Article everyone needs to read about polls...

[LatinsforPaul]

Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump’s Polls (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dear-media-stop-freaking-out-about-donald-trumps-polls/)


If even by New Year’s Day (a month before the Iowa caucuses, which are scheduled for Feb. 1) only about one-third of Iowa voters will have come to their final decision, the percentage must be even lower now — perhaps something like 20 percent of voters are locked in. When you see an Iowa poll, you should keep in mind that the real situation looks something more like this:3

CANDIDATE SUPPORT IN IOWA
Undecided 80%
Donald Trump 5
Ben Carson 4
Ted Cruz 3
Marco Rubio 2
Jeb Bush 1
Carly Fiorina 1
Mike Huckabee 1
Chris Christie 1

[Zippyjuan]

For Trump to get five percent one must assume that ALL of the "undecided" votes don't pick him or any of the other candidates.

[CPUd]

For Trump to get five percent one must assume that ALL of the "undecided" votes don't pick him or any of the other candidates.

The undecideds aren't going to anyone, that's why they are "undecided".

[69360]

I don't think Trump will win IA. I think after the holidays, the media will unload on him and that will be the end of it.

[hells_unicorn]

I don't think Trump will win IA. I think after the holidays, the media will unload on him and that will be the end of it.

I think there is a greater likelihood of Ted Cruz or even Rand Paul winning Iowa than there is for Trump to win there. I'm not a betting man, but I'd wager that in addition to him potentially getting clobbered by a massive onslaught of negative press over the next month that very little of his so-called "supporters" actually show up to vote. In fact, I'd be surprised that Trump is in the Top 3 when the votes are finally cast, assuming he doesn't jump ship before the votes.

[CPUd]

An article about the article:




Early-State Polls Aren't Predictive -- Yet
By David Byler
November 24, 2015

If you’ve been following the wonky world of political science and data journalism, you’ve probably heard someone say that you should ignore early polling – especially in a presidential primary. When data nerds deploy phrases like this, we aren’t advocating for wholesale avoidance of these surveys – the polls provide reams of useful and interesting data. Instead we’re pointing out that in chaotic primaries (such as this cycle’s Republican contest) polls done long before the actual voting typically don’t do a good job of predicting election results. One only needs to scroll through the Washington Post’s Past Frontrunners feed to find Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Howard Dean and other non-nominees topping the polls in the November before previous primary contests.

But this “ignore the polls” mantra raises important questions: When will the surveys become predictive? And which polls are most helpful in making accurate forecasts?
...

http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/332158_5_.jpg
...


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/24/early-state_polls_arent_predictive_--_yet__128828.html

[Ronin Truth]

Since when does telling enough voters what they want to hear, start to not work?