Polls may actually underestimate Trump's support, study finds

randomname

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
2,712
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-polls-20151221-story.html

Donald Trump leads the GOP presidential field in polls of Republican voters nationally and in most early-voting states, but some polls may actually be understating his support, according to a new study.

The analysis, by Morning Consult, a polling and market research company, looked at an odd occurrence that has cropped up repeatedly this year: Trump generally does better in online polls than in surveys done by phone.

Why is that, and which polls are more accurate -- the online surveys that tend to show Trump with support of nearly four-in-10 GOP voters or the telephone surveys that have generally shown him with the backing of one-third or fewer?

Morning Consult ran an experiment: It polled 2,397 potential Republican voters earlier this month using three different methods -- a traditional telephone survey with live interviewers calling landlines and cellphones, an online survey and an interactive dialing technique that calls people by telephone and asks them to respond to recorded questions by hitting buttons on their phone.

By randomly assigning people to the three different approaches and running all at the same time, they hoped to eliminate factors that might cause results to vary from one poll to another.

The experiment confirmed that "voters are about six points more likely to support Trump when they’re taking the poll online then when they’re talking to a live interviewer,” said Morning Consult's polling director, Kyle Dropp.

"People are slightly less likely to say that they support him when they’re talking to a live human” than when they are in the “anonymous environment” of an online survey, Dropp said.

The most telling part of the experiment, however, was that not all types of people responded the same way. Among blue-collar Republicans, who have formed the core of Trump's support, the polls were about the same regardless of method. But among college-educated Republicans, a bigger difference appeared, with Trump scoring 9 points better in the online poll.

Social-desirability bias -- the well-known tendency of people to hesitate to confess certain unpopular views to a pollster -- provides the most likely explanation for that education gap, Dropp and his colleagues believe.

Blue-collar voters don't feel embarrassed about supporting Trump, who is very popular in their communities. But many college-educated Republicans hesitate to admit their attraction to the blustery New York billionaire, the experiment indicates.

That finding suggests that the online surveys, which show Trump with a larger lead, provide the more accurate measure of what people would do in the anonymity of a voting booth, Dropp said. That might not be as true, however, in a public setting such as the Iowa caucus, where people identify their candidate preference in front of friends and neighbors.

"It’s our sense that a lot of polls are under-reporting Trump’s overall support," he said.
 
And thus the plan to have Hillery as president by nominating Trump as her challenger is complete.
 
Granted I don't hang out among the sheep, but I don't know a single person who supports Donald Trump. Not one. Is it just me?
 
Granted I don't hang out among the sheep, but I don't know a single person who supports Donald Trump. Not one. Is it just me?
Unfortunately, I think it is just you.

I have plenty of low info family and friends who think "Trump is not afraid to say what needs to be said". "He can't do any worse than what we have now." "He's super successful; you don't get that way without being smart."

Never mind that they have absolutely zero evidence to support the idea that Trump actually believes anything he says. Nor, that he hasn't considered the implications of what he is saying now. Nor, that the establishment media is giving him billions of dollars in free advertising (even though he pretends like he isn't receiving corporate donations).

None of that matters. They hear his name a lot and he causes controversy. That's all that it takes to win a reality show. And that's all this is right now.
 
Is it wrong for me to hope that the GOP establishment actually does cheat him out of the nomination at the convention? Seriously, I'm more worried about this idiot winning than dealing with war-hammer Hillary Clinton at this point.
 
Is it wrong for me to hope that the GOP establishment actually does cheat him out of the nomination at the convention? Seriously, I'm more worried about this idiot winning than dealing with war-hammer Hillary Clinton at this point.

No and a thousand times no. Everything was fine for Rand till this imbecile showed up. The GOP gets rid of Chump then Rabd supporters can show up and vote for him as a delegate.

The other thing as bad as the other guys are they are not nearly as bad as Chump. They don't support universal health care not they want to use nuclear bombs.
 
Last edited:
Granted I don't hang out among the sheep, but I don't know a single person who supports Donald Trump. Not one. Is it just me?

Split decision here: I know some 'sheep' who are into Trump while normally ignoring politics, and at least two who cannot believe how well he is doing.
 
Granted I don't hang out among the sheep, but I don't know a single person who supports Donald Trump. Not one. Is it just me?

I know one. And that one just said he would vote for Trump, not that Trump was his choice in the primary. But then again, I live in a county that Ron won by a large amount last time, so I may not be relevant.
 
Granted I don't hang out among the sheep, but I don't know a single person who supports Donald Trump. Not one. Is it just me?
Agree, I have seen more Sanders bumper stickers and signs in my neck of the woods (5) compared to anything remotely trump (0).
 
I'm actually hoping Trump underperforms and Rand outperforms! I still remember Giuliani 08, so anything's possible! :)
 
I'm actually hoping Trump underperforms and Rand outperforms! I still remember Giuliani 08, so anything's possible! :)

This crap about Trump being "under-polled" is resting on the assumption that massive amounts of people who never vote will suddenly show up because all of these people supposedly love a good soap opera. I'm not buying it, and I am definitely hoping that every ignoramus supporting this tool is as dumb as I think they are, because if so then they won't even show up for the primaries.
 
It's just as I thought. I fear that once Iowa rolls around trump will really get 70% of the vote.
 
Trump won't reach 20% in Iowa on February 1. He will place third or fourth.

I'm thinking Trump will probably place 3rd in Iowa, and hopefully a distant third. Most of Trump's supporters (my dad has been drifting back and forth between Cruz and Trump, Rand would be his 3rd choice) have no idea how caucuses work, and hopefully this will be true of his so-called supporters in Iowa.

But seriously, somebody has to knock this knucklehead off his perch at some point, and apparently Cruz is too much of a wuss to do it.
 
A great realistic result in iowa for us would be: cruz first, rand second, trump third (although rand winning would really be a comeback!) :)
 
Ron Paul always scored well in online polls. In their brief history, online polls have not been that accurate.
 
Social-desirability bias -- the well-known tendency of people to hesitate to confess certain unpopular views to a pollster -- provides the most likely explanation for that education gap, Dropp and his colleagues believe.

Off topic, but this explains those polls that show decreasing numbers of households with guns, while gun sales reach record highs.
 
I'd SWAG that a significant number of Trump voters will just go ahead and lie to any pollsters about it.
 
Off topic, but this explains those polls that show decreasing numbers of households with guns, while gun sales reach record highs.

I have heard that explained as more people who already have guns buying more of them. http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822

The number of American households that own one or more guns has again reached its lowest point, according to data from a survey released March 3.

Gun ownership is now back at the low point it reached in 2010: Only 32 percent of Americans own a firearm or live with someone who does, compared with about half the population in the late 1970s and early 1980s, according to the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS). The survey is a project of independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago, with principal funding from the National Science Foundation.

The poll also found that 22 percent of Americans personally own a firearm, down from a high of 31 percent in 1985. The percentage of men who own a firearm is down from 50 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 2014, while the number of women who own a gun has remained relatively steady since 1980, coming in at 12 percent in 2014.

Though the number of firearm purchases has most likely gone up, according to data from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system, those firearms are owned by fewer individuals. In other words, the average gun owner probably owns more guns.

“It is likely that the average number of guns in households with guns has probably gone up,” says Smith, but it’s difficult to be certain. Using background check numbers, he says, can be misleading for two reasons. First, every background check does not necessarily translate into a purchase. And background checks take into account only purchases from licensed dealers; they do not include firearms acquired at gun shows, by inheritance or through illegal channels. “As far as I know, no one has good numbers on the volume of guns moving” outside the purview of licensed dealers, Smith says, but it is certainly significant.

The decline in gun ownership also coincides with a decrease in the number of Americans who live in a household with at least one hunter. In 1977, 32 percent of respondents reported that they and/or their spouse hunted, while in 2014 only 15 percent said the same.

Because the top two reasons people cite for purchasing guns are hunting and self-protection, Smith says, he attributes the “substantial decline” in households with guns and personal gun ownership to the decline in hunting and the decrease in violent crime rates since the 1990s.
Article was from March.
 
Back
Top