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.
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.
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 |
Still too soon, but I think Reuters is confirming nationally what PPP reflected in IA.
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.
The author doesn’t read graphs very well either. The only two similarities that track or Trump and Cruz’s, which track, and the rest, which also track. So, I would conclude that Cruz and Trump will mirror each other until one of them falls as well...Obvious that the author wanted to plant a result in heads - obvious trick like Fox’s Frank Luntz, who desperately wanted Bush to win.
But it is Cruz’s current trend which is the key to whether or not Trump achieves away with the nomination by “running the board” as his team advised they look to.
A tortured sentence, this is.
I heard Huck and Rubio with both blasting Cruz with negative ads in Iowa.
Cruz’s support has held steady in the high teens since the end of November.
One outlier poll the Quinnipiac Poll was so far off it distorted the graph for the entire month and made it look like Cruz’s support kept going up all through December, when it didn’t. Thus now that more polls are coming out some might conclude that Cruz has peaked and is now slipping when it fact Cruz has held steady the entire month and it’s just that Quinnipiac is an outlier.
Anytime that you try to mix polls of Adults, Registered Voters, and Likely Voters, you are asking for trouble. Because of name recognition, “Adult” polls will always favor Trump because of his celebrity that extends beyond the world of politics. If you want to show a positive trend for Trump vs. Cruz, then you pick the most reent Reuters/IPSOS poll of “Adults,” as was done in this case.
The only way “trends” are meaningful is if they have a common basis and the differences are statistically significant. There is no downward trend in Cruz’s numbers, only another example of “lying with statistics” by one of his devoted followers. The analysis that you posted here is a huge FAIL.
It looks as if the writer is unable to see the graph.
Cruz has been in a gradual planned incline, not at all unlike his run for the Senate.
Its called momentum.
Be prepared to say, “Good morning Mr. President Cruz”.
Well Iowa was the only state Cruz was ever going to have a chance at. He still may win Iowa but Trump is going to run the rest of the table. Its just getting too close to voting for anybody to catch Trump.