Rasmussen counter-story Iowa poll
- Thread starter kylejack
- Start date
have a link for that?
When and where? If Rove threw rasmussen under the bus for this I feel a lot better.
Give me liberty
Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 2,776
LOL! Really Rasmussen you expect us to believe that Gingrich has 32% support? the same 32% Herman Cain that had when Rasmussen give him the same polling?
NeoconTea
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 391
Hannity's TV show that was just on today. He went on a semi-rant about how that poll meant nothing.
Nice, Rove does know how to win elections.
*************************************
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_Iowa_1108.htm
**************************************
http://www.businessweek.com/pdf/poll11-15-11.pdf
***************************************
Here's the insider advantage poll and the bloomberg poll.
The only ones that give any clue as to how many kids they talked to .
the insider advantage poll with 11% Ron Paul talked to less than half the amount of kids as old and we got over 30% of the kids
the bloomberg poll with 19% Ron Paul talked to as many kids as old.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_Iowa_1108.htm
**************************************
http://www.businessweek.com/pdf/poll11-15-11.pdf
***************************************
Here's the insider advantage poll and the bloomberg poll.
The only ones that give any clue as to how many kids they talked to .
the insider advantage poll with 11% Ron Paul talked to less than half the amount of kids as old and we got over 30% of the kids
the bloomberg poll with 19% Ron Paul talked to as many kids as old.
NeoconTea
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 391
I don't understand the Insider Advantage poll at all. There's no way you can get 31.5% out of 48. If 15/48 are Paulies then it'd be 31.25%. If 16/48 are Paulies then it'd be 33.3%. Theres no possible way to get 31.5%. Insider Advantage seems totally manipulated and fake.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
That's a one dimensional metric, as the likely voting/registered voting dynamic also affects results, as does the sequence of questions asked. Was Paul referred to as much as the other candidates, which issues were emphasized, closest to which candidates' rhetoric? The impact of that factor can also egg on, draw out or turn off responses from different age groups.
In the Iowa state poll only 30% self identified as likely votes, out of 1278 polled. Dividing them up by Paul's 20% yields about 255 supporters, and only 76 of which (30%) are LV. Since only a fraction of that are young voters, the minute sample we are left which is clearly too small to draw conclusions about without more data. Ditto for the PPP poll that surveyed 576 GOP primary voters (only 6% of those were 18-29, or just 34 people 18-29). But the absence of indicators of any change in the establishmentarian theme of the polling, in combination with the other factors, suggest that the LV youth vote for Paul is under represented.
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
The point of polling is predicting the future. But the future is uncertain. The more distant the future, the more uncertain it is. When the event you're predicting is only a couple weeks away, your prediction is more likely to be accurate than when it's a couple months away.
As parocks said, there's a lot of guessing going on. No one really knows what will happen. The future is uncertain. Uncertainty is uncomfortable, and so we have lots and lots of polls trying to take the surprise out of the future. But uncertainty is a fact of reality and polls ultimately can't change that.
As parocks said, there's a lot of guessing going on. No one really knows what will happen. The future is uncertain. Uncertainty is uncomfortable, and so we have lots and lots of polls trying to take the surprise out of the future. But uncertainty is a fact of reality and polls ultimately can't change that.
Maybe they round up 31.25. You'll find that numbers for some reason don't act up.
Now, here's the question. what is the ratio of the 18-29s to 65+
less than half the number of 18-29s to 65+
no one knows what the turnout will be of those 2 age groups. But the assumptions that are made effect the result
they talked to 48 18-29s and 115 65+.
Bloomberg talked to 17.5% 18-29 and 17% 65+.
Insider Advantage - with a very Rasmussen like 11.4%, talked to more than twice as many 65+ as 18-29s
Bloomberg - with an enjoyable 19%, talked to the same number of 65+ as 18-29s.
The decisions that are being made as to how many of each group are what determine these outcomes, especially age. Bloomberg also talked to a lot of guys 60%.
I like all these polls actually. It shows that under optimum conditions we can get very close. And that's right now. And it shows that under typical conditions, we aren't close right now.
Well, I'm not sure that polls are meant to predict the future. I think they try to be a snapshot in time. If people have been paying attention this year, being in first place is the worst place to be. Nobody knows who you are, you speak clearly on the stage and say some things conservative republicans like, then you're in first place, then people find out a little bit more about you, and are then hammered, and then you fall. Newt is going to continue taking hits, and will fall. And all of these people, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Newt will have taken some serious hits. But we haven't. We'd like to get mentioned when we win something, we'd like to not get left off of lists.
These polls right now predict who is going to get slammed and then fall. A steady rise is good for us.
Sometimes people do use these polls to predict the future. They should study the past, it helps.
What you're saying isn't particularly clear. I'm looking for a clear if X then Y.
"establishmentarian theme" like what? how so? If what, then what? I'm not arguing you're wrong.
Here, it's absolutely clear that the more kids you talk to, the higher Ron Paul performs.
30% vs 5%. Huge difference. We see this in poll after poll after poll. Only PPP seems to buck this. PPP is lying. If they aren't just changing the numbers, they could have a custom set of 18-29 in Iowa. Keep calling the kids who don't like Ron Paul.
Well, we have no way of knowing that really. When I mean "talked to a lot of kids", I mean they could've talked to one kid and counted him twice. We know the numbers they gave us. Those were the numbers they used. After the adjustments they made. I don't think it really matters that much whether they brought up or down the numbers.
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
The distinction between LV and RV means that GOTV matters more to us than oxygen. Phone From Home needs to be the #1 Iowa priority, along with canvassing. Those are the two biggest advantages to enhancing GOTV.
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
And Iowa needs to be the #1 campaign priority, along with... nope, along with nothing. Just win Iowa.
;Ah nope. There has to be a solid structure in NH to take advantage of a momentum surge from Iowa. History is littered with loser candidates that won Iowa and couldn't follow through in NH. losing NH generally drains most of the momentum gained by a win in Iowa.
I don't know about Iowa specifically but I think 10% is about right as far as GOP base support for Paul....if you doubt that check out this site "positively republican" and todays poll of asking people for their 3 top choices....pretty much Neo-con's rule!! Paul doesn't have a prayer because the GOP base are morons that listen to O'reilly, Hannity, Rush, and Likud!!! http://www.facebook.com/positivelyrepublican
Similar threads
