Why isn't RP doing better in NH?

[dt_]

if NH is a libertarian leaning state?

[Danny Molina]

It's supposed to be...

[katao]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=23172

[Thunderbolt]

Who says he isn't? Don't tell me you are now listening to polls that don't include his name?? What makes you think he isn't doing great? He won the straw poll there with 65% of the vote. What is worrying you?

[Paulitician]

Because traditional polling is outdated. People are ignorant of Ron Paul and his message. That's the best I can come up with. People definitely just need to hear him speak on the issues and look at his record and he'll have a lock on that state (and many others for that matter). That isn't happening.

[LibertyEagle]

Several people who live in New Hampshire post here and the message has been pretty consistent. If we are going to win NH, Dr. Paul needs to go spend a lot more time there.

It's only my opinion, but it seems to me that if some of the Meetups in the surrounding states could join with the NH Meetup groups, divide the state up and hit as many residences as possible with campaign literature, it sure would be helpful.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Name recognition shouldnt be too hard to achieve in NH. All my years in Texas may be distorting my concept of distance, but in a state that small, it seems to me Dr. Paul should be able to go door-to-door in a single afternoon.

[Thom1776]

I just saw a poll with him at 6% in NH.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/insider_advantage/nh_gop_oct.html

This is the first "scientific" poll that has him that high anywhere.

[jrich4rpaul]

The polls that have him at 1 or 2% are the ones that people get called up during supper to answer. They say whatever they can to just get off the phone. It's unreliable.

Straw polls are where the true results are at. The people that make an effort to go to those are the people who will make the effort on election day. And if that be the case, for the most part we'll be doing relatively well.

[Give me liberty]

you people still are listening to those media owned polls??

and those so called phone polls there callers are only 1,003 people? why are you so worried about these polls?

[paulitics]

The polls give us a good idea where we stand. 6% will not win us the race. We pick up the independents, but not the democrats, so he is probably about 8 to 12%. He is not anywhere close to being a frontrunner, like Romney. We have to work extra hard to get there. Just because he is a libertarian doesn't mean we have it locked up.

We should be doing mailouts hitting all independents and republicans. There are lists we can buy, and start whenever people are ready. I've been wanting to do this since August. We have only 2 months left, and 1 month before it gets cold.

The other idea is to sponsor paid volunteers to canvass the neighborhoods. It will take a combination of both of those ideas, a media blitz, and several rallys, to have any chance in NH.

We have 40,000 meetup members. Those in NY, NJ, MA,TN and many others should help out these early states, with emphasis on NH. We need to pick and choose our battles. NH, IA, MI, NV are all states we have the best shot at and are early states. The front tier home states are not states we should be dumping time and money into.


After we win a couple of early states, there will be time to blitz the other states, and the polls will reflect a significant surge in every state, proving that Ron Paul can win. This is our biggest objection from people going to the polls, "I don't think he stands a chance".

[ItsTime]

Just because its not talked about here doesnt mean its not happening.

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/6/

[Starks]

Nobody hates the message of freedom, they just don't understand it.

[Jared Callanan]

Ron Paul needs to be in the state a lot more. When the voters meet him his polling numbers will go up. You can attack the pollsters of this state all you want but lets take a look at a couple things:

~ The pollsters predicted Pat Buchanan's jump in NH in 1996
~ The Pollsters predicted Al Gore to beat Bill Bradley in 2000
~ They predicted McCain to beat Bush in 2000
~ They predicted Kerry's comeback victory over Dean in 2004

I am not saying they are always 100% correct, those of us from NH all remember Bob Smith vs. Dick Swett. At the same time, don't totally write off the polls simply because you think Ron Paul has more support then that because they are probably being more scientific than you are.

[MsDoodahs]

Jared, are you in NH?

If so..

Television commercials - are we running any yet?

Newspaper advertising - are we running any yet?

Thanks.

[quickmike]

Pat Buchanan had 6% in the NH polls 2 days before the primaries election in the state. He ended up winning the state.

So tell me, how accurate were those polls back in 96 even before so many people dropped their land lines in favor of cell phones?

Not very accurate at all, and should be even more of a joke this time around.


Its true though, the people of NH still need to get out there promoting. No time to waste.

[Jared Callanan]

Pat Buchanan had 6% in the NH polls 2 days before the primaries election in the state. He ended up winning the state.

So tell me, how accurate were those polls back in 96 even before so many people dropped their land lines in favor of cell phones?

Not very accurate at all, and should be even more of a joke this time around.


Its true though, the people of NH still need to get out there promoting. No time to waste.

Absolutely incorrect. I was a volunteer for that campaign and he was polling much higher than that after his awesome finishes in Alaska, Louisianna, and Iowa.

[Jared Callanan]

Jared, are you in NH?

If so..

Television commercials - are we running any yet?

Newspaper advertising - are we running any yet?

Thanks.

I have heard radio ads. A friend said he saw a television ad. I haven't read much of the Union Leader lately to answer the newspaper advertisement question.

[pcosmar]

I just saw a poll with him at 6% in NH.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/insider_advantage/nh_gop_oct.html

This is the first "scientific" poll that has him that high anywhere.

Are people here still listening to Real Clear (as mud) politics? Why?
They are biased, and opposed to Ron Paul. They will be opposed after he wins.
They have an agenda. Ignore them.

[paulitics]

Absolutely incorrect. I was a volunteer for that campaign and he was polling much higher than that after his awesome finishes in Alaska, Louisianna, and Iowa.

do you remember how high?

[Jared Callanan]

I am trying to find my own newspapers right now.. He certainly wasn't polling high 20's but he was polling a respectable amount following his finishes in Alaska, Louisianna, and Iowa.

[Chester Copperpot]

The polls that have him at 1 or 2% are the ones that people get called up during supper to answer. They say whatever they can to just get off the phone. It's unreliable.

Straw polls are where the true results are at. The people that make an effort to go to those are the people who will make the effort on election day. And if that be the case, for the most part we'll be doing relatively well.

I hope you are correct,
'

[paulitics]

The polls that have him at 1 or 2% are the ones that people get called up during supper to answer. They say whatever they can to just get off the phone. It's unreliable.

Straw polls are where the true results are at. The people that make an effort to go to those are the people who will make the effort on election day. And if that be the case, for the most part we'll be doing relatively well.

Straw polls are where the die hards show up at not the average primary voter. THere is an inconvenience voting on primary day, but it does not cost money, travel expenses, etc. Therefore alot of sheeple will cast their vote for media driven puppets, like Giuliani or Hillary without ever considering a straw poll.
What the straw polls indicate is Paul has the most loyal following/activists of any of the candidates, not the greates numbers.

[Paulitician]

Straw polls are where the die hards show up at not the average primary voter. THere is an inconvenience voting on primary day, but it does not cost money, travel expenses, etc. Therefore alot of sheeple will cast their vote for media driven puppets, like Giuliani or Hillary without ever considering a straw poll.
What the straw polls indicate is Paul has the most loyal following/activists of any of the candidates, not the greates numbers.
I agree with this. Just because he did well on some straw polls does not mean he'll do well in the primaries. The casual voter doesn't even consider straw polls most of the time. Maybe other Republican activists took note of it, though, but that's the best you could hope for I suppose. The casual voter usually votes for whoever they think has the best personality and/or looks. At any rate, Ron's name needs to get out there more, and they definitely need to hear him deliver his message.

[dt_]

get those ads out there

[Nathan Hale]

Ron Paul isn't doing well in NH because he isn't spending enough time there. Here's a great open letter to the Paul campaign from an NH resident and activist leader:

Dear Dr. Paul,

I am writing as a fervent supporter of your campaign, and as one who strongly believes in the ideals which we hold in common: liberty, the Constitution, smaller government, less taxes, and non-interventionism. I am also writing as a New Hampshire citizen who has spent quite some time attempting to persuade my friends and neighbors to cast their votes for you in the upcoming first-in-the-nation primary.

Tomorrow you will visit our state, for a debate at UNH. This will not be your first visit here. You were here in June for the St. Anselm's debate, and you've returned for a handful of straw polls. You've spent more time here than in most states, I know.

It is not enough. This past Labor Day weekend, virtually all of the frontrunners spent their time here in New Hampshire, out in Iowa, or both. Hilary Clinton brought her husband Bill and they went on a veritable tour of Central New Hampshire. Barack Obama led a parade in Milford. Mike Huckabee gave a speech here in Manchester. Mitt Romney flew in from campaigning in Iowa to speak down the road in Merrimack. Rudy Guliani lectured against "nanny-state" government in Laconia. Even John McCain spoke to a gym full of high school students and teachers in Concord.

You weren't here.

To win New Hampshire, and to receive the resulting boost your campaign needs to break into the top tier, you need to engage in retail politics. You need to speak at town meetings, you need to go into a dozen New Hampshire restaurants a day, you need to lead parades and talk to people and give speeches and engage the people of this state. And while you do it, you need to spend money building your name recognition through radio and television advertising. Because the other candidates are already doing it. They're engaging in retail politics, building up that customer base they're counting on to put them over the top.

And, no offense Dr. Paul, but your store isn't even open yet. The core of committed volunteers is here, doing what they can, but their work is no substitute for your presence.

It comes down to this: will you commit to spending at least as much time here as any other candidate? Will you spend as much time here in New Hampshire, and out in Iowa, as Hilary, and Rudy, and Mitt, and Obama? Will you stay out of Washington, and out of Texas, and in the two states that will, more than anything, put you in position to win your party's nomination next year?

If the answer is yes, then I'll be very excited and looking forward to watching your name climb in the polls as your small government message, a message I know will sell well in the granite state, filters into the hearts and minds of the people. As your popularity grows, the investment you make in terms of campaign dollars and time will pay dividends, in the form of increased voter attention, increased campaign contributions, and ultimately a very solid showing next in next January's primary.

If the answer is no -- which it has disappointingly been to date -- then our time is being wasted, and I should just go back to wondering which of the lesser of two evils I'll be voting for in November 2008. According to your calendar, on your campaign web site, you'll not be returning to this all-important state until September 29th.

Who the hell is running your campaign, anyway? Have they ever won anything? Have they ever run a presidential campaign? Why would anyone who truly wants to win the nomination stay out of the most important state in the nomination process for a full 24 days, mere months before the primary? This is incompetence of the highest degree.

I want desperately to believe that you have a legitimate shot at pulling ahead in the race, to the point that I can look past the 3% you're currently getting in the major polls. However, I cannot overlook the evidence before me, and the evidence before me indicates a campaign that is not investing the necessary resources, meaning time and money, to win. You cannot win this race without winning New Hampshire, and you cannot win New Hampshire without spending as much time here meeting people as the other candidates.

I hope you will reconsider your approach.

Sincerely,

Confused in Manchester, NH