If we are winning, then why are we polling so badly in Iowa?

[Tidewise]

"The University of Iowa Hawkeye poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 17-24 among a random sample of 285 likely Republican caucus-goers and 306 likely Democratic caucus-goers. The results from the poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.8 percentage points for Republicans and plus or minus 5.5 percentage points for Democrats."

Ron Paul not even mentioned:

THE NUMBERS — REPUBLICANS
Mitt Romney, 36 percent
Rudy Giuliani, 13 percent
Mike Huckabee, 13 percent
Fred Thompson, 11 percent
John McCain, 6 percent

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_po/poll2008_iowa_1

http://www.uiowa.edu/election/

Methodology here:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/details_on_the_new_university.php

Can anyone speak to the predictive accuracy of the University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll in the past? We can't fall for our own hype.

[foofighter20x]

Notice who they polled: LIKELY Republican Caucus goers...

The "likely" means the pollsters have weeded out any person they don't see as a likely participant in the caucus process.

It's called "the screen." When it's applied, it usually filters out Paul supporters due to one of the following attributes: youth, past non-participation, or recently registering in a new party.

[freelance]

See all the posts on Frank Luntz...:eek:

[risiusj]

Those look like good numbers to me. Lots of division in the party. Perfect.

[Original_Intent]

When we win NH and place in the top 3 in Iowa, they will have some 'splainin' to do.

[Tidewise]

See all the posts on Frank Luntz...:eek:

I have, and I know what you are saying, but does anyone know if these particular pollsters are looking for a slant?

[Drknows]

Dont pay attention to the polls, they are pulling republicans who voted in 2004 for bush.

How many other candidates are bringing in independents and democrats?

[Ozwest]

In a nutshell, farm subsidies. Ron won't have a bar of them,

[Eric21ND]

I'm not quite as optimistic as some on here. There's a lot of work to be done in Iowa.

[foofighter20x]

I have, and I know what you are saying, but does anyone know if these particular pollsters are looking for a slant?

Applying a screen to a pool for factors which the participant can control (like voting, party registration, willingness to participation) automatically gives it a slant.

The only way to accurately make a poll scientific is to randomly elimate answers based on factors which the participants cannot--or cannot easily--control (age, race, socioeconic status, sex, etc) in order to align the final cut to the demographics of the region being polled.

I guess pollsters aren't familiar with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, since it almost sounds like what's taking place when they do this.

[kylejack]

Notice who they polled: LIKELY Republican Caucus goers...

The "likely" means the pollsters have weeded out any person they don't see as a likely participant in the caucus process.

It's called "the screen." When it's applied, it usually filters out Paul supporters due to one of the following attributes: youth, past non-participation, or recently registering in a new party.

Did you read the study?


Respondents were asked whether they were very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely to attend their party’s caucus in 2008. Responses of “not at all likely” were screened out of the sample. Remaining respondents were further asked which party’s caucus they would attend. Those unable to name which party were also screened out of the sample. Of registered voter contacts, 36.2 percent were eliminated on the initial screen. Another 8.0 percent were screened out because they could not name the party with whom they would caucus.

They were not eliminated due to the factors you mentioned, only the factors listed here.

[TexMac]

"The University of Iowa Hawkeye poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 17-24 among a random sample of 285 likely Republican caucus-goers and 306 likely Democratic caucus-goers. The results from the poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.8 percentage points for Republicans and plus or minus 5.5 percentage points for Democrats."

Ron Paul not even mentioned:

THE NUMBERS — REPUBLICANS

Mitt Romney, 36 percent

Rudy Giuliani, 13 percent

Mike Huckabee, 13 percent

Fred Thompson, 11 percent

John McCain, 6 percent

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_po/poll2008_iowa_1

http://www.uiowa.edu/election/

Can anyone speak to the predictive accuracy of the University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll in the past? We can't fall for our own hype.

Here's an analysis of the topline results:

Details on the New University of Iowa Poll (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/details_on_the_new_university.php)

That's Mark Blumenthal's site. I'm sure he'd be happy to answer questions.

[Lord Xar]

Even so, i think to "write" this off as not important is unwise.

EVEN if they are "bush" supporters, we should of been able to reach many of them. Ron should be up to 7-10% in Iowa.

[Ozwest]

I'm not quite as optimistic as some on here. There's a lot of work to be done in Iowa.

A top three finish in Iowa would be a remarkable achievement.

[ronpaulyourmom]

If we want to win any state, we need to have at least 10% in the official polls. If we want to place 3rd, we probably need a good 6-7%. Screening or not, this is what we need. There's lots of work to be done.

[foofighter20x]

Did you read the study?

They were not eliminated due to the factors you mentioned, only the factors listed here.

Did you read it? Don't fall for their summary. Read the entire methodology report (http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/october/102907poll-methodology.pdf); principally:


Sample
Respondents were drawn at random from a random sample of 35,000 residential phone numbers across the state of Iowa. This list was purchased from an independent company.

To compensate for the prevalence of female respondents in past surveys, the interviewers screened potential respondents by gender, following procedures used by other major survey operations. They first asked to speak to the youngest male at home who was 18 years of age or older and a registered voter. If no male was present, the interviewer asked to speak with the oldest female at home who was 18 years of age or older and a registered voter.

The research team assigned disposition codes in accordance with the AAPOR’s definitions and coding scheme. Surveys were automatically marked complete; interviewers could not assign this disposition. For surveys that were broken off in the middle of call, interviewers immediately rescheduled a callback for later in the calling period; only one attempt was made to complete. If an interviewer could not reach a potential respondent (no answer/answering machine/busy signal), callbacks were made up to five more times.

Caucus-goers
Caucus-goers are self-identified. A respondent who answered “very” or “somewhat” likely to a question about attending the 2008 caucus is classified as a “likely” caucus attendee. Respondents saying they are certain they will not attend were dropped in the caucus-goer sampling. Any other respondent was classified as a “potential” caucus attendee. Validation of this process was carried out by asking about prior caucus attendance in 2000 and 2004. Approximately 68 percent of those classified as “likely” 2008 caucus-goers reported attending a caucus in either 2000 or 2004. Only 5.5 percent of those classified as not attending in 2008 had caucused in the past.

Response Rate
We calculate response rate as the number of completed interviews divided by the total number of households contacted containing an eligible respondent. Interviewers reached 6,179 individuals. Of these contacts, 689 individuals participated in the caucus-goer survey giving a response rate of 13.8 percent of those qualified. There were 4,302 refusals. The remaining contacts were comprised of the following: ineligible individuals, individuals outside of our sample scope, and individuals unable to communicate with the interviewer because of language or other miscellaneous barriers.

Did you happen to forget that most youth DO NOT have a telephone? They don't poll cell phones. So, indirectly, age was a factor.

Welcome to the land of pwnage, n00b. :p

[TruckinMike]

I agree, especially since the meetups are not plastering thhe state with coroplast. If I were to gamble, I would bet he will come in 5-6.

My 2 cent$


BTW- the same thing will happen throughout the country. I do random polls myself. NOBODY knows who he is... much less knows enough about his campaign to ignore the hannity type radio jocks.... that have persecuted him.

Its over with if we dont start posting signs everywhere! And I mean everywhere. On every highway, on every un-used billboard, on trees in the highway right of ways, on guardrails, bushes, signs, sides of buildings and everywhere else.

We need ALL of the public saying "Who is Ron PAul?"

PS- I will let you know about it if Dr. Paul loses!

Check out this thread if you haven't already!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22455

Truckin' Mike

[Eric21ND]

A top three finish in Iowa would be a remarkable achievement.

Right now I would pick us to finish 5th in Iowa...maybe even 6th. :mad:

[Lord Xar]

can he win the nomination without Iowa?

[kylejack]

Did you read it? Don't fall for their summary. Read the entire methodology report (http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/october/102907poll-methodology.pdf); principally:

Yes, I read that as well. Note that they didn't use that to eliminate any respondents. They only collected the data to validate their process. Again, you are wrong. Likely voters are those who said they were very likely or somewhat likely to attend a caucus and who named a party that they intended to caucus with.


Did you happen to forget that most youth DO NOT have a telephone? They don't poll cell phones. So, indirectly, age was a factor.
Which was balanced by the fact that they always asked first for the youngest male in the household.


Welcome to the land of pwnage, n00b. :pName-calling is against forum TOS, or isn't that apparent to a moderator such as yourself?

[Original_Intent]

HaHa FooFighter "Welcome to the land of pwnage, nOOb!"

Good research and thanks for making me lol@work.

[hvac ak47]

Fuck You Frank!!!

[foofighter20x]

Yes, I read that as well. Note that they didn't use that to eliminate any respondents. They only collected the data to validate their process. Again, you are wrong. Likely voters are those who said they were very likely or somewhat likely to attend a caucus and who named a party that they intended to caucus with.

And they still had over 4000 people not participate... Seems to me to be the type that comes to this board--i.e. people who generally like to be let alone.


Which was balanced by the fact that they always asked first for the youngest male in the household.

Ok, maybe you still still live at home with mommy and daddy, but most males over the age of 18 do not. And since mommy and daddy are the ones who have the landline phones listed in the phone book, asking to speak with little Joey--who's since grown up and moved out--is not going to offset the bias inherent in their methodology.


Name-calling is against forum TOS, or isn't that apparent to a moderator such as yourself?

Oh, you are sososo abused! :rolleyes:

As Josh likes to say, and as it says in the Forum rules, there's a sliding scale among established board members--of which, I'm as established as they come. :p

[Badger Paul]

We need to get RP's numbers in Iowa in the double digits by the end of November because that's when poll numbers start to harden and the number of undecideds start to fall. We have to hope the ads we run in Iowa and appearances on The Tonight Show and The View improve his visibility and name recognition which I think is why he polls so low right now, which is probably around 4 percent.

Remember too, this is a caucus and turnout is the key. Caucuses are always hard to poll because polling doesn't always match intsensity of support. Only candidates with intense support do well in caucuses.

[foofighter20x]

Something else that just set off bells and alarms from this study:


Respondents were drawn at random from a random sample of 35,000 residential phone numbers across the state of Iowa. This list was purchased from an independent company.

What's the name of this company? Who owns it? To which candidates have those owners donated, if at all?

That right there could call the validity of this poll into question. Interesting they didn't name the company.

[foofighter20x]

Phone polls are what caused the Chicago Tribune or whatever to famously and incorrectly run the headline...

Dewey Defeats Truman!

[kylejack]

And they still had over 4000 people not participate... Seems to me to be the type that comes to this board--i.e. people who generally like to be let alone.
This is a common refusal rate for a poll. When I was conducting surveys, we could typically expect only about a 20% or worse response rate from people that we reached. I can't say that I agree that Ron Paul voters are less likely to respond to a survey. Indeed, surveys which self-select, like online surveys, are won almost entirely by Ron Paul.


Ok, maybe you still still live at home with mommy and daddy, but most males over the age of 18 do not. And since mommy and daddy are the ones who have the landline phones listed ion the phone book, asking to speak with little Joey--who's since grown up and moved out--is not going to offset the bias inherent in their methodology.
There is some legitimacy to this, but young voters have been notoriously bad about actually showing up to vote in the past, even for candidates who seemed to have very strong youth support. It could be something of a factor, of course, which is why the poll includes a margin of error of 5.8%. Ron Paul may have polled as high as 3%, as the survey states that no other candidate was >3%. Add in the margin and its a significant number.


Oh, you are sososo abused! :rolleyes:

As Josh likes to say, and as it says in the Forum rules, there's a sliding scale among established board members--of which, I'm as established as they come. :p
Well, I didn't call you any names. I simply asked if you had read the study and posted an excerpt of it. I don't understand why you need to give an abrasive response to a post that was a simple clarification. Are you similarly abrasive to people who do not yet support Ron Paul? If so, you may want to re-think your approach.

[foofighter20x]

Well, I didn't call you any names. I simply asked if you had read the study and posted an excerpt of it. I don't understand why you need to give an abrasive response to a post that was a simple clarification. Are you similarly abrasive to people who do not yet support Ron Paul? If so, you may want to re-think your approach.

I don't get to campaign for Paul where I'm at for two reasons:


1) Last I checked, Australians don't vote for President of the United States; and

2) Were I to campaign at work, I would be in violation of military orders that prohibit such activities while in the exercise of official duties. Since I run one of the three shops here, I have to keep quiet.

I do still talk politics and explain libertarian ideology and principles to those unfamiliar with it, but it's always in an atmosphere of education, explanation, and complete neutrality.

I've only talked to Ron Paul to 2 people at work because they asked who I support and why.

Other than that, I can't say a word.

The internet on the other hand... I don't give my own answers except for here. I usually just cut/paste something Dr Paul said to answer inquiries. :p

[JMann]

can he win the nomination without Iowa?

Yes. He needs to finish 4th or 5th in Iowa and must win New Hampshire.

"Phone polls are what caused the Chicago Tribune or whatever to famously and incorrectly run the headline...

Dewey Defeats Truman!"

Or more recently from the NY Post "Kerry's Choice, Dem picks Gephardt as VP Candidate"

[Tratzman]

RP had 9 % in the straw poll 3 months ago. I expect him to double that figure for the caucuses. These polls are bogus.

Chad

[Tidewise]

We are not polling too well according to Rasmussen either, who doesn't even bother to mention us in its summary.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

And this isn't very positive either:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/poll_matching_hillary_clinton_and_ron_paul_tells_a _lot_about_clinton_little_about_paul

Although I am ever hopeful, I am no so quick to blow off the legitimacy of these polls. (And again, FU Frank Luntz.)

[paulitics]

The only polling company that is close to accurate is gallup. They include a broader spectrum, and are more likely to pick up an outlier like Paul where 75% of us are cross overs. The difference between 5% and being completely off the map, is a pretty big deal I think at this late in the game.

[katao]

There is some legitimacy to this, but young voters have been notoriously bad about actually showing up to vote in the past, even for candidates who seemed to have very strong youth support.

This is the stereotype, but in the most common example cited, Dean in Iowa, it turns out to not really be true.

"You've also probably read all about Howard Dean and how young voters displayed a similar enthusiasm for his campaign, but burned the governor at the ballot box when they failed to show up at the caucus. The conclusion: young voters don't turnout and Obama's strategy is historically risky. There's only one problem with this analysis. It's all wrong.

An estimated 21,000 18-29 year olds participated in the 2004 caucus, 17% of the total 122,000 caucus participants. That number is strikingly close to 20%, young voters' share of the eligible electorate"

Source: http://www.futuremajority.com/node/741


One other thing to keep in mind about the youth vote in Iowa is that in past years college students would have had a more difficult time participating in caucuses because they must physically show up where they are registered to vote (no absentee ballots). This year, however, with the date of the caucuses on Jan. 3rd, students will be home during the break between semesters.

[jpa]

He can win without Iowa.

Here is a pretty accurate view of where we stand:
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Rep-Pres-Primary.php

5th, but on an upslope. Still a lot of undecided to win over.

[freelance]

We are not polling too well according to Rasmussen either, who doesn't even bother to mention us in its summary.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

And this isn't very positive either:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/poll_matching_hillary_clinton_and_ron_paul_tells_a _lot_about_clinton_little_about_paul

Although I am ever hopeful, I am no so quick to blow off the legitimacy of these polls. (And again, FU Frank Luntz.)

Funny you should mention Rasmussen. They were just discussing this on Hardball (YouTube anyone?) and Chris just about spit when he said, "Rasmussen, come on, you know we don't even discuss Rasmussen on here." I'm not sure what the deal is, but over the past couple of years, I've noticed that they often show Bush's approval rating at 10% higher than any other poll. That doesn't mean that those figures are bogus; it just means that others also feel that Rasmussen is not the best measure.

[Tidewise]

I admit (or am I bragging?), I am no pollster. What about RealClearPolitics - are they just an agglomeration of other bad polls? For gawd's sake they show the Huckster at over 6% without even a mention of Ron Paul.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

How does all of this add up? Does it matter?

[kylejack]

I admit (or am I bragging?), I am no pollster. What about RealClearPolitics - are they just an agglomeration of other bad polls. For gawd's sake they show the Huckster at over 6% without even a mention of Ron Paul.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

How does all of this add up? Does it matter?

they just compile other polls.

[mrd]

Hey guys, this is a caucus, not a primary right? Just how predictable are the caucuses? I've never been to one, but I thought the idea was that people debate and choose there? If we've got solid Ron Paul arguments then we should be OK, unless attendees are closed-minded. So how convincing are the people supporting RP in Iowa?

[Primbs]

This is the stereotype, but in the most common example cited, Dean in Iowa, it turns out to not really be true.

"You've also probably read all about Howard Dean and how young voters displayed a similar enthusiasm for his campaign, but burned the governor at the ballot box when they failed to show up at the caucus. The conclusion: young voters don't turnout and Obama's strategy is historically risky. There's only one problem with this analysis. It's all wrong.

An estimated 21,000 18-29 year olds participated in the 2004 caucus, 17% of the total 122,000 caucus participants. That number is strikingly close to 20%, young voters' share of the eligible electorate"

Source: http://www.futuremajority.com/node/741


One other thing to keep in mind about the youth vote in Iowa is that in past years college students would have had a more difficult time participating in caucuses because they must physically show up where they are registered to vote (no absentee ballots). This year, however, with the date of the caucuses on Jan. 3rd, students will be home during the break between semesters.





We should examine Jesse Ventura's campaign. Many young people came out and put him over the top. Each campaign has different dynamics and personalities.

If there is a snow storm or rainy weather I think Ron Paul does very well and we could have a historical win like the governors race in Maryland in 2002 where a republican won for the first time in thirty years.

[Malakai0]

Remember, when you look at the numbers, see Frank Luntz asking questions that get 'the right answers'.

[Tratzman]

Hey guys, this is a caucus, not a primary right? Just how predictable are the caucuses? I've never been to one, but I thought the idea was that people debate and choose there? If we've got solid Ron Paul arguments then we should be OK, unless attendees are closed-minded. So how convincing are the people supporting RP in Iowa?

Great point!! We'll be very convincing.

Chad

[jointhefightforfreedom]

Ron Paul will be all over the polls after nov 5th!
MSM will not Dare to exclude him anymore

[freelance]

Another thing that they said on Hardball last night is that in IA the voters are about 80% undecided until a few days before the caucuses. I know that the polls don't say this, so I'm assuming that it means that they are open to changing their minds.

[LibertyEagle]

Is anyone actually doing something to get the word out on the ground?

[kylejack]

Is anyone actually doing something to get the word out on the ground?
Flyers on 10/31, of course. In my V for Vendetta getup.

[LibertyEagle]

Flyers on 10/31, of course. In my V for Vendetta getup.

That's great, but I hope it's more than you and I hope people are flyering more than 1 day.

[Tidewise]

Here is the latest California Field poll:

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2007/10/24/16/1025release.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf

At least Ron Paul has moved from 1% in March and August to 4% in October. With California's new way of awarding delegates per district, Ron Paul could do well with the grassroots efforts. A lot of work to be done, though.