the RV, registered voter, results of the poll yesterday, which had Biden at 31%:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287255204


_____



Editing to note that this Harris poll uses some unusual terminology, with a "definite" voter category where most pollsters would just say "likely."

538 is using the number for the "definite" category as their own LV or Likely Voter number.

See the subthread starting with reply 7 below for my explanation of this.

I'm not using the "definite voter" terminology Harris uses because it's so odd, compared to LV and RV.

[crazytown]

1. Harris polls. like Morning Consult polls, are not random samples

they are panels, polled online. In other words, they poll the same group of people, week after week.

The recent Monmouth poll is outlier - but these panel polls underestimate moments in voter support.

[Skya Rhen]

6. During the 2016 presidential election, Morning Consult had one of the most accurate national polls..

Morning Consult conducts scientific online polling. It uses a stratified sampling process and multiple nationally recognized vendors to access to tens of millions of Americans. After fielding, Morning Consult applies weights based on age, race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, and region (determined by 2016 Current Population Survey).

During the 2016 presidential election, Morning Consult had one of the most accurate national polls: despite calling the winner of the election incorrectly, it successfully predicted Hillary Clinton winning the national popular vote by 3 percent (she won by 2.1 percent).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Consult

[Princetonian]

2. Wow... voters are really moving their preferences to Joe!

[Demsrule86]

3. They are.

[ooky]

25. Yup.

They must want to win.

[Cha]

4. KICK!

[Vegas Roller]

5. K&R nt

[Celerity]

7. this is incorrect (labelling wise), you're only listing the DEFINITE Voter subgroup

Biden drops to 24% with likely voters, 3% above Sanders who has 21%, Warren drops a lot, to only 6%


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRKBhXsb7jnqSaKL_TKS4IfD5EtIIsd9uYzm0w-6mrRX6A61Oa-aNyFIWN_vW6e9ZbaxKQjOF_LJAb_/pubhtml/sheet?headers=false&gid=0

here is the total (all types)



and here are the two subcategories

Definite and Likely

[highplainsdem]

8. I'm using the numbers 538 used. See their page, the link in my OP.

[Celerity]

9. they can list whatever they like, my post is directly from the poll itself

feel free to look for yourself

do a search on the doc for '36%' as well

[highplainsdem]

10. I'll go with 538's expert judgment of how to read that poll.

[Celerity]

11. lol, that is wilfully ignoring the poll itself

538 picked the Definitive voter sub group as their lead number, why they did that I have no idea, but it is a more narrow number and is not all 'likely voters'

again see for yourself, I am most definitely correct

your are using an 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy

I'll go with 538's expert judgment of how to read that poll.

to try and slant and cover for a mislabelling that is not backed up by the very source (ie. the poll) itself

everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRKBhXsb7jnqSaKL_TKS4IfD5EtIIsd9uYzm0w-6mrRX6A61Oa-aNyFIWN_vW6e9ZbaxKQjOF_LJAb_/pubhtml/sheet?headers=false&gid=0

here are the only two times 36% comes up

the DEFINITE voter subgroup



and a non germane (to this OP) Strong Opposition to Trump level of support for Biden question

[highplainsdem]

12. No, it isn't. It's apparently a decision by 538 that the most likely voters are the

ones Harris calls the Definite voters.

Pollsters typically divide Likely voters from overall Registered voters.

This Harris poll of 1,341 registered voters -- 1,113 Democrats and 228 Independents -- included 786 who said they were definite voters, 411 who said they were likely voters, and 144 who said they were unlikely voters.

The analysts at 538 apparently looked at those three columns and decided the real likely voters there were the definite voters, and they went with that number.

Of those 786 definite voters, Biden got 283 or 36%.

With the LESS LIKELY voters, he got a much lower percentage -- 24% of the "likely" voters (who are less likely to vote than the definite voters) and 21% of the unlikely voters.


I agree with what 538 did here. If voters are given three choices on how likely they are to vote, the "definite" choice is the real likely voter.

[Celerity]

14. sorry, you're just wrong and are also already backtracking and trying to redefine categories as well

as trying to intuit what things IMPLY, which goes beyond the scope of the simple data listings.

If you have labelled your OP 'DEFINITE voters', then that would have been factually correct. Instead you are conflating terms and trying to unskew the poll itself.

Furthermore this below his shows that 538 ITSELF used the OVERALL numbers FROM THE SAME POLL (the ones that showed Biden at 31% etc etc) earlier

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/





Finally, and back to my original point, the POLL ITSELF labels the 786 vote sample as ONLY DEFINITE VOTERS (NOT all likely voters as you are trying to posit)

538 mistakenly used an LV phraseology, and I say mistakenly because it ONLY LISTED THE DEFINITE VOTER PART (a subgroup that does not include any other type), and not the other sub groups

the poll itself never gave a 'Likely voters plus definite voters' cumulative number



the 786 number sample is CLEARLY defined by the poll itself as DEFINITE VOTERS (a discrete category as I will conclusively show right below)




I can even more definitively prove I am right by simple maths



take the 786 (Definite Voters number)

add in the 411 (Likely voters)

and add in the 144 Unlikely voter number

you get

1341

which is THE TOTAL respondent number



and shown by 538 itself as well





you can try and re-label and intuit and unskew and spin it any way you want, but all that is in contradiction of the poll itself's own labelling and data

[highplainsdem]

15. Sigh. You don't seem to understand that 538 has redefined the Harris labels BECAUSE they're

incorrect.

In all my years of reading polls, when I've seen polls that referred to registered voters and likely voters, I have NEVER, until now, seen a pollster refer to "definite" voters, let alone as a category separate from "likely" voters.

538 is straightening this out.

Yes, I know that those three categories add up to the total. Why do you think you need to explain that? It's obvious.

And what's obvious to 538, and to me, and I wish were obvious to you, is that Harris, for these polls, is using "definite" where any other pollster would use "likely."

538 is lumping Harris's "likely" voters -- which as I explained above are NOT as likely voters as their "definite" voters -- in with the "unlikely" voters because they are what most pollsters would not consider likely voters.

And the reason should be obvious from the very small number of unlikely voters.

IF you make the mistake of lumping together the definite and likely voters as Harris categorizes them, you end up with 786 + 411, or 1197 voters surveyed. That's 89% of the 1,341 voters surveyed.

There's no way we're going to see an 89% turnout.

If you consider the Definite voters alone, that's about a 59% turnout, which is much more realistic.

If you don't like 538 using the Definite voter number as the true likely voter number, I suggest you contact them to complain.

But since they just posted the RV and LV -- registered voter and likely voter -- numbers from the new Harris poll (this is a daily tracking poll averaging three days), and they're AGAIN using the Definite voter number as their likely voter number, you're probably going to continue to be unhappy with their poll numbers as posted on 538.

But I'll go with it, because it looks like the most sensible way to utilize the pollster's unusual terminology.

Unless you really believe we're going to see 89% of registered voters turn out, rather then 59%.

What 538 is doing is the ONLY way to get an accurate likely voter number from this poll.

And likely voter results are most interesting.

In this case, they iindicate that support for Biden goes up, among registered voters who are most likely to vote.

I'm NOT going to change the subject line of my OP since the common term used for likely voters is just that.

There really is no such thing as a "definite" voter because none of us are definite voters until we cast a vote.

That Harris poll is simply using confusing termiology, which 538 straightened out to make sense for their readers.


And btw, the latest # that poll has for Biden among those likely aka definite voters is 37%, not 36%.

[Celerity]

16. the numbers at the end of your post

And btw, the latest # that poll has for Biden among those likely aka definite voters is 37%, not 36%

are due to different dates

this one is Aug 24-27, not the previous one (August 23-26)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTS1IwxqkfvLgjNxeWUFLzw2Snm0B9frZlSyxVOEB0kHjKwQ-x_ll828rL4KpGvbKGE_bAd7Ezp9gLU/pubhtml/sheet?headers=false&gid=0





vs

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRKBhXsb7jnqSaKL_TKS4IfD5EtIIsd9uYzm0w-6mrRX6A61Oa-aNyFIWN_vW6e9ZbaxKQjOF_LJAb_/pubhtml/sheet?headers=false&gid=0






And I have seen many polls over the years that have listed 'definite' voters as a discrete category, just like this one did




you CANNOT rename a self-defined (BY THE POLL ITSELF) discrete number and claim it to be something it IS NOT

that is not acting in good faith

done here

my case is solid, my case is laid out for anyone to read

[highplainsdem]

17. Again, your complaint about redefining is with 538, since they're the one calling that an LV number.

Harris is using non-standard terminology.

As for the 37% number at the end of my message -- I said that was the latest result from that tracking poll, and I've posted a separate OP about it.

[Celerity]

20. well you now now that the numbers you are posing are for DEFINITE voters, as self-defined by the

poll itself, not for a discrete likely voter category, and not for the combined 'likely plus definite' voter category (which the poll itself does not even list.)

I am going to email 538 myself and ask why they are doing this incorrect conflation of categories.

cheers

[highplainsdem]

21. I'd love to know how Harris defines their "definite voter" category as opposed to

"likely voter."

I've been doing some checking on typical percentages of registered voters who do turn out to vote, and am running into problems because different sources give different numbers. In 2016, Politico and other sources reported that voter registrations hit 200 million for the first time, which would have meant that about 70% of people registered to vote in that election actually voted. I've seen lower total numbers of voter registrations given elsewhere, though.

No matter which numbers I use, though, the percentage of voters Harris has as definite voters seems lower than typical turnout, while the combined definite + likely is higher than typical turnout.

[Celerity]

23. I would think they ask them their likelihood of voting and offer a continuum of answers

I emailed 538 to ask them about all this. They have always replied in the past (almost all sites and reporters I have emailed have replied) so we shall see what they say/do.


To answer the HarrisX specific questions, try messaging them

https://scottrasmussen.com/contact/

[highplainsdem]

22. Btw, here's a HuffPo article on how the different ways pollstes define likely voters can

completely change the results:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/polls-elections-likely-voter_n_568ea127e4b0a2b6fb6f0bf1

Recent elections show the hazards of erring toward either side. Pollsters including Gallup miscalled the 2012 election in large part because they didn’t expect Obama’s coalition of young and minority voters to turn out as strongly as that demographic did. In the 2014 midterms, some pollsters included too many Democrats and missed a Republican wave.

That 2014 miss prompted Pew Research to dig into its own polling data to figure out what caused their polls to underestimate Republican support. The organization found that one of the biggest factors was determining who the likely voters were. How pollsters made that call could change the estimate by up to 8 percentage points.

But there’s not much consensus on how to best identify likely voters. Pew’s newly-released report details how the same polling data on 2014 House races can shift from a 2-point Democratic lead to a 6-point Republican lead, depending on how likely voters are chosen. The data itself wasn’t biased toward either party; the differences are all in the likely voter calculation.

In testing 14 commonly used ways to identify likely voters, Pew found that any attempt to screen for likely voters is an improvement over including all registered voters, or even all those who say that they intend to vote, “both of which include far too many people who ultimately will not cast a ballot,” according to the report.

[Celerity]

24. all that is why I go with a main headline number and never base trends off one or even a few polls

over a short time frame. As I said in another reply on this thread ( https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287255855#post19 ) , I am not putting much faith in that Monmouth poll for instance.

I think it will be shown to be an outlier, much like that poll that showed Pete at 25% in Iowa a while back (right before that cop shooting in South Bend, which is turning out to be the stake that did him in, as he was really gaining traction, including being up to 6% with A-A voters in SC, his weakest state of the first ones) >>>>>


https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287198007

**There's a new sheriff in Iowa and his name is Pete Buttigieg** Pete 25% Elizabeth 18% Bernie 16%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ymbocHDaQhK_kXU8VxIUdADKMZR3ZtDqjWUfuuk2GhA/edit#gid=0

Iowa
JUN 29-JUL 4, 2019
C+
Change Research
420 LV
Buttigieg
25%
7Warren
18%
Sanders
16%
Biden
16%
Harris
16%
O'Rourke
2%

[Hortensis]

18. Lol. Under any label, Celerity doesn't seem to like those numbers.

Oh, well. I don't like the Monmouth poll but will let time discredit it. Off to bed.

[Celerity]

19. I am neutral in regards to the numbers, there are what they are. I do not like incorrect labelling,

that is all.

I am NOT arguing in favour of the Monmouth poll. It appears to be a massive outlier as of now.

The only thing in terms of the numbers for any poll atm that I am disappointed in is Buttigieg's, but I am also a realist and admit that as of this moment, (and have stated this for a fairly long time now, including multiple detailed posts ( example here https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287249648#post14 as to why.) I do not see him as having much of a chance to win the nomination this time around.

I will vote for Pete in the California primary, but as it currently stands (and barring some catastrophic collapse), I am 80% plus sure I will voting for Biden in the general (the other 20% chance is simply another Democratic nominee.)

[Hortensis]

27. :) I wasn't making fun of your candidate preferences, Celerity.

But we're now in the poll blizzard season. They're going to be coming at us right up to the national convention next year, and then the superstorm on its tail will blow right up to November 3, 2020.

We need to pace ourselves.

The first thing I did was look at the overall rating given this polling company and then would have just passed on and waited to see what came next if I hadn't gotten hooked in by their "definitely" category.

[Celerity]

28. fair enough

[oasis]

13. Reality settles in.

[comradebillyboy]

26. I am sad that Kamala Harris seems stuck and I'm sad that

Warren hasn't moved ahead of Sanders in the polling averages. Oh well, I can easily support Biden if he's the nominee.