PDA

View Full Version : CNN shows latest Gallup poll. RP @ 3%




Starks
08-26-2007, 10:36 AM
They actually showed it...

richard1984
08-26-2007, 10:39 AM
"Movin' on up (movin' on up)!"

billv
08-26-2007, 10:54 AM
Encouraging. We don't have to be as high in the polls as everyone else so long as we all show up to vote for Ron which I am absolutely sure we will.

ecliptic
08-26-2007, 11:09 AM
Another obvious lie. How can a candidate who wins five straw polls in a row only poll at 3% ?

Illogical, Captain.

njandrewg
08-26-2007, 11:15 AM
Another obvious lie. How can a candidate who wins five straw polls in a row only poll at 3% ?

Illogical, Captain.

well they can say that RP supporters are so rabid, that all of them show up to vote for him in the straw polls. So those 200 people in NH...is all of RP supporters in NH

AgentPaul001
08-26-2007, 11:24 AM
...

richard1984
08-26-2007, 11:29 AM
Well, I've heard that these Gallup Polls are adjusted based upon tendencies so it'd make sense that for a while, Ron Paul would only be able to move at a snails pace up the charts, whereas someone like Guliani could swing much higher or lower.

Yeah. I think that's the case.

And even though he's won so many straw polls, they don't cover it on the news, and most people who vote in those polls are pretty out-of-touch, except for what they hear on the evening news. So even if they know about him, they probably don't know much, and they still probably have the "he can't win" line stuck in their heads.

Starks
08-26-2007, 11:37 AM
The latest poll only proves that Kiran Chetry is not a credible anchorwoman... She believes that Tancredo and T. Thompson have a better chance than RP.

The Only Woj
08-26-2007, 12:22 PM
Another obvious lie. How can a candidate who wins five straw polls in a row only poll at 3% ?

Illogical, Captain.

because they're small straw polls with not many people voting?

paulitics
08-26-2007, 04:23 PM
Another obvious lie. How can a candidate who wins five straw polls in a row only poll at 3% ?

Illogical, Captain.


Ron Paul has support from a wide aray of voters. Libertarians and independents combined exceed the support of party line republicans. And then there are democrats that cross over as well. His true support lies somewhere between 5% and 10%. This is based on sound logic, which is much more reliable than their rigid and irrational scientific poll that excludes the majority of the Ron Paul demographic.

Is this intentional? Well, they probably realize it, because it is obvious to anyone who has takes a basic staitistics course. Are they fabricating the numbers, probably not. I would say that it is up to us to make them understand why their numbers are off so we have a response ready when the next time they try and exclude Paul in the debates. .

Triton
08-26-2007, 04:30 PM
I wonder where I can find out what Perots numbers looked like at this stage of the game? I wasn't politically interested back then. Did he face the same challenges? Did any of the national polls show his numbers to be as high as they were?

Give me liberty
08-26-2007, 04:32 PM
Sorry i dont trust Gallup polls.
I offten sometimes think that those phone polls are fixed.

Lord Xar
08-26-2007, 04:35 PM
where was Tancredo?

Darren McFillintheBlank
08-26-2007, 04:40 PM
..

skiingff
08-26-2007, 04:43 PM
Sorry i dont trust Gallup polls.
I offten sometimes think that those phone polls are fixed.

Do you trust Fox News polls?

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
August 21-22, 2007
Rudy Giuliani 30%, Fred Thompson 15%, Mitt Romney 12%, John McCain 7%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Ron Paul 3%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Other (vol.) 2%, Unsure 24%, Wouldn't vote (vol.) 3%

Seems pretty consistent at least.

Cowlesy
08-26-2007, 04:45 PM
That 24% of unsure is waiting for Ron Paul's message.

paulaholic
08-26-2007, 04:47 PM
The latest poll only proves that Kiran Chetry is not a credible anchorwoman... She believes that Tancredo and T. Thompson have a better chance than RP.

WTF? Tommy T. is out!

V-rod
08-26-2007, 06:00 PM
Forget the scientific polls. Half of those polled would not even bother taking the time to go vote in the primaries.

dircha
08-26-2007, 06:14 PM
Most people I know haven't heard of Ron Paul other than from me.

And it isn't hard to see why. Paul has gotten minimal coverage on cable news networks, and virtually no coverage on broadcast news networks.

He has participated in debates, but those debates are consistently viewed by less than 1-2% of Americans (sad, isn't it?).

It shouldn't be surprising that in what is essentially a national name recognition and popularity contest, Ron Paul performs poorly. Is this his "true" support? Yes, yes within the margin of error of the poll. That's how polls work.

Now, what that does not mean is that he will only get 3% of the vote in straw polls and primaries. Because straw polls and primaries are self-selecting polls.

These are completely different than the polls conducted by organizations like Gallup. But stop with the pollster conspiracy BS, please.

Triton
08-26-2007, 06:24 PM
Most people I know haven't heard of Ron Paul other than from me.

And it isn't hard to see why. Paul has gotten minimal coverage on cable news networks, and virtually no coverage on broadcast news networks.

He has participated in debates, but those debates are consistently viewed by less than 1-2% of Americans (sad, isn't it?).

It shouldn't be surprising that in what is essentially a national name recognition and popularity contest, Ron Paul performs poorly. Is this his "true" support? Yes, yes within the margin of error of the poll. That's how polls work.

Now, what that does not mean is that he will only get 3% of the vote in straw polls and primaries. Because straw polls and primaries are self-selecting polls.

These are completely different than the polls conducted by organizations like Gallup. But stop with the pollster conspiracy BS, please.
Sad to say, but you need big $$ to get your message out there. I was reading about Perot. He spent something link $65MM of his own money! That's the kind of media exposure he needs.

paulitics
08-26-2007, 06:28 PM
Its no conspiracy, just inaccurate. How many libertarians will vote for Fred Thompson? not many. How many independents? very few How many democrats? zilch.

Now ask the same question for Ron Paul supporters. Those who support Ron Paul are barely on the map and represent a large block of disenfranchised voters that are now becoming politically active. Speaking for myself, I haven't voted in a long time because I despise the corrupt political system. I am not unusual. I will not be polled because I have no history of voting GOP. A fred thompson is much more likely to be polled.

dircha
08-26-2007, 06:38 PM
Sad to say, but you need big $$ to get your message out there. I was reading about Perot. He spent something link $65MM of his own money! That's the kind of media exposure he needs.

The only other option, being as primaries are self-selecting polls, is to mobilize enough people individually that we can win by outvoting the opposition.

In 2000 about 240,000 people turned out for the New Hampshire GOP primary.

Let's say it takes 30% to get 1st place. And let's say that Ron Paul is only able to get 10% support in the population a large. We could still get 1st in the primary by individually mobilizing an additional, oh, 50,000 people in order to out vote our support among the general population.

But that would be completely unprecedented. I really wish the national campaign would start providing more direction to volunteers around the country to assist in the early primary states.

ecliptic
08-26-2007, 06:53 PM
Its no conspiracy, just inaccurate.

It's just ... intentionally inaccurate. It's just several different polling organizations, all making the same obvious "mistake" with the same obvious bias against one candidate in particular... wait a sec... that would be a ...

conspiracy


conspiracy |kənˈspirəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful

1. a conspiracy to manipulate the results

Chester Copperpot
08-26-2007, 07:01 PM
I wonder where I can find out what Perots numbers looked like at this stage of the game? I wasn't politically interested back then. Did he face the same challenges? Did any of the national polls show his numbers to be as high as they were?

Perots numbers were as high as 33% in the polls... However he went straight to the people with televised informercials to educate with flipcharts...

Later he quit and re-entered and when he re-entered his pecentage was only around 15-17% I believe

I cant tell you exactly when the 33% was but Id say somewhere like 6months before the general election perhaps

Original_Intent
08-26-2007, 07:18 PM
<deleted> posted in wrong spot.

BarryDonegan
08-26-2007, 08:46 PM
id say the republican primary will work the same way. someone with hardcore supporters will show better than someone with casual support.