Archive for the 'Election polling' Category

POLL-ARIZED available on May 10

I’m excited to announce that my book, POLL-ARIZED, will be available on May 10.
 
After the last two presidential elections, I was fearful my clients would ask a question I didn’t know how to answer: “If pollsters can’t predict something as simple as an election, why should I believe my market research surveys are accurate?”
 
POLL-ARIZED results from a year-long rabbit hole that question led me down! In the process, I learned a lot about why polls matter, how today’s pollsters are struggling, and what the insights industry should do to improve data quality.
 
I am looking for a few more people to read an advance copy of the book and write an Amazon review on May 10. If you are interested, please send me a message at poll-arized@cruxresearch.com.

Let’s Appreciate Statisticians Who Make Data Understandable

Statistical analyses are amazing, underrated tools. All scientific fields depend on discoveries in statistics to make inferences and draw conclusions. Without statistics, advances in engineering, medicine, and science that have greatly improved the quality of life would not have been possible. Statistics is the Rodney Dangerfield of academic subjects – it never gets the respect it deserves.

Statistics is central to market research and polling. We use statistics to describe our findings and understand the relationships between variables in our data sets. Statistics are the most important tools we have as researchers.

However, we often misuse these tools. I firmly believe that pollsters and market researchers overdo it with statistics. Basic, statistical analyses are easy to understand, but complicated ones are not. Researchers like to get into complex statistics because it lends an air of expertise to what we do.

Unfortunately, most sophisticated techniques are impossible to convey to “normal” people who may not have a statistical background, and this tends to describe the decision-makers we support.

I learned long ago that when working with a dataset, any result that will be meaningful will likely be uncovered by using simple descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations. Multivariate techniques can tease out more subtle relationships in the data. Still, the clients (primarily marketers) we work with are not looking for subtleties – they want some conclusions that leap off the page from the data.

If a result is so subtle that it needs complicated statistics to find, it is likely not a large enough result to be acted upon by a client.

Because of this, we tend to use multivariate techniques to confirm what we see with more straightforward methods. Not always – as there are certainly times when the client objectives call for sophisticated techniques. But, as researchers, our default should be to use the most straightforward designs possible.

I always admire researchers who make complicated things understandable. That should be the goal of statistical analyses. George Terhanian of Electric Insights has developed a way to use sophisticated statistical techniques to answer some of the most fundamental questions a marketer will ask.

In his article “Hit? Stand? Double? Master’ likely effects’ to make the right call”, George describes his revolutionary process. It is sophisticated behind the scenes, but I like the simplicity in the questions it can address.

He has created a simulation technique that makes sense of complicated data sets. You may measure hundreds of things on a survey and have an excellent profile of the attitudes and behaviors of your customer base. But, where should you focus your investments? This technique demonstrates the likely effects of changes.

As marketers, we cannot directly increase sales. But we can establish and influence attitudes and behaviors that result in sales. Our problem is often to identify which of these attitudes and behaviors to address.

For instance, if I can convince my customer base that my product is environmentally responsible, how many of them can I count on to buy more of my product? The type of simulator described in this article can answer this question, and as a marketer, I can then weigh if the investment necessary is worth the probable payoff.

George created a simulator on some data from a recent Crux Poll. Our poll showed that 17% of Americans trust pollsters. George’s analysis shows that trust in pollsters is directly related to their performance in predicting elections.

Modeling the Crux Poll data showed that if all Americans “strongly agreed” that presidential election polls do a good job of predicting who will win, trust in pollsters/polling organizations would increase by 44 million adults. If Americans feel “extremely confident” that pollsters will accurately predict the 2024 election, trust in pollsters will increase by an additional 40 million adults.

If we are worried that pollsters are untrusted, this suggests that improving the quality of our predictions should address the issue.

Putting research findings in these sorts of terms is what gets our clients’ attention. 

Marketers need this type of quantification because it can plug right into financial plans. Researchers often hear that the reports we provide are not “actionable” enough. There is not much more actionable than showing how many customers would be expected to change their behavior if we successfully invest in a marketing campaign to change an attitude.

Successful marketing is all about putting the probabilities in your favor. Nothing is certain, but as a marketer, your job is to decide where best place your resources (money and time). This type of modeling is a step in the right direction for market researchers.

CRUX POLL SHOWS THAT JUST 17% OF AMERICANS TRUST POLLSTERS

ROCHESTER, NY – OCTOBER 20, 2021 – Polling results released today by Crux Research indicate that just 17% of U.S. adults have “very high trust” or “high trust” in pollsters/polling organizations.

Just 21% of U.S. adults felt that polling organizations did an “excellent” or “good” job in predicting the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. 40% of adults who were polled in the 2020 election felt the poll they responded to was biased.

Trust in pollsters is higher among Democrats than it is among Republicans and Independents. Pollster trust is highest among adults under 30 years old and lowest among those over 50. This variability can contribute to the challenges pollsters face, as cooperation with polls may also vary among these groups.

It has been a difficult stretch of time for pollsters. 51% of Americans feel that Presidential election polls are getting less accurate over time. And, just 12% are confident that polling organizations will correctly predict the next President in 2024.

The poll results show that there are trusted institutions and professions in America. Nurses are the most trusted profession, followed by medical doctors and pharmacists. Telemarketers, car salespersons, social media companies, Members of Congress, and advertising agencies are the least trusted professions.

###

Methodology

This poll was conducted online between October 6 and October 17, 2021. The sample size was 1,198 U.S. adults (aged 18 and over). Quota sampling and weighting were employed to ensure that respondent proportions for age group, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and region matched their actual proportions in the population.   

This poll did not have a sponsor and was conducted and funded by Crux Research, an independent market research firm that is not in any way associated with political parties, candidates, or the media.

All surveys and polls are subject to many sources of error. The term “margin of error” is misleading for online polls, which are not based on a probability sample which is a requirement for margin of error calculations. If this study did use probability sampling, the margin of error would be +/-3%.

About Crux Research Inc.

Crux Research partners with clients to develop winning products and services, build powerful brands, create engaging marketing strategies, enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty, improve products and services, and get the most out of their advertising.

Using quantitative and qualitative methods, Crux connects organizations with their customers in a wide range of industries, including health care, education, consumer goods, financial services, media and advertising, automotive, technology, retail, business-to-business, and non-profits.

Crux connects decision makers with customers, uses data to inspire new thinking, and assures clients they are being served by experienced, senior level researchers who set the standard for customer service from a survey research and polling consultant. To learn more about Crux Research, visit www.cruxresearch.com.

A forgotten man: rural respondents

I have attended hundreds of focus groups. These are moderated small group discussions, typically with anywhere from 4 to 12 participants. The discussions take place in a tricked-out conference room, decked with recording equipment and a one-way mirror. Researchers and clients sit behind this one-way mirror in a cushy, multi-tiered lounge. The lounge has comfortable chairs, a refrigerator with beer and wine, and an insane number of M&M’s. Experienced researchers have learned to sit as far away from the M&M’s as possible.

Focus groups are used for many purposes. Clients use them to test out new product ideas or new advertising under development. We recommend them to clients if their objectives do not seem quite ready for survey research. We also like to do focus groups after a survey research project is complete, to put some personality on our data and to have an opportunity to pursue unanswered questions.

I would estimate that at least half of all focus groups being conducted are being held in just three cities: New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Most of the other half are held in other major cities or in travel destinations like Las Vegas or Orlando. These city choices can have little to do with the project objectives – focus groups tend to be held near where the client’s offices are or in cities that are easy to fly to. Clients often cities simply because they want to go there.

The result is that early-stage product and advertising ideas are almost always evaluated by urban participants or by suburban participants who live near a large city. Smaller city, small town, and rural consumers aren’t an afterthought in focus group research. They aren’t thought about at all.

I’ve always been conscious of this, perhaps because I grew up in a rural town and have never lived in a major metropolitan area. The people I grew up with an knew best were not being asked to provide their opinions.

This isn’t just an issue in qualitative research, it happens with surveys and polls as well. Rural and small-town America is almost always underrepresented in market research projects.

This wasn’t a large issue for quantitative market research early on, as RDD telephone samples could effectively include rural respondents. Many years ago, I started adding questions into questionnaires that would allow me to look at the differences between urban, suburban, and rural respondents. I would often find differences, but pointing them out met with little excitement with clients who often seemed uninterested in targeting their products or marketing to a small-town audience.

Online samples do not include rural respondents as effectively as RDD telephone samples. The rural respondents that are in online sampling data bases are not necessarily representative of rural people. Weighting them upward does not magically make them representative.

In 30 years, I have not had a single client ask me to correct a sample to ensure that rural respondents are properly represented. The result is that most products and services are designed for suburbia and don’t take the specific needs of small-town folks into account.

All biases only matter if they affect what we are measuring. If rural respondents and suburban respondents feel the same way about something, this issue doesn’t matter. However, it can matter. It can matter for product research, it certainly matters to the educational market research we have conducted, and it is likely a hidden cause of some of the problems that have occurred with election polling.

Oops, the polls did it again

Many people had trouble sleeping last night wondering if their candidate was going to be President. I couldn’t sleep because as the night wore on it was becoming clear that this wasn’t going to be a good night for the polls.

Four years ago on the day after the election I wrote about the “epic fail” of the 2016 polls. I couldn’t sleep last night because I realized I was going to have to write another post about another polling failure. While the final vote totals may not be in for some time, it is clear that the 2020 polls are going to be off on the national vote even more than the 2016 polls were.

Yesterday, on election day I received an email from a fellow market researcher and business owner. We are involved in a project together and he was lamenting how poor the data quality has been in his studies recently and was wondering if we were having the same problems.

In 2014 we wrote a blog post that cautioned our clients that we were detecting poor quality interviews that needed to be discarded about 10% of the time. We were having to throw away about 1 in 10 of the interviews we collected.

Six years later that percentage has moved to be between 33% and 45% and we tend to be conservative in the interviews we toss. It is fair to say that for most market research studies today, between a third and a half of the interviews being collected are, for a lack of a better term, junk.  

It has gotten so bad that new firms have sprung up that serve as a go-between from sample providers and online questionnaires in order to protect against junk interviews. They protect against bots, survey farms, duplicate interviews, etc. Just the fact that these firms and terms like “survey farms” exist should give researchers pause regarding data quality.

When I started in market research in the late 80s/early 90’s we had a spreadsheet program that was used to help us cost out projects. One parameter in this spreadsheet was “refusal rate” – the percent of respondents who would outright refuse to take part in a study. While the refusal rate varied by study, the beginning assumption in this program was 40%, meaning that on average we expected 60% of the time respondents would cooperate. 

According to Pew and AAPOR in 2018 the cooperation rate for telephone surveys was 6% and falling rapidly.

Cooperation rates in online surveys are much harder to calculate in a standardized way, but most estimates I have seen and my own experience suggest that typical cooperation rates are about 5%. That means for a 1,000-respondent study, at least 20,000 emails are sent, which is about four times the population of the town I live in.

This is all background to try to explain why the 2020 polls appear to be headed to a historic failure. Election polls are the public face of the market research industry. Relative to most research projects, they are very simple. The problems pollsters have faced in the last few cycles is emblematic of something those working in research know but rarely like to discuss: the quality of data collected for research and polls has been declining, and should be alarming to researchers.

I could go on about the causes of this. We’ve tortured our respondents for a long time. Despite claims to the contrary, we haven’t been able to generate anything close to a probability sample in years. Our methodologists have gotten cocky and feel like they can weight any sampling anomalies away. Clients are forcing us to conduct projects on timelines that make it impossible to guard against poor quality data. We focus on sampling error and ignore more consequential errors. The panels we use have become inbred and gather the same respondents across sources. Suppliers are happy to cash the check and move on to the next project.

This is the research conundrum of our times: in a world where we collect more data on people’s behavior and attitudes than ever before, the quality of the insights we glean from these data is in decline.

Post 2016 the polling industry brain trust rationalized and claimed that the polls actually did a good job, convened some conferences to discuss the polls, and made modest methodological changes. Almost all of these changes related to sampling and weighting. But, as it appears that the 2020 polling miss is going to be way beyond what can be explained by sampling (last night I remarked to my wife that “I bet the p-value of this being due to sampling is about 1 in 1,000”), I feel that pollsters have addressed the wrong problem.

None of the changes pollsters made addressed the long-term problems researchers face with data quality. When you have a response rate of 5% and up to half of those are interviews you need to throw away, errors that can arise are orders of magnitude greater than the errors that are generated by sampling and weighting mistakes.

I don’t want to sound like I have the answers.  Just a few days ago I posted that I thought that on balance there were more reasons to conclude that the polls would do a good job this time than to conclude that they would fail. When I look through my list of potential reasons the polls might fail, nothing leaps to me as an obvious cause, so perhaps the problem is multi-faceted.

What I do know is the market research industry has not done enough to address data quality issues. And every four years the polls seem to bring that into full view.

Will the polls be right this time?

The 2016 election was damaging to the market research industry. The popular perception has been that in 2016 the pollsters missed the mark and miscalled the winner. In reality, the 2016 polls were largely predictive of the national popular vote. But, 2016 was largely seen by non-researchers as disastrous. Pollsters and market researchers have a lot riding on the perceived accuracy of 2020 polls.

The 2016 polls did a good job of predicting the national vote total but in a large majority of cases final national polls were off in the direction of overpredicting the vote for Clinton and underpredicting the vote for Trump. That is pretty much a textbook definition of bias. Before the books are closed on the 2016 pollster’s performance, it is important to note that the 2012 polls were off even further and mostly in the direction of overpredicting the vote for Romney and underpredicting the vote for Obama. The “bias,” although small, has swung back and forth between parties.

Election Day 2020 is in a few days and we may not know the final results for a while. It won’t be possible to truly know how the polls did for some weeks or months.

That said, there are reasons to believe that the 2020 polls will do an excellent job of predicting voter behavior and there are reasons to believe they may miss the mark.  

There are specific reasons why it is reasonable to expect that the 2020 polls will be accurate. So, what is different in 2020? 

  • There have been fewer undecided voters at all stages of the process. Most voters have had their minds made up well in advance of election Tuesday. This makes things simpler from a pollster’s perspective. A polarized and engaged electorate is one whose behavior is predictable. Figuring out how to partition undecided voters moves polling more in a direction of “art” than “science.”
  • Perhaps because of this, polls have been remarkably stable for months. In 2016, there was movement in the polls throughout and particularly over the last two weeks of the campaign. This time, the polls look about like they did weeks and even months ago.
  • Turnout will be very high. The art in polling is in predicting who will turn out and a high turnout election is much easier to forecast than a low turnout election.
  • There has been considerable early voting. There is always less error in asking about what someone has recently done than what they intend to do in the future. Later polls could ask many respondents how they voted instead of how they intended to vote.
  • There have been more polls this time. As our sample size of polls increases so does the accuracy. Of course, there are also more bad polls out there this cycle as well.
  • There have been more and better polls in the swing states this time. The true problem pollsters had in 2016 was with state-level polls. There was less attention paid to them, and because the national pollsters and media didn’t invest much in them, the state-level polling is where it all went wrong. This time, there has been more investment in swing-state polling.
  • The media invested more in polls this time. A hidden secret in polling is that election polls rarely make money for the pollster. This keeps many excellent research organizations from getting involved in them or dedicating resources to them. The ones that do tend to do so solely for reputational reasons. An increased investment this time has helped to get more researchers involved in election polling.
  • Response rates are upslightly. 2020 is the first year where we have seen a long-term trend towards declining response rates on survey stabilize and even kick up a little. This is likely a minor factor in the success of the 2020 polls, but it is in the right direction.
  • The race isn’t as close as it was in 2016. This one might only be appreciated by statisticians. Since variability is maximized in a 50/50 distribution the further away from an even race it is the more accurate a poll will be. This is another small factor in the direction of the polls being accurate in 2020.
  • There has not been late breaking news that could influence voter behavior. In 2016, the FBI director’s decision to announce a probe into Clinton’s emails came late in the campaign. There haven’t been any similar bombshells this time.
  • Pollsters started setting quotas and weighting on education. In the past, pollsters would balance samples on characteristics known to correlate highly with voting behavior – characteristics like age, gender, political party affiliation, race/ethnicity, and past voting behavior. In 2016, pollsters learned the hard way that educational attainment had become an additional characteristic to consider when crafting samples because voter preferences vary by education level. The good polls fixed that this go round.
  • In a similar vein, there has been a tighter scrutiny of polling methodology. While the media can still be a cavalier about digging into methodology, this time they were more likely to insist that pollsters outline their methods. This is the first time I can remember seeing news stories where pollsters were asked questions about methodology.
  • The notion that there are Trump supporters who intentionally lie to pollsters has largely been disproven by studies from very credible sources, such as Yale and Pew. Much more relevant is the pollster’s ability to predict turnout from both sides.

There are a few things going on that give the polls some potential to lay an egg.

  • The election will be decided by a small number of swing states. Swing state polls are not as accurate and are often funded by local media and universities that don’t have the funding or the expertise to do them correctly. The polls are close and less stable in these states. There is some indication that swing state polls have been tightening, and Biden’s lead in many of them isn’t much different than Clinton’s lead in 2020.
  • Biden may be making the same mistake Clinton made. This is a political and not a research-related reason, but in 2016 Clinton failed to aggressively campaign in the key states late in the campaign while Trump went all in. History could be repeating itself. Field work for final polls is largely over now, so the polls will not reflect things that happen the last few days.
  • If there is a wild-card that will affect polling accuracy in 2020, it is likely to center around how people are voting. Pollsters have been predicting election day voting for decades. In this cycle votes have been coming in for weeks and the methods and rules around early voting vary widely by state. Pollsters just don’t have past experience with early voting.
  • There is really no way for pollsters to account for potential disqualifications for mail-in votes (improper signatures, late receipts, legal challenges, etc.) that may skew to one candidate or another.
  • Similarly, any systematic voter suppression would likely cause the polls to underpredict Trump. These voters are available to poll, but may not be able to cast a valid vote.
  • There has been little mention of third-party candidates in polling results. The Libertarian candidate is on the ballot in all 50 states. The Green Party candidate is on the ballot in 31 states. Other parties have candidates on the ballot in some states but not others. These candidates aren’t expected to garner a lot of votes, but in a close election even a few percentage points could matter to the results. I have seen national polls from reputable organizations where they weren’t included.
  • While there is little credible data supporting that there are “shy” Trump voters that are intentionally lying to pollsters, there still might be a social desirability bias that would undercount Trump’s support. That social desirability bias could be larger than it was in 2016, and it is still likely in the direction of under predicting Trump’s vote count.
  • Polls (and research surveys) tend to underrepresent rural areas. Folks in rural areas are less likely to be in online panels and to cooperate on surveys. Few pollsters take this into account. (I have never seen a corporate research client correcting for this, and it has been a pet peeve of mine for years.) This is a sample coverage issue that will likely undercount the Trump vote.
  • Sampling has continued to get harder. Cell phone penetration has continued to grow, online panel quality has fallen, and our best option (ABS sampling) is still far from random and so expensive it is beyond the reach of most polls.
  • “Herding” is a rarely discussed, but very real polling problem. Herding refers to pollsters who conduct a poll that doesn’t conform to what other polls are finding. These polls tend to get scrutinized and reweighted until they fit to expectations, or even worse, buried and never released. Think about it – if you are a respected polling organization that conducted a recent poll that showed Trump would win the popular vote, you’d review this poll intensely before releasing it and you might choose not to release it at all because it might put your firm’s reputation at risk to release a poll that looks different than the others. The only polls I have seen that appear to be out of range are ones from smaller organizations who are likely willing to run the risk of being viewed as predicting against the tide or who clearly have a political bias to them.

Once the dust settles, we will compose a post that analyzes how the 2020 polls did. For now, we feel there are a more credible reasons to believe the polls will be seen as predictive than to feel that we are on the edge of a polling mistake.  From a researcher’s standpoint, the biggest worry is that the polls will indeed be accurate, but won’t match the vote totals because of technicalities in vote counting and legal challenges. That would reflect unfairly on the polling and research industries.

“Margin of error” sort of explained (+/-5%)

It is now September of an election year. Get ready for a two-month deluge of polls and commentary on them. One thing you can count on is reporters and pundits misinterpreting the meaning behind “margin of error.” This post is meant to simplify the concept.

Margin of error refers to sampling error and is present on every poll or market research survey. It can be mathematically calculated. All polls seek to figure out what everybody thinks by asking a small sample of people. There is always some degree of error in this.

The formula for margin of error is fairly simple and depends mostly on two things: how many people are surveyed and their variability of response. The more people you interview, the lower (better) the margin of error. The more the people you interview give the same response (lower variability), the better the margin of error. If a poll interviews a lot of people and they all seem to be saying the same thing, the margin of error of the poll is low. If the poll interviews a small number of people and they disagree a lot, the margin of error is high.

Most reporters understand that a poll with a lot of respondents is better than one with fewer respondents. But most don’t understand the variability component.

There is another assumption used in the calculation for sampling error as well: the confidence level desired. Almost every pollster will use a 95% confidence level, so for this explanation we don’t have to worry too much about that.

What does it mean to be within the margin of error on a poll? It simply means that the two percentages being compared can be deemed different from one another with 95% confidence. Put another way, if the poll was repeated a zillion times, we’d expect that at least 19 out of 20 times the two numbers would be different.

If Biden is leading Trump in a poll by 8 points and the margin of error is 5 points, we can be confident he is really ahead because this lead is outside the margin of error. Not perfectly confident, but more than 95% confident.

Here is where reporters and pundits mess it up.  Say they are reporting on a poll with a 5-point margin of error and Biden is leading Trump by 4 points. Because this lead is within the margin of error, they will often call it a “statistical dead heat” or say something that implies that the race is tied.

Neither is true. The only way for a poll to have a statistical dead heat is for the exact same number of people to choose each candidate. In this example the race isn’t tied at all, we just have a less than 95% confidence that Biden is leading. In this example, we might be 90% sure that Biden is leading Trump. So, why would anyone call that a statistical dead heat? It would be way better to be reporting the level of confidence that we have that Biden is winning, or the p-value of the result. I have never seen a reporter do that, but some of the election prediction websites do.

Pollsters themselves will misinterpret the concept. They will deem their poll “accurate” as long as the election result is within the margin of error. In close elections this isn’t helpful, as what really matters is making a correct prediction of what will happen.

Most of the 2016 final polls were accurate if you define being accurate as coming within the margin of error. But, since almost all of them predicted the wrong winner, I don’t think we will see future textbooks holding 2016 out there as a zenith of polling accuracy.

Another mistake reporters (and researchers make) is not recognizing that the margin of error only refers to sampling error which is just one of many errors that can occur on a poll. The poor performance of the 2016 presidential polls really had nothing to do with sampling error at all.

I’ve always questioned why there is so much emphasis on sampling error for a couple of reasons. First, the calculation of sampling error assumes you are working with a random sample which in today’s polling world is almost never the case. Second, there are many other types of errors in survey research that are likely more relevant to a poll’s accuracy than sampling error. The focus on sampling error is driven largely because it is the easiest error to mathematically calculate. Margin of error is useful to consider, but needs to be put in context of all the other types of errors that can happen in a poll.

Among college students, Bernie Sanders is the overwhelming choice for the Democratic nomination

Crux Research poll of college students shows Sanders at 23%, Biden at 16%, and all other candidates under 10%

ROCHESTER, NY – October 10, 2019 – Polling results released today by Crux Research show that if it was up to college students, Bernie Sanders would win the Democratic nomination the US Presidency. Sanders is the favored candidate for the nomination among 23% of college students compared to 16% for Joe Biden. Elizabeth Warren is favored by 8% of college students followed by 7% support for Andrew Yang.

  • Bernie Sanders: 23%
  • Joe Biden: 16%
  • Elizabeth Warren: 8%
  • Andrew Yang: 7%
  • Kamala Harris: 6%
  • Beto O’Rourke: 5%
  • Pete Buttigieg: 4%
  • Tom Steyer: 3%
  • Cory Booker: 3%
  • Michael Bennet: 2%
  • Tulsi Gabbard: 2%
  • Amy Klobuchar: 2%
  • Julian Castro: 1%
  • None of these: 5%
  • Unsure: 10%
  • I won’t vote: 4%

The poll also presented five head-to-head match-ups. Each match-up suggests that the Democratic candidate currently has a strong edge over President Trump, with Sanders having the largest edge.

  • Sanders versus Trump: 61% Sanders; 17% Trump; 12% Someone Else; 7% Not Sure; 3% would not vote
  • Warren versus Trump: 53% Warren; 18% Trump; 15% Someone Else; 9% Not Sure; 5% would not vote
  • Biden versus Trump: 51% Biden; 18% Trump; 19% Someone Else; 8% Not Sure; 4% would not vote
  • Harris versus Trump: 48% Harris; 18% Trump; 20% Someone Else; 10% Not Sure; 4% would not vote
  • Buttigieg versus Trump: 44% Buttigieg; 18% Trump; 22% Someone Else; 11% Not Sure; 5% would not vote

The 2020 election could very well be determined on the voter turnout among young people, which has traditionally been much lower than among older age groups.

###

Methodology
This poll was conducted online between October 1 and October 8, 2019. The sample size was 555 US college students (aged 18 to 29). Quota sampling and weighting were employed to ensure that respondent proportions for age group, sex, race/ethnicity, and region matched their actual proportions in the US college student population.

This poll did not have a sponsor and was conducted and funded by Crux Research, an independent market research firm that is not in any way associated with political parties, candidates, or the media.

All surveys and polls are subject to many sources of error. The term “margin of error” is misleading for online polls, which are not based on a probability sample which is a requirement for margin of error calculations. If this study did use probability sampling, the margin of error would be +/-4%.

About Crux Research Inc.
Crux Research partners with clients to develop winning products and services, build powerful brands, create engaging marketing strategies, enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty, improve products and services, and get the most out of their advertising.

Using quantitative and qualitative methods, Crux connects organizations with their customers in a wide range of industries, including health care, education, consumer goods, financial services, media and advertising, automotive, technology, retail, business-to-business, and non-profits.
Crux connects decision makers with customers, uses data to inspire new thinking, and assures clients they are being served by experienced, senior level researchers who set the standard for customer service from a survey research and polling consultant.

To learn more about Crux Research, visit http://www.cruxresearch.com.


Visit the Crux Research Website www.cruxresearch.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.