http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/opinio...polls.html

REMEMBER the poll last week that had Bernie Sanders ahead of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire by three points?

No, you’re thinking. I’ve got it wrong. Sanders was up by 27.

That’s true, if you’re talking about the figures that CNN and WMUR released on Tuesday. I’m talking about the ones that Gravis Marketing and One America News Network released on Wednesday.

There were three polls of New Hampshire voters over just two days last week, according to the archive maintained by Real Clear Politics. There were three polls of Iowa voters on Thursday alone. One had Clinton up by eight, while another had Sanders up by that same margin. One had Donald Trump up by 11. Another had Ted Cruz up by two.

Over a monthlong period ending Thursday night — a monthlong period, mind you, that included the Christmas and New Year’s break — there were 11 polls in Iowa, 10 in New Hampshire and nine nationally. There were polls focused on 10 different states.

And their findings were often treated as breathless news. On Wednesday evening, I visited the home page of the Politico website — I’m using Politico as a random example — and spotted four stories that were essentially about poll results.

.....



Article continues with further discussion of how unreliable they are and yet are still driving the news coverage.

As far as the republicans are concerned, Iowa is huge for the following scenarios:

1. If Trump wins, it not only means his poll numbers are solid, but that the guy could enter late into Iowa and install an effective organization to pull off a win. That would be huge, and it is probably all over but the crying.

2. If Cruz wins, especially by a margin larger than the polls, he can say that Trumps poll numbers are a paper tiger. That can help him get momentum. He may not win NH, but if he finishes second there, he can at least battle Trump throughout.

Given the responses of the recent polls, I see no way a third person emerges. (And the only person that even looks like they could is Rubio) For those voting for Trump, their second man is Cruz. For those voting Cruz, their second man is Trump. So if Cruz drops out, there is not going to be a river of votes going to anyone else lower in the polls, they are going to Trump. Same for Cruz if Trump drops out.

My gut reaction to your Post subject is because it draws readers.

(01-24-2016 01:50 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  As far as the republicans are concerned, Iowa is huge for the following scenarios:

1. If Trump wins, it not only means his poll numbers are solid, but that the guy could enter late into Iowa and install an effective organization to pull off a win. That would be huge, and it is probably all over but the crying.

2. If Cruz wins, especially by a margin larger than the polls, he can say that Trumps poll numbers are a paper tiger. That can help him get momentum. He may not win NH, but if he finishes second there, he can at least battle Trump throughout.

Given the responses of the recent polls, I see no way a third person emerges. (And the only person that even looks like they could is Rubio) For those voting for Trump, their second man is Cruz. For those voting Cruz, their second man is Trump. So if Cruz drops out, there is not going to be a river of votes going to anyone else lower in the polls, they are going to Trump. Same for Cruz if Trump drops out.

Good analysis. There is also a question regarding if Trump supports will actually register and go to caucus/primaries. Especially in states where you have to be registered in the party for which you are voting.

Why do we even have Iowa caucuses? Why should some relatively tiny state, populated by a dying breed of farmers, have so much influence in picking our President?

I've been asking this question for about 50 years.

Forget the polls, go by the odds makers. The people that put their money where their mouth is. The Dems are being billed as a "dead heat", yet Hillary is still 1/5 and Bernie is 4/1 in the odds.

If we flipped quarters, and I paid you $4 every time a heads came up, and you paid me a $1 every 5 times a tails came up, I'd go like Bernie's vision for our economy -- bankrupt.

The polls are political theatre.

I'm going to commission a poll to see if the thread you started has merit.

(01-24-2016 02:13 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Why do we even have Iowa caucuses? Why should some relatively tiny state, populated by a dying breed of farmers, have so much influence in picking our President?

I've been asking this question for about 50 years.

I like the pragmatic view of the midwest as much as anyone (StL born)....but that in a long line of others defines how fk'd up this country's thought process has evolved as a whole....

I questioned the electoral process as a kiddie and got the bullet board on my arse.....I just said, "can I have another?"

(01-24-2016 02:13 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Why do we even have Iowa caucuses? Why should some relatively tiny state, populated by a dying breed of farmers, have so much influence in picking our President?

I've been asking this question for about 50 years.

You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, Why is Iowa the first caucus/primary in the election cycle? You could've been asking that for 50 years, and you can ask it for 50 more. The answer will still be the same...Because it is.

(01-24-2016 02:26 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 02:13 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Why do we even have Iowa caucuses? Why should some relatively tiny state, populated by a dying breed of farmers, have so much influence in picking our President?

I've been asking this question for about 50 years.

You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, Why is Iowa the first caucus/primary in the election cycle? You could've been asking that for 50 years, and you can ask it for 50 more. The answer will still be the same...Because it is.

it has to be .02 chance (.20 in baseball math terms).....would you prefer cali, how-are-ya, rhodes traveled, or missippy as other options?

or maybe you're saying it should happen on the same day.....that might make more sense....

"that's just the way it is" makes me cringe and defines missippy and the perception thereof....

wtfe.....