Reported ARG poll numbers in ERROR, spread the word!

[JJ2]

The overall numbers for the ARG poll, as reported on their website, are in error!

If you look at the detailed numbers (here: http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/nh/), it says that "Definite" voters make up 97% of their "likely voters" polled and "Probably" make up 3%. And yet Paul is beating Huntsman 23%-11% among "Definite" voters and Huntsman is beating Paul 24%-8% among "Probably."

So someone explain to me how they get 17% to 16% overall? It looks like their overall numbers are a 50/50 split of the "Definite"/"Probably" numbers, instead of a 97/3 split.

Comparing it to their SC poll (http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/sc/), it looks like they really made a mistake here. In SC, the "Definite/Probably" breakdown is 90%-10%, which is much more in line with a 97%-3% split than a 50/50 split.

I don't think they would do something so obvious on purpose. (But who knows?!)

If these numbers really are erroneous, and it looks that way to me (especially comparing it with other recent polls), then we need to get the word out FAST!

 

[redmod79]

That's definitely what they did. P.O.S. pollsters.

 

[RickyJ]

The overall numbers for the ARG poll, as reported on their website, are in error!

If you look at the detailed numbers (here: http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/nh/), it says that "Definite" voters make up 97% of their "likely voters" polled and "Probably" make up 3%. And yet Paul is beating Huntsman 23%-11% among "Definite" voters and Huntsman is beating Paul 24%-8% among "Probably."

So someone explain to me how they get 17% to 16% overall? It looks like their overall numbers are a 50/50 split of the "Definite"/"Probably" numbers, instead of a 97/3 split.

Comparing it to their SC poll (http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/sc/), it looks like they really made a mistake here. I don't think they would do something so obvious on purpose. (But who knows?!)

If these numbers really are erroneous, and it looks that way to me (especially comparing it with other recent polls), then we need to get the word out FAST!

The media does not care about the truth here, neither does the polling company. Telling the media about this will do no good. I highly doubt that any poll we are getting these days from the establishment is accurate, they just can't be trusted. If we want to know the truth we are going to have to conduct our own poll.

 

[Thomasjefferson69]

Find contact info for arg and we can mail them.

 

[sailingaway]

Can someone who is better at math than I am (randomly, any other person on these forums) double check that? Because Huntsman has already been tweeting that stupid poll out...

 

[JJ2]

They don't have an email address listed only a phone number: 603/624-4081

I hope someone can alert the Paul campaign to this. They could at least put out a statement on this or make ARG correct it

 

[QWDC]

Didn't they do something like this the last poll, where Paul polled 25% with men and 17% with women and he got 17% overall?

 

[redmod79]

RP: 23*.97 + 8*.03 = 22.55

JH: 11*.97 + 24*.03 = 11.39

 

[sailingaway]

RP: 23*.97 + 8*.03 = 22.55

JH: 11*.97 + 24*.03 = 11.39

thank you!

 

[lucent]

Someone that knows the calculations, call them.

603/624-4081

 

[69360]

What in the world do these numbers mean? The 10 and the 7-9? On a scale of 1-10???

Likely Republican
Primary Voters Definite - 10 (97%) Probably 7-9 (3%)

 

[Lord Xar]

Who owns a r g?

 

[Liberty74]

By looking at the breakdown of Republican voters, Independent and Tea Party for each candidate I don't see how Huntsman is in second. The only possible way is if they polled more Independents than Republicans, right?

Registered Republicans:
Romney 46%
Paul 14%
Huntsman 12%
Santorum 10%

Independents
Romney 30%
Huntsman 24%
Paul 20%
Santorum 15%.

Tea Party Supporters
Romney 33%
Gingrich 22%
Paul 15%
Santorum 15%

So to get a Santorum surge, CNN and the media whores that ran with it left out Independents. To get a Huntsman surge, ARG included a very high amount of Independents?

 

[Hoax]

They don't differentiate between definite and probably. So they did:

RP: 14*.6 + 20*.4 = 16.4 = 16

JH: 12*.6 + 24*.4 = 16.8 = 17

Nothing scandalous here. Aside from the BS poll.

 

[RDM]

It would not surprise me if there are some "anonymous" donations being made to this company in return for some "accidental" mistakes.

 

[lucent]

They don't differentiate between definite and probably. So they did:

RP: 14*.6 + 20*.4 = 16.4 = 16

JH: 12*.6 + 24*.4 = 16.8 = 17

Nothing scandalous here. Aside from the BS poll.

They did differentiate in the SC poll.

 

[Hoax]

They did differentiate in the SC poll.

Well in that case, game on.

Edit: No, I don't think they did. Look at the SC overall numbers, its based on Rep * % + Ind * %. No split between definite and probable.

 

[JJ2]

What in the world do these numbers mean? The 10 and the 7-9? On a scale of 1-10???

Yes, at the bottom of the page it says that it's a scale of 1-10. I'm guessing that only 7-10 answers make the cut overall for their poll of "Likely Republican Primary Voters."

 

[JJ2]

Well in that case, game on.

Yes, the Independent vs. Republican, Tea Party, etc. breakdowns look like they're based on the false 50/50 split of definite/probably voters.

 

[redmod79]

If you look at the other tabs, the results would be different though.

Perferences by Party:
RP: 14*.60 + 20*.40 = 16.4

by Tea Party support:
RP: 15*.27 + 17*.73 = 16.46



So something is fishy. The results for all candidates is about the average of the likely to vote splits. Did they have a typo for the likely to vote %? I don't know.