Posted on 02/02/2016 6:14:48 AM PST by justlittleoleme
The final days of Iowa polling had a cohesive set of predictions. Donald Trump was supposed to win. Marco Rubio was supposed to come in a distant third. And Bernie Sanders, despite a last-minute challenge to Hillary Clinton, was expected to narrowly lose.
Now we know the polls got it wrong, particularly on the Republican side. Trump lost to Ted Cruz and barely eked out a second-place showing over Rubio. Sanders and Clinton are still locked in virtual tie for first.
The Iowa caucuses are notoriously difficult to predict. But even the final Des Moines Register poll, which has a good record, missed Rubio's rise and Trump's fall. Here are three factors that help explain why the polls got it wrong this time around.
A bigger turnout was supposed to help Trump, but it didn't
Republicans turned out to vote in huge numbers: 185,000 people went to the caucuses, up 5.4 percent from 2012, according to the Washington Post. According to conventional wisdom going into the vote, a big turnout should have helped Trump by proving he could motivate the infrequent voters who were among his strongest supporters.
But it wasn't enough. While about 45 percent of Republican caucus-goers were caucusing for the first time, only about 30 percent of those new voters supported Trump, according to exit polls. So the new voter turnout wasn't a groundswell in his favor.
Observers had been warning that Trump's ground game — the network of volunteers and organizers doing the crucial, down-to-earth work of making sure supporters show up to the polls — was disorganized or nonexistent. On January 13, the New York Times' Trip Gabriel called the campaign's Iowa operation "amateurish and halting":
As temperatures plunged to single digits over the weekend, canvassers for Hillary Clinton posted photographs of themselves on social media going door to door in the snow. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump’s volunteers in Davenport, a city where the campaign appears to be better organized than elsewhere, decided it was too cold to go out.
Seven volunteers worked the phones at the Iowa headquarters of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida in a Des Moines suburb one night last week. At the state headquarters of Mr. Cruz, there were 24 volunteers in a room beneath a sign proclaiming a daily goal of making 6,000 calls. The Trump state headquarters in West Des Moines were largely deserted.
Trump ended up losing Davenport, too, to Rubio.
Evangelical Christians turned out to vote for Cruz
The Des Moines Register poll estimated that 47 percent of caucus attendees would be evangelical Christians. When the pollster changed the model for bigger evangelical attendance, it found Cruz would pull even with Trump if 60 percent of voters were evangelical.
Even that turned out to be an underestimate: 62 percent of caucusgoers described themselves as evangelical or born-again, according to exit polls. And the plurality of their votes went to Cruz. Less religious voters supported Trump.
In the end, according to exit polls, it was most important to caucus-goers that their candidate share their values. And among those voters, Cruz won. Trump won voters who wanted a candidate who "tells it like it is" and "can bring needed change." Rubio won voters who thought electability was most important.
The best poll suggested Cruz had hidden support
The Des Moines Register poll has a better track record than most. It predicted Howard Dean's loss in 2004 and Obama's victory in 2008. But this year, pollster Ann Selzer still found a Trump victory was likely. And the poll got it wrong in other ways: it found Cruz's support was falling and that Trump's was solid.
Still, buried in the details of the poll was enthusiasm for Cruz and Rubio.
Iowa Republicans said they were more enthusiastic about both candidates than they were about Trump, and that Cruz had more knowledge and experience than Trump. A last-minute switch would benefit Cruz, the poll found. And Republicans polled said they'd pick Trump over Cruz in a head-to-head matchup.
To some observers, that boded well for Cruz. They turned out to be right.
I thought Trump and Cruz split the evangelical vote? If true, you have to wonder why the massive turnout didn't help Trump. We won't get an answer from the media, they're too busy singing hosannas to Rubio.
As do I....I think what is being said by some is: There are no Christians in NH & SC......basically calling them Stupid which worked so well in Iowa.., but hey whatever they think will work.....God may have other plans :)
Not that she needs me to defend her, but she has a much right to criticize Cruz as I do Trump.
I am not a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but in terms of his public speaking, I can only take so much of the “preacher man” delivery Cruz tends to use.
Caucuses need to go.
Until I see proof that Ted Cruz or his campaign said something unethical or slimy on social networks, then I won’t believe it. You shouldn’t either.
Favorite quotes:
"Ted Cruz will finish in third place or lower."
"Microsoft Bing predicts Trump gets 40% of the Iowa vote, winning handily."
"Trump is likely going to get over 100,000 plus to caucus for him."
I went to that link. There was nothing there from Cruz.
Can’t wait to see the next real really true Trump will sound like.
Democrats are the only ones allowed to campaign in church.
Yeah and other than media, Trump would have only scored one additional delegate if he'd come out on top.
>> He certainly washed it off to a gay donor.
He told the donor(s) he did not agree with their lifestyle. Love the sinner, hate the sin — a well known teaching of Jesus.
>> And he washed it off when he told the voters that he had liquidated his assets to finance his campaign
Were those Ted’s exact words, or your twisting of his words to fit your agenda?
>> he washed it off when he neglected to tell the voters that he was a Canadian citizen
He is an American citizen.
>> failed to properly declare his loans from Goldman Sachs
That lie about Cruz has been debunked at length, WITH documented proof to the contrary.
Even if they couldn’t be debunked item-by-item, your laundry list of sound bites neglects the larger picture of how Ted lives his life unswervingly and unashamedly to the glory of GOD. As with all Christians, Ted is not perfect — but he is forgiven. He has faith in GOD and he DEMONSTRATES it, daily, under all conditions.
I really thought it might be a Trump/Cruz ticket. It seemed that way for awhile.
Maybe something went on behind the scenes that blew it up.
Surely Cruz wouldn't manipulate the evangelicals like that. He'll probably go full televangelist to super motivate all those hard right conservatives, in New Hampshire.
That isn't going to happen anywhere else."""
You mean there are no other Christians anywhere in the United States of America who are Chirstian? They are all centered in IOWA?
whew dats sure saying summting, dent know dat.
I have yet to see a Cruz supporter claim that he will win NH. But I listened to Trump supporters tell us day in and day out that Trump was going to win Iowa in a yuge way. If you attempted to temper their enthusiasm with anything factual, you paid the price. I hope that Trump and his supporters go into NH with more humility.
Trump started with a very good ground game, hiring Chuck Laudner in Iowa months before he announced. Somewhere along the way, either DJT or his advisers decided the celebrity bandwagon would mean his campaign wouldn’t need to make personal contact with voters.
>> Okay, I’m a Christian, extrovert, Texan with a sense of humor. I’m in my 60’s. I love Rush.
Any more like you at home? :-)
Relying on the celebrity bandwagon may not work in New Hampshire much better than it did in Iowa. However, that celebrity bandwagon could get him the nomination in the long run.
Why do I see Count Chocula ?
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.