|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on May 30, 2017 10:20:07 GMT
No it does not; it has 82% of the 18-24s saying that are 10/10 certain to vote. The actual turnout rates in elections are always lower than the 10 out of 10/"absolutely certain"/100 out of 100 etc figures in the polls. On these figures turnout with the 18-24s would likely be at EU referendum levels (i.e. in the 60s). The overall 10/10 percentage is at 81% which is the highest by far that I've seen during this campaign. The 25-34s are apparently the least likely to vote with 71% saying 10/10. But it's worth stressing, as usual, that these are crosstabs with a high MoE. I would imagine the pollster in question takes this into consideration when weighting the VI percentages. I'll be shocked if 25-34 genuinely is the least likely group to vote come polling day. That's a real odd conclusion for them to come to.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,819
|
Post by The Bishop on May 30, 2017 10:20:39 GMT
That 3% rise in the Survation poll is basically down to the Yoof plumpling for Jezza and claiming they will vote. Hmm. Just seen a citation (also referenced above) that 18-24 turnout two years ago was a pitiful 44% (actually down significantly on 2010) But in last years referendum, it was close to two thirds - despite entirely false claims to the contrary initially. That is a significant difference.
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on May 30, 2017 11:22:58 GMT
No it does not; it has 82% of the 18-24s saying that are 10/10 certain to vote. The actual turnout rates in elections are always lower than the 10 out of 10/"absolutely certain"/100 out of 100 etc figures in the polls. On these figures turnout with the 18-24s would likely be at EU referendum levels (i.e. in the 60s). The overall 10/10 percentage is at 81% which is the highest by far that I've seen during this campaign. The 25-34s are apparently the least likely to vote with 71% saying 10/10. But it's worth stressing, as usual, that these are crosstabs with a high MoE. I would imagine the pollster in question takes this into consideration when weighting the VI percentages. I'll be shocked if 25-34 genuinely is the least likely group to vote come polling day. That's a real odd conclusion for them to come to. Well it's not Survation's conclusion, it's merely what those in that subsample are saying they'll do.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Inactivist
Posts: 5,551
|
Post by Foggy on May 30, 2017 22:09:47 GMT
This Survation poll has 18-24 turnout at 82%. Since 1997, turnout for this age group has only reached 50% once - 52% in 2010. Last time it was 44%. In other words that poll isn't very reliable. There's no way 18-24 turnout will be anywhere near 82%. Indeed. Doesn't all this show that the main opposition party should be concentrating its efforts at the business end of the campaign on convincing pensioners that they have the best ideas for older people and/or that the current government's plans are dangerous? Instead the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks it is a productive use of his time and energy to spend the early hours of the morning a week and a half out from polling day preaching to the converted at a rave full of under-35s in London. Many of those in attendance probably already live in safe Labour seats, and some might end up not voting at all. If the Labour frontbench think that's a wise tactic at this stage, then they're in for a very nasty shock on the morning of the 9th of June.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,819
|
Post by The Bishop on May 31, 2017 10:19:44 GMT
Just to be clear, the quoted result in this poll isn't actually dependent on a (wholly unlikely, I completely agree) 80% yoof turnout.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 3, 2017 19:47:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jun 3, 2017 19:50:22 GMT
That's UKIP +2%, for clarification.
|
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 8,252
|
Post by cogload on Jun 3, 2017 19:50:28 GMT
Oh my life.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,170
|
Post by Jack on Jun 3, 2017 19:52:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jun 3, 2017 19:53:40 GMT
That's UKIP +2%, for clarification. Bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jun 3, 2017 19:56:18 GMT
That's UKIP +2%, for clarification. Bizarre. Well, the first word that came to mind for me was 'wrong'. If this poll is correct, it could mean Corbyn is gaining votes from May (based on economic policies) but losing others directly to UKIP (over the IRA, Trident, etc. - issues UKIP voters care a lot about). One bright spot for the Conservatives is that these Kippers will have nowhere to go besides the Tory party in several marginals around the country.
|
|
thetop
Labour
[k4r]
Posts: 945
|
Post by thetop on Jun 3, 2017 19:57:18 GMT
From the same account, Corbyn appears to have won the debates despite what I thought was his poorest performance and May's best:-
among the 72% who watched the QT debates:
On voting Labour 36% more likely 24% less likely
On voting Tory 32% less likely 24% more likely
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jun 3, 2017 19:58:35 GMT
This election becomes more amusing with each passing day. I am starting to get sad that we only have 5 more days to go.
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Jun 3, 2017 20:01:19 GMT
From the same account, Corbyn appears to have won the debates despite what I thought was his poorest performance and May's best:- among the 72% who watched the QT debates:On voting Labour 36% more likely 24% less likely On voting Tory 32% less likely 24% more likely I've highlighted the problem here. Can you see it?
|
|
thetop
Labour
[k4r]
Posts: 945
|
Post by thetop on Jun 3, 2017 20:05:16 GMT
From the same account, Corbyn appears to have won the debates despite what I thought was his poorest performance and May's best:- among the 72% who watched the QT debates:On voting Labour 36% more likely 24% less likely On voting Tory 32% less likely 24% more likely I've highlighted the problem here. Can you see it? Correction: 72% who "had seen or heard something about the debate".
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Jun 3, 2017 20:07:34 GMT
I've highlighted the problem here. Can you see it? Correction: 72% who "had seen or heard something about the debate". Now that is more believable.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,170
|
Post by Jack on Jun 3, 2017 20:10:11 GMT
I've highlighted the problem here. Can you see it? Correction: 72% who "had seen or heard something about the debate". If you've only "heard something" about a debate, how can it change your likelihood to vote for a particular party? Surely you'd need to watch it?
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jun 3, 2017 20:13:12 GMT
Correction: 72% who "had seen or heard something about the debate". If you've only "heard something" about a debate, how can it change your likelihood to vote for a particular party? Surely you'd need to watch it? You might value the opinion/analysis of the person you've heard about it from, or you might have read a news article about/seen a clip from it and somewhat changed your opinion (as a swing voter) because of it. The fact that only 72% have even heard about this shows how poorly informed voters are about politics in this country. It's a travesty that this happens in the information age, and something governments of all colours really need to work on.
|
|
thetop
Labour
[k4r]
Posts: 945
|
Post by thetop on Jun 3, 2017 20:15:34 GMT
Correction: 72% who "had seen or heard something about the debate". If you've only "heard something" about a debate, how can it change your likelihood to vote for a particular party? Surely you'd need to watch it? I took it as meaning you'd seen clips in news articles (it was top read on BBC news last night) but couldn't claim to have watched it.
|
|
Tom
Unionist
Posts: 1,998
|
Post by Tom on Jun 3, 2017 20:21:18 GMT
I don't know how this could have happened, but I genuinely think the left may have hijacked some of these opinion poll panels. Lots of these numbers just don't seem right and don't tally with all the other indicators about how the public is thinking.
|
|