Posted on 12/20/2011 10:27:51 AM PST by freespirited
Without another Ann Selzer Iowa poll until the first of the year, the political class is now largely analyzing the caucuses through robo polls, internal campaign surveys and good old-fashioned anecdotal reporting.
It's the first of these that gets the most attention - and sparks the most controversy.
After the Democratic-aligned PPP - which has gotten some important races right -- posted their latest Iowa survey last night showing Ron Paul staking out a lead, the pushback quickly surfaced.
At issue: whether PPP's sample is too heavy on Democrats and independents and is therefore skewing the results to make Paul seem stronger. (Any registered Iowa voter can show up to vote in the GOP caucuses, so long as they change their party affiliation that night).
Writes Republican Neil Stevens at the polling blog "Unlikely Voter":
In 2008 the caucuses, being closed of course, included 86% self-identified Republicans, 13% self-identified Independents who presumably registered Republican to caucus, 1% Democrats, 1% “Other.” PPP’s poll drops the Republican proportion to 75%, raises Independents to 19%, and raises Democrats to 5%. Guess who’s helped by both of those shifts, which are far outside the Margin of Error and so predict genuine, large shifts in the partisan makeup of the closed Iowa caucuses. That’s right: Ron Paul, who wins 40% of Democrats, 34% of Independents, but only 19% of Republicans according to the poll.
There are three broad possibilities: The 2008 entrance polls are wrong. The 2012 Republican caucuses will find huge new turnout from independent voters showing up and registering Republican. The PPP poll has systemic issues and is not meaningful.
The answer, according to PPP: Option two.
I asked Tom Jensen, who runs the PPP poll, to respond to Stevens' criticism and he made the case that, yes, the '12 caucuses will look differently:
In 2008 independents could choose between the Democratic and Republican caucuses. This year all the action is on the Republican side so it makes perfect sense that the share of independents choosing to vote in the Republican caucus would be increased. Ann Selzer is seeing something very similar in her polling.
The biggest mistake you can make in Iowa is assuming that what happened last time will happen again. Every contest there takes on its own life and draws out its own different electorate. If people had done their 2008 Democratic polls based on a 2004 turnout model they would have significantly under estimated Barack Obama.
I would be more than happy to discredit the poll except for the fact Insider Advantage had a similar result yesterday.
Paul 24, Romney 18, Gingrich 13, Perry 16, Bachmann 10, Santorum 3, Huntsman 4
Create the meme...
Create the meme...
Create the meme...
Create the meme...
Create the meme...
Create the meme...
Create the meme...
Create the meme...
Create the meme...
Create the meme...
Create the meme...
Create the meme...
I would say that, due to the Hillary/Hussein race in 2008, more independents will caucus with the republicans this time around.
how do we get this stopped?
And some folks still wonder why it's called the Stupid party.
Let us be honest. Ron Paul support is dependent on Democrats, not “independents.”
You’d think the Republican party would be thrilled to be attracting independents and converts from the Democrats. The irony is that the Republicans have grown so similar to the Democrats that they are now in a panic that someone outside the Welfare State/Imperialist Nation worldview is attracting support.
You’d think the Republican party would be thrilled to be attracting independents and converts from the Democrats. The irony is that the Republicans have grown so similar to the Democrats that they are now in a panic that someone outside the Welfare State/Imperialist Nation worldview is attracting support.
Here’s what to do about this poll: Ignore it.
A few weeks from now people will actually start to vote. Then we’ll have something to talk about.
You’d think the Republican party would be thrilled to be attracting independents and converts from the Democrats. >>>>
Uh, I don’t think that is what is happening. A 24 hour Republican is not exactly “a convert.” No, such a person is a pawn in the game of psy ops.
You’d think the Republican party would be thrilled to be attracting independents and converts from the Democrats. >>>>
Uh, I don’t think that is what is happening. A 24 hour Republican is not exactly “a convert.” No, such a person is a pawn in the game of psy ops.
hawkeye cauci is a small group of meaningless political junkies, that because of liberal crossover rules, are even more meaningless.
They are so meaningless, that the governor of this state where the meaningless process occurs, tells the entire country to IGNORE the results.
hahahahahaha
Thank God, it took ron paul to get the governor of Iowa to tell everyone to ignore this stupid ritual and maybe new hampsire, the next little nothing state will go the same route.
We can only hope, I have always wondered just who died and put them in charge.
But as long as they can keep the perception they are relevant to any election, it keeps the MONEY ROLLING, ROLLING, ROLLING IN, keep those doggies rolling.
One could almost suggest that IOWA was sniffing too much corn/ethonol if the PPP is to be believed about Paul being in the lead. Guess New Hampshire is just "whoever is not in the lead and don't tell us how to vote" type folks. Just peachy.
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.