PDA

View Full Version : Iowa Caucus Polls Could Be Way, Way Off



jimnyc
01-28-2016, 07:17 AM
It's not just Iowa, they have Trump also leading in NH, most other states and nationally. Nonetheless, imagine if Iowa goes off and Cruz or Rubio win convincingly? That would sure shake things up!

-----

Polls can get it wrong in so many ways. And Iowa, which holds its presidential caucuses on Monday, is one of the most difficult assignments for pollsters.

To begin with, caucuses are harder to survey than primaries, and primaries are more difficult than general elections. Turnout is much lower, and preferences – especially in multicandidate nomination contests – are much less stable. Screening for likely voters is difficult.

And then there are elements specific to Iowa. On the Democratic side, the vote is public. People literally stand up and move to a spot to record their preference for a candidate. Then supporters of those candidates who aren’t “viable” -- those who don’t have 15 percent of the vote at a caucus location -- have the opportunity to switch to another candidate. So Martin O’Malley’s supporters may provide the margin of victory for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

On the Republican side, voters simply indicate their preference, usually but not always by secret ballot, and then can leave. In the case of both parties, voting is preceded by speeches from representatives of the candidates that might sway some voters -- as might cues from their neighbors.

Remember: Most party voters like most of their party's candidates. So hopping from one to the other just isn’t difficult.

Of course, pollsters have another set of challenges this year.

Donald Trump and (to some extent) Sanders are counting on less habitual voters. We have no way of knowing in advance if young people will show up for the Vermont socialist or if loosely attached Republicans will turn out for the reality-TV star.Pollsters can ask for voting intentions, but people in primaries are notoriously unreliable in predicting their own behavior. Sometimes new voters show up. They did in 2008 in Iowa for Barack Obama. Sometimes, as with Howard Dean’s supporters in 2004, they don’t.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/iowa-caucus-polls-could/2016/01/27/id/711525/

Black Diamond
01-28-2016, 07:35 AM
I would like to see a post debate Iowa poll.

Tough to imagine rubio winning iowa. That would really be wild

jimnyc
01-28-2016, 07:39 AM
I would like to see a post debate Iowa poll.

Tough to imagine rubio winning iowa. That would really be wild

It's gonna be difficult to get an accurate one by Monday. I think that accurate poll post-debate is going to be the actual caucus results! Then we'll get even a better idea with polls going into New Hampshire, and see how the next debate plays out as well.

Kathianne
01-28-2016, 07:51 AM
Trump will likely win convincingly, otherwise it's fraud.

jimnyc
01-28-2016, 07:55 AM
Trump will likely win convincingly, otherwise it's fraud.

I used to always say that polls are not the most accurate suckers in the world. With like 300+ million folks here, and the polls being like .001% or something like that, there's always room for error, and 'possibly' more.

But what makes you think that fraud may somehow come into play? That's the last thing we need now with an already weird campaign season going on!

Kathianne
01-28-2016, 07:57 AM
I used to always say that polls are not the most accurate suckers in the world. With like 300+ million folks here, and the polls being like .001% or something like that, there's always room for error, and 'possibly' more.

But what makes you think that fraud may somehow come into play? That's the last thing we need now with an already weird campaign season going on!

Voter fraud is rampant.

jimnyc
01-28-2016, 08:02 AM
Trump will likely win convincingly, otherwise it's fraud.


Voter fraud is rampant.

Sounded like you were stating that if he doesn't win, and convincingly, that it IS fraud involved. I thought you knew something specific that I didn't.

Abbey Marie
01-28-2016, 08:18 AM
What really bugs me is how one or two states get to have so much power to decide our field of nominees.

NightTrain
01-28-2016, 08:23 AM
AFAIK, fraud isn't really an issue in the primaries... lots of risk and low reward, if any.

It's in the General that it comes into play. Once the primaries are decided, the spotlight is going to shift to ACORN-type groups to see what they're up to.

I can't prove it, but it seemed to me that there were a LOT more fraud activities in '08 and '12 than ever before, and I can't recall hearing about it happening by GOP backed groups.

Kathianne
01-28-2016, 08:25 AM
AFAIK, fraud isn't really an issue in the primaries... lots of risk and low reward, if any.

It's in the General that it comes into play. Once the primaries are decided, the spotlight is going to shift to ACORN-type groups to see what they're up to.

I can't prove it, but it seemed to me that there were a LOT more fraud activities in '08 and '12 than ever before, and I can't recall hearing about it happening by GOP backed groups.

In this election, all things are possible. GOP backed groups are likely to be 'liberal' ringers. Seriously.

NightTrain
01-28-2016, 08:41 AM
In this election, all things are possible. GOP backed groups are likely to be 'liberal' ringers. Seriously.


I really seriously doubt that anyone would willingly take a felony rap & go to prison in order to try to smear the opposing group. That would take conviction and a LOT of balls.

Now, setting up a Patsy or two, on the other hand... yeah, I can see that happening. But a Patsy will sing like a canary when the realization dawns and Club Fed looming on the horizon.

Bilgerat
01-28-2016, 08:49 AM
This is interesting

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/videos/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/25/79290856/