2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMy PSA re: the Monmouth Poll, source of so much consternation
Their methodology with the operative sentence underlined:
to 25, 2015 with a statewide random sample of 400 Iowa voters drawn from a list of registered Democratic voters who voted
in at least one of the last two state primary elections and indicate they are likely to attend the Democratic presidential caucuses
in February 2016. This includes 300 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 100 contacted by a live
interviewer on a cell phone, in English. Monmouth is responsible for all aspects of the survey design, data weighting and
analysis. Final sample is weighted for age and gender based on state registration list information on the pool of voters who
participate in primary elections. Data collection support provided by Braun Research (field) and Aristotle (voter list). For
results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling has a maximum
margin of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points (unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups
(see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in
conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.
If you have any questions re their methodology they can be contacted here:
PATRICK MURRAY
732-979-6769 (cell); 732-263-5858 (office)
pdmurray@monmouth.edu
Follow on Twitter: @PollsterPatrick
Have a nice day.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)than straight primary elections. The demographics for caucuses are what they are,there's no need to "unskewer" the poll,it speaks to who shows up for caucuses.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The truth of this played out in Texas that year. Texas had a system of a primary and a caucus. Hillary won the primary and Obama won the caucus.
The caucuses made all the difference that year.
ccinamon
(1,696 posts)Interesting the things you learn!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)His ground game is proving awesome ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=729875 ...
If you believe that endorsements, actually, matter.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)studied by campaign organisers for decades,it was flawless. Hillary's campaign learned it's lesson and so did O'Mally's. Sander's campaign didn't and it will cost them.
oasis
(49,376 posts)FSogol
(45,473 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)But you know a poll only means something if it is an unscientific online poll that has Bernie winning all 50 states and sponsored by the Powdered Wig Society or Mika.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)fellow Democrats should be a bannable offense, considering DU's TOS.
Not EVERY Bernie fan believes online polls mean anything.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I questioned quinnipiac's methodology, e-mailed them, and we would had a pleasant back and forth exchange. I went through the same process with gallup.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Found conservative polls to tell them the Conservative truth.
They still lost.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)But I am not invested in them being wrong. If I was invested in them being wrong I would contact them.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Is that Sanders is leading a revolution and people who have not voted will rise up to shake the foundations of power.
It is dificult to poll for a revolution.
If they polled people who have not voted and are not registered, what would that mean?
If at the Caucus we see a massive spike in participation, I suspect that will be good for Sanders.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)But that wouldn't be nearly as fun.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)riversedge
(70,186 posts)I do not know how update this is and if someone has a better rating site, let us know
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It's still very nice to see who the adults in the room are going for. The people who are a part of the process and this isn't their first rodeo. Even without weighting what you are looking at are the non-LIV's numbers. All polls tell something. This one tells a ton.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I am sure he would be happy to defend his methodology.
William769
(55,144 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I smell an outlier. AS best I can tell, Monmouth hasn't polled Iowa before. They may need some local experience.
Still... Go Hillary!
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)How in the hell is that representative of the Iowa Democratic caucusers?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)That is the purpose of my PSA.