Highly anticipated final Iowa Poll released tomorrow (the "gold standard" of Iowa polling)

[CoffeeCat]

This is it, folks--this is the big one. While it's not a crystal ball, The Iowa Poll should give us a fairly accurate snapshot of where the race is between Sanders and Clinton in Iowa. I never have to read the fine print with her methodology. It's rock solid.

<my current feelings

--------------------
Results of the final Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll before the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses will be released at 5:45 p.m. Saturday.

(snip)

In recent years, journalists around the world have monitored smartphones, tablets and laptops at release time to quickly relay the results to their audiences.

The Iowa Poll is often referred to as the “gold standard” of polling because of its reputation for accuracy.

Selzer credits the poll's accuracy to avoiding speculation and adhering to scientific methods. She emphasizes that poll results represent a snapshot in time; they’re not predictions.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/27/final-iowa-poll-before-caucuses-released-saturday/79411100/

[elleng]

1. However,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511094367

[CoffeeCat]

4. She included a caveat in her poll Romney/Santorum results

for the 2012 Republican caucuses.

She noticed an upward trend--even a surge--for Santorum during the polling period. I'm paraphrasing here, but she noticed his numbers increasing at a high rate during the polling period and she did predict a surge for Santorum.

She released her numbers with that footnote and she noted that Santorum was surging.

[elleng]

9. Good.

Thanks

[JonLeibowitz]

2. Selzer doesn't account for geographic delegate apportionment does she?

I keep reading that that could be a key factor this time around and Sanders needs a bigger popular-vote-poll margin of victory to be assured a delegate win.

Can this really be used as a prediction of delegate outcome?

[Dawson Leery]

3. Selzer got it wrong in 2012.

She said Romney was to win. Santorum won instead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

[ram2008]

5. She picked up the late surge though

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

Santorum, who has been largely invisible in the polls throughout the campaign season, is now beating the other evangelical choices and has a clear shot at victory Tuesday night.

In four days of polling, Romney leads at 24 percent, Paul has 22 percent and Rick Santorum, 15 percent.

But if the final two days of polling stand alone, the order reshuffles: Santorum elbows out Paul for second.

What makes Santorum’s growth spurt particularly striking is his last-second rise: He averaged 10 points after the first two nights of polling, but doubled that during the second two nights. Looking just at the final day of polling, he was just one point down from Romney’s 23 percent on Friday.[quote]

So although they were using data that went back four days she proclaimed it a tossup on the day of the election, as it was.

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/31/romney-leads-paul-in-new-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-santorum-surging/

[CoffeeCat]

10. In effect, she declared the race a toss up---which was completely accurate!

Thank you for posting this.

This debunks the assertions that others are making--that Selzer isn't reliable because she got 2012 wrong.

In fact, as you have clearly demonstrated--her final word was that the election was "toss up" because of the surge trend her methods picked up in the final stages of her polling.

[CoffeeCat]

6. Yes, but she also released those 2012 Republicans poll results

with a caveat. She noticed that Santorum was surging and the surge was growing during the period in which she polled.

She released her numbers--but with a caution--noting that Santorum was building incredible momentum that seemed to grow stronger throughout the period in which she polled.

So, to say she got it wrong--is to fail to tell the entire story.

[jfern]

8. I doubt we have a major surge on the Democratic side

There are rumors of a Rubio surge on the Republican side, though.

[ram2008]

12. I think the new email revelations will cause a reverse surge

Hillary probably had about a 2-4 point lead before the story leaked. Most of the data in Ann's poll will probably reflect this. Unfortunately, tonight is the last of the sampling, before everyone sees the story. So it's possible Selzer may pick up an inkling of a drop in support for Hillary tonight, but won't be able to measure the full extent of it. It's also possible this makes undecided break for Bernie on Monday which also won't be reflected in the poll.

I think it's a tossup now.

[CoffeeCat]

14. Hillary was behind in four polls released this week. How do you figure she was leading 2-4?

She was down 4 in the Quinnipiac poll released on Tuesday. Clinton 49, Sanders 45
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2319

Also, Hillary was down by 1 in a CBS poll released Monday--Sanders 47, Clinton 46
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-sanders-catches-clinton-in-iowa-leads-big-in-new-hampshire/

Bernie was up by 8 in a CNN poll released on Sunday. Sanders 51, Clinton 43
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/iowa-poll-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-ted-cruz/

[ram2008]

18. Newer polls show her a little bit ahead

The ones you listed with the exception of the Q pac one are a week old:

The newer ones are:

NBC/WSJ -> Hillary +3
PPP -> Hillary + 8
Monmouth -> Hillary +5

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html#polls

It will certainly be close on Monday.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

7. You think Hillary can pull it off? I am so nervous. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. Wow...Bernie haters hit this thread early. Wonder why?

Thanks for the information CoffeeCat! I appreciate it!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[still_one]

13. You don't need to wait for Selzer. The caucus will be close

[CoffeeCat]

15. I've read a great deal about her methods

and she knows Iowa and the Iowa caucuses. She knows how to get accurate results. Nate Silver didn't give her that A+ rating for nothing.

I find it interesting that Hillary supporters are attempting to discredit her, by citing the Santorum/Romney 2012 race.

When in fact, Selzer fully explained that her polling showed Romney the winner, but her data showed a Santorum surge that increased with each polling day--which led her to formally declare the state a toss up.

So, she was right.

Seems as though some Clinton supporters are attempting to discredit her. Are you guys nervous about the Iowa Poll results?

[still_one]

16. Where did I credit or discredit her? I simply said it will be a close caucus. How you

arrived at the conclusions that I somehow discredited her with that statement is beyond me

[still_one]

20. Since you kind of dismissed my post as someone who "dissed" Selzer, which I didn't, I would like to

point out that the poll released by Selzer is Hillary +3 over Bernie.

Guess what, that is exactly what I said, too close to call

[Juicy_Bellows]

17. Thanks for fighting the good fight in IA CC!

[retrowire]

19. the excitement is real

this is my first presidential race.

am I going to make it?!?!