RPF this week:

[Jeremy]

"If polls show something good, there's no doubt they are true. If another poll show something bad, it's either frivolous, evil, or faulty."

[bluesc]

How about "If two polls and internal polls show one thing, and a former Bush employee who is a Fox favorite shows another thing, who do we trust?"

Why would Ron lie about his internal poll numbers? Why would the campaign skew their internal numbers? To stroke egos?

[South Park Fan]

Rasmussen had a 4 point bias last election with 6 point error. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

[Jeremy]

Sure, Rasmussen is faulty now? But when it showed Ron doing better than the other polls, why didn't anyone say it then?


Rasmussen had a 4 point bias last election with 6 point error. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
Not only are primaries completely different than general elections, caucuses are even more different. The reason the polls are different is because they have different methods of determining likely caucus goers.

[PastaRocket848]

They just use stricter methodology when it comes to participant selection. GOP establishment are still skeptical. It's ok, we'll win them over, but certainly not by calling anything other than good news a conspiracy.

[dannno]

Some people and groups have agendas. Very simple explanation.

[malkusm]

Sure, Rasmussen is faulty now? But when it showed Ron doing better than the other polls, why didn't anyone say it then?

Straw man. Show a Rasmussen poll that had Ron better than any other poll of a comparable time period. You have ~24 hours.

[Jeremy]

Some people and groups have agendas. Very simple explanation.

Yes, including Ron Paul Forums members who support Ron Paul. ._.

[trey4sports]

Yeah, I feel your pain. It is maddening at times but in this particular case I do believe that Ras. is the outlier.

[Jeremy]

Straw man. Show a Rasmussen poll that had Ron better than any other poll of a comparable time period. You have ~24 hours.

Their national polls in the summer either showed him as high or higher than the other polls did. But the BEST example is the August 31st Iowa poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/iowa_caucus_iowa_gop_perry_29_bachmann_18_romney_1 7_paul_14

How's 3 minutes? :D

[Travlyr]

How about "If two polls and internal polls show one thing, and a former Bush employee who is a Fox favorite shows another thing, who do we trust?"

Why would Ron lie about his internal poll numbers? Why would the campaign skew their internal numbers? To stroke egos?This for sure. Ron said that he was not surprised at the positive numbers. He said that their internal polling was along those lines.

[South Park Fan]

Their national polls in the summer either showed him as high or higher than the other polls had him at. But the BEST example is the August 31st Iowa poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/iowa_caucus_iowa_gop_perry_29_bachmann_18_romney_1 7_paul_14

How's 3 minutes? :D

That was also an outlier compared to other polls around the same time period, which had Paul at ~9-12%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

[Jeremy]

This for sure. Ron said that he was not surprised at the positive numbers. He said that their internal polling was along those lines.
What did the internals have him at? And why are we just now considering internals reliable? ._.

[sailingaway]

Or maybe we just have opinions of the particular points. Someone here today posted (I haven't checked it) that Rasmussen was low by 150% in predicting Ron's caucus showing in 2007 whereas the Des Moines Register poll (same company as took the Bloomberg poll) was pretty close. The DMR pollster also was the first to see the surge comming for Obama against other polls, and independents won't be caucusing for Dems this year with no presidential primary there.

AND another poll came out similar to the DMR higher one, today, AND Ron said his internals matched the higher ones and had for weeks. In fact he said he was second in NH and polling VERY well in Iowa in a townhall a couple of days before the higher polls came out, and that he had been for a while.

So maybe some of us look at Rasmussen's historic 'poll prior GOP primary voters' screen as not the most accurate one for RON. I know I never voted in a primary before voting for Ron. Rasmussen isn't the only pollster who does it, but there is a difference in how some polls pick. It isn't arbitrary to go with the two that match Ron's polls which are by the same outfit that did Rand's internal polls, and were very accurate.

[Jeremy]

That was also an outlier compared to other polls around the same time period, which had Paul at ~9-12%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Yeah, that's what malkusm told me to find.

[specsaregood]

"If polls show something good, there's no doubt they are true. If another poll show something bad, it's either frivolous, evil, or faulty."

Ban him at the stake!

[bluesc]

What did the internals have him at? And why are we just now considering internals reliable? ._.

Because there was absolutely no mentions of internals up until about a week ago. We still don't know the exact numbers, but Ron said they confirm what we're seeing lately.

The media has an agenda, so does the campaign - to get Ron elected. What internal numbers would help with that agenda? The most accurate numbers possible.

[Travlyr]

What did the internals have him at? And why are we just now considering internals reliable? ._.
Ron is not a braggart, but he has been showing quite a lot of confidence lately. His emails, his mailings, and his positive media appearances are proving to be encouraging indicators.

[dannno]

Yes, including Ron Paul Forums members who support Ron Paul. ._.

We don't put out polls.

[malkusm]

Yeah, that's what malkusm told me to find.

Just wanted to make sure you weren't making baseless claims. I didn't know what Rasmussen polls had looked like in comparison to "the field" in the past. I am now in agreement with you, to an extent - people here definitely get too high or too low on the basis of one poll versus another. I think we have to use elements of both to motivate us:

19-20% - "OMG he can win! We must work harder to push him over the top!"
10-12% - "OMG we're still too far back! We must work harder to get him to the top!"

[realtonygoodwin]

"If polls show something good, there's no doubt they are true. If another poll show something bad, it's either frivolous, evil, or faulty."

+REP

[Jeremy]

Just wanted to make sure you weren't making baseless claims. I didn't know what Rasmussen polls had looked like in comparison to "the field" in the past. I am now in agreement with you, to an extent - people here definitely get too high or too low on the basis of one poll versus another. I think we have to use elements of both to motivate us:

19-20% - "OMG he can win! We must work harder to push him over the top!"
10-12% - "OMG we're still too far back! We must work harder to get him to the top!"
Lol, I think people just don't want to get off their high from earlier this week. For all we know ras IS wrong... But there's really no unbiased reason to make that claim.

[Oddone]

Shouldn't this be in Hot Topics? Just curious, as this seems like the kind of thing the "Admins" would usually put in Hot Topics, not post in Grassroots themselves. I look at all polls that go on RPC, but I don't think we will be losing Iowa with 10% again.

[JoshLowry]

I concur with OddOne.