[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Is Trump Really In First Place? And in another column, I dissected one much publicized and deeply flawed specific national survey the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll and showed how its results were unreliable, if not preposterous. To participate in a debate, all candidates should at least (a) be announced and (b) agree to back the partys nominee. But if the RNC will primarily use polling as the criterion, I concluded the best approach would be a first debate that consists of two equal status debates on consecutive nights, thus two news cycles. Night one would feature candidates 1,3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15; and the second night would feature candidates 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16. Besides the obvious fairness of offering all sixteen candidates equivalent exposure, this approach also means that Donald Trump could suck up the oxygen at only one debate. Now comes a much-vaunted USA Today/Suffolk University Poll widely reported on networks that shows Trump surging to a first place lead of 17 percent, compared to a distant 2 percent in the last USA Today poll. Trump likely has increased his ballot strength, even dramatically, but this much? CNN has reported this story repeatedly, because its agenda is to feature Trump and divide the Republican Party. The television pundits authoritatively and disingenuously say Trumps 3-percent margin over Jeb Bush, at 14 percent, is within sampling error. But theres much more to say about problems with this survey that is making national headlines. This surveys sampling distribution by region, race and age is based on the 2010 census, which is dated and also not even relevant, because it hardly is indicative of overall turnout, certainly not of Republican turnout. If you are not defining the universe correctly, the survey is suspect. A sample correctly drawn from the wrong universe obviously does not represent reality. But lets pretend the universe is correct and look at the sample. The sample is of 1000 adults, not voters, verified or not. At most, only 85 percent of those adults actually are registered to vote, and at most only 65 percent of those actual voters would vote in a primary. That means at most only 51 percent (.85 x. 65) of these one thousand adults, or any adult grouping within it, are relevant to the primary elections. The survey of adults relies on self-identification of Republicans, not actual voter registration. Worse, it adds independent adults who merely claim they would vote in a Republican primary, even if in some states with a closed primary they would be ineligible to vote. Regardless, the total claimed is 349 adults who are supposed Republican primary voters. Significantly, when we apply our conservative 51 percent assumption, that 349 becomes only 178 even possible Republican primary voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus about 7.5%. Thats sampling error, not errors arising from flaws. Remember, we dont even know if the universe from which the sample is drawn is really appropriate. Regardless, that statistical theoretical margin of error doesnt tell the full story. The interviewers tried to minimize bias by rotating the order of the 16 candidates. Thus, for the 178 respondents, we have only about 11 per rotation pattern. Thats hardly enough to allow for unknown reaction to each sequence of candidates. Finally, if all that were not enough, this survey was conducted from Thursday/ July 9 through Sunday, July 12. Friday, Saturday and Sunday generally are less reliable for polling and normally part of an extended study. And during these four specific days, Donald Trump dominated the news. For example, I heard him speak Saturday morning in Las Vegas at the Freedom Fest. He was entertaining and fun and well received. But in the hallways, the libertarians remained skeptical of his crony capitalism. But the media coverage of this event and his Arizona appearance was substantial. In this USA Today survey, the ballot question includes only names, not senator or governor, so Trump with high identification, was given a further edge over insufficiently identified elected officials. In reality, Trump may be gaining, possibly at the expense of some conservative candidates and thus ironically helping Jeb Bush. But if and when Trump collapses, those conservative candidates would benefit, but its still unclear whether one conservative would emerge against Jeb Bush. Now if you think Im too harsh on this particular survey, consider this: the USA Today interviewers asked whether the respondent had heard of several of the presidential candidates. But they asked these ID question after asking the ballot question that mentions the candidate names. Now, thats oxymoronic. Donald Trump has enough money to do a poll, and do it right. But why should he? Arnold Steinberg, strategist and analyst, is the author of graduate texts on politics and media, and a court-recognized expert on quantitative research and media who has taught at Pepperdines Graduate School of Public Policy. He has conducted 2000 studies. Poster Comment: More reasons to question the upcoming poll-based GOP debates, as well as Trump's current polling. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#11. To: TooConservative (#0)
10 candidates on a stage is 8 too many . I favor a series of one-on-one Lincoln- Douglas style debates . The moderator being there to referee to make sure candidates stick to a set time limit per response with the candidates setting the agenda for the topics . The candidates also do the Q&A .
On the Dem side, you could have a series of Bernie/Hitlery debates. Will that work for you? I see no big rush to winnow the GOP field. Most of the candidates are static at present, neither gaining or losing in polling against Hillary. It's still the pre-season. Most of these candidates are still warming up and readying their message and branding and name recognition strategies. Name recognition will be a big factor. Trump, for instance, is only unrecognized by 2% of the public. Hitlery has about the same number. So is Bush, or at least the Bush name brand. This is one reason I've said all along that the GOP conservative base voters should pick one candidate early on and stick with them. Cruz is generally a lousy retail pol, almost as bad as Hitlery. Perry isn't glib, plays into the "another dumb Texan" meme. Paul has missing missing opportunities, made a few rash statements; better retail pol than his dad but a hard sell to a lot of GOP voters. Rubio just seems kinda slimy as a pol, relies on flowery rhetoric that sound too much like Peggy Noonan material. Kasich is too often a bit of a loose cannon but does have a track record in Ohio but he isn't really a national pol. I don't see how Trump can last too long, though he can probably hold 8-10% no matter what. That means that Bush will overcome the field with his warchest when the campaign moves to high-dollar media markets like Florida. Only if the base unites early on a single candidate is there any chance to stop Bush.
Hillary can stop Bush. The GOP can unite around Trump to stop both her and Bush.
There are no replies to Comment # 14. End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|