PDA

View Full Version : Accuracy of Polls




Freedom 7
12-18-2007, 11:19 AM
The MSM seems to rely on these polls as if they were gold. In reality the empirical evidence suggests that primary polls in particular have done little to predict outcome.

In 1996 Pat Buchanan was polling under 10% 13 days before the New Hampshire primary. The true result was a victory for Pat with 27% of the vote. What happened to 5% margin of error?

I agree that Dr. Paul's poll numbers are not accurate due to the other reasons that have been suggested (cell phones, first time voters, etc. ) but I'd like to back it up with this data. I think pointing out historical precedent would be much more effective.

An article to reference Pat's poll results.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19960130/ai_n9631351

Actual New Hampshire Primary Results

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9602/20/nh.results/result.shtml

jasonoliver
12-18-2007, 11:21 AM
The latest USA TODAY poll put Alan Keyes & Ron Paul both at 3%

NO WAY ON EARTH is Alan Keyes tied with Ron Paul. Ron Paul is in FIRST PLACE - and this is a conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!!

dfalken
12-18-2007, 11:26 AM
That USA Today poll is such a pile of bullshit. A week ago I didn't even know Alan Keyes was running in this election and I have been following it religiously...That poll IMO simply proves the polls are complete bullshit aimed at trying to sway the sheeple.

haaaylee
12-18-2007, 11:57 AM
we should conduct our own poll somehow.

Matthew Zak
12-18-2007, 12:04 PM
The MSM seems to rely on these polls as if they were gold. In reality the empirical evidence suggests that primary polls in particular have done little to predict outcome.

In 1996 Pat Buchanan was polling under 10% 13 days before the New Hampshire primary. The true result was a victory for Pat with 27% of the vote. What happened to 5% margin of error?

I agree that Dr. Paul's poll numbers are not accurate due to the other reasons that have been suggested (cell phones, first time voters, etc. ) but I'd like to back it up with this data. I think pointing out historical precedent would be much more effective.

An article to reference Pat's poll results.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19960130/ai_n9631351

Actual New Hampshire Primary Results

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9602/20/nh.results/result.shtml

For Ron Paul to do what Buchanan did, he'd have to have as many voters in New Hampshire alone, as he had donors all over the country on December 16th.

There's a lot of work to be done.

peznex
12-18-2007, 12:07 PM
Those MSM polls mean less than this pole:
https://www.shopwagner.com/NXCGraphics/festivus-poles_book.gif
http://www.msgr.ca/msgr-2/festivus-pole%2001.jpg