This is from the analysis of Nate Silver at 538:
But Ames has a pretty good predictive track record. Since the event began in 1979, the candidate winning the Iowa caucus has placed first or second in the straw poll every time...
Ames does better than other indicators. Since 1979, its results have the predictive power to explain 58 percent of voting in the Iowa caucuses.
This compares favorably to the most recent Des Moines Register poll conducted before the straw poll, which explains 39 percent of caucus results.
It also does better than the average of national polls conducted in the month before Ames, which explain 34 percent of caucus results. ...
Betting markets think that Mr. Paul is the most likely candidate to win Ames. Say that he does so, with 30 percent of the vote, followed by Ms. Bachmann at 25 percent and Tim Pawlenty at 20 percent. Even if we leave the other variables in the analysis, that would make Mr. Paul the favorite to win the Iowa caucuses based on historical precedent.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ually-matters/
This is some great, fact-based analysis, and is the perfect rebuttal to the 'Ames doesn't matter' spin that the media are already gearing up in case Paul wins the gold today. Just tell them that the straw poll is a better predictor of actual caucus voters than either state or national polling at this point!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Aratus
That's not what I want to hear! lol 
Connect With Us