Galileo Galilei
01-04-2008, 12:42 AM
Ron Paul does better in Iowa Caucus than in the Iowa Polls
As of this writing, Paul is at 10% with 96% of precincts reporting.
Here are the final Iowa poll numbers for Ron Paul from various pollsters:
[www.realclearpolitics.com]
LA Times/Bloomberg 1%
Strategic Vision 4%
Mason-Dixon 5%
American Research Group 6%
Rasmussen 6%
Insider Advantage 7%
CNN 8%
Quad City Times 8%
Des Moines Register 9%
Zogby 10%
[Average = 6.4%]
If these poll numbers were inverted, showing Ron Paul polling at between 19% and 10% in every poll, just imagine the effect on how much media coverage Ron Paul would get? Just imagine how often Ron Paul would be called a contender, rather than a factor or spoiler? Just imagine how many $2300 dollar donors would believe Ron Paul had a chance to win?
Ron Paul did not do as well as I predicted in Iowa. But he did up to 9% better than some of the polls predicted, and, overall, about 1.5 times better than the polls predicted.
Ron Paul has the money and organization to run an aggressive 50 state campaign. The same cannot be said of the other GOP candidates.
PS - the statistical margin of error in a poll where someone is polling at 10% or less is, typically, about 1%. Every single poll except Zogby was off by twice the margin of error. Since the statistical margin of error is a 95% confidence interval, the probability of poll being off by two margins of error is 400 to 1. Eight of the ten polls cited above were off by at least two margins of error. This is basically impossible, and proof that the polls were rigged in advance.
Formula for margin of error:
If you are polling at P% and the stated Margin of error of the poll is M%, the stated M% is only valid when P% = 50%
Let R% = the real margin of error
Then R% = [(P%)(1 - P%) x M%]/2500
As of this writing, Paul is at 10% with 96% of precincts reporting.
Here are the final Iowa poll numbers for Ron Paul from various pollsters:
[www.realclearpolitics.com]
LA Times/Bloomberg 1%
Strategic Vision 4%
Mason-Dixon 5%
American Research Group 6%
Rasmussen 6%
Insider Advantage 7%
CNN 8%
Quad City Times 8%
Des Moines Register 9%
Zogby 10%
[Average = 6.4%]
If these poll numbers were inverted, showing Ron Paul polling at between 19% and 10% in every poll, just imagine the effect on how much media coverage Ron Paul would get? Just imagine how often Ron Paul would be called a contender, rather than a factor or spoiler? Just imagine how many $2300 dollar donors would believe Ron Paul had a chance to win?
Ron Paul did not do as well as I predicted in Iowa. But he did up to 9% better than some of the polls predicted, and, overall, about 1.5 times better than the polls predicted.
Ron Paul has the money and organization to run an aggressive 50 state campaign. The same cannot be said of the other GOP candidates.
PS - the statistical margin of error in a poll where someone is polling at 10% or less is, typically, about 1%. Every single poll except Zogby was off by twice the margin of error. Since the statistical margin of error is a 95% confidence interval, the probability of poll being off by two margins of error is 400 to 1. Eight of the ten polls cited above were off by at least two margins of error. This is basically impossible, and proof that the polls were rigged in advance.
Formula for margin of error:
If you are polling at P% and the stated Margin of error of the poll is M%, the stated M% is only valid when P% = 50%
Let R% = the real margin of error
Then R% = [(P%)(1 - P%) x M%]/2500