PDA

View Full Version : PPP Poll - Colorado GOP Caucus




tsai3904
12-06-2011, 02:06 PM
Colorado
12/1 - 12/4
500 usual Republican primary voters
+/-4.4%






12/1
12/4 (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/gingrich-up-in-another-pair-of-states.html)



8/4
8/7 (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/08/rick-perrys-only-been-in-presidential.html)



2/4
2/6 (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/02/colorado-republican-numbers.html)



Gingrich
37
9
12
Romney
18
22
19
Bachmann
9
15

Paul
6
7
9
Perry
4
21

Santorum
4


Huntsman
3
2

Johnson
1





Ron Paul Crosstabs:





12/1
12/4



8/4
8/7



2/4
2/6



18-29
0
22

30-45
10
5

46-65
7
8

>65
3
5

Man
8
7
10
Woman
4
8
7



Second Choice:





12/1
12/4



Gingrich
18
Romney
16
Perry
6
Paul
5
Bachmann
5
Huntsman
2
Johnson
1
Santorum
3

Uriah
12-06-2011, 02:16 PM
0% with 18-29, I don't think so.

bronxboy10
12-06-2011, 02:17 PM
Am I reading this correctly that in the most recent polls, Paul had 0% support from the 18-29 demographic? If so, this poll is a complete farce.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:18 PM
well, you should. those are the numbers. and they're not good. this election, post NV, isn't lookin good. is there a state in the union other than NV/IA/NH where we're winning? even second?

LibertyEsq
12-06-2011, 02:18 PM
Am I reading this correctly that in the most recent polls, Paul had 0% support from the 18-29 demographic? If so, this poll is a complete farce.

Correct. We are outside of the 30-day accuracy window for these two states.

Hence the 0% 18-29.

InTradePro
12-06-2011, 02:19 PM
PPP, Rasmassen and Fox polls all worthless.
http://gop2012polls.blogspot.com/

bronxboy10
12-06-2011, 02:19 PM
well, you should. those are the numbers. and they're not good. this election, post NV, isn't lookin good. is there a state in the union other than NV/IA/NH where we're winning? even second?

Paul's support with that demographic plummeted from 22% in August to 0% in December? I don't think so.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:20 PM
FWIW the youth vote reporting zero isn't that crazy. only 500 voters responded, likely very few of which were in that age group, and we know ron (for whatever reason) doesn't do well with that bloc. it's entirely possible that noone in that group picked ron.

it's not a conspiracy... it's the state of the campaign. we need to fix it rather than just saying "oh its a farce... i'll go bury my head in the sand".

parocks
12-06-2011, 02:20 PM
well, you should. those are the numbers. and they're not good. this election, post NV, isn't lookin good. is there a state in the union other than NV/IA/NH where we're winning? even second?

I have been alleging that PPP is outright lying about Paul's numbers with 18-29 for quite some time.

bronxboy10
12-06-2011, 02:21 PM
FWIW the youth vote reporting zero isn't that crazy. only 500 voters responded, likely very few of which were in that age group, and we know ron (for whatever reason) doesn't do well with that bloc. it's entirely possible that noone in that group picked ron.

it's not a conspiracy... it's the state of the campaign. we need to fix it rather than just saying "oh its a farce... i'll go bury my head in the sand".

False. The 18-29 demographic is his strongest voting bloc.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:21 PM
PPP, Rasmassen and Fox polls all worthless.
http://gop2012polls.blogspot.com/

why? rasmussen is widely respected, as is ppp, and i'm sure fox uses reputable pollsters. why, exactly, other than the fact that they don't present the narrative you desire, are they "worthless". let me guess... all the poll in 2007 were worthless too, right?

parocks
12-06-2011, 02:22 PM
FWIW the youth vote reporting zero isn't that crazy. only 500 voters responded, likely very few of which were in that age group, and we know ron (for whatever reason) doesn't do well with that bloc. it's entirely possible that noone in that group picked ron.

it's not a conspiracy... it's the state of the campaign. we need to fix it rather than just saying "oh its a farce... i'll go bury my head in the sand".

Our STRENGTH is 18-29 males.

PPP has been LYING about that. Making up LIES.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:22 PM
False. The 18-29 demographic is his strongest voting bloc.

no, no it isn't. read the polls. we're getting killed in that bloc. i havent seen him take more than 10% in any recent poll in 18-29, especially heads up with obama (irrelevant... but hopefully will be soon).

LibertyEsq
12-06-2011, 02:23 PM
no, no it isn't. read the polls. we're getting killed in that bloc. i havent seen him take more than 10% in any recent poll in 18-29, especially heads up with obama (irrelevant... but hopefully will be soon).

Are you just trolling now?

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:23 PM
OH yes, i forgot, the massive left (or is it right? middle?) wing conspiracy. everyone is out to make sure ron doesn't poll well. ALL LIES I TELL YOU!

i'm sure they take special care to pre-screen their callers to make sure no one votes for ron.

seriously get a grip. excuses don't win elections. we're in bad shape past NV, and all the polls show it. we'd be better off thinking of how to fix it rather than how to justify it.

bluesc
12-06-2011, 02:25 PM
OH yes, i forgot, the massive left (or is it right? middle?) wing conspiracy. everyone is out to make sure ron doesn't poll well. ALL LIES I TELL YOU!

i'm sure they take special care to pre-screen their callers to make sure no one votes for ron.

seriously get a grip. excuses don't win elections. we're in bad shape past NV, and all the polls show it. we'd be better off thinking of how to fix it rather than how to justify it.

Fix it by first winning Iowa. That's what we're trying to do.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:25 PM
no it's called reality. i'm sick and tired of everyone saying "look... ron's in second place! polls rock!" when they're good and "oh no... polls are bs... we're winning... trust me" when they're bad. it's entirely counterproductive and only creates the same false sense of security we had in 2007.

you'd think we'd have learned... it's just terrible to watch v2.0 unfold in front of your eyes.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:26 PM
Are you just trolling now?

evidence to the contrary? it's not trolling. then again i guess ron was right when he said "truth is treason in the empire of [rose colored glasses people]".

bluesc
12-06-2011, 02:26 PM
no it's called reality. i'm sick and tired of everyone saying "look... ron's in second place! polls rock!" when they're good and "oh no... polls are bs... we're winning... trust me" when they're bad. it's entirely counterproductive and only creates the same false sense of security we had in 2007.

you'd think we'd have learned... it's just terrible to watch v2.0 unfold in front of your eyes.

We have a chance of winning Iowa. This isn't '07. We are following the campaign strategy (and beyond).

Travlyr
12-06-2011, 02:26 PM
OH yes, i forgot, the massive left (or is it right? middle?) wing conspiracy. everyone is out to make sure ron doesn't poll well. ALL LIES I TELL YOU!

i'm sure they take special care to pre-screen their callers to make sure no one votes for ron.

seriously get a grip. excuses don't win elections. we're in bad shape past NV, and all the polls show it. we'd be better off thinking of how to fix it rather than how to justify it.
We know how to fix it.
Phone From Home
Become a delegate
Mail brochures to Republican primary voters
Donate to the campaign
Door to Door
Keep spreading the word

LibertyEsq
12-06-2011, 02:29 PM
evidence to the contrary? it's not trolling. then again i guess ron was right when he said "truth is treason in the empire of [rose colored glasses people]".

You are saying Paul does worst with 18-29. You are trolling, trying to start shit on this forum and I'm not sure which candidate you actually support.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151355/Gingrich-Romney-Among-GOP-Voters-Nationwide.aspx

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:32 PM
HE GOT 0% WITH 18-29 YEAR OLDS! it doesn't get much worse than that. and... this is the second poll showing him at 0% in that bloc recently. no other recent poll i've seen (and i check them.. a lot) has him over 10%. he's under 6% head to head with obama in that bloc last i saw.

they're just numbers. they don't lie. pointing out facts that could matter does not make you the enemy, regardless of whether or not they make people feel nice.

my point is that instead of the inevitable 10 pages of justification and reasoning as to why this poll is bs and how ron is really winning and this that and the other... we'd be better off asking "how do we improve these numbers". and no, iowa is not the answer. to believe that is to believe that the media will throw dr. paul a bone, and we know they wont.

we need to USE the information as opposed to trying to spin it into something that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy.

bronxboy10
12-06-2011, 02:32 PM
read the polls.

There seems to be a bit of a double standard here PastaRocket. You said this about the RevPac poll that showed Dr. Paul winning Iowa by a 4% margin of victory:

"2900 respondents, 700 of which were republicans. that seems off. take out the indies and dems and it's a dead heat for first. across the board he's up 4% or so."

I read that poll and it says Paul wins by 4%, yet you read it and question its accuracy. Nice double standard.

SOURCE (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?331938-BREAKING-Huge-news-coming-today-from-RevPAC...and-you-re-going-to-like-it.&p=3769611&viewfull=1#post3769611)

bluesc
12-06-2011, 02:35 PM
HE GOT 0% WITH 18-29 YEAR OLDS! it doesn't get much worse than that. and... this is the second poll showing him at 0% in that bloc recently. no other recent poll i've seen (and i check them.. a lot) has him over 10%. he's under 6% head to head with obama in that bloc last i saw.

they're just numbers. they don't lie. pointing out facts that could matter does not make you the enemy, regardless of whether or not they make people feel nice.

my point is that instead of the inevitable 10 pages of justification and reasoning as to why this poll is bs and how ron is really winning and this that and the other... we'd be better off asking "how do we improve these numbers". and no, iowa is not the answer. to believe that is to believe that the media will throw dr. paul a bone, and we know they wont.

we need to USE the information as opposed to trying to spin it into something that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy.

Iowa, and then onto NH, and then we'll take SC, FL, and NV. HHYEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHH.

Seriously. Not much else to be done. Colorado is a caucus state, so

1) Polling this far out is irrelevant
2) Organization wins

tsai3904
12-06-2011, 02:35 PM
The subsample of 18-29 year olds only contains 30 people. The margin of error for a sample for 30 people in Colorado could be as high as 10%. You can't read too much into a subsample of 30 individuals.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:36 PM
There seems to be a bit of a double standard here PastaRocket. You said this about the RevPac poll that showed Dr. Paul winning Iowa by a 4% margin of victory:

"2900 respondents, 700 of which were republicans. that seems off. take out the indies and dems and it's a dead heat for first. across the board he's up 4% or so."

I read that poll and it says Paul wins by 4%, yet you read it and question its accuracy. Nice double standard.

SOURCE (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?331938-BREAKING-Huge-news-coming-today-from-RevPAC...and-you-re-going-to-like-it.&p=3769611&viewfull=1#post3769611)

how is that a double standard? it was saying exactly what the poll had reported.. not really spinning it at all. i'm really lost as to what you're implying.

LibertyEsq
12-06-2011, 02:37 PM
HE GOT 0% WITH 18-29 YEAR OLDS! it doesn't get much worse than that. and... this is the second poll showing him at 0% in that bloc recently. no other recent poll i've seen (and i check them.. a lot) has him over 10%. he's under 6% head to head with obama in that bloc last i saw.

they're just numbers. they don't lie. pointing out facts that could matter does not make you the enemy, regardless of whether or not they make people feel nice.

my point is that instead of the inevitable 10 pages of justification and reasoning as to why this poll is bs and how ron is really winning and this that and the other... we'd be better off asking "how do we improve these numbers". and no, iowa is not the answer. to believe that is to believe that the media will throw dr. paul a bone, and we know they wont.

we need to USE the information as opposed to trying to spin it into something that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy.

You are outright lying on this forum, obviously trying to bring people's spirits down with complete and utter lies.

In other words, you are a troll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151355/Gingrich-Romney-Among-GOP-Voters-Nationwide.aspx

Paul 18-34 18% 35-54 9% 55+ 2%

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/IApolls/IA111127/Republican%20Primary%202012/Complete%20December%204,%202011%20Iowa%20NBC%20New s-Marist%20Poll%20Release.pdf

"Paul has a 14-point advantage over Obama among voters under 45 years of age"

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:37 PM
The subsample of 18-29 year olds only contains 30 people. The margin of error for a sample for 30 people in Colorado could be as high as 10%. You can't read too much into a subsample of 30 individuals.

My poiny exactly. it's not bullshit. it's math. 500 people, very few of which are that age, he's polled badly in that group lately, it's likely that the result is valid.

thanks.

ronpaulfollower999
12-06-2011, 02:39 PM
HE GOT 0% WITH 18-29 YEAR OLDS! it doesn't get much worse than that. and... this is the second poll showing him at 0% in that bloc recently. no other recent poll i've seen (and i check them.. a lot) has him over 10%. he's under 6% head to head with obama in that bloc last i saw.

they're just numbers. they don't lie. pointing out facts that could matter does not make you the enemy, regardless of whether or not they make people feel nice.

my point is that instead of the inevitable 10 pages of justification and reasoning as to why this poll is bs and how ron is really winning and this that and the other... we'd be better off asking "how do we improve these numbers". and no, iowa is not the answer. to believe that is to believe that the media will throw dr. paul a bone, and we know they wont.

we need to USE the information as opposed to trying to spin it into something that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy.

You sir, do not know what you are talking about. The Florida poll also had him at 0.0% for 18-29 year olds. I am 18. I live in Florida. You better be damned sure I'm voting for Ron Paul.

Go to a university. You will see the only politician with more support than Ron Paul is Barack Obama.

bronxboy10
12-06-2011, 02:40 PM
how is that a double standard? it was saying exactly what the poll had reported.. not really spinning it at all. i'm really lost as to what you're implying.

You read this poll which has Dr. Paul's support at 0% among the 18-29 demographic and say it is accurate.

You read another poll that surveys 2900 individuals, but say that Dr. Paul winning by 4% "seems off".

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:41 PM
You are outright lying on this forum, obviously trying to bring people's spirits down with complete and utter lies.

In other words, you are a troll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151355/Gingrich-Romney-Among-GOP-Voters-Nationwide.aspx

Paul 18-34 18% 35-54 9% 55+ 2%

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/IApolls/IA111127/Republican%20Primary%202012/Complete%20December%204,%202011%20Iowa%20NBC%20New s-Marist%20Poll%20Release.pdf

"Paul has a 14-point advantage over Obama among voters under 45 years of age"

that is a national poll. irrelevant. good to know he's doing better nationally with that group, though it's still entirely irrelevant to this discussion. the point is that, and you know you've seen it as much as i have, a lot of these state polls beyond IA/NH/NV have us losing badly, and we very often do not do well with the young folks. we had this exact same discussion a couple weeks ago about another poll he pulled 0% 18-29 in!

so rather than toss around "troll" accusation at anyone who attempts to remove the rose-colored glasses we've have grafted to our faces, why don't we think of ways to actually IMPROVE our youth support since it IS obviously a problem in many states, CO being one of them.

ronpaulfollower999
12-06-2011, 02:41 PM
My poiny exactly. it's not bullshit. it's math. 500 people, very few of which are that age, he's polled badly in that group lately, it's likely that the result is valid.

thanks.

The result probably is valid for that particular poll, but it clearly does not represent all of Colorado.

hueylong
12-06-2011, 02:41 PM
All these low-post concern trolls are a waste of time. This is a total cheese of a poll -- no way Dr. Paul is at 0% among 18-29 after being at 22% in the last poll.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:42 PM
You read this poll which has Dr. Paul's support at 0% among the 18-29 demographic and say it is accurate.

You read another poll that surveys 2900 individuals, but say that Dr. Paul winning by 4% "seems off".

no i said the fact that there were 2900 individuals and only 700 were republicans, polling a republican primary, "seems off".

bronxboy10
12-06-2011, 02:43 PM
no i said the fact that there were 2900 individuals and only 700 were republicans, polling a republican primary, "seems off".

...and those who were not registered Republican at the time of the poll can register Republican before the caucus. They are still people and they still have the right to cast a vote.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:43 PM
ok, so to everyone that seems to want to throw around insults and what not, just answer this:

where is the line between a "good" poll and a "bs" poll? what makes ones poll better or more accurate than the next? if you answer that honestly, i think you'll find that they're all the same, the only thing that changes is how they make you feel inside, which is what drives your reaction.

sailingaway
12-06-2011, 02:43 PM
again 'usual Republican primary voters' undercounts Ron's support. The anti war voted for Obama last time, civil liberties, too.

Notice that PPP changed their model for Iowa now that it is close to being in zone and asked 'who is attending the caucuses' not 'usual attendees of GOP caucuses' and Ron's numbers were very different.

sailingaway
12-06-2011, 02:45 PM
ok, so to everyone that seems to want to throw around insults and what not, just answer this:

where is the line between a "good" poll and a "bs" poll? what makes ones poll better or more accurate than the next? if you answer that honestly, i think you'll find that they're all the same, the only thing that changes is how they make you feel inside, which is what drives your reaction.

that is nonsense. They change who they poll as it gets closer to the date and if you track the cross tabs that is very apparent.. And some change to a more precise formula sooner than others.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:45 PM
...and those who were not registered Republican at the time of the poll can register Republican before the caucus. They are still people and they still have the right to cast a vote.

true... i was just pointing out that that is unusual. i read lots of polls. it's not common to see a primary poll in which the majority of those sampled are not members of the party holding the primary the poll is assessing.

that's certainly unusual. not saying it's bad polling, it could prove to be more a more accurate rep of turnout. it's just unusual.

bronxboy10
12-06-2011, 02:46 PM
The anti war voted for Obama last time, civil liberties, too.

I voted for Obama...

:(

LibertyEsq
12-06-2011, 02:46 PM
that is a national poll. irrelevant. good to know he's doing better nationally with that group, though it's still entirely irrelevant to this discussion. the point is that, and you know you've seen it as much as i have, a lot of these state polls beyond IA/NH/NV have us losing badly, and we very often do not do well with the young folks. we had this exact same discussion a couple weeks ago about another poll he pulled 0% 18-29 in!

so rather than toss around "troll" accusation at anyone who attempts to remove the rose-colored glasses we've have grafted to our faces, why don't we think of ways to actually IMPROVE our youth support since it IS obviously a problem in many states, CO being one of them.

Wow, still saying 18-29 is Paul's WORST voting bloc.

I guess he's doing even worse in Iowa than nationally since he's been focused on Iowa this entire campaign, right?

Even PPP has 18-29 as Paul's second best voting bloc http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1205925.pdf

hopefully you get banned before someone else takes the bait

"0% 18-29 outside of the 30-day window is completely accurate guys, trust these polls even though they vary widely!"

good god

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:47 PM
again 'usual Republican primary voters' undercounts Ron's support. The anti war voted for Obama last time, civil liberties, too.

Notice that PPP changed their model for Iowa now that it is close to being in zone and asked 'who is attending the caucuses' not 'usual attendees of GOP caucuses' and Ron's numbers were very different.

i don't disagree that sampling matters. surely it does. and ron may be underrepresented (though not nearly as much as we though in 2007... i'm sure to some degree). that doesn't make one poll "better" or "worse" though, it just makes them more-or-less favorable to our guy.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:48 PM
Wow, still saying 18-29 is Paul's WORST voting bloc.

I guess he's doing even worse in Iowa than nationally since he's been focused on Iowa this entire campaign, right?

Even PPP has 18-29 as Paul's second best voting bloc http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1205925.pdf

hopefully you get banned before someone else takes the bait

0%. twice. two different states.

so... you can try to kill the messenger... or you can think of a way to appeal to them. what do you suggest?

devil21
12-06-2011, 02:48 PM
All these low-post concern trolls are a waste of time. This is a total cheese of a poll -- no way Dr. Paul is at 0% among 18-29 after being at 22% in the last poll.

Exactly. One of the biggest ways these polls are manipulated is by the polling agency avoiding certain groups based on previous poll results. If RP polled 22% among that group only a few months ago, you better believe PPP just chose to ignore those phone numbers this time around and instead focused on the numbers of those that fit what the poll is supposed to show, ie Newt's "surge". RP does his best in caucus states and his 18-29 group is unparalleled. Suddenly he's at 0% with that group in that state? BS. PPP just chose to poll in a manner that ignored that block (only 30 out of 500) this time around and skews the results in favor of the sheep and away from RP's bread and butter.

LibertyEsq
12-06-2011, 02:50 PM
0%. twice. two different states.

so... you can try to kill the messenger... or you can think of a way to appeal to them. what do you suggest?

I'm seriously done with you. Saying 0% is accurate like NOONE 18-29 is going to vote for Paul in Colorado OR NC. Let alone that it's his best demographic by FAR. Mods please ban the troll

bronxboy10
12-06-2011, 02:51 PM
I'm seriously done with you. Saying 0% is accurate like NOONE 18-29 is going to vote for Paul in Colorado OR NC. Let alone that it's his best demographic by FAR. Mods please ban the troll

I say no to a ban. Everyone should be able to have their say.

LibertyEsq
12-06-2011, 02:52 PM
I say no to a ban. Everyone should be able to have their say.

Not when they are clearly trying to subvert the candidate with proven lies they keep repeating

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:54 PM
regardless.. we can argue all day over whether polls are accurate (2007 redux anyone?) and accomplish nothing. how do we improve upon those numbers? the college outreach is working though obviously not well enough. the new ESPN ad should target that demographic and may get some people googling.

how do we break out in that age group, nationally or in any particular state? how can we engage these people? look at where we're weak and try to improve. that is the whole point. i just can't stand when people justify justify justify as opposed to saying "ok... that's the situation... let's work on it".

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 02:55 PM
LOL anyone who doesn't wear the glasses is a troll. classy.

That line of reasoning worked great in 2007. keep it up.

LibertyEsq
12-06-2011, 02:55 PM
regardless.. we can argue all day over whether polls are accurate (2007 redux anyone?) and accomplish nothing. how do we improve upon those numbers? the college outreach is working though obviously not well enough. the new ESPN ad should target that demographic and may get some people googling.

how do we break out in that age group, nationally or in any particular state? how can we engage these people? look at where we're weak and try to improve. that is the whole point. i just can't stand when people justify justify justify as opposed to saying "ok... that's the situation... let's work on it".

Am I seriously the only one spotting the blatant troll here??

devil21
12-06-2011, 02:57 PM
ok, so to everyone that seems to want to throw around insults and what not, just answer this:

where is the line between a "good" poll and a "bs" poll? what makes ones poll better or more accurate than the next? if you answer that honestly, i think you'll find that they're all the same, the only thing that changes is how they make you feel inside, which is what drives your reaction.

Well, a good poll tends to represent age groups equally and what Id like to see is some of these polls start covering CELL PHONE users. This poll obviously isn't even close.

Now, a question for you. Are you suggesting that it's legitimate poll results that RP's numbers in this group dropped from 22% to 0% in the course of a few months, while his support and media coverage has grown nationally at the same time?

I too have wondered what your purpose here is because you don't seem to do much except rag on other members and generally just drag people down.

LeJimster
12-06-2011, 03:02 PM
I always laugh when I see Ron @ 0% in the 18-29 age group, it is his strongest group followed by the 30+ year olds. He struggles with the oldies, but has made significant strides in that direction this campaign and is doing really well in Iowa to attract people from all age groups.

All these polls show is people are fickle, they generally tend to choose whoever is popular at that moment. And because the media says Ron has zero chance, they just don't think he's popular so thats why he does bad. However if he wins some States and gets fair front runner coverage that perception will change I have no doubt.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 03:06 PM
Well, a good poll tends to represent age groups equally and what Id like to see is some of these polls start covering CELL PHONE users. This poll obviously isn't even close.

Now, a question for you. Are you suggesting that it's legitimate poll results that RP's numbers in this group dropped from 22% to 0% in the course of a few months, while his support and media coverage has grown nationally at the same time?

I too have wondered what your purpose here is because you don't seem to do much except rag on other members and generally just drag people down.

no. you are fundamentally misunderstanding what polling IS. polls are not an apples-for-apples comparison. you can't say "he went from 22% to 0%". that implies they polled the same people twice and their opinions changed, and in that case i would agree that it is bs.

what that says is "the last people we polled, 22% in that bloc voted for ron, this time, no one did". now, depending on sample size, when they were taken, and about a million other factors, it could very well be the case, and obviously was, as that is the result.

the 0% is 0% because they only polled a few people in that group (i think someone said 30?). with a larger sample we may have seen a more realistic percentage, still probably no greater than 10%, which is in line with what we've been pulling in that age group in other outlying-state (post NV) polls recently.

so, no, i'm not suggesting that at all. and to respond to the other attack, i don't attack people. i may be opinionated (aren't we all? this is a political forum), but i certainly don't "attack" anyone. the only people in this movement i have any animosity towards are truthers, and we all should, because we'd be in a lot better shape this time if they weren't around in 2007.

you'd think you'd be free to disagree on a forum dedicated to the champion of individual liberty.

devil21
12-06-2011, 03:12 PM
no. you are fundamentally misunderstanding what polling IS. polls are not an apples-for-apples comparison. you can't say "he went from 22% to 0%". that implies they polled the same people twice and their opinions changed, and in that case i would agree that it is bs.

what that says is "the last people we polled, 22% in that bloc voted for ron, this time, no one did". now, depending on sample size, when they were taken, and about a million other factors, it could very well be the case, and obviously was, as that is the result.

the 0% is 0% because they only polled a few people in that group (i think someone said 30?). with a larger sample we may have seen a more realistic percentage, still probably no greater than 10%, which is in line with what we've been pulling in that age group in other outlying-state (post NV) polls recently.

so, no, i'm not suggesting that at all. and to respond to the other attack, i don't attack people. i may be opinionated (aren't we all? this is a political forum), but i certainly don't "attack" anyone. the only people in this movement i have any animosity towards are truthers, and we all should, because we'd be in a lot better shape this time if they weren't around in 2007.

you'd think you'd be free to disagree on a forum dedicated to the champion of individual liberty.

Your understanding of polling is correct but you don't seem to grasp the shenanigans that can and do go on in the background. Let's remember that PPP is a known left-leaner so it's no surprise they'd pump up guaranteed loser Gingrich and discount Paul. So then it's entirely possible that PPP is weeding out past Paul supporters to ensure they don't get polled again and skewing sample demographics to avoid his strongest support base, 18-29yo. 30 out of 500? Seriously? That's 6% of the total sample. The question here is whether this poll accurately reflects voter sentiment based on what WE already know to be true. It doesn't reflect it accurately and that's why it's bullshit and being called out accordingly.

You're defending the poll as being accurate, hence your comments about "breaking into the 18-29" segment.

Corey
12-06-2011, 03:16 PM
I have a good laugh at us Ron Paul fanatics, and our double standard with polls.

BUT the 30-day window thing does explain a lot, and to go to the other extreme and claim every poll that comes out is 100% unquestionably accurate and unbiased. Well, that IS just trolling.

PastaRocket848
12-06-2011, 03:20 PM
i didn't suggest that at all. polls are not "accurate" or "inaccurate" is my whole point. they are not comparable to one another, thus there is no basis on which to determine whether one is "accurate" or "inaccurate". we won't know that until the actual vote. and of course there is bias, everyone holds a bias, but i highly doubt that highly respected polling companies from across the political spectrum are all working in collusion to defraud dr. paul, so i guess i'm suggesting that they are "unbiased" in that regard. maybe i'm wrong on that one, but i just can't bring myself to believe that there is some directive going out to a dozen independent, competitive agencies saying "skew it this way... or else..". i'd be far more inclined to believe that individual pollsters would skew for their own reasons than to believe that it was orchestrated by some higher body.

BUSHLIED
12-06-2011, 03:26 PM
I think that Pasta is being unfairly criticized here. Perhaps we are not understanding him correctly. I think he has several good points but would also agree that he/she has a tendency to being more critical than not. Personally I don't mind that so much, since I try to be as objective and critical as possible. It's the whole "prepare for the worst but hope for the best" type of mindset. While I secretly hope the poll is inaccurate, I have to take it at face-value and work with that information. Emotions have no place here.

Let's review: For one, we all know that Paul historically polls well with the "youth" so it is most likely that the 6% of CO youth that participated in this poll is much too small of a sample with a larger margin of error to get an accurate picture of Paul's support among this sub-group. But we do have data, namely the previous poll which had him at 22%. Let's sit tight, and wait for the next poll to see what occurs. It is highly likely that the previous poll may have captured much more of Paul supporters than the most recent one. Namely, it could have been skewed towards Paul and this one is skewed away from Paul. I suspect that is the case.

Also, CO is far away in time relative to the most important caucus, namely Iowa. Besides, they just opened their campaign HQ in Denver...let's give the campaign another 2 weeks to operate and see what they can do. If the campaign applies what they have done in Iowa to CO, then we will begin to identify voters and sure them up. Ron will undoubtedly rise in states that have a Paul campaign presence. We saw that in '07 and we will see it in '12. Obviously, the real question is how big of a surge Ron can develop.

Lastly, perhaps no one is more distrustful or cynical as I of the media, polling, pundits etc...and I have to balance out my skepticism with a dose of reality. The polls were fairly accurate last time around, in fact, they were within the margin of errors among the early primary states. Once people dropped out, Ron's numbers rose, but that's artificial, cause of the way percentages work.

Anyway, I have no doubts that we are in trouble post IA, NH, SC, FL, & NV...at the moment. Quite frankly, the campaign itself can do little about that right now. I imagine the campaign is focusing its efforts on the early states with an eye on the early caucuses. That eye will turn to them once we get past IA and NH...and perhaps Pasta anxiety about that is what we should be helping Pasta with...

Corey
12-06-2011, 03:26 PM
Fair enough, Colorado is Feb 7. If we haven't won a couple states by then, we're in big trouble. If we DO win a couple by then, colorado will be easy pickings...

69360
12-06-2011, 04:08 PM
PPP skewed their poll to certian demographics to get a desired result. Nothing new there. CO is so far out, nobody will report on this poll, so who cares?

Inny Binny
12-06-2011, 04:43 PM
Pasta is entirely right, because with a sample size of 30 for Ron Paul, crosstabs are useless and meaningless. To scream conspiracy over this is ridiculous.

Inny Binny
12-06-2011, 04:52 PM
And, just quickly calculating, the margin of error on Paul's crosstabs would be about +/- 18%.

Paul or not at all
12-06-2011, 04:54 PM
well, you should. those are the numbers. and they're not good. this election, post NV, isn't lookin good. is there a state in the union other than NV/IA/NH where we're winning? even second?

If we win Iowa, our numbers will rise everywhere else.

Philmanoman
12-06-2011, 05:00 PM
So...lets see if I have this right...
Some people keep saying that the polls in 2007 were right and because of that the 2011 polls are right.

So...We should believe that every poll is pretty accurate because they were in 2007??

braane
12-06-2011, 05:04 PM
I thought them boys up in Boulder were all about doing away with the federal marijuana prohibition act? I would be surprised to see Paul actually doing this poorly there. Getting college kids to turn out for Paul in a state where they are going to try and legalize marijuana next year should be pretty simple.

Not that I am advocating voting for someone based on one issue (unless it's ending the warfare state or something), but whatever it takes to get Paul elected. If that means we have to go to Boulder in late January and convince students to vote for Paul because of that one thing then so be it.

ninepointfive
12-06-2011, 05:11 PM
This doesn't seem accurate, however it's up to the delegates to make the win in Caucus states like Colorado. do not flee!

Slutter McGee
12-06-2011, 05:25 PM
Who cares. We aren't going to be doing well in most states. We know that. We aren't the Gingrich campaign.

Our strategy has to be momentum. It might work. It might not. But getting all worked up about States that there has been no campaigning in is just silly. That being said, dismissing polls outright is equally stupid. I thought we learned this lesson four years ago.

Seriously it seems like everyone hear is saying "OH MY GOD WE ARE GOING TO WIN!" simply because we have an outside shot at it, unlike last time where we had no shot. Or people are saying "WE ARE SO FUCKED. DID YOU SEE THE FLORIDA POLL. WE ARE FUCKED."

Whatever happened to cautious optimism?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee