Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Nov 16

[Bradley in DC]

Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Rudy Giuliani 29%
Mike Huckabee 12%
Mitt Romney 12%
Fred Thompson 12%
John McCain 10%
Ron Paul 5%
Survey includes approximately 600-650 Likely Republican Primary Voters. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points

 

[noztnac]

These polls mean nothing

They are polling the 6% who voted for Bush when he ran unopposed. It's meaningless.

 

[Bradley in DC]

I am a Paul supporter and think the best way for us to win is to be realists and work hard. Your poll critiques are baseless to those of us who understand the profession, no offense.

My goal is for people to give up their conspiracy insecurities, face reality, and get to work on serious questions (delegates, door-to-door campaigning) so we can win.

Have you gone to your state's subforum and updated the primary information?

 

[kylejack]

They are polling the 6% who voted for Bush when he ran unopposed. It's meaningless.

I used to work for Gallup, and you are not correct, for the vast majority of polls.

 

[mwkaufman]

I used to work for Gallup, and you are not correct, for the vast majority of polls.

Yeah, it's really quite lol, Rasmussen has us at 6%! We're making a difference!

Rasmussen at 5%! Oh no, it's rigged let's start up our own polling companies, omg they hate Ron Paul.

 

[xj0hnx]

Your poll critiques are baseless to those of us who understand the profession, no offense.

So, why don't you tell us how they work, for those of us that don't know. I am guessing they call from a list of registered voters? And that list of registered voters has to have voted republican, and have a landline for them to call listed. Do they call XXXX number of people, and ask them how they voted in the last election? Or ask them open ended questions?

 

[Bradley in DC]

So, why don't you tell us how they work, for those of us that don't know. I am guessing they call from a list of registered voters? And that list of registered voters has to have voted republican, and have a landline for them to call listed. Do they call XXXX number of people, and ask them how they voted in the last election? Or ask them open ended questions?

For this (and other polls I post here) there is a link to their specific methodology (and it's good to take rational analyses of these kinds of things). I've posted A LOT on polling, etc.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=101077

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=10219

A good place to start would be here:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/FAQ.php

 

[Convert]

I still believe the poll results are vastly underestimating Ron Paul's support. I don't think the so-called scientific polls are any better of a indicator, and probably not as good, as the straw poll results, the numbers that flock to see Ron Paul, the amount raised on November 5th, the phenomenon of how we affect Internet traffic. But I'll admit I know nothing about polling.

 

[xj0hnx]

For this (and other polls I post here) there is a link to their specific methodology (and it's good to take rational analyses of these kinds of things). I've posted A LOT on polling, etc.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=101077

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=10219

A good place to start would be here:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/FAQ.php

Ok, so I skimmed over a few pages there, and while I get the gist of it, it still doesn't give me in faith that a sampling of society from a group a quarter the size of my graduating class is a real indication of how the vote will go. I'd really like to see exactly how they get the results from specific polls as opposed to a general overview of how multiple pollsters are getting results.

 

[ronpaulitician]

I think the polls will reflect the voting behavior of the ones polled.

I think the voting behavior of Paul supporters will reflect their current passion.

 

[Bradley in DC]

I still believe the poll results are vastly underestimating Ron Paul's support. I don't think the so-called scientific polls are any better of a indicator, and probably not as good, as the straw poll results, the numbers that flock to see Ron Paul, the amount raised on November 5th, the phenomenon of how we affect Internet traffic. But I'll admit I know nothing about polling.

The scientific polls and straw polls measure two different things. The low numbers in the scientfic polls reflect Dr. Paul's low name ID while the straw polls demonstrate the enthusiasm of our supporters!

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

For this (and other polls I post here) there is a link to their specific methodology (and it's good to take rational analyses of these kinds of things). I've posted A LOT on polling, etc.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=101077

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=10219

A good place to start would be here:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/FAQ.php

Thanks for the links. I'm a big skeptic when it comes to polls, especially when it comes to gauging the support of a candidate who's rocking the boat like Paul is, but I appreciate being able to learn a little more about their inner workings. And honestly, my biggest issue with polls is that I think public opinion is more influenced by them than they reflect public opinion (the "why waste my vote on someone who isn't 'winning'?" problem).

Anyway, this poll is actually good for us. Paul is within striking distance of McCain and all the others aren't far off, except for Rudolph.

 

[jacmicwag]

Yes, we need to see more pics of Rudy in his cute outfit to even the score.

 

[Midnight77]

The scientific polls and straw polls measure two different things. The low numbers in the scientfic polls reflect Dr. Paul's low name ID while the straw polls demonstrate the enthusiasm of our supporters!

Hit the nail on the head. We have to pray for low turnout for the Primaries, as we know our supporters I dare say will be close to 98%.

 

[Bradley in DC]

I still believe the poll results are vastly underestimating Ron Paul's support. I don't think the so-called scientific polls are any better of a indicator, and probably not as good, as the straw poll results, the numbers that flock to see Ron Paul, the amount raised on November 5th, the phenomenon of how we affect Internet traffic. But I'll admit I know nothing about polling.

Try a little test: go door-to-door and interview 100 people or more, introduce them to Dr. Paul. Get back with us as to how many people had even heard of the good doctor or heard enough to identify with his positions (or only heard the Hannity version).

 

[expatinireland]

I agree with Bradley that we need to understand the polls. We shouldn't be discouraged by the low numbers but take them as an indication of the amount of work that needs to be done.

I am here in Ireland, so I can't go out knocking on doors, but knocking on doors is what needs to be done.

Even if we raise 20 million from the Tea Party we won't win unless there is personal canvassing of the voters. Our message is strong, and I believe the logic behind our positions and the genuine sincerity of the good doctor will win over people but they need to be asked on a one to one basis.

When a personal contact is made, the prospective voter might not give the canvaser an initial positive response but they will definitely then know that Ron Paul has an organisation behind him and this will start the brain cells a working so that they will be more likely to view our candidate as a serious contender and therefore give our
candidate their due consideration.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Some caveats

We don't have "national" elections so take all national polls with a grain of salt. Half of the states allow independents to vote in our primaries, half don't. The polls are going to be half wrong on that score whichever they pick.

The timing of the primaries matters a lot (not that it should or has to, but that it historically has). We are doing better in the early states (where we're running ads) than nationally.

The polls this far out are mostly a reflection of name ID and show where we need to do more work--and the progress we're making!

 

[d'anconia]

I agree that we can't just write off all polls that aren't in our favor and then somehow give credence to all straw polls that we win.

Ron Paul's name ID is still very low and taht's why we need to keep working hard. I'm curious as to how the average one of these polls works on the phone but alas I have no landline (who does anymore? ancient artifacts).

I'd seriously like to see some possible debunking done with regards to how easily RP supporters write off poor performances. Do they *really* only call landline telephones? Only Bush voters for 2004? Only registered GOP members? I mean surely if one poll is done inaccurately that doesn't necessarily mean they all are(?).

 

[Bradley in DC]

I agree that we can't just write off all polls that aren't in our favor and then somehow give credence to all straw polls that we win.

Ron Paul's name ID is still very low and taht's why we need to keep working hard. I'm curious as to how the average one of these polls works on the phone but alas I have no landline (who does anymore? ancient artifacts).

I'd seriously like to see some possible debunking done with regards to how easily RP supporters write off poor performances. Do they *really* only call landline telephones? Only Bush voters for 2004? Only registered GOP members? I mean surely if one poll is done inaccurately that doesn't necessarily mean they all are(?).

The landline issue is jibberish: they want representative samples so the young person they get (perhaps with more effort) represents that demographic. Some polls use random dialing anyway so it doesn't matter. Others on this very forum with no landline have participated in the polls (registering with them online, etc.).

Different polls measure different populations (read the fine print and learn to be more discerning): registered voters v. "likely" voters. Each company defines its likely voters differently. And yes, unquestionably, those who have a history of voting in Republican primaries are, statistically, much more likely than others to vote in this one. In the 2004 primary people also voted in Senate, Governor, Congressional and other races. Bush isn't that special. Get over it already.

And, yes, there is, in polling and in life, a variety of quality out there. The best polls are those that give you publicly their methodology and questions in order with crosstabs, etc. Actually, no, the best ones are internal commissioned by the campaigns that we never see.

 

[CelestialRender]

The difference between the straw polls and the phone polls is that someone actually has to leave their home and place a vote in a straw poll -- which reflects exactly the same kind of self-selection bias that's going to cause us to win.

10% is a good primary turn-out. If we get 50% (which would be poor by our standards, considering the fact that WE, not the staffers, run this campaign) compared to the main-stream candidates' 10%, we still win. Even by the phone poll numbers, which exclude non-republicans, younger voters, people who don't have landlines, or people who don't answer calls from unknown numbers, or like to complete surveys....all of which groups most of our supporters fall into.

TL;DR: The phone polls are probably skewed, but even if they're not, more of us will show up at the polls for the primaries.