Questions About The SRLC Straw Poll From A Participant

[Matt Collins]

Here is my write-up about the SRLC Straw Poll and some questions that I have:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/04/12/was-the-fix-in




(sorry Josh for linking to NP, but they published my blog in this instance)

[speciallyblend]

Here is my write-up about the SRLC Straw Poll and some questions that I have:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/04/12/was-the-fix-in



(sorry Josh for linking to NP, but they published my blog in this instance)

Can you give me your full write up or was that your total write up???

i would be interested in posting your write up straight to my site!!

[Matt Collins]

Can you give me your full write up or was that your total write up???

i would be interested in posting your write up straight to my site!!
The local media linked to my blog here:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=34512


.

[Brad Zink]

This article was published before the vote took place:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/images/homepage/logos/twp_logo_300.gif

Evangelicals for Romney lowering expectations for SRLC straw poll
By David Weigel
Washington Post

NEW ORLEANS -- The grassroots group Evangelicals for Romney has made a decent-sized splash here at the SRLC, with massive signs in the hall across from the ballroom, piggy banks with their slogans carved on the side ("Elect a president who won't break the bank!"), and a key banner placement in the background of the bar where Sean Hannity will film his show.

But while the group isn't talking about where its money came from, founder Nancy French told me that it bought "a couple hundred" tickets for supporters to come in and support Romney in the straw poll. I informed French that supporters of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) have snagged more than 600 tickets.

"Oh, they're gonna kill us!" said French.

There are around 3600 SRLC attendees, and not all are participating in the straw poll, but I'm already running into Paul supporters who've arrived to back their candidate. And I wouldn't bet on vote-splitting between Paul and libertarian former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, who's here testing the waters. Johnson, given the very last speaking slot of the day, drew less than 50 people in the room that Palin packed this morning.

WashingtonPost.com (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/evangelicals_for_romney_loweri.html)

[specsaregood]

Your whole blog is based around bitching and moaning about the strawpoll and criticizing the event mgmt for its organization of the events registration and having to walk 20min....

You wanna make friends and get our people invited back next year? How about focusing on the good stuff? Yes, I know you included a small paragraph at the end praising Dr. Pauls reception but do you have anything positive to say, non-Paul related? The only impression others will get from your blog is that you are upset, "poor loser" paultard.

[Matt Collins]

Your whole blog is based around bitching and moaning about the strawpoll and criticizing the event mgmt for its organization of the events registration and having to walk 20min....

You wanna make friends and get our people invited back next year? How about focusing on the good stuff? Yes, I know you included a small paragraph at the end praising Dr. Pauls reception but do you have anything positive to say, non-Paul related? The only impression others will get from your blog is that you are upset, "poor loser" paultard.
No I am not a sore loser at all. In fact knowing what I know...well... nevermind.

But the fact is with a margin as statistically insignificant as the difference between Romney and Ron there should be a bit of transparency in the way the Straw Poll was conducted.

Romney may have won fair and square, but there is no way to know that unless some of the questions I have posed in my blog are answered.


.

[specsaregood]

No I am not a sore loser at all. In fact knowing what I know...well... nevermind.

What I said is:

The only impression others will get from your blog is that you are upset, "poor loser" paultard.




Romney may have won fair and square, but there is no way to know that unless some of the questions I have posed in my blog are answered.

Was the straw poll the primary reason for the event? Your blog gives off the impression that the straw poll is the only reason Dr. Paul and his supporters attended the event. The point of my comment is that perhaps that is not the best impression to give. Focus on UNITING, not DIVIDING. Your blogpost/write-up does the latter, not the former.

[specsaregood]

You are gonna write what you want to write, but my suggestion is to move on and forget the poll, we did great, esp with less than a months notice.

I would rather see somebody there write about impressions from the non-paultard crowd to his speech.
For example my favorite part was at 13:20.
YouTube - Ron Paul at 2010 Southern Republican Leadership Conference 4/10/10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klIZ0Bks6pc)

After having some boos, Dr. Paul gets energized and practically laughs as he declares:

"Why do we need airbases in the soviet satellites? Besides we're running out of money! No matter how badly you would like to have them; All empires end, not because they were defeated militarily. All empires end for financial reasons and that is what the financial markets are telling us today."

I'd care more about what the non-paul attendees thought of that comment rather than the straw poll that is meaningless in the long run.

[Matt Collins]

we did great, esp with less than a months notice.The weekend was a success absolutely. But it is important for us to try and stop the spin that Romney won the straw poll, because the margin was so close that the legitimacy of the final outcome can be called into question pending the methods of the poll.


I would rather see somebody there write about impressions from the non-paultard crowd to his speech. Why do you keep using that phrase :confused::rolleyes:

the straw poll that is meaningless in the long run.I agree with that. But it is important in the short term however. :)

[specsaregood]

But it is important for us to try and stop the spin that Romney won the straw poll, because the margin was so close that the legitimacy of the final outcome can be called into question pending the methods of the poll.

We'll have to agree to disagree. we don't need more of a conspiracy label or a sore loser label. I say, spin the results as GREAT for Dr. Paul, because they ARE. Dont' turn it into a negative thing. Your post turns the results into a negative story. Personally, I'd rewrite it to be a POSITIVE story, esp. if you are getting linked from elsewhere.



Why do you keep using that phrase :confused::rolleyes:

I use that term lovingly. We're taking it back and making it ours! I'm a paultard! You got a problem with that?

[MelissaWV]

If you want to contend the vote potentially went another way, and use as your evidence the fact that the count was not visible and transparent, then perhaps consider the fact Paul supporters were allowed in after registration was closed. If you're going to contend that Romney bought support and imported them, then consider the fact Paul supporters were also imported.

Going back and forth arguing over the vote is ridiculous. I'd stop trying to insinuate there were dirty tricks, and focus more on the indisputable fact that it was essentially a tie.

[parocks]

We'll have to agree to disagree. we don't need more of a conspiracy label or a sore loser label. I say, spin the results as GREAT for Dr. Paul, because they ARE. Dont' turn it into a negative thing. Your post turns the results into a negative story. Personally, I'd rewrite it to be a POSITIVE story, esp. if you are getting linked from elsewhere.


I use that term lovingly. We're taking it back and making it ours! I'm a paultard! You got a problem with that?

To "take it back" it has to mean one thing, that you like, then it gets turned into something that you don't like, and then you "take it back" to it's original meaning.

We never called ourselves "Paultards" so we can't "take it back". You are free to call yourself that, but I'd assume that most Ron Paul Supporters wouldn't want to be called "Paultards". It seems to be winning over at Freerepublic as the top insult name for Ron Paul Supporters. Paulistinians is another. I think I'd prefer Paulistinians. Paultards brings to mind stupidity of some sort. Paulistinians brings to mind conflict with Israel.

[speciallyblend]

If you want to contend the vote potentially went another way, and use as your evidence the fact that the count was not visible and transparent, then perhaps consider the fact Paul supporters were allowed in after registration was closed. If you're going to contend that Romney bought support and imported them, then consider the fact Paul supporters were also imported.

Going back and forth arguing over the vote is ridiculous. I'd stop trying to insinuate there were dirty tricks, and focus more on the indisputable fact that it was essentially a tie.

I hear you;) Honestly Ron Paul coming in a tie 24% and losing first by 1 vote is a HUGE VICTORY for Ron Paul and OUR MOVEMENT at the SRLC. If the gop and msm wants to marginalize Ron Paul and US let them. It will only bite them in their asses later on! Reality we are winning real polls(and have been) and delegates and candidates where it counts at local assembly! if they want to marginalize us and Ron Paul. They will only marginalize themselves out of elections!!

the cogop and other state gops and the national gop have till 2010 to wake up not 2012;) http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Tea-Party-of-Northern-Colorado/158932334086?ref=ts just one of dozens of groups across colorado under many names for LIBERTY 2010!!!

ps www.campaignforliberty.com bonnie cannon colorado:)

[specsaregood]

To "take it back" it has to mean one thing, that you like, then it gets turned into something that you don't like, and then you "take it back" to it's original meaning.

Leave it to a paulistinian to be so pedantic. :)
How about, "we're taking it over and making it ours".
You can keep paulistinian, I'll take paultard. Maybe I'll have shirts made up.



It seems to be winning over at Freerepublic as the top insult name for Ron Paul Supporters.
While I really couldn't care less what the freepers call us, your comment does seem to reinforce my desire to take the "insult" and make it ours.

[MelissaWV]

I always liked "Paul-curious" for potential converts, but it might be the circles I hang out in that makes that popular.

[parocks]

I remember you saying something on Saturday -
"I think we have a serious chance to win this thing given the insider information I am aware of." That turned out to be an accurate statement, but the vote totals that everyone was predicting were all low.

I do believe that you have a better understanding than most of how 800 tickets purchased got to under 500.

You or someone should seriously analyze everything. Yes, there could be malfeasance, but you, or someone else, could be making an assumption that is wrong. Make sure that the assumptions are checked as well.

I would be interested in knowing what the answer is.


No I am not a sore loser at all. In fact knowing what I know...well... nevermind.

But the fact is with a margin as statistically insignificant as the difference between Romney and Ron there should be a bit of transparency in the way the Straw Poll was conducted.

Romney may have won fair and square, but there is no way to know that unless some of the questions I have posed in my blog are answered.


.

[Minlawc]

I'm not a "Paul-tard" because I am not retarded, which is what it implies. It's for simpletons who can't articulate a well-thought out argument against Congressman Paul.

I'd rather take back the term "Liberal" than label myself a "Paul-tard".

[Bruno]

I always liked "Paul-curious" for potential converts, but it might be the circles I hang out in that makes that popular.

made me laugh. :D catchy, I like it.


biggest thing is the vote numbers don't add up


1806 =/= 1764

[speciallyblend]

made me laugh. :D catchy, I like it.


biggest thing is the vote numbers don't add up


1806 =/= 1764

would make a good bumper-sticker

[specsaregood]

I'm not a "Paul-tard" because I am not retarded, which is what it implies. It's for simpletons who can't articulate a well-thought out argument against Congressman Paul.

Well "tard" comes from the greek meaning "late".
So one could argue that it means a "late" supporter of Dr. Paul. And seeing as how many of his supporters only found about him in 2007+ and despite the fact that he has been saying this stuff for decades before that.....the term fits. :)

Personally it doesn't bother me, but to each there own. Guess i'll have to work on my own tshirt design.

[Matt Collins]

I use that term lovingly. We're taking it back and making it ours! I'm a paultard! You got a problem with that?It's a bit insulting to be honest and self-deprecating (but not in a good way). Why don't you tell Ron that's what you want to go by and get his reaction to the phrase :rolleyes:


We'll have to agree to disagree. we don't need more of a conspiracy label or a sore loser label. I agree. And I am not accusing anyone of any foul play because I have no evidence that there was any. But I think that to keep everyone above board the SRLC and WRS should come out and explain a bit better about how this was conducted. What's wrong with asking questions, especially given the fact that these results were highly improbable.



I say, spin the results as GREAT for Dr. Paul, because they ARE. Absolutely. It was a great day for liberty. But the problem is that media will ignore that. EVERY SINGLE REPORT I saw from the media, Fox, AP, Reuters, CNN all simply headlined "Romney wins Straw Poll".




Paul supporters were allowed in after registration was closed. Really?!?!?! :confused:

I'd stop trying to insinuate there were dirty tricksI am not saying there were dirty tricks at all. But given the tightness of the race I think there are some questions that should be answered, that's all. :)


Honestly Ron Paul coming in a tie 24% and losing first by 1 vote is a HUGE VICTORY for Ron Paul and OUR MOVEMENT at the SRLC. I agree.


I remember you saying something on Saturday -
That turned out to be an accurate statementALL my statements are accurate, but then again, I am THE Collins ;):p



I do believe that you have a better understanding than most of how 800 tickets purchased got to under 500.Parking, people arriving late after registration, people being turned away early on Friday to vote due to the printing problem etc.


You or someone should seriously analyze everything. Yes, there could be malfeasance, but you, or someone else, could be making an assumption that is wrong. Make sure that the assumptions are checked as well. I would be interested in knowing what the answer is.You and me both. Again I am not claiming malfeasance, but there are some questions that I am asking that should be answered.

[Matt Collins]

biggest thing is the vote numbers don't add up

1806 =/= 1764
Where did you get those numbers?


I thought that there was 1830 people who voted. :confused::confused::confused:

[MelissaWV]

Really?!?!?! :confused:
I am not saying there were dirty tricks at all. But given the tightness of the race I think there are some questions that should be answered, that's all. :)


My point is something about living in glass houses and throwing stones. Perhaps you're not aware of this:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=239611&page=45


Here is the confusion caused with the 4 and 40:


Quote:
I am in the ballroom
Submitted by spaderj1913 on Sat, 04/10/2010 - 14:50.

And they ate shutting 40 of us out! Was not aware of having to be here at 1 to register.


Quote:
The 40
Submitted by spaderj1913 on Sat, 04/10/2010 - 15:25.

Of us are just waiting here....looks like we are screwed again....won't even let us watch either.....what dochebags!


Quote:
Update!
Submitted by spaderj1913 on Sat, 04/10/2010 - 15:58.

Most of the people got in but 4 of us went to get a drink and they shut us 4 out. At least most of us got in. I have some friends so I will try to get some updates. I will make one attempt to sneak though. Being a Marine, I must try to overcome and adapt at least one time. Will update on how that goes.


FYI the SRLC website said registration would be on floor 2, but it was actually on floor 3. Some of the late ones were actually their on time, but was on the wrong floor, then directed by a SRLC worker to go to the first floor, but then finally they communicated with some of us who directed them to the right floor for them to find that registration had just closed. My friend Tony stood up for everyone and eventually got them (except 4 apparently) in. He has video and it will probably be going up on youtube.

Also, he said that once they were in, the doors to the voting room had been closed. They were then open and the group of them went in to vote, and then he said the doors were closed yet again after they left... Not sure what that was about.

If you're even half as smart about political capital as you claim, you are likely to see that a Romney would have thrived off of information like this if he'd lost by a few votes instead of won. Kooky Ron Paul supporters demanding to have the rules broken just for them threw the vote! Here's video proof!

Question the count and say "play by the rules," and let's say Romney comes out losing a vote or two. His "loss" becomes a matter of "honest mistakes" in counting, and then this comes out. Do you really see a "win" in this situation if it's drawn out like that?

I say take the tie. We won at CPAC. We are not diminishing. The other candidates are falling away, and it's going to force the GOP to annoint more and more people in hopes of finding the right mix of folksy ditz and brilliant conservative. The public at large does not really care about straw polls, and only faintly registered that this even took place. The GOP holds these things for itself, and they care more about the numbers, not the place-finish. It's a wakeup call to them. It's a success on that front.

[Agorism]

this (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/131444)

[Bruno]

Where did you get those numbers?


I thought that there was 1830 people who voted. :confused::confused::confused:

I haven't seen 1830 reported, but that would be even more of a discrepency. Maybe they aren't reporting "others" or write-ins?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002208-503544.html?tag=mncol;lst;2

http://www.w-r-s.com/blog/

Initial Choice
(If the primary election for president were held today, for whom would you vote?)
Newt Gingrich 18% (321)
Mike Huckabee 4% (80)
Gary Johnson 1% (3)
Sarah Palin 18% (330)
Ron Paul 24% (438)
Tim Pawlenty 3% (54)
Mike Pence 3% (58)
Mitt Romney 24% (439)
Rick Santorum 2% (41)

= 1764

[MelissaWV]

I haven't seen 1830 reported, but that would be even more of a discrepency. Maybe they aren't reporting "others" or write-ins?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002208-503544.html?tag=mncol;lst;2

http://www.w-r-s.com/blog/

Initial Choice
(If the primary election for president were held today, for whom would you vote?)
Newt Gingrich 18% (321)
Mike Huckabee 4% (80)
Gary Johnson 1% (3)
Sarah Palin 18% (330)
Ron Paul 24% (438)
Tim Pawlenty 3% (54)
Mike Pence 3% (58)
Mitt Romney 24% (439)
Rick Santorum 2% (41)

= 1764


I remember at some point on the day of the straw poll someone was talking about neatness. Perhaps some supporters' penmanship was less than ideal? I wasn't there, though, so I'm honestly not sure how the ballots worked.

[Bruno]

I remember at some point on the day of the straw poll someone was talking about neatness. Perhaps some supporters' penmanship was less than ideal? I wasn't there, though, so I'm honestly not sure how the ballots worked.

True, that could represent ballots thrown out for a number of reasons. Regardless, if they numbers don't match, they should clarify that when the publish them.

[Matt Collins]

My point is something about living in glass houses and throwing stones. Perhaps you're not aware of this:Interesting. I had not seen those accounts of other supporters at the event. I still haven't read all of the posts from prior to the weekend yet.

[Matt Collins]

Regardless, if they numbers don't match, they should clarify that That's my point :)

[Matt Collins]

I haven't seen 1830 reported, but that would be even more of a discrepency. Maybe they aren't reporting "others" or write-ins?

http://www.srlc2010.com/srlc/srlc-2010-straw-poll-results/

Romney got 24% at 439 votes. That means that the magic number is 4.1666. If you take 439*4.166 you will get 1830.

I did not see a place on the ballot for a write-in.

[Bruno]

http://www.srlc2010.com/srlc/srlc-2010-straw-poll-results/

Romney got 24% at 439 votes. That means that the magic number is 4.1666. If you take 439*4.166 you will get 1830.

I did not see a place on the ballot for a write-in.

1806 =/= 1764 =/= 1830

does not compute...does not compute...

[MelissaWV]

http://www.srlc2010.com/srlc/srlc-2010-straw-poll-results/

Romney got 24% at 439 votes. That means that the magic number is 4.1666. If you take 439*4.166 you will get 1830.

I did not see a place on the ballot for a write-in.

The quote above assumes that Romney got precisely 24.000000000% of the vote. He didn't.

It looks like everyone was rounded down except Gary (otherwise he would have had 0%). All of their percentages together only come to 97%.

Name - Actual %

Newt - 18.197
Mike H. - 5.535
Gary - 0.170
Sarah - 18.707
Ron - 24.830
Tim - 3.061
Mike P. - 3.288
Mitt - 24.887
Rick - 2.324

Total here is 100.999, which makes sense when you realize that I still had to round to arrive at the percentages above.

If you want to look at it another way, 1764 = 0.97n would give you 1818.557, which would mean 54-55 people would have to be in other categories. However, they counted Gary's 3 votes, so I guess those other people would need to have two or fewer. If that were so, then there are 27 or so other candidates out there with one or two votes, and they were write-ins?

It's far more likely that the numbers were simply all rounded down to the last whole percent for mass-consumption.

[Matt Collins]

Yeah its kind of interesting.
1806 =/= 1764 =/= 1830

does not compute...does not compute...

[MelissaWV]

1806 =/= 1764 =/= 1830

does not compute...does not compute...

Incidentally... 1806-1764 = 42

42, as we know, is the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

... I am such a nerd.

/shameful.

Edit:

And 1830-1806 = 24, which is the inverse of 42, and also the title of a popular show that was just axed.

1830-1764 = 66, which is an eerie number, no?

There are three numbers in total, and we all know that three is a powerful number.

... still a nerd.

[parocks]

438 voted for Paul out of 800 tix
362 others had RP tix.

That's an awful lot.

Parking, 1pm registration, delay on Friday - that accounts for over 40%.

I heard 40 were effected by the 1pm Saturday registration. And I heard that
they got to register anyway.

That's 322 for parking plus late Friday. Seems way too high for me.

The real factor was people with tickets not showing up.
Or malfeasance. No way that those 3 things you mentioned could add up to
anywhere near 362 out of 800.

I heard from other people that people weren't exactly scrambling to grab those tix
right away.

I'm not being too critical - it's a learning experience, and people are getting better at things.

And it was a "victory", technically a narrow loss, or a tie, whatever. A good result.

Someone who the media typically won't mention unless they really have to
took a spot away from someone that the media likes more than Ron Paul and
would have liked to have hyped but can't because Ron Paul beat them.

Adding:

Other possibilities - people buying tickets and voting for another candidate.

I would suggest that instead of looking at numbers like 1700 and 1800, I'd look at
numbers like 438, 362 and 800.

Make 800 phone calls and find out what happened.

Isn't there an organization here that has staff and volunteers?
Are there 80 people here who can make 10 phone calls a piece.

Tix cost Ron Paul $119 right?
And some were sold for less than that, and others were given away?

800 x $119 = $95,200 for 438 votes. $217 a vote.
But they did sell some of the tix., so it's less than $217 a vote.

If I was checking for malfeasance, I wouldn't start by staring at the straw poll numbers and doing math.
This seems oddly familiar, a lot like 2008.

I'd start by figuring out who got the tickets and what they did.

I mentioned before about assumptions. I think that the 2 major assumptions that need to be checked are

Assumption 1) Our people showed up and it was a delay or a deadline here or there that kept them from voting.
Real possible truth - 438 Ron Paul supporters showed up and voted for Ron Paul

Assumption 2) The people with our tix voted for our candidate
Real possible truth - Palin supporters or the Palin campaign, Gingrich supporters or the Gingrich campaign, Romney supporters
or the Romney campaign, or merely ordinary folks who wanted to save $ got the tickets and voted for Palin, Gingrich, Romney, other or nobody.

Check those assumptions before you start accusing anybody else.




It's a bit insulting to be honest and self-deprecating (but not in a good way). Why don't you tell Ron that's what you want to go by and get his reaction to the phrase :rolleyes:

I agree. And I am not accusing anyone of any foul play because I have no evidence that there was any. But I think that to keep everyone above board the SRLC and WRS should come out and explain a bit better about how this was conducted. What's wrong with asking questions, especially given the fact that these results were highly improbable.


Absolutely. It was a great day for liberty. But the problem is that media will ignore that. EVERY SINGLE REPORT I saw from the media, Fox, AP, Reuters, CNN all simply headlined "Romney wins Straw Poll".



Really?!?!?! :confused:
I am not saying there were dirty tricks at all. But given the tightness of the race I think there are some questions that should be answered, that's all. :)

I agree.

ALL my statements are accurate, but then again, I am THE Collins ;):p


Parking, people arriving late after registration, people being turned away early on Friday to vote due to the printing problem etc.

You and me both. Again I am not claiming malfeasance, but there are some questions that I am asking that should be answered.

[Bruno]

Incidentally... 1806-1764 = 42

42, as we know, is the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

... I am such a nerd.

/shameful.

Edit:

And 1830-1806 = 24, which is the inverse of 42, and also the title of a popular show that was just axed.

1830-1764 = 66, which is an eerie number, no?

There are three numbers in total, and we all know that three is a powerful number.

... still a nerd.

BLOWING MY MIND!! :eek: :D

[Paulitical Correctness]

Incidentally... 1806-1764 = 42

42, as we know, is the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

... I am such a nerd.

/shameful.

Edit:

And 1830-1806 = 24, which is the inverse of 42, and also the title of a popular show that was just axed.

1830-1764 = 66, which is an eerie number, no?

There are three numbers in total, and we all know that three is a powerful number.

... still a nerd.

makingmemoist. :D

[MelissaWV]

BLOWING MY MIND!! :eek: :D

1764 was also a leap-year, started on a Sunday (block calendar; no superfluous spaces at the start), and is considered the start of the pissed-offedness which marched the US directly to 1776 and the Revolution.

Oh and 1764? It's a perfect square.

Of

42.

[Matt Collins]

Assumption 1) Our people showed up and it was a delay or a deadline here or there that kept them from voting.
That's not an assumption. I overheard people in the hall that were our supporters who said they arrived after the registration deadline and were not allowed to vote.


Assumption 2) The people with our tix voted for our candidate
Real possible truth - Palin supporters or the Palin campaign, Gingrich supporters or the Gingrich campaign, Romney supporters or the Romney campaign, or merely ordinary folks who wanted to save $ got the tickets and voted for Palin, Gingrich, Romney, other or nobody.Possibility of course, but remember the CFL was being very careful about this.


Check those assumptions before you start accusing anybody else.I am not accusing anyone of anything :rolleyes:

[parocks]

No, I mean, let's look at 3 numbers
800
438
362

We bought 800 tickets and distributed them all. If everything goes according to plan, we have at least 800 votes.


We didn't get 800, we got 438. At most, 438 people took CfL tix and voted
for Ron Paul like they were supposed to.

800-438=362. At least 362 people took CfL tix and did not, for whatever reason,
get Ron Paul votes counted.

Did 800 people with CfL tix show up at all?
You are assuming yes. I guarantee you no.
You say "oh, I heard that someone had trouble getting in." Maybe true.
Worry about that later.
First thing is - CfL gave out 800 tix. To who?
Who has that list?
After you gave the people the tix, what procedures were in place to make sure that the people showed up and voted?
If I was to guess, based on what I know from the campaign from 2008, I'd say

We don't really know
What list
Procedures to make sure the people showed up - whaaa?

The right answers to those questions are
1) we know who had the tickets
2) someone at CfL has a list and if we really care, we can check in with everyone
on that list right now if we want and
3) we had good procedures. People were instructed to check in with a certain
person or at a booth or in a hotel room and we told them what they needed to
do so there would be no mistakes. If we were giving away tickets for free, we held them at the booth or in the hotel room until a certain time. If the person didn't show up on time, the tix went to someone on the waiting list.

I haven't heard anything like that from you, so I'm assuming that things are pretty much operating in a 2008 fashion. We assume the best of our people and if things
don't go according to our best case scenario, we assume it's a conspiracy.

Someone else who has been paying fairly close attention to the question of "how are ticket sales going" has noted that "not all that great" was the answer. Tickets
were apparently given away for free. Hmm, not promising. You probably have your answer right there. CfL gave away 800 tickets but 800 people didn't show up. There's probably no way to tell who did or didn't show up. There should be.

Ron Paul still won, more or less. However you want to categorize it, it was a good result.


That's not an assumption. I overheard people in the hall that were our supporters who said they arrived after the registration deadline and were not allowed to vote.

Possibility of course, but remember the CFL was being very careful about this.

I am not accusing anyone of anything :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

Did 800 people with CfL tix show up at all?
You are assuming yes. I guarantee you no.I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth. :rolleyes:


After you gave the people the tix, what procedures were in place to make sure that the people showed up and voted?
If I was to guess, based on what I know from the campaign from 2008, I'd say

We don't really know
What list
Procedures to make sure the people showed up - whaaa?Not saying you are wrong here. But there are multiple issues at hand - and knowing how the votes are tabulated is important.





I haven't heard anything like that from you, so I'm assuming that things are pretty much operating in a 2008 fashion.
I don't work for the CFL.


if things don't go according to our best case scenario, we assume it's a conspiracy.I am not saying there is a conspiracy or malfeasance - again quit trying to put words in my mouth. But when a result is this close and is statistically improbable questions should be asked for the sake of transparency.



Ron Paul still won, more or less. However you want to categorize it, it was a good result.I completely agree.

[parocks]

It's all good, Ron Paul won the straw polls. Highest combined total for the CPAC and SRLC. On the right track. Hopefully a learning experience for the campaign.
Gotta turn 800 into more than 438 in the future though.


I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth. :rolleyes:

Not saying you are wrong here. But there are multiple issues at hand - and knowing how the votes are tabulated is important.





I don't work for the CFL.

I am not saying there is a conspiracy or malfeasance - again quit trying to put words in my mouth. But when a result is this close and is statistically improbable questions should be asked for the sake of transparency.


I completely agree.

[MelissaWV]

I fixed the math pages ago, and no response to that...

It's most likely that CFL's "careful" distribution of tickets was not so careful towards the end, and if they couldn't get people there and voting anyhow, it's more an academic matter and a sobering message for next time.

We did fine here. We will do better next time, *RIGHT*?