[Video] Rand Paul on CNN New Day 1/31

[vonMises]

That's not the point.

The point is Ron got some 22% of the caucus straw poll. Yet when people are asked [in polls] this year who they voted for 4 years ago only about 5% respond they voted for Paul. Which is odd, since he got 22% last time. Where's the other 17% ? They aren't being polled.

As I linked to above, no poll ever underestimated Ron that low, and his polling average was more like a median than an average of extremes that ever included polling at 5%. In these various interviews, Rand has proferred up two false facts as it concerns the Des Moines poll and others like it. The first being that the Des Moines poll had asked who they voted for in the 2012 election and that Ron, like Rand, had been polling around 5% in polls before going into the Iowa caucus. These two false facts are claimed to reporters in the following clips (which also includes the clip in the original posting), all of which are transcribed carefully:


(0:51-1:03)
"The other interesting thing about the polling is [oh] when you ask people who did you vote last time, only about 5% or 10% were saying Ron Paul, and he got 22%. So there's 10% missing somewhere and we think they're not showing up in the polls."


(0:25-0:53)
"You know we think we're doing quite well and maybe better than is indicated by the polling, some of the polling numbers are solidifying but some of them I think are still underestimating a lot of the people that came out for my dad. Interestingly in the Des Moines poll they asked who did you vote for in 2012, and only a very small percentage said they voted for my dad, so we think there's still a lot of what we call the liberty voters out there that aren't being counted. [slight pause] We also think we're doing really well with students, and [a] college students have been a big emphasis for us, we think they're under-appreciated in the polls as well."


(1:30-1:47)
"Yeah and another thing that the polls aren't picking up is that they asked in the most recent Des Moines poll, they said who did you vote for in 2012, and my dad's percentages aren't much ahead of mine, and yet he got 22%. So we think that there's a lot of what we call the liberty vote that's not being counted yet in the polling either."

So let me repeat this, the Des Moines poll never asked who they voted for in the 2012 election, let alone have him derive a 5% number from it. http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/r1OvZ1NeDjnY Rand also seems to give reporters the false idea that Ron had been polling around 5% much like Rand is doing now. Such facts are just simply wrong and yet Rand is going into tomorrow's caucus with certain expectations because of these facts. Hopefully luck and hard work will prove the polls wrong, but I do wonder the extent that Rand and his team have in handling the campaign.

 

[CPUd]

 

[vonMises]

Thanks for the correction, but what page is this on?

 

[Jackie Moon]

As I linked to above, no poll ever underestimated Ron that low, and his polling average was more like a median than an average of extremes that ever included polling at 5%. In these various interviews, Rand has proferred up two false facts as it concerns the Des Moines poll and others like it. The first being that the Des Moines poll had asked who they voted for in the 2012 election and that Ron, like Rand, had been polling around 5% in polls before going into the Iowa caucus.

He's not saying that Ron was polling at 5% in 2012.

"The other interesting thing about the polling is [oh] when you ask people who did you vote last time, only about 5% or 10% were saying Ron Paul, and he got 22%. So there's 10% missing somewhere and we think they're not showing up in the polls."

He is saying that when you look at the cross tabs of polls done for this race, only 5% of the people polled in 2016 were Ron Paul 2012 voters.

But we know that 21.5% actually voted for Ron in 2012.

So that means that most of the Ron Paul 2012 voters aren't being included in the 2016 polls.

 

[vonMises]

He's not saying that Ron was polling at 5% in 2012.



He is saying that when you look at the cross tabs of polls done for this race, only 5% of the people polled in 2016 were Ron Paul 2012 voters.

But we know that 21.5% actually voted for Ron in 2012.

So that means that most of the Ron Paul 2012 voters aren't being included in the 2016 polls.

Yes, that's what I immediately concluded once thinking about this particular 5% over. It's an issue of turnout, not previous polling, and how this current poll and others this month have only counted what amounts to be around 5% of voters who had actually voted for Ron Paul in 2012. IF THIS IS THE CASE THEN, RAND'S NUMBERS COULD BE HIGHER THAN WHAT I'VE PREVIOUSLY ANTICIPATED. But this is not what Rand communicated to reporters, what they ended up believing or what I ended up believing (I thought it was the case of false facts).

 

[vonMises]

Thanks for the corrections and I now know which poll Rand and other people were talking about in other threads when it came to the 5% (I just read it in posts without much thought to what people had been saying). If anyone just kept a cursory glance at recent elections in other countries like in Israel and the UK, the polls had created a false political narrative that was very far from reality (for example they had Labour leading and then Labour and Conservative tying, and yet the Conservatives won by a wide margin). They were simply unable to reach many people. It could very much be the case that Rand supporters are so much harder to contact, even for Ann Selzer, that much like polls within the last couple of years, her poll will be proven wrong, or as even Donald Trump put it to Selzer, her polls are meaningless.

 

[JJ2]

He's not saying that Ron was polling at 5% in 2012.



He is saying that when you look at the cross tabs of polls done for this race, only 5% of the people polled in 2016 were Ron Paul 2012 voters.

But we know that 21.5% actually voted for Ron in 2012.

So that means that most of the Ron Paul 2012 voters aren't being included in the 2016 polls.

Yes, but we have to be careful with that. It could be that they aren't being included because they are telling the pollsters that they are staying home (and thus are not being included as likely caucus-goers). Perhaps the majority of Ron's voters just don't care to show up this year.

 

[presence]

Keeping Ron and Rand very detached through most of 2015....

then pulling him as a trump card for a rally in Iowa

was smooth campaign move.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Plus he's still doing his job in the Senate.

took to post 12 for someone to bring in some common sense.