Why, after pointless predictions by pundits like Bill O'Reilly, do we only hear about some real details on the overhyped Iowa Primary a week before the vote? Have the polls done by the leftist/ad selling media ever been an honest view of how the country is voting for the GOP nominee?
"When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points." Ann Coulter.
Until the media included the undecideds on Sunday, Gingrich was to own Iowa, followed by Romney. The rest really didn't matter. Here are the numbers from a Reuters story on Dec 12th of those likely to vote in the Iowa caucuses: Gingrich 29.8% Mitt Romney, 20.3%, Ron Paul 10.7%. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachman 8.5%, Rick Perry 8.2%. Since he didn't buy enough ads or hire enough ex/future media people from PR firms, and is a conservative that can win with conservative volunteers, Rick Santorum wasn't worth mentioning. Pat Caddell said that Santorum was in single digits a week before 01/03/12! Keep that in mind as you see the election results:
Santorum & Romney 25%, Paul 21%, Gingrich 13% Perry 10% Bachmann 5% Huntsman 1%.
Is there is a reason to trust a pundit claiming a candidate is "finished" after this "surprise"?
| Poll Date | Romney | Paul | Santorum | Gingrich | Perry | Bachmann | Huntsman | Cain | Spread | |||||||||
| RCP Average 12/21 - 1/1 | 22.8 | 21.5 | 16.3 | 13.7 | 11.5 | 6.8 | 2.3 | -- | Romney +1.3 |