CNN/ORC: Rand 6th Bush 7th nationally

[movingstone]

Poll numbers (change from last month)

Trump 39% (+3)
Cruz 18% (+2)
Carson 10% (-4)
Rubio 10% (-2)
Christie 5% (+1)
Paul 4% (+3)
Bush 3% (nc)

Huckabee 2% (nc)
Kasich 2% (nc)
Fiorina 1% (-2)

Pataki/Santorum/Gilmore 0%

Best job at debate

Trump 33%
Cruz 28%
Rubio 13%
Christie 6%
Fiorina 4%
Carson 2%
Paul 2%

Bush/Huckabee/Kasich/Graham 1%

Pataki/Santorum 0%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/22/cnnpoll.pdf

[Liberty74]

Placement does not matter folks. It's the percentage.

[jmdrake]

Placement does not matter folks. It's the percentage.

Percentage doesn't matter folks. It's the trend. Glad to see Rand is up to 4%. Sad that so many people are so stupid that they thought Trump did the best in the debate. Rand didn't say "bomb the brown people" enough times for the 30% of Republicans (45% of Trump supporters) who want to bomb the fictional city of Agrabah.

[movingstone]

Placement does not matter folks. It's the percentage.

Consider I have 4 excels worth of data. I think I know this shit.

But what I posting is that, Bush is not stabilize but continue to fall. After Christmas to the next debate is another 2 weeks worth of polls. Meaning if this trend is correct. Bush will fall out of the top 6, and also may fall out of the top 5 in Iowa, and may even fall out of the top 5 in New Hampshire (if Kasich is lucky).

Bush, Paul, and Kasich are all on the bubble. The debate probably have 6 people or 7 (I don't think 8).

If I have to bet money. I would bet on Bush over the Rand and Kasich based on the data. Unless couple more polls show that he fall even further.

[movingstone]

Placement does not matter folks. It's the percentage.

I even make a thread calling out people's bullshits lately, making up bullshit data of the 2012 cycle.
I am not one to overhype stuffs. But Christie rise seemed to hammer Bush badly.

[01000110]

Placement does not matter folks. It's the percentage.
Doesn't it?

That main debate will feature candidates who place in the top six nationally, based on an average of the five most recent national polls recognized by Fox News, or place within the top five based on an average of the five most recent Iowa or New Hampshire state polls recognized by the network.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487175-Debate-eligibility-rules-released-top-6-national-only

[Liberty74]

Percentage doesn't matter folks. It's the trend. Glad to see Rand is up to 4%.

There is no trend. Rand has been fluctuating between 2% and 6% for months now nationally. And such is all within the margin of errors of those polls hence no real trend.

People read into the smallest damn things without really understanding.

Now, if Rand breaks into the 8-12% range nationally then yes, a clear trend would be occurring. Same would hold true in Iowa and NH if such started occurring.

[randomname]

http://i.imgur.com/mZj1ixn.jpg

[Jeffster]

I still have a feeling that the number of people who actually show up to caucus for Trump in Iowa will be far less than his poll numbers.

[Chieppa1]

http://i.imgur.com/mZj1ixn.jpg

Wow. They showed Rand ahead of Bush. Actually showed his face. Someone is getting fired at CNN.

[Jan2017]

BASED ON 292 REGISTERED VOTERS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS REPUBLICANS
AND 146 WHO DESCRIBED THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN REPUBLICAN,
FOR A TOTAL OF 438 REGISTERED REPUBLICANS

hard data for the 438 polled is needed to decipher Christie's 5ish% and Rand's 4ish percent, so that the averaging error doesn't occur when
the Fox mathematicians "average" the polls for the debate using the new criteria "place" requirement.

[squirl22]

e
. Rand didn't say "bomb the brown people" enough times for the 30% of Republicans (45% of Trump supporters) who want to bomb the fictional city of Agrabah.

And I bet they are all "Christians."

[supermario21]

If anything we can now say that regardless of the style campaign Rand ran he'd be where he's at now...I think he's done a great job the last 2 debates in terms of being closer to Ron and it really hasn't done that much...But the trend is good. If someone drops out Rand will be in position to definitely make the stage. And to be honest, he has no incentive to drop out before Kentucky so he'll be around even if he misses the main stage for a debate or two.

[hells_unicorn]

e

And I bet they are all "Christians."

You mean the people who booed Jesus at the South Carolina debate during the 2012 GOP primary? Yep, special folks in need of further polling.


On Topic: This is only helpful if Rand starts to hang around the upper portion of his current box, namely the 4-6% range and either Carson or Bush (or both) completely collapsing either nationally or in Iowa. I think it's more likely in Iowa, but if Bush consistently stays at 3% and dips below it a couple times he may end up in the under card.

[Crashland]

Please Carson drop out... I think he might go after Iowa but it would be nice if he dropped sooner.

[derek4ever]

Rand had 2 great debates and the fact he gained 3 and is in the top 6 just might inspire ránd to continue with the path he chose to take now. Hopefully rand will have a good rest and come after christmas with all the energy we know he has. Go rand!! :)

[The Gold Standard]

I think he's done a great job the last 2 debates in terms of being closer to Ron and it really hasn't done that much...But the trend is good.

What? It looks like being closer to Ron has caused the trend to look good.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Does anyone know Carson's burn rate?

[The Northbreather]

It's very irritatating that wanna be dictator Cristie is ahead of Rand, unnerving actually.

[derek4ever]

It's very irritatating that wanna be dictator Cristie is ahead of Rand, unnerving actually.

I agree but it's only +1. Carson is in a free for all and I'm guessing his support will be split between Rand, Cruz and Trump. Rand needs to keep doing what he did in the past month, where dropped some truth bombs left and right, hoping some smart people would pick up on it. I know 4% is nothing to celebrate about at all but if Rand keeps on chipping off some of the soft core supporters from the "anti-establishment" candidates and picks up new supporters, before the next debate we might see Rand where we want him! :cool:

[Jan2017]

Does anyone know Carson's burn rate?
WSJ Dec 21 : http://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-ben-carsons-presidential-campaign-burns-through-cash-1450737575


Internal campaign budget documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show a political operation hemorrhaging cash. . . .
—putting the retired neurosurgeon’s effort under water months before the first early-state voters caucus and cast ballots.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Thanks. I'm not a WSJ subscriber, but I was able to read enough.

Carson is still liked and respected, but it looks like his support has just lost confidence. If he drops out before Iowa, he will be keeping his powder dry for future endeavors, otherwise, he will be an afterthought in the future like Santorum. He is no dummy. I see an opportunity there.

[limequat]

One surprise...According to this poll Rand is doing best in the South. He's tied for 3rd at 9%. This kinda jives with the uptick in the SC polls. I don't get it, but it could mean that SC is not a lost cause after all.

Also, look at the CNN national trend for Rand. Last 3-4 months he's been between 3-5% every poll. Then magically -just before the CNN debate- he drops to 1%. Now he's back to 4%. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Finally: Everyone who named Rand as their pick for president was under the age of 50.

[statist slayer]

One surprise...According to this poll Rand is doing best in the South. He's tied for 3rd at 9%. This kinda jives with the uptick in the SC polls. I don't get it, but it could mean that SC is not a lost cause after all.

Also, look at the CNN national trend for Rand. Last 3-4 months he's been between 3-5% every poll. Then magically -just before the CNN debate- he drops to 1%. Now he's back to 4%. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Don't read too much into it when the margin of error is 4%.

The high numbers in the South are interesting... Perhaps this is due to his southern accent?

[Jan2017]

Don't read too much into it when the margin of error is 4%.


MoE using a poll of 438 people to describe the population of 55 million national GOP voters is alot higher than +/- 4% . . .
-reason we need the hard numbers - Rand had what 19 that polled for him, and Christie had 22 out of the 438 responses used for Q7?

[CPUd]

MoE using a poll of 438 people to describe the population of 55 million national GOP voters is alot higher than +/- 4% . . .
-reason we need the hard numbers - Rand had what 19 that polled for him, and Christie had 22 out of the 438 responses used for Q7?

http://i.imgur.com/ZAxD4QU.png

[Crashland]

MoE using a poll of 438 people to describe the population of 55 million national GOP voters is alot higher than +/- 4% . . .

Why? Can you demonstrate that?

[movingstone]

There is no trend. Rand has been fluctuating between 2% and 6% for months now nationally. And such is all within the margin of errors of those polls hence no real trend.

People read into the smallest damn things without really understanding.

Now, if Rand breaks into the 8-12% range nationally then yes, a clear trend would be occurring. Same would hold true in Iowa and NH if such started occurring.

lol, you are half right. The people who think Rand surge is wrong. Rand's support is the same.

The trend is Christie rise, and if he gonna sucks more blood from the pretty much done for Bush. Even though in this particular poll, it said no change.

It isn't so much that Rand will rise. It is more if Bush will fall enough (which really 1 to 1.5% is all it need).

Cruz and Trump sucking Carson dry. Rubio and Christie is sucking Bush dry.

[CPUd]

lol, you are half right. The people who think Rand surge is wrong. Rand's support is the same.

The trend is Christie rise, and if he gonna sucks more blood from the pretty much done for Bush.

It isn't so much that Rand will rise. It is more if Bush will fall enough (which really 1 to 2% is all it need).

Yes! he can poll 4's and 6's and still beat Bush in Iowa. He could also beat Carson, but would probably require Rand breaking out of the 2-6 range.

[Jan2017]

Why? Can you demonstrate that?

If there was a population of only 5,000 that you wanted to describe with only 438 random samples,
the margin of error (at 95% confidence) is +/- 5% at least in this online calculator . . .
https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/margin-of-error-calculator/

[CPUd]

If there was a population of only 5,000 that you wanted to describe with only 438 random samples,
the margin of error (at 95% confidence) is +/- 5% at least in this online calculator . . .
https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/margin-of-error-calculator/

It is not a linear scale. The sample size to keep ~5% margin of error for 5000 (357) is not much different from the sample size needed for 50000000 (385).

[Jan2017]

It is not a linear scale. The sample size to keep ~5% margin of error for 5000 (357) is not much different from the sample size needed for 50000000 (385).

The sample proportion, ρ (rho)(using 438 people to describe 55,000,000) is a ridiculously small number that gets square-rooted -
I agree not linear and making it worse of a prediction than say using 438 samples to predict the opinion of 50,000

[CPUd]

The sample proportion, ρ (rho)(using 438 people to describe 55,000,000) is a ridiculously small number that gets square-rooted -
I agree not linear and making it worse of a prediction than say using 438 samples to predict the opinion of 50,000

The problem with the polls are due to experimental design and sample methods. If you are having a problem with the math, take it up with Bayes.

[Jan2017]

The problem with the polls are due to experimental design and sample methods. If you are having a problem with the math, take it up with Bayes.
No problem with the math at all - 438/55,000,00 is a sample proportion too low for a MoE of 4%

[CPUd]

No problem with the math at all - 438/55,000,00 is a sample proportion too low for a MoE of 4%

Agree. For 55,000,000 at 4%, they should use around 600. The best they could get from 438 is 4.68%.

[derek4ever]

If anything we can now say that regardless of the style campaign Rand ran he'd be where he's at now...I think he's done a great job the last 2 debates in terms of being closer to Ron and it really hasn't done that much...But the trend is good. If someone drops out Rand will be in position to definitely make the stage. And to be honest, he has no incentive to drop out before Kentucky so he'll be around even if he misses the main stage for a debate or two.

I think rand will try to stretch it out until the end. I see that passion had at the beginning pop up in the last month. I'm sure ron will give him some pointers and rand will start 2016 in a great way! Just wait and see! :)

[eleganz]

A few more of these and Rand should be eligible for the debate? When is the start date and cut off for the polls to count?

[Jonderdonk]

A few more of these and Rand should be eligible for the debate? When is the start date and cut off for the polls to count?

They're using the five (I think) most recent polls released prior a certain date, so that depends on how many polls come out...

[Jeffster]

Wow. They showed Rand ahead of Bush. Actually showed his face. Someone is getting fired at CNN.

Well, if you take Rand Paul out of this, Bush is the real 6th.

Signed,

Lawrence O'Donnell

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/5GcQ8fT.png

http://i.imgur.com/JDJuby7.png

[65fastback2+2]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/22/cnnpoll.pdf

[quote]Interviews with 1,018 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORCInternational on December 17-21, 2015. The margin of sampling error forresults based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points.The sample also includes 927 interviews among registered voters (plus orminus 3 percentage points).This sample includes 618 interviews among landline respondents and 400interviews among cell phone respondents.[/qute]

60% landline / 40% cell phone

I'll wait for the usual trumpeters of "The polls are fair" to show up again...

[65fastback2+2]

http://i.imgur.com/5GcQ8fT.png



this is why Paul has been working to create soundbites that are repeated the following days all over...much more effective.

[carlton]

http://i.imgur.com/AnUhXco.png

[luctor-et-emergo]

It is not a linear scale. The sample size to keep ~5% margin of error for 5000 (357) is not much different from the sample size needed for 50000000 (385).

Which is absolutely true in case the sample taken is in fact a genuine cross section of society selected completely at random within the set parameters. We know this practically never happen so there's always a bias in some way or another beyond the common MOE. A list of likely republican voters might not include people who've suddenly become interested. It's science but it's definitely not hard science.

Also, there's a big difference between a poll that asks people about their political leanings and one that asks which flavor of ice-cream they like. Here in the Netherlands polls are notoriously unreliable. This is because traditionally people don't really talk about who they vote for and may even lie in polls.

[dude58677]

Placement does not matter folks. It's the percentage.



Just hope no one gets majority.

[thatpeculiarcat]

http://i.imgur.com/5GcQ8fT.png


That is frightening. I always tell myself that people like the ones in Luntz's focus groups don't really exist, but I guess they have to.

[limequat]

http://i.imgur.com/5GcQ8fT.png

http://i.imgur.com/JDJuby7.png

I saw that and completely disregarded it. All the internet on who won the debate gave Rand between 10-50%. In Fox's online poll he even beat out Trump.

2% think Rand won the debate? Really? Charles fucking Krauthammer thought he won the debate. Newt fucking Gingrich thought he won the debate.

Then it occurred to me. There were literally zero Rand supporters over the age of 50 in this poll. The people that watched the debate, watched it on the their cable TV, watched the MSM conclusion afterwards and obviously concurred 100%. This is CNN's core demographic, and the MSM still has absolute control over them.

[RDM]

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/1545557_862067080579539_5042679369151965233_n.jpg? efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=84d337253dbe3ae423c148507ab741d0&oe=572076D1

[grizzums]

I don't have the screenshot but last night I saw CNN show top 5 last night. Paul wasn't even up there and Bush was 5th at 3%.

Same old bullsheet.

[adam220891]

Anyone have the screenshot of the latest poll blackout? It had a comment 'shopped in indicating where Rand actually was.

[eleganz]

I don't have the screenshot but last night I saw CNN show top 5 last night. Paul wasn't even up there and Bush was 5th at 3%.

Same old bullsheet.

Damn we need this screenshot, what program did it air on at least?

[grizzums]

It aired on CNN.. not sure which program. Was around 630p est on Dec 23rd. I wish I'd captured it. Disgusting.