A brief word on polling
Iowa holds caucuses, not elections, so while a slight swing towards Obama in a poll might reflect some sentiment, it doesn't necessarily reflect anything about the outcome of the caucuses.
From what I understand, the way the Iowa caucuses work, as certain minor candidates are ruled out, their supporters in the room are then available to move to other more frontrunner candidates.
Also, statewide polling gives little glimpse into the individual precincts. It's like the electoral college in a way. You can get creamed in the "popular vote," and still win the majority of the caucuses at 51%.
So, the secondary interests of Bill Richardson's 11% and the distribution of the voters is more significant than a couple percent lead in a statewide poll.
As for the new numbers out of NH, Romney 33, McCain 18, Giuliani 16, Paul 8, that's a real election. The polling makes sense.
From what I understand, the way the Iowa caucuses work, as certain minor candidates are ruled out, their supporters in the room are then available to move to other more frontrunner candidates.
Also, statewide polling gives little glimpse into the individual precincts. It's like the electoral college in a way. You can get creamed in the "popular vote," and still win the majority of the caucuses at 51%.
So, the secondary interests of Bill Richardson's 11% and the distribution of the voters is more significant than a couple percent lead in a statewide poll.
As for the new numbers out of NH, Romney 33, McCain 18, Giuliani 16, Paul 8, that's a real election. The polling makes sense.
posted by mikevotes at
6:03 AM
3 Comments:
Here in Minnesota, we have caucuses rather than elections, too. It really does skew the results compared to polls. A lot of people are willing to stop by a polling place and vote, in and out in 15 minutes. Much fewer are willing to sit on hard folding chairs for 2 or even 3 hours, listening to an endless parade of rants that are only tangentially on topic, and shuffle around a room to "vote". It's the opposite of a secret vote. It's highly public, with your neighbours getting in your face and it's usually run by morons who I wouldn't trust to run a dog show. More often than not, the results are pre-ordained by party bosses who control things tightly in favour of their pre-selected candidate. It might have been a good system when people were largely illiterate and there was little mass communication, but now it's tedious.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 9:07 AM
I wonder what the voter turn out will be when we can do it with the click of a mouse?
By
Anonymous, at 10:05 AM
Todd, you're right. I left out the fact that you're asking people from Iowa to go out on a January night to sit there for something that I can only assume has all the attractiveness of jury duty.
By
mikevotes, at 11:07 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home