Reality Check - Iowa GOP Polls

OMG — OMG — C’s in the lead with 28%. And X is at 19-20%.

Headline today. Headline same time in 2012.

The situation in 2008 at this time was more stable. Romney had held the lead for months. And didn’t relinquish it until late November.

(Keep in mind that the 2016 Iowa caucus is scheduled for a month later than it was in 2008 and 2012.)

God-speak generally prevails in the Iowa GOP caucus. And when given a choice between loud-mouthed, crazy-eyed god-speak and lower-keyed god-speak, the latter wins. Hence, much to her surprise, Bachmann was rejected in favor of Santorum in 2012. Alan Keyes lost to GWB. Absent competition for the god-speak vote, it delivers approximately 35% on caucus evening.

Thus, in the year of our lord 2016, as Huck, Jindal, and Firorina drop, Dr. Ben rises.

Should Dr. Ben have a fatal slip on a banana peel, those voters will move on to Cruz or Rubio. As the crazy-eyed loudmouth, Cruz wouldn’t be favored. Should Dr. Ben hold on and win, the 2016 Iowa GOP caucus will join all the other prior caucuses that were irrelevant to the nomination of the GOP Presidential candidate.

2 Comments

Marie3 on October 23, 2015 at 2:41 pm

It’s nicely illustrated with the latest GOP Iowa polls — DMR and Q as presented at Real Clear Politics

Important evaluation considerations:

Pollsters’ reputation. DMR in Iowa is high. Q performed well in the 2014 Iowa Senate race.
The time frame in which the polls were conducted. Q’s was 10/14-10/20 and DMR’s was 10/16 – 10/19. What’s cool here is that if shifts were occurring among voters, Q’s results would contain some of that at the front and back end. Whereas DMR would present a clearer picture of where the voters were within a four-day window. The quick take-away is that both polls covered the same four days.
The similarities between the results for the candidates in the two polls. At the top of the leader board there is no difference: Carson 28 and Trump 19 or 20. From this it’s not unreasonable to conclude that Carson’s gains came on or before 10/14 and held for the week. Both polls picked up Trump’s slippage.

The numbers for all the candidate’s except Rubio are the same or within one point of each other. The four point difference for Rubio isn’t a big deal. Both detected a slight gain for Rubio over where he’d been for a couple of months, and it’s not uncommon to get “noise” with upwards and downwards shifts or be late to the party. If it had been DMR that had Rubio at 13 and Q had him at 9, then it would look more like Q was late. As it is Q that has him at 13, team Rubio shouldn’t get excited about it.

Should be fun to watch how Trump handles declining poll numbers.

Marie3 on October 26, 2015 at 4:40 pm

Two more polls — Loras College (discount their results a bit — methodology looks solid, but they seem not to get a good enough random sample) and Monmouth. In line with the other recent polls.

0% — Graham and Pataki
1% — Santorum and Christie
2% — Jindal, Huckabee, and Kasich
3%-4% — Paul and Fiorina
5%-6% — Buah
10% — Cruz and Rubio
19-20% — Trump
30% — Cruz

Marie3 on October 23, 2015 at 2:41 pm
It’s nicely illustrated with the latest GOP Iowa polls — DMR and Q as presented at Real Clear Politics

Important evaluation considerations:
1. Pollsters’ reputation. DMR in Iowa is high. Q performed well in the 2014 Iowa Senate race.
2. The time frame in which the polls were conducted. Q’s was 10/14-10/20 and DMR’s was 10/16 – 10/19. What’s cool here is that if shifts were occurring among voters, Q’s results would contain some of that at the front and back end. Whereas DMR would present a clearer picture of where the voters were within a four-day window. The quick take-away is that both polls covered the same four days.
3. The similarities between the results for the candidates in the two polls. At the top of the leader board there is no difference: Carson 28 and Trump 19 or 20. From this it’s not unreasonable to conclude that Carson’s gains came on or before 10/14 and held for the week. Both polls picked up Trump’s slippage.
The numbers for all the candidate’s except Rubio are the same or within one point of each other. The four point difference for Rubio isn’t a big deal. Both detected a slight gain for Rubio over where he’d been for a couple of months, and it’s not uncommon to get “noise” with upwards and downwards shifts or be late to the party. If it had been DMR that had Rubio at 13 and Q had him at 9, then it would look more like Q was late. As it is Q that has him at 13, team Rubio shouldn’t get excited about it.

Should be fun to watch how Trump handles declining poll numbers.
Marie3 on October 26, 2015 at 4:40 pm

Two more polls — Loras College (discount their results a bit — methodology looks solid, but they seem not to get a good enough random sample) and Monmouth. In line with the other recent polls.

0% — Graham and Pataki
1% — Santorum and Christie
2% — Jindal, Huckabee, and Kasich
3%-4% — Paul and Fiorina
5%-6% — Buah
10% — Cruz and Rubio
19-20% — Trump
30% — Cruz

Reality Check — Iowa GOP Polls

About The Author

Marie3

2 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments