How do they know 35% isnt accurate? [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

RadioDJforPaul

10-21-2007, 08:42 PM

ValidusCustodiae

10-21-2007, 08:44 PM

I think Dr. Ron put Hannity in his place. They are still asking people to vote in the poll. Obviously there is some merit to it, and Ron Paul won by a considerable margin. Hannity will always minimize. Colmes will stand up for Ron Paul, which is cool, but only turns some conservatives off from him because they're engendered by Fox to be disgusted by Colmes.

brumans

10-21-2007, 08:45 PM

I guess that would be a good point to make. The polls don't include his name and only poll landline republicans. This is a cell phone text messaging poll :)

Primbs

10-21-2007, 08:47 PM

You are correct about the cell phones.

jointhefightforfreedom

10-21-2007, 08:51 PM

IT IS COMPLETLY SICKENING TO ME !
Reporters should REPORT !!!!! Not make opinions especially when it comes to politics
No matter what the issue is REPORT THE NEWS NOT VOICE OPINIONS
I think this is the greatest threat to our electoral process!
The reporters should not be voicing opinions on anyone even hillary period!

RadioDJforPaul

10-21-2007, 08:52 PM

Agreed!

Nathan Hale

10-21-2007, 08:52 PM

Hannity is claiming its bogus but just think about this. This 35% is from people with cell phones. A great deal of those people dont have landline phones...and landlines are the only phones being polled in these national surveys and polls where ron only gets 4%. So they should not try to say this result is bogus and compare it to national polls, because these people voting today are a different sample.

The subtle but important difference is that this is active polling. Traditional polling respected by the media is passive. What I mean is this: In active polling, the poll is announced beforehand that it will occur and people actively take part. In passive polling, people are approached and asked their option. Passive polling is considered more accurate because most voters aren't enthusiastic about the political process. Their only interaction with the process is to go out and vote. Which is why passive polling often offers a single qualifier - "likely voters".

Active polling isn't accurate because an enthusiastic few can overwhelm a poll, as Ron Paul demonstrates. While such an action shows a large and determined activist base, it says nothing about a candidate's VOTER base. Passive polling, by contrast, says nothing about the activist base and everything about the voter base.

In the end, it's voters who allow candidates to win elections, not activists.

devil21

10-21-2007, 08:53 PM

Very valid point. We are the ones that Zogby, Rasmussen, and RCP don't call!

peacemonger

10-21-2007, 08:56 PM

Malakai0

10-21-2007, 08:58 PM

You can only vote once and Hannity knows it. Like he said, people boo him when he's doing reports and interviews around the country because they know he's just a puppet talking head.

Geronimo

10-21-2007, 08:59 PM

34 percent final!

jd603

10-21-2007, 08:59 PM

I approve this analysis.

I think Dr. Ron put Hannity in his place. They are still asking people to vote in the poll. Obviously there is some merit to it, and Ron Paul won by a considerable margin. Hannity will always minimize. Colmes will stand up for Ron Paul, which is cool, but only turns some conservatives off from him because they're engendered by Fox to be disgusted by Colmes.

Mark

10-21-2007, 09:04 PM

.

Yeah... from the beginning of the polling.. Dr. Paul STAYED at around 35%

NOTICE.. Huck was at 22% early... and at the end.. he gained 5%

BUT RP didn't lose ANY of his 35%...

Nathan Hale

10-22-2007, 07:52 PM

Very valid point. We are the ones that Zogby, Rasmussen, and RCP don't call!

You missed my point.

Nathan Hale

10-22-2007, 07:53 PM

Does Huckabee have a bunch of spammers too? I don't think so!!!!!

Paul 34%
Huck 26%
Ghoul 11%
Others - who cares?

Seems to me like this poll is an accurate reflection of the republican primary voters

No, Huckabee doesn't have a big activist base, which is why this should scare us. We know that Paul has a huge activist base, so we can write off Paul's votes as the votes of Paul activists. But Huckabee DOESNT have an activist base, which means that his voters are more likely people who came in undecided and came out Huckabee supporters.

rs3515

10-22-2007, 08:00 PM

But Huckabee DOESNT have an activist base, which means that his voters are more likely people who came in undecided and came out Huckabee supporters.

Absolutely correct, an extremely valid point and one in which everyone should pay attention. Also do agree with your thoughts on active vs. passive polling. Having done marketing analysis for a number of years there is a real difference that we should not be ignoring.

As is everything in life, the answer lies somewhere in between ... actual polling results will show he's not getting as low as 1-2% (especially since there are many polls where his name hasn't been included), but he's not receiving as much as 35% either. The question is how high or how low in that range.

justinc.1089

10-22-2007, 08:05 PM

You missed my point.

He might not have.

You're saying the polls not announced are more accurate because they are not announced and no one knows about them, but those polls are leaving out Ron Paul. They also are not calling some people that are going to vote for him such as independents and democrats that are not registered republicans yet, although that group is small enough to not worry about much probably.

In the polls that are announced everyone gets a chance to vote. So if Ron Paul has a higher percentage of his support vote for him and wins, that means he will probably have more people going to the trouble of going to the primary and voting as well. Everyone is also allowed to vote in these polls, where in the others only a selected group is allowed, and if the group is selected the group chosen can be manipulated to favor a particular candidate.

cough Romney cough cough Giuliani cough

I think Paul's domination of the text polls are a good sign he is going to have a much higher percentage of his support voting for him than the other people.

Paul4Prez

10-22-2007, 08:13 PM

Is there any way to find out how many people voted?

Is there any way to get the results by area code? If Fox News has this, they KNOW the results are legitimate.

It would be interesting to see which candidates are most popular in which area codes....

Paul4Prez

10-22-2007, 08:15 PM

I think Paul's domination of the text polls are a good sign he is going to have a much higher percentage of his support voting for him than the other people.

That statement is the key to the whole nomination.

Turnout in the primaries is so low, the random telephone surveys have little predictive value.

A candidate at 10% in the polls could win, just by getting all of his supporters to show up.

Hmmmm.... Which candidate has done the best job so far of getting his supporters to show up?

fj45lvr

10-22-2007, 08:21 PM

if huckabee gets the evangelical blessing he will probably take the crown (though he's the same as bush on immigration and war and ???....which means he'll lose the election.

ButchHowdy

10-22-2007, 08:22 PM

I cannot find this poll on the Fox website. Anybody have a link?

Liberty

10-22-2007, 08:29 PM

Ron Paul would've won an online or a landline phone poll, if Fox chose to go those routes. We are passionate. Supporters of other candidates aren't which should be good for us in the primaries.

justinc.1089

10-22-2007, 08:33 PM

Paul is also going to get every single anti-war republican to vote for him too. No one else is going to get much if any of that group. So while their pro-war base is divided up 4 or 5 ways Paul's is united behind him. And then we have some dems and libs registering to vote in the primary too.

dircha

10-22-2007, 08:37 PM

In the polls that are announced everyone gets a chance to vote. So if Ron Paul has a higher percentage of his support vote for him and wins, that means he will probably have more people going to the trouble of going to the primary and voting as well.

This assumes that there is a strong correlation between participating in state primaries and caucuses, and responding to text message and internet polls. There is not. Historically, those substantially more likely to participate in primaries and caucuses are substantially less likely to respond to text message and internet polls.

And to address the original poster, studies have been done on the bias introduced by excluding households having no landline phone. On most issues, when combined with landline results, there is not statistically significant bias introduced by excluding households with no landline phone.

On issues such as voter registration, however, those having no landline phone were substantially LESS likely to be registered to vote than those having a landline phone.

These facts make it seem unlikely that incorporating polling results from households having no landline phone would have a substantial effect in polls of likely voters.

Certainly it would not explain the difference between 35% and 5%. It's time to wake up to reality.

cjhowe

10-22-2007, 08:37 PM

Bradley in DC

10-22-2007, 08:39 PM

Hannity is claiming its bogus but just think about this. This 35% is from people with cell phones. A great deal of those people dont have landline phones...and landlines are the only phones being polled in these national surveys and polls where ron only gets 4%. So they should not try to say this result is bogus and compare it to national polls, because these people voting today are a different sample.

Your premises are faulty. One, several people ON THIS FORUM who do not have landlines have participated in some of the scientific polls. Two, the scientific polls survey target demographics so the ones contacted (landline or not) represent the rest of that demographic.

The call-in polls, straw polls, etc., are better measurements of supporter intensity (but we know Dr. Paul has energized supporters). These polls and the scientific ones measure different things and, unsurprisingly, get different results. Both are accurate for what they measure.

In short, statistically very few people know who Dr. Paul is or why we need him to save the republic. Of those who do, he does very well. That realization should focus our energies.

dircha

10-22-2007, 08:41 PM

I think the 35% is entirely accurate given the cohort. If 70% of the nation is done with the war in Iraq, then that means roughly 40% of Republicans/Independents are done as well. Since Ron Paul has 100% name recognition amongst those watching the debate, on the war issue alone, he should be polling even higher in post debate polls. Our problem is that he doesn't have 100% name recognition for the people who will be walking into the primaries and caucuses.

The original poster seems to be referring to the disparity between 35% representation in the post-debate text message poll, and 5% representation in national scientific polls.

I don't think anyone is disputing that 35% of text message poll respondents indicated support for Ron Paul. The dispute is over what we should take away from this about the actual political landscape.

cjhowe

10-22-2007, 08:50 PM

The original poster seems to be referring to the disparity between 35% representation in the post-debate text message poll, and 5% representation in national scientific polls.

I don't think anyone is disputing that 35% of text message poll respondents indicated support for Ron Paul. The dispute is over what we should take away from this about the actual political landscape.

What you should take away from that is Ron Paul still only has about a 10% name recognition at best.

Tidewise

10-22-2007, 08:52 PM

In short, statistically very few people know who Dr. Paul is or why we need him to save the republic. Of those who do, he does very well. That realization should focus our energies.

Thank you!

Gimme Some Truth

10-22-2007, 08:54 PM

No, Huckabee doesn't have a big activist base, which is why this should scare us. We know that Paul has a huge activist base, so we can write off Paul's votes as the votes of Paul activists. But Huckabee DOESNT have an activist base, which means that his voters are more likely people who came in undecided and came out Huckabee supporters.

Sayin that tho Huckerbee does have a few spammers. Iv seen on a few huckerbee forums them dismissing polls that Paul wins because of the "RP Spammers" and in the exact same thread iv seen the same people saying " ok everyone bvote with every phone in your house! I have used mine, my dad's, sister's and brother's!" lol

I take your point. Ron definately rules the internet as far as supporters goes...but all the other supports of other candidates , will be "spamming" aswel.... theres just less of them on the net. We all know why Ron rules the net. Simply its because this is where he gets equal air time as the rest of the candidates.

We just need more name recognition outside the internet. People will follow when they find out.

Nathan Hale

10-23-2007, 07:16 PM

As is everything in life, the answer lies somewhere in between ... actual polling results will show he's not getting as low as 1-2% (especially since there are many polls where his name hasn't been included), but he's not receiving as much as 35% either. The question is how high or how low in that range.

I'd figure on the low side. Remember, 35% is from active polling. 1-2% comes from passive polling. In states where he isn't campaigning, 1-2% seems an accurate assessment. Even the Paul campaign puts his name recognition at around 10%, which is pretty damn low. Still, he's polling above everybody in the 2nd tier except Huckabee. In early primary states he's averaging around 4-5%, which is good, because it's higher than it was, and it will get higher.

The campaign seems to be gearing toward an early primary state campaign, which is good considering his name recognition and resources. The entire primary can turn on its head in less than 24 hours (as John Kerry showed us in 2004), so Paul concentrating on early primary states allows him to build name recognition where it counts and win early on, which translates into a flood of media that propels him into the first tier for the later primaries.

Nathan Hale

10-23-2007, 07:23 PM

He might not have.

You're saying the polls not announced are more accurate because they are not announced and no one knows about them, but those polls are leaving out Ron Paul.

I'm not talking about the polls that leave out Ron Paul. Plenty of passive polls count Ron Paul.

They also are not calling some people that are going to vote for him such as independents and democrats that are not registered republicans yet, although that group is small enough to not worry about much probably.

Well you can't account for everything. Perhaps he'll be surprising. But the logic is that Democrats aren't Republicans. If Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination because of Democratic voters, then the talking heads are right in their criticism of him. What they ask, by the way, is whether or not the voter will vote in the Republican primary, not whether they are currently GOP or not.

In the polls that are announced everyone gets a chance to vote. So if Ron Paul has a higher percentage of his support vote for him and wins, that means he will probably have more people going to the trouble of going to the primary and voting as well.

Yes, it's true that it takes effort to vote in a primary therefore people who take the effort to vote in an active poll in some way reflect a primary, but the sheer magnitude of voters in a primary render this comparison void. Plus, active voting allows for X factors that primary voting does not, such as the fact that any person regardless of their political affiliation is able to vote. There are simply too many inconsistancies to draw a parallel between an active poll and a primary vote.

I think Paul's domination of the text polls are a good sign he is going to have a much higher percentage of his support voting for him than the other people.

I hope you're right. I really do. I just don't believe it.

Sematary

10-23-2007, 08:00 PM

werdd

10-23-2007, 08:11 PM

This is the post where i shut up a 20k+ poster over at hannity.com on this matter.

You have no factual basis for that statement. You can only vote once per number in that damn poll. Of course if your definition of "spamming" is voting on every cell phone within a household, then yes... they are spammable. However every person in that household (generally unless under 18 years of age) can vote in the election.

If you would articulate on this arguement a little more, i have a great grasp on how the architecture of both online tcp/ip, and the text polls work.

You could request to change your ip, or change your router static assigned ip, but most polls are based upon your Default gateway, rendering that method inneffective.
-You could also request to change your ip, which is highly impracticle and most ISP's charge every time you do this
-Or you could have more than 1 internet connection.

As far as the cell phone text polls go, you can only vote once per number per the architecture of say, THE FOX NEWS POST DEBATE TEXT POLL THAT RON PAUL WON.

Possible ways of spamming are either
-Changing your number, most providers charge to do this after the first or second time aside from it being a lengthy process usually involving changing your sim card
-Having multiple ACTIVE sim cards and or phones, which would involve you paying for each one active.

Those are the only possibilities sir, please feel free to argue the facts like you usually do. Please enlighten me upon the method that magicly you know and i don't. Or is it too top secret and over my MCSE certified head?

Lol look at you dodging the question. According to you and hannity, based on the real world architecture and technology of the topic, there are a couple of middle aged men locked up in their mothers basements changing out an unlimited ammount of active and paid for sim cards at lightening speed. So that is the theory your going with?