In the real America, most Americans are now cell-phone only or cell-phone mostly users. With no one really sure what is the right proportion for the likely electorate, everyone has been cautious but that may be the riskier option.
Pay attention to this. In the last half of 2011, 32 percent of adults were cell-phone only according the Center for Disease Control that is the official source on these issues; 16 percent were cell phone mostly. But the proportion cell-phone only has jumped about 2.5 points every six months since 2008 – and is probably near 37 percent now. And pay attention to these numbers for the 2011 adult population:
· More than 40 percent of Hispanic adults are cell phone only (43 percent).
· A disproportionate 37 percent of African Americans are cell only.
· Not surprisingly, almost half of those 18 to 24 years are cell only (49 percent), but an astonishing 60 percent of those 25 to 29 years old only use cell phones.
· But it does not stop there: of those 30 to 34 years, 51 percent are cell only.[2]
You have to ask, what America are the current polls sampling if they are overwhelmingly dependent on conventional samples or automated calling with no cell phones? Democracy Corps reached 30 percent by cell; 35 percent were cell only or cell mostly, but only 15 percent are cell only, well short of where we should be.
Does it matter?
We combined the nearly 4,000 interviews from our most recent polls to look at the political consequences of these different samples – and to see how this race has evolved through the lens of cell phones and landlines. Boy does it matter.
Voters reached on cell phones are not only more likely to vote for Obama, they are attitudinally and culturally distinct. They are less conservative but not perhaps more libertarian – giving both the NRA and gay marriage very favorable ratings.
Of course, we know those reached on cell phones are much younger and speaking to them on cell phones is obviously a precondition for getting their vote preference right. But cell phones are also critical to representing the new diversity of the American electorate. Those reached on cell are 29 percent minority – close to the minority percentage in the 2008 electorate; those reached on landlines are only 21 percent minority – looking much closer to the demographics of some other national surveys.
Democracy Corps’ last national survey before the final debate was conducted over four days with weekend daytime calling – the kind of calling period you need when trying to have a full cell-sample. It showed Obama with a 3-point lead nationally and 2 points among the smaller most-likely electorate. We will soon see where the race stands.
Democracy
Corps national surveys include two samples-- one generated via Random
Digit Dialing, and another separate sample for cell phones. We used an
RDD sample frame of cell phones and apportioned the cell frame via
census regions according to the latest CDC National Health Survey
Interview (NHIS) Wireless substitution to increase CPO interview
likelihood and CPO representation. We used a dual-frame, full overlap
methodology allowing any cell user type to screen into the survey
regardless of which frame respondent was contacted in.30 percent (300)
respondents in each Democracy Corps survey are reached on cell phones.
Stephen
J. Blumberg, Ph.D, and Julian V. Luke, “Wireless Substitution: Early
Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey,
July–December 2011,” Center for Disease Control, May 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201206.pdf
http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/919/dcor.comb.cell.102812.memo.FINAL.pdf
Are Obama voters underrepresented in presidential polls because they use cellphones?
That's the argument put forward by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg in a new memo released Monday. Government data shows that an increasing percentage of Americans have ditched their traditional land-line phones and now use only cellphones. A year ago, 32 percent of adults used only a cellphone, according to the Center for Disease Control, which tracks cellphone usage. But more and more Americans are relying solely on their cellphones—Greenberg estimates that that figure is now 37 percent. And government statistics show still larger percentages of hispanics, blacks, and young people—all of whom are more likely to favor Obama, polls show—use cellphones only.
Why does this uptick in cell-only users matter? Because, as Greenberg writes, some polls used to gauge the state of the presidential race don't reach these people—and could therefore be lowballing Obama's standing. (Robocalls are used by many pollsters, but cellphones are blocked from receiving robocalls.) Greenberg went back and analyzed 4,000 of his polling firm's interviews this election season and found that cell-only voters break for Obama in significant numbers. As the following charts show, people who only use a cellphone said they'd vote for Obama by an 11-point margin, and those who mostly use a cell opted for Obama by 9 points. On the other hand, those who said they used a landline and a cellphone backed Romney by 3 points.
Courtesy of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner
Cellphone-only respondents, Greenberg says, are "attitudinally and culturally distinct." They're less conservative, but not necessarily libertarian, either, though they praise both the National Rifle Association and same-sex marriage. They're a crucial piece of the electorate not entirely captured by polls used in the presidential race.
Greenberg isn't the first pollster to point out Obama's bump from cellphone users. Back in September, the New York Times' Nate Silver found that Obama fared better in polls that include cellphone users. The right-leaning Rasmussen polling shop—which tends to show Romney faring better than Obama—doesn't include cellphones; neither does the left-leaning Public Policy Polling, which shows Obama doing better in the race. Gallup—which puts Obama ahead among registered voters and Romney in the lead among likely voters—includes cellphones in its sampling.
Greenberg's key takeaway is this: Pollsters aren't capturing what he calls "the new diversity of the American electorate" if they aren't surveying voters who depend on cellphones. If pollsters were doing that, Greenberg suggests, Obama would have a bigger lead over Mitt Romney than he's got right now.
'They've
spent $1.6 billion, up $772 million since 2008. SafeLink is one of these
free Lifeline providers (they're the biggest, in fact) and, if you get
food stamps, you can get a free cell phone,' Rush Limbaugh says.
http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/919/dcor.comb.cell.102812.memo.FINAL.pdf
Pollster: Undercounted Cellphone Users Hide Obama's Lead
| Mon Oct. 29, 2012 9:04 AM PDT
That's the argument put forward by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg in a new memo released Monday. Government data shows that an increasing percentage of Americans have ditched their traditional land-line phones and now use only cellphones. A year ago, 32 percent of adults used only a cellphone, according to the Center for Disease Control, which tracks cellphone usage. But more and more Americans are relying solely on their cellphones—Greenberg estimates that that figure is now 37 percent. And government statistics show still larger percentages of hispanics, blacks, and young people—all of whom are more likely to favor Obama, polls show—use cellphones only.
Why does this uptick in cell-only users matter? Because, as Greenberg writes, some polls used to gauge the state of the presidential race don't reach these people—and could therefore be lowballing Obama's standing. (Robocalls are used by many pollsters, but cellphones are blocked from receiving robocalls.) Greenberg went back and analyzed 4,000 of his polling firm's interviews this election season and found that cell-only voters break for Obama in significant numbers. As the following charts show, people who only use a cellphone said they'd vote for Obama by an 11-point margin, and those who mostly use a cell opted for Obama by 9 points. On the other hand, those who said they used a landline and a cellphone backed Romney by 3 points.
Courtesy of Greenberg Quinlan RosnerCellphone-only respondents, Greenberg says, are "attitudinally and culturally distinct." They're less conservative, but not necessarily libertarian, either, though they praise both the National Rifle Association and same-sex marriage. They're a crucial piece of the electorate not entirely captured by polls used in the presidential race.
Greenberg isn't the first pollster to point out Obama's bump from cellphone users. Back in September, the New York Times' Nate Silver found that Obama fared better in polls that include cellphone users. The right-leaning Rasmussen polling shop—which tends to show Romney faring better than Obama—doesn't include cellphones; neither does the left-leaning Public Policy Polling, which shows Obama doing better in the race. Gallup—which puts Obama ahead among registered voters and Romney in the lead among likely voters—includes cellphones in its sampling.
Greenberg's key takeaway is this: Pollsters aren't capturing what he calls "the new diversity of the American electorate" if they aren't surveying voters who depend on cellphones. If pollsters were doing that, Greenberg suggests, Obama would have a bigger lead over Mitt Romney than he's got right now.
CORRUPTION? Obama is buying your votes. Obama hands out 20 million free cell phones, free minutes to those on government assistance
Called 'Obama phones,' program has cost taxpayers $1.6 billion
A
program to provide low-income Americans with free cell phones -
including the phone, free minutes and no contracts - has recently
incurred the wrath of conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
The irascible Rush was surprised to just recently learn of the program,
which has been in effect for awhile and has been dubbed by the public as "Obama phones."
Print
LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - The federal
program paid out $1.6 billion to pay for free cell phones and the
monthly bills of 12.5 million wireless accounts. Overseen by the FCC and
intended to help low-income Americans, the program has been a popular
one. Participation in the program has risen since 2008. Initially
costing $772 million for phones, since Obama, $772 million has become
$1.6 billion -- more than doubled.
"But observers complain that the program suffers from poor oversight, in which phones go to people who don't qualify, and hundreds of thousands of those who do qualify have more than one phone," Limbaugh says.
"They're not smart phones at least, but that's probably coming."
The program also covers 250 free minutes each month. As many as 5.5 million residents in Pennsylvania alone could qualify for the program, which is funded primarily by the Universal Service Fund fee added to the bills of land-line and wireless customers.
"Some of these people have more than two phones, more than two accounts. That's the thing. Obama's stash. What else is in there," Limbaugh queries.
Called SafeLink, the program costs $1.6 billion from taxpayers and your phone bills, to pay for 12.5 million Americans to have free cell phones and free cell usage of 250 minutes a month. Limbaugh also says that a program, ostensibly charitable in nature, is especially blatant in trying to rope in others to take advantage of the program.
"They buy space in magazines and so forth, and this is one of the many ways in which you can apply. From the SafeLink website: 'How to qualify: If you already participate in other state or federal assistance programs such as federal public housing,' you're qualified.
"'If your total household income is at or below 135 percent of the poverty guidelines set by your state and/or the federal government...'" Sounds to me like they're trying to 'trick' poor people into getting free phones here, just like they 'tricked' people into getting mortgages. This is a trick!" Limbaugh says.
The advertisement goes on to say, "You can get an additional free 100 minutes if you recommend a friend. . Pay nothing! No bills, no contracts, no credit checks, no hidden fees."
"They've spent $1.6 billion, up $772 million since 2008. SafeLink is one of these free Lifeline providers (they're the biggest, in fact) and, if you get food stamps, you can get a free cell phone," Limbaugh says.
Here is the Free Phone website -
https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enrollment/Safelink/en/Public/NewHome.html
© 2012, Catholic Online. Distributed by NEWS CONSORTIUM.
"But observers complain that the program suffers from poor oversight, in which phones go to people who don't qualify, and hundreds of thousands of those who do qualify have more than one phone," Limbaugh says.
"They're not smart phones at least, but that's probably coming."
The program also covers 250 free minutes each month. As many as 5.5 million residents in Pennsylvania alone could qualify for the program, which is funded primarily by the Universal Service Fund fee added to the bills of land-line and wireless customers.
"Some of these people have more than two phones, more than two accounts. That's the thing. Obama's stash. What else is in there," Limbaugh queries.
Called SafeLink, the program costs $1.6 billion from taxpayers and your phone bills, to pay for 12.5 million Americans to have free cell phones and free cell usage of 250 minutes a month. Limbaugh also says that a program, ostensibly charitable in nature, is especially blatant in trying to rope in others to take advantage of the program.
"They buy space in magazines and so forth, and this is one of the many ways in which you can apply. From the SafeLink website: 'How to qualify: If you already participate in other state or federal assistance programs such as federal public housing,' you're qualified.
"'If your total household income is at or below 135 percent of the poverty guidelines set by your state and/or the federal government...'" Sounds to me like they're trying to 'trick' poor people into getting free phones here, just like they 'tricked' people into getting mortgages. This is a trick!" Limbaugh says.
The advertisement goes on to say, "You can get an additional free 100 minutes if you recommend a friend. . Pay nothing! No bills, no contracts, no credit checks, no hidden fees."
"They've spent $1.6 billion, up $772 million since 2008. SafeLink is one of these free Lifeline providers (they're the biggest, in fact) and, if you get food stamps, you can get a free cell phone," Limbaugh says.
Here is the Free Phone website -
https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enrollment/Safelink/en/Public/NewHome.html
© 2012, Catholic Online. Distributed by NEWS CONSORTIUM.
