But every single poll is different...so how can you say "all polls" suck when they use different methodologies?

Again, I agree that and single poll is subject to intense scrutiny...I have zero issue with that...

Where I take issue is applying that same level of scuritny to "all polls" when you are looking at an average of what most experts generally accept as being the "best polls" for a a variety of reasons...

When applying them as part of an overall average, statistically speaking, you smooth out most outliers, thus giving you a pretty good "idea" of what is happening in general...

There was quite a bit of analysis and scrutiny applied to polling entities after 2016...the autopsies of 2016 had most polling firms modify their formats to help address the issues that were seen...sicne 2016, I am not aware of polling averages being categorically inaccurate...

Could they be this time, you bet they could...but until they are, I don't understand how anyone can claim such in good conscience...

"A poll" is "a data point"...

When you are looking at an "average of several polling results from different polls", it is not accurate to say that the results of that effort "are but a single data point"...

I mean...this is STAT 101 type stuff...

FireAg said:

---

But every single poll is different...so how can you say "all polls" suck when they use different methodologies?

Again, I agree that and single poll is subject to intense scrutiny...I have zero issue with that...

Where I take issue is applying that same level of scuritny to "all polls" when you are looking at an average of what most experts generally accept as being the "best polls" for a a variety of reasons...

When applying them as part of an overall average, statistically speaking, you smooth out most outliers, thus giving you a pretty good "idea" of what is happening in general...

There was quite a bit of analysis and scrutiny applied to polling entities after 2016...the autopsies of 2016 had most polling firms modify their formats to help address the issues that were seen...sicne 2016, I am not aware of polling averages being categorically inaccurate...

Could they be this time, you bet they could...but until they are, I don't understand how anyone can claim such in good conscience...

---

Look, I could be wrong, I will admit that, but if you think the same people who thought to manipulate social media to shape public opinion a decade ago at this point now, with tools that are factors of 100x more effective, can't come up with the idea to manipulate the way even polling averages appear to affect your voting behavior seems naive.

There is ALWAYS a way to game the system. The incentives to do so have never been higher, and the tools to make it possible have never been more readily available.

Rapier108 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

This is just bizarre by Fox. DeSantis has very publicly been documenting doing the Full Grassley and has done over 250 events in Iowa. As mentioned Grassley himself was there to congratulate DeSantis at his 99th County.

Look at what @FoxNews just showed! RonDesantis has had an event in all 99 counties, the Full Grassley. Chuck Grassley congratulated RDS. Based on this, how "Fair & Balanced" will tonight's townhall with RDS be? pic.twitter.com/fZVdadhHRc

— Iowa David (@davidkbaugh) January 9, 2024

---

Fox wants Trump because Trump = ratings.

And then when he loses, it means even more ratings because they will cover all his claims of fraud, and then have 4 more years to pretend to be to the only major media outlet opposing the Democrats.

---

This is also true of every other MSM outlet, too. Trump=ratings.

JWinTX said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

This is just bizarre by Fox. DeSantis has very publicly been documenting doing the Full Grassley and has done over 250 events in Iowa. As mentioned Grassley himself was there to congratulate DeSantis at his 99th County.

Look at what @FoxNews just showed! RonDesantis has had an event in all 99 counties, the Full Grassley. Chuck Grassley congratulated RDS. Based on this, how "Fair & Balanced" will tonight's townhall with RDS be? pic.twitter.com/fZVdadhHRc

— Iowa David (@davidkbaugh) January 9, 2024

---

Fox wants Trump because Trump = ratings.

And then when he loses, it means even more ratings because they will cover all his claims of fraud, and then have 4 more years to pretend to be to the only major media outlet opposing the Democrats.

---

This is also true of every other MSM outlet, too. Trump=ratings.

---

How many jobs will be lost in the "infotainment" industry with Trump not as a candidate? How many media companies will go out of business if he isn't around? These people are not just hoping Trump is around due to ratings, their survival depends on it.

There is no bigger ratings killer than getting **** done with no drama. The media has a vested interest in DeSantis being knocked out of the race.

FireAg said:

---

"A poll" is "a data point"...

When you are looking at an "average of several polling results from different polls", it is not accurate to say that the results of that effort "are but a single data point"...

I mean...this is STAT 101 type stuff...

---

Every poll is a data point. Multiple polls are multiple data points. They still aren't votes and considering how badly the polls have been off in the last few cycles it's harder to tell, especially in Caucuses.

The great thing is we have votes happening in a week. I have reason to be optimistic about DeSantis but it isn't because of polls. You think the polls are by far the most important thing. Thus I assume you think Trump is really up 33-43 points in Iowa. I guess we will find out in a few days when the only poll that matters happens.

Historically, polling averages have been the best indicators of what is happening…with 2016 being the notable exception…

Until polling averages simply fail consistently, I don't see any reasonable rationale to just discredit and ignore them…

Yes, real votes trump all polling, but how often have the real votes shown the exact opposite of polling averages?

It is rare for that to occur…history shows this…

Phatbob said:

---

FireAg said:

---

But every single poll is different...so how can you say "all polls" suck when they use different methodologies?

Again, I agree that and single poll is subject to intense scrutiny...I have zero issue with that...

Where I take issue is applying that same level of scuritny to "all polls" when you are looking at an average of what most experts generally accept as being the "best polls" for a a variety of reasons...

When applying them as part of an overall average, statistically speaking, you smooth out most outliers, thus giving you a pretty good "idea" of what is happening in general...

There was quite a bit of analysis and scrutiny applied to polling entities after 2016...the autopsies of 2016 had most polling firms modify their formats to help address the issues that were seen...sicne 2016, I am not aware of polling averages being categorically inaccurate...

Could they be this time, you bet they could...but until they are, I don't understand how anyone can claim such in good conscience...

---

Look, I could be wrong, I will admit that, but if you think the same people who thought to manipulate social media to shape public opinion a decade ago at this point now, with tools that are factors of 100x more effective, can't come up with the idea to manipulate the way even polling averages appear to affect your voting behavior seems naive.

There is ALWAYS a way to game the system. The incentives to do so have never been higher, and the tools to make it possible have never been more readily available.

---

This is what bugs me about the "anti-polling" folks…no one can point to anything more than "gut feeling" and "2016" as to why polling averages shouldn't be trusted…

I respect your honesty, and everyone is certainly entitled to believe what they want until the votes are cast…but if you look at things rationally, and without prejudice, it's hard to argue they aren't currently the best metric we have for gaining some insight as to what is going on…

Rapier108 said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

This is just bizarre by Fox. DeSantis has very publicly been documenting doing the Full Grassley and has done over 250 events in Iowa. As mentioned Grassley himself was there to congratulate DeSantis at his 99th County.

Look at what @FoxNews just showed! RonDesantis has had an event in all 99 counties, the Full Grassley. Chuck Grassley congratulated RDS. Based on this, how "Fair & Balanced" will tonight's townhall with RDS be? pic.twitter.com/fZVdadhHRc

— Iowa David (@davidkbaugh) January 9, 2024

---

Fox wants Trump because Trump = ratings.

And then when he loses, it means even more ratings because they will cover all his claims of fraud, and then have 4 more years to pretend to be to the only major media outlet opposing the Democrats.

---

This is also true of every other MSM outlet, too. Trump=ratings.

---

How many jobs will be lost in the "infotainment" industry with Trump not as a candidate? How many media companies will go out of business if he isn't around? These people are not just hoping Trump is around due to ratings, their survival depends on it.

There is no bigger ratings killer than getting **** done with no drama. The media has a vested interest in DeSantis being knocked out of the race.

---

There are tons of so called "right wing" entities which will go away when Trump is gone.

All of them sold their souls to Trump for the rating he brings because MAGA will tune in to anything showing Trump, and most of these sites/channels are all Trump and only Trump 24/7.

When they go the way of the dodo, the better off we'll be.

---

Those places will be hard pressed to find someone that brings in as much dedicated views, and clicks, that's for sure.

Children born today will only know of this era from history books. Lucky them.

FireAg said:

---

Historically, polling averages have been the best indicators of what is happening…with 2016 being the notable exception…

Until polling averages simply fail consistently, I don't see any reasonable rationale to just discredit and ignore them…

Yes, real votes trump all polling, but how often have the real votes shown the exact opposite of polling averages?

It is rare for that to occur…history shows this…

---

Actually polls in 2020 and 2022 were off too. Remember the "Red Wave"? Some of the statewide race misses have been MASSIVE, especially in the last cycle. These are all statewide races in a primary.

I have never said polls don't matter but I just have more skepticism about them than ever before because they have become increasingly less accurate and easier to manipulate. You can't compare some of these new polling firms that come and go with the old Gallup polls from 30 years ago when everyone still had land lines and there was no internet.

I certainly admit it would be odd for them to be THAT far off but I also can't imagine how a poll in Iowa is showing Trump up by 43 either. So that is why I am not completely ignoring them but I don't put much value in them either. Less than a week and we will find out if the polls were right or if they have been used as a psyop. Sounds like you feel confident they are right so nothing to worry about.

FireAg said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

FireAg said:

---

But every single poll is different...so how can you say "all polls" suck when they use different methodologies?

Again, I agree that and single poll is subject to intense scrutiny...I have zero issue with that...

Where I take issue is applying that same level of scuritny to "all polls" when you are looking at an average of what most experts generally accept as being the "best polls" for a a variety of reasons...

When applying them as part of an overall average, statistically speaking, you smooth out most outliers, thus giving you a pretty good "idea" of what is happening in general...

There was quite a bit of analysis and scrutiny applied to polling entities after 2016...the autopsies of 2016 had most polling firms modify their formats to help address the issues that were seen...sicne 2016, I am not aware of polling averages being categorically inaccurate...

Could they be this time, you bet they could...but until they are, I don't understand how anyone can claim such in good conscience...

---

Look, I could be wrong, I will admit that, but if you think the same people who thought to manipulate social media to shape public opinion a decade ago at this point now, with tools that are factors of 100x more effective, can't come up with the idea to manipulate the way even polling averages appear to affect your voting behavior seems naive.

There is ALWAYS a way to game the system. The incentives to do so have never been higher, and the tools to make it possible have never been more readily available.

---

This is what bugs me about the "anti-polling" folks…no one can point to anything more than "gut feeling" and "2016" as to why polling averages shouldn't be trusted…

I respect your honesty, and everyone is certainly entitled to believe what they want until the votes are cast…but if you look at things rationally, and without prejudice, it's hard to argue they aren't currently the best metric we have for gaining some insight as to what is going on…

---

Personally I think the polls will prove out now to be as accurate as YouTube comments. It's too valuable a system to game and there really is very little incentive to get it right and very few consequences for being wrong.

Phatbob said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

FireAg said:

---

But every single poll is different...so how can you say "all polls" suck when they use different methodologies?

Again, I agree that and single poll is subject to intense scrutiny...I have zero issue with that...

Where I take issue is applying that same level of scuritny to "all polls" when you are looking at an average of what most experts generally accept as being the "best polls" for a a variety of reasons...

When applying them as part of an overall average, statistically speaking, you smooth out most outliers, thus giving you a pretty good "idea" of what is happening in general...

There was quite a bit of analysis and scrutiny applied to polling entities after 2016...the autopsies of 2016 had most polling firms modify their formats to help address the issues that were seen...sicne 2016, I am not aware of polling averages being categorically inaccurate...

Could they be this time, you bet they could...but until they are, I don't understand how anyone can claim such in good conscience...

---

Look, I could be wrong, I will admit that, but if you think the same people who thought to manipulate social media to shape public opinion a decade ago at this point now, with tools that are factors of 100x more effective, can't come up with the idea to manipulate the way even polling averages appear to affect your voting behavior seems naive.

There is ALWAYS a way to game the system. The incentives to do so have never been higher, and the tools to make it possible have never been more readily available.

---

This is what bugs me about the "anti-polling" folks…no one can point to anything more than "gut feeling" and "2016" as to why polling averages shouldn't be trusted…

I respect your honesty, and everyone is certainly entitled to believe what they want until the votes are cast…but if you look at things rationally, and without prejudice, it's hard to argue they aren't currently the best metric we have for gaining some insight as to what is going on…

---

Personally I think the polls will prove out now to be as accurate as YouTube comments. It's too valuable a system to game and there really is very little incentive to get it right and very few consequences for being wrong.

---

This makes no sense. If ALL the pollsters are getting fake results, then this would represent a fantastic opportunity for a smaller polling company to make a big name for themselves and capitalize on the money and attention of being the only one that got it right. That happened with 538 (they had Obama's inside polling), happened with Trafalgar.

The difference between youtube comments and pollsters is there is much more real $$s and reputation at stake to be off by 25-40+ points.

I respect that you think that…

But to be clear, you have no empirical evidence or data to back up this assertion…

For better or worse, this is your "gut feeling", correct?

I totally respect that…it's an honest portrayal of your position, and even though I disagree with it, it still could be right in the end…it's not completely impossible…it's just not backed up by any data…

texagbeliever said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

FireAg said:

---

But every single poll is different...so how can you say "all polls" suck when they use different methodologies?

Again, I agree that and single poll is subject to intense scrutiny...I have zero issue with that...

Where I take issue is applying that same level of scuritny to "all polls" when you are looking at an average of what most experts generally accept as being the "best polls" for a a variety of reasons...

When applying them as part of an overall average, statistically speaking, you smooth out most outliers, thus giving you a pretty good "idea" of what is happening in general...

There was quite a bit of analysis and scrutiny applied to polling entities after 2016...the autopsies of 2016 had most polling firms modify their formats to help address the issues that were seen...sicne 2016, I am not aware of polling averages being categorically inaccurate...

Could they be this time, you bet they could...but until they are, I don't understand how anyone can claim such in good conscience...

---

Look, I could be wrong, I will admit that, but if you think the same people who thought to manipulate social media to shape public opinion a decade ago at this point now, with tools that are factors of 100x more effective, can't come up with the idea to manipulate the way even polling averages appear to affect your voting behavior seems naive.

There is ALWAYS a way to game the system. The incentives to do so have never been higher, and the tools to make it possible have never been more readily available.

---

This is what bugs me about the "anti-polling" folks…no one can point to anything more than "gut feeling" and "2016" as to why polling averages shouldn't be trusted…

I respect your honesty, and everyone is certainly entitled to believe what they want until the votes are cast…but if you look at things rationally, and without prejudice, it's hard to argue they aren't currently the best metric we have for gaining some insight as to what is going on…

---

Personally I think the polls will prove out now to be as accurate as YouTube comments. It's too valuable a system to game and there really is very little incentive to get it right and very few consequences for being wrong.

---

This makes no sense. If ALL the pollsters are getting fake results, then this would represent a fantastic opportunity for a smaller polling company to make a big name for themselves and capitalize on the money and attention of being the only one that got it right. That happened with 538 (they had Obama's inside polling), happened with Trafalgar.

The difference between youtube comments and pollsters is there is much more real $$s and reputation at stake to be off by 25-40+ points.

---

The part you're missing is you assume the people/campaigns/media sources actually want an accurate poll. The point other posters are making is that the entities commisioning polls these days are not interested in impartial accurate results.

Campaigns want polls to falsely reflect their candidate is in the lead or gaining ground because perception often becomes reality. Paint the picture of a candidate dominating and the average voter thinks, "Well jeez, what's the point of making the effort to vote for my candidate when that other guy is so clearly ahead!". Or, "Hey, this guy is really dominating in thd polls, everyone loves him. You know they're probably right!". Never underestimate the herd mentaility, and polls these days are designed to shepherd that herd

Media sources are dominated by the ideology of their corporate owners. There is no impartiality in media these days. You honestly think the latest CBS, NBC, or Fox polls are completely unbiased?

And reputations at stake? Come on. How wrong have all of these pollsters and media sources been since 2015 or so. Yet we're still getting their polls and news stories shoved down our throats, simply because there's no alternative. See my statement above about impartiality. These same people don't care about their reputations. Heck, these days their reputations would likely suffer if they actually did try to be impartial. The consumers of NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, NY Times, etc expect these outlets to be biased, that's why they go there for their news....confirmation bias.

For the Trumpers who love them some polls...

but hated the polls in 2015 and 2016

and then hated the polls that showed Biden winning Wisconsin by 14 points in 2020

but now love the polls.

The 'red wave' washout: How skewed polls fed a false U.S. election narrative

BY JIM RUTENBERG THE NEW YORK TIMES Jan 1, 2023

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat, had consistently won re-election by healthy margins in her three decades representing Washington state. This year seemed no different: By midsummer, polls showed her cruising to victory over a Republican newcomer, Tiffany Smiley, by as much as 20 percentage points.

So when a survey in late September by the Republican-leaning Trafalgar Group showed Murray clinging to a lead of just 2 points, it seemed like an aberration. But in October, two more Republican-leaning polls put Murray barely ahead, and a third said the race was a dead heat.

As the red and blue trend lines of the closely watched RealClearPolitics average for the contest drew closer together, news organizations reported that Murray was suddenly in a fight for her political survival. Warning lights flashed in Democratic war rooms. If Murray was in trouble, no Democrat was safe.

Murray's own polling showed her with a comfortable lead, and a nonprofit regional news site, using an established local pollster, had her up by 13.

Trumpers love polls in January 2024, will hate them again in August 2024

By agreeing to this Establishment budget deal, House Republicans are selling out everything that they ran on in 2022.

They promised to change the way Washington operates. They said that they were going to hold these agencies accountable. Instead, they’re funding the status quo… pic.twitter.com/CMz1piDuEu

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) January 9, 2024

LMCane said:

---

UAS Ag said:

---

FireAg said:

---

But what I don't believe is that the polling averages are >33 points off... I believe they could actually be as much as 20 points off (which would be absolutely unprecedented in Iowa on caucus day), but even if they are that far off, it doesn't change the fact that Trump still wins...

---

Right now on 538 Trump is up 49% to 17%. Let's say Trump keeps all of that 49% but DeSantis gains your 20 pts to put him at 37%.

Trump then would get 20 delegates and DeSantis would get 15.

That would be a HUGE hit for Trump even though he "won". His shroud of "inevitability" would have been pierced. And that shroud is Trump's biggest strength right now.

MAGA is about 25%. That is going NOWHERE. But the other 25% Trump has is NOT solid at all...and a result like that in Iowa could have big repercussions in the following primaries.

---

Are Iowa GOP primary electors divided up by the entire state vote, or by the precinct vote?

---

Not sure...but last I saw there were 40 delegates to be won in the caucus (hence the numbers I used above).

JWinTX said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

This is just bizarre by Fox. DeSantis has very publicly been documenting doing the Full Grassley and has done over 250 events in Iowa. As mentioned Grassley himself was there to congratulate DeSantis at his 99th County.

Look at what @FoxNews just showed! RonDesantis has had an event in all 99 counties, the Full Grassley. Chuck Grassley congratulated RDS. Based on this, how "Fair & Balanced" will tonight's townhall with RDS be? pic.twitter.com/fZVdadhHRc

— Iowa David (@davidkbaugh) January 9, 2024

---

Fox wants Trump because Trump = ratings.

And then when he loses, it means even more ratings because they will cover all his claims of fraud, and then have 4 more years to pretend to be to the only major media outlet opposing the Democrats.

---

This is also true of every other MSM outlet, too. Trump=ratings.

---

(Trump(Drama) -> ratings) > (DeSantis(policy/Position) -> ratings).

Proves our culture is broken. I always wondered how the Jerry Springer show stayed on for so long. Now this drama crap is expected of our presidential candidates. Who the hell cares about sound governance when you can watch daytime politics and be entertained by a sh** show

texagbeliever said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

FireAg said:

---

But every single poll is different...so how can you say "all polls" suck when they use different methodologies?

Again, I agree that and single poll is subject to intense scrutiny...I have zero issue with that...

Where I take issue is applying that same level of scuritny to "all polls" when you are looking at an average of what most experts generally accept as being the "best polls" for a a variety of reasons...

When applying them as part of an overall average, statistically speaking, you smooth out most outliers, thus giving you a pretty good "idea" of what is happening in general...

There was quite a bit of analysis and scrutiny applied to polling entities after 2016...the autopsies of 2016 had most polling firms modify their formats to help address the issues that were seen...sicne 2016, I am not aware of polling averages being categorically inaccurate...

Could they be this time, you bet they could...but until they are, I don't understand how anyone can claim such in good conscience...

---

Look, I could be wrong, I will admit that, but if you think the same people who thought to manipulate social media to shape public opinion a decade ago at this point now, with tools that are factors of 100x more effective, can't come up with the idea to manipulate the way even polling averages appear to affect your voting behavior seems naive.

There is ALWAYS a way to game the system. The incentives to do so have never been higher, and the tools to make it possible have never been more readily available.

---

This is what bugs me about the "anti-polling" folks…no one can point to anything more than "gut feeling" and "2016" as to why polling averages shouldn't be trusted…

I respect your honesty, and everyone is certainly entitled to believe what they want until the votes are cast…but if you look at things rationally, and without prejudice, it's hard to argue they aren't currently the best metric we have for gaining some insight as to what is going on…

---

Personally I think the polls will prove out now to be as accurate as YouTube comments. It's too valuable a system to game and there really is very little incentive to get it right and very few consequences for being wrong.

---

This makes no sense. If ALL the pollsters are getting fake results, then this would represent a fantastic opportunity for a smaller polling company to make a big name for themselves and capitalize on the money and attention of being the only one that got it right. That happened with 538 (they had Obama's inside polling), happened with Trafalgar.

The difference between youtube comments and pollsters is there is much more real $$s and reputation at stake to be off by 25-40+ points.

---

Actually you are wrong on that. The pollsters have had HUGE misses in the last few cycles, 20 and 30 point misses at the state level are becoming common. Yet they just keep on going because people love them. For instance Susan Collins was down double digits in virtually every poll going into her last election and won by double digits. No consequences.

You also have a lot of polls that are pretty new or that have been bought out. So you may see a brand name on one but it's been bought by someone else. That's part of why you see more and more polling companies with multiple names behind them and often times that still doesn't really indicate who is doing the poll.

On top of all of that no primary polls count for poll ratings. There is literally no accountability for them. The national primary polls are even worse because there will never be any way to know if they are accurate.

It's especially dumb to talk about polls now anyway, the Caucus is in a few days. The polls say Trump will win between 33 and 43 points. So as long as that happens they are legit. Nothing to worry about.

texagbeliever said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

FireAg said:

---

But every single poll is different...so how can you say "all polls" suck when they use different methodologies?

Again, I agree that and single poll is subject to intense scrutiny...I have zero issue with that...

Where I take issue is applying that same level of scuritny to "all polls" when you are looking at an average of what most experts generally accept as being the "best polls" for a a variety of reasons...

When applying them as part of an overall average, statistically speaking, you smooth out most outliers, thus giving you a pretty good "idea" of what is happening in general...

There was quite a bit of analysis and scrutiny applied to polling entities after 2016...the autopsies of 2016 had most polling firms modify their formats to help address the issues that were seen...sicne 2016, I am not aware of polling averages being categorically inaccurate...

Could they be this time, you bet they could...but until they are, I don't understand how anyone can claim such in good conscience...

---

Look, I could be wrong, I will admit that, but if you think the same people who thought to manipulate social media to shape public opinion a decade ago at this point now, with tools that are factors of 100x more effective, can't come up with the idea to manipulate the way even polling averages appear to affect your voting behavior seems naive.

There is ALWAYS a way to game the system. The incentives to do so have never been higher, and the tools to make it possible have never been more readily available.

---

This is what bugs me about the "anti-polling" folks…no one can point to anything more than "gut feeling" and "2016" as to why polling averages shouldn't be trusted…

I respect your honesty, and everyone is certainly entitled to believe what they want until the votes are cast…but if you look at things rationally, and without prejudice, it's hard to argue they aren't currently the best metric we have for gaining some insight as to what is going on…

---

Personally I think the polls will prove out now to be as accurate as YouTube comments. It's too valuable a system to game and there really is very little incentive to get it right and very few consequences for being wrong.

---

This makes no sense. If ALL the pollsters are getting fake results, then this would represent a fantastic opportunity for a smaller polling company to make a big name for themselves and capitalize on the money and attention of being the only one that got it right. That happened with 538 (they had Obama's inside polling), happened with Trafalgar.

The difference between youtube comments and pollsters is there is much more real $$s and reputation at stake to be off by 25-40+ points.

---

And how much more $$ and reputation is there to be made through the influence that it creates? The federal government spends $20k per man, woman, and child, and whoever has the influence over that expenditure controls way more than some pollster's budget. Did Twitter or Facebook flinch at there being $$ and reputation being at stake in the last election?

Some of you are all in on Covid being a long-con game to get the fraudulent votes in for Biden, but can't conceive of outside influence in media driven polls for a purpose.

Can you show me where the polling averages were off in 2022? Everything I recall (and have been able to dig up) says they were actually fairly acccurate...+/- 3 points on average...

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/11/polls-performance-midterms-results

As it relates to this debate and Iowa specfically, that level of difference wouldn't even move the needle with regard to the caucus outcome...

Now from the Iowa results in 2016, we know that polling was off by 8-9 points from the actual results...

As of today, Trump is +36 in the RCP average over Haley and +36.3 over DeSantis... Now I am still awaiting the last Des Moines Register publication, and I absolutely expect that poll to narrow the gap average in favor of DeSantis, both versus Haley and versus Trump... I have zero expectation that Haley finishes 2nd to Trump in Iowa...every reason to believe it will be DeSantis...

But when it comest to the polling averages, 36 points is an astronomically huge gap to overcome based on past history... Actuals swung 8-9 points from polling average to actaul votes on caucus day in 2016, and that is the wildest swing I am aware of (between polling average and actual votes) in Iowa caucus in history...

To put things in perspective, for DeSantis to win Iowa, he is going to need ~4X that swing (between polling average and actual votes) to pass and defeat Trump (as it stands now...I expect that number to come down a bit once the last Des Moines Register poll is factored in)...

How many undecideds are left in Iowa now?

I'd be surprised if there were a ton...why?

FireAg said:

---

I'd be surprised if there were a ton...why?

---

Agree I do not think there are very many but late or very late deciders in a caucus situation wherein their first choice gets eliminated and they vote again and again on the now new slate?

Why I asked. Margins of undecided can affect vote totals so was asking where those margins may fall.

FireAg said:

---

I'd be surprised if there were a ton...why?

---

There are 2 aspects to undecided: Those who say they are undecided and those who say they are still open to voting for another candidate. Keeping in mind a Republican Primary vote is not as stark of a difference in a vote for Trump vs DeSantis as Trump vs Biden (people are more likely to switch on voting day).

That said, Trump's base is generally the most loyal and ranks least likely to consider another candidate. Polls indicate that part out. This would be expected as well based on who comprises each base. That generally means the switching won't likely be Trump voters going to DeSantis/Haley.

Ah, I see what you're saying...

In that case, I do think Vivek gets eliminated, and many of those will switch back to Trump...

I concur with that assessment...

FireAg said:

---

Ah, I see what you're saying...

In that case, I do think Vivek gets eliminated, and many of those will switch back to Trump...

---

Exactly. Sorry I was rather inarticulate in how I phrased it.

Having actually caucused in Iowa a few times, you'd be surprised at the amount of "undecideds". That's why there are speakers before the votes are cast, and where Trump's team has issues with finding people to speak that don't turn people off. In 16, at mine and others', the Trump team got either laughed at or booed. Zero idea of wtf they were doing.

I was a caucus volunteer for Ron Paul in 2012, that was my experience as well.

CREAg87 said:

---

I was a caucus volunteer for Ron Paul in 2012, that was my experience as well.

---

Caucused for Paul that year.

BigRobSA said:

---

Having actually caucused in Iowa a few times, you'd be surprised at the amount of "undecideds". That's why there are speakers before the votes are cast, and where Trump's team has issues with finding people to speak that don't turn people off. In 16, at mine and others', the Trump team got either laughed at or booed. Zero idea of wtf they were doing.

---

Or they were just there for the doughnuts, cookies, cakes and hot chocolate?

FireAg said:

---

Can you show me where the polling averages were off in 2022? Everything I recall (and have been able to dig up) says they were actually fairly acccurate...+/- 3 points on average...

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/11/polls-performance-midterms-results

As it relates to this debate and Iowa specfically, that level of difference wouldn't even move the needle with regard to the caucus outcome...

Now from the Iowa results in 2016, we know that polling was off by 8-9 points from the actual results...

As of today, Trump is +36 in the RCP average over Haley and +36.3 over DeSantis... Now I am still awaiting the last Des Moines Register publication, and I absolutely expect that poll to narrow the gap average in favor of DeSantis, both versus Haley and versus Trump... I have zero expectation that Haley finishes 2nd to Trump in Iowa...every reason to believe it will be DeSantis...

But when it comest to the polling averages, 36 points is an astronomically huge gap to overcome based on past history... Actuals swung 8-9 points from polling average to actaul votes on caucus day in 2016, and that is the wildest swing I am aware of (between polling average and actual votes) in Iowa caucus in history...

To put things in perspective, for DeSantis to win Iowa, he is going to need ~4X that swing (between polling average and actual votes) to pass and defeat Trump (as it stands now...I expect that number to come down a bit once the last Des Moines Register poll is factored in)...

---

Don Bolduc was within 1 point and winning in several polls, lost by 9.1
Dixon was even closer and lost by over 10

Those were in races with a LOT of polls at the state level that were going to count on ratings. There have been very few in Iowa and none will count towards ratings. That's just off the top of my head.

Like I said though none of this matters, especially this close in. Maybe Trump wins by 33-43 like the polls say.

9-10 points..got it...

But 33+?

I believe polls can be "wrong" and Iowa 2016 missed by 9 points...but they aren't 30+ points wrong...