My personal "real-life" poll results

[brandon]

I talk to alot of new people ever day. People from all walks of life, all ages, genders, races, etc. For the last 3 months or so, I have asked about 5-10 people a day who they support for president. I am convinced my polling is at least as scientific as "the polls" often cited by MSM. Here are the results to the best of my recollection.

The vast majority of people are apathetic and do not follow politics.
Many people support Obama, more then any other candidate.
Coming in 2nd, would be hillary clinton for reasons unknown....
And 3rd would be Ron Paul.


Now the interesting results of my polling... No one has EVER told me they support ANY of the republican candidates EXCEPT Dr. Paul. That's right, not a SINGLE person i have EVER talked to said they support guiliani, thompson, romney or mccain. NOT ONE PERSON. The top tier gets a combined total of 0% of the vote in my poll.

SO HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY THE TOP TIER? These polls reported in the MSM are so obviously skewed it makes me sick. The top tier repubs have NO support.

[EvilEngineer]

Welcome to the medias influence. If the MSM says they are popular, they become popular. The sheeple that we are fighting against don't seem to leave their homes and sit by the phone and are so lonely they actually pick up the phone to talk to the pollsters.... because it's the only phone call they get and they want to talk to someone.

[transistor]

That's funny. Some articles I've read lately suggest that ron paul isn't even 2nd tier... What a joke

[DeadheadForPaul]

This could be for a couple reasons

1.) Where do you talk to people and how diverse it is. For example, if you're in the city, you're most likely to encounter liberals. Also, if it's at like 3 pm, more conservative business types will be working

2.) A lot of people dont like to talk about their politics - especially consrvatives because conservatism is not "cool".

I will agree though that the "scientific" polls are wrong. I meet Ron Paul supporters every day

[UtahApocalypse]

The thing I find unique about your poll is Obama, while researching the Straw Polls and other Polling for Ron Paul numbers I consistently find Barack Obama to be leading the Democratic race. We all need to take notice that the MSM has not just decided not to mention Ron Paul, but they have already anointed "their" nominees from both parties regardless of any polls not commissioned by them. Alao looking at the Results, Mitt Romney is running in first overall in the republican party, followed by Ron Paul. Giuliani who the media always reports at leading is been averaging 4-6th place. Actually this gives me a idea...... I will have a detailed report posted later.

[mdh]

I talk to alot of new people ever day. People from all walks of life, all ages, genders, races, etc. For the last 3 months or so, I have asked about 5-10 people a day who they support for president. I am convinced my polling is at least as scientific as "the polls" often cited by MSM. Here are the results to the best of my recollection.

The vast majority of people are apathetic and do not follow politics.
Many people support Obama, more then any other candidate.
Coming in 2nd, would be hillary clinton for reasons unknown....
And 3rd would be Ron Paul.


Now the interesting results of my polling... No one has EVER told me they support ANY of the republican candidates EXCEPT Dr. Paul. That's right, not a SINGLE person i have EVER talked to said they support guiliani, thompson, romney or mccain. NOT ONE PERSON. The top tier gets a combined total of 0% of the vote in my poll.

SO HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY THE TOP TIER? These polls reported in the MSM are so obviously skewed it makes me sick. The top tier repubs have NO support.

Similar to my own results, though I've met more Paul people than Hillary people. I've also met a few Fred Thompson neocons and a few Sam Brownback Christians plus some anti-war Kucinich fans. But by and large, Obama > Paul > anybody else.

[Bradley in DC]

I talk to alot of new people ever day. People from all walks of life, all ages, genders, races, etc. For the last 3 months or so, I have asked about 5-10 people a day who they support for president. I am convinced my polling is at least as scientific as "the polls" often cited by MSM. Here are the results to the best of my recollection.

Now the interesting results of my polling... No one has EVER told me they support ANY of the republican candidates EXCEPT Dr. Paul. That's right, not a SINGLE person i have EVER talked to said they support guiliani, thompson, romney or mccain. NOT ONE PERSON. The top tier gets a combined total of 0% of the vote in my poll.

SO HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY THE TOP TIER? These polls reported in the MSM are so obviously skewed it makes me sick. The top tier repubs have NO support.

Or maybe you just need to get out more--with normal people, I mean. :p

[ThePieSwindler]

Ah Barack Obama. Somehow he is so popular, is seen as such a great person, charismatic, would be a great leader, etc etc. His platform is just the same as hillary on so many issues. Even his plan for nationalized health care sucks compared to some of the others (and any central economic planning sucks in general). Hes is not anti-war, he just claims to be. He votes to perpetuate spending ont he war, he voted to continue the Patriot act, he has even said, just like the other democrats, that he could not guarantee troops out of iraq by the end of his presidential term. Though he attacked Clinton for voting on the recent senate resolution branding the Iran Revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, the hypocrite co-sponsored a bill of the same sort back in April. Its not just because hes black, though that might be part of it for some. What is it? Honestly, i cant think of one plank of his that i like at all - hes a social democrat who would even extend welfare state benefits to illegal immigrants (and i have nothin against illegal immigrants - its the state's fault that they are a burden to the taxpayers, not the immigrant's fault). What would he do thats so great? Maintain the status quo except with more overt social spending? How would he pay for this? Oh right, tax the wealthy to the brink.

Otherwise, i seem to encounter this same phenomenon here at college - most politically active people i meet are Ron Paul supporters (its a conservative campus with a libertarian streak), the Democrats are all Obama supporters but they are lesser in number, and there are a few sheeple/"save us from the terrists" types of course, but they aren't too active or common.

[paulitics]

I talk to alot of new people ever day. People from all walks of life, all ages, genders, races, etc. For the last 3 months or so, I have asked about 5-10 people a day who they support for president. I am convinced my polling is at least as scientific as "the polls" often cited by MSM. Here are the results to the best of my recollection.

The vast majority of people are apathetic and do not follow politics.
Many people support Obama, more then any other candidate.
Coming in 2nd, would be hillary clinton for reasons unknown....
And 3rd would be Ron Paul.


Now the interesting results of my polling... No one has EVER told me they support ANY of the republican candidates EXCEPT Dr. Paul. That's right, not a SINGLE person i have EVER talked to said they support guiliani, thompson, romney or mccain. NOT ONE PERSON. The top tier gets a combined total of 0% of the vote in my poll.

SO HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY THE TOP TIER? These polls reported in the MSM are so obviously skewed it makes me sick. The top tier repubs have NO support.

my guess is you are in a liberal deomgraphic perhaps, and they are all very anti war?

[Eric21ND]

I think he's correct. The two most exciting candidates are Ron Paul and Obama. It's natural they would lead in this scientific poll.

[kylejack]

I come across a lot of Giulianitards who don't know much about him.

[SWATH]

Yeah, I've run into mostly Obama people. When I ask why they support Obama, the answer is always "well...he's fresh...and new...and not Bush". The Hillary supporters say "well...she is a woman...and for womans rights and stuff...and not Bush". The Hillary supporters I've met will not vote for any one else because they are not a woman! I've even worked on them with Ron Paul on every angle imaginable for months, and nothing. "Well...Hillary cares about people...she wants us all to have free healthcare...and I just want to see a woman president" So frustrating.

[FreedomLover]

i live in a somewhat conservative area with a lot of retired, I see mostly john mccain fans and bumper stickers, and i know a couple guiliani and thompson fans. As far as democrats, the more liberal types ive asked are all about some obama, we also have a lot of african americans here.

I did see a ron paul sign once though, so there is some support for him lurking in my area...

[ghemminger]

Where do you live I have been asking in SoCal it seems RP has about 10% name reconition only

[garrettwombat]

i did my own personal telephone poll last week and i came up with the same results you did... i called and acted like a person doing a study for a local news group that i made up...
people were more than willing to share there information...

these were my results...

24 people said they didnt know.

10 people said hillary

9 people said obama

5 people said ron paul

2 people said they didnt vote.


i think thats pretty consistant too with all the other home made polls my friends and poeple iv talked too have done.

so by our homemade polls ron paul should be the top tier GOP

[The Dane]

i did my own personal telephone poll last week and i came up with the same results you did... i called and acted like a person doing a study for a local news group that i made up...
people were more than willing to share there information...

these were my results...

24 people said they didnt know.

10 people said hillary

9 people said obama

5 people said ron paul

2 people said they didnt vote.


i think thats pretty consistant too with all the other home made polls my friends and poeple iv talked too have done.

so by our homemade polls ron paul should be the top tier GOP


Was that random phone numbers? From what state/city?

Sounds valid, though i would love to hear more real polls. :)

[Chrispy]

This really shows how much of a weak slate the republicans are going on this primary. People will stay home except for RP supporters. When people get a call on the phone, if they are republicans they are throwing down Mitt or Rudy by default. They really don't care and probably wont vote in the primaries.

There are only 2 sets of people that will actually vote in the primaries. Hard line pro-war conservatives and Paulites. The hard liners might outnumber us but probably not by a whole lot. Then take into account that the hard line vote is split at leased 4 maybe even 5 ways. The nature of politics have turned Americans into apathetic drones that care only to vote for whatever political hack is chosen by the party in November, and even then less than half actually go that far. This can only work to our advantage. Reality is that almost every single Paulite will vote in the primaries, where as among other republicans would be thrilled with a 15% turnout. Which means they are running with a 4 fold handicap at leased and thats a conservative estimate.

Even if the polls were not incredibly unrepresentative 7.5% in NH gives us an easy win. Come NH Iowa primaries, the neo-cons will be frightened and will begin to lash out like a cornered animal. Come super Tuesday they will be cowering in their lairs licking their wounds. Come the Republican National Convention they won't even have a pulse.

We already got this one. Lets continue to kick ass and take names, if only to further humiliate and punish the tyrants that thought they could sell out the constitution and the American people.

[RevolutionSD]

Again, the scientific polls are irrelevant old media propaganda.
They only call on people who voted in the 04 Republican primaries. Since that eliminates most of us, they never call RP supporters. It's amazing he's even at 4% actually.

[kylejack]

Again, the scientific polls are irrelevant old media propaganda.
They only call on people who voted in the 04 Republican primaries. Since that eliminates most of us, they never call RP supporters. It's amazing he's even at 4% actually.

And that's generally false. Random digits are dialed in most polls.

[RevolutionSD]

Where do you live I have been asking in SoCal it seems RP has about 10% name reconition only

Honestly, I'll bet that's better than Mitt Romney.

[RevolutionSD]

And that's generally false. Random digits are dialed in most polls.

That's not true for the mainstream media ones like Gallup or USA Today.

[kylejack]

That's not true for the mainstream media ones like Gallup or USA Today.

False, I worked for Gallup and you're either lying or mistaken.

[fcofer]

Even if the polls were not incredibly unrepresentative 7.5% in NH gives us an easy win. Come NH Iowa primaries, the neo-cons will be frightened and will begin to lash out like a cornered animal. Come super Tuesday they will be cowering in their lairs licking their wounds. Come the Republican National Convention they won't even have a pulse.

Now that's confidence! I hope you're right!

[RevolutionSD]

False, I worked for Gallup and you're either lying or mistaken.

What did you do for Gallup?
Even the pundits on CNN admit that they consider "likely voters" to be those who voted in the last primary, and that's where the "scientific" part comes in.

[kylejack]

What did you do for Gallup?
Phone surveys. Numbers were randomly dialed and two questions were asked to qualify someone as a likely primary voter.

1. Are you registered to vote?

2. Do you intend to vote in a Presidential primary, and if so, which one?



Even the pundits on CNN admit that they consider "likely voters" to be those who voted in the last primary, and that's where the "scientific" part comes in.
Cite your source directly.

[Elwar]

I took a class that touched on polling and the key to the "scientific" part is trying to make the poll as non-partisan as possible as far as the wording goes. They showed how if you ask the same question in the same questionnaire worded differently, people will give different answers. The rest of the science is taking the amount of people polled and taking that number compared to the population that you're trying to represent and getting the "margin of error".

I think the hardest part of the national polls is getting the "likely Republican voters". They're going at it in a lazy fashion in that they're just using old primary voters as their base, along with the fact that only land lines are called (which I believe is a legality thing).

Though, it is fairly unprecedented for young people to vote in primaries. It happens every election cycle, the young folks get excited and loud but don't end up voting. Then the old farts who just want their social security check do go out because that's the only thing they have to do all year, and we all get screwed. Don't underestimate the blue hairs.

[Elwar]

Cite your source directly.

Here's some discussion of polling methods on usaelectionpolls.com

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/pollster-justifies-ron-paul-exclusion-texas-poll.html

[kylejack]

Here's some discussion of polling methods on usaelectionpolls.com

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/pollster-justifies-ron-paul-exclusion-texas-poll.html
Yes, I know his name has been excluded in some state polls, but this is not the case in nation-wide Gallup, Rasmussen, or Zogby polls (though AP-Ipsos did run one that excluded him) and its no longer the case in the state-wide polls either. His name is now being included in most polls, randomly rotated to ensure neutrality.


I think the hardest part of the national polls is getting the "likely Republican voters". They're going at it in a lazy fashion in that they're just using old primary voters as their base, along with the fact that only land lines are called (which I believe is a legality thing).

And actually, this is not true either. Gallup does call cell phones (all phones, as they are randomly dialed), though you could certainly draw your own conclusions about how likely people would be to answer poll questions on their cell phones. Even the youth thing is not likely to be accurate, because, as you mentioned, they balance the demographics to represent the number of each type of person expected to show up at the primaries.

Now, the one significant argument you could make is that youth will show up to the primaries in much higher numbers than expected by pollsters. This argument does have its limitations. For one, many campaigns have been very sure that the youth would turn out in droves for them and been extremely disappointed, i.e. George McGovern. Second, older people have a natural advantage, as there are a ton of Baby Boomers running around. But still, it will be interesting to see how youth turnout is at the primaries.

[Elwar]

So these don't apply to the national polls?:

-cannot poll those that have never voted before.
-must ignore those that were never eligible to vote before
-cannot poll anyone that has recently switched

(all from that interview)

[RevolutionSD]

Cite your source directly.

I don't have a direct link, but I'm looking. I heard this on TV- that they call registered REPUBLICANS who voted in the last primary when they are doing a poll. Where do you think they get the "likely voters" part? It saves them time to have to screen a bunch of people since they consider someone who voted last time to be a likely voter.

[kylejack]

So these don't apply to the national polls?:

-cannot poll those that have never voted before.
-must ignore those that were never eligible to vote before
-cannot poll anyone that has recently switched

(all from that interview)
Correct. However, the person does have to be registered to get polled, generally. I guess you could make another argument that many potential Ron Paul voters haven't registered yet, but I don't know how big a group this is. Also...edited my post on previous page.

[brandon]

Yes, I know his name has been excluded in some state polls, but this is not the case in nation-wide Gallup, Rasmussen, or Zogby polls (though AP-Ipsos did run one that excluded him) and its no longer the case in the state-wide polls either. His name is now being included in most polls, randomly rotated to ensure neutrality.



And actually, this is not true either. Gallup does call cell phones (all phones, as they are randomly dialed), though you could certainly draw your own conclusions about how likely people would be to answer poll questions on their cell phones. Even the youth thing is not likely to be accurate, because, as you mentioned, they balance the demographics to represent the number of each type of person expected to show up at the primaries.

Now, the one significant argument you could make is that youth will show up to the primaries in much higher numbers than expected by pollsters. This argument does have its limitations. For one, many campaigns have been very sure that the youth would turn out in droves for them and been extremely disappointed, i.e. George McGovern. Second, older people have a natural advantage, as there are a ton of Baby Boomers running around. But still, it will be interesting to see how youth turnout is at the primaries.

Cite your source budy!

I dont believe you for a second.

They cannot call cell phones. It is illegal to solicit messages on cell phones because the person answering it is charged for it. Not to mention, it is illegal for cell phone companies to distribute numbers of its customers, whereas land line numbers are given away legally for free.

I have had a cell phone for 8 years and have never recieved one phone call regarding a survey about anything it all. However, my land line recieves calls for surveys about 5 times a week.

[kylejack]

I heard this on TV- that they call registered REPUBLICANS who voted in the last primary when they are doing a poll. Where do you think they get the "likely voters" part?

1. Are you registered to vote?
2. Do you intend to vote in a Presidential primary, and if so, which one?

[kylejack]

Cite your source budy!
Sure, I'll get you a source in a few minutes.


They cannot call cell phones. It is illegal to solicit messages on cell phones because the person answering it is charged for it.
Telemarketers cannot call cell phones.

[paulitics]

Yes, I know his name has been excluded in some state polls, but this is not the case in nation-wide Gallup, Rasmussen, or Zogby polls (though AP-Ipsos did run one that excluded him) and its no longer the case in the state-wide polls either. His name is now being included in most polls, randomly rotated to ensure neutrality.



And actually, this is not true either. Gallup does call cell phones (all phones, as they are randomly dialed), though you could certainly draw your own conclusions about how likely people would be to answer poll questions on their cell phones. Even the youth thing is not likely to be accurate, because, as you mentioned, they balance the demographics to represent the number of each type of person expected to show up at the primaries.

Now, the one significant argument you could make is that youth will show up to the primaries in much higher numbers than expected by pollsters. This argument does have its limitations. For one, many campaigns have been very sure that the youth would turn out in droves for them and been extremely disappointed, i.e. George McGovern. Second, older people have a natural advantage, as there are a ton of Baby Boomers running around. But still, it will be interesting to see how youth turnout is at the primaries.

How do they get cell phone information for a poll? I've never heard this before and I've heard some extraordinairy things about polls?:rolleyes:

[Nash]

I took a class that touched on polling and the key to the "scientific" part is trying to make the poll as non-partisan as possible as far as the wording goes. They showed how if you ask the same question in the same questionnaire worded differently, people will give different answers. The rest of the science is taking the amount of people polled and taking that number compared to the population that you're trying to represent and getting the "margin of error".


I took a Zogby poll many years back and one of the questions was essentially "Do you think the Environmental Protection Agency is doing a good job?"

I didn't really have an answer for that one and that is my problem with polling. If I answer yes that means I approve of the department, if I answer no then that means that I think it should be doing more somehow.

A number of the other questions were worded in a similar fashion but that one stuck out to me as being biased. I pointed this out to the pollster and she agreed with me.

[kylejack]

How do they get cell phone information for a poll? I've never heard this before and I've heard some extraordinairy things about polls?:rolleyes:
As I said, the digits are randomly dialed.

[brandon]

As I said, the digits are randomly dialed.

I have had a cell phone for 8 years and have never recieved one phone call regarding a survey about anything it all. However, my land line recieves calls for surveys about 5 times a week.


Waiting for your source....

[RevolutionSD]

Kyle,

I can't find much info on how the polls are done because most of the polling companies are very secretive. I did find several articles claiming what I did, that "likely voters" for the primaries are typically those who voted in the previous primaries. But none had a direct source.

If you can provide me with a direct source saying they dial numbers at random, I will believe you.

[kylejack]

I have had a cell phone for 8 years and have never recieved one phone call regarding a survey about anything it all. However, my land line recieves calls for surveys about 5 times a week.


Waiting for your source....


The Gallup Poll Panel is a very large probability-based random sample of 18+ adults, used as the basis for a number of commercial and public opinion research projects. All members are recruited using the same random digit dial (RDD) methodology that is the basis for all "normal" national Gallup polls.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/gallups_newport_jones_on_the_g.php

Your chances of being called by the Gallup poll for a poll are very small, because there are a lot of people in this country. Many times, the calls to home phone numbers are not actually polling, but what's called push-polling (a pollster trying to change your mind about something) or someone posing as a pollster but actually trying to sell you something after you do their "poll".

[kylejack]

This PDF explains a lot of the methodology that goes into Gallup polls.

http://media.gallup.com/PDF/FAQ/HowArePolls.pdf

[brandon]

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/gallups_newport_jones_on_the_g.php

Your chances of being called by the Gallup poll for a poll are very small, because there are a lot of people in this country. Many times, the calls to home phone numbers are not actually polling, but what's called push-polling (a pollster trying to change your mind about something) or someone posing as a pollster but actually trying to sell you something after you do their "poll".



Ok....I still find this hard to believe. Something doesnt seem right. But I'll admit you are right.

[RevolutionSD]

Ok....I still find this hard to believe. Something doesnt seem right. But I'll admit you are right.

The thing that doesn't add up is that do you really think any polling company is going to sit there and dial numbers all day? Or, do you think they would come up with a process to determine who will be "more likely" to provide an answer to their polls?

The random number theory doesn't add up.

If you called 100 people at random to ask about the GOP race, 50 would probably have no idea, so they would be eliminated. 20 of them would probably be democrats, and 10 would be independents/3rd party members.

So with the random number theory the pollsters would be wasting time with about 90% of their calls.

The "likely voter" theory, to me is more, well, likely to be the one they use. If they are calling about the GOP race, they call GOP voters. If calling about the Dem race, they call registered Dem voters. Cuts down the amount of work they have to do in half, and they can then claim they called "likely voters" and not just random people.

[RevolutionSD]

edit: meant to say they would be wasting time with about 80% of their calls.

[kylejack]

The thing that doesn't add up is that do you really think any polling company is going to sit there and dial numbers all day? Or, do you think they would come up with a process to determine who will be "more likely" to provide an answer to their polls?

The random number theory doesn't add up.

If you called 100 people at random to ask about the GOP race, 50 would probably have no idea, so they would be eliminated. 20 of them would probably be democrats, and 10 would be independents/3rd party members.

So with the random number theory the pollsters would be wasting time with about 90% of their calls.

The "likely voter" theory, to me is more, well, likely to be the one they use. If they are calling about the GOP race, they call GOP voters. If calling about the Dem race, they call registered Dem voters. Cuts down the amount of work they have to do in half, and they can then claim they called "likely voters" and not just random people.
I spent a lot of time at Gallup just marking numbers as disconnected. It was difficult to get a respondent, but Gallup's high standards mandated that we call random numbers. For these general political surveys, we would shoot for about 40 completions per 8 hour day.

Some surveys were real hard. The state of Wisconsin had us do a survey about their drug awareness program. We had to find a household with a teen aged 13-17 and convince the parent to let us speak with the teen privately. We would then ask them if they had seen the ads, quiz them on how well they knew the details of the ads, and ask them if they had tried any drugs within the past month/year/ever in their life. That one was real tough to get a complete on, so it paid us $40 per survey. I made a bunch of money on that one.

[Bradley in DC]

Phone surveys. Numbers were randomly dialed and two questions were asked to qualify someone as a likely primary voter.

1. Are you registered to vote?

2. Do you intend to vote in a Presidential primary, and if so, which one?



Cite your source directly.

Kyle's right. I worked for a Republican polling company (Tarrance). They do a general election survey with a D firm that actually asks people eleven questions (are you registered to vote, did you vote in the last election, where is your voting place, etc.). If you could answer seven of the questions they considered you a likely voter. It has EXCELLENT results.

Texas is an anomoly in voting surveys (DC too for that matter).