Posted on 01/31/2016 12:04:23 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
The final Des Moines Register poll was just released, showing Donald Trump leading the Republican field in Iowa with 28 percent, Ted Cruz with 23 percent and Marco Rubio with 15 percent. Hillary Clinton was ahead of Bernie Sanders, 45 percent to 42 percent, on the Democratic side. The political world - us included - was eagerly awaiting this survey, as Ann Selzer, who has conducted the Register's polls since the 1988 caucuses, has a very good track record. But just how predictive of the final results have Selzer's polls been? History suggests they're a good indicator of what will happen in Monday's Iowa caucuses, though there is room for a candidate or two to surprise.
I've gathered Selzer's final caucus polls for Republicans and Democrats since she started at the Register. For each race, I've calculated the difference between all candidates' polled percentage of support and their final share of the vote.
Selzer's final poll has correctly projected every single winner except for Republican Rick Santorum in 2012.
And the Register poll's successes haven't been limited to blowout races. She caught the late momentum for Democrat John Kerry in 2004 and famously called Barack Obama's victory in 2008.
Even when Selzer's final poll missed the winner in 2012, it still indicated the potential for Santorum to win. The survey was conducted over four days, and in addition to the topline, aggregate numbers, Selzer released day-by-day results. The final day of her last 2012 caucus poll showed Santorum within a percentage point of Mitt Romney. In fact, the average error per candidate of the last day of her final 2012 caucus poll was just 1.9 percentage points.
Indeed, what makes Selzer truly special isn't just that she calls winners but that her error rates are fairly low across all candidates. Her average error per candidate per year has been just 3.3 percentage points. That means that what a candidate receives in her poll is probably going to be pretty close to what he or she gets from voters.
That's not to say the Des Moines Register poll is perfect. It sometimes misses on a candidate by a lot. Selzer's final poll in 1988 missed Republican Pat Robertson's eventual vote share by just more than 10 percentage points. Same thing with Kerry in 2004.
Who might benefit from that type of miss this time around? History suggests there are two types of candidates who tend to outperform their polls. The first is a candidate who does well among Christian conservatives. Selzer's final polls on the Republican side in 1988, 1996 and 2012 all missed the candidate favored by Christian conservatives by at least 8.5 percentage points. That could be good news for Cruz. Secondly, candidates with late momentum, such as Kerry in 2004 and Santorum in 2012, also tend to beat their polls. That could be beneficial to Rubio, who seems to be gaining in some polls.
Could there also be a big error on the Democratic side? It's possible, but Selzer did particularly well in 2000, the last Democratic campaign with only a few candidates running. Fewer candidates means voters have an easier time settling on one candidate and reallocation of support becomes less of an issue.
Of course, we won't know how accurate Selzer's final poll is this year until Monday or the day after. It's worth remembering, however, that even the best pollsters - and Selzer is one of the best - aren't perfect.
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.
This sense of the word “troll” and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment.
All the above describes YOU troll. Posting an article for the candidate she supports and YOU attack her. YOU sow discord from an otherwise polite conversation. Maybe you should know the meaning of a word before you toss it around. Every time you use it you label yourself.
It was a good article, an insightful breakdown of the polls success rate.
They say that every primary election and this one has not been that bad, at least not what I have seen (granted, I am not in Iowa).
I am so glad you cleared that up for me. I am YUUUUUDGELY STOOOPID. Unlike you of course with that brilliant mind. So, thank you so much for the edumication. I really appreciate not having to cut and paste my sarcastic reply from Wikipedia or Websters.
So in other words, Trump wins by at least 10. That’s near the high end of most polls, but definitely possible.
bttt!
Maybe in your words.
: )
Nicely done.
You argue like Trump. No facts just ridicule.
Easy to ridicule the ridiculous. Give me some substance. Not your silly cut and paste job. Sheesh. I feel like I am in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
I am waiting.....
foot tapping.
“What have I done to be kicked off of FR?”
Why are you being defensive? Your posting was just fine.
You need not let yourself be bullied to think a certain way or support a certain candidate. Despite protestations on the thread to the contrary, I have found you to be rational and reasonable.
No. You back up your casual tossing around the label troll. You’re unarmed in this battle.
Thank you.
I wasn’t trying to be defensive (though I guess it came across that way).
I was hoping to flesh out that poster’s objections with my posting history and how it would warrant a “zot.”
: )
So what is it?
“Constant anti Trump postings”
or
“Incessant pro Cruz stuff”
?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:cincinatuswife/index?tab=articles
Sorry. You lose. I mean sure you tried to insult her but all your references, even in this last response, you equate trolling with her posting Cruz material. So is it a hideous creature from under a bridge or her constant posting of articles? Oh and for all your snide references to her being zotted it’s you with the personal attacks which aren’t tolerated by Jim.
Time line dear time line.
. = time
XXXXX = the end of your anti Trump tirade.
Scotty Announces
CW Whole Hog!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
Scotty gets whipped
Anti Trump
.
.
.
.
Cruz has a tiny shot in Iowa
Pro Cruz
.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
You’re bankrupt of snark and all out of ideas.
I have nothing against you except, you.
Oh well.
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.