What are the Straw Polls Saying?
By Neil Stevens Posted in 2008 — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Commentators have made much hay out of various straw poll results, placing great importance on them for lesser-known candidates. But what exactly are they saying? Let's find out.
Oklahomans for Ron Paul Wiki has a nice chart of a large number of straw polls, which is no surprise given that Ron Paul's supporters have made great efforts to win straw polls. Here is a chart showing how many times each remaining candidate has finished first, second, or third in any of those straw polls:
It turns out if you weight the finishes by place (five points for first, three for second, one for third), the chart doesn't change much:
Romney, Thompson, and Paul all trade places, but they're still far ahead of the pack.
We all know Ron Paul isn't going to win this thing, though, so let's exclude him. Yes, yes, yes, I know there are all kinds of problems with just deleting Ron Paul's votes and seeing who would have finishes where without him, but I'm curious. So here we go:
Now we're seeing some change. All other candidates gain, including Tancredo who goes from El Zilcho to three third place finishes, but by far the biggest winner is Rudy Giuliani, who soars above the pack and into a solid third place. Hunter and Huckabee then make up their own tier, above McCain, Brownback, and Tancredo.
Once again, weighting the results flip-flops the two leaders, because Thompson has slightly more first place finishes but Romney has more overall finishes, but it's still clearly a three man race.
If straw polls mean anything then Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani will be representing the Republican Party in November 2008, with no doubt about it. It's a three man race, and the neck-and-neck frontrunners are Thompson and Romney.
Nothing. Because straw polls are worthless demonstrations of flawed information.
But you already knew that...
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
and ya wanna watch how you throw around the term "making hay" please? Some of us are sensitive you know.
heh
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Of course, deleting one candidate while keeping nine others is ultimately an enormous bias, but let's get past that. We all know you guys are mentally deranged in the anti-Paulism, so I'll overlook that indiscretion.
Say what you will about Straw Polls, but they DO tell you something. They tell you who the motivated voters are supporting, and strangely enough, that's exactly who you'd expect to see winning. Also strangely, the motivated voters are the ones who usually show up for primaries. Go figure.
Everyone knows that Straw Polls don't guarantee anything. But neither do number of blog postings, or dollars raised, or even Gallup Polls, especially the ones this far out from the actual vote. But each of these measures gives you some small indication of what to expect.
What this shows, as I've been saying for months now, is that the race is really between Romney, Fred, and Ron Paul. These are the candidates who have motivated supporters, the ability to catch on with new voters, and the ability to get the message out despite the obstacles. Giuliani is at his high point. Just like we realized about McCain. One everyone knows who the candidate is and where he stands, he's got all the support he's going to get. Giuliani has nothing new to offer. He's a known quantity, and a pretty large contingent of us don't like what we know.
As much as you argue that "Paul can't win", he's in the race for good. So, it would be considered respectable if you'd just let him either win or lose without such ridiculous behavior as deleting him from polls. It doesn't really change anything, does it?
so your analysis puts the guy in 1st place out of the running, and the guy is last place in the lead. Well that is something!Molon Labe!
"Also strangely, the motivated voters are the ones who usually show up for primaries."
Do you have a source for that? I simply DO NOT believe that is the least bit true. I give you the Texas state legislature as a perfect example.
"One everyone knows who the candidate is and where he stands, he's got all the support he's going to get."
Perhaps. The problem is that "everyone" won't know who the candidates are or where they stand before the primaries. Even primary voters won't.
"As much as you argue that 'Paul can't win', he's in the race for good."
That's true if he accepts the invitation from the Constipation Party after losing as a Republican.
I'm filtering my data. Milliken did it when he measured the charge of the electron, so I'm doing it when I measure the straw poll rankings of the candidates.
Identifiable sources of error can be accounted for when one does analysis of measurements, of course!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
1) some people like the fair tax ( Huckabee 2nd in Iowa)
2) Texans support the war ( D.Hunter win )
3) People are sick of spending ( R.Paul and his minions )
They have nothing to do with the ability to win the nomination which is basically down to Thompson, Romney, Guiliani with very, very unlikely scenarios for McCain and Huckabee.
Huh? Oh... I get it. You're just cherry picking the polls with the results you find interesting, I see. The fact that Romney and Thompson have the broad base of support and/or well-honed political machinery to scoop up poll after poll after poll, that just doesn't interest you so you ignore it.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
So let me add that the straw polls also show something for those two ... either popularity or better organization or a different approach.
Rudy, it seems, is focused on going for a name recognition media driven campaign.
Romney's just doing a by-the-numbers, traditional camapgin:
1. Make headlines in his previous position
2. Build a well-funded, nationwide campaign to build name recognition
3. Secure himself a win in at least one of Iowa and New Hampshire
Thompson, on the other hand, seems to be taking the opposite approach. New media and grass roots are the keys. One might even say it's Howard Dean-like, only without the downside of being Howard Dean.
And yes, I think Giuliani is trying to nationalize this thing. He's banking on winning big states, and particularly big, left-leaning states. If he can get 'independents' out in droves in places like California, New York, and Florida, then he gets an edge that way.
It's all very exciting, and it's coming through in the straw polls. It's also sucking all the air out of the room, throwing out a good candidate like Gilmore before he even really got started, and suffocating guys like Huckabee and Hunter who in most years would have had good changes.
Of course, if the straw polls aren't very accurate at measuring activity levels, then all bets are off. But I just don't see anything positive for anyone but Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson in the straw polls. Just look at the weighted results: anyone but those three just isn't able to win very often.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
like Gilmore?
Less exciting than Brownback, less successful governor than Romney. Singlehandedly gave Virginia to the Democrats.
I lived there when it happened.
I'd been told he was strong on taxes and got good things done out there.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
I need to watch my tone after troll fighting elsewhere, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
When you really search your mind you will have to admit that the only choice when it comes to experience and qualifications Senator McCain is the only real candidate for President. As far as these polls by the time you make your way through all the obstacles the poll is over. Could it possibly be a CNN all over again?
What obstacles are you talking about? CNN plants democratically focused issues. No matter what people may say, any poll has some bias (from phrasology to ordering of the candidates etc). Are you talking about democrat bias here?
No more than likely wishful thinking like your screen name.
You don't have to exclude Paul voters from this kind of a poll if enough supporters of other candidates show up. About 40% of Paul voters don't even offer a second choice.
At the moment, Fred Thompson is winning the runoff here
http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=116
Ron Paul is currently winning this 28 hour poll, but it could be flipped with just a handful of votes
http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=120