Let me give you a perfect example of why the recent polling is GARBAGE

[kbs021]

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/e6c48f94-1380-45b6-80e4-dbaf5f5f78ad.pdf

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/iowa/exit-polls


This is one of the latest Iowa caucus polls. Rand got 5 percent.. Ugh terrible right?.. Please take a look at this and compare it to entrance polls of the 2012 caucus and tell me if you see the glaring weaknesses of this poll..?

I see two huge ones right off the bat.. The people polled do NOT match the electorate of the recent election. 8 % of the people polled in this poll were 18-34. In the 2012 caucus an estimation puts a similar category at 17-29 (which is even smaller!) at 15 percent of the electorate.. That's a HUGE weakness. And guess what.. Ron dominated by grabbing almost half of all those voters. They should have polled at about 20 % to make this accurate and that alone would have boosted Rand much much higher. And this year, it is expected to have even more young voters due to school being in session this year at time of the caucus.

Another glaring weakness is that this poll only polled Registered Republicans. On election night about 25% identified independent. Ron also got close to about half of that demographic. Guys these polls are junk. So no Rand is no where near 5 percent..

 

[CPUd]

Aside from the other stuff you wrote, 2012 entrance polls are a completely different animal from polls that are 6 months before the election.

If you're looking this deep, go check some of the recent national polls and see what region of the US they are polling, also.

 

[kbs021]

I would argue that if the polling data is supposed to be based on "likely caucus goers" then they should be looking at the exit/entrance polls of those who actually voted last time. It is a glaring weakness to undercut younger voters according to their polling. You can argue that support will be much different for people like Huck, Rick Santorum, etc. since the field is so much different. However, I think Rand's base is really solid due to Ron's past support. So when they undercut Ron's main base of course Rand's polling numbers are down.

 

[Crashland]

Finally a criticism of a poll on RPF I can actually agree with. This particular one most likely under-represents Rand's share of likely caucus voters because of the age and party demographics. Each poll needs to be evaluated on its own merit though, you can't automatically assume to extend this to all polls.

 

[kbs021]

I agree with you crashland.

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/91f71597-b5fc-46cf-958e-e813091cd754.pdf

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/new-hampshire/exit-polls

Now my next example is NH. Same problems but somewhat reversed in the extent of the problems. The poll's "electorate" had 18-34 at 9 percent. The exit polls of the most recent election had 18-29(once again still smaller!) at 12. This poll was closer at the representation of younger voters, yet still off by a large margin. This poll probably should have tried to get about 15-18 percent of the 18-34 vote.

Now this poll dramatically undercuts those that are registered independent. The poll had 26 percent of those who are registered independent. The exit polls indicated that a whopping 47 percent of voters were independent or other. That is a HUGE misrepresentation. Ron did much better in these demographics that are once again undercut. An argument can be made that the Democratic primary may reduce the independent vote in the republican race although I don't expect it to be too big of a deal. I chose these two polls because they are two of the most recent ones in the first two states that were upsetting many of Rand's supporters. Chill out, donate or buy something from the store for the money bomb, and realize that polls can be manipulated or at least be extremely weak. We won't be getting a fair shake from polling companies.

 

[CPUd]

Iowa in 2016 should have more college kids voting than what they are polling now, and in exit polls from 2012, maybe enough to add 2 or 3 points to the outcome.

Also the Democratic primary race is not very competitive, similar to 2012, but curious to see what effect this will have on crossover voting when there is no incumbent.

 

[kbs021]

Completely agree with you CPUd. I don't expect the polling companies to make that assumption (because they probably realize that what would do for Rand lol) but I think its safe for us to make that assumption. The campaign should really be hitting these campuses. The amount of candidates this time around should make it very hard for Rand not to win Iowa. That might not be a correct statement to make, but I feel confident. I am also interested to see how many new voters we get since we have had another 4 years to educate younger voter that are just now eligible. I am excited about Iowa and I feel RPF should be too!

 

[69360]

because doubting the polls worked so well the last two times...

 

[kbs021]

If you compare how the polls looked last time at this time of the year, then yes my estimation is right. Ron was polling very similarly to how he is now. And Ron did great in IA and NH. Ron also increased support dramatically between 08' and 12' so if we do the same we would win the whole nomination. I understand your frustration, however, you cannot deny these polls I referenced are CRAP. Using data to hit campuses and Former Ron Paul caucus goers is an actually strategy not just doubting polls.

 

[eleganz]

Finally some sense on RPF. All reasonable people who understand polling should understand this concept. It shouldn't all be based on 2012 voter participation, I would say a reasonable average of the last couple caucuses.

 

[69360]

The polls are crap Rand (Ron) is going to win. Cell phones something, something...

This is oh so familiar.

 

[rich34]

The polls are crap Rand (Ron) is going to win. Cell phones something, something...

This is oh so familiar.

Actually it's not similar at all. The methodology that the polling firms select have a very distinct outcome that is controlled to fit their agenda. And actually when it came time for the polling firms to start using educated guesses as to what demographics would be voting and how much they did show Ron polling as high as 24%. The two week non stop attacks against Ron was successful enough to get his numbers down to 20-21% on election night, but nonetheless these pollsters no damn well what their doing. And they also know damn well that they'll be correctly adjusting the proper demographics as election time draws near and magically Rand will be "rising" in the polls when in reality he's been there the whole time. It's just that they know they have to get the numbers right and they have to start making strong guesses as to how much each demographic will come out to vote. They could easily be adding this particular variable into the equation right now as they will be later on, but they're not, why is that? Gee, I wonder? Can't use polls to help Rand add more support to what they damn well know he's already going to get. That's fine, when Ron started "surging" they were successful in knocking his numbers back down just enough, Rand on the other hand is yet to be determined, however there is no newsletters in his closet..

 

[juleswin]

I saw a poll on DU that had Rand Paul at dead last polling at a paltry 0.8%. There was a time when I would have questioned it but I dunno anymore.

 

[CPUd]

I saw a poll on DU that had Rand Paul at dead last polling at a paltry 0.8%. There was a time when I would have questioned it but I dunno anymore.

0.8 would be an extreme outlier, even if the poll were legit. Of all the national polls on RCP since 2012, Rand has never polled below 3%, only about 4 polls where he polled less than 5%.

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

The real problem, other than not being an accurate representation of how Rand is doing, is that it depresses enthusiasm and support of his campaign. When possible supporters see 5%, 3%, or even .08%, they lose confidence in him and look at other candidates who have a shot to win. Someone who is considering donating sees those numbers and wonders why they should "waste" their money. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

 

[Jan2017]

I would argue that . . . they should be looking at the exit/entrance polls of those who actually voted last time. It is a glaring weakness to undercut younger voters according to their polling. . . .

This is an interesting point to bring up since this is - after all - Iowa.

Even without Ames - which would have been this week (in Boone) - Iowans do expect to see candidates over the summer.

btw, McCain always did bad in Iowa - both 2000 vs Bush43, and especially bad in 2008 -
they could see through his bs better than most I guess.

 

[squirl22]

The real problem, other than not being an accurate representation of how Rand is doing, is that it depresses enthusiasm and support of his campaign.

Only if you are a fair weather friend and do not really support Rand. Once I commit to a candidate, I stick with them until they themselves decide to drop out. Who else is there anyway? Cruz, well I don't support him, he's a great actor, but aside from that his poll numbers are really low...but his supporters remain enthusiastic...so maybe Rands so-called supporters need to look within.

 

[juleswin]

Rand Paul at 0.8%

http://www.oann.com/trump-has-big-lead-in-iowa/

Check it out guys, Trump is going to win it all and Rand will tie for last place with George Pataki. It was over before it even started

 

[nikcers]

Rand Paul at 0.8%

http://www.oann.com/trump-has-big-lead-in-iowa/

Check it out guys, Trump is going to win it all and Rand will tie for last place with George Pataki. It was over before it even started

Gravis marketing again? Really guys? when I google them it shows up with;The Worst Poll in America. I'm tired of these mickey mouse polls

 

[eleganz]

The polls are crap Rand (Ron) is going to win. Cell phones something, something...

This is oh so familiar.

I saw a poll on DU that had Rand Paul at dead last polling at a paltry 0.8%. There was a time when I would have questioned it but I dunno anymore.

Rand Paul at 0.8%

http://www.oann.com/trump-has-big-lead-in-iowa/

Check it out guys, Trump is going to win it all and Rand will tie for last place with George Pataki. It was over before it even started

LOL, you might be the worst case of defeatism that has come out of the Trump Circus.

Why are people so weak minded here? Look back in time, how many people were the "inevitable nominees" in 2012? Bachmann? Cain? Perry? You were a member here since 2011, how can you not remember the sharp rise and fall of so many candidates?