movingstone
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 66
Are polls accurate (collectively) or are they 100% just for agenda purposes?
I have been reading way too many retarded comments like this.
Now, people are just pulling bullshits out of their ass.
Let me set the stage, around this time in 2011, Gingrich began to fall (not until the media fail and report Romney won in Iowa that Santorum lost support in South Carolina and Gingrich rise again for a short while until he got his ass kick in Florida).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natio..._Party_2012_presidential_primaries#2011_polls
If you pay attention to the November, December, January "NATIONAL" poll #s.
Gingrich is falling but still have good support (very much like Carson for the past month). While Santorum starting to doubling (at the end of 2011) and tripling (at the beginning of 2012). Ron pretty much stabilized in National polls from 12 to higher than 15% at time. This is compare to Rand right now being less than 5% nationally.
We can make the argument to compare Ron's November #s with Rand's December #s because the Iowa caucuses are 1 month behind.
Even then, Ron Paul is still double Rand's #s (of course there are way more candidates right now).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State..._primaries,_January_2012#Iowa_.28January_3.29
But by the end of November 2011 (which is comparable to right now), Ron is in the high teens in Iowa showing that core support are really strong. Within 2 weeks into December (which is comparable to the first 2 weeks into the New Year or at this point 1 month away). Ron Paul had surged into the 20s and effectively lead to coleading Iowa for 3 weeks till the caucus. You can also see that as Gingrich falter in Iowa, both Ron and Santorum's number improved.
So let me recap once again, as far back as Nov 10/2011 (about less than 2 months until the Iowa caucus), Ron Paul already established a strong base in Iowa. A very strong second place (sometimes third place). About 3 weeks until Iowa caucus begins, Ron had effectively became one of the front runner in Iowa. So this bullshit about Ron somehow poll 5% leading up to Iowa caucus is just BULLSHIT. In July of 2011, he already more than double this 5% in Iowa. Also to note, Ron usually poll better in Iowa than nationally.
In New Hampshire, Ron reached double digit by mid August, and solidified himself in third place since then. At the end of November/beginning of December of 2011 (which is comparable to right now because 2012 New Hampshire primary is a month earlier than in 2016), Ron surged past 15% and on his way to be above 20%. For the 1 month (which is about right now) leading up to the New Hampshire primary, Ron is statistically tied for 2nd place and start to solidified himself into defacto second place since Romney leads New Hampshire throughout the 2012 primary cycle by a large margin. Ron Paul also never score below 5% in New Hampshire. Although he score sometimes at 10% or above like in April of 2011 (or some 8 months before the NH primary begin). He consistently score above 10% starting mid August or some 3 months and a half before the primary begins.
I had to make this thread because some of the exaggerations are becoming more and more ridiculous. And people repeating their own bullshits enough that they actually starting to buy them. Some polls are screwed. But geez, you don't go from below 5% (one month and a half) in the polls to become winner or top 3 in this very crowded field (unless you are Santorum in 2011/12). Heck Ron Paul in 2012 never did that. He had a decent to strong polling leading up to those contests.
Feel free to throw this thread into the trash. Also to note that the much much larger field in 2016 does influenced these percentages.
But can Rand be the next Santorum since I brought the guy up.
We all know, Santorum only campaign in Iowa.
About 1 month until the Iowa contest, Santorum does poll above 5% but really low in the poll. Some 2 weeks until the contest, he is on average around 10%. It took him about about 1 week to get his 10% to 24.6% and win in Iowa.
If you want to compare Rand Paul to Santorum, then there is time yet for Rand Paul. Nationally, Santorum is slightly higher than Rand (but compare the size of the field, it if fair to say they are about the same).
However, for Rand to become Santorum. Couple of popular candidates should have drop out and or embarrassed themselves so much that they are dead in the water within this last leg of the race (Cain and Perry). And that the torch had literally passed to every single one that was a "better candidates" (according to the voters). Right now, we still have Cruz and Rubio. Carson still holding on to his supporters (especially in Iowa where it matter). Trump is not falling like Gingrich but actually rising on the polls. Bush and Kasich still hold a good proportion in New Hampshire. And freaking Christie had a tiny surge like Fiorina before him, and score extremely well in New Hampshire becoming one of the strong second tier after Trump as defacto 1st tier.
I have been reading way too many retarded comments like this.
Now, people are just pulling bullshits out of their ass.
Let me set the stage, around this time in 2011, Gingrich began to fall (not until the media fail and report Romney won in Iowa that Santorum lost support in South Carolina and Gingrich rise again for a short while until he got his ass kick in Florida).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natio..._Party_2012_presidential_primaries#2011_polls
If you pay attention to the November, December, January "NATIONAL" poll #s.
Gingrich is falling but still have good support (very much like Carson for the past month). While Santorum starting to doubling (at the end of 2011) and tripling (at the beginning of 2012). Ron pretty much stabilized in National polls from 12 to higher than 15% at time. This is compare to Rand right now being less than 5% nationally.
We can make the argument to compare Ron's November #s with Rand's December #s because the Iowa caucuses are 1 month behind.
Even then, Ron Paul is still double Rand's #s (of course there are way more candidates right now).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State..._primaries,_January_2012#Iowa_.28January_3.29
But by the end of November 2011 (which is comparable to right now), Ron is in the high teens in Iowa showing that core support are really strong. Within 2 weeks into December (which is comparable to the first 2 weeks into the New Year or at this point 1 month away). Ron Paul had surged into the 20s and effectively lead to coleading Iowa for 3 weeks till the caucus. You can also see that as Gingrich falter in Iowa, both Ron and Santorum's number improved.
So let me recap once again, as far back as Nov 10/2011 (about less than 2 months until the Iowa caucus), Ron Paul already established a strong base in Iowa. A very strong second place (sometimes third place). About 3 weeks until Iowa caucus begins, Ron had effectively became one of the front runner in Iowa. So this bullshit about Ron somehow poll 5% leading up to Iowa caucus is just BULLSHIT. In July of 2011, he already more than double this 5% in Iowa. Also to note, Ron usually poll better in Iowa than nationally.
In New Hampshire, Ron reached double digit by mid August, and solidified himself in third place since then. At the end of November/beginning of December of 2011 (which is comparable to right now because 2012 New Hampshire primary is a month earlier than in 2016), Ron surged past 15% and on his way to be above 20%. For the 1 month (which is about right now) leading up to the New Hampshire primary, Ron is statistically tied for 2nd place and start to solidified himself into defacto second place since Romney leads New Hampshire throughout the 2012 primary cycle by a large margin. Ron Paul also never score below 5% in New Hampshire. Although he score sometimes at 10% or above like in April of 2011 (or some 8 months before the NH primary begin). He consistently score above 10% starting mid August or some 3 months and a half before the primary begins.
I had to make this thread because some of the exaggerations are becoming more and more ridiculous. And people repeating their own bullshits enough that they actually starting to buy them. Some polls are screwed. But geez, you don't go from below 5% (one month and a half) in the polls to become winner or top 3 in this very crowded field (unless you are Santorum in 2011/12). Heck Ron Paul in 2012 never did that. He had a decent to strong polling leading up to those contests.
Feel free to throw this thread into the trash. Also to note that the much much larger field in 2016 does influenced these percentages.
But can Rand be the next Santorum since I brought the guy up.
We all know, Santorum only campaign in Iowa.
About 1 month until the Iowa contest, Santorum does poll above 5% but really low in the poll. Some 2 weeks until the contest, he is on average around 10%. It took him about about 1 week to get his 10% to 24.6% and win in Iowa.
If you want to compare Rand Paul to Santorum, then there is time yet for Rand Paul. Nationally, Santorum is slightly higher than Rand (but compare the size of the field, it if fair to say they are about the same).
However, for Rand to become Santorum. Couple of popular candidates should have drop out and or embarrassed themselves so much that they are dead in the water within this last leg of the race (Cain and Perry). And that the torch had literally passed to every single one that was a "better candidates" (according to the voters). Right now, we still have Cruz and Rubio. Carson still holding on to his supporters (especially in Iowa where it matter). Trump is not falling like Gingrich but actually rising on the polls. Bush and Kasich still hold a good proportion in New Hampshire. And freaking Christie had a tiny surge like Fiorina before him, and score extremely well in New Hampshire becoming one of the strong second tier after Trump as defacto 1st tier.
