My own "scientific" poll

[JohnXSmith]

I don't believe the "scientific" polls are accurate. You know the reasons so I won't go into that.

Only two conclusions are possible:
1. The "scientific" polls reflect the actual voter preferrences.
2. We have been fed a load of crap and the media are using "scientific" polls to mislead us.

I want to test this hypothesis. I want to do my own "scientific" poll.

But I'm just one guy. I can't do it all myself. So I want to enlist the army of Ron Paul supporters to help. But while you help, you are NOT a Ron Paul supporter. You are an impartial observer, you cannot do anything to sway or nudge the people that you poll in any direction. Most of you trust in the honor and integrity of Ron Paul and I will expect you to show the same type of honor and integrity. Leave your Ron Paul signs and t-shirts at home. And your opinions (I know, it is tough to do but it must be done if you really want to know the truth).

I look at this little exercise as a reality check. I happen to think that Ron Paul has significantly more support than is shown by the "scientific" polls. BUT I'M MORE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT THE TRUTH RATHER THAN PROVING MYSELF CORRECT. I am perfectly willing to accept it if my own "scientific" poll matches what I see in the MSM. And if you join in this little venture, I expect the same from you.

If my "scientific" poll matches what we see in the MSM, that just means we have more work to do to get the message of Ron Paul out there.

I would propose polling the state of New Hampshire. I would also propose a door to door poll rather than a phone poll.

If any of you think this is a good idea but can't volunteer to do any polling, perhaps you would pledge a donation to the Ron Paul campaign to sweeten the pot. I'll start by pledging $1000 if you folks help me complete this project.

Task List

1. Gather funding from supporters so the Ron Paul troops will want to join in.

2. Design polling questions.

3. Select addresses to poll.

4. Do the polling.

5. Tally and publish results.

Opinions? Is such a thing worthwhile and feasible?

 

[Original_Intent]

I have had the same thoughts.

I do think a phone poll would be a lot more feasible.

It is also very difficult to determine in either kind of poll what you might do or say (voice inflections etc) that might contaminate the results.

I think it is a great idea we would need to come up with some ideas of how to make it scientific, how would you pick your sample, how large of a sample etc.

I would be very interested in the results.

I also think the best way to avoid voice inflection problems would be to not provide choices. Just keep it shore.

How likely are you to vote in the upcoming GOP primary?

If you were voting in the GOP primary today who would you support?

How strongly are you committed to the candidate you chose - very strongly, somewhat strongly, or still undecided.

Also, if you are expecting your poll to be taken seriously by the MSM or anyone outside of the campaign, I would forget it. If it is just for your own information and for us supporters I think it is a great idea.

 

[JohnXSmith]

my own information plus...

I would like a poll for my own information plus as a method of planting a seed of doubt into some of the folks in the mainstream media.

I'm of the opinion that most of the folks in the mainstream media are honest but gullible. They believe their bosses when the bosses point at the "scientific" polls and say no coverage for Ron Paul, he doesn't stand a chance.

But many journalists love to investigate. Some of them might see our poll and decide it is worthwhile to investigate to see if our poll is accurate. And if they do, then we will have a possible convert.

In addition, there are probably a good number of journalists who lean towards Ron Paul but don't think he has a chance because of the "scientific" polls. Our poll might be enough to nudge some of them into the category of believer.

John

 

[partypooper]

eaiser said than done. i know how to do scientific polling, but i don't think it is worth the effort.

the most difficult part of the polling is to get the frame - a list (a phone list, a list of registered voters, a list of housing units...) from which you select a random sample. the nature of the list determines, basically, to what population your results apply. so, if you begin with the list of registered voters, then, based on your results, you can talk how 'registered voters' feel about this and that.

the major way you minimize the costs of compiling the list for the whole state is to do two or three stage sampling - you compile the list of all school districts, say, and then lists of housing units in those districts and then contact them... it's a lot of work. it is easier to do a phone survey for several reasons but it is still a lot of work.

if by "door to door" strategy you mean that people will go from door to door and ask questions, nobody will consider such survey scientific and you will make no impression on anyone remotely familiar with the sampling methodology. nor should you take results so obtained too seriously.

 

[JohnXSmith]

By door to door, I don't mean go to every house in a neighborhood. Instead, what I mean is select the address to be polled and go to that address. Hit one house that has been scientifically selected in a neighborhood.

So let's call it an in-person poll instead of door to door.

The only reason I suggested this instead of a phone poll is the possibility that a good many Ron Paul supporters do not have land lines and they would be missed with a phone poll.

I agree that it is a lot of work but well worth doing, IMHO.

John

 

[partypooper]

Hit one house that has been scientifically selected in a neighborhood.

there is nothing mysterious about "scientific" selection. it just means it is randomly selected (technically, it means that you know the probability that any member of the population will be included in the sample). it is easy to select a random sample from a list (there are programs that generate random numbers and there are lists of random numbers... that is all easy). what is difficult is to compile the list from which you are going to randomly select people.

it is also difficult to have them all cooperate (answer your questions), but that's another issue. i understand your desire to do a really great survey which will pay proper attention to dr paul but, having done some much less ambitious surveys and knowing how much effort that required, i think it will be better to direct our efforts elsewhere and perhaps, as we spread the message, keep notes on how many people know about dr paul, would vote for him, will vote in the primaries, etc... that would not be scientific but it would be a useful rough guide and it will cost nothing.

just my 2c.

 

[JohnXSmith]

waste of time or best move?

Yes, it might be a waste of time to do this poll. Then again, I can think of a scenario where continuing to push the Ron Paul message out to the masses is the big waste of time and doing this poll might save the campaign and win him the GOP nomination.

What if Ron Paul really already has 40% or 50% of the GOP primary voters but we don't know that because of biased polls?

You might say "Super, that means Dr. Paul will win the nomination!". I would reply with "No, that shows he definitely won't win the nomination and no amount of advocacy will make it happen. He could have 99% of the votes and still lose."

One word: Diebold.

Think about it. As long as the votes "counted" by the Diebold machines generally match the polls, that shows there is a low probability of monkey business (unless you doubt the polls). But if the Diebold "count" only shows Dr. Paul at 15% but the polls show him at 50%, then even the masses might get suspicious.

Am I the only one with these evil thoughts?

John

 

[partypooper]

What if Ron Paul really already has 40% or 50% of the GOP primary voters but we don't know that because of biased polls?

what if... what if not - and that is much more likely.

the polls are not biased. presidents and elections come and go but polling companies are here to stay and they stay by being accurate. no single poll is perfect, but if poll after poll after poll puts dr paul under 10% on variety of variables then he is under 10%.

those polls are done by people who think 3 steps ahead of you and me: they know about land-lines, they know about likely voters, and they have known about all this for months and years before we thought of them, because that is their job and they have nothing else to think about.

 

[JohnXSmith]

msm opinion

Partypooper, you sound like you could be a member of the mainstream media. That is exactly what they would say.

But the MSM has lost credibility in other areas so is there any reason why we should still trust them on this polling issue?

How about trust but verify? Which is what I'm suggesting....

John

 

[JohnXSmith]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQYyPooETcI

Interesting Bill Maher interview with Garry Kasparov. Bill made a comment about Putin's high poll numbers and Kasparov asked if you really should believe poll numbers in a police state?

How close is the U.S. to being a police state? Should we believe the MSM poll numbers or should we do our own poll?

John

 

[Paul4Prez]

Rasmussen used to let you order your own polls for about $1500, I think. I don't know what the rate is now. I recall that Michael Badnarik did some of his own polls in 2004. You can lead off with a legitimate question (all the candidates' names, rotated), then follow up with questions that educate people about Ron Paul. You could find out and do this as a chip in. I would suggest asking a favorability question too, to judge name recognition.

 

[JohnXSmith]

Having Rasmussen do a poll kind of defeats the purpose. I'm trying to find out if the polling organizations are bought and paid for and buying a poll from them would not answer that question. If they fudge the numbers for the MSM polls, they would probably do the same for any poll I purchase.

Nope, for a legitimate test, it has to be done by Ron Paul Supporters and not the usual polling companies.

John

 

[JohnXSmith]

Dropping this idea

due to lack of response. Obviously, I'm in the vast minority with these thoughts. But I'm used to that, lol.

You may not realize but a Ron Paul supporters executed poll was just the first step. If the numbers varied significantly between this poll and the MSM polls, the next step would be do another poll and another until the press decided to re-evaluate their own polls. And quietly, without much fanfare, I think you'd see Ron Paul rise in the MSM polls. The MSM can't allow it to be known that their polls are crap so they would raise the numbers.

The next step would be to arrange exit polls by Dr. Paul supporters. You would think that if the MSM would fudge the numbers on their polls, then the National Election Pool (successor of Voter News Service) would have no qualms about doing the same.

Pre-election polling and exit polling by Ron Paul supporters would make it awkward for any group who would steal the election by hacking Diebold voting machines. If the numbers varied by a large margin, the general public might catch on.

But since I can't seem to convince people here to take the first step, I guess it is not going to happen.

Those of us who think of such things will be left to wonder after the election:
1. Were the pre-election polls accurate and honest?
2. Were the exit polls accurate and honest?
3. Did our side lose this election because our candidate was not as popular as the winner or did we lose because the electronic voting machines were hacked?

John

 

[garrettwombat]

i did a short little poll i didnt have much time i called 10 numbers from my metro atlanta phone book.

i didnt give multiple choice questions, i didnt persuede anyone. all i said was
"good morning"
"i am from t&t technologys study group doing a survey, can i borrow some of your time"
"are you going to be voting in the primaries?"
"ok welli have one simple question, who is your vote going for?"

maybe not professional enough sounding but they bought it.


3 for hillary
4 for obama
1 for paul
2 one didnt know and the other one said he didnt care.

the thing i see i did wrong now is that you need all republicans numbers...
and the other thing i see is that people are being dumbasses trying to vote for hillary just because its funny or something.

 

[JohnXSmith]

Sounds like Ron Paul should be at 100% in the GOP polls, lol.

Of course, with a sample size of one, there is probably some margin of error, lol.

I'll make 10 calls this evening and report the results.

John.

 

[JohnXSmith]

Well that was interesting!

I grabbed a phone book and a phone and randomly called 15 people (reached 15 people, I ignored answering machines and those that did not answer). I asked:
1. Do you plan on voting in the presidential primary? If yes, I asked:
2. Who will you vote for?

That's it. Short and simple poll.

Here are the results:
5 people said they wouldn't be voting in the primary.
4 folks said they would vote for Obama.
1 vote for Hillary.
2 votes for Ron Paul.
3 undecided (including one person who said it is way too early. He doesn't make a decision until a day or two before election day and ignores all political talk until then).

So far in my "scientific" poll, Ron Paul is leading for the GOP nomination by 100% to 0% for all others, lol.

People seemed very willing to give their opinion. No one was rude or refused to talk to me.

If you decide to do your own poll, please publish your results here. I know I'll be making more calls in the days and weeks ahead.

John

 

[partypooper]

If you decide to do your own poll, please publish your results here. I know I'll be making more calls in the days and weeks ahead. John

just to get some sense for the sample size - you need about 500 people to get about 4-5% margin of error (it depends on the actual percentages, blah blah but this is the approximate size).

another question is what is the relationship between your phonebook and the population you are interested in (what happened to the cell-phone argument?).

also, you should keep track of people whom you contacted but could not reach (answering machines, no answer...). how many people did you dial in order to obtain 15?

 

[JohnXSmith]

This is a preliminary investigation. And using land lines for phone polling should hurt Ron Paul's numbers. So if he does well in land line poll, he would do even better with a more accurate poll.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016355.html

F you, Frank. lol.

John

 

[brumans]

Well that was interesting!

I grabbed a phone book and a phone and randomly called 15 people (reached 15 people, I ignored answering machines and those that did not answer). I asked:
1. Do you plan on voting in the presidential primary? If yes, I asked:
2. Who will you vote for?

That's it. Short and simple poll.

Here are the results:
5 people said they wouldn't be voting in the primary.
4 folks said they would vote for Obama.
1 vote for Hillary.
2 votes for Ron Paul.
3 undecided (including one person who said it is way too early. He doesn't make a decision until a day or two before election day and ignores all political talk until then).

So far in my "scientific" poll, Ron Paul is leading for the GOP nomination by 100% to 0% for all others, lol.

People seemed very willing to give their opinion. No one was rude or refused to talk to me.

If you decide to do your own poll, please publish your results here. I know I'll be making more calls in the days and weeks ahead.

John

That is interesting. I think we should have more people do this... no other motive besides polling the population.

How did you word the question? What exactly did you say?

 

[garrettwombat]

im going to try and call 100 people tomorrow, i have no work right now because of the rain over here in georgia.

one thing i will change about calling tomorrow is instead of just asking them who they are voting for, ask them do they know who they voting for. if they say "i dont know" i will ask them "who are you all interested in right now."

that way i can set up who people are interested in also