Posted on 10/26/2015 11:16:04 AM PDT by BigEdLB
With less than 100 days before the 2016 Iowa Caucuses, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has surged to a lead over real estate mogul Donald Trump and the rest of the field. Trump stands in second, while Florida Senator Marco Rubio is in third place and is the only other candidate with double-digit support as a first choice candidate.
“Dr. Carson has connected with Iowa Republicans. His stock started to rise late in the summer, and this positive trajectory has continued to this point. Iowa has a new frontrunner,” said Associate Professor of Politics and Director of the Loras College Poll, Christopher Budzisz, Ph.D. “Over the past week or so, Dr. Carson’s campaign has been officially suspended as he pursues his book tour, but given his tour took him to several places in Iowa, he remained front and center for Iowa Republicans.”
(Excerpt) Read more at loras.edu ...
Although I hold a doctorate in Statistics and have spent years in the company of some of the world’s elite thinkers, I would never comment in support or denial of a political poll.
One of the biggest reasons to discount ANY political poll is that all of such polls have enormous nonresponse rates. And in fact, I have seen in conference room settings among colleagues how just about any poll with such high nonresponse rates can be skewed to have just about any outcome desired. Put it this way, the analysis of global warming holds more weight than political polls, and that’s hardly none at all.
It wasn’t always that way, but then the media channels have been drastically reconfigured since a time when any veracity could be attributed to a political poll.
But there is one aspect of political polls to take away as valid, and that is when most such polls show a candidate with very little support.
In other words, polls showing a lead are not to be believed. Polls showing a loss can be taken seriously.
If ALL such polls start showing a decline to single digits, it’s a good indication that candidate is headed for a loss.
And, if ALL polls show a surge of a candidate, it is not to be taken seriously especially in light of overwhelming nonresponses.
I view Trump’s positive performance in polls as a means of advertising his success, whether real or not. Personally, I am persuaded by Trump’s unequivocal support of our veterans and troops. No poll is needed to see his track record on this.
But if I were asked what indicators can be reliably held to show Donald Trump is leading in support of voters, I would say it is the massive crowds he attracts everywhere he goes, and the roar and applause he receives at his rallies including among liberal audiences.
Responding to a poll takes almost no energy and a nonresponse takes zero energy. But to get oneself up, prepare to travel, put aside other plans and attend a rally to see Donald Trump, that is an assured vote. That is as assured as if it was election day.
Other indicators are more reliably drawn from chats overheard in barber shops and beauty parlors. Because these are neutral venues.
I have heard people from so many different demographic groups, from all ages and backgrounds, who support Trump because they see a leader they want to see and they want the world to see. It’s really as simple as that. All the others are wannabe leaders. Trump is the force of leadership and people can see that.
The crowds that Trump brings seems to dwarf Carson and all of the other candidates. So I’m not sure how accurate these are.
You nailed it. All you have to do is pander to ethanol subsidies to win Iowa.
“Corn Porn” describes it perfectly!
From what I understand, the voters in Iowa don’t get to vote in the primary because only caucus goers get to vote and their list is kept secret. This issue was raised last week by other Freepers who smelled a rat in the propaganda war against Trump.
I can tell you this, if I hear any news of Trump, either positive or negative, I check who the sources are. So far the pollsters of at least two polls that have come out recently against Trump are known enemies of Trump.
For other comments about polls, see here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3353076/posts?page=41#41
An interesting analysis of this situation. A question though: aren’t non responses recorded in polls as well? That is, if someone answers “no preference” isn’t that its own category reported in the final poll?
That's fine, except that there are now 6 polls all showing the same trend. Are you saying that all 6 polling companies are enemies of Trump? If so, why are some of those same companies showing Trump leading in other states?
All in all, a worse record of selecting the GOP nominee than Dixville Notch, NH has in selecting a national winner.
Carson’s a great brain surgeon. A qualification you don’t need to be president. Go back to your book tour Carson.
I think the niceness of Carson will wear thin soon. Trumps problem is Trump. When he attacks Carson he is attacking potential voters. Needs another way to elevate himself.
On the flip side many Iowans seem to follow guys like Huckster/Santorum...good folks but kind of gullible.
I am a Cruz supporter, but if I were a Trump supporter I would not worry so much about Carson winning Iowa. New Hampshire is FAR more important, and a strong second for Trump would give the folks in NH somethign to play off of. They like being a counter to Iowa.
Trump’s not going to be great at appealing to the typical evangelical voter, and he’s bad at faking it.
Trump doesn’t have to run the table, especially as the GOPe doesn’t really want Carson, either.
I learned in 2012 that crowds don’t mean you’re winning. Romney/Ryan drew massive crowds that last week and still got thumped.
I think these Iowa polls are accurate. Iowa GOP always votes for the Christian candidate and Carson has been working the megachurch vote for two years now.
Plus Carson had his own Trump moment two weeks ago noting he didn’t think a Muslim should be President. That doesn’t sit will with media elites but resonated.
Club for Growth is a protection racket.
Nnoresponses are not ‘No Preference’. Nonresponses are exactly that. A number on a list is called or mailed or other means of contact, and nothing is returned, absolutely nothing.
So if the nonresponse rate is 90% which is typical, what is that to say of those people bothering to respond compared to those people who go out of their way to travel and see Donald Trump? Both groups are not scientific in sample design, but the energy level is markedly different.
I’ve enjoyed seeing Donald Trump bask in the glow of leading on all polls but I never gave credence to any of those reports. I am persuaded by his track record on vets and troops, his sincerity and of course his business negotiating skills.
Now if he started to decline in most all polls to single digits, then I would infer he’s done. Everything else is in the category of political games.
Absolutely true. Motivating people to get off their rumps is quite an accomplishment these days. That goes double when it their spare time.
“i think he will prove to be an excellent president”
Yeah....excellent for all the illegals that will get amnesty under his watch, and excellent for those that don’t support the 2nd amendment.
I’ve made it clear I give no credence to any polling games short of showing a candidate declining in a majority of polls to single digits.
To be frank, those that spend excessive time reading polls are a waste of time except for Donald Trump who uses them for advertising his success, whether real or not.
The only poll that matters is the one taken at the voting booth. People that have gotten up, got themselves ready, put all other plans on hold to attend a rally to see Donald Trump can be viewed as reliable. Whereas, the typical 10% that respond to a poll are not reliable because the degree of commitment is not the same.
I will repeat, the only time I would pay attention to polls is when I see the majority of polls showing a candidate declining to single digits over a prolonged time. Everything else poll-related is not worth following.
The things to follow for reliable indicators are the rallies, the nature of those rallies, the neutral venues and spectrum of demographics drawn to a candidate.
Polls by and of themselves are pathetic.
McCain had suspended his campaign during the leadup to the 2008 Iowa caucuses, though he did have some residual support from the country-club set.
How can people be so damned stupid. Iowa I’m looking at you. A pacifist as commander in chief what a fooking joke.
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.