Reply #45: The national polls aren't wrong, they are just irrelevant. National polls tell how the candidates [View All]

would do in a national vote, but there isn't a national vote in the primaries.

The primaries and caucuses go state-by-state or a few states at a time. The campaigns are only campaigning in a few states.

As a result, an Iowa poll, for example, is a poll of people who have seen months and months of TV ads, candidate mailers, candidate events, campaign news leading the local news on TV and in the paper, etc. A Texas poll, in contrast, is a poll where NONE of the poll respondents have seen more than a TV ad or two, haven't received even one single mailer, haven't been to any events, and who watch the local news without hardly any mention of the presidential election.

National polls survey the attitudes of people who mostly haven't been affected by any of the party's campaigns. Iowa and New Hampshire polls mostly survey the attitudes of people who are hip deep in the campaign process.

But most importantly, national polls are irrelevant because history shows that the results in caucuses and primaries are SIGNIFICANTLY effected by the results of earlier primaries and caucuses. For example, the difference between a week-before-primary polling in New Hampshire and the actual New Hampshire primary results can be affected by as much as 20% by the results of the Iowa caucus (winning the caucus could mean a 15% boost in New Hampshire and a third place finish in Iowa could sink a candidate by 5%).