Veelal zijn dat soort effecten in polls in een dergelijk stadium ook gewoon het gevolg van meer naamsbekendheid / media-aandacht.quote:Op woensdag 23 december 2015 22:39 schreef Elfletterig het volgende:
[..]
Opvallend is ook wel het wegzakken van Fiorina. Eerdere debatten leverden haar een boost op, maar dat geldt na het laatste debat duidelijk niet. Opvallend is ook wel dat Bush niet profiteert van zijn relatief goede optreden.
Maar Twitteraars wijzen Paul erop dat Cruz nog meer stemmingen mist dan Rubio....twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:56:16to my absentee friend @marcorubio, I didn't put your $170k+ salary in my waste report today. But I could have #Festivus reageer retweet
Ze krijgt specifiek de vraag en het antwoord lijkt me eerlijk gezegd een vrij standaard 'de andere partij is nog een veel erger alternatief'-verhaal.quote:Op woensdag 23 december 2015 22:55 schreef Elfletterig het volgende:
Dit is trouwens ook wel wezenlijk nieuws, denk ik: Clinton richt zich tot de supporters van de andere Democratische kandidaten: Blijf straks vooral niet thuis, omdat ik niet 'pure enough' ben:
http://www.realclearpolit(...)not_pure_enough.html
Die cijfers zijn wel van de jaren voordat ze zich kandidaat stelden.quote:Op woensdag 23 december 2015 22:47 schreef Elfletterig het volgende:
Nog wat anders trouwens: Op Twitter plaatst Rand Paul een aanval op Marco Rubio die (weer eens) een stemming heeft gemist.Maar Twitteraars wijzen Paul erop dat Cruz nog meer stemmingen mist dan Rubio....twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:56:16to my absentee friend @marcorubio, I didn't put your $170k+ salary in my waste report today. But I could have #Festivus reageer retweet
[ afbeelding ]
En wat doen ze dan in die tijd dat ze niet stemmen? Niet naar hun constituency lijkt me.quote:Op donderdag 24 december 2015 00:00 schreef Royyy het volgende:
[..]
Die cijfers zijn wel van de jaren voordat ze zich kandidaat stelden.
In 2015 heeft Rubio 35% van de stemmen gemist, en Cruz 23%.
23% is wel nog steeds belachelijk veel natuurlijk
Ter vergelijking, Paul heeft dit jaar 5% gemist, en Sanders 8%.
Nog even een update(democraten erbij plus match-up)quote:Op woensdag 23 december 2015 21:37 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:
Nieuwe landelijke peiling:
Trump 39(+3), Cruz 18(+2), Rubio 10(-2), Carson 10(-4), Bush 3(-), Christie 5(+1), Paul 4(+3), Fiorina 1(-2), Kasich 2(-), Huckabee 2(-), Graham 1(+1), Santorum 0(-), Pataki 0(-), Gilmore 0 (-)
Opmerkelijk Rubio daalt en Paul is in de lift.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/22/cnnpoll.pdf
Clinton 50(-8), Sanders 34(+4), O'Malley 3(+1)
Clinton 49 vs Trump 47
Clinton 46 vs Rubio 49
Clinton 46 vs Cruz 48
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/23/cnnpoll2.pdf
Campagne voeren in voornamelijk Iowa en New Hampshire.quote:Op donderdag 24 december 2015 00:10 schreef Euribob het volgende:
[..]
En wat doen ze dan in die tijd dat ze niet stemmen? Niet naar hun constituency lijkt me.
http://www.latimes.com/po(...)-20151221-story.htmlquote:Donald Trump leads the GOP presidential field in polls of Republican voters nationally and in most early-voting states, but some surveys may actually be understating his support, a new study suggests.
The analysis, by Morning Consult, a polling and media company, looked at an odd occurrence that has cropped up repeatedly this year: Trump generally has done better in online polls than in surveys done by phone.
The firm conducted an experiment aimed at understanding why that happens and which polls are more accurate -- online surveys that have tended to show Trump with support of nearly four-in-10 GOP voters or the telephone surveys that have typically shown him with the backing of one-third or fewer.
Their results suggest that the higher figure probably provides the more accurate measure. Some significant number of Trump supporters, especially those with college educations, are "less likely to say that they support him when they’re talking to a live human” than when they are in the “anonymous environment” of an online survey, said the firm's polling director, Kyle Dropp.
With Trump dominating political debates in both parties, gauging his level of support has become a crucial puzzle. The Morning Consult study provides one piece of the solution, although many other uncertainties remain.
Among the complicating factors is this: The gap between online and telephone surveys has narrowed significantly in surveys taken in the last few weeks. That could suggest that Republicans who were reluctant to admit to backing Trump in the past have become more willing to do so recently.
Another issue is that not only can polls change over time, but Trump's support in pre-election surveys might not fully translate into actual votes. He has not invested as heavily as some of his GOP rivals in building the kind of get-out-the-vote operation that candidates typically rely on, particularly in early voting states.
Some of the polls that show heavy support for Trump have also shown him doing better among self-identified independents who lean Republican than among regular GOP voters. At least some of those independents may not be in the habit of voting in primaries and caucuses, which could make a robust turnout operation even more necessary.
On the other hand, a candidate of Trump's level of celebrity may simply not need much of a get-out-the-vote operation. No one really knows.
Another complication is that most polls made public this year have been of people nationwide, not of voters in the states that actually hold the first primaries. In Iowa, which will kick off the election season with party caucuses on Feb. 1, Trump has slipped into second place, trailing Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in the majority of recent polls.
In New Hampshire, which holds the first primary, on Feb. 9, Trump leads, but less dramatically than in national polls. In recent weeks, he has averaged a bit more than one-quarter of the vote there.
Still, the Morning Consult experiment sheds considerable light on an issue that has puzzled pollsters for months.
The firm polled 2,397 potential Republican voters earlier this month, randomly assigning them to one of three different methods -- a traditional telephone survey with live interviewers calling landlines and cellphones, an online survey and an interactive dialing technique that calls people by telephone and asks them to respond to recorded questions by hitting buttons on their phone.
By randomly assigning people to the three different approaches and running all at the same time, the researchers hoped to eliminate factors that might cause results to vary from one poll to another.
The experiment confirmed that "voters are about six points more likely to support Trump when they’re taking the poll online then when they’re talking to a live interviewer,” said Dropp.
The most telling part of the experiment, however, was that not all types of people responded the same way. Among blue-collar Republicans, who have formed the core of Trump's support, the polls were about the same regardless of method. But among college-educated Republicans, a significant difference appeared, with Trump scoring 9 points better in the online poll.
The most likely explanation for that education gap, Dropp and his colleagues believe, is a well-known problem known as social-desirability bias -- the tendency of people to not want to confess unpopular views to a pollster.
Blue-collar voters don't feel embarrassed about supporting Trump, who is very popular in their communities, the pollsters suggested. But many college-educated Republicans may hesitate to admit their attraction to Trump, the experiment indicates.
In a public setting such as the Iowa caucuses, where people identify their candidate preference in front of friends and neighbors, that same social-desirability bias may hold sway.
But in most primaries, where voters cast a secret ballot, the study's finding suggests that anonymous online surveys -- the ones that typically show Trump with a larger lead -- provide the more accurate measure of his backing.
"It’s our sense that a lot of polls are under-reporting Trump’s overall support," Dropp said.
Precies! Amerikanen schamen zich steeds minder om voor politiek incorrect te kiezen. Net als de kiezers in NL trouwens.quote:Op donderdag 24 december 2015 05:27 schreef Intellectueel het volgende:
Polls may actually underestimate Trump's support, study finds
[..]
http://www.latimes.com/po(...)-20151221-story.html
Nee, jij wordt geïndoctrineerd door een angstaanjagende, linkse propaganda.quote:Op donderdag 24 december 2015 05:54 schreef OMG het volgende:
Monder schamen om politiek incorrct kiezen.. Ofwel, openlijk toegeven dat je een racistische mongool bent. Klopt wel voor die blue collar voters die genoemd worden, trouwens.
Rechts geïndoctrineerd? Nee hoor, gewoon intelligent en realistisch.quote:Op donderdag 24 december 2015 06:24 schreef OMG het volgende:
Ja, dat zeg ik. Rechts geïndoctrineerde zool, met je Wilders.
Je hebt trouwens nooit antwoord gegeven op m'n vraag, alleen een link naar je Wilders fetish.
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:02:37Good morning and HAPPY #Festivus! I will be airing my grievances soon. reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:03:38"I've got a lot of problems with you people and now you're gonna hear about them!" #Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:44:23I have a lot of problems with Washington. With the government in general and Congress in particular. Those will come soon #Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:45:14But first, my fellow Presidential candidates get the #Festivus treatment! reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:48:10Where to start but @realDonaldTrump. If u bring the Yiddish, know what it means. Guess that's more of a kvetch than a grievance #Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:50:01After the debates, @realDonaldTrump always trying to give us parting gifts of his made in China ties. Weird. #Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:51:39I have no grievances against my fellow doc @RealBenCarson because I have not heard a word he has said in any debate. #Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:54:22I think I speak for all in NJ when I say @GovChristie I don't care how much $ u spend at Met Life, Cowboys fans should stay out. #Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:56:16to my absentee friend @marcorubio, I didn't put your $170k+ salary in my waste report today. But I could have #Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:58:23I hereby retract grievance I was going to air about @GrahamBlog today. Respect for the recently departed #EarlyFestivusPresent #Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 14:59:27to my comrade @SenSanders: Unless you're Santa Claus, Socialism runs out of other people's money #Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 15:01:43.@CarlyFiorina has ZERO trouble making it back from commercial breaks @HillaryClinton. Just saying. #Festivus #waronwomensrooms reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 15:04:19.@JebBush is always trying to change the debate rules to allow extra time for awkward pauses in answers. Not gonna happen. #Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 15:05:19Be back soon to take on Washington, waste, and any other topic that deserves grievances! Air yours too! #Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:17:47I'M BACK WITH MORE GRIEVANCES. This time I'm taking on waste and other ridiculousness in Washington. #Festivus #AiringofGrievances reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:18:24I've proposed multiple balanced budgets - most of my colleagues have voted no and aren't serious about shrinking government #Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:20:18What passes for serious in DC: budgets that take decades to "balance" in year 34 or so. It's y we need Balanced Budget Amend. & Term Limits reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:25:02Grievance: Permitted millionaires to live in federally-subsidized public housing (HUD)Cost: $104,000,000#Festivus #AiringofGrievances reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:25:46Grievance: Established a made-for-TV professional cricket league in Afghanistan, where few homes have TVs Cost: $850,000#Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:26:07Grievance: Paid for a study to figure out why Americans don’t want to use the metric systemCost: $188,000#Festivus #AiringofGrievances reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:26:32Grievance: Paid for yoga classes for bureaucrats across the federal governmentCost: $150,000#Festivus #AiringofGrievances reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:26:52Grievance: Paid for children from Pakistan to travel to the U.S. to attend Space Camp and visit DollywoodCost: $250,000#Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:27:50Grievance: Simultaneously promoted tourism to the U.S. and tourism to Albania to the same audienceCost: $6,000,000#Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:28:50Grievance: Failed to stop federally-paid medical care from being used in exotic vacation locales (USCG)Cost: $1,200,000#Festivus reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:29:42Grievance: Studied emotions and how people feel about the decisions they make for themselvesCost: $175,950#Festivus #AiringofGrievances reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:30:30Grievance: Researched the effectiveness of golf equipment in space (NASA)Cost: $15,000,000#Festivus #AiringofGrievances reageer retweet
twitter:RandPaul twitterde op woensdag 23-12-2015 om 17:31:11Grievance: Failed to prevent substantial Medicare overpayments for sleep studies (HHS)Cost: $175,000,000#Festivus #AiringofGrievances reageer retweet
quote:Op donderdag 24 december 2015 11:51 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:
Paul was gister lekker op dreef, een komische/kritische tweet over alle kandidaten.
Ik denk dat hier het aloude adagium: "If you want to write an essay, don't use fucking Twitter." van toepassing is.quote:
Hij heeft met deze reeks circa 10.000 volgers en tienduizenden retweets gekregen, dus het heeft gewerktquote:Op donderdag 24 december 2015 12:04 schreef Monolith het volgende:
[..]
[..]
Ik denk dat hier het aloude adagium: "If you want to write an essay, don't use fucking Twitter." van toepassing is.
Ik zie niet in wat dat van doen heeft met mijn opmerking, maar afgezien daarvan zeggen Twittervolgers en retweets niet zo gek veel. Zie ook eerder genoemde 'Facebook likes'. Daarbij doet Paul mee met de top. Hoeveel kans heeft hij daadwerkelijk in de primaries? Pakweg nul.quote:Op donderdag 24 december 2015 12:06 schreef martijnde3de het volgende:
[..]
Hij heeft met deze reeks circa 10.000 volgers en tienduizenden retweets gekregen, dus het heeft gewerkt
Maar het doel van deze Twitter-tirades is het krijgen van meer volgers, vandaar dat ik zeg dat het heeft gewerkt.quote:Op donderdag 24 december 2015 12:09 schreef Monolith het volgende:
[..]
Ik zie niet in wat dat van doen heeft met mijn opmerking, maar afgezien daarvan zeggen Twittervolgers en retweets niet zo gek veel. Zie ook eerder genoemde 'Facebook likes'. Daarbij doet Paul mee met de top. Hoeveel kans heeft hij daadwerkelijk in de primaries? Pakweg nul.
| Forum Opties | |
|---|---|
| Forumhop: | |
| Hop naar: | |