Posted on 12/30/2007 8:13:46 AM PST by GOPGuide
Clinton 23, Obama 22, Edwards 24, Richardson 12, Biden 8
Romney 27, Huckabee 23, McCain 13, Thompson 14, Giuliani 5, Paul 5
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Yes but that was how it was posted on RCPolitics. I didn’t realize that until I posted, sorry :(
What about that poll that was supposedly 15,000 people and showed Fred at 1%???? What did they do, make people write in Fred?
Pay CLOSE attention to these numbers...
Fred is the SECOND choice for many Iowa Voters, and Romney huck’s totals only equal 50%.
The second-tier candidate supporters must choose someone else if thier guy isn’t viable, and that could very well mean FRED, especially for McCain supporters!
“Cool, Fred is heading for a strong third”
There are two other polls on the link you posted, both taken at the same time as the Mason Dixon one and both showing McCain in a clear third place and Thompson just a scrape ahead of Guiliani and Paul.
Do you prefer the Mason Dixon one ofr any reason (methodology, previous results?) or just because it gives the outcome you desire?
I would love to see Hitlery come in 4th behind Richardson! Wouldnt that be sweet?
Showing your ignorance of polling methods is no way to influence anything. A poll sample that size would have a margin of error factor of plus or minus 50% are would be meaningless.
“A poll sample that size would have a margin of error factor of plus or minus 50% are would be meaningless”
How does a larger sample size increase the margin of error?
As we have been saying all along, Romney is the only one who can beat Hitlery.
I was just curious why they didn’t put the numbers in order.
What’s up with the personal attacks? Here’s the story I was referring to.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945480/posts
I can’t even comprehend what point you were trying to make. Why would a poll of 15,000 people have a MOE of 50%? Obviously something wrong with their poll, but a larger sample size does not increase the MOE, it decreases it.
Left off the funny face, it is not really true, it all depends if you can maintain and unpolluted sample. Here:
http://www.aapor.org/marginofsamplingerror
depends on the questions and how they were ask, and I forgot the joke face. LOL
“Do you prefer the Mason Dixon one ofr any reason (methodology, previous results?) or just because it gives the outcome you desire?”
Both. :)
Mason Dixon is historically much more accurate than Zogby. In 2004, they were right in 15 out of 16 states in the 2004 general election.
Rasmussen was also good.
Zogby, well, is a bit infamous here on this side of the Atlantic for playing games with his final 2004 state polls at the last second of the campaign. ARG is a terrible pollster.
The only pollster that has been more accurate than Mason Dixon IMO in the past has been SurveyUSA, and SurveyUSA has not done any polls in the Iowa Caucus this year.
Romney’s organization and strategists are pure professionals. They arrived at the battlefield with a plan and they have executed it.
The opposition arrived with hope and swagger. That can work when there is a professional organization behind it. When there is not . . . God fights on the side with the biggest artillery.
You are correct, but it helps a lot when you write a check to cover the cost of all those professionals. I REALLY DON’T LIKE the idea that a guy can raise more money out of his own checkbook to run for office than most candidates would ever be able to raise. It smacks of BUYING an election and it also makes me think that person WANTS to be elect much to badly. Bloomberg and several other very rich people have done the same thing. It’s legal, but I don’t like it. It’s disingenuous of you to act like Romney has done so much better than all the other candidates without acknowledging how much of his own money he has used to build the powerful organization that he’s got.
I am pretty sure only the dems due the second place thing. I do think Fred could come in second.
I saw nothing in the description of that poll to indicate that it was a random sample. One can read between the lines and infer as much, as there is no reason to poll 15,000 people to get a picture of the Iowa GOP primary vote if using random sampling. The bizarre results also suggest that this was not a random sample.
If this is the case, the poll was a waste of money that produced dubious results. I would stick with the known entities like Ras, Mason Dixon, and Survey USA.
What good does it do to have a Republican Liberal beat a Democrat Liberal?
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.