The people conducting the polls use a technique called random sampling to select candidates from a pool that gives more accuracy. But it’s not perfect and the academics think it’s sus too (I dropped a few studies in another comment).
You have to dig for it a bit, but the actual survey can be downloaded (as a pdf) from CNBC. Their data show bias. The data over-representing people over 60. Their education numbers are biased towards the less educated. Their racial numbers are biased (slightly) towards white people. Their income numbers are biased towards wealthier people.
Their voting data shows a major bias towards people who voted, but I’m actually okay with that one, at least in the context of the political reporting. The people who didn’t vote’s opinion on the political situation in the US is not as important as the people who voted. As part of an economic survey about holiday spending that also asked questions about the recent election, it’s not so great though.
No one of those biases would be a big deal, but in totality they add up to a significant and misleading bias that favors the opinions of older, white, middle-class respondents who vote and graduated high school (but attained no further education). That demographic is also the biggest consumer of CNBC content, so the reason for the bias seems fairly obvious. And again, as an “All-America Economic Survey” that’s not really a big deal, especially considering the massive gaps in the data they polled. But as a barometer for political opinion it skews the data in very important and meaningful ways.
Yeah, I’m not sure how anyone can see “1,000 people accurately represent 330+ million people” and say say, “yep, sounds about right, that does.”
The people conducting the polls use a technique called random sampling to select candidates from a pool that gives more accuracy. But it’s not perfect and the academics think it’s sus too (I dropped a few studies in another comment).
You have to dig for it a bit, but the actual survey can be downloaded (as a pdf) from CNBC. Their data show bias. The data over-representing people over 60. Their education numbers are biased towards the less educated. Their racial numbers are biased (slightly) towards white people. Their income numbers are biased towards wealthier people.
Their voting data shows a major bias towards people who voted, but I’m actually okay with that one, at least in the context of the political reporting. The people who didn’t vote’s opinion on the political situation in the US is not as important as the people who voted. As part of an economic survey about holiday spending that also asked questions about the recent election, it’s not so great though.
No one of those biases would be a big deal, but in totality they add up to a significant and misleading bias that favors the opinions of older, white, middle-class respondents who vote and graduated high school (but attained no further education). That demographic is also the biggest consumer of CNBC content, so the reason for the bias seems fairly obvious. And again, as an “All-America Economic Survey” that’s not really a big deal, especially considering the massive gaps in the data they polled. But as a barometer for political opinion it skews the data in very important and meaningful ways.
The fact that the polling outfit is used primarily by Republican organizations is suspect, IMO.