• anarcho_blinkenist [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 hours ago

      it literally isn’t a good sample size, especially for their selection process in the breakdown of a place as diverse and varied in peoples and living conditions and environments like the US and its 350 million people. It’s a religious-focused NGO for “christian nationalism in politics”, has vanishingly few young people, does terrible breakdowns in the full report and tells us nothing about class or income, self-selects for those who are on consistent addresses in USPS lines with internet access who would be arsed to do these surveys (as well as has hundreds of self-selected opt-ins), the report is trash by a non-profit for “finding the intersection of religion and politics for clergy and the public”

      • GlueBear [they/them, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        No, it’s actually an excellent sample size. This study is absolutely worrying because it was conducted well.

        https://www.checkmarket.com/sample-size-calculator/

        This is a sample size calculator,

        Punching in 350M for population size, 2% margin of error, and 95% Confidence interval we get a necessary sample size of at least 2401, this study had a sample size of 5352

        As for their margin of error, using the above population and confidence interval values but adding in 5352 for the actual sample size we get a calculated margin of error of 1.34%

        This study is valid and its findings should worry everyone.

        • Wertheimer [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          It’s a perfectly good sample size, you’re absolutely right, but @anarcho_blinkenist@hexbear.net raises good questions about whether it’s an appropriately random sample.

          Edit: They use weighting to put things closer to what the general population actually looks like, but here’s what their unweighted numbers are:

          • GlueBear [they/them, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Okay I see the criticism, but would the more honest title:

            approximately 47% of Americans aged 30 and older believe immigrants should be put in militarized camps

            really have changed the conclusions and implications?

            It’s fucking disgusting no matter how you look at it.

            I suppose that number might go down to 30% at best if 18-29 year olds were properly sampled.

            • Wertheimer [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              5 hours ago

              I agree. Like, we could get the number down by asking the question a different way, too, but ultimately the issue is that ~97% of votes will go to candidates who will increase the power, reach, and budget of ICE and the military.