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
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