[quote]Mick28 wrote:
And without his independence Ron Paul wouldn’t be considered…Oh wait…he’s not being considered, never mind.[/quote]
That was funny, actual laugh out loud.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
And without his independence Ron Paul wouldn’t be considered…Oh wait…he’s not being considered, never mind.
That was funny, actual laugh out loud.[/quote]
It doesn’t even make sense.
Personally, I would have used a reference about Paul’s chimerical internet minions that have only managed to garner him an average 28% at straw polls and 11 out of 27 first place finishes.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…
But, isn’t it more fun to say “Rudy dumb!”…“US voters dumb!”…“but I am smart!”
…
[/quote]
This has been the standard tactic from the Dems going back to at least 1976.
The really funny thing is the man they though the dumbest of all had similar/slightly better grades and standardized test scores than the men he beat.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Paul has drawn between 2% and 3% in all legitimate national polls.
[/quote]
Not when people actually have to show up to vote, which is more legitimate than any phone poll. Use some common sense man.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Paul has drawn between 2% and 3% in all legitimate national polls.
Not when people actually have to show up to vote, which is more legitimate than any phone poll. Use some common sense man.
[/quote]
Straw polls only draw the most highly motivated voters.
I have never given any money to any candidates. I would not dream of wasting my time on a straw poll but I never miss a real election day.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Straw polls only draw the most highly motivated voters.
[/quote]
Phone polls can not measure the motivation level of would be primary voters. Its a safe bet that straw poll voters are not going to miss the primaries. If he is currently carrying an average of 28% (+/- 23%) of the vote he is not in the bottom tier–in fact, since there are 10 candidates anyone with about 5% is in good standing with error factored back in. The real bottom tier are the candidates drawing less than 1% in straw polls.
The key is answering how much more motivated non-Paul supporters are–if it isn’t greater than 89% it won’t matter.
The best polls are random samples of likely voters (with the best definition of “likely voter” being someone who self reports as registered to vote and having voted in the two most recent elections) - and the closer to election day, the better. For Presidential elections, the best ones are aggregates of state-level polls to reflect the electoral-vote picture, not just nationwide samples.
Straw polls aren’t good predictively because they aren’t random samples.
And polls this far out aren’t good for much other than giving journalists something to chatter about.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Straw polls aren’t good predictively because they aren’t random samples.
[/quote]
Which polls, in your mind, are most likely to reproduce the same results? If I have to leave my house to vote at a poll don’t you think it is more representative of the population in how it actually behaves? National elections are not conducted by phone.
Random samples are most reliable but not when the sample population is constrained by the particular technology it relies on to gather data–anyone who takes measurements for a living understands this.
Pollsters making comparisons in phone verses straw polls are measuring extreme variance; this tells me something is not right. As a person who stakes his credibility on his ability to take reliable measurements I’d only bet on apples-to-apples comparisons.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Straw polls aren’t good predictively because they aren’t random samples.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Which polls, in your mind, are most likely to reproduce the same results? If I have to leave my house to vote at a poll don’t you think it is more representative of the population in how it actually behaves? National elections are not conducted by phone.
Random samples are most reliable but not when the sample population is constrained by the particular technology it relies on to gather data–anyone who takes measurements for a living understands this.
Pollsters making comparisons in phone verses straw polls are measuring extreme variance; this tells me something is not right. As a person who stakes his credibility on his ability to take reliable measurements I’d only bet on apples-to-apples comparisons.[/quote]
Straw polls are problematic because they only sample super-motivated voters, and thus don’t reflect the preferences of many likely voters. Not only that, but because of the difficulty of getting to a straw poll, and the small sample sizes represented, they’re very easy for small groups of super-motivated people to skew; not as bad as internet polls, but still pretty bad.
Phone polls are by no means perfect - but a series of random phone polls of large samples of likely voters done right before the election is the best proxy for voter opinion until the election.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I would not dream of wasting my time on a straw poll but I never miss a real election day.[/quote]
Even a primary? Don’t you have to be registered as either a democrat or republican to vote in the PA primary?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
…
But, isn’t it more fun to say “Rudy dumb!”…“US voters dumb!”…“but I am smart!”
…
This has been the standard tactic from the Dems going back to at least 1976.
The really funny thing is the man they though the dumbest of all had similar/slightly better grades and standardized test scores than the men he beat.[/quote]
Which means what?
He doesn’t know children is already plural, cmon.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Giuliani worries me. We’ll have cameras on every corner of DC by the time he’s done.
I think Giuliani is the wrong direction to choose.[/quote]
G.W.Bush +2!!!
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Your man is getting drubbed.[/quote]
If you mean he is losing phone polls, I agree. He is clearly kicking ass on the stuff that matters–the debates, fund-raising, straw-polls, political rallies, web marketing, spontaneous voluntarism, etc.
Just because people that still use out-moded means of communication don’t know him, isn’t hurting him–they are the minority. You’re probably too old to understand that.
[quote]
Mick28 wrote:
Your man is getting drubbed.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If you mean he is losing phone polls, I agree. He is clearly kicking ass on the stuff that matters–the debates, fund-raising, straw-polls, political rallies, web marketing, spontaneous voluntarism, etc.
Just because people that still use out-moded means of communication don’t know him, isn’t hurting him–they are the minority. You’re probably too old to understand that.[/quote]
He’s definitely doing better than expected in the fundraising, which is a very good proxy this far out for the primary votes. But he’s not threatening the top tier.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
But he’s not threatening the top tier.
[/quote]
He doesn’t need to threaten anyone because they will self-destruct under closer scrutiny.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Your man has 2 fucking percent of the vote…idiot.
[/quote]
uhhh…no he doesn’t. We haven’t voted yet.
I’m the idiot?