Zogby: 73% Paul supporters will vote for him; 73% supporting others likely to change

[erowe1]

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NewsMax_Zogby/2007/10/02/37485.html

Sorry for the cryptic thread title, I couldn't get the message across any better with the character limit.

[kylejack]

Ron Paul has, by far, the most devoted, if very small, base of support — 73 percent of his backers said they are certain to vote for him in the primary.

This is FANTASTIC and just what I expected. I know we've got the most hardcore bunch.

[steph3n]

Just 73 percent of Republicans said they were satisfied with the current field of candidates seeking the GOP presidential nomination, the NewsMax/Zogby survey shows, while 24 percent said they were not satisfied. Another 2 percent said they were not sure. Among conservatives, 77 percent were satisfied with the field, while just 67 percent of moderates were pleased.


WOW there is some ripe fruit out to harvest!

[Johnnybags]

coming. Perhaps they are true #'s for the neocon base in a small sample but it has nothing to do with actuality and reality. The independents decide in NH. I sure hope they are smart enough to have switched back from Dem last time if thats how they voted.

[erowe1]

I know I'm preaching to the choir when I say that the national polls showing Paul's support at 2-4% are presenting a figure that is well below what his support would be in actual primary elections if they were held today. And this factor of the level of devotion of his supporters is one of the reasons for that. But I don't know how to translate the numbers that we are getting into what would really happen in the ballot box. I'm pretty convinced that Paul's chances of winning a primary election at this very moment would be pretty low. But what poll numbers would it take to give me more comfort?

I figure that the "likely voter" factor probably cuts Paul's numbers into about 1/3-1/2 of what they really are--a huge portion of Paul's support comes from people who have never voted in a primary before even though they are dead set on doing it this year, including many who are not registered Republicans or who are switching registrations just for this. So maybe that factor would put his real support in my hypothetical primary at about 10% (I already fear I'm being too optimistic--but let's just go with it for the sake of argument).

I figure the landline factor is another element that causes his numbers to be underrepresented. But I wouldn't count this one for too much because, for the most part, the young voters who use only cell phones have already been accounted for in my previous correction for the "likely voter" fallacy. So maybe when the remainder of the cell-phone-only vote gets added it would take his support up to 12%.

Then when the devotion factor plays in, let's say that only half of the supporters of the leading candidates actually care enough to vote, bringing their support down from 25% to 13% of the initial total basket of voters. Meanwhile, a full 80% of Paul's supporters will vote, resulting in about 10% of the initial total basket of voters (80% of 12% from the previous corrections = about 10%--Please don't tell me my 80% number here is too low. Remember, some of Paul's supporters are potheads).

If these corrections are close to right, then even at this moment Paul would lose to the "front-runners" in a hypothetical primary election held today by a relatively small amount.

Maybe I'm being too optimistic here. But I figure not by too much. I'm pretty sure that at least the ideas behind my corrections are pretty valid. So what do we need to see before Paul's level of support is high enough to translate into actual primary wins? I'm not sure, but even something around 10% in the phone polls might reflect a high enough level to pull it off. And we have 100 days to get there. That increase in support will include people we can bring over from the lesser candidates when they drop out, as well as the new supporters we can gain from the undecideds and from that vast pool of people that are not regarded as "likely voters". We have our work cut out for us. But it's very doable. We're in a marathon that we can win, as long as we stay at it tirelessly from here on out.

[Chester Copperpot]

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NewsMax_Zogby/2007/10/02/37485.html

Sorry for the cryptic thread title, I couldn't get the message across any better with the character limit.

We gotta smash New Hampshire and prove to these fucknuts that their polls are all fucked up (3%)... all of us NEW Republicans are gonna swarm and spam the primaries now... If we smash New Hampshire itll be the biggest backpedaling in US political history.. People will start looking at all the straw polls we've kicked ass in and say "holy shit.. hes gonna do it."

[Original_Intent]

I have long mainatianed (well at least for a few weeks) that if we crack 10% in national polling by the so-called professional pollsters - we have this thing won.

We still have a long way to go to reach that.

[erowe1]

People will start looking at all the straw polls we've kicked *** in and say "holy ****.. hes gonna do it."

Ehh, I'll go with you part way. If you're talking about polls like the Alabama and New Hampshire ones where Paul won with over 70%, then you're dreaming. Those numbers are just as messed up as the national phone polls. In our hearts we all know that. The other straw polls, though, where he's in the 15% range may well be pretty close to the mark, IMHO.

[kylejack]

I know I'm preaching to the choir when I say that the national polls showing Paul's support at 2-4% are presenting a figure that is well below what his support would be in actual primary elections if they were held today. And this factor of the level of devotion of his supporters is one of the reasons for that. But I don't know how to translate the numbers that we are getting into what would really happen in the ballot box. I'm pretty convinced that Paul's chances of winning a primary election at this very moment would be pretty low. But what poll numbers would it take to give me more comfort?

I figure that the "likely voter" factor probably cuts Paul's numbers into about 1/3-1/2 of what they really are--a huge portion of Paul's support comes from people who have never voted in a primary before even though they are dead set on doing it this year, including many who are not registered Republicans or who are switching registrations just for this. So maybe that factor would put his real support in my hypothetical primary at about 10% (I already fear I'm being too optimistic--but let's just go with it for the sake of argument).

I figure the landline factor is another element that causes his numbers to be underrepresented. But I wouldn't count this one for too much because, for the most part, the young voters who use only cell phones have already been accounted for in my previous correction for the "likely voter" fallacy. So maybe when the remainder of the cell-phone-only vote gets added it would take his support up to 12%.

Then when the devotion factor plays in, let's say that only half of the supporters of the leading candidates actually care enough to vote, bringing their support down from 25% to 13% of the initial total basket of voters. Meanwhile, a full 80% of Paul's supporters will vote, resulting in about 10% of the initial total basket of voters (80% of 12% from the previous corrections = about 10%--Please don't tell me my 80% number here is too low. Remember, some of Paul's supporters are potheads).

If these corrections are close to right, then even at this moment Paul would lose to the "front-runners" in a hypothetical primary election held today by a relatively small amount.

Maybe I'm being too optimistic here. But I figure not by too much. I'm pretty sure that at least the ideas behind my corrections are pretty valid. So what do we need to see before Paul's level of support is high enough to translate into actual primary wins? I'm not sure, but even something around 10% in the phone polls might reflect a high enough level to pull it off. And we have 100 days to get there. That increase in support will include people we can bring over from the lesser candidates when they drop out, as well as the new supporters we can gain from the undecideds and from that vast pool of people that are not regarded as "likely voters". We have our work cut out for us. But it's very doable. We're in a marathon that we can win, as long as we stay at it tirelessly from here on out.
There's one unfortunate fact that I hesitate to mention, but I will anyway: Young people never ever ever vote in strong numbers. McGovern's campaign had a lot of young supporters and when it came time for the election, they hosed him. They did not show up in large numbers. All the excitement I see make me hope that it won't be true, but this would be extremely historic if all these people went to the polls. I really worry about this.

[Chester Copperpot]

This is FANTASTIC and just what I expected. I know we've got the most hardcore bunch.

thats up.. previious poll had the Paulite "stickability" at 64%

[erowe1]

There's one unfortunate fact that I hesitate to mention, but I will anyway: Young people never ever ever vote in strong numbers. McGovern's campaign had a lot of young supporters and when it came time for the election, they hosed him. They did not show up in large numbers. All the excitement I see make me hope that it won't be true, but this would be extremely historic if all these people went to the polls. I really worry about this.

You're absolutely right. There's no denying this fact, and no reason to think the rules will suddenly change to our benefit. We absolutely must expand our support among voters 40 and older. I'm glad you mentioned this. I was uncomfortable about how optimistic my post was. We need to believe that Paul can win. But we also need to see the fragility of his support and the urgency of fortifying it.

[LibertyEagle]

There's one unfortunate fact that I hesitate to mention, but I will anyway: Young people never ever ever vote in strong numbers. McGovern's campaign had a lot of young supporters and when it came time for the election, they hosed him. They did not show up in large numbers. All the excitement I see make me hope that it won't be true, but this would be extremely historic if all these people went to the polls. I really worry about this.

When the time comes, we had better have a plan in place in each of our Meetup Groups to get the vote out. It might mean we have to go over and gather up people and drive them to the polls. WHATEVER IT TAKES, we must do it.

[LibertyEagle]

No one is talking about the other thing the article says...

We are still at 3% in New Hampshire. Unless that goes up, we will NOT win the primary.

[erowe1]

No one is talking about the other thing the article says...

We are still at 3% in New Hampshire. Unless that goes up, we will NOT win the primary.

Right. The elephant in the room. I guess it didn't need saying because it's the part we've heard ad nauseam.

[LibertyEagle]

We can do something about the 3%. It's not going to increase by magic. We are actually going to have to DO something. C'mon folks. :) Now is our chance.

If you're close to New Hampshire, contact the NH campaign office or the NH Meetup groups and get there to start taking the campaign door-to-door.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/states/new-hampshire/
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/about/

There are 2 initiatives on this forum to advertise in New Hampshire. Currently, there is one for television ads. One of which is currently running. We need to raise more money to run another. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=21561
http://www.opnh.org

And another initiative to put an insert in a New Hampshire newspaper. This also needs money. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=21847

Can any of you help?

[Brother Butch]

I prefer the second and third to the first. ie mosaic and lincoln statue.