Posted on 12/26/2015 1:31:59 AM PST by GonzoII
The Author made a mistake calling the Reuters 5-day tracking poll where Ted dropped about 4 points, the "Reuters/Ipsos" poll. In the new Reuters/Ipsos Poll Cruz dropped 1% confirming the negative trend of the other polls indicated in the article. Looks like Ted may have peaked though clearly giving Trump a run for his money in Iowa.
I must have missed that whole Bush rising in the polls thing.
If you go to the scenario that Cruz tops Trump by one or two points in Iowa....it opens up the discussion of what happens over the next four weeks after that.
To be honest, I think all the disappointed and anti-Trump players in the Republican Party....will be equally disappointed and anti-Cruz...so it’s hard to predict how this would play out.
As it is right now I don't think they see much hope.
Wow, this is astoundingly bad. Not the results, the reporting.
Look at the RCP polls, and notice that only the top two polls in the table are included, leaving out the other six polls included in that time frame, from which we could show by picking two that Cruz rose, fell, or stayed the same.
Of course, comparing two polls and trying to draw a trend is just dumb. Interestingly, if we compare the results of each individual poll to the previous data (for example CNN/ORC 11/27 - 12/1 vs CNN/ORC 12/17 - 12/21), all of them show Cruz going up.
The raw data:
Just by eyeballing it, the top graph shows no break in Cruz’s uptrend from November to now.
LMAO.
Bush was ahead in July then started dropping
This article is the result of a biased reporter misunderstanding biased polls. The result is a comically reversed reality distortion field.
The only poll that matters is the vote count. Everything until then is media hype.
Ping.
| Pollster | Dates | Pop. | Trump | Cruz | Rubio | Carson | Bush | Christie | Fiorina | Rand Paul | Huckabee | Kasich | Santorum | Graham | Pataki | Gilmore | Jindal | Perry | Walker | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ipsos/Reuters | 12/19 - 12/23 | 626 A | 39 | 13 | 9 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | - | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 6 |
| CNN | 12/17 - 12/21 | 438 RV | 39 | 18 | 10 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 2 |
| Emerson College Polling Society | 12/17 - 12/20 | 415 LV | 36 | 21 | 13 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | - | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
| Quinnipiac | 12/16 - 12/20 | 508 RV | 28 | 24 | 12 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 8 |
| FOX | 12/16 - 12/17 | 402 LV | 39 | 18 | 11 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 6 |
| Morning Consult | 12/16 - 12/17 | 861 RV | 36 | 11 | 9 | 12 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 11 |
| PPP (D) | 12/16 - 12/17 | 532 LV | 34 | 18 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 2 |
| Ipsos/Reuters | 12/12 - 12/16 | 730 A | 36 | 14 | 10 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | 6 |
| Morning Consult | 12/11 - 12/15 | 1,530 RV | 40 | 9 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | 11 |
| ABC/Post | 12/10 - 12/13 | 362 RV | 38 | 15 | 12 | 12 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | - | - | - | 6 |
| Monmouth University | 12/10 - 12/13 | 385 RV | 41 | 14 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | - | - | 8 |
| NBC/WSJ | 12/6 - 12/9 | 400 LV | 27 | 22 | 15 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 |
| Ipsos/Reuters | 12/5 - 12/9 | 494 A | 37 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | - | - | - | 6 |
When I saw the PPP IA poll, I thought it (more than Reuters, signaled the high point for Cruz). We'll see.
Still too soon, but I think Reuters is confirming nationally what PPP reflected in IA.
It happened, it’s just that it was a stealth operation. He used one of Captain Kirk’s cloaking devices. His supporters were also cloaked.
Let’s forget which line represents which candidate.
I’m looking at this graph and the author has focused on the black line. The author claims that because the black line “...shows a slight leveling off...”, this indicates something significant. All I see is a line doing something it has previously done numerous times.
Where was this magnificent prognosticating author for all the *previous* flat portions of this same black line in this very same graph? Heck, I even see some very clear drops that could fairly be described as *plummets* for this same black line...
Folks always wonder why brain-dead, low-info voters seem to mindlessly vote like the TV tells them to vote. Well, take a look at this report. It’s what I would call a “clue”!
Leadership on offense v offensive leadership. I’m ready of Hillaryous.
From a strategic perspective, Trump s threats to boycott debates make sense.
When voter first and second choices are combined, Cruz has a slim lead. As candidates drop out, Cruz gains. Trump s support nationally has been flat for five months, oscillating between 30-40 percent, and he has the highest negatives of all the candidates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.