Why did Trump only get 24% of the republican vote in Iowa?

[dullard]

I agree that primary polling is poor, but you wouldn't just double their stated margin of error if you wanted to correct for it. That's just not how the math works.

Anyways, back to the original point: shady' statement was misleading.

Each candidate is +-4%, not that the difference in two candidates is +-4%. You don't just double it, but the end result is almost identical to doubling it. Especially when you consider that we are working with rounded numbers, being any more accurate doesn't really gain you anything.

 

[Exophase]

Trump is maxed out, voter-wise.

He's not attracting any new supporters.

Pretty much. There's still a significant percentage of votes tied up in candidates that have no meaningful shot and most of them will drop out sooner or later, some with endorsements. Most of their supporters will not go to Trump.

 

[fskimospy]

Each candidate is +-4%, not that the difference in two candidates is +-4%. You don't just double it, but the end result is almost identical to doubling it. Especially when you consider that we are working with rounded numbers, being any more accurate doesn't really gain you anything.

No that's just not how you do it and the answer is not the same.

http://www.stats.org/presidential-pollings-margin-for-error/

 

[feralkid]

Pretty much. There's still a significant percentage of votes tied up in candidates that have no meaningful shot and most of them will drop out sooner or later, some with endorsements. Most of their supporters will not go to Trump.

Exactly.

Trump's 24% pretty much just means that about 76% of Republican voters want Someone Besides Trump.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Exactly.

Trump's 24% pretty much just means that about 76% of Republican voters want Someone Besides Trump.

When the only other "someone elses" boil down to just Rubio or Cruz it's probably going to funnel a lot of people back to Trump.

 

[feralkid]

When the only other "someone elses" boil down to just Rubio or Cruz it's probably going to funnel a lot of people back to Trump.

Maybe...dear gawd, I forgot how awful they truly are.

 

[MongGrel]

Cruz "stole Iowa", that's why.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...donald-trump-ted-cruz-iowa-caucuses/79748926/

___________________________________
"There once was a poster named buckshot,

He typed a lot of pretty poor nose snot,

His List grew and grew,

And most just said pew,

So he continued along to be not hot."
____________________________________

Sorry, my first Pome.

Throw cabbages if you like

Trump made a pretty big faux pas with putting money in the communion bowl just before the caucus, I still find that hilarious.

It was pretty much a non Christian going to church without a clue type of thing.

"Hey guys, what am I supposed to do here. I guess just chuck $3 in this bowl."

Derp.

 

[buckshot24]

Exactly.

Trump's 24% pretty much just means that about 76% of Republican voters want Someone Besides Trump.

76% of Iowa Republican voters.

 

[pcgeek11]

Well at least the republicans didn't end up flipping coins to see who gets the prize.

What a fucking joke. Flipping a coin to decide on a caucus. And still end up practically tied.

Sometimes, Iowa Democrats award caucus delegates with a coin flip.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...ts-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

In an unknown number of Iowa Democratic caucus precincts Monday, a county delegate was awarded after the flip of a coin.

Why is the number unknown? Because officials who reported county delegate totals without using the party's smartphone app weren't required to signify if the win was the result of a coin toss, said Sam Lau, a spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party.

Lau said seven coin flips were reported statewide through the app, and Bernie Sanders won six of them.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...iowa-caucus-coin-flip-count-unknown/79708740/

 

[boomerang]

76% of Iowa Republican voters.

That caucused. And that's what makes the process in Iowa so arcane. A few get to decide nothing, but something that the media is very willing to promote as though it's huge.

 

[kage69]

Evangelicals.

Yup.

Btw, thank you evangelicals! And keep it up! While your choice is woefully typical, I commend you for not backing the most embarrassing candidate in the line up. One would think you guys learned your lesson from Dubya, but oh well.

 

[Paratus]

___________________________________
"There once was a poster named buckshot,

He typed a lot of pretty poor nose snot,

His List grew and grew,

And most just said pew,

So he continued along to be not hot."
____________________________________

Sorry, my first Pome.

Throw cabbages if you like

Trump made a pretty big faux pas with putting money in the communion bowl just before the caucus, I still find that hilarious.

It was pretty much a non Christian going to church without a clue type of thing.

"Hey guys, what am I supposed to do here. I guess just chuck $3 in this bowl."

Derp.

I give it 5/7.

I'm really not sure what this really means for the top three candidates. In the long run probably not much. It wasn't an unequivocal win for any of them. It was a bunch of "buts"

• Cruz won but by plying the evangelical constituency that probably won't carry over to the next few primaries.
• Trump came in second which looks bad considering polls and how he carries his campaign but he did well without out much of the evangelical vote which means he'll probably vie for 1st in the next few primaries.
• Rubio got a large boost but he still only came in third.

Basically I think the biggest thing this did was firm up the top contenders.

 

[buckshot24]

Basically I think the biggest thing this did was firm up the top contenders.

Best thing it has done is got rid of 3 candidates.

 

[Phokus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GSzw2XdpJo

Trump isn't happy with Cruz's tactics, he may have a point though

 

[sportage]

I think Trump supporters were hog tied and shoved into the closet.
That would of it...

 

[Bowfinger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GSzw2XdpJo

Trump isn't happy with Cruz's tactics, he may have a point though

He's certainly right about Cruz being a slimy liar. Of course Trump calling anyone else a liar is hypocritical, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about Cruz. I literally laughed out loud when I got to the part where Trump explains why Cruz is a liar. Trump has no shame.

 

[dullard]

No that's just not how you do it and the answer is not the same.

http://www.stats.org/presidential-pollings-margin-for-error/

You are (or I should more accurately state that the math in the link you are presenting is) assuming Trump and Cruz are perfectly negatively correlated (that a voter who leaves Trump will go to Cruz and that a voter who leaves Cruz will go for Trump). Do you have any data to back that up? It is quite a big assumption in such a crowded field and doesn't feel correct to me. If not, you are neglecting a whole lot of other error terms in the proper propagation of error math. If you include all of the propagation of error math, and proper formulas, then you end up basically with the rule-of-thumb worst case scenario that I posted above (and anyways it is just safest to go with the worst case scenario than to bicker about tenths of a percent).

For example, suppose that we were to use percentages where that math you linked was correct (roughly 50% voter support) and that they truly were negatively correlated. Then p1=50%, p2=50%, n=602 and the math comes up with an error of:
1.96 * ((0.5 + 0.5 - (0.5 - 0.5)^2) / 601)^0.5 = 7.995%. Oh, wow, I said take 4% * 2 = 8%, I'm so far off from 7.995%. Also, like you stated, your own formula isn't valid for small percentages to begin with. So we can't use your linked math when the percentages go down to the 20% range. That math artificially gives a too-low MOE as you stray very much from 50% politician support. For example, try polling 2 people and see what happens if they both support Trump. Suddenly that math has a 0% margin of error, Trump will win the race with 100% of the vote and 0% MOE. Or, you can realize the math isn't applicable. The safest thing to do is just resort to rules of thumb, or do the full proper math that doesn't vary much from the rule-of-thumb anyways.

Rather than get into a battle of propagation of error and assumptions, since that will likely go nowhere, lets just go to a simple table: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004536.php

Trump was 5% ahead in your posted poll, with a 4% poll MOE. Thus, if the poll was done perfectly there is a 90% chance that Trump was in the lead in your poll. Since the poll is clearly not done perfectly (self-selection, bias either intentional or not, time differences, etc), there is a less than 90% chance that the poll showed that Trump was in the lead.

 

[fskimospy]

You are (or I should more accurately state that the math in the link you are presenting is) assuming Trump and Cruz are perfectly negatively correlated (that a voter who leaves Trump will go to Cruz and that a voter who leaves Cruz will go for Trump). Do you have any data to back that up? It is quite a big assumption in such a crowded field and doesn't feel correct to me. If not, you are neglecting a whole lot of other error terms in the proper propagation of error math. If you include all of the propagation of error math, and proper formulas, then you end up basically with the rule-of-thumb worst case scenario that I posted above (and anyways it is just safest to go with the worst case scenario than to bicker about tenths of a percent).

For example, suppose that we were to use percentages where that math you linked was correct (roughly 50% voter support) and that they truly were negatively correlated. Then p1=50%, p2=50%, n=602 and the math comes up with an error of:
1.96 * ((0.5 + 0.5 - (0.5 - 0.5)^2) / 601)^0.5 = 7.995%. Oh, wow, I said take 4% * 2 = 8%, I'm so far off from 7.995%. Also, like you stated, your own formula isn't valid for small percentages to begin with. So we can't use your linked math when the percentages go down to the 20% range. That math artificially gives a too-low MOE as you stray very much from 50% politician support. For example, try polling 2 people and see what happens if they both support Trump. Suddenly that math has a 0% margin of error, Trump will win the race with 100% of the vote and 0% MOE. Or, you can realize the math isn't applicable. The safest thing to do is just resort to rules of thumb, or do the full proper math that doesn't vary much from the rule-of-thumb anyways.

Rather than get into a battle of propagation of error and assumptions, since that will likely go nowhere, lets just go to a simple table: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004536.php

Trump was 5% ahead in your posted poll, with a 4% poll MOE. Thus, if the poll was done perfectly there is a 90% chance that Trump was in the lead in your poll. Since the poll is clearly not done perfectly (self-selection, bias either intentional or not, time differences, etc), there is a less than 90% chance that the poll showed that Trump was in the lead.

I would suggest you read the article I linked more closely. It basically answers all of your questions.

The proper test is a difference of proportions. It is not close to the same as the sum of margins of errors. That's just wrong.

 

[MongGrel]

I give it 5/7.

I have a pretty minimal, jazzy type of Jack Kerouac thing in mind also, but I'll just refrain ()

A limerick seemed a good start, but I don't want to derail the topic.

 

[BoberFett]

Exactly.

Trump's 24% pretty much just means that about 76% of Republican voters want Someone Besides Trump.

So 74% of Republicans want someone other than Trump, but only 50% of Democrats want someone other than Hillary. I think that says a lot about which party is worse.

 

[fskimospy]

So 74% of Republicans want someone other than Trump, but only 50% of Democrats want someone other than Hillary. I think that says a lot about which party is worse.

But remember, you think both are equally bad and just call it like you see it, right?

Serious question, why do you keep trying to pretend you aren't a very conservative person? It's okay that you are, just own it.

 

[compuwiz1]

Trump isn't a leftist and he's not a rightist. He wears his views and his heart on his sleeve. He's egotistical, at times, yet he has humility, at times. He got his ass beat in Iowa, but that wasn't a real defeat. If his results don't put him at #1 in NH, he will probably have a yuuuuge decision the make. He should, rightfully concede at that point. I don't think that happens, however. I think he's going to make a better showing, going into Super Tuesday.

 

[sm625]

This was probably good for about 2 points.

Trump is neither a clown or a fool. He is very shrewd. He knows when where and how to strike in the game of political brinksmanship. Do not mistake his entertainer persona for his business persona. His success will largely depend on how he is able to blend his business persona with his entertainer persona.

 

[feralkid]

Trump is neither a clown or a fool. He is very shrewd. He knows when where and how to strike in the game of political brinksmanship. Do not mistake his entertainer persona for his business persona. His success will largely depend on how he is able to blend his business persona with his entertainer persona.

His businesses go bankrupt, his programs have been cancelled.

If you define "success" as grabbing all the money and taking the only lifeboat before watching the ship go down with all hands aboard, yes, he's quite shrewd.

 

[nickqt]

But remember, you think both are equally bad and just call it like you see it, right?

Serious question, why do you keep trying to pretend you aren't a very conservative person? It's okay that you are, just own it.

Nevermind the fact that caucuses in Iowa aren't polls of percentages of the electorate of Iowa, nevermind the rest of the country.

LOL Libertarian is simply a Republican voter who has enough awareness that the Republican brand name is a piece of shit.

It's why right around 2007-2008, a whole lot of Republican voters seemingly disappeared, with new Independent/Libertarian/Tea Party voters popping up in their place.

They stopped just long enough to scrape off their Bush/Cheney bumper stickers before reappearing to say that Bush was clearly a RINO, and that they aren't Republicans, but Independents/Libertarians/Tea Party.