Comments on: Three-Way Tie in GOP National Poll

By: Cody

Cody — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:05:51 +0000

If you read the entire message, you will see that straw polls are only one of six possible measures of support that I listed.

Your comment that straw polls mean nothing is either hyperbole or abject nonsense. Please clarify.

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:21:06 +0000

You build your hypothesis on a faulty premise--i.e., the straw polls mean nothing, and therefore are not a valid place to start for arguing about the results of actual polls.

By: Cody

Cody — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:21:04 +0000

I would not call it either an article of faith or a defensible observation.

It is a reasonable hypothesis to explain the disconnect between telephone polling results and other indicators of support--straw polls, Internet polls, cell phone text polls, Internet traffic, public demonstrations, fund raising, and others.

I am not aware if any scientific tests have been conducted to test the hypothesis. I have seen extensive anecdotal evidence that the population of likely Ron Paul voters include Independents, Democrats, and newcomers to the political process in concentrations greater than polls such as these are known to sample.

thanks,
Cody P.

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:51:39 +0000

Yes, that is true that Romney, Paul and Thompson are in with the MOE of each other.

However, you have no empirical evidence to support the following conclusion:

Also, Ron Paul supporters are underrepresented in telephone polls.

That is an article of faith, not a defensible observation.

By: Cody

Cody — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:21:56 +0000

Isn't it also true to say that Ron Paul is statistically tied with Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson? 3 +/- 6 gives 0 to 9. and 11 +/- 6 gives 5 to 17. There is a region of overlap. And it is even within one standard deviation of both distributions (at least 1/3 odds) that Ron Paul has more support in the population than Mitt Romney does, based on these data.

Also, Ron Paul supporters are underrepresented in telephone polls.

Thanks,
Cody P.

By: Mayberry

Mayberry — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:00:50 +0000

Ron Paul received contributions from over 100,000 different people this quarter. He received $18,000,000 from those 100,000 people. His support is wide and deep. Look around your town and notice you see RP signs everywhere. Grab a cup of coffee and go to http://freeme.tv

By: Mark Jaquith

Mark Jaquith — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:02:16 +0000

This is a poll of registered voters, not likely voters. So it doesn't measure depth, just width. It doesn't take into account the strength of support. With Iowa caucus attendance at a traditional 5%, strength of support could make all the difference on that cold, dark, winter night. I think you're going to be surprised at how Paul does in Iowa and NH.

By: PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » New Hampshire

PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » New Hampshire — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:23:41 +0000

[...] earlier post1 set off the normal reaction from Paul [...]

By: John

John — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:42:39 +0000

The total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error
of ±3 percentage points. Results are of registered voters, unless otherwise
noted. LV = likely voters
Democrats n=379, ±5 percentage

And this poll says that only 3 in 100 people are going to vote for Ron Paul.

Sure. No way in hell. Add the margin of error, and it is 6. I am not voting for Paul, but pleez. This is snake oil.

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:35:16 +0000

What's next; Fred Thompson being the next Ronald Reagan? Oh wait, some people actually predicted that!

Not me. As examples: here and here.

By: CSL

CSL — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:30:07 +0000

In addition:

Shuckabee polls very high, but no one gives him money and he only has $3million in donors? But he is top in the polls? Thats odd.

Romney is high in the poll, but aside from the money he has given himself, he has not raised much money either.

Julie Annie. Same. No money.

Don't all these top tier candidate supporters know they have to give them money to win? HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHA.

hilarious. The only money they get is from themselves, special interest and corporate donors.

Polls are crap. Paul is the winner.

By: 1951Patriot

1951Patriot — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:28:21 +0000

"They do not consist of a randomly selected sample that would be representative of the actually voting population."
I think it is more accurate to call the implied legitimate sample as very selective since Fox is well known for deliberately pushing their own skewed opinions and trying to claim they are "fair and balanced" when they are in fact just the opposite.
Straw polls may in reality be a better indicator of likely support in the case of a candidate like Ron Paul whose supporters are guaranteed not to miss the primaries, caucuses or the general election. It appears that everyone else's support is not nearly so solid or growing so fast as Paul's but instead seem to be disintegrating.

By: CSL

CSL — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:25:51 +0000

Please tell us how your polls are conducted.

Are you calling likely republican voters?

Likely republican voters are usually only those that were registered Republicans who voted in last years primary.

Please. Can you tell me. Is that the case with your poll?

Does anyone really believe that only 2 in 100, or 5 in 100, or even only 10 in 100 people voting in the primaries this year are going to vote for Paul?

Of course not. These polls mean nothing and the primaries will show just how inaccurate they are.

These "Scientific Polls" ONLY include:

Registered republicans who voted in last years primary.

These "Scientific Polls" DON'T include:

* Democrats like me who converted for Paul.
* Independent voters
* Republicans who did NOT vote last year (many)
* Constitution Party
* Libertarian Party
* Apathetic voters who find a reason to vote in Paul

These polls never have, but then there has never been such a Principled man running before!

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:21:56 +0000

Statistically, Ron is also 3rd place in Iowa and New Hampshire. Also the top fundraiser in the Republican Party. So it's kind of absurd to compare him to Duncan Hunter.

What's next; Fred Thompson being the next Ronald Reagan? Oh wait, some people actually predicted that!

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:18:58 +0000

If you all don't like Opinion Dynamics (which is hired by Fox, not run by Fox), go over to RCP and note that Paul's average is 4%. Look, there are a lot of things I like about Paul, but he isn't going to win. Indeed, he isn't even going to do that well, and events will support that prediction.