What Was Buchanan's Highest Poll # Before He Won NH?

[Thom1776]

I heard 6%. Was it really that low?

[austin356]

good question; someone answer!

[perpetualstateofwar]

Not Sure. I also wondered about this. Buchanan won NH in 92 and 96 with the same foreign policy as Dr. Paul.

[paulitics]

and what about John Kerry in Iowa?

[Nash]

I heard 6%. Was it really that low?

He was 6% nationally.

I don't know what he was polling in the state but I'm gonna take an educated guess and say it was higher than 7%.

After he won NH he shot up 15% nationally in the polls overnight and was at 21% going into the next primary.

This is why it is critical that Ron Paul wins the state. It will provide the biggest poll boost for the campaign in the most efficient manner using the least amount of resources.

[coffeewithchess]

Not Sure. I also wondered about this. Buchanan won NH in 92 and 96 with the same foreign policy as Dr. Paul.

Yea, Buchanan did win NH in 96, but lost SC to Dole, Dole won the GOP nomination. If we get hyped up over NH and ignore SC, we are ignoring the history of the primaries since 1980. In 2000, John McCain won NH, but lost SC to Bush, Bush won the GOP nomination. Whoever has won SC since 1980 has won the GOP nomination, if we ignore this history, we ignore it at our own risks.

[terlinguatx]

...

[jgmaynard]

I remember it wasn't that high. I recall it being a little higher than 6% here, but not much. I still have an image of when I heard he won and I was like "What???" :)

JM

[Lord Xar]

Yea, Buchanan did win NH in 96, but lost SC to Dole, Dole won the GOP nomination. If we get hyped up over NH and ignore SC, we are ignoring the history of the primaries since 1980. In 2000, John McCain won NH, but lost SC to Bush, Bush won the GOP nomination. Whoever has won SC since 1980 has won the GOP nomination, if we ignore this history, we ignore it at our own risks.

Is SC next after NH?

What is the political feelings of SC?

[kylejack]

New Hampshire numbers three weeks from the primary:


KWAME HOLMAN: With the New Hampshire primary three weeks away, a just-released poll of 450 likely Republican primary voters shows 29 percent favoring Dole, 18 percent for Forbes, and 13 percent for Buchanan. But another poll of 550 Republicans and independents likely to vote in the Republican primary shows 29 percent favoring Forbes, 24 percent for Dole, and 11 percent for Buchanan. With the poll's margin for error factored in, that's a statistical dead heat between Forbes and Dole, but Dole says he isn't concerned.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/iowa_dreams_1-30.html

[ItsTime]

quick google search. I dont know what this website is but here you go:

http://www.cofcc.org/?p=781

[kylejack]

One week before the primaries he was running second in the polls....but no specifics: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/update_2-14.html

[stevedasbach]

Not Sure. I also wondered about this. Buchanan won NH in 92 and 96 with the same foreign policy as Dr. Paul.

Buchanan won in 1996 -- he did well in 1992 but didn't win.

I found an article from just before the 1996 primary indicating that Dole was 25% in NH with Buchanan 1-4% behind him.

[Adamsa]

As long as we peservere and actually make sure the people we contact look him up and decide for themselves, we're on the right track for a Buchanan. :P

[coffeewithchess]

Is SC next after NH?

What is the political feelings of SC?

They seem to be very supportive of the war effort, which is a big minus against the Paul campaign, but we have an Ace in our sleeve, if we can get it to play. South Carolina's governor is Mark Sanford, I think if we can get him to come out and endorse Ron Paul, that would be a great help. Mark Sanford was in Congress for 3 terms and has been elected to a 2nd term as governor. I don't know his stance on the war issue, but I do know that he and Ron Paul voted VERY closely while they were both in Congress. He hasn't endorsed anybody yet, but I think we should be asking nicely for him to endorse Paul before the primary.

[AgentPaul001]

Its important to consider that there will be more then just two "runners" in front of Paul, we can expect Guliani/Romney at least, but very likely that McCain/Thompson will run through NH as well.

I'm confident we can win NH with just 20%+ of the vote, anything higher is a landslide.

[centure7]

Ron Paul is already 7% nationally according to the prediction markets! I find these much more reliable than the rigged Polls that only call 300 people who voted for Bush in the 2004 Republican primary.

But we don't have the data on Buchanan for the prediction markets. We do have the poll data, and we should use it as a guide in the few cases like this where it is useful. I've also heard some comparisons to the Perot campaign, so would be interesting to see his poll chart curves. (where and when)

[jgmaynard]

Found it! 11-15% - I thought it was around there.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1996_jan-dec/02/02-09-96tdc/02-09-96d01-009.htm

JM

[kenc9]

Wrong thread

[literatim]

The polling numbers were taken from a larger pool of Republican voters back during Buchanan's run. A small percentage of Republicans actually went to the polls in 2004 to elect Bush which really narrowed the polling base to that of mostly neocons.

[kylejack]

The polling numbers were taken from a larger pool of Republican voters back during Buchanan's run. A small percentage of Republicans actually went to the polls in 2004 to elect Bush which really narrowed the polling base to that of mostly neocons.

Uh, how many people do you think went to the polls in 1992 to endorse H.W. for a second term?

[centure7]

Found it! 11-15% - I thought it was around there.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1996_jan-dec/02/02-09-96tdc/02-09-96d01-009.htm

JM

Nice digging! I think we will poll at *least* at similar numbers. We are already at 7% and have over two months left.

[Nash]

They seem to be very supportive of the war effort, which is a big minus against the Paul campaign, but we have an Ace in our sleeve, if we can get it to play. South Carolina's governor is Mark Sanford, I think if we can get him to come out and endorse Ron Paul, that would be a great help. Mark Sanford was in Congress for 3 terms and has been elected to a 2nd term as governor. I don't know his stance on the war issue, but I do know that he and Ron Paul voted VERY closely while they were both in Congress. He hasn't endorsed anybody yet, but I think we should be asking nicely for him to endorse Paul before the primary.

This would probably be political suicide for the guy although I would probably expect him to get behind Paul if he won the nomination. This may sound obvious but a lot of neocons may not do this.

Sanford is much more socially conservative than Paul is. It's hard to tell where he stands on the war since the only war vote I see from him is the No on Kosovo intervention during the Clinton administration. This is basically meaningless though since a lot of neocons were "anti-war" only a decade ago when a democrat was running the country.

[jgmaynard]

Nice digging! I think we will poll at *least* at similar numbers. We are already at 7% and have over two months left.

Thank you. :) A friend (who I got on the Ron Paul train today) told me that I am Elvish, so....

Thankyouverymuch.

Oh wait - that was Elvis. :)

JM

[coffeewithchess]

This would probably be political suicide for the guy although I would probably expect him to get behind Paul if he won the nomination. This may sound obvious but a lot of neocons may not do this.

Sanford is much more socially conservative than Paul is. It's hard to tell where he stands on the war since the only war vote I see from him is the No on Kosovo intervention during the Clinton administration. This is basically meaningless though since a lot of neocons were "anti-war" only a decade ago when a democrat was running the country.

I still think it would be a "SHOCKING AFFECT" to people. It would cause them to take notice and actually look at Ron Paul. If South Carolina Republicans are anything like what we saw from that Fox Debate in May, Ron is in trouble. Ron needs to get a good endorsement from somebody in South Carolina, a "pro-life" group or something to get his name out down there with the radio and TV ads.

[BarryDonegan]

this composition of south carolina as a state is very deep south/african american... in this case i think the relevant voting bloc would look very Values Voters in practice.

Fred could do well there, but besides that id say huckabee and paul have a reasonable shot, especially among activists who are likely to get out to a primary.

[Lord Xar]

So, what mistake did Buchanan make? He won NH, gained a ton of momentum -- then what happened? He lost SC? Why?

Can someone trail this out and make sure Ron does not make this same mistake and how we can support this in a positive way.

[jgmaynard]

I was wondering the same thing myself. I remember Buch came in 2nd or 3rd in the next few primaries, maybe even won one or two. I don't think he had nearly the grassroots support that Ron enjoys, however. I also think that Buch had mostly just right-wingers going for him, whereas Paul is getting support from all political wings.
I could be wrong.

JM

[angelatc]

The media came after him for being a populist, an isolationist, a nationalist, anti-trade....they stuck all those labels on him PDQ.

He worked NH hard, but didn't have anything left for the follow ups.

[PaleoConservative]

No, Buchanan didn't win New Hampshire and lose South Carolina. Arizona was next, and he was supposed to win there and he suddenly came in third out of no where. This loss hurt him badly and then after South Carolina he was finished.

Of course, Buchanan got momentum building early. He won early elections in Alaska and Lousinana, where he knocked Senator Phil Graham out. He then came in a very strong second in Iowa, and then won New Hampshire. I think Paul should spend some more time in Neveda and Wyoming, because these victorys could gain huge momentum for him as well. South Carolina is pretty much a lost cause right now.

[paulitics]

So, what mistake did Buchanan make? He won NH, gained a ton of momentum -- then what happened? He lost SC? Why?

Can someone trail this out and make sure Ron does not make this same mistake and how we can support this in a positive way.

because he was very low in the polls nationally. The NH win boosted him from 6% to 15% -20% nationally. Plus, the smear campaign. I think our best strategy is to win NH and then MI, a one two punch.

[jgmaynard]

I think our best strategy is to win NH and then NH, a one two punch.

NH then NH? The "vote early and often" strategy? :D

JM

[paulitics]

NH then NH? The "vote early and often" strategy? :D

JM

just noticed that. I meant MI. :p

[fj45lvr]

Buchanan went out to arizona and did a event wearing a long cowboy trenchcoat and holding I believe AR15 weapons.....the media really hyped this up and it made him look dorky while the liberal media were stating he was a "nazi" racist.....that trenchcoat was a BAD photo op............well you would hope that stuff like that wouldn't "make or break" people because one would hope people vote with "brains" on actual "issues" rather than whether you are videotaped with automatic weapons with a trenchcoat and cowboy hat.

[jgmaynard]

What do they have against trenchcoats? LOL.

JM

[jgmaynard]

just noticed that. I meant MI. :p

Me too - It seems to me that Michigan may be within striking range as well and likely Nevada.

JM

[Lord Xar]

SO - michigan is after NH?

Basically what is the order of the first three? and what are the first three?

[Eric21ND]

SC is a lost cause....really?

[jgmaynard]

I wouldn't say SC is a lost cause, but from my standpoint, it looks like NH, MI and NV are our best shots. Doesn't mean we don't want (or can't get) a decent showing in SC.

JM

[RonPaul_Has_2_first_names]

Imho RP has the best chance at winning these states in this order from greatest to least:

1) New Hampshire
2) Nevada
3) Alaska (go figure)
4) Montana
5) Iowa
6) Idaho

[jgmaynard]

Curious why you don't have Michigan on there - the only Dem on the ballot will be Hillary, and it's an open primary state - seems to be it should be easy to take the anti-war vote there. Plus, Ron's largest gathering yet was in Ann Arbor.

JM

[kylejack]

Imho RP has the best chance at winning these states in this order from greatest to least:

1) New Hampshire
2) Nevada
3) Alaska (go figure)
4) Montana
5) Iowa
6) Idaho

I would say we have a better shot at South Carolina than Iowa. If we can spread the message well, we should be able to draw some evangelicals in South Carolina, while converting the corn-tards in Iowa is going to be very tough.

[max]

Not Sure. I also wondered about this. Buchanan won NH in 92 and 96 with the same foreign policy as Dr. Paul.

buchanan skillfully attacked his opponents brutally....drove bush and dole's negatives thru the roof...

rp wont do that and his kindness may prove to be his undoing...

[kylejack]

but buchanan attacked his opponents brutally....drove bush and dole's negatives thru the roof...

rp wont do that and his kindness may prove to be his undoing...
Actually, it was the other campaigns who were conducting vicious attacks on Buchanan.

[max]

because he was very low in the polls nationally. The NH win boosted him from 6% to 15% -20% nationally. Plus, the smear campaign. I think our best strategy is to win NH and then MI, a one two punch.

buchana was pre-internet...pre-you tube...

AND..unlike RP...he was one-on-one without the advantage of gop establishment vote being split 5 ways..

also, pat, being a writer, had a long paper trail of zingers that the media drudged up...

'Congress is Israeli occupied territory"...LOL

AND...Pat (although he's a nice guy) comes off as angry....scared the stupid soccer moms away

[max]

Actually, it was the other campaigns who were conducting vicious attacks on Buchanan.

true...but Buchanans ads gave as good as he got. Pat pulled no punches and it worked

[jgmaynard]

Negative advertising usually backfires in NH (yes, I know Buch did it, doesn't mean we can't play the game even better than he did and score higher). If it must be done, it should come from a third party (eg., The PAC to Elect Anyone not Named Mitt "battling" The PAC to Elect Anyone not Named Rudy). :)

I won't type this all out again in detail, but in the R state primary in 2002, (future governor) Craig Benson was in a mud-slinging match with a state Senator (forgot his name). Each spent a few million in ads attacking each other. NHites got so sick of it that when we went to the polls, a little-known candidate named Bruce Keogh, who was polling at 3% right before the election, BEAT the Senator and almost beat Benson for the nomination. Why? Because Keogh ran a positive campaign all the way through and refused to sling mud.
That's the lesson to learn from that election. LET Romney and Guiliani spend their resources attacking each other. Keep positive and come right up the middle. With two months left, we are already polling twice what Keogh was pulling right before the gubernatorial election of 2002.

Just my $0.02 ($0.0132342342 after taxes).

JM

[alien]

Are any precautions being taken as far as getting a fair vote count? Remember Bush vs. Gore. Yes that was the general but still.

[jgmaynard]

Paper ballots are required in NH, and the public has to be allowed to witness the counting of the votes. :D
That's the thing about it - we never trusted anyone in government, we don't trust them and we're not GOING to trust them. That's why we set up so many things in our state Constiution and our laws to prevent mischief.

JM

[reaver]

Uh, how many people do you think went to the polls in 1992 to endorse H.W. for a second term?

1992 Clinton (D) 38.9% Bush (R) 37.6%
1988 Bush (R) 62.4% Dukakis (D) 36.3%


huge dropoff in support. Massive for an incumbent.

[Primbs]

They seem to be very supportive of the war effort, which is a big minus against the Paul campaign, but we have an Ace in our sleeve, if we can get it to play. South Carolina's governor is Mark Sanford, I think if we can get him to come out and endorse Ron Paul, that would be a great help. Mark Sanford was in Congress for 3 terms and has been elected to a 2nd term as governor. I don't know his stance on the war issue, but I do know that he and Ron Paul voted VERY closely while they were both in Congress. He hasn't endorsed anybody yet, but I think we should be asking nicely for him to endorse Paul before the primary.

Just remember Al Gore endorsed Dean but Dean still lost.

We have to insure the victory ourselves. Although a Sanford endorsement would help.

[Primbs]

No, Buchanan didn't win New Hampshire and lose South Carolina. Arizona was next, and he was supposed to win there and he suddenly came in third out of no where. This loss hurt him badly and then after South Carolina he was finished.

Of course, Buchanan got momentum building early. He won early elections in Alaska and Lousinana, where he knocked Senator Phil Graham out. He then came in a very strong second in Iowa, and then won New Hampshire. I think Paul should spend some more time in Neveda and Wyoming, because these victorys could gain huge momentum for him as well. South Carolina is pretty much a lost cause right now.

The race was complicated. Forbes put in a lot of money into Arizona. Plus Buchanan made some PR blunders in Arizona. He came in with a Black Cowboy into Arizona and most Arizonans didn't know what to make of Pat Buchanan.

There were rumors of vote fraud on the Arizona Indian reservations. I think you can actually vote at some casinos. Alan Keyes shaved off the Buchanan vote in Iowa.

In South Carolina you had Strom Thurmond and the Lee Atwater machine in place for the establishment. They went against Buchanan despite financial support from Millikin Industries and the textile interests supporting Pat Buchanan.

It wasn't enough. The whole protectionist anti free trade became an issue.