Rasmussen counter-story Iowa poll

[parocks]

Yes, I'm sure Scott Rasmussen has some kind of secret agenda against Ron. Lol. In reality, they simply have a different polling methodology. They only poll people who have voted in GOP primaries in past years.

You're the closest. And you might be 100% right.

It's really amazing how no theory at all is required to just claim that Rasmussen is making it up.

And nobody has mentioned anything at all about the nature of Ron Paul's support.

No one has mentioned crosstabs. Nothing.

PPP is lying. PPP lies about Ron Paul's favorability with 18-29.

No one here has mentioned that Ron Paul's poll numbers vary extremely widely based on what age groups the pollsters talk to.

I can pretty much guess whether the poll will be "good" or "bad" for Ron Paul depending on what percentage of the polling sample is 18-29.

If there's 15% or so 18-29, we will enjoy the results.
.
If there's 5% or so 18-29, we will not enjoy the results.

It works that way pretty much every time (unless it's PPP).

We don't have the crosstabs of ANY of these polls.

We do know that Bloomberg talked to A LOT of 18-29. Much much more than pollsters usually talk to.

That's why we got great numbers from Bloomberg.

 

[trey4sports]

You're the closest. And you might be 100% right.

It's really amazing how no theory at all is required to just claim that Rasmussen is making it up.

And nobody has mentioned anything at all about the nature of Ron Paul's support.

No one has mentioned crosstabs. Nothing.

PPP is lying. PPP lies about Ron Paul's favorability with 18-29.

No one here has mentioned that Ron Paul's poll numbers vary extremely widely based on what age groups the pollsters talk to.

I can pretty much guess whether the poll will be "good" or "bad" for Ron Paul depending on what percentage of the polling sample is 18-29.

If there's 15% or so 18-29, we will enjoy the results.
.
If there's 5% or so 18-29, we will not enjoy the results.

It works that way pretty much every time (unless it's PPP).

We don't have the crosstabs of ANY of these polls.

We do know that Bloomberg talked to A LOT of 18-29. Much much more than pollsters usually talk to.

That's why we got great numbers from Bloomberg.

I'll give you one.....


This far out from the Caucus Rasmussen is using polling as a way to mold public perception rather than accurately get a snapshot of current candidate support.

 

[parocks]

Look this might be a valid poll, it's just a case of contacting a non-representative part of the voters!

However, the latest FOX-news poll is rigged; check this out:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...(Nationally)&p=3753655&viewfull=1#post3753655

Yes to "non-representative part of the voters"

Our voters - 18-29 - rarely vote.

So the pollsters say "well, 18-29s rarely vote, so let's talk to 65+"

And they do.

And Ron Paul often gets less than 5% of 65+

And Ron Paul often gets more than 30% of 18-29

That's why the polls are different.

 

[sailingaway]

Yes to "non-representative part of the voters"

Our voters - 18-29 - rarely vote.

So the pollsters say "well, 18-29s rarely vote, so let's talk to 65+"

And they do.

And Ron Paul often gets less than 5% of 65+

And Ron Paul often gets more than 30% of 18-29

That's why the polls are different.

and that is why some of them don't accurately predict Ron. But I believe his internal polls will.

 

[parocks]

and that is why some of them don't accurately predict Ron. But I believe his internal polls will.

What does "accurately predict Ron" mean?

No one knows at this point how many 18-29 year olds are going to vote in the Republican Iowa Caucus in January 2012.

Ron Paul's internal polls are making guesses.
Bloomberg is making guesses.
Iowa State is making guesses.
Rasmussen is making guesses.

And we have no idea in most cases what the guesses they're making are.

All almost everyone here on RPF is capable of saying is "I enjoy when Ron Paul is higher. Therefore, everyone who has Ron Paul lower is lying."

I, too, accuse pollsters of lying.

I accuse PPP of lying about Ron Paul's favorability with 18-29s. And also his support with 18-29s.
I've looked at old polls, before they started lying, and new polls after they started lying.
And those 2 sets of numbers are so far apart that the most reasonable explanation is that they're lying.

But, here, the most likely reason why the Rasmussen numbers are low is that they didn't talk to many 18-29s.

Before the Rasmussen poll came out, after the Bloomberg poll came out, I said that I would be surprised if the newer polls confirmed the Bloomberg polls.

It's really really simple. If they talk to a lot of 18-29, we do great.

It's rare when a lot of 18-29 vote in the Republican caucus.

Rasmussen is not assuming that a rare event will take place, even though there's a good amount of evidence that that rare event will take place.

 

[lucent]

Yes, I'm sure Scott Rasmussen has some kind of secret agenda against Ron. Lol. In reality, they simply have a different polling methodology. They only poll people who have voted in GOP primaries in past years.

So did that different polling methodology prevent Rasmussen from reporting poll results during the primary in Kentucky while simply saying it was 'very close' despite other polls saying Rand was ahead by 19%? All while pitting Grayson against Democratic nominees showing him 15% above them, but never bothered to do such a thing with Rand?

 

[IndianaPolitico]

Let's spread the other polls around so much, this one is pushed to the side.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Gazette-poll-Cain-24.5-Paul-20.4-Gingrich-4.8

 

[sailingaway]

What does "accurately predict Ron" mean?

No one knows at this point how many 18-29 year olds are going to vote in the Republican Iowa Caucus in January 2012.

Ron Paul's internal polls are making guesses.
Bloomberg is making guesses.
Iowa State is making guesses.
Rasmussen is making guesses.

And we have no idea in most cases what the guesses they're making are.

All almost everyone here on RPF is capable of saying is "I enjoy when Ron Paul is higher. Therefore, everyone who has Ron Paul lower is lying."

I, too, accuse pollsters of lying.

I accuse PPP of lying about Ron Paul's favorability with 18-29s. And also his support with 18-29s.
I've looked at old polls, before they started lying, and new polls after they started lying.
And those 2 sets of numbers are so far apart that the most reasonable explanation is that they're lying.

But, here, the most likely reason why the Rasmussen numbers are low is that they didn't talk to many 18-29s.

Before the Rasmussen poll came out, after the Bloomberg poll came out, I said that I would be surprised if the newer polls confirmed the Bloomberg polls.

It's really really simple. If they talk to a lot of 18-29, we do great.

It's rare when a lot of 18-29 vote in the Republican caucus.

Rasmussen is not assuming that a rare event will take place, even though there's a good amount of evidence that that rare event will take place.

I keep quoting something I haven't double checked yet which is that Rasmussen was low by 150% in predicting Ron last time and the pollster used by Bloomberg was about a point off if that.

All I'm saying is if they are projecting voter base differently, they can't all be right and our reasons for selecting the right one (in my case the one that matches Ron's internal numbers which were accurate in Rand's race) are as good as any others.

 

[parocks]

I'll give you one.....


This far out from the Caucus Rasmussen is using polling as a way to mold public perception rather than accurately get a snapshot of current candidate support.

No, not a theory about WHY they'd make it up but a theory about what actually happened.

Listen, try to get this.

18-29 year olds rarely RARELY vote in the Iowa Caucuses, especially in the Republican Caucuses.

Rasmussen is simply not guessing that a RARE event will take place.

There certainly is evidence that a RARE event will take place.

Bloomberg IS guessing that RARE event will take place.

If that RARE event takes place, we're closer to Bloomberg.

If that RARE event does not take place, we're closer to Rasmussen.

What I find almost shocking at this point is that people don't understand that most of the variation in the polls - everywhere - has to do with how many 18-29s they talked to.

We get 30% or more of 18-29s. And single digits with the older people.

Don't we know this? Haven't we figured this out?

It happens every single time.

Learn it.

 

[parocks]

I keep quoting something I haven't double checked yet which is that Rasmussen was low by 150% in predicting Ron last time and the pollster used by Bloomberg was about a point off if that.

All I'm saying is if they are projecting voter base differently, they can't all be right and our reasons for selecting the right one (in my case the one that matches Ron's internal numbers which were accurate in Rand's race) are as good as any others.

projecting voter base differently

is right.

But until there are real elections, polls can't be wrong.

 

[lucent]

People who continue to defend Rasmussen never answer my question I keep putting forward.

Did that different polling methodology prevent Rasmussen from reporting poll results during the primary in Kentucky while simply saying it was 'very close' despite other polls saying Rand was ahead by 19%? All while pitting Grayson against Democratic nominees showing him 15% above them, but never bothered to do such a thing with Rand?

 

[trey4sports]

What does "accurately predict Ron" mean?

No one knows at this point how many 18-29 year olds are going to vote in the Republican Iowa Caucus in January 2012.

Ron Paul's internal polls are making guesses.
Bloomberg is making guesses.
Iowa State is making guesses.
Rasmussen is making guesses.

And we have no idea in most cases what the guesses they're making are.

All almost everyone here on RPF is capable of saying is "I enjoy when Ron Paul is higher. Therefore, everyone who has Ron Paul lower is lying."

I, too, accuse pollsters of lying.

I accuse PPP of lying about Ron Paul's favorability with 18-29s. And also his support with 18-29s.
I've looked at old polls, before they started lying, and new polls after they started lying.
And those 2 sets of numbers are so far apart that the most reasonable explanation is that they're lying.

But, here, the most likely reason why the Rasmussen numbers are low is that they didn't talk to many 18-29s.

Before the Rasmussen poll came out, after the Bloomberg poll came out, I said that I would be surprised if the newer polls confirmed the Bloomberg polls.

It's really really simple. If they talk to a lot of 18-29, we do great.

It's rare when a lot of 18-29 vote in the Republican caucus.

Rasmussen is not assuming that a rare event will take place, even though there's a good amount of evidence that that rare event will take place.

Without seeing how each age group is being represented in the Rasmussen poll you're really just guessing as to that being the reason.

It very well could be the fact that they are only counting republicans as "likely voters" and are not polling independents.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Before the Rasmussen poll came out, after the Bloomberg poll came out, I said that I would be surprised if the newer polls confirmed the Bloomberg polls.

It's really really simple. If they talk to a lot of 18-29, we do great.

It's rare when a lot of 18-29 vote in the Republican caucus.

Rasmussen is not assuming that a rare event will take place, even though there's a good amount of evidence that that rare event will take place.

The flaw in this argument is that the Des Moines polls placing Paul statistically in first UNDERREPRESENTED the 18-29 vote for Paul. Thus the factor of whether the youth vote will show up for Paul was already accounted for in the Des Moines poll. Meaning, if anything, the 19% Paul got is understating his vote in IA at this time.

As a former Harris poll worker, I can confirm the polling of organizations does indeed frequently, or is even usually structured to produce leading results that push the agenda of the party that sponsors the poll. I'm still wondering how Rasmussen's polling of Newt at 5%, now 30+% in November, isn't a dead giveaway to everyone that their methodology is stilted towards establishment candidates.

 

[parocks]

The flaw in this argument is that the Des Moines polls placing Paul statistically in first UNDERREPRESENTED the 18-29 vote for Paul. Thus the factor of whether the youth vote will show up for Paul was already accounted for in the Des Moines poll. Meaning, if anything, the 19% Paul got is understating his vote in IA at this time.

As a former Harris poll worker, I can confirm the polling of organizations does indeed frequently, or is even usually structured to produce leading results that push the agenda of the party that sponsors the poll. I'm still wondering how Rasmussen's polling of Newt at 5%, now 30+% in November, isn't a dead giveaway to everyone that their methodology is stilted towards establishment candidates.

Really? Links to this?

Because I would like to see the breakdown of the Iowa State poll. The Bloomberg poll in Iowa did talk to many more kids than the Iowa polls usually do.

Show your work.

 

[parocks]

Without seeing how each age group is being represented in the Rasmussen poll you're really just guessing as to that being the reason.

It very well could be the fact that they are only counting republicans as "likely voters" and are not polling independents.

Everybody is doing a lot of guessing.

Pollsters are always making guesses.

I guess we're upset Rasmussen isn't making the guesses that favor Ron Paul.

Rasmussen and Bloomberg made different guesses. I guess we can agree on that.

 

[Brett85]

So was Rasmussen "anti Ron" when they came out with an Iowa poll this summer where they had Ron at 16%? Or was that poll actually legitimate since it had Ron doing better?

 

[Brett85]

So did that different polling methodology prevent Rasmussen from reporting poll results during the primary in Kentucky while simply saying it was 'very close' despite other polls saying Rand was ahead by 19%? All while pitting Grayson against Democratic nominees showing him 15% above them, but never bothered to do such a thing with Rand?

I remember Rasmussen polling both Rand and Grayson head to head against Conway and the other Dem candidate. They underestimated Rand's margin of victory in the primary, but so did every other polling organization except for one.

I can't find the final primary poll, but below is the final general election poll. They had Rand winning by twelve, and he ended up winning by twelve.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ctions/kentucky/election_2010_kentucky_senate

 

[Join The Paul Side]

Here's the results from Rasmussen's Poll last month in Iowa, and comparing it now:
Cain 28% (-15)
Romney 21% (+2)
Paul 10% (0)
Gingrich 9%, (+23)
Bachmann 8% (-2)
Perry 7% (-1)

I call bullshit on this poll. Ron didn't gain a single supporter off of Cain? They all went to Newt? Bullshit.

Watch. In the next few days Rassmussen will release some wacked out poll with Newt in second in NH and Ron way down in 3rd or 4th.

 

[NeoconTea]

LOL even Karl Rove called this Rasmussen poll an outlier!

 

[NeoconTea]

So was Rasmussen "anti Ron" when they came out with an Iowa poll this summer where they had Ron at 16%? Or was that poll actually legitimate since it had Ron doing better?

When you first take a poll you don't know how the results are going to end up. You don't know where to poll or where not to poll. Nobody really watches early Iowa polls.

Ron has clearly gained support in Iowa so the fact that he's 6 points LOWER is actually better evidence for manipulation than anything.

Also you don't find it the least bit fishy that they pump that poll out mere days after RP's 20 and 19??

If you want an accurate assessment of where candidates stand, bookmark and spread http://gop2012polls.blogspot.com/ and put pressure on polling institutes to be honest about their polls. Well over half of the polls are disqualified over there because they don't meet the standards.