Posted on 02/02/2016 10:23:32 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Let me guess. You're a Cruz supporter.
That is of a piece with the Trump captain who complained Thursday that the campaign hadn’t give her her phone list of voters to call for the caucus (Monday night.) It shows the utterly poor organization of the Trump campaign.
Past Iowa winners:
1980 GHWB over Reagan
1984 Reagan unopposed
1988 Dole over GHWB
1992 GHWB unopposed
1996 Dole (26%) over Buchannan (23%)
2000 George Bush
2004 Bush unopposed
2008 Huckabee
2012 Santorum
2016 Cruz
Several of the polls polled “likely caucus goers”, but that model is based on who has gone to caucuses before.
The prior record for a Republican caucus in Iowa was around 122,000 votes. They had around 170,000 this time. So that blew up all the models.
Now, next time they’ll plan for a big turnout like this and if they get a more typical turnout, that will blow up the model again.
And perhaps overestimated Trump's.
There could also be a bit of "confirmation bias" in the poll numbers -- pollsters hearing what they expected to hear, and reporting it.
Let me guess. You never read tag lines.
No, vice versa.
As John Sununu said
Iowa picks Corn
NH picks presidents
not sure if it’s true, but it’s a fun quote
Trump on polls from Business Insider
“....I believe in polls. How many elections do you see where the polls were wrong? Not that many. OK. You see them, but not that many. If I were doing poorly, if I saw myself going down, if you would stop calling me ‘cause you no longer have any interest in Trump because ‘he has no chance,’ I’d go back to my business. I have no problem with that......”
It is a funny read in light of last night
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-why-hed-drop-out-of-race-for-president-2015-10
Iowa didn't vote for your candidate so you trash them.
When was the last time you heard a poll that was right?
lol
Old as democracy -- you can't tell what the voters are going to do until you get them in their precincts.
Roman voters were famous for talking across the rope barriers (the tribes and clans gathered in roped-off areas, hence "precinct") during the annual elections, so Roman pols learned to oil up the earlier-voting groups to create momentum (good Roman word, same basic word as "move-ment") and try to create a snowball effect.
Politics 101, same as now.
Trump's younger voters didn't show in the proportions the older voters did. Oh, they meant to go .... then Ginger and Bennetta walked by. Oh, well, save the Republic another day, it'll still be there.
There is a rumor that some Trump supporters refused to go to the caucuses because Megyn Kelly was covering them.
;)
Yep. All of those.
Thats true, and in both instances they recieved yuge influxes of donations. Both also had no setup to take in those donations, thereby cause them to use said money to build it. By the time they had it built, the election process had gone through three or four more states. The money then dried up, and they couldn’t compete.
The main difference for Cruz is that he already has that organization built. Meaning he can focus his attentions on winning the primaries and caucuses. Not on building the organization to handle that much money.
Everybody mentions this, it falls into many forms of logical fallacies for instance Oversimplification... Many oversimplify the cause of why Santorum and Huckabee lost the nomination, they never discuss the reasons that actually was the cause(I.e. lack of money, lack of organization.)
No, Ive been trashing them for 16 years.
Iowa values, right?
“A win in Iowa does not mean a win in the other states. Huckaby won Iowa in 2008 and Santorum won in 2012.”
A win in Iowa usually means a loss overall. Only with incumbents does Iowa ever get it right.
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.