The vast majority of the snow is supposed to come down after 12 AM on Monday night, after the caucuses are over. The southwestern part of the state may get a little bit of rain mixed with snow during the caucuses, but that's it. At least that's what they're predicting right now.
'Best Pollster in Politics' releases final Iowa poll tonight at 5:30.
- Thread starter laissez faire
- Start date
The vast majority of the snow is supposed to come down after 12 AM on Monday night, after the caucuses are over. The southwestern part of the state may get a little bit of rain mixed with snow during the caucuses, but that's it. At least that's what they're predicting right now.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
Based on this overview, I stand by my call that Rand will place second, as I think the above estimates are over-conservative. The captains are supposed to each bring Rand voters to the caucuses, so if only 7500 show up with 3 people each, that's an extra 2200 votes. Based on the 15% youth turnout in 2012, from a 130,000 turnout Monday that should be at least 2800 more votes based on Paul's 22% finish in 2012.
Those extra 5000 votes could put Rand at 28,000 total and be enough to get past Cruz if he loses 3,000 votes off the 30k estimated above. The last poll indicates Cruz votes are not peeling off to go to Rubio, and other reports show any Rubio 'surge' has flatlined. But the media may be able to use his 15% showing to talk him up enough to make that his floor in the actual vote turnout.
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,401
I just can't see anyone who put any time trying to get Ron Paul elected to caucus against Rand unless its in spite. Even if there were someone who I perceived to be a better choice I would have trouble voting against Ron because of how much time i spent campaigning for the guy. I could see Rand not getting these people to turn out, but these were the same guys who pretended to support Romney and then nominated Ron in the Caucus, if any candidate got a former Ron Paul vote out, I could not see them voting against "Ron Paul" even though its not him, he is a chip off the ole block.
This could be my own bias, but I assume this is what carries people with names like Bush, but with Bush atleast you have reasons to vote against him, maybe you didn't like any of the policies his brother did, but Ron didn't get his chance, Rands is the next best thing, and I think most Ron Paul supporters know that in their hearts. If Rand can't touch the Ron Paul supporters hearts, then his dad will have to, this is the type of voter guilt we should be pushing. We need a presidential tear from a tear from Ron. Something that would tear at the heart strings.
This could be my own bias, but I assume this is what carries people with names like Bush, but with Bush atleast you have reasons to vote against him, maybe you didn't like any of the policies his brother did, but Ron didn't get his chance, Rands is the next best thing, and I think most Ron Paul supporters know that in their hearts. If Rand can't touch the Ron Paul supporters hearts, then his dad will have to, this is the type of voter guilt we should be pushing. We need a presidential tear from a tear from Ron. Something that would tear at the heart strings.
Last edited:
In the last couple of years, a good number of polls around the world have been wildly inaccurate.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...lling-errors-blamed-failure-speak-tory-voters (UK)
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/why-were-polls-so-wrong (UK)
http://www.redstate.com/2015/10/20/polls-wrong-canada-trudeau-wins-majority (Canada)
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-polls-wrong-20150318-story.html (Israel)
The most cited reason is that it's getting harder to reach a person that's going to vote. What had worked for this particular Des Moines Iowa poll was that they at least took the time and effort to contact people that only used cellphones and pretty much adjusted themselves to technological changes as they came. But more people have gotten cellphones as their only means of contact and have no way of being contacted any longer for a poll, let alone this particular poll. Even among the AARP crowd there might now be a preference to only do survey's by computer or tablet. So this poll, as well as others, may not have been adjusted to these developments (it would be very expensive to do so) and may in fact start getting things wrong in spite of their 28 year track record. So if the average GOP caucus goer can't be contacted, let alone the average Rand Paul supporter, this poll, and most polls going into the primary season should not have the weight that they did in the past.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...lling-errors-blamed-failure-speak-tory-voters (UK)
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/why-were-polls-so-wrong (UK)
http://www.redstate.com/2015/10/20/polls-wrong-canada-trudeau-wins-majority (Canada)
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-polls-wrong-20150318-story.html (Israel)
The most cited reason is that it's getting harder to reach a person that's going to vote. What had worked for this particular Des Moines Iowa poll was that they at least took the time and effort to contact people that only used cellphones and pretty much adjusted themselves to technological changes as they came. But more people have gotten cellphones as their only means of contact and have no way of being contacted any longer for a poll, let alone this particular poll. Even among the AARP crowd there might now be a preference to only do survey's by computer or tablet. So this poll, as well as others, may not have been adjusted to these developments (it would be very expensive to do so) and may in fact start getting things wrong in spite of their 28 year track record. So if the average GOP caucus goer can't be contacted, let alone the average Rand Paul supporter, this poll, and most polls going into the primary season should not have the weight that they did in the past.
Last edited:
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
3rd place is possible, but I am betting he will get 4th place.
The real question is whether Trump gets 1st. If he does, then the nomination is over with.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Ron is a double edged sword. While he can be a great asset, he can also be a huge liability.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
In the current situation, yes.
If Trump does win Iowa with a big margin, wouldn't it be more likely for the rest to form a coalition of anti Trump? I would imaginr 10% gets you a seat in the coalition.
TheNewYorker
Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,966
Agreed for once with the collins.
Rand takes 4th.
Cruz first. Trump 2nd. Rubio 3rd
rp08orbust
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 4,803
I'm seeing lots of assumptions like these about extremely high percentages (sometimes 100%) of Rand Paul supporters actually making it to the caucus and voting. Based on my experience robo-polling and follow-up calling of Ron Paul supporters for various straw polls and caucuses in 2011 and 2012, I can assure you that these assumptions are wildly optimistic. If the campaign and PACs can get even just 50% of those who have solemnly promised to attend the caucus as recently as an hour before hand to actually get their ass to the caucus, they will have achieved quite a feat.
If I were to realistically estimate Rand's turnout, I would start with the 5% from the DMR poll, multiply that by expected turnout of 130k, and then add perhaps a quarter of those identified by the campaign and PACs who are supposedly committed to voting for Rand in the caucus.
Another bad assumption that is often made is that these various groups of supporters are disjoint. In reality there will be significant overlap--more than you'd imagine.
With more realistic assumptions, I think you'll find that matching Ron Paul's 2012 Iowa caucus total is going to extremely tough.
Last edited:
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Nope, because Trump will also win NH which is pretty much a given right now.
Winning both IA and NH creates a narrative that almost guarantees he is the presumptive nominee.
Badger Paul
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,718
"I'm not sure what people were expecting? "
That would be where Carson is at right now at 10 percent and climbing. Then the optimism would have been justified. Why would Carson still be at that level when his campaign has all but imploded? My guess is disaffected Cruz supporters drifted back to him. But they didn't go to Rand, that's for sure.
Now we have to believe the polls are completely messed up. Maybe they are and maybe there are 10,000 Iowa students or more going to vote for Rand Paul, we'll have to wait and see. Any poll is based upon the demographic groups polled and weighted so maybe they missed a lot of non-landline persons and students. There's always that hope. But I don't know how a fourth place finish unless it's really close to Rubio and takes everyone by surprise helps Rand jump start his campaign in New Hampshire, because that's what has to happen for this to continue.
That would be where Carson is at right now at 10 percent and climbing. Then the optimism would have been justified. Why would Carson still be at that level when his campaign has all but imploded? My guess is disaffected Cruz supporters drifted back to him. But they didn't go to Rand, that's for sure.
Now we have to believe the polls are completely messed up. Maybe they are and maybe there are 10,000 Iowa students or more going to vote for Rand Paul, we'll have to wait and see. Any poll is based upon the demographic groups polled and weighted so maybe they missed a lot of non-landline persons and students. There's always that hope. But I don't know how a fourth place finish unless it's really close to Rubio and takes everyone by surprise helps Rand jump start his campaign in New Hampshire, because that's what has to happen for this to continue.
Badger Paul
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,718
"I can assure you that these assumptions are wildly optimistic. If the campaign and PACs can get even just 50% of those who have solemnly promised to attend the caucus as recently as an hour before hand to actually get their ass to the caucus, they will have achieved quite a feat."
Oh, but kbs assured me when I asked whether the campaign had thousands of Rand Paul supporters all signed up and committed to caucus Monday that they did. In fact they think they can get 37,000 Paul voters by making a million phone calls in Iowa. Cross his heart and hope to die. Whom am I to argue with such certainty?
Oh, but kbs assured me when I asked whether the campaign had thousands of Rand Paul supporters all signed up and committed to caucus Monday that they did. In fact they think they can get 37,000 Paul voters by making a million phone calls in Iowa. Cross his heart and hope to die. Whom am I to argue with such certainty?
Well let's all hope and pray these polls are wrong and truly not picking up his support.
Patrick Henry
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,531
Who is kbs?
RDM
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2011
- Messages
- 3,335
I am hearing talk about poll analyst that say something is NOT being talked about regarding the Des Moines Register Poll. It polled potential caucus goers from January 26th to the 29th. Well the 29th was the day after the debate. Apparently, Rand was at 9% on that day alone! His best day of polling yet in Iowa! But it averaged out to 5% overall! Umm....that means that debate made a difference!
Anyone else see people talking about this?
Anyone else see people talking about this?
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
Carson seems to be, in Dr. Who terms, a Weeping Angel---he doesn't go anywhere when you are closely examining him, as America did in November, but look away, and he moves back up into double digits. As for the IA polls demographic weighting, it is simply a fact that they have consistently underrepresented the youth vote by a factor of 70% (youth vote turnout in 2012 was 15%, but the current polls sampled only 4% from that group). The male vote and independents have also been undersampled.
Since all the polls sponsored by the entire media undersampled the same way, my feeling is this was deliberate, a subtle way to do a blackout so as to suppress Rand in the polls, and thus kill his momentum. The MSM has demonstrated incredible solidarity and consistency in blacking out the Pauls over the years, from the entire media excluding Paul's name from nearly all polls done in 2007, to the entire media refraining from talking him up even when he was leading IA going into the caucus in 2012. So it's not that the polls are 'completely messed up,' it's that they have been consistently massaged to give the MSM cover to steer the reporting to the candidates they want.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
Similar threads
