I think your point that “they don’t have to be right” wins me over. At this point (still 3 months out for the earliest primaries), there are no penalties for being wrong.

because phone polls make an attempt to reach a cross section of likely voters while only a small section of those voters care about who wins a straw poll

That may be true of general elections, but I don’t agreed that’s the case with primary voters.

Primaries attract a much smaller participation rate than general election. And because the primary is held on different days in different states, there is no nationwide GOTV prod from the national pundits like there is during the general election. I think the primary voter demographic will look a lot like the straw poll demographic.

This year, the primaries will have even fewer of the usual GOP base, because for the most part, they are really disgusted with the rampant over-spending and just plain tired of the war as well.

The time is ripe for a general take-over of the GOP, and Ron Paul is just the guy to do it.

Later.

It’s politics. Perception is reality. Almost nobody knows anything about the NYFD or NYPD complaints about Giuliani. I don’t, and I’m far more politically savvy than your average primary voter. Hence, the image of Giuliani acting like an adult on America’s worst day sticks in the mind of the average voter.

Rudy’s support may be wide, but it is as shallow as a puddle on the flat prairie. Once people look past the images, they will see things they don’t like.

Since people pay no penalty for “voting wrong”, they have little incentive to look past image to substance.

That said, were POTS to be wholly inaccurate, why would a polling company with a household name (and reputation to protect) like Gallup risk said reputation putting out a poll using flawed methodology?

Because the economic incentive is on the polling company getting the guy with the most money to pay for the poll. In a market with more than one polling company, Giuliani is going to commission his internal polling from the company that is giving him the best results.

If they don’t think Ron Paul has any money, then they won’t masssage the data to benefit him.

They don’t have to be right this far out. They only have to be close the week prior to election day. There are many ways to do this, by changing the tightness of the screen, or by polling different lists (as some have been accused)

Later

The first few rounds would be pretty much meaningless, but as it went on, the answers would get closer and closer to reality. The pollsters could have access to the demographic data to adjust for those that refuse to be bothered, and the respondents could become more trusting about who is doing the poll and what their true motives are.

A few hundred (thousand?) IVR systems, and a large database of registered voters (cross-ref’d with list of who actually voted last time.)

Then Mrs. Jones would come to expect her Tuesday afternoon polling call, while Mr. Smith might get his on Wed. evening. But each respondent would get 1 call every week, at about the same time.

The larger the sample, the more it will reflect reality. POTS are small because they used to have to do them by hand. One could throw in a few American Idol / Fantasy Football questions, for the respondents, and a few marketing questions for the advertisers (to keep it interesting, and help pay for the equipment and analysis of the data.)

Another advantage would be that the polling company could track shifts in attitude on a per respondent basis. If a bunch of long-time Democrats in one particular area, or demographic start voting for the weakest Republican, then one can speculate that they are just mischief makers.

But if lots of different people from all over the map (geo, or demo)graphically start voting for the weakest Republican, then perhaps he’s not really the weakest Republican.

Later.

As libertarians, we often talk about market mechanisms that work to benefit consumers, and the intangible value of reputation for a firm is paramount for the company that wishes for its product to be purchased or highly regarded in the marketplace.

That said, were POTS to be wholly inaccurate, why would a polling company with a household name (and reputation to protect) like Gallup risk said reputation putting out a poll using flawed methodology?

Personally, I’m inclined to think that the polls are inaccurate, but I’m aware that I suffer from selection bias.

Scientifically speaking, how could an inexpensive, nationally scaled poll be designed to accurately reflect the sentiments of the people who actually will vote on primary day?

I know of none, but I’m an engineer and polling methodology is certainly not my forte.

I see you totally side-stepped the straw polls I was refering to. I wasn’t talking about the Alabama straw poll, I was talking about TX, MI, and IA.

Joshua,

*looking* good, and *doing* good are two totally different things. Yes, Rudy Giuliani looked great on 9/11. But he didn’t really do great. Talk to the Firemen, Police and Paramedics. Talk to the people with 9/11 related lung problems. Ask why the emergency command center was placed in the same building that was targeting in 1993. and on and on and on..

Rudy’s support may be wide, but it is as shallow as a puddle on the flat prairie. Once people look past the images, they will see things they don’t like. The religious conservatives are already revolting over revolting rudy.

You can’t? He was about the only public figure who didn’t look like a bedwetter on America’s worst day in a century or so. That counts for a lot.

I just can’t understand how a thrice-divorced, gun-grabbing, cross-dressing, pro-public-funding for abortions, mayor of NYC can possible be getting 30% in national POTS among GOP faithful.

This is why I think the straw polls are more indicative than the POTS – the straw poll participants have actually looked at Rudy’s record. With Dobson and Chuck Baldwin saying they will vote 3rd party if he is nominated, his “electibility” card is trashed. Giuliani is the one candidate who can’t win, because 1/2 the GOP base won’t support him on a scare dare.

However, as encouraging as some of the latest state POTS results are for Ron Paul, POTS still don’t mean a thing this far from the first primary.

Here’s Edwards, talking about the same thing on the Democrat side. We all remember the exciting Bush/Dean election from 2004, Right?

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071009/D8S5E5601.html

Later.

That doesn’t look like much of course, but it was done the hard way, with very little TV exposure. It’s unrealistic to except his numbers to shoot up in the first week after he got any kind of positive press at all. People will take longer to make up their mind about him.

I agree that he needs to hit the airwaves, and as I understand it, that is the plan. If he’s already at 5% in New Hampshire, and can still triple his name recognition, he becomes a major threat. Why? Because his supporters are much more enthusiastic than those of the other candidates, and will turn out at a much higher rate.

A lot of commentators ask if Ron Paul’s Internet support will translate into votes, but the question they should be asking is whether Rudy Giuliani’s support in random telephone surveys will translate into votes. Ron Paul has far more actual supporters than any of the other candidates.