Reported ARG poll numbers in ERROR, spread the word!

[Dianne]

Said it a million times on this forum... Time for attack ads on the news media... expose their lying, asses... Forget about the other candidates... expose the news media for making GODS out of crooks.. make people awaken to the brainwashing, and they will be free to vote for Ron Paul.

The truth shall set them free.

 

[Jack Bauer]

So either their Likely-Probably split number is false, or their poll numbers are false.

Either way, what a massive fuck up of a pollster.

Yup. Pretty much.

 

[RickyJ]

So either their Likely-Probably split number is false, or their poll numbers are false.

Either way, what a massive fuck up of a pollster.

I think the whole poll is false.

 

[Johnnybags]

LOL, Boston media reporting Huntsman surge into second, media is so corrupt, we live in Russia.

 

[JJ2]

I think think whole poll is false.

And the worst part is that Huntsman is about to go on national TV for the debate and tell everyone he is in 2nd place now!

 

[Liberty74]

And the worst part is that Huntsman is about to go on national TV for the debate and tell everyone he is in 2nd place now!

And that is the whole purpose. To artificially create a surging candidate to knock Paul out of the top 2 spots. It worked in Iowa. The powers to be know what they are doing with pollsters and the media.

 

[kill the banks]

can someone let campaign know please

 

[Jack Bauer]

Someone that knows the calculations, call them.

603/624-4081

Goes to their voice mail.

 

[Tyler_Durden]

Yup. Pretty much.

Bingo!! This--->
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?347737-War-on-Two-Fronts-The-GOP-and-the-MSM

 

[Tyler_Durden]

Said it a million times on this forum... Time for attack ads on the news media... expose their lying, asses... Forget about the other candidates... expose the news media for making GODS out of crooks.. make people awaken to the brainwashing, and they will be free to vote for Ron Paul.

The truth shall set them free.

Bingo! This --->http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?347737-War-on-Two-Fronts-The-GOP-and-the-MSM

 

[JJ2]

Another ARG poll (for Florida) which shows a "Definite"/"Probably" breakdown of 90/10: http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/fl/ It looks like their polls never have anywhere close to a 50/50 breakdown (as this NH poll would have to have in order for Huntsman to actually be in 2nd)

 

[ord33]

JJ2: Good point about Florida.

At this point I think its fairly safe to say that ARG either made an error with their 97/3 calculation or had a corrupt poll where they made stuff up out of nowhere.

 

[WD-NY]

lol

daveweigel daveweigel
"New ARG poll" deeeeEEEEEleted
​

 

[Varin]

lol

 

[tucker]

ARG:

"Using a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 meaning that you will definitely not vote in the 2012 Republican presidential preference primary and 10 meaning that you will definitely vote in the 2012 Republican presidential preference primary, what number would you give as your chance of voting in the 2012 Republican presidential preference primary?"

The graphic at the bottom shows only 10-7 (10 = Definite, 7-9 = Likely).

Therefore, Could the discrepancy be coming from the fact that they don't show the percentage for those who answered less than 7?

Just throwing it out there, I could be completely wrong.

EDIT: If this were the case, it wouldn't make the poll anymore valid in my opinion.

 

[Jack Bauer]

lol

I can still access it.

 

[Oddone]

This is why RCP refuses to use their polls.

 

[Jack Bauer]

ARG:

"Using a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 meaning that you will definitely not vote in the 2012 Republican presidential preference primary and 10 meaning that you will definitely vote in the 2012 Republican presidential preference primary, what number would you give as your chance of voting in the 2012 Republican presidential preference primary?"

The graphic at the bottom shows only 10-7 (10 = Definite, 7-9 = Likely).

Therefore, Could the discrepancy be coming from the fact that they don't show the percentage for those who answered less than 7?

Just throwing it out there, I could be completely wrong.

No, the poll is for likely republican voters i.e., those who scored from 7 through 10.

They were split into two categories - Definite voters (97%) who were rated 10 and Probable Voters (3%) who were rated 7-9 making up 100% of the sample.

 

[redmod79]

ARG:

"Using a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 meaning that you will definitely not vote in the 2012 Republican presidential preference primary and 10 meaning that you will definitely vote in the 2012 Republican presidential preference primary, what number would you give as your chance of voting in the 2012 Republican presidential preference primary?"


The graphic at the bottom shows only 10-7 (10 = Definite, 7-9 = Likely).

Therefore, Could the discrepancy be coming from the fact that they don't show the percentage for those who answered less than 7?

Just throwing it out there, I could be completely wrong.

EDIT: If this were the case, it wouldn't make the poll anymore valid in my opinion.

Unlikely voters wouldn't be relevant, anyways. Other polls match up with the other splits.

 

[tucker]

Unlikely voters wouldn't be relevant, anyways. Other polls match up with the other splits.

This is exactly what I was thinking. I just wanted to cover all the bases before claiming it's flawed.