The unbelievable truth about the polls…(good news!)

[overcoming hope]

The unbelievable truth about the polls…(good news!)

Forget talk of landlines, cell phones, inclusion in the poll being conducted or only registered Republicans being polled.

The truth is…

The ONLY and I mean ONLY people being polled are those Republicans that voted in the 2004 Republican primary. Yes you read that correctly, that voted in the 2004 Republican primary.

They still have the primary even if the party has an incumbent. It is a technicality and is a time when only the most diehard supporters/activists come out for a symbolic hooray, in this case it was the diehard Bushies in 2004. Those are the only people being polled.

If you don’t believe me call the campaign and ask them yourself and then ask them why they aren’t making an effort to clarify this point.

 

[MedicSean37]

I'm trying to do a small write up on this issue. Do you have any source online to prove this?

 

[kutibah]

If this is true, than this is REALLY REALLY good for us since the majority of our voters I assume are Democrat/Independent/Liberterian converts (like myself)

 

[Perry]

For what polls though? Zogby? WP? It would be nice to see the actual data & specifics. Not that I doubt it but It is essential to back up ones clams with proof.

 

[BrianH]

Forget talk of landlines, cell phones, inclusion in the poll being conducted or only registered Republicans being polled.

The truth is…

The ONLY and I mean ONLY people being polled are those Republicans that voted in the 2004 Republican primary. Yes you read that correctly, that voted in the 2004 Republican primary.

They still have the primary even if the party has an incumbent. It is a technicality and is a time when only the most diehard supporters/activists come out for a symbolic hooray, in this case it was the diehard Bushies in 2004. Those are the only people being polled.

If you don’t believe me call the campaign and ask them yourself and then ask them why they aren’t making an effort to clarify this point.

Whenever the media do disclose the polling methodology it ussually refutes this. Eg http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071201/NEWS09/71130040/1056
It reads:
The Iowa Poll, conducted for The Des Moines Register by Selzer & Co. Inc. of Des Moines, is based on interviews with 500 registered Iowa voters who say they definitely or probably will attend the Democratic caucuses and 500 registered voters who say they definitely or probably will attend the Republican caucuses.

Interviewers contacted randomly selected voters registered as Democrat, Republican or no-party by using randomly selected telephone numbers from the Iowa secretary of state’s voter registration list.

Percentages based on the full sample may have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points. Republishing the copyrighted Iowa Poll without credit to The Des Moines Register is prohibited.

The poll, conducted Nov. 25-28, asked the following:

How likely is it you will attend one of the caucuses scheduled for January 3rd of 2008? Will you definitely attend, probably attend or probably not attend? Will you attend the Democratic or the Republican caucus?

 

[Bradley in DC]

There is much truth in this. The "only" part is a bit of an over-reach since there are lots of polls by different companies with different methodologies.

The greater truth is that the polling companies looking for "likely voters" are right to look at those with a history of voting. It has nothing to do with Bush. The primaries in 2004 were for president, some governors, one-third of federal senators, all member of Congress, lots of state representatives and state senators, local and municipal offices, etc.

Statistically, those "supervoters" who habitually turn out to vote are the ones most likely to turn out to vote this time. The DC group knows this and was targeting them. Other groups should do the same.

 

[Austin]

I don't think this is true in every case, but it certainly an issue for a majority of the polls conducted.. I would look to FOX and similar organizations that would use this user base.

Also, this audience accounts for a whopping 6% of the Republican base.

 

[Dequeant]

This is true. I've known it for quite a while and i thought everyone else did too.....

Just look at the bottom of every poll thus far. It will say something along the lines of

"poll was conducted by questioning XXXX likely republican caucus voters". They are only republican, and they are only those that voted in 2004. Just take a look at what happened in the Zogby poll...... The "blind bio" if you will. They polled some odd 300 republican voters from 2004 and Ron Paul lost big (dead last i believe). Then when they polled 1,000 some odd "independent, democratic, and republican likely caucus voters" he won by like 33%.

You guys didn't seriously believe the polls had creditability did you?

 

[JWallace]

Polls might not have creditability, but they are a form of peer-pressure.

Most individuals (and I include myself at times) are too lazy to do the due-diligence. So they cheat and look at other individuals opinions e.g. polls and rating systems. But since most politicians don't come with an Amazon, eBay or CNet end-user rating, they rely upon polls...

And since the general public (we) is too lazy to actually learn something on our own, they're also too lazy to read the methodology. Thus, what the polls say usually predicts close to what's going to happen.

However, when there's a paradigm shifter (i.e. Ron Paul), the polls can't predict what's going to happen if his base becomes a factor.

Personally, I believe Ron Paul's base is becoming fully operational - weaponized, if you will - so more than likely, these polls don't mean more than two snowflakes in the Arctic.

 

[foofighter20x]

I disagree, in part. It isn't ONLY those who voted in 2004.

For the GOP, the pollsters know that 2004 was a low turnout year, so if you voted in the 2000 primaries, but didn't vote in the 2004 primaries, you can still be considered a 'likely primary voter."

Never assume that it's ONLY the 2004 primary voters. That's just naïve... You need to look into the pollster's methodology, as Bradley said. Voting history does play a significant role, but it's not the end-all determining factor.

 

[AlexMerced]

I disagree, in part. It isn't ONLY those who voted in 2004.

For the GOP, the pollsters know that 2004 was a low turnout year, so if you voted in the 2000 primaries, but didn't vote in the 2004 primaries, you can still be considered a 'likely primary voter."

Never assume that it's ONLY the 2004 primary voters. That's just naïve... You need to look into the pollster's methodology, as Bradley said. Voting history does play a significant role, but it's not the end-all determining factor.

agreed, and thebest way to target these voters is direct mail

 

[Pete Kay]

This is not true. This is just a myth that Ron Paul supporters promote. I wish it were true but it just isn't. They poll registered voters and the first question they ask them is whether they are likely to vote in the primaries or participate in caucuses. Only ones that indicate that they are likely are polled further.

What the polls do fail to show is the seriousness of the ones being poll. I am on polling lists and am polled constantly. I usually do not know the issue about what I am being polled about and will even tell the pollster that I can't really give a good answer and they will tell me to give my best shot. I was polled about milk brands to determine marketing effectiveness last week and I am lactose intolerant. I completely just guessed on all my answers. I don't drink milk and don't know one brand from the other. This is how polling really works.

 

[Jwaksman]

This has been explained so many times. Some less established pollsters do work for one candidate or another, but the mainstream polls are trying to get the polls right. They aren't stupid enough to think that turnout will be the same in 2008 as it was in 2004 when Bush was running unopposed.


Now, is Ron Paul being underpolled? Perhaps. He probably has a higher than average number of supporters without landlines. Also, he probably draws more support and will get higher turnout from groups that don't typically vote in high levels (such as young people).

But there isn't a single pollster out there dumb enough to refuse to poll people who didn't vote in 2004. They simply each have different ways of determining "likely voters". And those who voted in 2004 are obviously more likely to vote than those who didn't... since they were dedicated enough to the party to vote in a meaningless primary.

 

[CelestialRender]

The polls are meaningless, except as a way to measure our support amongst the mainstream Republican demographic, and a way to measure more general support over time.

Fundraising is a MUCH better predictor. Or, Intrade. (Although Intrade is affected by the phone polls pretty heavily...so that will only be accurate starting in mid-January when they realize polling is bunk).

 

[Seanmc30]

To be honest, I am doubtful that corporations that make their soul living on polling would make this kind of mistake....surely they are using some kind of formula to even out the numbers.

 

[american.swan]

If we commission a poll of our own, we are afraid the media would jump on it as bias because we paid for it.

So to counter act that, how about we pay for a poll to check out our own myth. Let's pay for a 2004 GOP Primary Election Voter ONLY poll and see if they match the current polling data and see how well we are doing among the people we think are VERY pro Bush and pro War.

I for one would like to see the results of this.

 

[jb4ronpaul]

I did an informal poll at a recent meetup, about half of the people there voted in the last republican primary.

 

[cindy25]

but they only poll landlines, and if your line is busy (if for example you are on line a lot with dial up) they go on to the next person. cell phones are not called.

this is a very hard election to poll, similar to 1936 when Liberty Magazine predicted Landon (he carried Vermont and Maine) because people without phones voted for FDR. Until 1936 Liberty had never been wrong. college students are really an unknown factor because this is the first election since the 18 year old vote that their vote matters.

 

[filmmaker58]

We are very close to the point where being low in the polls, and being ignored by the mainstream media serves to our advantage. They will still not take us seriously until we win the first three states.

 

[filmmaker58]

To be honest, I am doubtful that corporations that make their soul living on polling would make this kind of mistake....surely they are using some kind of formula to even out the numbers.

More likely they are paid to come up with a desired result. unless there is voter fraud, ron Paul will win New Hampshire, do very well in Iowa, and win Nevada. Hannity will shit himself on the air, O'Reilly will try and convince us it's a terrorist plot, and the whole CNN staff will continue to pretend we don't exist, except for wolf Blitzer, who will just go into a twitching fit repeating the word "Libertarian" over and over.