The polls are wrong crowd what say you now?

Polling number just before the vote don't determine who wins and loses even if they do affect who people vote for. Rand had lots of time to get his numbers up, and awhile back they were. If poll numbers were positively serially correlated like some of you suggest then why would we see candidates numbers move up and down as much as they do over time? How was Ted Cruz able to move his numbers from around 5% to winning?
 
Last edited:
rp08orbust said:
The polls were wrong. All post-debate polling (including the last day of the DMR "Gold Standard) showed Rand getting a bounce.
Click to expand...

Ending up with more than 4% was a bounce from the 2% he had not long ago.
 
brandon said:
They've already rationalized their idiocy by saying the fake polls became a self fulfilling prophecy. There is no getting through to them. Impossible to win an argument with a moron who believes everything is a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Brandon...it's not a conspiracy....it's a propaganda model. Yes the polls are real. But they aren't used to simply guess the outcomes. It's our human nature coupled with people who know how manipulate that nature and to lead large segments of people to a certain outcome. Please read this book.

bernayspropaganda.jpg
 
brandon said:
Polls certainly can have some influence on voters, but that doesn't lend any evidence to the theory that the polls were faked in order to accomplish this. Which is completely ridiculous. Rand never caught on.
Click to expand...

It's true: Rand never caught on, and the media completely ignored him, even more than his father. There was simply no reason for all the pollsters to fake results.
 
brandon said:
Polls certainly can have some influence on voters, but that doesn't lend any evidence to the theory that the polls were faked in order to accomplish this. Which is completely ridiculous. Rand never caught on.
Click to expand...

If I were a mod I would consider banning you over this post. Nobody has said anything about "fake" polling here, which could have been done, but we are talking about what we can scientifically and mathematically prove. So was Rand Paul, who made the same claims in the media that we are making.

We are clearly talking about polling the wrong demographics, which we can prove because the polls show the demographics, we know the actual demographics of the Iowa elections, and can adjust them accordingly. You aren't even trying to understand what we are saying, or you are purposefully being obtuse.

Go to this thread and read my posts and the posts my fcreature. It's very clear, black and white exactly what happened.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...olling-gt-Poor-Perception-gt-Mediocre-Results
 
cocrehamster said:
Polling number just before the vote don't determine who wins and loses even if they do affect who people vote for. Rand had lots of time to get his numbers up, and awhile back they were. If poll numbers were positively serially correlated like some of you suggest then why would we see candidates numbers move up and down as much as they do over time? How was Ted Cruz able to move his numbers from around 5% to winning?
Click to expand...

All the other candidates can get huge support from the media and mainstream talkshows and such. Rand depends largely on people who happen to hear him in the debates, catch him in the media, a friend tells them to check him out, etc.. He gets very little airtime otherwise compared to others who the media sets up to surge. The media also largely controls the narrative of the election, so it's easy for them to surge candidates.

Go read the posts by fcreature in this thread to see how the polling affected the caucus goers:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...olling-gt-Poor-Perception-gt-Mediocre-Results
 
The polls were wrong and so were the caucus results.

I demand a recount.

Everyone knows Trump really won Iowa.
 
Brian4Liberty said:
How far off were the polls for Rubio?
Click to expand...

Rubio kept his numbers high enough to remain viable so he was able to win votes from supporters of lower candidates - mainly the establishment governors..

I think Rand really hurt his campaign by coming out swinging against Trump. Not that I fault him for doing it, but Cruz seemed to take the steady rode up by letting everyone else get Trumped. After his Trump battle Rand never really seemed to regain his viability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top