1) Somehow, the SC GOP has gotten a lot of pundits to believe that the choice of SC voters is what determines the nominee of the GOP.
Related myths of political significance are
2) No one has won the first two contests (and until last week when the IA win result was changed, Romney was believd to be the first)
3) There has never been a different winner in the first three contests (which presumes that SC is always in the first three contests)
Myth 3)
2012 is the first year that SC was in the first three contests. In 2008, besides IA and NH, the Michigan primary and the Wyoming caucus preceded them. Huckabee, Romney and McCain won the first three events.
In 2000, the Delaware primary and Alaska caucus also preceded SC. In 1996 the first three events were the Alaska, Louisiana and Iowa caucuses and Buchanan's win in Louisiana was a major factor to his performance in Iowa.
In 1988, Bush, Robertson and Dole won the first three events with Roberton's Hawaii caucus win being a major factor in his performance in the 4th event (the Iowa caucus).
Myth 1 and 3)
In 1996, it was the NINTH contest of the year.
In 1988, it was the THIRTEENTH contest of the year.
After 8 or 12 contests, the winner of the nomination is clear. Whatever SC has to say about it is irrelevant.
In 1980 it was the 5th primary of the year (6th election including caucuses). Even then, it would be 2 months before the eventual nominee stopped losing primary/caucuses.
Prior to 1980 they had no vote (caucus or primary) so it had zero relevance.
No event had relevance in 1984 or 2004 when incumbent presidents were reelected president. Possibly in 1992 it was of minor significance though Bush Sr's competition was effectively over after the New Hampshire primary.
Myth 2)
In 2000 Bush won both the Alaska and subsequent Iowa caucuses (NH was the 3rd election that year). In 1996, Alaska was joined by Louisiana as pre-Iowa caucuses, and both were won by Buchanan.
In 1980, Bush sr won the first two contests, the Iowa Caucus followd by another primary that was NOT New Hampshire. It was Puerto Rico.
In 1968, Nixon one the first two contests (Wisconsin being the 2nd primary after New Hampshire). Iowa did not begin its caucuses until 1972.
Showing posts with label New Hampshire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Hampshire. Show all posts
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out
This is not my usual tone for this blog, but I grow weary of bad polls and bad explanations of the GOP race.
From Wikipedia:
Garbage in garbage out "was coined as a teaching mantra by George Fuechsel,[1] an IBM 305 RAMAC technician/instructor in New York. Early programmers were required to test virtually each program step and cautioned not to expect that the resulting program would 'do the right thing' when given imperfect input. The underlying principle was noted by the inventor of the first programmable computing device design:
On two occasions I have been asked,—'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
In my years of working with health insurance data, we spent far more time cleaning up garbage data, redefining vague information into something more useful and coming up with models that rationally explain how healthcare services were used before we got to using much more than basic arithmetic. Rarely were T tests, R squared values or more sophisticated statistics used like actuaries or less successful competitors did. You can't put lipstick on a pig.
As I look at the internals of various primary polls for Iowa, New Hampshire and now South Carolina, I am struck by the number of times a poll with seriously flawed input data is touted by the media and used to build a false narrative. The worst case has to be the late December CNN Iowa poll, which surveyed ZERO voters who weren't registered Republicans, despite the undisputed significant voting by non-Republicans in Iowa GOP caucuses. The right % should have been 25%, the same % was demonstrated during the last non-competitive Iowa Democratic caucus (1996) - the same number that would be validated in the 2012 exit polls. Since the media either was ignorant of it, or gave so little warning, and there were no other polls for two days, the 24 hour media trumpted a nonexistent surge by Santorum due to this seriously flawed poll. So today, I read an article about how the evangelical leaders have coalesced around supporting Santorum... someone who would have likely stayed in 6th or maybe reached 5th place in Iowa and then returned home if not for a single flawed, heavily promoted poll.
Today I see an even worse poll, from some organization I've never heard of, that somehow believes that less than 5% of the voters in South Carolina's primary will be less than 40 years old and 55% will be at least 65 years old. For reference, in 2008 35% were older than 60 like in 2000 according to the exit poll. The 2000 exit poll showed that 25% were older than 60.
This poll is inexplicably given a weight rating of 4 bars out of 5 on Nate Silver's otherwise credible forecasting model. Aggregators favor combining as many polls as possible, no matter their quality, hoping that with enough garbage, the various garbage factors will cancel each other out. Some skilled analysts like Nate Silver, attempt to quantify and somewhat discount the garbage by using theoretical formulas about sampling error on a bell curve, applying some likely useful heuristics like the age of the poll, and employing the somewhat controversial, though still likely useful strategy of rating a pollster by how close it's polls come to predicting the actual result.
I guess this is better than nothing, but it is not something we did in the healthcare data analysis industry, nor did any of our competitors. Admittedly, we were spending millions of dollars on these tasks, while the polling aggregators do this for something with at least one or two zeros in their budget.
Still, I can't believe that spending a little effort on trying to adjust the data or at least dump a poll that has such problems as today's horrendously bad SC poll isn't low hanging fruit for these small organizations.
Nate Silver's latest article also repeats a widely spread meme that the South Carolina GOP is home to 60% evangelicals/born agains and as evidence, cites a 2008 exit poll that doesn't even ask this question. Worse yet, the 2000 GOP exit poll shows 34% belong to the religious right (which is not the same as born again/evangelical, but it is the closest I could find). Perhaps some non-exit poll has this 60%, but before I cite that, I want to do a serious look at the internals to figure out if other anomalies exist.
Another false notion:
Too often I hear that South Carolina isn't like New Hampshire where independents are such a factor. Wrong. It is an open primary. In 2000 when there Gore still had some modest competition from Senator Bradley, 39% of voters who identified themselves as Independent or Democratic voted in the GOP primary. This is compared to Iowa's caucus in 2012 where there was no competitive race for the Democrats and 25% of the GOP voters were non-Republicans.
These bad polls due to age distribution and independent voter % can heavily penalize Ron Paul - someone who the establishment wants to discredit, but I'll leave that explanation for another post.
As I look at suspect polling internals, I wonder if the accuracy of the aggregations in Iowa and New Hampshire weren't the beneficiaary of a certain amount of luck, and that a repeat of the NH Dem 08 primary is waiting.
So for the next week I'm going dumpster diving into SC and FL voting/polling data, sifting through the garbage, hoping to bring out some good.
Or for my dyslexic friends: IGOG. Into the Garbage, Out comes Good.
From Wikipedia:
Garbage in garbage out "was coined as a teaching mantra by George Fuechsel,[1] an IBM 305 RAMAC technician/instructor in New York. Early programmers were required to test virtually each program step and cautioned not to expect that the resulting program would 'do the right thing' when given imperfect input. The underlying principle was noted by the inventor of the first programmable computing device design:
On two occasions I have been asked,—'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
In my years of working with health insurance data, we spent far more time cleaning up garbage data, redefining vague information into something more useful and coming up with models that rationally explain how healthcare services were used before we got to using much more than basic arithmetic. Rarely were T tests, R squared values or more sophisticated statistics used like actuaries or less successful competitors did. You can't put lipstick on a pig.
As I look at the internals of various primary polls for Iowa, New Hampshire and now South Carolina, I am struck by the number of times a poll with seriously flawed input data is touted by the media and used to build a false narrative. The worst case has to be the late December CNN Iowa poll, which surveyed ZERO voters who weren't registered Republicans, despite the undisputed significant voting by non-Republicans in Iowa GOP caucuses. The right % should have been 25%, the same % was demonstrated during the last non-competitive Iowa Democratic caucus (1996) - the same number that would be validated in the 2012 exit polls. Since the media either was ignorant of it, or gave so little warning, and there were no other polls for two days, the 24 hour media trumpted a nonexistent surge by Santorum due to this seriously flawed poll. So today, I read an article about how the evangelical leaders have coalesced around supporting Santorum... someone who would have likely stayed in 6th or maybe reached 5th place in Iowa and then returned home if not for a single flawed, heavily promoted poll.
Today I see an even worse poll, from some organization I've never heard of, that somehow believes that less than 5% of the voters in South Carolina's primary will be less than 40 years old and 55% will be at least 65 years old. For reference, in 2008 35% were older than 60 like in 2000 according to the exit poll. The 2000 exit poll showed that 25% were older than 60.
This poll is inexplicably given a weight rating of 4 bars out of 5 on Nate Silver's otherwise credible forecasting model. Aggregators favor combining as many polls as possible, no matter their quality, hoping that with enough garbage, the various garbage factors will cancel each other out. Some skilled analysts like Nate Silver, attempt to quantify and somewhat discount the garbage by using theoretical formulas about sampling error on a bell curve, applying some likely useful heuristics like the age of the poll, and employing the somewhat controversial, though still likely useful strategy of rating a pollster by how close it's polls come to predicting the actual result.
I guess this is better than nothing, but it is not something we did in the healthcare data analysis industry, nor did any of our competitors. Admittedly, we were spending millions of dollars on these tasks, while the polling aggregators do this for something with at least one or two zeros in their budget.
Still, I can't believe that spending a little effort on trying to adjust the data or at least dump a poll that has such problems as today's horrendously bad SC poll isn't low hanging fruit for these small organizations.
Nate Silver's latest article also repeats a widely spread meme that the South Carolina GOP is home to 60% evangelicals/born agains and as evidence, cites a 2008 exit poll that doesn't even ask this question. Worse yet, the 2000 GOP exit poll shows 34% belong to the religious right (which is not the same as born again/evangelical, but it is the closest I could find). Perhaps some non-exit poll has this 60%, but before I cite that, I want to do a serious look at the internals to figure out if other anomalies exist.
Another false notion:
Too often I hear that South Carolina isn't like New Hampshire where independents are such a factor. Wrong. It is an open primary. In 2000 when there Gore still had some modest competition from Senator Bradley, 39% of voters who identified themselves as Independent or Democratic voted in the GOP primary. This is compared to Iowa's caucus in 2012 where there was no competitive race for the Democrats and 25% of the GOP voters were non-Republicans.
These bad polls due to age distribution and independent voter % can heavily penalize Ron Paul - someone who the establishment wants to discredit, but I'll leave that explanation for another post.
As I look at suspect polling internals, I wonder if the accuracy of the aggregations in Iowa and New Hampshire weren't the beneficiaary of a certain amount of luck, and that a repeat of the NH Dem 08 primary is waiting.
So for the next week I'm going dumpster diving into SC and FL voting/polling data, sifting through the garbage, hoping to bring out some good.
Or for my dyslexic friends: IGOG. Into the Garbage, Out comes Good.
Friday, January 13, 2012
New Hampshire Primary Election Trivia
Over the last 60 years, Romney's 2012 vote total is a relatively high percent of all votes cast combined in the combine primaries in New Hampshire per official vote totals from the New Hampshire secretary of state.
Of the leading NH vote getters, only Henry Cabot Lodge in 1964 and Hillary Clinton in 2008 failed to be nominated by their party. The candidate who was elected President has been in the top 3 every time except in 1992 when Bill Clinton came in 4th with 12.4%.
Comparing Obama's result to past incumbent Presidents running for reelection, all of those who only received about 1/2 the votes of their own party were not reelected, all of those above this mark were reelected.
Of the leading NH vote getters, only Henry Cabot Lodge in 1964 and Hillary Clinton in 2008 failed to be nominated by their party. The candidate who was elected President has been in the top 3 every time except in 1992 when Bill Clinton came in 4th with 12.4%.
| Year | % of ALL Votes Cast for Leader | Leading Candidate | 2nd Place Candidate | 3rd Place Candidate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1952 | 36.1% | Eisenhower | 27.8% - Taft | 15.3% - Kefauver |
| 1956 | 68.3% | Eisenhower | 26.2% - Kefauver | 4.6% - Stevenson |
| 1960 | 52.7% | Nixon | 36.8% - Kennedy | 7.5% - Fisher |
| 1964 | 26.9% | Lodge | 23.7% - Johnson | 16.9% - Goldwater |
| 1968 | 52.2% | Nixon | 18.4% - Johnson | 18.1% - McCarthy |
| 1972 | 38.9% | Nixon | 20.3% - Muskie | 16.3% - McGovern |
| 1976 | 28.9% | Ford | 28.3% - Reagan | 12.5% - Carter |
| 1980 | 29.0% | Reagan | 20.8% - Carter | 16.4% - Kennedy |
| 1984 | 39.8% | Reagan | 23.6% - Hart | 16.6% - Mondale |
| 1988 | 21.1% | Bush (Sr) | 15.9% - Dole | 15.7% - Dukakis |
| 1992 | 26.9% | Bush (Sr) | 19.1% - Buchanan | 17.0% - Tsongas |
| 1996 | 26.2% | Clinton (Bill) | 19.8% - Buchanan | 18.4% - Dole |
| 2000 | 29.4% | McCain | 19.9% - Gore | 18.6% - Bush (Jr) |
| 2004 | 30.3% | Kerry | 20.7% - Dean | 18.9% - Bush (Jr) |
| 2008 | 21.7% | Clinton (Hillary) | 20.3% - Obama | 16.9% - McCain |
| 2012 | 32.2% | Romney | 19.1% - Paul | 16.1% - Obama |
Comparing Obama's result to past incumbent Presidents running for reelection, all of those who only received about 1/2 the votes of their own party were not reelected, all of those above this mark were reelected.
| Year | % of Party | Candidate | % of All Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1956 | 98.9 | Eisenhower | 68.3 |
| 1964 | 95.3 | Johnson | 23.7 |
| 1984 | 86.4 | Reagan | 39.8 |
| 1996 | 84.3 | Clinton | 26.2 |
| 2012 | 81.1 | Obama | 16.1 |
| 2004 | 79.8 | Bush | 18.9 |
| 1972 | 67.6 | Nixon | 38.9 |
| 1992 | 53.2 | Bush | 26.9 |
| 1976 | 50.1 | Ford | 28.9 |
| 1968 | 49.6 | Johnson | 18.4 |
| 1980 | 47.1 | Carter | 20.8 |
| 1952 | 43.9 | Truman | 12.3 |
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
My NH Predictions
My Forecast
My age distribution post was updated around 2 PM EST as was my Indy vs. Republican Breakdown post.
Live Blog for the election night and an analysis of the quality of my predictions after the fact are here
At this point, I am assuming the last Suffolk poll is my base for predictions. It correlates with Nate Silver's poll and although I am VERY suspicious about how Suffolks 2 day rolling average could change from 39.0 to 34.6 to 33.2 then back up to 37.4 over the past two days (250 voters surveyed per day have a VERY large sampling error) Suffolk is the most recent poll (which matters most in volatile primaries). (I exclude ARG's polls as their quality repuation is not good). The news has been bad for Romney in the past few days, so I can't believe a poll that implies at least an 8 point increase for Romney on Monday vs. Sunday is truly representing the electorate. However, Suffolk has an excellent polling reputation and it provides enough detail to let me do some adjustments where I feel they are needed (vs. polling averages and aggregation models which are so complex I have no idea how to analyze the fundamentals).
For reasons detailed here, I also assume that 56% of the electorate will be "Independent" which in New Hampshire is legally called "Undeclared".
BTW, despite hearing frequently in the media, that Indy's are not a factor in South Carolina, they too have an open primary and the Dems do not have an interesting primary, and moreover, I believe it is held at a later date. So Indy's should be an underrated factor in SC. But more on that after tonight.
I am also adjusting due to age distribution. As detailed here I believe the Suffolk poll is too heavily weighted towards older voters. I have decided to chose the well regarded Marist poll for age distribution in my forecast, though by reputation, I am also enticed by the even more well regarded Selzer poll. However since Selzer only polled NH once, over a month ago, I am not sure if the same quality holds as with their famous Iowa polls.
When the exit polls come out, I will compare this to see whether I guessed right. While I am not satisfied that I fully understand the dependency function (given age, what is the chance you will vote for candidate X), due to time constraints, I will assume that most recent Suffolk poll captures this function well enough. For South Carolina I will have more time to analyze this.
Finally, I realize that these variables aren't really additive. There are co-dependencies. Given the larger uncertainties in these polling adjustments, I feel that this mathematical sloppiness is smaller than the inaccuracy of the underlying data and underlying model. I also don't claim accuracy to 3 significant digits. I use a single decimal point mainly because I think the difference between 2nd and 3rd place could be VERY close.
For the 7.4% undecideds, I will make a gut feel call and give 1% to all the candidates who will get 3% of the vote or less, and 1/3 of the remainder to the candidates who may appeal to the values of the voter, but who are generally perceived by the voter as having no chance to win (e.g. Paul, Gingrich, Santorum) split allocated linearly according to their base polling % (so 1/3 * 6.4 * 17.6/(17.6+10.6+9=1. For the remaining 2/3 of that 6.4% given 2/3 of it to Huntsman who has momentum and 1/3 to Romney who has perception of being the odds on winner).
I wish I had more time to develop a reasonable method for allocating people who change their preference. Suffolk doesn't provide 2nd choice votes and I didn't have time (like I did for Iowa) to look at the PPP poll which does provide that info. We'll try harder for SC. So I went with my gut, which is informed by watching too much cable news.
So how did I get at the numbers at the top?
| 34.5 | Romney |
| 22.6 | Paul |
| 21.7 | Huntsman |
Live Blog for the election night and an analysis of the quality of my predictions after the fact are here
At this point, I am assuming the last Suffolk poll is my base for predictions. It correlates with Nate Silver's poll and although I am VERY suspicious about how Suffolks 2 day rolling average could change from 39.0 to 34.6 to 33.2 then back up to 37.4 over the past two days (250 voters surveyed per day have a VERY large sampling error) Suffolk is the most recent poll (which matters most in volatile primaries). (I exclude ARG's polls as their quality repuation is not good). The news has been bad for Romney in the past few days, so I can't believe a poll that implies at least an 8 point increase for Romney on Monday vs. Sunday is truly representing the electorate. However, Suffolk has an excellent polling reputation and it provides enough detail to let me do some adjustments where I feel they are needed (vs. polling averages and aggregation models which are so complex I have no idea how to analyze the fundamentals).
For reasons detailed here, I also assume that 56% of the electorate will be "Independent" which in New Hampshire is legally called "Undeclared".
BTW, despite hearing frequently in the media, that Indy's are not a factor in South Carolina, they too have an open primary and the Dems do not have an interesting primary, and moreover, I believe it is held at a later date. So Indy's should be an underrated factor in SC. But more on that after tonight.
I am also adjusting due to age distribution. As detailed here I believe the Suffolk poll is too heavily weighted towards older voters. I have decided to chose the well regarded Marist poll for age distribution in my forecast, though by reputation, I am also enticed by the even more well regarded Selzer poll. However since Selzer only polled NH once, over a month ago, I am not sure if the same quality holds as with their famous Iowa polls.
When the exit polls come out, I will compare this to see whether I guessed right. While I am not satisfied that I fully understand the dependency function (given age, what is the chance you will vote for candidate X), due to time constraints, I will assume that most recent Suffolk poll captures this function well enough. For South Carolina I will have more time to analyze this.
Finally, I realize that these variables aren't really additive. There are co-dependencies. Given the larger uncertainties in these polling adjustments, I feel that this mathematical sloppiness is smaller than the inaccuracy of the underlying data and underlying model. I also don't claim accuracy to 3 significant digits. I use a single decimal point mainly because I think the difference between 2nd and 3rd place could be VERY close.
For the 7.4% undecideds, I will make a gut feel call and give 1% to all the candidates who will get 3% of the vote or less, and 1/3 of the remainder to the candidates who may appeal to the values of the voter, but who are generally perceived by the voter as having no chance to win (e.g. Paul, Gingrich, Santorum) split allocated linearly according to their base polling % (so 1/3 * 6.4 * 17.6/(17.6+10.6+9=1. For the remaining 2/3 of that 6.4% given 2/3 of it to Huntsman who has momentum and 1/3 to Romney who has perception of being the odds on winner).
I wish I had more time to develop a reasonable method for allocating people who change their preference. Suffolk doesn't provide 2nd choice votes and I didn't have time (like I did for Iowa) to look at the PPP poll which does provide that info. We'll try harder for SC. So I went with my gut, which is informed by watching too much cable news.
So how did I get at the numbers at the top?
| Last Suffolk Poll | Candidate | Indy Split Change | Age Distribution Change | Undecided Allocation | Last Minute Candidate Switch | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37.4 | Romney | -1.9 | +.2 | +1.4 | -2.6 | 34.5 |
| 17.6 | Paul | 1.2 | +1.8 | +1 | +1.0 | 22.6 |
| 15.6 | Huntsman | 2.7 | -1.6 | +2.8 | +2.2 | 21.7 |
Friday, January 6, 2012
Indies Vital in New Hampshire
Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman attract many more Independent voters in New Hampshire than Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. So getting the right mix of Independent voters is very important to accurate polling.
To date, only the last Selzer poll over a month ago and a couple of the Suffolk tracking polls have been near the 50% Indy split which should occur on election day. The daily Suffolk tracking polls have been particularly confusing as they have varied from 37% to 48.5% Indy split.
Why is virtually every poll missing the right mix of Independent voters?
In New Hampshire, undeclared voters (Independents) may vote in the GOP primary Tuesday. Currently they make up 42% of all registered voters in the state. Traditionally, the percent of independent voters in a NH primary when both Democratic and Republican primaries are contested is very similar to the percent of registered independent voters. However, when one party has an unchallenged incumbent (like 1996 with President Clinton or 2004 with President Bush), the percent of independents in the opposing parties primary goes way up. See stats below. % of Registered voters comes from state controlled lists (often reported via news services). The % of actual voters in a primary comes from exit polls.
New Hampshire Independent Voter Percentage
The range of independent turnout for 2012 GOP Primary is based on linear extrapolation from the 1996 and 2004 primaries with the low number assuming a similar ratio of % in the GOP primary vs. Registered Voters from 1996 while the high number assuming a similar ration of % in the Dem Primary vs. Registered Voters from 2004.
Now, what are pollsters using as their ratio of Independents for next Tuesday's contest? What would the difference be if they had a different overall Indy ratio (based on their own candidate specific results by party breakdown)? See below:
Although some pollsters provided Indy vs GOP breakdowns at the poll level, some did not also breakdown splits by candidate by Indy vs. GOP so they have a ?? in the left column.
Those with UNKNOWN may have even excluded ALL non-GOP registered voters as CNN has done for every Iowa poll. Take those polls with a HUGE grain of salt.
To date, only the last Selzer poll over a month ago and a couple of the Suffolk tracking polls have been near the 50% Indy split which should occur on election day. The daily Suffolk tracking polls have been particularly confusing as they have varied from 37% to 48.5% Indy split.
Why is virtually every poll missing the right mix of Independent voters?
In New Hampshire, undeclared voters (Independents) may vote in the GOP primary Tuesday. Currently they make up 42% of all registered voters in the state. Traditionally, the percent of independent voters in a NH primary when both Democratic and Republican primaries are contested is very similar to the percent of registered independent voters. However, when one party has an unchallenged incumbent (like 1996 with President Clinton or 2004 with President Bush), the percent of independents in the opposing parties primary goes way up. See stats below. % of Registered voters comes from state controlled lists (often reported via news services). The % of actual voters in a primary comes from exit polls.
| Year | % of All Voters | % of GOP Primary | % of Dem Primary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 28% | 35% | No Contest |
| 2000 | 38% | 39% | 36% |
| 2004 | 37.7% | No Contest | 52% |
| 2008 | 44.9% | 37% | 44% |
| 2012 | 40.7% | 51-56%?? | No Contest |
The range of independent turnout for 2012 GOP Primary is based on linear extrapolation from the 1996 and 2004 primaries with the low number assuming a similar ratio of % in the GOP primary vs. Registered Voters from 1996 while the high number assuming a similar ration of % in the Dem Primary vs. Registered Voters from 2004.
Now, what are pollsters using as their ratio of Independents for next Tuesday's contest? What would the difference be if they had a different overall Indy ratio (based on their own candidate specific results by party breakdown)? See below:
| Pollster | % of Independents | Poll's Romney Lead | Romney Lead w/56% Indies |
|---|---|---|---|
| NBC/Marist | 38% | 20% | 16% |
| Magellan | 39% | 20% | ?? |
| PPP | 42% | 17% | 13% |
| Suffolk | 41.1% | 19.8% | 17.7% |
| UNH/Boston Globe | 43% | 22% | 19% |
| UNH/WMUR | 43% | 24% | 22% |
| ARG | 44% | 19% | 14% |
| Selzer/Bloomberg | 53% | 23% | ?? |
| Rasmussen | UNKNOWN | 24% | ?? |
| CNN/Time | UNKNOWN | 27% | ?? |
| Zogby/Washington Times | UNKNOWN | 14% | ?? |
Although some pollsters provided Indy vs GOP breakdowns at the poll level, some did not also breakdown splits by candidate by Indy vs. GOP so they have a ?? in the left column.
Those with UNKNOWN may have even excluded ALL non-GOP registered voters as CNN has done for every Iowa poll. Take those polls with a HUGE grain of salt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)