Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Two New National Polls and an Iowa Poll

  1. #1

    Two New National Polls and an Iowa Poll

    IBD/TIPP Poll:

    "Conducted from Sept. 26 to Oct. 1, included 377 registered voters who are Republican or registered independents who lean toward the Republican Party, with a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points."

    Carson: 24%
    Trump: 17%
    Rubio: 11%
    Fiorina: 9%
    Bush: 8%
    Cruz: 6%
    Kasich: 4%
    Paul: 3%
    Huckabee: 2%
    Christie: 2%
    Jindal: 1%
    Santorum/Graham/Pataki: 0%
    --
    Pew Research Poll (Sep 22-27)

    Trump: 25%
    Carson: 16%
    Rubio: 8%
    Fiorina: 8%
    Cruz: 6%
    Bush: 4%
    Paul: 2%
    Huckabee: 2%
    Christie: 1%
    Kasich: 1%
    Graham: 1%
    Jindal: 1%
    Pataki: 0%
    ----
    Iowa Caucus Poll by Gravis
    454 Republican/Republican Leaning Likely Caucus Goers (4.6% Margin of Error)

    Trump: 18.8%
    Carson: 14.1%
    Cruz: 10.6%
    Fiorina: 9.7%
    Rubio: 8.9%
    Bush: 6.9%
    Kasich: 2.6%
    Paul: 2.4%
    Huckabee: 1.8%
    Graham: 1.8%
    Jindal: 1.7%
    Christie: 1.4%
    Santorum: 1.3%
    Pataki: 0.3%



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    The Iowa caucus poll results are actually good considering that Gravis has always polled Rand way lower than other pollsters have. I think they had him at like .9% one time or something like that. Lol.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    The Iowa caucus poll results are actually good considering that Gravis has always polled Rand way lower than other pollsters have. I think they had him at like .9% one time or something like that. Lol.
    Absolutely they do. They did the same to Ron, especially right before the Caucus in 2012.

    Also these polls take with a ton of grains of salt.

    1st: As Brett85 said, Gravis is anti-Paul, always 3 points or more lower than other pollsters.

    2nd: The Pew Poll doesn't even list a margin of error ANYWHERE on their poll. The fact they didn't disclose that is pathetic.

    3rd: the IBD/TIPP poll won't post the actual data and in their image of the results, DESPITE PAUL BEHING AHEAD OF CHRISTIE AND HUCKABEE didn't show Paul on their graphic, but did for Huckabee and Christie. A clear bias against Rand.

    Two with a bias against Rand and one with no respectable disclosure.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Robrank View Post
    Absolutely they do. They did the same to Ron, especially right before the Caucus in 2012.

    Also these polls take with a ton of grains of salt.

    1st: As Brett85 said, Gravis is anti-Paul, always 3 points or more lower than other pollsters.

    2nd: The Pew Poll doesn't even list a margin of error ANYWHERE on their poll. The fact they didn't disclose that is pathetic.

    3rd: the IBD/TIPP poll won't post the actual data and in their image of the results, DESPITE PAUL BEHING AHEAD OF CHRISTIE AND HUCKABEE didn't show Paul on their graphic, but did for Huckabee and Christie. A clear bias against Rand.

    Two with a bias against Rand and one with no respectable disclosure.
    There is no MoE given in the Pew poll, but it does say the number of respondents for that question was 455 which is on par with other polls
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    The Iowa caucus poll results are actually good considering that Gravis has always polled Rand way lower than other pollsters have. I think they had him at like .9% one time or something like that. Lol.
    Yes lol.

    They had him at 0.8 for late July and at 1.3 for late August.
    I'm a bit of a statistical junkie. I like to analyze or sum up polling or voting data. That doesn't mean that I believe all the pollmakers - I simply dont know most of the time if they counterfeit their data because of an agenda or not. It's just the only data I have to work with.
    And I love the message of liberty!

  7. #6
    polls are by land line, so there is a factor favoring those who poll well with older voters

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by cindy25 View Post
    polls are by land line, so there is a factor favoring those who poll well with older voters
    True, but older people tend to actually get out and vote. Hopefully, Rand can get some positive momentum soon.
    No one here wanted to be the Billionaire.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by cindy25 View Post
    polls are by land line, so there is a factor favoring those who poll well with older voters
    Not really. Most polling organizations poll cell phones as well. Some of the exceptions are PPP, Rasmussen, and I believe Gravis which don't poll cell phones. Rand does tend to do slightly worse in those polls than the others. But he's not very high in any of the polls, and I think it's a mistake to just claim that all of the polls are inaccurate just because we don't like the results.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Not really. Most polling organizations poll cell phones as well. Some of the exceptions are PPP, Rasmussen, and I believe Gravis which don't poll cell phones. Rand does tend to do slightly worse in those polls than the others. But he's not very high in any of the polls, and I think it's a mistake to just claim that all of the polls are inaccurate just because we don't like the results.
    We don't like the results because the polls are always inaccurate in a direction disadvantageous to the honest candidates.

    Polls reflect name recognition ('celebrity factor') and the well known names are those who get all the airtime. Those who get all the airtime are those who don't rock the boat.

    Besides all that, polling is not relevant, even if it were accurate. Because of human nature all they do is reinforce the strength of now and marginalize the rest. Calling people to ask what they prefer now is not indicative of what they will vote!! It doesn't mean *anything*! They change with the winds. There's no reason, none, for news to care about polling at all. But over and over again it's used to marginalize or drive superficial commentaries.

    Think about it: I want to find out who has the best chance to win the nomination. Should I call a random sample of 1000 people and ask? That would be one of the worst ways to predict!!
    '
    How much money
    How many individual contributors
    How much early state organization
    How serious the intention
    How adept the staff
    How likable
    How good of policies
    How well policies explained
    How popular those policies
    What bag of tricks

    Polling is insane, a complete scam to even be noticed by so called journalists. Fair coverage or not? You want ideas and discussion about the race for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!?????!!!! Or a freakin popularity contest???

    Polling. Jeez
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  12. #10
    If this poll is accurate, Pataki is the only principled vote.

  13. #11
    @Nayjevin-I agree that the polls that are being conducted right now aren't indicative of how the results will ultimately end up. Polls are merely a snap shot in time. But, I think the polls are still generally accurate in showing how much support each candidate has right now. There are some polls like Gravis that are just completely worthless, but others are legitimate. The majority are fairly accurate.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Indy Vidual View Post
    True, but older people tend to actually get out and vote. Hopefully, Rand can get some positive momentum soon.
    Yes, that is true. However, if a candidate was polling very high with the youth and independents, which aren't polled as well with their sampling methods, then you could have a candidate polling much lower than they should be. Ron ended up with 48% of those aged 17-29 in Iowa which made up 15% of caucus goers. That works out to about 7% of all voters and 7% is very significant.

  15. #13
    Do any of these polls count for the October debate? That's all that matters now. If we're off the stage, we're out.
    The more prohibitions you have,
    the less virtuous people will be.
    The more weapons you have,
    the less secure people will be.
    The more subsidies you have,
    the less self-reliant people will be.

    Therefore the Master says:
    I let go of the law,
    and people become honest.
    I let go of economics,
    and people become prosperous.
    I let go of religion,
    and people become serene.
    I let go of all desire for the common good,
    and the good becomes common as grass.

    -Tao Te Ching, Section 57



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •