The CNN poll that had Rand at 2 percent... The methodology was based on 320k caucusing...

[kbs021]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-iowa-but-there-may-be-an-obvious-reason-why/

"FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver notes that the CNN methodology is based on the possibility of more than 300,000 people turning out to caucus."

WTF???? Why would they make that estimation... If polling is making this type of assumption, no wonder this polling is so screwed up! This poll included 266 "likely voters" lol

Taking a look at the Iowa Secretary of State website, there has only been about 2k new voters registered in the republican party over the last 2-3 months... And the Cruz campaign has taken credit for some of those.. Yes you can register at the caucus, however, that's not something you want to base a tripling of the voting base on!!! I don't see this happening... It is criminal to have polls like this decide a damn debate line-up. CRIMINAL.

https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/pdf/VRStatsArchive/2016/CoJan16.pdf

https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/pdf/VRStatsArchive/2016/CoJan16.pdf

 

[kbs021]

Does anyone else here think it would be ridiculous to assume a 320k GOP turnout??? That would make Obama's 2008 campaign look weak... No way 320k caucus. The pollsters did this just because Trump is in the race.. But have NO facts to back this number up.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Does anyone else here think it would be ridiculous to assume a 320k GOP turnout???

Yes, it was only 120k last time (which was an all-time record high).

No way in hell they see anywhere close to 320k, I'd be surprised at half that.

 

[Kotin]

thats fucking criminal if its used as criteria for debate inclusion.. there is no precedent for this sort of bullshit

 

[kbs021]

Just sent this to Steve Grubbs and He told me he would be using this information in an "email-Blast".. He told me he personally expected 135k... Obama managed to get a 40% percent party turnout, with a LEGENDARY ground game. Having a turnout this high would require like a 60 percent turnout.. Explains his 37 percent number in this poll.. Pisses me off because this methodology basically killed us before the poll was even taken.

 

[opinionatedfool]

The methodology is based on bull shit

 

[Chester Copperpot]

what would rands % be if it was based on typical numbers?

 

[kbs021]

Could be wildly different. The DMR poll was based on a turnout around 120-150k i think and Rand got 5 percent even with the youth vote being ignored AND 5 percent of 2012 voters only being polled. This is a really terrible prediction. Trump does not have the ground game to double the 2012 election voting base.

 

[TheNewYorker]

what would rands % be if it was based on typical numbers?

3%

 

[laissez faire]

320k for both parties. 2012 had one party voting.

 

[Jackie Moon]

 

[kbs021]

320k for both parties. 2012 had one party voting.

No they are referring to the GOP alone lol.. Pretty screwed up. Makes no sense.

 

[hells_unicorn]

As someone who has worked the polls in Pennsylvania for about 8 years now, I can tell you straight up that the notion of over 50% of the party showing up for a primary election is an absolute joke. I've only worked 2 presidential primaries in Pennsylvania (primaries usually get higher turnout than caucuses) and both times we had a turn out that was well under 20%.

There are 612,112 active GOP voters as of this month in Iowa according to their website, and the notion of 54% of them showing up for the caucuses is beyond ludicrous. Most voters in my district can't even tell what a primary election is, they assume that they get one GOP and one Democrat choice and that's it.

 

[kbs021]

There was probably a turnout in the teens in 2012. The fact that pollsters are playing these games is telling me that we could really have a HUGE jump caucus night. We need one to survive.

 

[CPUd]

There was probably a turnout in the teens in 2012. The fact that pollsters are playing these games is telling me that we could really have a HUGE jump caucus night. We need one to survive.

I think this may be the objective. The press and the party "leadership" have been pumping Trump lately, so when he gets beat in Iowa it will be a bigger story, and easier for them to tear him down enough to threaten his position in NH. Taking NH away from him will put him out of the race altogether.

 

[Jackie Moon]

I think this may be the objective. The press and the party "leadership" have been pumping Trump lately, so when he gets beat in Iowa it will be a bigger story, and easier for them to tear him down enough to threaten his position in NH. Taking NH away from him will put him out of the race altogether.

Yes. There are obvious advantages to leading in the polls like he has, but there are disadvantages too.

If/when his final results in Iowa are lower than his poll numbers have been it will be seen as a let down.

And the opposite is true for Rand.

 

[nasaal]

What are we trying to say here? That the methodology behind this poll only hurts Rand, in order to keep him out of the debate? Seems like it was a bit of lazy polling that helps Trump a little, but in the end will keep things somewhere near the margin of error.

 

[howardroark]

Perhaps even more egregious is the fact that this is another CNN poll that only includes 55-64 year olds in a large enough sample to be included within an 8.5% margin of error. This skews an already unreliable poll even further.

 

[Crashland]

Perhaps even more egregious is the fact that this is another CNN poll that only includes 55-64 year olds in a large enough sample to be included within an 8.5% margin of error. This skews an already unreliable poll even further.

What are you talking about?

 

[howardroark]

Look at the cross tabs provided for the poll. The only age group with a sample size large enough to have better than an 8.5% margin of error is 55-64, among whom Rand polls at 1%.