• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Where did Santorum's surge come from again?

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
According to the media it was hard-fought after a lot of "retail-politicking" and completely natural. Here is what actually happened.

On December 28th CNN released a poll of Iowa voters. It was commissioned by CNN meaning they got to pick the criteria so it is their poll before anyone says otherwise. Like all their polls it plainly states the fatal flaw in its criteria without noting that it is a flaw:

BASED ON INTERVIEWS WITH 452 REGISTERED REPUBLICANS WHO ARE LIKELY TO
ATTEND THE IOWA REPUBLICAN CAUCUS IN THEIR COMMUNITY.

As you may know, Independents and even Democrats could register at the door to get into the caucus, vote, and go right on back to being Independents and Democrats. Honest polling would factor that into the equation, but not CNN's polling. It ignores a large voting bloc and presents that as an honest representation of the likely outcome. What did the media do with this poll? They went all-out whoring it on every major outlet that day irrespective of private competition and party line with little, if any, criticism of the bad criteria (most neglecting to even mention that it was limited to registered Republicans):

CNN Poll: Romney on top, Gingrich fading & Santorum rising in Iowa – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Santorum Surges - Rick Santorum - Fox Nation

As Santorum surges, Gingrich fades in Iowa

The Rick Santorum surge is here - War Room - Salon.com

Romney and Santorum surge as Iowa caucuses near - The Washington Post

Santormentum? Rick Santorum Surges In Iowa | Mediaite

Santorum surge: Underdog candidates push for surprise Iowa caucus 'win' - CSMonitor.com

Rick Santorum Surge | Iowa Voters | CNN Poll | The Daily Caller

Talk of a surge was in the air. So then what happened? Like magic the actual decent polls showed a surge beginning that very day of gangbuster coverage:

Romney leads Paul in new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll; Santorum surges | Iowa Caucuses

Romney leads in Des Moines Register poll: Santorum surging - Lynn Sweet

Des Moines Register Poll: Rick Santorum Surging, Mitt Romney on Top, and Newt Gingrich Falling - ABC Newshttp://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rasmussen-polls-iowa-romney-23-paul-22-santorum-16_614984.html

Do CNN's various competitors seek to exploit the blatant manipulation of voter sentiment to turn the public against them? Is there an outcry about the "liberal" or "conservative" media from the respective political camps calling them out on such obviously dishonest reporting? Can anyone say they do not already know the answer?

Of course, obviously that's all just crazy. Exact statistical correlations are not evidence of a connection. A uniform lack of interest in the integrity of a poll or the bias of media that report on it is not evidence of blackout-type behavior. That the Des Moines Register poll showed Ron Paul at 29% in the first day of polling (the only day included before the CNN poll's release) and seven points ahead of Romney, a fact that is conveniently left out of major media reports, has no relevance at all. How paranoid must someone be to think all of that suggests any impropriety on the part of the media? Don't you know we live in an open democracy with free and independent media?

Funny-Greeting-Cards.png
 
:slapme::beatdeadhorse
 
It's a media conspiracy to steal the only primary that Ron Paul could possibly win from the blessed Dr. Paul!! :2rofll:
 
Is "notRomney" in the dictionary yet?
 
On a further note, while I would have sampled a share of non-Republican likely voters (likely to register as Republican for the Caucus and vote) in constructing a poll, it should be noted that 75% of those who voted in Iowa identified themselves as Republicans. All said, the CNN Poll still had a reasonable sample.

Election 2012 - Exit Poll Results for Iowa - CBS News
 
Last edited:
"Where did Santorum's surge come from again?"

His pants?
 
Santorum's Support:

11/29-12/6 CNN/Time Poll: 5%
12/21-12/27 CNN/Time Poll: 16%

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

Santorum gained 11 points in the same poll with the same methodology in less than a month. He was the biggest mover. It was not unreasonable for CNN to highlight Santorum's big move in its poll.

Yeah, that totally addresses the whole leaving-out-a-crucial-voting-bloc-in-their-calculations thing and not mentioning that in their reporting let alone mentioning how it skews the data away from the real level of support in a prospective election. It also totally addresses the blatantly obvious and obscenely exact statistical correlation between the release of the poll and Santorum's "surge" of support over the five days leading to the caucuses. Oh wait, it does none of that. You were just looking for a bull**** excuse to overcome the fact that what I presented proves pretty definitively that Santorum's rise to 25% was triggered solely by that plainly flawed CNN poll and the commensurate coverage. The PPP poll released the day before and the daily figures from the DMR poll show that he was around 10%, right where he was a week and a half before, until that CNN poll came out and the media went gangbusters on it and the "Santorum surge" it supposedly revealed.

On a further note, while I would have sampled a share of non-Republican likely voters (likely to register as Republican for the Caucus and vote) in constructing a poll, it should be noted that 75% of those who voted in Iowa identified themselves as Republicans. All said, the CNN Poll still had a reasonable sample.

Election 2012 - Exit Poll Results for Iowa - CBS News

:roll: The hoops you jump through. Leaving out 25% of the likely voter demographic does not provide a "reasonable" sample unless, of course, you are actually seeking a skewed result. I am pretty sure if you said this to any decent pollster they would slap you in the face and call you an idiot. All the polls showed that Independents went heavily for Paul and the media were not unaware of this fact, yet still CNN insisted on leaving them out of the polling data.

Facts, a conspiracy theory's kryptonite.

What exactly do you call everything I provided above? I am pretty sure I included some of those fact thingies you are talking about. The facts demonstrate rather well that the "Santorum surge" was a media contrivance based on skewed polling data. Even if you think there was no intent behind it, you cannot reasonably deny that the evidence supports this.
It's a media conspiracy to steal the only primary that Ron Paul could possibly win from the blesse Dr. Paul!! :2rofll:

It is hardly the only race he could win. Of course, despite McCain having won the nomination after placing fourth at 13% in Iowa 21 points behind Huckabee, Paul's third place finish in the official results at 21% three points behind Romney is basically a death sentence for his campaign. The media are clearly running with the manufactured "Romney-Santorum" competition, even throwing in a little Gingrich, and acting like Paul's position is of no significance. Seriously, the CBS Evening News today gave Paul like ten seconds of coverage after spending minutes each on Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney. Are you really that blind to the severely and obviously disproportionate coverage across the major media when it comes to Ron Paul? Back when Jon Stewart blew the doors off the farce the major media people didn't even deny it, but acted like it was justified on some absurd "he can't win" basis that was said to include the Iowa caucuses, which was obviously wrong unless you honestly think it was impossible for Paul to get 3,000 more votes in addition to the 26,000 we know he got.
 
Really it's pretty simple. He took the voters that would have gone to Gingrich before the negative ads started up. Santorum's rise coincides with Gingrich's fall.

As candidates, they are very similar, and appeal to the same voter.

I would know, I'm one of them.
 
Yeah, that totally addresses the whole leaving-out-a-crucial-voting-bloc-in-their-calculations thing and not mentioning that in their reporting let alone mentioning how it skews the data away from the real level of support in a prospective election. It also totally addresses the blatantly obvious and obscenely exact statistical correlation between the release of the poll and Santorum's "surge" of support over the five days leading to the caucuses.

Unless one has concrete evidence that voters rushed to Santorum on account of the CNN/Time/ORC poll, one is speculating. The entrance poll that was administered to Caucus-goers did not ask such a question. That the poll in question picked up growing momentum for Santorum before such a surge was reported is strong evidence that the surge preceded the poll. It was not manufactured by the poll.

Oh wait, it does none of that. You were just looking for a bull**** excuse to overcome the fact that what I presented proves pretty definitively that Santorum's rise to 25% was triggered solely by that plainly flawed CNN poll and the commensurate coverage. The PPP poll released the day before and the daily figures from the DMR poll show that he was around 10%, right where he was a week and a half before, until that CNN poll came out and the media went gangbusters on it and the "Santorum surge" it supposedly revealed.

There's no hard evidence that the CNN/Time/ORC poll was the difference maker. It picked up a shift that was observed during the polling period 12/21-27. It did not trigger that shift. Should CNN have suppressed the poll? Of course not. It had reported on its polling well before the poll in question. Its report on the poll properly reflected the results of the poll. That the poll provided an early indication of building support for Santorum--an inconvenient development for Santorum's other rivals--did not mean that CNN should have pretended that the Iowa political landscape was unchanged. It was changing and CNN reported accurately what the poll had shown.

Finally, those who attended the Caucuses were largely Republicans (75%). As stated earlier, if I were constructing the poll, I would have included in my sample those who indicated that they would change their registration for the Caucuses and would attend the Caucuses. Nonetheless, the CNN/Time/ORC poll compared on equal footing or even a little better than some of the later polling. It was reasonably predictive, because the vast majority of those who turned out did, in fact, did identify as Republicans.

In the end, Ron Paul lost. The CNN poll did not slay his prospects of winning the Iowa Caucuses. There's no concrete evidence to support such a claim.
 
Last edited:
Unless one has concrete evidence that voters rushed to Santorum on account of the CNN/Time/ORC poll, one is speculating. The entrance poll that was administered to Caucus-goers did not ask such a question. That the poll in question picked up growing momentum for Santorum before such a surge was reported is strong evidence that the surge preceded the poll. It was not manufactured by the poll.

Pay attention. Two other polls, with far better criteria than CNN's showed Santorum right where they showed him a week and a half before, at 10%. CNN puts out a skewed poll that naturally is less favorable to Ron Paul and more favorable to Santorum and suddenly those polls show him surging. You insisting on "hard evidence" despite seeing an exact statistical correlation suggests there is very little that you would not bull**** your way out of accepting as evidence. People probably won't say "Yeah, I only voted for him because he was higher in the polls" just because that is not considered the right way of voting.

There's no hard evidence that the CNN/Time/ORC poll was the difference maker. It picked up a shift that was observed during the polling period 12/21-27. It did not trigger that shift. Should CNN have suppressed the poll? Of course not. It had reported on its polling well before the poll in question. Its report on the poll properly reflected the results of the poll. That the poll provided an early indication of building support for Santorum--an inconvenient development for Santorum's other rivals--did not mean that CNN should have pretended that the Iowa political landscape was unchanged. It was changing and CNN reported accurately what the poll had shown.

There was nothing accurate about the reporting. It was deliberately deceptive just like the poll itself. Do you think CNN was unaware that Independents can also vote in the caucuses? Do you think CNN was unaware that failing to include Independents who typically vote differently from Republicans would skew the result? Do you think CNN was unaware that people tend to change their minds based on polling trends and media buzz? Of course not, all of these things are well-understood issues the major news media like CNN report on all the time.

Finally, those who attended the Caucuses were largely Republicans (75%). As stated earlier, if I were constructing the poll, I would have included in my sample those who indicated that they would change their registration for the Caucuses and would attend the Caucuses. Nonetheless, the CNN/Time/ORC poll compared on equal footing or even a little better than some of the later polling. It was reasonably predictive, because the vast majority of those who turned out did, in fact, did identify as Republicans.

Seriously, although you rattle off a lot of smart-sounding talk comments like this pretty much prove it is a lot of smoke and mirrors to cover for a rather uninformed and biased viewpoint. Anyone who has any understanding of statistics would recognize that your argument is completely absurd. The idea that leaving out 25% of the voting demographic will give you any sort of accurate representation that can be fairly reported without qualification is nonsense.

In the end, Ron Paul lost. The CNN poll did not slay his prospects of winning the Iowa Caucuses. There's no concrete evidence to support such a claim.

Except that he went from 29% in the DMR poll to 16% immediately after the media went gangbusters on the poll.
 
Give it up, dude. It's not a conspiracy. Paul is a loser. He's not going to win a single primary. Rinse and repeat.
 
Back
Top Bottom