My two cents to Trump's billions - I cringed when he spoke about walls at an Iowa caucus site. He should stop bragging about building beautiful walls in farmlands like Iowa since they rely on the very labor that will be stopped by these walls.
(Same advice for places that rely on tourism and hospitality industry).
(Same advice for places that rely on tourism and hospitality industry).
15
Running around calling everyone a Liar might have done it.
18
The important thing for Trump is that we are still talking, reading and writing about Trump. He came in second in Iowa. Pres. Huckabbee, Santorum, and Robertson came in first there and marched no further. Time will tell eh?
5
The answer is very simple. Trump did not have a ground game in Iowa. Compared to Cruz he had a skeleton crew on the ground.
3
Considering the crowds that Trump was getting at his gatherings, it seems most of them were more in it to be a participant in a "reality show" rather than be actual voters that support his policies, of where there weren't any.
21
Sorry, Nate, while I really respect the work you've done, it's pretty simple to figure out why polls are often wrong. Sometimes wildly wrong.
The first and best reason is that people no longer have home phones, and they don't answer their cell phone if they don't know who is calling. That makes pollsters desperate for respondents, and they then have to select responses from insignificant constituencies, or else they just make stuff up. Prime example of that is Romney not even writing a concession speech in 2012 because his pollsters kept telling him he was ahead by 6-7 points right up to election day, when Obama pummeled him. If you watched Turd Blossom's reaction on Fox News when Ohio reported in, you could see how wrong his pollsters were. Epic failure.
The second reason is more visceral. People simply don't feel an obligation to tell pollsters the truth. Whether it's because they are embarrassed by their choices, or want to make the pollsters look stupid because they've really, really had enough with being interrogated, they just lie. I know people who do that for fun. No way for pollsters to determine that or account for it.
Some stunning recent examples of polls gone wildly wrong: The British national election, and the Canadian national election, both of which were utterly, totally, completely miscalled by just about every polling outfit in both countries.
The first and best reason is that people no longer have home phones, and they don't answer their cell phone if they don't know who is calling. That makes pollsters desperate for respondents, and they then have to select responses from insignificant constituencies, or else they just make stuff up. Prime example of that is Romney not even writing a concession speech in 2012 because his pollsters kept telling him he was ahead by 6-7 points right up to election day, when Obama pummeled him. If you watched Turd Blossom's reaction on Fox News when Ohio reported in, you could see how wrong his pollsters were. Epic failure.
The second reason is more visceral. People simply don't feel an obligation to tell pollsters the truth. Whether it's because they are embarrassed by their choices, or want to make the pollsters look stupid because they've really, really had enough with being interrogated, they just lie. I know people who do that for fun. No way for pollsters to determine that or account for it.
Some stunning recent examples of polls gone wildly wrong: The British national election, and the Canadian national election, both of which were utterly, totally, completely miscalled by just about every polling outfit in both countries.
19
I'm very surprised that you didn't address the elephant in the room--polling in general is no longer very accurate due to the spread of cell phones and that more polling organizations are using the Internet for their samples. Good polls are very expensive nowadays. We're getting the cheap imitation "designer" handbags sidewalk merchants try to sell us on Fifth Avenue. We may think they're the real thing, but they fall apart quickly.
8
Trump is in it for the shock value. He is in it to promote himself and whether he becomes president or not, he is going to win. I don't think there was an incident in the polling, I think his over the top shenanigans affected his fan base. Look at what has been coming out of his mouth that got even the Republicans heated. He has Sarah Palin on his team, he has Joe Arpaio on his team that is in a legal battle right now for discrimination. He practically stated that his fan base was so gullible, he could shoot and kill someone and still win. Trump say the most outlandish garbage without facts or strategy how he is going to accomplish it. All he does in these debates is mudslinging and grandizing who he is and his power you forget to what he said about his plans and strategies to actually "Make This Country Great Again"
14
I think it's one thing to say "I am for Trump..." it's another thing for the serious voter to pull the lever on the voting machine saying "Donald Trump"!
Ary Kempler
Ary Kempler
4
Starting from 2004? That a pretty small dataset, and must be fairly limited if you look at what others polls said of Paul, Huckabee, and Santorum at the time.
Trump had a 7pt 'lead' but lost by 3%. Since he's at a 20pt lead in New Hampshire, a similar 10pt swing will still have him winning comfortably.
Sorry to burst the foggy bubble of anti-Trump fervor there in your newsroom, but Trump will win New Hampshire and continue to rack up wins through Super-Tuesday.
Trump had a 7pt 'lead' but lost by 3%. Since he's at a 20pt lead in New Hampshire, a similar 10pt swing will still have him winning comfortably.
Sorry to burst the foggy bubble of anti-Trump fervor there in your newsroom, but Trump will win New Hampshire and continue to rack up wins through Super-Tuesday.
2
Here in NH, we have been inundated with polling calls. Most people simply pick up the ringing phone and put it down again, refusing to be disturbed. Others--and even I have stooped to this--respond, but make up our answers. I heard someone I know is an R answer "Bernie Sanders". What was the poll?, I asked, "Oh, just another Hillary Clinton poll." As a D I have answered truthfully that I would never vote for Cruz or Trump, but further down the list, picked Rand Paul as my choice. (I can't vote in the R primary.) But several days later, I was interested to hear that Rand Paul was surging. Had I helped?
We are all just tired of the phone calls. I for one doubt their accuracy.
We are all just tired of the phone calls. I for one doubt their accuracy.
14
I would like the media to give Donald Trump just 1/10 the of the scrutiny they give Hillary, I suspect mostly because she is a woman. The summer would rapidly turn into the unraveling of Trump.
18
Donald Trump is fun to watch, just like any reality show participant. And I'm sure at his rallies, people were fueled by his bravado and outrageous comments. However, the 'real reality' of having a character like Trump as president and leader of the free world might have scared some of the voters away from him. That said, Ted Cruz is no better, though he may speak less like a boxer and more like a minister. My guess is that Rubio will emerge as the winner.
6
Trump's strategy is about as subtle as yelling into a megaphone. It turns heads, they say "yeah" when asked about him, then we are surprised that the real voters act differently. Trump is just hot air. This proves he is arrogant, naive, and ignorant of the American political system. Shabby celebrity nonsense, capricious support, complete lack of substance.
9
What could it mean? It could mean that the vast majority of Iowans couldn't care less. Likely, it means nothing - absolutely nothing at all.
2
What about the most common, most likely, explanation: people lie. In online usability testing, the only way to really know what's broken is to watch people interact with the website. If you survey them, you might get a glimmer of accuracy - which is better than nothing - but the truth is elusive. The reality of how Donald Trump was "doing" was always going to play out the way it did, despite the polls. Pollsters were the ones who created the mythology of Trump having any standing at all. He's just doing his thing. Pollsters jnvented the story about it.
2
"It’s probably not a coincidence that the candidate who underperformed the polls by the most is also the one who had a mediocre turnout operation"
I thought Trump's main selling point is that he hires all the best people and knows how to run things. Doesn't the above fact undermine his arguement?
I thought Trump's main selling point is that he hires all the best people and knows how to run things. Doesn't the above fact undermine his arguement?
10
The fact that Iowa is a caucus state just skews everything. What happens there should go back to being ignored, as it was until 1976. Let's see what happens vis-à-vis the polls and actual results once the primaries begin.
6
Voters should be deciding who to support based on the issues and not on what what the polls say. With all
2
The most telling comment in the whole article: "In the end, we rarely know exactly why polls were wrong." Which means all the rest of this is fluff, couched in should, woulds and maybes. And that polling, at least in this case, is as effective at predicting winners as tip sheets at the racetrack, or recommendations from stockbrokers.
3
NYT ( I like you) but stop crowing about this.
Trump is not done yet and never will be!
Trump is not done yet and never will be!
1
Nonsense. What it means is that polls sponsored by media outlets tend to be misinterpreted, or susceptible to mis-sampling, such that they become meaningless. Fodder for babble, and media meandering. Little more.
Only voting matters, not words in a game of liars poker.
As for the Trumpster...he's a huckster and showman, not a leader. His tenure in the race will last as long as his ego can take the hits, and he's willing to spend his money. Iowa only partially recognized his shallowness. New Hampshire will do better.
As for St. Paul's second letter to the church at Corinth, Donald... it ain't "two corinthians". Just 'cause you went to church once doesn't make you an evangelical. What'd you do the Sunday before?
Only voting matters, not words in a game of liars poker.
As for the Trumpster...he's a huckster and showman, not a leader. His tenure in the race will last as long as his ego can take the hits, and he's willing to spend his money. Iowa only partially recognized his shallowness. New Hampshire will do better.
As for St. Paul's second letter to the church at Corinth, Donald... it ain't "two corinthians". Just 'cause you went to church once doesn't make you an evangelical. What'd you do the Sunday before?
5
Why is this a surprise? People have been saying for months that Trump's biggest supporters were people who hadn't voted or caucused in years. Those folks are (obviously) the least likely to vote or caucus. Did people expect them to suddenly change their long-established habits for Trump? The media seemingly brainwashes not just the gullible and unwary, but itself as well.
6
I think Trump did very well for a charlatan. And Cruz even better for a phony evangelist type. I hope one of them gets the Republican nomination. Should end up with another Democrat landslide.
17
IF Nate had bothered to read the wonderful opinion/analysis by Cliff Zukin, (Professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers University and a past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research)- titled "What’s the Matter With Polling?" (June 20, 2015- New York Times) there would have been no need to write today's piece.
.
.
4
Late deciders? Not by my analysis. Clovis never delivered. Trump was standing on sand while the tide was going out around him. Cruz is laughing. So is Clovis. Sue them all! Have fun everybody.
Donald, you probably figured this out already. In fact, I don't envy anyone who had to spend the whole of last night with you. But, Clovis robbed you blind. In fact, he might have 'shlonged you' as you put it, and gotten paid by Cruz's or Rubio's people to go through the motions, take your money and deliver a third place finish. You almost thwarted him with your no-debate grandstand. But, that wasn't enough for the Iowa ground game. Clovis robbed you blind.
Aligning himself with Sarah Palin was a major reason for John McCain's losing the presidency. Promising her a cabinet position has hurt Donald Trump as well.
4
I am a believer in Occam's Razor. I am no fan of Mr. Trumps. However, if I were him, I'd look no further than at the pulchritudinous putrid bulk of Clovis Man. Donald, a con man, was had, by a mid-western con man. It was obvious from the time the generous bulk of Clovis rolled off of Perry's apple cart instead of onto Cruz. Donald the easiest con is by another Con. You were Gondorfed.
2
The other way to look at this is that the Iowa voting process is not a very good way to find out what people think
7
Ever since a 1988 race in Louisiana, I've been leery of polls and the polling process:
In 1988 David Duke had terrible polling numbers (low teens) but received 33% of the primary votes and 50.7% of the runoff votes in the 1988 District 81 special election to the Louisiana House of Representatives.
It was suggested that no one wanted to be publicly linked with a former KKK Grand Wizard and noted racist but were more than willing to vote for him...
In 1988 David Duke had terrible polling numbers (low teens) but received 33% of the primary votes and 50.7% of the runoff votes in the 1988 District 81 special election to the Louisiana House of Representatives.
It was suggested that no one wanted to be publicly linked with a former KKK Grand Wizard and noted racist but were more than willing to vote for him...
5
"What it meant is"; every media outlet spent far too much time wasting column inches on "Trump Click-bait"!
4
Drat! We had to deal with this obnoxious man leading for a year and now he might not make it to the nomination? There's not enough water in the world to wash that stink off before the election; could have made it up to us rational people by putting him on the ticket.
2
Trump never was a shoe-in candidate in Iowa. The final outcome always was something of an unknown and remained dependent on many factors. For all these "experts" suddenly to come out of the woodwork with their smug "expertise" after the fact, let's just wait ans see what happens in New Hampshire. It will be interesting to see how the "experts" spin the outcome there. Should there be a Trump victory, will we see new pontifications and new analytical expertise again on show.
Glad this clown show is almost coming to an end. Trump will fail in New Hampshire and then maybe with the rise of Marco Rubio and the reality that Bernie Sanders is a dream we can have a decent conversation without the insults and basic stupidity.
Must say though Donald Trump will be analyzed in every marketing classroom in America.
Must say though Donald Trump will be analyzed in every marketing classroom in America.
3
I have yet to hear an explanation of how pollsters are adjusting for the huge numbers of folks that no longer have a land line. That is not a random group; it has specific demographics, and it would appear to be significantly undersampled.
3
Isn't there a fourth way for polls to be inaccurate? Responders just want to mess with the poster, and give whatever outrageous response comes into their head. Like responding "Donald Trump." Then it's "ha, ha you dopey pollster for ruining my dinner with that stupid phone call...."
3
"Late-deciders"? If you have to decide at the last minute on who to vote for...your vote isn't really worth much because you had more than enough time to think about it. Basically, you didn't really think about it at all because you just don't care.
4
You didn't mention the "how stupid is Iowa" controversy that probably hurt Trump as well as skipping the debate (name recognition, unfortunately, means a lot in US elections).
1
Trump's supporters are not voters for the most part. People who apparently understand this election beter than mainstream media called that a long time ago.
3
It would appear that the likely voter model for Trump failed. To me the most likely explanation is that Trump's supporters are just like Trump: All words, no substance.
5
Nonverbal Communication Analysis No. 3454: Donald Trump - Buying the Farm after 2nd Place Finish in Iowa Caucuses - Body Language
http://www.bodylanguagesuccess.com/2016/02/nonverbal-communication-analy...
http://www.bodylanguagesuccess.com/2016/02/nonverbal-communication-analy...
3
Now who's the fat, ugly loser?
6
Of course it couldn't be a sampling error. That would be the onus on Mr. Cohn and his fellow pollsters.
Iowa (and NH) are just odd ducks in many ways.
Trump's support turns out to be just as phony and puffed up as his hair and his ego.
Go Kasich Go!!!
Iowa (and NH) are just odd ducks in many ways.
Trump's support turns out to be just as phony and puffed up as his hair and his ego.
Go Kasich Go!!!
In my humble opinion the the writer forgot one other reason at least for why polls go wrong: the idiots that when polled said "I'm going to vote for Trump" won't put down the bong, the Cheetos, turn off the reality TV and go to the polls.
3
As a 30 year NH resident and subject to the scrutiny that comes with being one of the first in the nation primaries and I would offer my perspective on the polling process and the inaccuracies that present themselves when the voting occurs. Previously, I answered a few telephone polls but like most I tried to ignore the intrusion. This year I decided that I would answer all the telephone poles as possible as my contribution to the democratic process in response to the seemingly disconnect with the polls and the actual voting. Sadly the questions posed were often stunningly stupid and the choices for answers laughingly prescribed. Example, push one if you consider yourself evangelical, push two if not, no other choice! Either I believed in god in that realm or I was most likely damned. As an atheist I found this one question galling. There were many other questions that were steering and lacking in openness. Push polls would be a kind description of a few that I have responded to. I would recommend that the NYT take a look at the polling questions, not the results. Then, you will understand the discrepancies that seem to stun even the seasoned pollsters.
4
My question: do the pollsters actually believe poll respondents are telling the truth -- to the pollster, or to themselves? The public now *assumes* the media "spins" stories...and what better way to counter such spinning than lying to pollsters and "monkeywrenching" the system? I can see Voter A saying "I'm voting for Trump" for both a) the entertainment value and b) to screw up the system, and Voter B saying the same NOT because he / she really intends to vote for Trump, but to register a protest...and vote differently when the vote truly matters....
1
Is it possible the polls, that anointed Trump, have been wrong all along. I sense he is getting less coverage on the networks. Perhaps now they will ask him to pay for his adds, thinly disguised as news coverage.
3
You failed to mention Donald Trump got more votes than Bush and Reagan '80, Dole '88, ´Dole '96, Bush '00, Huckabee '08. Who cares about all your possibilities and why you think it he underperformed. He lost Iowa, big deal.
In a twist on that old new yorker cartoon, sometimes the internet (and the Iowa caucus) really does know that you're a dog, Donald.
1
This one is easy: Trump supporters are the type of people who *thought* they were registered to vote. "“Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful. Why, looky here."
1
Logical consistency suggests that Sanders enjoyed "late movement" as well, since Nate Silver's gold standard pollster forecast Clinton 48, Sanders 45.
1
Secrecy is not a characteristic of a caucus so that results might be skewed in relation to a more anonymous poll or even a more anonymous polling booth. If, for example, in the Iowa caucuses someone was embarrassed to support Donald Trump, heorshe would probably be easily swayed to support another candidate or simply stay home and not attend the caucus.
2
Nate raises a fascinating mismatch between polls and results and raises of number of possible explanations. There is an additional possibility. What is the universe which the pollster is sampling? The polls represent the universe of the electorate. The results are the universe of the voters. There are important distinctions between the two. We should expect differences.
The key to this election seems to be the turnout of the Evangelicals. Pollsters can develop tools to predict whether individuals will vote, but predicting a collective effort goes beyond science: it entails a leap of faith. As in, "I believe that the Evangelicals will turn out more heavily in this election than they have in the past." Now, it turns out that statement would have been prescient, but it probably does not belong in a pollsters bag of tricks.
The key to this election seems to be the turnout of the Evangelicals. Pollsters can develop tools to predict whether individuals will vote, but predicting a collective effort goes beyond science: it entails a leap of faith. As in, "I believe that the Evangelicals will turn out more heavily in this election than they have in the past." Now, it turns out that statement would have been prescient, but it probably does not belong in a pollsters bag of tricks.
2
My apologies for my earlier post suggesting Mr. Cohn was in error - I was in error in conflating the legendary "Yes We Can" speech w/a primary win. Guess my memory of the power of the speech trumped the outcome of the day. I am sorry.
There is another explanation. A quirk in the caucus process itself.
It's my understanding from the media that if there are not enough voters to form a caucus for a particular candidate, those voters must join another group.
With such a large field of candidates, the real question becomes who where those voters going to caucus with when there weren't enough to form a group for their first choice. I'm not aware of any polling that asked voters for their second, and even third choice.
From a smaller group of candidates HOP Iowa voters again chose the most right wing evangelical. Viewed this way, the results are no suprise.
I believe the anti-establishment wave is strong and that Trump (the outsider) will eventually beat Rubio (the establishment). Cruz is simply too religious and right-wing to win.
It's my understanding from the media that if there are not enough voters to form a caucus for a particular candidate, those voters must join another group.
With such a large field of candidates, the real question becomes who where those voters going to caucus with when there weren't enough to form a group for their first choice. I'm not aware of any polling that asked voters for their second, and even third choice.
From a smaller group of candidates HOP Iowa voters again chose the most right wing evangelical. Viewed this way, the results are no suprise.
I believe the anti-establishment wave is strong and that Trump (the outsider) will eventually beat Rubio (the establishment). Cruz is simply too religious and right-wing to win.
2
Nate, I'd offer third explanation for the disparity between the polls and the final results:
I don't think you have taken into account the psychology at play. When a Trump is sitting in isolation in their house, they may well feel very strongly that they support him. But when you get out among the broader population of voters and suddenly discover that the solid majority is very much opposed to Trump, that could very quickly change.
I remember observing some open discussions around polling places. Perhaps it's not proper or shouldn't be allowed, but this *does* happen, even during the General election: people discuss their votes nearby. Now in the much more informal caucus setting, a lot of people were probably chatting, and getting a sense for how others are voting. Rest assured that some disparaging things were said about this or that candidate. In that scenario, unfavorability becomes especially important, and Trump's persuasiveness likely faded.
I don't think you have taken into account the psychology at play. When a Trump is sitting in isolation in their house, they may well feel very strongly that they support him. But when you get out among the broader population of voters and suddenly discover that the solid majority is very much opposed to Trump, that could very quickly change.
I remember observing some open discussions around polling places. Perhaps it's not proper or shouldn't be allowed, but this *does* happen, even during the General election: people discuss their votes nearby. Now in the much more informal caucus setting, a lot of people were probably chatting, and getting a sense for how others are voting. Rest assured that some disparaging things were said about this or that candidate. In that scenario, unfavorability becomes especially important, and Trump's persuasiveness likely faded.
3
The article pins the massive (and unprecedented) Iowa polling error of over 10 points on "late deciders", but isn't the entire purpose of polling to reflect a statically reasonable outcome in the first place?
In my opinion and that of a growing number of observers, pollsters are not doing their job and instead relying on unreliable bias of social media and other online media instead in order to come up with results, which explains the disastrous failure of polls about Trump.
Polls also seem to completely ignore the fact that Trump is viewed as a wrecking ball to Conservative cause, a crucial metrics to take into account when calculating margins of error.
In my opinion and that of a growing number of observers, pollsters are not doing their job and instead relying on unreliable bias of social media and other online media instead in order to come up with results, which explains the disastrous failure of polls about Trump.
Polls also seem to completely ignore the fact that Trump is viewed as a wrecking ball to Conservative cause, a crucial metrics to take into account when calculating margins of error.
2
Iowa's track record, at least on the GOP side isn't very reliable. Just because Evangelical Christians are willing to get out on a cold winter's night hasn't meant they are a good predictor of who will get the nomination in the long run. The pandering to this segment of the electorate who dominate Iowa are a turn off to many other people (including myself). Many people decline to respond to polls anymore. Young people only have cell phones, so probably aren't captured. Unfortunately the percentage of people who actually vote keeps declining, which means the extremist elements who are very committed have an out sized influence, which is bad for our democracy.
7
Perhaps in 4 years we could have people vote before they participate in the Iowa caucus and, while this vote would not count, tally it along with the final caucus results. Until then, articles like this are useless. I believe that polls cannot possibly account for all the variables at play in a caucus. IMHO candidates in a caucus can punch above their weight if their voters are more passionate or more experienced than the rest. For all of Donald Trump's braggadocio, he was out hustled and out organized by Ted Cruz.
1
In polls of Republicans both nationally and in Iowa, Trump received about four percent less support if the interview was conducted by a human being rather than an automated phone call or over the Internet. The usual "social acceptability" explanation for this finding would be that Trump supporters may have been less willing to admit their preference to another human being than to a robot. But the actual result in Iowa suggests the live interviews were the more reliable measures of Trump's support. Perhaps people are more likely to misrepresent their preferences in an automated poll and chose Trump just to play with the pollsters. In the future we might want to focus more on polls that use human interviewers when evaluating support for Donald Trump.
http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/2016/01/11/a-tale-of-two-candidacies/
http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/2016/01/11/a-tale-of-two-candidacies/
3
Polls generally being nonsense, one more load of filler designed to make news sources seem more deserving of the public's attention than they really are.
Understood, it's a business that requires customers. But let's not give polls importance beyond the "something to talk about" status they actually warrant.
In my opinion.
Understood, it's a business that requires customers. But let's not give polls importance beyond the "something to talk about" status they actually warrant.
In my opinion.
6
Opinion generally being nonsense, one more load of filler designed to make sidebar comments seem more deserving of the public's attention than they really are. Understood, it's a compulsion that requires being heard. But let's not give sidebar comments importance beyond the "something to talk about" status they actually warrant. In my opinion
There are plenty of people who enjoy toying with pollsters, perhaps there are even more of them this year. I could see public motive in building up Trump just to watch him crash and burn. Perhaps the electorate isn't quite as gullible and is a little more vindictive than previously assumed.
4
Trump's biggest supporters are not long time Republicans but rather the folks who don't typically vote and if they were inclined to vote are more likely to vote Democrat. Trump does not appeal to conservatives.
It would be interesting to someone to analyze the caucus participants this yea relative to the last few presidential elections.
It would be interesting to someone to analyze the caucus participants this yea relative to the last few presidential elections.
1
All of the above were factors. It will take one or two more contests in states with varied demographics to tell. Only after those extra stats are collected, analysts can determine which conditions had the greater impact. It can be said that Trump is at least slightly weaker and less organized overall, than most expected. True reality, as opposed to reality tv always wins in the end.
4
This result that is so far outside the margin of error is also exactly what you see when the vote count has been hacked. This is a huge red flag. Even though I would be horrified to see Trump nominated, the integrity of the electoral process is critical. I would rather see him win fair and square than lose because the vote was stolen.
5
Or it could just be for the reason that everyone is pointing to: actual politicians like Cruz and Rubio have field operations that target potential voters and encourage them to get out and vote. Trump hardly had a field operation with people on the ground, so the percentage of his supporters that came out to vote was lower.
6
Who do you see as potentially responsible. Would they not have more to lose than win
You mean like Hillary stole votes from Sanders last night?
All this analysis on how polls are sampled and interpreted prior to the vote and then how the results differed. The elephant in the room seems to be that Trump and the pundits clearly undervalued the impact off Trumps skipping the debate less than four days to the caucuses. This short window clearly didn't allow the trailing polls to accurately register the voter response to such behavior. Trump didn't win the media wars by acting petulant. I assert he loss. Now to see if he learned.
8
I always thought that Trump's polling support was soft. I just could not believe that so many folks, no matter how angry or frustrated with the system they were, would support such a bombastic candidate. It seems to be the Tom Bradley syndrome. In 1982, Mr. Bradley, the mayor of Los Angeles, enjoyed a comfortable lead on the eve of the California governor's election. His opponent George Deukmajian was regarded as an non charismatic politician. Yet Deukmajian coasted to an easy victory. The post mortem concluded that voters were inherently racist and would not confess to a pollster that they were unwilling to vote for an African American. The same effect may be occurring here. Voters who profess to pollsters that they support Trump may not have the gumption to actually vote for the candidate. Perhaps they feel empowered to state that they intend to vote for the Donald but when they are in the ballot booth, they are unable or unwilling to pull the ballot lever for the candidate.
1
As someone has commented in another article, in Iowa the polling may be secret but the caucus voting is not. So what a voter might say in a confidential poll might be different than he or she might be willing to expose in a caucus.
1
This analysis complicated things so. Trump's polls prior to the primary were 28%. Cruz's 24%. Cruz ended up at 28%, Trump at 24%. A 4% shift, likely due to get out the vote efforts, and superior commitment by bible thumpers. I know pundits have to justify those fat salaries, but really?
8
TRUMP Is hard to underestimate. He has managed to use his formidable resources and tactics to place himself center stage while he goes from one venue to another throwing dung into the punchbowl. His poisoning of the political process by whipping a small minority of voters into a blind frenzy with his peurile, often infantile posturing has come to an end. Many fewer people than Trump would have liked had swallowed the poisoned Purple Kool Aid. As David Brooks so aptly described the situation, Trump appeals to the "low information" voters. A polite way of saying that his attempt was a current day version of the Know Nothing Party, when it constituted a political movement was against granting rights to immigrants. The Know Nothings was such an embarrassment and a resounding failure that documents about the history of the organization were destroyed. While it is inconceivable that all related to Trumps version of the Know Nothings will be disappeared from cyberspace, I think that history will view him as an example of what can go wrong when a person with money and power thinks that the whole nation is for sale. Well, we may be open for business, but we're not going be Trumped out of our freedoms.
12
Trump used his television persona to browbeat the voters and media alike into thinking he has(d) substance. The media were all too willing to featuring him on every broadcast and on every broadsheet. The problem is that there is no substance to his puerile bragging and there is no way a person as thin skinned as Trump could ever withstand the heat and questioning of a protracted campaign
2
The term "low information voter" was actually coined by Rush Limbaugh.
Trump appeals to the people who do not vote, and to the people who would otherwise vote Democrat.
If the country is for sale, the risk is from Hillary.
If the country is for sale, the risk is from Hillary.
Just like all polls and voting, two things happen, what a person say they are going to do and what they actually do are two different things. Second, the research shows the actual decision is made at the very end when voting.
Yes, but until recently, polls had been astoundingly accurate, to the point where I wondered why we bother spending money on printing ballots (or creating computerized forms of them) and actually voting. If you could survey 536 Likely Voters and predict the results of even close elections, why bother making millions in a state go out to vote, often waiting in long lines in lousy weather? Something has changed in the last six years or so. I certainly can't pinpoint what it is, but there are plenty of articles about it, offering a variety of answers like this one does, often from baffled pollsters themselves. They, after all, are not trying to fail, since they also do research for private companies on other matters and want their results to be trusted by those clients in order to keep them as clients.
3
correct on using polling instead of elections. There have been a number of science fiction stories proposing that is where we might end up. As a now retired scientist who worked as a statistician for a number of years, polls are fairly accurate, but surveys(particularly political surveys) are fraught with errors of the wording of questions, etc.
3
What's happened is that pollsters haven't adjusted to the fact that more and more people aren't easily accessible by landline phone and other traditional means of contacting potential voters. Constituencies and the ability to contact them have been fragmented by the advent of too many diverse platforms.
3
one of the possible explanation for why the polls are off is ecological validity of the polling process: what people report on a survey and what they do at the actual real-world event are different.
Trump is a rather unprecedented phenomenon, at least in the era of modern polling. Not surprising that there may be more statistical irregularities. The real test will come in New Hampshire and South Carolina, to see if the discrepancy between polling and voting is as large as that between polling and caucusing. If it is, and if Trump does not adjust by attending to more old-fashioned on-the-ground organizing, he's not likely to be long such a prominent presence. On the other hand, it's not unreasonable to expect that polls will be considerably more accurate in primary states than in caucus states. Time will tell.
4
The Bush/Gore election in Florida of 2000 made politicians very aware of the potential for manipulation of the votes. Two of those running against Trump were Florida politicians at that time, and one actually did that for his brother.
On the Democratic side, there are reports that Bernie may challenge the voted, demanding the raw numbers. For example six of the 99 precincts were decided by a coin toss, and all six went to Hillary.
It seems possible that the polls are wrong because the reported vote is corrupt -- again, like Florida in 2000.
This should emphasize the importance of fixing our voting system. Even if it didn't happen, that it could have can't be tolerated anymore now that we know.
On the Democratic side, there are reports that Bernie may challenge the voted, demanding the raw numbers. For example six of the 99 precincts were decided by a coin toss, and all six went to Hillary.
It seems possible that the polls are wrong because the reported vote is corrupt -- again, like Florida in 2000.
This should emphasize the importance of fixing our voting system. Even if it didn't happen, that it could have can't be tolerated anymore now that we know.
25
It's a little known fact that 72% of Florida politicians "fixed" the ballot boxes in their precincts during the last 8 elections. What's surprising to most observers is that the other 54% responded that they didn't care. With this kind of apathy, who will the Florida Whig Party nominate for President in 2016? Stay tuned.
All of the subsequent counts of the Florida election, including the one done by the NYT confirmed that Bush won Florida, fair and square. It's interesting that the NYT had no interest in investigating the precincts in Ohio in which the number of votes exceeded the number of registered voters or the precincts in Maryland in which not a single vote was cast for Romney.
It is Democrats who do not want anyone fixing the voting system.
It is Democrats who do not want anyone fixing the voting system.
Microsoft tried to fix it this year, and failed.
This is a lot of explanation for what is more likely explained by a simple equation: familiarity bias undecided voters = disappointing results for both Trump and Clinton relative to their polling numbers.
1
Nate's mystic is on the line here. Nate unequivocally predicted Trump would never win the nomination, so Nate is heavily invested in Trump losing. So he isn't being objective.
The fact is that Iowa is an outlier in the GOP primary. Not counting elections with incumbents running, and W's first race, when he had essentially bought the election before it started, winning Iowa is essentially a kiss of death for a GOP candidate. So the Iowa loss is actually not as bad for Trump as Nate wants us to believe.
Trump should win New Hampshire easily. The polls may be wrong, but they aren't that wrong. And once he does, the Trump narrative will be back in the saddle. Trump could easily prove that Nate is out of his depth as a political prognosticator.
The fact is that Iowa is an outlier in the GOP primary. Not counting elections with incumbents running, and W's first race, when he had essentially bought the election before it started, winning Iowa is essentially a kiss of death for a GOP candidate. So the Iowa loss is actually not as bad for Trump as Nate wants us to believe.
Trump should win New Hampshire easily. The polls may be wrong, but they aren't that wrong. And once he does, the Trump narrative will be back in the saddle. Trump could easily prove that Nate is out of his depth as a political prognosticator.
9
Or, alternately, Trump does a major face-plant in New Hampshire because he's a fool appealing to other fools, and there don't seem to be a lot of those in New Hampshire, where people actually expect to hear positions other than the single empty bluster about building a wall that will never, ever happen, even if the ocean turns red and Trump is elected President. Never ever.
At which point he might leave the race, declaring voters to be losers and stupid, and go back to stealing money making 'deals'.
Trump correctly judged that the American voter is getting more stupid with every election, he just jumped too soon. He should have waited until 2020 or 2024, by which time the average voter IQ will have hit double digits.
At which point he might leave the race, declaring voters to be losers and stupid, and go back to stealing money making 'deals'.
Trump correctly judged that the American voter is getting more stupid with every election, he just jumped too soon. He should have waited until 2020 or 2024, by which time the average voter IQ will have hit double digits.
7
You might be right, but someone smarter than me once said something to the effect that one should never bet against the stupidity of the American public.
Why Thank you, your Holiness!
The debates were predicated on those polls. The polls determined who'd be in the middle and who'd be off to the side; the polls determined who'd be at the lower debate and who'd be invited to the upper debate. And now we see the polls, on which so many other important and consequential decisions were made, were wrong. Brilliant!
23
This is an excellent point. Candidates were discarded from the debates based on polls known to be very flawed. The method was unfair, but I'm not sure what a good system would be given the large number of candidates on the Republican side.
1
You're way overthinking this. Heavy media TV exposure means people answering polls recognize him and have an opinion because he's so hard to ignore. Everybody watches TV. But not everyone votes in a primary, and even fewer caucus.
The blowhard contingent spoke up to pollsters but didn't show up for Trump.
The blowhard contingent spoke up to pollsters but didn't show up for Trump.
17
The upper midwest has always been one of Trump's worst regions (the upshot's own map last year of trump supporters illustrates this well). Trump's strongholds are the south, the rust belt, appalachia, and the northeast, which if he can hold together would be a formidable coalition. Iowa was never one of Trump's strongest states, but New Hampshire and later South Carolina will be the true test of whether Trump's support is real or not.
5
Electing Trump President would be like making America wear a clown suit for four years.
56
better that than Rubio's Iraq war,
America has been wearing one for the last 7 years.
We've managed to survive the last seven years of a President in a clown suit; we will survive another four. [Republicans do not re-elect politicians who outright lie to them, which is what cost "read my lips: no new taxes" Bush the election in 1992.]
Now that this narcissistic, thin skinned, insulting bully lost, will the Media finally stop giving the "Donald" free air time and print space? Let him pay for his own advertisement.
I am tired of listening and seeing all the print wasted on this blowhard.
I have two thing to say to the "Donald"
1) You're a LOSER!
2) You're FIRED!
I am tired of listening and seeing all the print wasted on this blowhard.
I have two thing to say to the "Donald"
1) You're a LOSER!
2) You're FIRED!
75
he's a loser when he's a billionaire?i
What a relief not to have D J Trump at the top of the news for the first time in what feels like at least six months. God must work in mysterious ways when even Elmer Gantry-like Ted Cruz ends up having his uses.
7
Haven't you noticed? We're still talking about Trump.
Missing the last GOP debate was an arrogant and vain mistake by Trump. No candidate can afford to turn down a chance for face time on tv in this crowded race.
9
Not to put too fine a point on it, but who really cares?
It's a sparsely populated state with 6 electoral votes. Less than South Dakota but half of Washington State.
As Iowa goes, so goes...what? The only reason anybody has paid any attention to any of this is because Trump has turned national politics into professional wrestling.
It's a sparsely populated state with 6 electoral votes. Less than South Dakota but half of Washington State.
As Iowa goes, so goes...what? The only reason anybody has paid any attention to any of this is because Trump has turned national politics into professional wrestling.
86
Trump's decision not to participate in the last Fox debate before the caucus probably affected a lot of undecideds' vote. The next Republican debate is after the NH primary.
5
His lackluster performance proves that the electorate are not as stupid as he and his team thought they were. It also means the clown car can pack up it's tents and circus animals and go away.
11
A 4% gap to second place is hardly lackluster. He's a solid second way ahead most of the field and Cruz's glory is behind him. Iowa was his shot at evangelicals and he performed decently, but not spectacularly.
Trump will have to lose NH to start receding quickly. Otherwise, he's still in the game.
Trump will have to lose NH to start receding quickly. Otherwise, he's still in the game.
The Iowa caucus doesn't mean squat. In previous Iowa caucuses, Romney and Thompson beat McCain in 2008, Dole and Robertson beat Bush in 1988 and Bush beat Reagan in 1980. In each of those cases, Iowans did not pick the eventual GOP candidate. Iowa doesn't have a good track record, and because of this, I'm confident that Cruz will not get the nomination. #Trump2016
11
Huckabee won the Iowa caucus in 2008, Santorum in 2012.
It is at best a Pyrrhic victory. Iowa Republicans who go to the caucuses represent very few people, even in the Republican Party. I will wager that not too many Iowans who voted for Cruz know his plans for a 19% Federal sales tax, which manages to be at once one of the centerpieces of his policy prescriptions and one of the best kept secrets of the campaign.
It is at best a Pyrrhic victory. Iowa Republicans who go to the caucuses represent very few people, even in the Republican Party. I will wager that not too many Iowans who voted for Cruz know his plans for a 19% Federal sales tax, which manages to be at once one of the centerpieces of his policy prescriptions and one of the best kept secrets of the campaign.
1
Rubio's being touted as the "Republican Obama"
but he brings anything but Hope and Change.
Fire and brimstone, maybe.
but he brings anything but Hope and Change.
Fire and brimstone, maybe.
48
the use of the word "strength" in the vicinity of any use of the name of this...this..."can't-idate" should at very least be declared a misdemeanor. The man is a lout, a crude, offensive national embarrassment, a liar, a coward, a whiner and clown.
And, of course, a loser. a yuge loser.
What exactly about any of that is "strong" - other than the smell?
And, of course, a loser. a yuge loser.
What exactly about any of that is "strong" - other than the smell?
13
It'll be interesting to see how voters supporting candidates who drop out switch their allegiances to. ie Santorum 's supporters go to ??? as well as any others retiring from the field.
Iowa will go down in political history as embarrassingly predictable. The three most popular bible thumpers in a row...cruz, santorum, & huckabee. And the coin toss decision, really? In think its time for a system upgrade. I think it's time to end a "tradition" that includes a coin flip as the decider. The first state to start off the campaign should be different every year. Sorry Iowa but more and more candidates will skip Iowa if we leave it as is.
54
Farmers will pull your leg. Some of stuff they come up with is very funny. I suspect they may have mislead some of the pollsters.
8
I would bet on that as well. It is fun to do.
3
NYT is just glad their horse won in a coin toss.
Cruz admitted that his campaign lied to Carson voters saying he dropped out of the race splitting Carson votes between Rubio, Trump and Cruz.
While you were sleeping, other news outlets like VICE report the CIA is scrambling to find their operatives as the Emails that Hillary and the Times declare are "No big deal" may have cost lives.
Thank God that no president has been decided by an Iowa Caucus.
God Bless America.
Cruz admitted that his campaign lied to Carson voters saying he dropped out of the race splitting Carson votes between Rubio, Trump and Cruz.
While you were sleeping, other news outlets like VICE report the CIA is scrambling to find their operatives as the Emails that Hillary and the Times declare are "No big deal" may have cost lives.
Thank God that no president has been decided by an Iowa Caucus.
God Bless America.
9
Taliban Ted lies about everything. If we are very lucky, Ted will become as irrelevant as Santorum and Huckabee
33
Every story on poll results should start with, "A poll of people who respond to polls and who have a landline phone without caller ID recently found..."
116
From now until November I will not be answering my landline unless I know exactly who is on the other end. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't have caller ID!
1
Or every story on poll results should start with, "A poll of people who respond to polls gave opposite responses to how they would actually vote."
A pollsters nightmare. Pollaxing.
A pollsters nightmare. Pollaxing.
Given that Iowa is a caucus state, how representative are the polls? I think the real test regarding the strength of Trump's candidacy will be New Hampshire and South Carolina. The press typically jumps to conclusions over small sample sizes. Let's hold off celebrating Trump's down fall until after New Hampshire - then we can breath a sigh of relief.
5
Trump was relying on the polls which was a HUGEEEEE mistake.
2
When I heard a clip of Trump's wife on the radio right before the caucus I thought "whoops, that was a mistake". It would remind all those anti-immigrant voters that Trump is married to an Immigrant, and not for the first time. Her English is not good. That's right folks, Trump has strong non-American connections, and prefers his women to be beautiful furriners, not Apple-pie God-and-country girls next-door.
10
There's a difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant. One is a law-abiding citizen that didn't have to sneak in, the other isn't.
My wife and I are both legal immigrants, and anti-illegal-immigration. Sorry to burst your racist stereotypical bubble.
My wife and I are both legal immigrants, and anti-illegal-immigration. Sorry to burst your racist stereotypical bubble.
Another explanation is that people are entertained by Trump's 'politics as reality TV' act. However, when it came down to the serious business of choosing a President, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a buffoonish bully.
14
Let's see how Trump does when casting a vote is private instead of the public display as it is in Iowa. Honestly, a crazy system! I'm wondering if some were too embarrassed or fearful of publicly supporting him. Although, to be honest, supporting Cruz really seems the more embarrassing activity.
38
There's one obvious reason that Trump fell short of the predicted victory in Iowa: he's just very low energy. Apparently, so are his supporters.
6
As a registered Independent I lie. I receive dozens of "polling calls" (I use quotes because after the 1st few questions you can usually tell who they a "polling" for, and it's never Gallup), and I pick the flavor of the moment.
For the past three months it's all TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP. I want the polls to skew, and I want that idiot to lose.
I am tired of people telling me my opinion via the polls. So my way is to lie.
For the past three months it's all TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP. I want the polls to skew, and I want that idiot to lose.
I am tired of people telling me my opinion via the polls. So my way is to lie.
41
Yes, I do the same--lie, shamelessly--when called by a pollster. I tell the pollster that I feel unqualified to answer questions or make up my mind how to vote, that I always do what Rush Limbaugh tells me to do, because he is smarter than me. I urge my friends to do the same.
6
Maybe people who answered the polls were trolling Donald Trump, just as he's trolling everybody else with his campaign for president.
33
Trump's new voters weren't prepared to go through the ridiculous caucusing as opposed to merely voting. Cruz had pushers in every county to see his through. The polls weren't off by much. New Hampshire will tell.
4
cruz certainly played the game better than trump. but now that he's the front runner everybody will be gunning for him.
2
But didn't The Donald say "polls love me, They think I'm great".
4
I expect Trump will continue to underperform relative to his poll numbers.
It's easy to tell someone you're voting for an evil clown as a way of venting your dissatisfaction with the status quo.
It's harder to enter the voting booth and actually pull the lever for the jerk.
It's easy to tell someone you're voting for an evil clown as a way of venting your dissatisfaction with the status quo.
It's harder to enter the voting booth and actually pull the lever for the jerk.
11
Trump's Iowa results were a total disaster! We don't win anymore, but neither do you Donald.
5
Some people do not like political polls and they lie to the pollsters.
8
"Here's what it means"? You don't know what it means. Any more than the pollsters do. Its all noise and I might add, engagement in a dubious way to make a living.
5
The smart money and common sense said the polls were way off all along. When will folks accept that the early polls when they are guessing who the voters might be and before anybody has to seriously consider who they might actually want to have the job are an exercise in entertainment and self-delusion. A problem exacerbated when the candidates have such large and disparate personalities. In one sense, Trump and Sanders alleged support are each a case of the people telling the parties they don't like the rest of the candidates at all. I too would vote "do over" on both sides. Their isn't a leader or a qualified candidate in the bunch.
2
Jeb! was right. Skipping the last debate hurt Trump. In this case just enough to cost him Iowa. That was a bad bet,
2
A lot of space being wasted analyzing why the polls are wrong. The fact is that polling, over the years has shown that it is a terrible way to try to tell who is winning. No one really knows why they are wrong, or they would fix it. When I want to know what a candidates chances are, I go to the bookies. They are seldom wrong. Their model is based on the fact that punters will bet on who they think will win, and not on who they want to win. The media use the polls to keep people interested enough to make work for the thousands of commentators that pontificate on the campaigns. Along with a whole host of other things wrong with our election process that need to change, pollsters should be ignored.
4
I think one point that could easily be missed is Trump's statement, "I could stand In the middle Of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters". To me, this is about as close to Trump's "Dean scream" as it comes. A lot of Iowa may be rural. A lot of Iowa may be conservative. Iowans, however, don't like to be called rubes, which is the essential message behind Trump's statement. He might as well have prefaced it by saying, "Look at these idiots." When it came time to vote in the primary, I'm sure that statement, with the unspoken preface, was on a lot of conservative Iowans' minds.
8
Interesting that the great businessman, the deal maker, the creator of stupendous developments, the guy who takes charge and gets things done, can't organize a decent enough ground game in Iowa to hold onto a 10 point lead. How high was that wall he's going to build to keep all the Mexican muslim terrorists out?
5
Polls mean way less than the print and air time they get. The movement to and from different candidates is likely based on when the question is asked and what has just happened.
I'm not sure who to vote for and you might get different answers from me in the morning or the evening or next week. I submit for your consideration that I am not unusual.
Also, sometimes people lie.
I'm not sure who to vote for and you might get different answers from me in the morning or the evening or next week. I submit for your consideration that I am not unusual.
Also, sometimes people lie.
2
How about the fact that this was a caucus? You've completely ignored the effect of actual caucusing. Voters discuss and there is data that shows some voters made up their minds in the last minute. Compare the polls in the last two elections and you have the same weird results. Maybe this is the caucus effect and not anything more. Compare the remaining states and caucuses and see how the polling stacks up.
5
The article does not mention response rate. I have read they have dwindled in some cases to dingle digits. That would make sampling error quite significant.
2
Trump claimed he was his own man, self funded and not the establishment. I think 2 things hurt him badly. Sarah Palin's rambling angry endorsement where he stood by unable to a thing about it, and refusing to show up at a debate over a female moderator. Instead of appearing as the independent leader he claims to be, he has Sarah Palin and Jerry Falwell Jr around his neck for the rest of this race, and he can no longer dictate terms to anyone. He lost his credibility with his loss. The media too lost here with their incredible free coverage. I'm surprised no one sued for equal time. Mr Trump and the pundits appear to be drinking from the same bottle of koolaid.
7
I couldn't agree more. I am not a fan of Trump but I almost felt sorry for him during that psychotic endorsement by Palin (who really appeared to be unhinged). Then his decision to boycott Fox debate because he was still not over Megyn Kelly's question. Good God, who could imagine a president with such poor judgment as to tout Sarah Palin's endorsement as the be all, end all...and to run from a cable anchor who pressed him on his behavior with women. Then there's all that pomposity and self centered, non stop commentary about himself....it is mind bending. And among other things, he is still using money as power and influence...that seems to be his way of persuasion and popularity.
3
Trump wanted and needed an overwhelming triumph. Instead he missed and missed badly. People with good sense will now look to re-evaluate why they were supporting him to begin with. Mr Cruz will not find sympathetic evangelicals in New Hampshire. Instead, he will confront thinking people who should reject his hair-brained schemes and warlike threats. Thus two leaders who will go down. Why is Rubio attracting votes? He is a cute kid but a political neophyte with no history or standing. Kasich now looks like the most sensible candidate, ala Romney. Bush? Not - too much bush recently. Paul? Just say no. Christie? Just undercard material.
5
"That 10-point swing was enough to make Mr. Trump’s defeat the biggest polling error in an early primary since Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama in New Hampshire in 2008."
So it was the biggest since the one before the last one? That doesn't say a whole lot...
So it was the biggest since the one before the last one? That doesn't say a whole lot...
2
Another possible explanation is social bias, or in this case, a reverse Shy Torie effect.
In other words, people may have felt enabled to say that they support Trump when polled, but in the privacy of the voting booth decided that he just wasn't presidential material.
In other words, people may have felt enabled to say that they support Trump when polled, but in the privacy of the voting booth decided that he just wasn't presidential material.
3
The Bible thumpers decided NOT to back the libertine after all. That is not a surprise.
The surprise was that people actually thought the religious right would support Trump.
The surprise was that people actually thought the religious right would support Trump.
5
Seems to me polls are sort of in between accurate and inaccurate. I'm not persuaded people respond honestly, they say what they are thinking at that moment but perhaps haven't thought through what they'll do in the long term. People change their minds over time and may like someone at one point but that usually doesn't hold over the long term. I think we underestimate people too - they may like the entertainment of Trump but when it comes to thinking through who is best to be President, entertaining doesn't cut it.
10
it's very simple. So many of us only have a cell phone. It's not listed. We're not getting Polled. This eliminates the technically savvy older population and the almost entire younger population. Both groups are typically reasonable and actually do their own research. Conversely, the pollsters are reaching the older population and others not willing to consider change. I believe when it comes time to vote, the younger population and more forward thinking older population, will make it to the voting place.
65
Actually, many sophisticated polls include cell phones and it doesn't matter if your number is listed. Pollsters use random digit dialing.
1
The vote on the Republican side was much higher than in previous years, 180,000 versus 120,000 four years ago. There was an assumption from the polling that the new support was all going to go to Trump. But what was missing here was that there was a reaction to some of Trumps more inflammatory statements about Mexicans and Muslims that brought some moderates out to the caucuses who normally would not have come. The evangelical vote was going to be there as it always had, but what about the rise in the Rubio support? Could that have been an extra 3% of moderates who originally said they were not going to the polls to the pollsters, or who had cell phones and were never called, that showed up and voted for Rubio or another moderate candidate? And so Trump supporters were overpolled and those moderates were underpolled? A woman turned to me at the end of my caucus and said to me, "I came to stop Trump." And that she did.
25
You hit it on the head. On TV last night they were talking about all of the new registrants and how many of them came out just to vote against Trump. That clearly skewed things against him. Its funny how getting 24% vs. 28% means your campaign is dead in the mainstream media. I'll be curious to see what they say if he gets his polling numbers in NH.
4
"Could that have been an extra 3% of moderates who originally said they were not going to the polls to the pollsters, or who had cell phones and were never called, that showed up and voted for Rubio or another moderate candidate?"
Um, Rubio is not moderate. One could make a case that Trump would be a more Centrist president than most of the other GOP candidates, given all the relatively non-conservative opinions he has espoused (prior to becoming a 2016 candidate).
More likely, Trump was defeated by Conservatives who recognized that Trump's candidacy rests on a thin policy platform which consists mostly of ego and personal charisma.
Um, Rubio is not moderate. One could make a case that Trump would be a more Centrist president than most of the other GOP candidates, given all the relatively non-conservative opinions he has espoused (prior to becoming a 2016 candidate).
More likely, Trump was defeated by Conservatives who recognized that Trump's candidacy rests on a thin policy platform which consists mostly of ego and personal charisma.
The Iowa Caucus is a farce for both the Democrats and the Republicans. They need to move to a primary. What a joke of a process that makes every citizen cringe at the way the parties conducted themselves. Whether it was Cruz staff announcing that Carson was pulling out (right before the vote) or Hillary's machine. It is not representative of the parties because not everyone can participate in that window of time.
The MSM coverage of the caucus and it's obvious problems is a disservice to our Country. This is the kind of "election" that would require Jimmy Carter to monitor, if it was happening in another country.
The MSM coverage of the caucus and it's obvious problems is a disservice to our Country. This is the kind of "election" that would require Jimmy Carter to monitor, if it was happening in another country.
44
Right! And the monitoring would likely invalidate the election - especiallly on the Democratic side. Honestly, I saw a coin-toss to declare a 'winner' on MSNBC last night. It was reported that coin tosses occurred in at least 4 precincts (or whatever their places are called). A COIN TOSS to determine who won a vote? Really?!
Caucusers (is that a word?) had a choice between horse dung and bull dung. While most were more familiar with bull dung, horse dung turned out to be marginally more aromatic in the end.
38
One factor was that Trump sat out the debate on flimsy excuses. Another one was the excellent interview Bill O'Reilly managed to get out of him. Bill showed by his questions and Trump by his answers that he lacked the temperament to be president. Trump lost this election all by himself. One can spout fancy things or promise people a lot but we have to judge accountable people by their actions. Governors have to run something real and produce results. I hope we have the sense to ignore the "talk" and judge the actions!
6
This is being spun as some kind of thumping of Trump when it was a virtual dead heat between the three leading vote getters, with 4% separating the first from third. I wouldn't make too much of it. (Both Trump and Cruz are scary prospects, and more than 50% of Iowa voters chose one or the other.)
I suspect that what's happening is a decreasing viability of polls in the Internet age. Polls are failing all over the world, not just in Iowa. The whole concept or methodology needs to be rethought. Polls have distracted from the seriousness of elections for too long. Maybe it's time to just ignore them.
I suspect that what's happening is a decreasing viability of polls in the Internet age. Polls are failing all over the world, not just in Iowa. The whole concept or methodology needs to be rethought. Polls have distracted from the seriousness of elections for too long. Maybe it's time to just ignore them.
60
More than 50% of REPUBLICAN Iowa voters, not more than 50% of all Iowa voters. Just defending my native state. . . .
So, does this make Mr. Trump a loser or a lightweight? I expected him to perform better. Maybe he has low-energy supporters.
4
I'd take Trump over Cruz any day. I'm an Evangelical, but I don't trust Ted Cruz one bit. Trump is straightforward, tactically brilliant, and certainly honest about what he thinks. Also, Trump negotiates. Cruz preferred a government shutdown over working with others; Cruz deletes facts, people's perspectives, reality. So, yes, Trump is an easy choice when Ted C. is the main opponent.
78
I'm afraid you are easily deceived. Trump is anything but straightforward in his positions. Oh, he's straightforward in his promises - just as Bernie Sanders is. And just as impractical. "Build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it" isn't even faintly possible, to cite just one example.
8
The only thing tactically brilliant about trump is his ability to fool individuals like yourself. If he were tactically brilliant he wouldn't alienate a large percentage of the US population with his outlandish rhetoric. He wouldn't openly insult and verbally assault people whom he doesn't like. Nor would he be arrogant enough to not show up to a debate because he doesn't like who is moderating it. You think a president can just not show up to an UN event if there is another world leader there they don't like?
He is inept, foolish, ignorant, arrogant, manipulative, liar, and wholly unqualified to lead our great nation. Cruz is horrible in his own right, but you are deluding yourself if you believe Trump would make a good leader and face of our nation in the global perspective.
He is inept, foolish, ignorant, arrogant, manipulative, liar, and wholly unqualified to lead our great nation. Cruz is horrible in his own right, but you are deluding yourself if you believe Trump would make a good leader and face of our nation in the global perspective.
12
If Trump is so tactically brilliant, then where was his ground game?. As odious as Cruz is, he is tactically brilliant. This was certainly demonstrated by his win over a well funded and well known establishment Republican in the race for his Senate seat. Unlike his opponent, Cruz recognized that the Republican primary is the only election that matters for statewide office in Texas.
Cruz is smart and calculating, don't ever forget that.
Cruz is smart and calculating, don't ever forget that.
Polls are largely the invention of the news media to make salable news before there IS news. The only poll that's worth paying the slightest attention to is the actual election.
92
I hope this means the American voter is smarter than the recent polling has shown. The Trump phenomenon has seemed loony from the start. Let's just hope that wrong polls don't influence voters to stay out of the process or to jump on the bandwagon of someone they wrongfully perceive is the inevitable winner.
17
Has it, though? If Trump had not been in the race, would Cruz be seen as a viable candidate?
2
And voting for Cruz is not 'loony'? The American theocracy comes ever closer......
7
Choosing Cruz over Trump is not an outcome indicative of any rational thinking by any individual.
1
Just face it.
Trump supporters just like to toy with pollsters. They may be enthusiastic on the phone but they have no follow through, just like their leader.
All talk and ineffective action.
Besides, the "Donald" is showing just how narcissistic and immature he is by now blaming the Media for not reporting his second place loss as a win.
After all, it was the "Donald" who chose to skip the last debate because the polls lulled him into the false belief that he was ahead. The "Donald" did not invest the time and money into the ground game necessary to get supporters to the Caucuses. It's the "Donald's" own fault and shows his lack of preparation for being President.
Trump supporters just like to toy with pollsters. They may be enthusiastic on the phone but they have no follow through, just like their leader.
All talk and ineffective action.
Besides, the "Donald" is showing just how narcissistic and immature he is by now blaming the Media for not reporting his second place loss as a win.
After all, it was the "Donald" who chose to skip the last debate because the polls lulled him into the false belief that he was ahead. The "Donald" did not invest the time and money into the ground game necessary to get supporters to the Caucuses. It's the "Donald's" own fault and shows his lack of preparation for being President.
39
How much do likely-voter models ignore what people say and instead use educational level? Trump's lead always seems to be buttressed by people with low educational attainment, a group that is also known for non-voting. I'd love to see county-by-county analysis taking this into account. Did Trump actually win in counties where turnout was in fact low, but representative of rural and uneducated population?
5
Trump ran strongest in the rural Iowa counties that have been losing population for decades. Cruz ran strongest in rural Iowa counties that are growing more organically. Rubio did best in Iowa's top cities, such as they are. All three may be winners of early primaries.
2
Dewey beats Truman. We rely far too much on polls as predictors of outcomes and have done so for decades, notwithstanding their unreliability. Polls can be informative, but should be taken with a large grain of salt. Truly worrisome is the fact that we use inherently unreliable polls to make decisions (such as to exclude candidates from nationally televised debates and limit their ability to raise funds) that can in fact affect political outcomes. Should pollsters determine who are candidates are? Is this not a perversion of democracy?
22
We rely far too much on polls as predictors of outcomes and have done so for decades, notwithstanding their unreliability. - Best comment of the day!
2
Another explanation is that people sometimes tell pollsters what they believe makes them look best in the pollsters eyes. This is particularly true regarding "taboo" behaviors. Perhaps respondents thought telling the pollster they were for Trump made them look a certain way, or feel a certain way about themselves, (e.g., looking cool, seeming tough or edgy...I really don't know), whereas they felt differently about how they would appear to others and themselves at voting/caucusing time??
17
Sure, most folks tell a dozen white lies every day to save face or to project a certain image to the outside world. I doubt many feel any moral compunction about lying to a pesky pollster.
But I think these people were lying not about being Trump supporters, but about being likely voters. Trump's followers seem to be a cynical and anti-establishment lot, the ones who are more likely to say 'why bother' when it comes to actually taking the time and effort to vote.
The lesson for the Trump campaign is they'll have to push harder than the next guy's campaign to get their supporters off the couch. These Trumpy Old Men would rather complain about the gubment than actually do something about it.
But I think these people were lying not about being Trump supporters, but about being likely voters. Trump's followers seem to be a cynical and anti-establishment lot, the ones who are more likely to say 'why bother' when it comes to actually taking the time and effort to vote.
The lesson for the Trump campaign is they'll have to push harder than the next guy's campaign to get their supporters off the couch. These Trumpy Old Men would rather complain about the gubment than actually do something about it.
3
Yes, a record turnout. But nearly 70% of Iowa Republicans stayed home. And Cruz was supported by less than 10% of Iowa Republican registered voters despite massive get-out-the vote efforts. Let's not be surprised by polarized politics if 70% of registered voters don't bother to vote and they leave the outcome to the most committed no-compromise partisans.
120
Hmm. Just 10% supporting Cruz gives me hope for the general. The thought of a religious and political fanatic, the Ayatollah Cruz, as President is pretty horrifying.
14
I agree completely. One wonders when (a) the two parties will abandon the absurd, nondemocratic, and anti-secret ballot (Democrats, especially) caucus rules and procedures, and (b) the media (especially "all-polls-all-the-time" MSNBC)will treat the caucuses for what they really are: a quaint little game, about as meaningful as the straw polls held in many kindergartens.
But, sad to say, we shouldn't be holding our breath.
But, sad to say, we shouldn't be holding our breath.
3
Now the race shifts to New Hampshire, a primary state. Trump’s current lead in New Hampshire will drop a little as the competition intensifies, but it should be sufficient to carry him to victory. The motto on the NH license plates is “Live free or die.” In the privacy of the voting booth, his supporters will exercise their freedom, free from the judgment of others who might otherwise question their support of such a man as Donald Trump.