Two New National Polls and an Iowa Poll

[Robrank]

IBD/TIPP Poll:

"Conducted from Sept. 26 to Oct. 1, included 377 registered voters who are Republican or registered independents who lean toward the Republican Party, with a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points."

Carson: 24%
Trump: 17%
Rubio: 11%
Fiorina: 9%
Bush: 8%
Cruz: 6%
Kasich: 4%
Paul: 3%
Huckabee: 2%
Christie: 2%
Jindal: 1%
Santorum/Graham/Pataki: 0%
--
Pew Research Poll (Sep 22-27)

Trump: 25%
Carson: 16%
Rubio: 8%
Fiorina: 8%
Cruz: 6%
Bush: 4%
Paul: 2%
Huckabee: 2%
Christie: 1%
Kasich: 1%
Graham: 1%
Jindal: 1%
Pataki: 0%
----
Iowa Caucus Poll by Gravis
454 Republican/Republican Leaning Likely Caucus Goers (4.6% Margin of Error)

Trump: 18.8%
Carson: 14.1%
Cruz: 10.6%
Fiorina: 9.7%
Rubio: 8.9%
Bush: 6.9%
Kasich: 2.6%
Paul: 2.4%
Huckabee: 1.8%
Graham: 1.8%
Jindal: 1.7%
Christie: 1.4%
Santorum: 1.3%
Pataki: 0.3%

 

[Brett85]

The Iowa caucus poll results are actually good considering that Gravis has always polled Rand way lower than other pollsters have. I think they had him at like .9% one time or something like that. Lol.

 

[Robrank]

The Iowa caucus poll results are actually good considering that Gravis has always polled Rand way lower than other pollsters have. I think they had him at like .9% one time or something like that. Lol.

Absolutely they do. They did the same to Ron, especially right before the Caucus in 2012.

Also these polls take with a ton of grains of salt.

1st: As Brett85 said, Gravis is anti-Paul, always 3 points or more lower than other pollsters.

2nd: The Pew Poll doesn't even list a margin of error ANYWHERE on their poll. The fact they didn't disclose that is pathetic.

3rd: the IBD/TIPP poll won't post the actual data and in their image of the results, DESPITE PAUL BEHING AHEAD OF CHRISTIE AND HUCKABEE didn't show Paul on their graphic, but did for Huckabee and Christie. A clear bias against Rand.

Two with a bias against Rand and one with no respectable disclosure.

 

[Crashland]

Absolutely they do. They did the same to Ron, especially right before the Caucus in 2012.

Also these polls take with a ton of grains of salt.

1st: As Brett85 said, Gravis is anti-Paul, always 3 points or more lower than other pollsters.

2nd: The Pew Poll doesn't even list a margin of error ANYWHERE on their poll. The fact they didn't disclose that is pathetic.

3rd: the IBD/TIPP poll won't post the actual data and in their image of the results, DESPITE PAUL BEHING AHEAD OF CHRISTIE AND HUCKABEE didn't show Paul on their graphic, but did for Huckabee and Christie. A clear bias against Rand.

Two with a bias against Rand and one with no respectable disclosure.

There is no MoE given in the Pew poll, but it does say the number of respondents for that question was 455 which is on par with other polls

 

[MarcusI]

The Iowa caucus poll results are actually good considering that Gravis has always polled Rand way lower than other pollsters have. I think they had him at like .9% one time or something like that. Lol.

Yes lol.

They had him at 0.8 for late July and at 1.3 for late August.

 

[cindy25]

polls are by land line, so there is a factor favoring those who poll well with older voters

 

[Indy Vidual]

polls are by land line, so there is a factor favoring those who poll well with older voters

True, but older people tend to actually get out and vote. Hopefully, Rand can get some positive momentum soon.

 

[Brett85]

polls are by land line, so there is a factor favoring those who poll well with older voters

Not really. Most polling organizations poll cell phones as well. Some of the exceptions are PPP, Rasmussen, and I believe Gravis which don't poll cell phones. Rand does tend to do slightly worse in those polls than the others. But he's not very high in any of the polls, and I think it's a mistake to just claim that all of the polls are inaccurate just because we don't like the results.

 

[nayjevin]

Not really. Most polling organizations poll cell phones as well. Some of the exceptions are PPP, Rasmussen, and I believe Gravis which don't poll cell phones. Rand does tend to do slightly worse in those polls than the others. But he's not very high in any of the polls, and I think it's a mistake to just claim that all of the polls are inaccurate just because we don't like the results.

We don't like the results because the polls are always inaccurate in a direction disadvantageous to the honest candidates.

Polls reflect name recognition ('celebrity factor') and the well known names are those who get all the airtime. Those who get all the airtime are those who don't rock the boat.

Besides all that, polling is not relevant, even if it were accurate. Because of human nature all they do is reinforce the strength of now and marginalize the rest. Calling people to ask what they prefer now is not indicative of what they will vote!! It doesn't mean *anything*! They change with the winds. There's no reason, none, for news to care about polling at all. But over and over again it's used to marginalize or drive superficial commentaries.

Think about it: I want to find out who has the best chance to win the nomination. Should I call a random sample of 1000 people and ask? That would be one of the worst ways to predict!!
'
How much money
How many individual contributors
How much early state organization
How serious the intention
How adept the staff
How likable
How good of policies
How well policies explained
How popular those policies
What bag of tricks

Polling is insane, a complete scam to even be noticed by so called journalists. Fair coverage or not? You want ideas and discussion about the race for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!?????!!!! Or a freakin popularity contest???

Polling. Jeez

 

[GovBotDotNet]

If this poll is accurate, Pataki is the only principled vote.

 

[Brett85]

@Nayjevin-I agree that the polls that are being conducted right now aren't indicative of how the results will ultimately end up. Polls are merely a snap shot in time. But, I think the polls are still generally accurate in showing how much support each candidate has right now. There are some polls like Gravis that are just completely worthless, but others are legitimate. The majority are fairly accurate.

 

[Uriah]

True, but older people tend to actually get out and vote. Hopefully, Rand can get some positive momentum soon.

Yes, that is true. However, if a candidate was polling very high with the youth and independents, which aren't polled as well with their sampling methods, then you could have a candidate polling much lower than they should be. Ron ended up with 48% of those aged 17-29 in Iowa which made up 15% of caucus goers. That works out to about 7% of all voters and 7% is very significant.

 

[jonhowe]

Do any of these polls count for the October debate? That's all that matters now. If we're off the stage, we're out.