But here's the counter-point. Let's say that a sample of 10% of the population differed from the population by 8 %age points. Ok, fine, if none of them are sampled at all, at the very most, you're going to vary away from the actual sample by 1%, because of the bias in your overall sample set. The fact is though, we're mostly dealing with surveys that have 3-4 % MOE's already. So in other words, unless the difference in the groups is huge, i.e. 50% of the smaller group favoring one candidate, it's going to fall within the margin of error anyway.

There are almost certainly larger sources of error just due to random chance, incomplete subsets, underrepresentation of other groups, and all of the hang-ups that pollsters go through.

It is a truism that the only poll that matters is the one on election day. Yet what does that mean in multi-candidate primary? Especially when so many are looking for an easy answer and a way to predict who to support. So the money primary and the media spin primary become more important than the voters. It is a horrible self-fulfilling system at times. Yet here is hoping that the people (and the Spirit) have a chance.

Between Ron Paul, Rastafarian Sean Paul, Pope John Paul, and transvestite RuPaul...Ron Paul still makes the least sense to me in terms of being comprehensible.

Anyway, I would consider it an honor and a privilege if you would add my blog "The Tygrrrr Express" www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com to your list of linked sites if you feel the quality is high.

I came across your blog through Michelle Malkin's website, since I enjoy her writing.

Happy summer.

eric

Whether or not a household is mobile phone only is not the point. We have a land line but we are never around when the pollers would call. The only people the pollers reach are low tech people that are out of the mainstream. And if you go to cell phone only - Ron Paul won the debate. Well, let's get even higher tech - the Internet. There Ron Paul wins every time.

What about VOIP landlines? Those with VOIP don't get listed in the local directory (I'm not, although I was never asked if I wanted to be or not, you probably could if you asked in some way) and so I would not be called. I would say even more than cell phones, tech-savvy libertarians are going to have VOIP and so will their families, who they have been preaching to about Ron Paul :) So that is yet another factor. No Internet-savvy young person would have a regular phone when they could have such a better plan with VOIP.

There are several problems with landline polling. You show me the poll, and I will show you the bias.

1) Sample Group Bias. At this point in the election, most polls are not doing random digit dialing, they are calling random names from party registration lists. (some are calling random names from the phone book, but screening against registered members of the other party, etc.) Thus Republicans who have stayed aboard the good ship "Dubya" sampling the kool-aid are the ones being called.

And it's not just young libertarians who only have cell phones and VOIPs. Check out the comments here. Note the ages, the prior party affiliations, and the amount of money sent. These are not mainly young libertarians.

2) Sample size bias. Most of these polls where Ron Paul is getting 1% are very small (300-500) In larger polls (~1000) he is polling 3% or better. Yes, the margin of error takes this into account, but most people don't pay attention to that, or even understand what it means.

If Candidate A is getting 12% and Candidate B is getting 25% and the margin of error is 6.5%, then who is ahead?

NO ONE - It's a DEAD HEAT.

But no one ever sees that the results might actually be (12+6.5)=18.5% vs. (25-6.5)=18.5%

That's what margin of error really means. If people do the math at all, they might think

(12+6.5)=18.5% vs (25+6.5)=31.5% or

(12-6.5)=5.5% vs (25-6.5)=18.5%.

Of course it is also true that the real result might be 5.5% vs 31.5%. The point is a lot of these polls have high margins of error (due to small sample size) but no one ever bothers to do the math.

3) Reporting Bias. People don't realize that pollsters take several polls at the same time. Which one you get to see depends in a large part on who is paying (or whom the pollster thinks is likely to be paying) for the poll. Bad results are often not ever released.

4) Name Order Bias. If five candidates are running and the names are "rotated" in the following manner: ABCDE, BACED, CABDE, EABCD, DABCE - Then, clearly, candidate A is getting a huge benefit, and candidates D & E are getting the shaft even though the pollster can claim that the names were "rotated", and everyone got an equal shot at first place.

In the current case, the majority of polls reported to date DON'T EVEN INCLUDE Ron Paul. Not one "scientific" poll that has been done in Texas has featured Ron Paul.

NOT ONE!

Ron Paul is the only declared candidate being left out of this many polls (although they often include Bloomberg, F. Thompson and Newt Gingrich - who are not even running.) Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo are included in nearly 4 times as many polls as is Ron Paul. (19 vs. 5) Even T. Thompson is being included in nearly 3 times as many polls. (13 vs. 5)

5) Metric Bias. No - nothing to do with kilos and centimetres; metric bias means that the poll doesn't really measure what it purports to measure. Modern telephone polls measure name recognition, and "preference" not support, or votes. Many Republicans would *prefer* that Julie-Annie be selected by the GOP it seems, but how many are sending him money, and how many will actually go vote for him once they find out his views on public funded abortions and political cross-dressing.

If you are given a poll which asks "which would you rather receive from an attractive member of the appropriate gender:

A) a slap in the face,

B) a kick in the crotch,

C) an oscultation on your oral fissure?"

How many do you think will choose C? (a kiss on the mouth) Even if A wins in today's poll, how many will actually leave their couches on election day to go vote for everyone getting slapped in the face?

Neo-cons will say: "No one will vote Oscultation-of-the-oral-fissure (sure it's the best choice, but it's too esoteric, not enough people know what it means) You'd better vote Slap-in-the-face, otherwise you will split the vote, and Kick-in-the-crouch will win, and then we will really be in a world of hurt" - I really, really hate that stupid argument.

6) Time Bias. It is very early in the election cycle. We are over a year away from either nominating convention. A lot can and will change between then and now. In the example above, what will happen if three days before the vote someone spends a whole lot of money to buy ads to explain what "oscultation" really means?

Also once the poll is over, there is time bias in the other direction. The polls become out-dated and no longer relevant. If the above poll is done in January, and the election is in November, does it really matter that "A" was the winner in June? Everyone now knows what oscultation means, and most people just want to know who's passing out the smooches, and how can they be first in line.

Focusing on the cell phones misses the larger problem with these traditional polls.

Eric, I don't get you. You say you find Ron Paul incomprehensible, and that you enjoy Michele Malkin's writings.

I think you're seriously deficient in some basic faculty of understanding. Ron Paul's arguments do NOTHING more than simply defend the Constitution and the individual's rights, as endowed by our Creator(s).

You're going to need a more legitimate source of information than Michele Malkin if you ever hope to understand this great nation of ours called America.

- Jason

Jason,
I agree. It seems that alot of so-called conservative bloggers and talk show hosts do not have a full comprehensive understanding of the Constitution. How can the Constitution, and defending it, be a danger for our nation?
If the Foundation for this War on Terror be a shaky one, and because it violates the contract(Constitution) between government and individual,it is, then how can it stand against criticism from individuals. It can't and therefore someone like Ron Paul must be silenced.
Malkin and others like her are simply following their emotions. There is no voice of reason in their criticism.
I am a 39 yr white male that registered to vote for the first time since 92. I now can, with a clean conscience, vote for a politician.
Ron Paul 2008!

Unless the Democrats nominate Dennis Kucinich, Al Gore, or maybe even John Kerry, there's no way Ron Paul could win the general election. Although I agree with 90% of what he says, he just comes off as a little too "crazy old man." Nevertheless, I hope he sticks around as long as possible to hold the other GOP candidates' feet to the fire on conservative principles.

Do pollsters ever take into account caller ID? My grandparents don't have caller ID (and they're polite) so they answer every call and would actually answer poll questions. I don't know anyone else that doesn't have caller ID so they don't answer calls that aren't from someone they know. So, you've got the internet, cell phones, caller ID, and a lack of free time that prevent everyone except the elderly or poorly uninformed from answering polls. And we wonder why no one votes for the rare principled politician with the good ideas. I don't think my grandmother would even know what Google is, much less YouTube.

Yeah, he has such crazy ideas like "War must be declared by Congress," and "smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom are good things." What a nut job! I guess I don't understand why anyone would vote for someone else?

Nick,

Please don't intentionally misinterpret what Eric Seymour just said. His ideas are not crazy, and ideas alone mattered, he's the best of the Republican lot, hands down. Eric even said he agreed with 90% of Paul's ideas, so that's hardly a criticism on that front.

However, and I am in complete agreement with Eric about it, something about Ron Paul screams 'crazy old man', and that's enough to give me pause.

I would almost call him 2008's Al Sharpton. I don't think Sharpton was right about many things, but as someone who had no chance to win the nomination, he was able to say things that no one else in the party would say. If we can say the same about Ron Paul--that he's saying all the things Republican nominees who have a chance at winning wouldn't ever say--then what we're really faced with is a damning indictment of today's GOP.

"His ideas are not crazy, and ideas alone mattered, he's the best of the Republican lot, hands down."

I goofed. That should read:

"Paul's ideas are not crazy, and if ideas alone mattered, he's the best of the Republican lot, hands down."

Lots of people HATE Ron Paul...that's why they don't invite him to 'play in all the reindeer games'. "...they hate us for our FREEDOMS!"