Posted on 03/24/2013 12:47:31 PM PDT by zigzagzoom
Survey after survey has shown that views on basic social issues often move very slowly. But support for marriage equality is turning out to be one big exception to the rule. According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 58 percent of Americans now think it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married. That is an astounding increase from a low of 32 percent less than a decade ago. And in another shift that is seen as directly related to support for equal rights, only 24 percent see homosexuality as a choice, compared to 40 percent almost 20 years ago....
It has long been obvious that support for marriage equality was higher among the young. But the numbers now demonstrate how truly rare it is for a young person to oppose gay marriage. Eighty-one percent of adults younger than 30 support marriage equality, compared to 44 percent of seniors. In both cases, that’s 10 points higher than it was in March 2011, showing how much support for gay marriage has soared in such a short time. Even though Democrats still back marriage equality far more than Republicans—72 percent versus 34 percent—both groups have seen increases in support since 2004, with 18 points for Republicans and 29 points among Democrats.
The poll also appears to demonstrate how Americans are seeing the issue of gay marriage as one of basic rights and fairness, with 64 percent saying its legality should be decided for all states based on the U.S. Constitution....
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Remember, in a large group there'll always be somebody who is more nearly correct than the others.
Why are you obsessing about this? 9% cooperation rate is obviously plenty enough for scientific polling - especially polling that gets the right combination of land line and mobiles. We know this by how accurate it's proven to be in recent elections - despite what people like yourself claim.
I've given you a clear example in the 2012 elections of how accurate polling has become. The state polls, in particular, painted a highly accurate picture. An aggregate of the state polls produced a perfect 50 state prediction rate from people like Nate Silver. Conservative analysts who disputed the polls such as the Dick Morris, that ridiculous "unskewed polls" guy, etc, have admitted they were wrong and the polls and their methodology/models were right.
You're claim that the use of polling to determine public opinion has collapsed is downright silly.
Alas, a 9% response rate creates a condition where a group smaller than the entire population can, with little effort beyond calling each other on their cellphones, make sure that THEIR opinion is substituted for the TOTAL POPULATION sampled.
That's no longer a random sample ~ END OF STORY. That's when you must turn to other methods.
It doesn't surprise me at all to find political types ready to give up random selection ~ they never did really like it did they.
That's no longer a random sample ~ END OF STORY. That's when you must turn to other methods.
Yes, I get that this is your theory. The problem for you is your theory has been proven wrong. You only need look back to November to see that. There was more polling than ever before leading in to the 2012 election and it proved to be extremely accurate. You seem to be avoiding this fact. The state polling, in particular, was amazingly accurate - especially if you used an aggregate of the polls. I don't know how many times I have to say this. I think he's a snot nosed little liberal jerk, but Nate Silver (and others like him) who based their predictions on the polls got it right. In the case of 538 blog and others like it, they got all 50 states right. People like Dick Morris, Barone, etc, who rejected the polls got it wrong - and had to admit as much after the election.
They'll tell you how they dealt with the problem ~ that being the loss of randomnessin the process.
BTW, that's not a 'theory' ~ W. Edwards Deming had a corollary to the problem of declining responses or selections ~ that is, that the more samples you take over a long enough period of time, the closer you get to random selection ~ which means that the fellows with the month after month, week after week, day after day recurring samples of population where they asked the same question actually approached randomness ~ but not for a specific day, or a specific week, or even a specific month ~ those who took static highly stratified surveys could not possibly make enough sample selections to manage the flow of data. They'd never approach randomness in the process.
The point being that the only way to beat the small minority effect is to increase your total sample size into at least 11 times as you've ever planned on doing for a given situation.
If you were doing 1000 calls, you'd need to do 11,000 calls. If you had a multi-question, multi-issue sort of poll or survey, you could easily find yourself needing to do over 100,000 samples just to maintain randomness and to overcome the small minority effect.
Maybe some of them tried that ~ I've been listening closely and no one to my knowledge has come forward and volunteered such information.
“I dont think this one will work for us.”
Not if that attitude prevails.
And my ZOT post is also on that thread.
What is this? You're just babbling and hoping to bluff your way through this debate? Who's fooled? Conservatives that didn't believe the polls leading into November 2012 and had to admit they were wrong and the polls were right?
Man, you are not smarter than all these pollsters when it comes to methodology. You read a few articles and think you know what you're talking about, yet the poll results speak for themselves. These folks know their business pretty well - and are getting better and better at it.
You're STILL avoiding the fact that the 2012 election proves you wrong. The polls were very accurate - especially the state polls. And an aggregate of those polls, as evidenced by statisticians like Nate Silver, allowed him to predict all 50 states correctly. Almost all the polls showed Obama winning, and he won. The state polls painted an ever clearer picture in forecasting an Obama victory AND strong Democratic Senate victories. There were many conservatives, for example, that didn't believe the polls that showed Akin, Mourdoch, etc, losing. Yet they all lost just like the polls said they would.
The point being that the only way to beat the small minority effect is to increase your total sample size into at least 11 times as you've ever planned on doing for a given situation.
Look, you can drone on and on about your theory, but it's just wrong. The response rate is good enough for polling to be accurate. Obviously not every poll is trustworthy as some of them use loaded questions to achieve a result, but basic generic ballot questions, presidential approval, x versus y, etc, are extremely accurate (especially when you can generate an aggregate of polls). We know some polling, such as primary polling, is tough to do and the margin of error is often greater than normal. In the end though, the science and methodology behind polling has come a long way and the results are very accurate. As I keep saying, you only need go back to the 2012 election to see that.
And I enjoyed both thoroughly.
You’re my sweetie!
*blush*
I pegged Romney as a loser early on and demonstrated why he would lose ~ looking at a single voting event.
I began to take notice of the fact the progay polls weren't being supported by public referenda. This particular situation is hardly new ~ the polls have always said the progay stuff would win, then on the day the votes are counted they lose.
Maryland had the gaypolls saying gayness wins, and it won, but guess who counts the ballots.
Use your head ~ this is a Washington Post poll. It may well have originally said gays lose ~ but the Post has a reputation to keep up ~ so the poll will say what they say it means.
Get your argument into line with what PEW says and show something that tells me you know something about statistical sampling methods, even sigma 6 quality control sampling ~ something ~ you have no credentials that I know of. Thousands of Freepers know mine.
I don’t see it so much as a gain in support, as much as people just think it’s inevitable, and they might as well just get it over with.
However, the end result, will be a further emboldening of the radical gay agenda, as they continue their attack on “heteronormative” society.
Maryland had the gaypolls saying gayness wins, and it won, but guess who counts the ballots.
Listen to yourself here. You're now saying when the polls are right, even that isn't enough for you because you don't believe the vote count. You're just throwing out a bunch of conspiracy nonsense.
Use your head ~ this is a Washington Post poll. It may well have originally said gays lose ~ but the Post has a reputation to keep up ~ so the poll will say what they say it means.
What are you talking about? The Washington Post doesn't conduct the poll. They commission an actual polling firm, in this case Langer Research Associates, to do the work for them and ABC. LRA is not reversing results to please the WaPo.
Get your argument into line with what PEW says and show something that tells me you know something about statistical sampling methods, even sigma 6 quality control sampling
Oh good grief, you sound like a fool. This Pew poll you keep citing specifically rejects the argument you are making. In fact, that Pew article referenced by PJ Media says the following:
A new study by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds that, despite declining response rates, telephone surveys that include landlines and cell phones and are weighted to match the demographic composition of the population continue to provide accurate data on most political, social and economic measures. This comports with the consistent record of accuracy achieved by major polls when it comes to estimating election outcomes, among other things.
You are just wrong about polling.
Of course but since I have looked at all pollsters this last cycle they were all very close. This is why sites like 538 and RCP were so right because they averaged everyone.the science of polling is good and getting better.
My pleasure.
The science of random sample public opinion polling is going down the tubes fast ~ a 9% response rate is an unmitigated disaster!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.