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"
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.
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:
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.
The millennial demographic is the most disappointing thing about this. How is that this group ISN'T the one that believes overwhelmingly in non negotiable human rights for immigrants?
It's also in how the question is phrased and so on. They're basically goading people into agreeing with right-wing stuff in these polls.
Here's the actual question and results:
Q30e. Rounding up and deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally, even if it
takes setting up encampments guarded by the U.S. military
Strongly
favor
22%
Favor
25%
Oppose
28%
Strongly
oppose
22%
Skipped/
Refused
3%
and the next question "Which statement comes closest to your view about how the immigration system
should deal with immigrants who are currently living in the U.S. illegally? [ROTATE]" shows that over 60% of people say citizenship (56%) or permanent residency (11%)
which also seems to entirely contradict the previous one lol.
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"
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.
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:
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.
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.
The millennial demographic is the most disappointing thing about this. How is that this group ISN'T the one that believes overwhelmingly in non negotiable human rights for immigrants?
It's also in how the question is phrased and so on. They're basically goading people into agreeing with right-wing stuff in these polls.
Here's the actual question and results:
Q30e. Rounding up and deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally, even if it takes setting up encampments guarded by the U.S. military
Strongly favor 22%
Favor 25%
Oppose 28%
Strongly oppose 22%
Skipped/ Refused 3%
and the next question "Which statement comes closest to your view about how the immigration system should deal with immigrants who are currently living in the U.S. illegally? [ROTATE]" shows that over 60% of people say citizenship (56%) or permanent residency (11%)
which also seems to entirely contradict the previous one lol.
The main conclusion I got from the survey is that the majority of crackers want to shove their POC neighbors into concentration camps.
Yeah I knew that already
Ok I guess I'm a dummy lol. I was more just blowing off steam. I'm having a shitty mental health existence right now. Sorry.
Nope. You're original comment was correct. See my response to anarcho blinkinest
🫂