My personal prediction for Rand in Iowa... do you have a prediction??

[Brett85]

Or just look at the polls in 2014 for the Kansas Senate race. RCP average: Orman +.8, final results Roberts +10.8%. The polls were off by 11.6.%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ks/kansas_senate_roberts_vs_orman-5216.html

 

[bunklocoempire]

do you have a prediction??

I predict the cable-tv msm will portray how Iowa votes as being "important" or "un-important" based on who wins... ...I also predict that the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[nikcers]

The market doesn't generate demand. It responds to it.

I think that's the problem though, the news can generate demand through manipulation. They use several tools to shape the polling. They control the narrative like the price of oil, they use astrology like interpretations of events and poll selective information to get specific results they want. It's not like a meteorologist, that can tell you what the weather will be based on math and prediction models. This is like a psychologist hypnotizing me using specific suggestive language until I am lulled into a false sense of surety. This is like Opec, they control the price of oil or the polls because they can increase the supply at the drop of a dime.

 

[Rede]

Based on a strong GOTV program, I'd guess 15,000 to 20,000 votes but hope to be surprised by more. Turnout will determine percentages.

My biggest worry for disappointment is that the college kids pick Bernie over Rand.

 

[fcreature]

Guys, the polling isn't necessarily a conspiracy. It's just a inherently faulted process and is being used incorrectly. Polling was not a process scientifically designed to predict presidential elections. All the polls do is give you a snapshot in time of the claimed views of a particular demographic which is polled, with a large margin of error even at that. That is it. Do you see all the flaws in this?

- Assuming the poll is perfectly conducted, it's still just a momentary snapshot in time.
- Pollsters have to literally guess the demographics as to who to poll for the most reliable results
- Even if they guess accurate demographics, then they need to get people of those demographics to answer their questions.
- Even if they get the correct people to answer the questions, they still have to get an honest answer out of them.

The problem is with how polling is applied. It's being used as a qualifier for debates and media coverage, which can then sway public opinion towards the poll results. But don't for one second think that polls are accurate or good ways to decide presidential elections.

IMO within an election or two polling will be seen for what it is - entertainment value. It will keep continuing to become more and more inaccurate, and as such will lose significance.

 

[SilentBull]

The one thing that concerns me is that I have yet to see a single TV ad from Rand.

 

[CPUd]

The one thing that concerns me is that I have yet to see a single TV ad from Rand.

They're not running TV ads outside Iowa/NH, and even those are sparse until next week. He will definitely need to run TV ads to be competitive past NH, where they will have to hit 10-20% threshold in the popular vote to get delegates. The game plan is to get enough of a boost in his national profile from Iowa results to bring in more donors, because a lot of us are maxed out. Considering what they can do with the money they are getting now, it will be awesome when they are raising the kind of money like Carson did last year.

 

[Rede]

They're not running TV ads outside Iowa/NH, and even those are sparse until next week. He will definitely need to run TV ads to be competitive past NH, where they will have to hit 10-20% threshold in the popular vote to get delegates. The game plan is to get enough of a boost in his national profile from Iowa results to bring in more donors, because a lot of us are maxed out. Considering what they can do with the money they are getting now, it will be awesome when they are raising the kind of money like Carson did last year.

Love your confidence. I hope you're right!

 

[Liberty74]

Polls are manufactured. Have you bothered to even evaluate their methodology and demographic swath? Polls are increasingly obsolete and the results of the past few years bear it out. When you're relying on landline to get the vast majority of respondents you're going to not be very close to actual voting results. Rands support comes hugely from the demo that has no landline. Rand is certainly going to get far more than 5% in the caucus, especially with the schools being in this year and caucus' on campus. Is he going to win Iowa? Probably not, but he's certainly going to get at least 15%. Where that puts him who knows, but that's his floor.

You act like polls and the polling companies are infallible.

PS: This is going to sound crude and a bit heartless, but I can't wait til the old fogies die. The under 40 generation votes vastly different than the over 40s (and over 55's especially). No, I don't want any of our older supporters to die, but those other douches in the GOP I could care less. Neg me. I suspect the GOP is either going to die off in 15-20 years or be much different than it is today.

1. Polls are very accurate snap shots of those days polled within the margin of error. What polls cannot measure are surges or crashes. It takes a few polls over week or two to see that happening like with Cruz going up and Carson tanking. Santorum was surging so fast due to the media in 2012 that no one knew until election night exactly what his percentage was going to be.

2. The landline vs cell phone argument is a total myth. That argument was made 4 years ago and never panned out.

3. College in session myth. Does it really matter if opened or closed? The vast majority of the students LIVE IN IOWA. In 2012 they could have voted for Ron when they went home too. What happened? The 17-29 vote was about the same as it always is...15% of the vote.

Listen, I agree that Rand is probably polling higher than 5%. I say 8% or maybe 10% if the students pull off the 10K but that's within the margin of error. But right now there is ZERO movement going on with any campaign. It is what it is. What I have been saying for the last month is that Rand has to make something happen. He is not going to get the media to help him like they did Santorum. And right now, there isn't anything going on bad or good for any campaign. It's like everything is stagnant. Time is running short and it's yet to be seen if Cruz takes a hit from the Trump attacks. If so, hopefully Rand benefits and not Rubio. Which by the way I have said for 6 months what it takes to win Iowa - get the old vote and evangelical vote. Guess who is winning those 2 demos? Cruz and Trump who also happen to be the two candidates battling for first.

 

[Brett85]

1. Polls are very accurate snap shots of those days polled within the margin of error. What polls cannot measure are surges or crashes. It takes a few polls over week or two to see that happening like with Cruz going up and Carson tanking. Santorum was surging so fast due to the media in 2012 that no one knew until election night exactly what his percentage was going to be.

2. The landline vs cell phone argument is a total myth. That argument was made 4 years ago and never panned out.

Did you read my posts about how far the polls were off in the Kentucky Governor's race and the Kansas Senate race?

 

[CPUd]

3. College in session myth. Does it really matter if opened or closed? The vast majority of the students LIVE IN IOWA. In 2012 they could have voted for Ron when they went home too. What happened? The 17-29 vote was about the same as it always is...15% of the vote.

Yes, it matters. In 2012, Iowa had about 60/40 in-state versus out-of-state, which is about 17,500 out-of-state. This time, the organization is happening on the campuses, the voting precincts are on the campuses, and they are much more likely to go to the precincts in groups at their school than going when they are home on break. Plus they have access to the 17-20K out-of-state students who were home on break in 2012.

 

[erowe1]

I think that's the problem though, the news can generate demand through manipulation. They use several tools to shape the polling. They control the narrative like the price of oil, they use astrology like interpretations of events and poll selective information to get specific results they want. It's not like a meteorologist, that can tell you what the weather will be based on math and prediction models. This is like a psychologist hypnotizing me using specific suggestive language until I am lulled into a false sense of surety. This is like Opec, they control the price of oil or the polls because they can increase the supply at the drop of a dime.

In the case of polls, the news corporations are the customers.

You're right about how manipulation is their agenda. And polls are one of their tools. There are a lot of things they are trying to accomplish with polls, and not al of them require accuracy.

 

[erowe1]

Yes, it matters. In 2012, Iowa had about 60/40 in-state versus out-of-state, which is about 17,500 out-of-state. This time, the organization is happening on the campuses, the voting precincts are on the campuses, and they are much more likely to go to the precincts in groups at their school than going when they are home on break. Plus they have access to the 17-20K out-of-state students who were home on break in 2012.

In which state are those out-of-state students registered to vote? Their home state or Iowa?

Here in Indiana, if they want to vote here, I'm pretty sure they need to get Indiana drivers' licenses, and relinquish their drivers' licenses in their home states when they do. I'm not sure if it's like that in Iowa. If it is, how many out-of-state college students want to do that to be able to vote in a Republican party caucus.

 

[CPUd]

I believe they are allowed to register as Iowa residents.

 

[seapilot]

do you have a prediction??

I predict the cable-tv msm will portray how Iowa votes as being "important" or "un-important" based on who wins... ...I also predict that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I think this prediction is the most likely.

My guess is Rand probably will do better than expected. Predict Jeb and Christie get less than 1 % and Santorum places higher with 1.1%.

 

[nasaal]

I think that Rand will do slightly better than polled, but too low to get a big push. His last gasp will be to attempt drawing voters from those who drop out. That's my prediction anyway.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

I think that Rand will do slightly better than polled, but too low to get a big push. His last gasp will be to attempt drawing voters from those who drop out. That's my prediction anyway.

Only Huckabee and Santorum, and maybe Carson will drop out after Iowa. Some are clearly hanging in there to New Hampshire. Paul better stay in after the New Hampshire dropouts. Fiorina and 2 establishment stooges should both be out by then.

With Trump and Cruz leading the polls, the establishment is letting down their guard to Rand.

 

[clint4liberty]

I would like to see over 32,000 people caucus for Rand Paul in Iowa. I would also love to see over 90,000 voters selecting Rand Paul in the New Hampshire Primary.

 

[derek4ever]

Based on a strong GOTV program, I'd guess 15,000 to 20,000 votes but hope to be surprised by more. Turnout will determine percentages.

My biggest worry for disappointment is that the college kids pick Bernie over Rand.

A factor we need to strongly consider is the turnout. If Iowa does have a snowstorm on Caucus day, only the most passionate supporters get out and vote!!

 

[liberty_nc]

I saw one two months ago here in NC