Rasmussen: RP nationwide falls to 4%

[bc2208]

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

wtf...

[yongrel]

I'd be curious to read a transcript of the polling questions and whatnot. I cannot think of a reason that RP would drop like that so suddenly, especially considering the increased attention. That, and Ron Paul supporters don't really change their candidate. I suspect either a fluke, or a polling procedure weighted towards the media darlings.

[werdd]

completely irrelevant, the MOE on that crap is so high that its nothing more than pulling straws.

[Green Mountain Boy]

Just a margin of error fluctuation

[Ethek]

Whens the next debate?

[yongrel]

"Daily tracking results are from survey interviews conducted over four days ending last night. Each update includes approximately 750 Likely Democratic Primary Voters and 600 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. "

I'm inclined to believe it's a fluke, considering that the sample size is so small.

[bc2208]

It's their daily poll - he's fallen about a point a day for the last few...

[Menthol Patch]

The polls are rigged. We need to ignore them. We need to keep supporting Ron Paul!

[TheNewYorker]

I see what's happening. First they build him up a bit by saying he's polling at what was it, 8% nationally. Then they start dropping him in the polls to make it look like he's losing support and that no one should vote for him.

Ingenious idea really.

[Shellshock1918]

I see what's happening. First they build him up a bit by saying he's polling at what was it, 8% nationally. Then they start dropping him in the polls to make it look like he's losing support and that no one should vote for him.

Ingenious idea really.

It makes the Tea Party all the more worthwhile and news worthy.

[fuzzybekool]

I am sick of polls. I need some anti-acids.

[billv]

I'd be curious to read a transcript of the polling questions and whatnot. I cannot think of a reason that RP would drop like that so suddenly, especially considering the increased attention. That, and Ron Paul supporters don't really change their candidate. I suspect either a fluke, or a polling procedure weighted towards the media darlings.

People don't like Fidel? (from last nights debate), lol

[DRV45N05]

Guys,

it's a daily tracking poll. It's going to fluctuate from day to day. The guys ahead of him routinely fall 3-4 % at times. Huckabee has taken a 4-point dive the last couple of days, too.

He's firmly in the 7-8% range, for sure. There will be another uptick soon.

[Exponent]

I'm guessing there was a particularly bad day, Friday or Saturday perhaps. And then today might not have been all that great either. So that previous bad day has been messing with the 4-day average, but in a day or two, will be out of the picture. We'll see by Wednesday probably if this is the case. If it picks up quickly again, then there was probably a 1% or 2% day stuck in there somewhere. If it stays around 5% though, then this probably wasn't the case, and the numbers have in fact been falling steadily. (The question regarding why they've been falling will still be a relevant question to ask, of course.)

[Bigboyen]

It's a bit strange. Rasmussen was out of touch with other polls last week. They had Huckabee leading the field, no else did. They had Paul higher then the other polls. And on the other side Clinton was falling a lot more then in other polls.

So it can be that they where off last week or they can have changed a bit on the likely voter model to get more in line with the other polling companies.

[paulitics]

I think they tweeked their methodology. These are rolling averages, so if he was 7% before there were probably a couple 8 and 9% in there. With only 4%, he probably has a couple 3% and 2%. Thats a huge varience in just a few days.

[bgoldwater]

not good.

[AlexMerced]

Caller rotation, it'llbe back up by wednesday, everyones numbers fluctuate a lot as they rotate the callers these days, look at rhdaily tracking numbers

[AlexMerced]

this is the aggregate of al of last weeks results

For the seven days ending December 9, 2007 show that Mike Huckabee earns 21% of the vote while Rudy Giuliani attracts 20%. Mitt Romney is at 13% while John McCain and Fred Thompson are each the preferred candidate for 11%. Ron Paul’s support for the week is at 6%, Tom Tancredo is at 2%, Duncan Hunter earns 1% and 16% are undecided


Remmeber each days numbers are based on completley different people, look for the weekly aggregates for the most accurate numbers

[walt]

poll links are NOT grassroots activity. post it in the right place

[mrd]

Although this comment is completely (ahem) irrelevant, the founder and CEO of Rasmussen Reports, Scott Rasmussen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Rasmussen), is an Evangelical Christian.

[Luther]

Irrelevant these polls are.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

wtf...

posting anything negative only discourages people.

[integrity]

too many are getting eliminated from the polls by pressing #6

[AlexMerced]

too many are getting eliminated from the polls by pressing #6

that's the IMC polls, these are Rasmussen, two different companies, no evidence of Rasmussen and foul play... yet

[Pete Kay]

Yeah, the MSNBC paid for a poll that showed Ron Paul at 8 percent, 2 points above John McCain, then theyrelase another poll two days later showing Ron Paul at 2 percent. There's some obvious push polling going on.

[blakjak]

Guys,

it's a daily tracking poll. It's going to fluctuate from day to day. The guys ahead of him routinely fall 3-4 % at times. Huckabee has taken a 4-point dive the last couple of days, too.

He's firmly in the 7-8% range, for sure. There will be another uptick soon.

agree. just statisitcal variance at play here...

[AlexMerced]

agree. just statisitcal variance at play here...

agreed, this happens every week and you'd think people would react less to it.

[Akus]

I'd be curious to read a transcript of the polling questions and whatnot. I cannot think of a reason that RP would drop like that so suddenly, especially considering the increased attention. That, and Ron Paul supporters don't really change their candidate. I suspect either a fluke, or a polling procedure weighted towards the media darlings.

I agree, I am yet to see one ex-Ron Paul supporter.

[AgentPaul001]

He's back up today to 6% and likely into 7% or 8% quite soon. Its a 4-Day average so one really bad day like 2% or something must have pulled him down.

With the Blimp & TeaParty coverage, we might actually see 10% in Rasmussen :)

[AlexMerced]

He's back up today to 6% and likely into 7% or 8% quite soon. Its a 4-Day average so one really bad day like 2% or something must have pulled him down.

With the Blimp & TeaParty coverage, we might actually see 10% in Rasmussen :)

where did you get %6 from, that was his average of last week, but the newest Rassmusen daily poll definetley saids 4%

[FreedomLover]

If the polls weren't accurate when ron paul was an asterisk, why are they accurate now?

let's atleast be consistent in our fury for polling data. :)

[evandi]

Could someone please just write and sticky information about Kerry's 2004 come-from-behind victory in Iowa, Mccain and Buchanons victory in nh in the 2000 and 1996 primaries respectively, and all the other nice related info on the stupidity of believing poll numbers at all. (Dewey defeats Truman!)

It needs to be stickied.

Pollsters do not know what people with cell-phones think. They do not know how many people are crossing over and registering republican, they do not know how many people are going to give a damn that not-really-republican#1 might just beat not-really-republican#2 so that they might not even have much of a reason to show up at the polls.

The polls very often turn up outside their margin of error.

And guess what? Every single poll you've ever seen in your life is based on the assumptions required for statistics to work: that the sample contains a pretty good representation of its larger generalization.

If you believe that assumption is valid, then you are a fool. Every poll has a margin of error very close to 100% assuming everyone responding to the poll is telling the truth, because there is no guarantee that the assumption is correct. There is no proof whatsoever that statistics are even valid.

And I bet you all did not know this, but a basic statistics class tells you that the confidence interval is also important. Not just the margin of error.

What is the confidence interval? Its another margin of error actually.

You get a certain sample size and a confidence interval. You need the confidence interval in order to get the margin of error. But they really are just two margins of error.

You say you have a 95% confidence that the actual value lies withing a certain percentage of the given value. The actual value may be almost anything whatsoever. The odds of it being outside the 95% probable margin of error is 5%.

All of the proofs related to statistics are based on the initial assumption that the sample represents the population more or less. There is no basis for that assumption, that is why it is called an assumption. We say a balanced coin should land heads equally because we see no way to tell each side apart so there should be no reason for a difference, but a large difference is not prevented by any physical law of the universe.

Most of this is all mental masturbation. Statisticians want you all to think that they can have some sort of power that no one else has, and that is why you hear about the margin of error but not the chance that the result will lie outside the margin of error. Neither does any pollster ever tell you that his sample might not be representative of the whole. The gold-standard for figuring out you have a sample that is representative of the whole is when you work on it over and over until you find a sample that you can't rule out as representing bias.

But...

1. How the hell could he/she know? If people are so easy to pin down belief-wise, these Oracles we call pollsters should rule the world along with those psychiatrists and psychologists with their all-encompassing fantasies on how humans behave.

2. If it is their job to pick a sample size then they can influence the polls easily choosing who to call. Having Oracles whose work vastly influences people to vote only on who they think can win may make lots of people choose not to vote for a particular person, and being able to pay off a few pollsters is far too tempting.

3. Statistician, what are the odds that you picked a good sample?

Should you assume they are criminals? Why not? Just don't believe a damn thing they say. You have no reason to. Polls are far more useful to those who use them to influence what you believe then to you.

[Naraku]

I think they changed their method. It has nothing to do with variation.

Ron Paul was never fluctuating like this before, that I remember. I don't think anyone else fluctuated that much. I'm not sure if it was Huckabee's performance, or Paul's performance that made them change the method, but I think most likely they saw someone doing better than they thought that person should.

[jd603]

Most polls are completely bogus (paid for), do NOT let them get you down.

My favorite example is Rudy in NH, he has no support here and is high in most polls. Sorry Rudy but there's just no way.

It's currently the only thing they can use against us too if you haven't noticed... "he's nowhere in the polls" , on and on they can't help but mention that pointless fact.



http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

wtf...

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Just a margin of error fluctuation

Exactly. Paul didn't fall 3-4 points in one day without any controversies. No one this late in the game rises or falls that quickly unless something extraordinary happens.

[Flirple]

Looks like he's down in all the new polls. He's at 2% in Iowa; 5% in NH; and 4% in SC according to the new MSNBC poll (click on pdf links at the end of 2nd paragraph): http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/10/507731.aspx

Must be the Huckabee surge.

[ronpaulyourmom]

I agree, I am yet to see one ex-Ron Paul supporter.

I've seen two that currently support Huckabee. We'll see if that lasts.

[ronpaulyourmom]

Looks like he's down in all the new polls. He's at 2% in Iowa; 5% in NH; and 4% in SC according to the new MSNBC poll (click on pdf links at the end of 2nd paragraph): http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/10/507731.aspx

Must be the Huckabee surge.

It's more likely their methodology.

[DRV45N05]

Looks like he's down in all the new polls. He's at 2% in Iowa; 5% in NH; and 4% in SC according to the new MSNBC poll (click on pdf links at the end of 2nd paragraph): http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/10/507731.aspx

Must be the Huckabee surge.

Those are Mason Dixon polls. They suck, and always have.

[Think12345]

I seriously doubt, that Ron Paul supporters could switch to somebody else en masse. What's more likely, some people who previously were "undecided" (and thus excluded from 'likely republican voters') picked a candidate to support (Huck?)

Our main strength is the passion of Ron Paul supporters. We need to follow up with people we have converted, make sure they have registered for primaries and make sure they do vote.

[Midnight77]

I'm convinced more than ever that these polls are rigged now.

Doesn't help that Rasmussen goes on FOX News and tells everyone that Ron doesn't have a chance, either.

Polls?

FU Frank!!

[Lucid American]

Um, anyone think this might be an attempt to knock the Tea Party off kilter?

And another thing, are we sure we have the bandwidth to handle all the contributions on Sunday? I'd hate for a server to , uh, crash or something like that.

It's something I've been thinking about today -- what if someone found some way to shut down the money bomb.

[Bigboyen]

If you believe that assumption is valid, then you are a fool. Every poll has a margin of error very close to 100% assuming everyone responding to the poll is telling the truth, because there is no guarantee that the assumption is correct. There is no proof whatsoever that statistics are even valid.


Wow, I guess you believe what you are writing. But it's mostly bs.

Polls are accurate. Just a small part of the customer for a polling company is into politics. But the election polls are important for the polling company to show that they are accurate. It's very important for them to nail it. This is a business where you get a final result and can put it up against the latest poll before the election from the polling company. And that result should be on the money.

Of course you get election where they don't nail it, usually because something happened during the last hours before the election. It is harder to predict a primary election then a general election. And this year it's also hard since it's no clear front runner, and many candidates (8, and 6 that is polling over the margin of error).

But they are really trying to get it right, the big question is how high turn out it will be in the election. I think we will be able to do better then the polls if the turn out is low on election night.

[tfelice]

I seriously doubt, that Ron Paul supporters could switch to somebody else en masse. What's more likely, some people who previously were "undecided" (and thus excluded from 'likely republican voters') picked a candidate to support (Huck?).

Bingo. I am beginning to see this amongst Evangelical circles. Many who were uncommitted are now starting to go for Huck.

[Goldwater Conservative]

But they are really trying to get it right, the big question is how high turn out it will be in the election. I think we will be able to do better then the polls if the turn out is low on election night.

If they're trying to get it right (which I mostly agree they are), the only confirmation is the actual votes. If that's the case, why poll this early? There's no way to verify how accurate they truly are.

And I also have a problem with polls because they lead public opinion, which means listing a candidate in low single digits (whether intentionally or because the methodology is imperfect for whatever reason) makes it more likely that said candidate will be in low single digits as many of his supporters throw their weight behind someone perceived as more viable.

[Bigboyen]

If they're trying to get it right (which I mostly agree they are), the only confirmation is the actual votes. If that's the case, why poll this early? There's no way to verify how accurate they truly are.


Yes, the official polls are most to make the feeling of a race - the msm need it to keep some excitement with an election. (And of course the polling company need to make many polls during a campaign so they are able to get the result right on the last poll before election)

But every campaigns do a lot of important internal polling, and then who winning is not the most important (that’s mostly to track how the campaign is improving). Name recognition, like/dislike and then issues is important when you put together a campaign. If you are unknown (like Paul) your main focus is on getting name recognition. Without it people won't listen to your message and they are not voting for you. Then you have to look at how well liked you are as a candidate. Paul’s number here is not too good, but most voters still don't know enough about him for this to be a big factor. Then you have to see where you agree with the voters and where your opponents agree and disagree with the voters. Then you can put up which issues to push where and when, and also how to argue for your stand on special issue.

So polls are real important and every campaign use money on it, or else they will be fighting a battle in the dark.

[leonster]

MOE +-4% means if it says 7 one time, it could really be anywhere from 3% to 11%--and a 1 in 20 chance he's even lower or even higher than that--that's a huge range, soo...

[anotherone]

MSM media obviously biased against Paul.

I see the pollsters as being one with the MSM media, and see no reason to put any trust in them.

All we must do is continue to get more votes and look forward to the early primaries.

[Naraku]

What's more likely, some people who previously were "undecided" (and thus excluded from 'likely republican voters') picked a candidate to support (Huck?)

Good point, I had not considered this. In fact, it seems definitely like there are more pulling for the other candidates. It could be Huckabee or people just now getting into it.

[evandi]

Wow, I guess you believe what you are writing. But it's mostly bs.

Polls are accurate. Just a small part of the customer for a polling company is into politics. But the election polls are important for the polling company to show that they are accurate. It's very important for them to nail it. This is a business where you get a final result and can put it up against the latest poll before the election from the polling company. And that result should be on the money.

Of course you get election where they don't nail it, usually because something happened during the last hours before the election. It is harder to predict a primary election then a general election. And this year it's also hard since it's no clear front runner, and many candidates (8, and 6 that is polling over the margin of error).

But they are really trying to get it right, the big question is how high turn out it will be in the election. I think we will be able to do better then the polls if the turn out is low on election night.

Pollsters have been wrong in primaries many times, and the media doesn't like to talk about that. Sure they get the general elections right, but then we all know, based on previous elections that there is roughly a 50-50 balance of republican voters to democrats. And when pollsters are wrong they just say its a late surge... or since multiple pollsters have different results, you end up saying "wow those guys have a better methodology." And you believe that, of course.

Polls are important for the media. How is anybody going to verify what the polls say? Does everybody in the country occasionally get together and vote on anything except the primaries and the presidential election? No. Pollsters get the primaries wrong, and don't tell me its BS. The margin of error is not solid, there might be a 5% chance it is outside of the margin of error, but please, oh please, explain to me why what I said is bs.

As I explained at the end, polls are only useful to those who run them. And for the people that run them they can be very useful if people are as gullible as yourself.

It is offensive that you would just say this is BS without having some sort of evidence, as I already have presented mine. Maybe you took some statistics classes and are mad that you were ripped off?

If the media didn't have polls, we would have far less reason to even pay attention to the media. Right now it is more important to look at polls to see what other people might be swayed to think than what they actually think, and that is why polls are pushed and pushed and pushed.

[fogger]

Their polls are flawed. "Likely voters". RP supporters don't show up on that radar.

I've never voted in my life. Never registered to vote. But I will be voting in this Primary. Of all the people I've asked, I can only think of ONE person who has EVER voted in a primary. But they are ALL voting for RP in this one.

Forget the polls. Make sure everyone you know votes in this primary.

[Luther]

I can't believe how many people here buy into these polls.

[Luther]

Pollsters have been wrong in primaries many times, and the media doesn't like to talk about that. Sure they get the general elections right, but then we all know, based on previous elections that there is roughly a 50-50 balance of republican voters to democrats. And when pollsters are wrong they just say its a late surge... or since multiple pollsters have different results, you end up saying "wow those guys have a better methodology." And you believe that, of course.

Polls are important for the media. How is anybody going to verify what the polls say? Does everybody in the country occasionally get together and vote on anything except the primaries and the presidential election? No. Pollsters get the primaries wrong, and don't tell me its BS. The margin of error is not solid, there might be a 5% chance it is outside of the margin of error, but please, oh please, explain to me why what I said is bs.

As I explained at the end, polls are only useful to those who run them. And for the people that run them they can be very useful if people are as gullible as yourself.

It is offensive that you would just say this is BS without having some sort of evidence, as I already have presented mine. Maybe you took some statistics classes and are mad that you were ripped off?

If the media didn't have polls, we would have far less reason to even pay attention to the media. Right now it is more important to look at polls to see what other people might be swayed to think than what they actually think, and that is why polls are pushed and pushed and pushed.


Right.

"Late surge" = "Polls were bullshit all along"

[Liberty]

Polls are a manipulative tool used to dupe the sheep. Frank provided the proof.

[Ron Paul Fan]

If you believe in the polls, then you're falling into the trap that the establishment wants you to fall in. So many people take these polls seriously. We all know that Huckabee is being propped up. We know that it's not about poll numbers, it's about turnout! Can you get enough people to be enthusiastic about a candidate and believe he can win so they turn out to the primaries? We can do that if we don't let these poll numbers hurt morale! They want you to be discouraged! They want people to think that Huckabee is popular! He's only going to raise $5-6 million this quarter! Don't you think a frontrunner would inspire people to raise a little bit more than that? Well done is better than well said!

[Luther]

Polls are a manipulative tool used to dupe the sheep. Frank provided the proof.

Does anyone really believe that Howard Dean had at one point 40% support and then it just vanished?

[beobeli]

Does anyone really believe that Howard Dean had at one point 40% support and then it just vanished?

Or Kerry having 4% and then go to win.

[Bigboyen]

Polls are important for the media. How is anybody going to verify what the polls say?
----
It is offensive that you would just say this is BS without having some sort of evidence, as I already have presented mine.

The polls get verified every election. And they are usually right. Of course you get stories where they where wrong, but most of the stories take a poll number weeks and months in advance of the election and then say the poll was completely off. That’s not fair, you have to use the last picture taken to see if a poll is correct or not.

And I explain why it's important for polling companies to get it right, since election is maybe the only time they can show the world that their methods works. So for polling companies election polls are a big ad to show that they know their business. They don't want to risk it.

And you didn't present any evidence, you presented your thoughts and you are free to have them of course.

And the conspiracy people in here can't explain if these polls are created by some evil people - why don't they give some candidates a heavy lead in the polls? The polls are a reason it's still possible to get Paul elected. We are around 20% from leading the race; it would be so much harder to get people to support Paul if he was 40% behind the leader. The polls are good to us; they give us hope that we can win this. But still people go crazy because the polls are not going upwards as fast as someone expects.

[Liberty]

The polls get verified every election. And they are usually right. Of course you get stories where they where wrong, but most of the stories take a poll number weeks and months in advance of the election and then say the poll was completely off. That’s not fair, you have to use the last picture taken to see if a poll is correct or not.

And I explain why it's important for polling companies to get it right, since election is maybe the only time they can show the world that their methods works. So for polling companies election polls are a big ad to show that they know their business. They don't want to risk it.

And you didn't present any evidence, you presented your thoughts and you are free to have them of course.

And the conspiracy people in here can't explain if these polls are created by some evil people - why don't they give some candidates a heavy lead in the polls? The polls are a reason it's still possible to get Paul elected. We are around 20% from leading the race; it would be so much harder to get people to support Paul if he was 40% behind the leader. The polls are good to us; they give us hope that we can win this. But still people go crazy because the polls are not going upwards as fast as someone expects.

Frank Luntz provided proof on Penn & Teller, as mentioned in an earlier post on this thread. Also, there are many posts about polls that have excluded Ron Paul. Ron verified this himself. Several posts have been made about the inability of pollsters to contact cell phone users and recent newspaper articles verify that. No conspiracy, these are facts. We won't know the truth until January and I bet Ron will finish Iowa and NH much higher than the present polls show.

[LibertyOfOne]

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

wtf...

Might have to do with his NAFTA highway answer.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

I agree, I am yet to see one ex-Ron Paul supporter.

Agreed!

[MadOdorMachine]

I wouldn't be suprised if he does start dropping in the polls. Ron Paul needs to take all of that money that he's raised and get a political advisor to help strengthen him in the public domain, particularly with the Republican base. A lot more people would take him seriously if he reworded the way he says things.

Example #1
Bad: I want to get us out of Iraq because we went in for the wrong reasons.
Good: When I'm President I will get us out of Iraq because intelligence confirms U.S. occupation in the Middle-East is the #1 reason for terrorism.

Example #2
Bad: I want to cut the Department of Homeland Security because all of the information we needed was there before September 11.
Good: Under my administration, I will streamline the government and elimate waste. A smaller more efficient federal government will not only be easier to manage, but also cut spending that can be used to pay of our debts.

Example #3
Bad: I'm against homosexuality but I think gays should be allowed to be married. They should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't impose their relationship on somebody else.
Good: I'm against homosexuality but this is a free country and people have a right to pursue happiness as long as they aren't hurting others. The government has no right to dictate one's sexual preferences. I believe marriage is a religious function and should be returned back to churches. Under my administration, all levels of government will be out of the marriage question.

Edit - actually example #2 was probably a bad choice. He did do good with that response, but he is hit and miss with people when he talks about reducing the size of government.