Reminder: Polls were proven accurate in 2007/8

[Bama Boy]

I know its early, but polls tend to be accurate. To the folks that try to discredit the polls, please understand that the same argument was made during RP's 2007/8 campaign.

In the end, the polls were proven right.

I hope RP and his staff are working to bring his poll numbers up in the early states.

[RM918]

Didn't the earlier polls also have Giuliani at 30%?

[trey4sports]

Didn't the earlier polls also have Giuliani at 30%?

Not when the caucus's and primaries started...

Quality polling groups are generally correct, however, polling is only a snapshot in time. A poll from june 19-23 is only reflective of that timeframe, and politics is very dynamic so things can change quickly.

[sailingaway]

They show an indication, this time in 2007 this same poll had Huckabee at 4% and didn't even register Ron. Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses and Ron Paul took 10%.

So yes, they show that at this moment when Bachmann is announcing and had a good debate, she is polling high. She hasn't yet been vetted and the next thing to find out is what sort of legs she has. But she was running radio ads to get people to get to her event tonight in Waterloo and to her announcement tomorrow. It isn't entirely organic.

[PaulConventionWV]

Does anyone know what Ron was polling in Iowa immediately before the caucuses?

[sailingaway]

Does anyone know what Ron was polling in Iowa immediately before the caucuses?

9% I looked it up. So it was relatively accurate at that moment in time.

[BUSHLIED]

They show an indication, this time in 2007 this same poll had Huckabee at 4% and didn't even register Ron. Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses and Ron Paul took 10%.

So yes, they show that at this moment when Bachmann is announcing and had a good debate, she is polling high. She hasn't yet been vetted and the next thing to find out is what sort of legs she has. But she was running radio ads to get people to get to her event tonight in Waterloo and to her announcement tomorrow. It isn't entirely organic.

It may not be 'organic' but it is a tactic to be used to give the impression of support. Monkey see and Monkey do. Image is important, sometimes perception is reality...nothing wrong with what she is doing and if these people aren't supporters, they get to come out and potentially become supporters when they talk to other people there and listen to her speak. it is certainly not going to hurt her...it is only a benefit for her to have people come out and listen to her...

The polls do tend to be accurate. believe it or not, a sample of size of 400-500 statistically is BIG, particularly if it is a random sample of voters...after 2007, I don't dismiss the polls..forget about everyone else...Ron Paul's polling numbers have only been off 2-3%...when I see the polls I no longer say to myself, it's bias, it's not true, they got to be higher than that etc...I say they are probably accurate or +/- 3%....

[The Dark Knight]

I highly doubt only 7% of Caucus goers support Ron Paul. That means he would do worse than he did in the 08 Caucus. I just dont buy it, sorry.

[BUSHLIED]

I highly doubt only 7% of Caucus goers support Ron Paul. That means he would do worse than he did in the 08 Caucus. I just dont buy it, sorry.

You can forget the statistical margin of error...he is polling between 2% and 12%, while it might not be 7%, it could be 12%...therefore, the next IOWA poll should reflect a 'moving average.' Ron polled in IOWA in the last 3 polls for this year at 3%, 8%, and now 7%...all within a generally accepted +/-3% margin of error of his 6% average

[Anti Federalist]

This poll, taken Nov. 2007, couldn't have been more wrong.

Romney 32%
Giuliani 20%
McCain 17%
Paul 7%

http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/bg_2007-nov11.pdf

Lots can change.

[Austin]

Polls are accurate indicators at the time they are conducted. Of course, anything can happen between the time of the poll and the actual election/straw poll/etc.

[Bama Boy]

Polls are accurate indicators at the time they are conducted. Of course, anything can happen between the time of the poll and the actual election/straw poll/etc.

Agree 100%. Many on this site that argue that a poll of 400 Iowa potential caucus goers does not reflect an accurate sample. There is plenty of time to bring his numbers up, but right now RP is at less than 10%. Need to get that number higher!

[brushfire]

Depending on who's conducting the poll, and the type of poll, different results can be achieved - even when the same people are polled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

[Badger Paul]

Also remember this is a caucus, not a primary we're talking about. It's easy to get preference from a routine sample but much harder to measure intensity. Huckabee took off in the polls because he did well at Ames. He became a contender and the results turned around for him in the polls. If we do the same in Ames then the same can happen for us and all we have to do is get our people to show up there Aug. 13. That's it.

[trey4sports]

Also remember this is a caucus, not a primary we're talking about. It's easy to get preference from a routine sample but much harder to measure intensity. Huckabee took off in the polls because he did well at Ames. He became a contender and the results turned around for him in the polls. If we do the same in Ames then the same can happen for us and all we have to do is get our people to show up there Aug. 13. That's it.

PPP takes those factors into account.

[Esoteric]

All that needs to be taken from this: If the Iowa Caucus took place tomorrow, Ron would preform the same, if not worse, than he did in 08. Trying to discredit polls online does not do much to work toward changing this.

[Bama Boy]

All that needs to be taken from this: If the Iowa Caucus took place tomorrow, Ron would preform the same, if not worse, than he did in 08. Trying to discredit polls online does not do much to work toward changing this.

+100

[Maximus]

All this means is that we have to work harder, this isn't just magically going to happen

[parocks]

But the Iowa Caucus is not taking place tomorrow. Ron Paul has been in the race officially how many months now? 2? Less than 2?
The camaign knows when the Caucus is.


All that needs to be taken from this: If the Iowa Caucus took place tomorrow, Ron would preform the same, if not worse, than he did in 08. Trying to discredit polls online does not do much to work toward changing this.

[Billay]

Ron Paul was polled pretty accurate last time around. Conspiracy theories aren't going to win this election.

[ronpaulitician]

I estimated a doubling of his 07/08 numbers when the 2012 campaign kicked off. I think that's still a likely scenario.

[sailingaway]

Depending on who's conducting the poll, and the type of poll, different results can be achieved - even when the same people are polled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

This is very true, and why RealClearPolitics keeps a running AVERAGE.

[KCIndy]

Bottom line:

We desperately need to get full funding to the Iowa Projects ASAP! The Iowa Projects are a really good plan to swing the state for Dr. Paul, and right now, with just under four days before the end of the quarter, the Iowa projects are embarrassingly underfunded. If anyone reading this has any cash they can spare, even just five or ten bucks, now's the time:

http://iowaforronpaul.com/projects.php

If the grassroots can't pull it together and get serious about winning Iowa soon, we're in big trouble. :(

[sailingaway]

I estimated a doubling of his 07/08 numbers when the 2012 campaign kicked off. I think that's still a likely scenario.

Well, it's far more than double what it was this time last presidential election -- when he didn't even register.

[1836]

Those who discredit the polls and think that we are somehow way above them are setting themselves up for major disappointment, just like they did in 2008.

The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul has widened his influence when it comes to ideas and shaping the debate. He has not significantly widened the base of people who will surely support him when caucus and primary time come around. That is a problem. We have to recognize that it is a problem.

This isn't Rand Paul we are dealing with... Ron Paul is not very tactful. He just introduced a bill to decriminalize marijuana, for goodness sake, in the middle of the GOP nomination! Not that it isn't the right thing to do, but this isn't the best time to do it.

But I really think that's just Ron. That is one of the reasons why we love him: he doesn't give a damn whether or not the establishment winces at what he does. Unfortunately, he does need to think more about what the voters think if he is to have any shot at winning this thing.

I think the campaign is wisely focused right now on those areas where driving energetic turnout can win even if the total numbers aren't there. Right now, that is Ames. Potentially, if we do very well at Ames, we might be able to drive enough turnout to do well in the actual Iowa caucus. But we need to do really well from here until then. The reason why the campaign isn't focused much on New Hampshire at this point is that New Hampshire is a primary and numbers matter.

Folks, right now, we don't have the numbers.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

So we need to win, and we need the cash. Please give everything. You can't afford NOT to. http://RonPaul2012.com

[lx43]

Bottom line:

We desperately need to get full funding to the Iowa Projects ASAP! The Iowa Projects are a really good plan to swing the state for Dr. Paul, and right now, with just under four days before the end of the quarter, the Iowa projects are embarrassingly underfunded. If anyone reading this has any cash they can spare, even just five or ten bucks, now's the time:

http://iowaforronpaul.com/projects.php

If the grassroots can't pull it together and get serious about winning Iowa soon, we're in big trouble. :(

This is the first I heard of this project as far as I can remember, but I would rather donate to the campaign to use the funds however they want instead of a grassroots project with the funds restricted to certain use. Not to mention I'm not sure who this money is really going to.

[aowen]

This is the first I heard of this project as far as I can remember, but I would rather donate to the campaign to use the funds however they want instead of a grassroots project with the funds restricted to certain use. Not to mention I'm not sure who this money is really going to.

I troll this forum a lot, and I'm not sure if your joking because I've seen this everywhere. As I said I am trolling this forum a little too much probably.
In any event, these are not grassroots projects. The projects just give you a chance to donate to specific plans that the actual campaign has come up with, and they are very important. When you pick a project to donate to you will be redirected to the official campaign page where you will then make your donation.

[Anti Federalist]

Folks, right now, we don't have the numbers.

True enough.

I tell you the big difference I see:

Last go around we were stuck pretty much at the same spot, and a field of contenders mocking RP's positions.

This time around, we're stuck at pretty much the same spot, with a field of contenders mimicking RP's positions.

Sales angle: "Why settle for knock offs, when you can have the real thing?"

[sailingaway]

This is the first I heard of this project as far as I can remember, but I would rather donate to the campaign to use the funds however they want instead of a grassroots project with the funds restricted to certain use. Not to mention I'm not sure who this money is really going to.

I think this is exactly why they aren't funded. People think they aren't official campaign donations. They are, and it counts towards the ticker, and you see your name up and everything. In fact if you click 'donate' it actually dumps you into the main campaign donation page but just tracks where you came from for allocating where the money goes.

[KCIndy]

This is the first I heard of this project as far as I can remember, but I would rather donate to the campaign to use the funds however they want instead of a grassroots project with the funds restricted to certain use. Not to mention I'm not sure who this money is really going to.


Actually, the Iowa Projects page is a grassroots outreach by the official campaign. If you click on one of the "donate" buttons, it will take you directly to the official Ron Paul campaign website: RonPaul2012.com

As I understand it, these projects have been set up by the official campaign as a result of suggestions by grassroots activists in Iowa.

Unfortunately, it appears that the official campaign has failed to make people aware of the projects, and has also failed to make it clear that these projects are actually a part of the official campaign.... :(

[sailingaway]

True enough.

I tell you the big difference I see:

Last go around we were stuck pretty much at the same spot, and a field of contenders mocking RP's positions.

This time around, we're stuck at pretty much the same spot, with a field of contenders mimicking RP's positions.

Sales angle: "Why settle for knock offs, when you can have the real thing?"

We also start with high single to low double digits nationwide, rather than with *

We need to grow that base, because Ron can't sell what he is. No one will buy someone saying "I have true integrity and unlike all the others don't sell out to special interests. I don't kowtow to lobbyists or violate the Constitution, I not only follow it I BELIEVE in its limits on the size of government, oh, and I'm the only one with answers for the economy even as the issues change. I won't be dependent on thinktanks with their own agendae to explain economic crises to me."

[tangent4ronpaul]

Lets hope this guy is wrong:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-27/ron-paul-s-anti-fed-message-drives-2012-white-house-bid-gaining-respect.html

“Paul is really a Libertarian, and while they are committed and passionate about Ron Paul, Libertarians represent at best about 10 percent of the vote,” McKinnon said. “He’ll stir the pot and add some entertainment at the debates. But he’s more gadfly than threat.”

[KCIndy]

Unfortunately, that 10% number is probably pretty accurate.... That's why it's vital we do a lot of outreach and carve out big chunks of the independent, Republican, and even Democratic voting population.

[sailingaway]

Lets hope this guy is wrong:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-27/ron-paul-s-anti-fed-message-drives-2012-white-house-bid-gaining-respect.html

“Paul is really a Libertarian, and while they are committed and passionate about Ron Paul, Libertarians represent at best about 10 percent of the vote,” McKinnon said. “He’ll stir the pot and add some entertainment at the debates. But he’s more gadfly than threat.”

He was polling 10% and immediately there were a dozen stories about 'he'll always get 10% but he's hit his cap' If he had been polling 15% they'd have said THAT was his 'cap'. It is just the meme of the moment. "While these numbers may make you think he has a chance, here's what we're going to say so you don't think that way."

And I didn't consider myself libertarian, and I thought/think he's spectacular. I considered myself a conservative and kinda a Constitutionalist, except that I didn't know there were enough of us to have an actual category.

[1836]

He was polling 10% and immediately there were a dozen stories about 'he'll always get 10% but he's hit his cap' If he had been polling 15% they'd have said THAT was his 'cap'. It is just the meme of the moment. "While these numbers may make you think he has a chance, here's what we're going to say so you don't think that way."

And I didn't consider myself libertarian, and I thought/think he's spectacular. I considered myself a conservative and kinda a Constitutionalist, except that I didn't know there were enough of us to have an actual category.

I am in your camp sailingaway. I am a Constitutionalist Conservative. A classical liberal by philosophy and a Republican by political necessity.

I know there are more than 10% of you in Iowa, so let's find 'em! :)

[1836]

He was polling 10% and immediately there were a dozen stories about 'he'll always get 10% but he's hit his cap' If he had been polling 15% they'd have said THAT was his 'cap'. It is just the meme of the moment. "While these numbers may make you think he has a chance, here's what we're going to say so you don't think that way."

And I didn't consider myself libertarian, and I thought/think he's spectacular. I considered myself a conservative and kinda a Constitutionalist, except that I didn't know there were enough of us to have an actual category.

I am in your camp sailingaway. I am a Constitutionalist Conservative. A classical liberal by philosophy and a Republican by political necessity.

I know there are more than 10% of you in Iowa, so let's find 'em! :)

[sadam]

I agree some people should stop considering every poll that comes out a conspiracy but I have to agree Ron Paul would be tough to poll. The margin of error wouldn't apply to him as much. Once a Paul supporter forever a Paul supporter, we don't flip flop. Also Paul supporters actually show up when it counts to events like straw polls, caucus', and time to actually vote. I doubt there are any Paul supporters in Iowa that say they support Ron Paul but are not going to show up to caucus for him. Romney supporters however not so much.

[Kade]

I know its early, but polls tend to be accurate. To the folks that try to discredit the polls, please understand that the same argument was made during RP's 2007/8 campaign.

In the end, the polls were proven right.

I hope RP and his staff are working to bring his poll numbers up in the early states.

The polls were never correct. The truth is that polls are tools to push ideas and candidates, to which the population starts moving towards the numbers in the polls, and the polls start inching the other way to look accurate by the time the election occurs. This behavior has been measured time and time again... these polls are propaganda, and they are only accurate at the end, when they have "inched" towards the eventual outcome.

[reduen]

I too am Christian constitutional conservative more than anything and Dr. Paul is not a strict libertarian by any means...

[1836]

The polls were never correct. The truth is that polls are tools to push ideas and candidates, to which the population starts moving towards the numbers in the polls, and the polls start inching the other way to look accurate by the time the election occurs. This behavior has been measured time and time again... these polls are propaganda, and they are only accurate at the end, when they have "inched" towards the eventual outcome.

So you are saying that every released poll is propaganda?

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6202/tinfoilhat.jpg

[acptulsa]

So you are saying that every released poll is propaganda?

Every is a strong word. That said, did you sleep through the six identical polls Faux discarded before they managed to come up with one they liked?

[1836]

I have no trouble believing that Fox News and other media outlets are engaged in a subtle attempt to paint the news a certain way, or that some media outlets are in the pockets of the political establishment (or vice-versa).

However, the sheer volume of polls conducted by different outlets and organizations, and the fact that the polls clearly reflect on-the-ground sentiment are enough proof to show that there is no real conspiracy afoot.

The fact of the matter is, even if what you were saying was true about polls being rigged, it would not matter to the vast majority of the population and the vast majority of voters. Sure, I happen to check RCP every day for new polls, and I'm sure many here do similarly. However, come on, do you really think that most people who vote pay attention to the polls?


They don't.

I would encourage you to do your own phone poll of Iowa voters or random national Republican likely voters and see if the results are much different than any prominent poll or the Real Clear Politics polling average. If you conduct the poll properly it will not be.

[acptulsa]

Well, your first two paragraphs say more about your definition of 'conspiracy' than anything else.

As for voters, yes, unfortunately they do pay attention to the 'horse race rhetoric'. This is what has kept third parties out of U.S. politics for more than a century.

P.S. Interestingly, I used to be able to find The Simpsons Citizen Kang on YouTube, but not any more.

[1836]

Well, your first two paragraphs say more about your definition of 'conspiracy' than anything else.

As for voters, yes, unfortunately they do pay attention to the 'horse race rhetoric'. This is what has kept third parties out of U.S. politics for more than a century.

P.S. Interestingly, I used to be able to find The Simpsons Citizen Kang on YouTube, but not any more.

Voters actually do not pay attention to the polls (the majority do not). If you would like, I can pull some research. Unless you think the academic research in the field of political science is also bunk.

I also do not think that this kind of thing is what keeps third parties out. What keeps third parties out is entrenched mechanisms and barriers to entry in our electoral systems that make it nearly impossible for third parties to compete on an even footing.

The truth is often fairly simple, rather more plausible, and no less ridiculous.

[Kade]

Voters actually do not pay attention to the polls (the majority do not). If you would like, I can pull some research. Unless you think the academic research in the field of political science is also bunk.

I also do not think that this kind of thing is what keeps third parties out. What keeps third parties out is entrenched mechanisms and barriers to entry in our electoral systems that make it nearly impossible for third parties to compete on an even footing.

The truth is often fairly simple, rather more plausible, and no less ridiculous.

There are numerous empirical studies done that demonstrably show that the Bandwagon effect is real, and that it effects voter behavior. A good study for this is Bandwagons, Underdogs, the Titanic and the Red Cross: The Influence of Public Opinion Polls on Voters (2000) "Irwin, Galen A. and Joop J. M. Van Holsteyn. ."

This isn't a conspiracy. I hate conspiracies.

[klamath]

Actually Libertarians comprise about 1/2 percent of the vote and there are about 8 to 12 percent libertarian republicans. Probably 5 to 10 percent libertarian democrats.
RP has pretty much captured all of the libertarian Republican voters and a good part of the pure Libertarians and some of the libertarian democrats that switched parties for RP. In order for RP to break out of the libertarian only base he has to get a portion of the christian right, get a slice of strong defense republicans, and and a cut of the populists.
One thing thing that will assure he nevers get them is to keep over emphsizing drugs. Starting the republicans first debate by prompting a debate moderater to say "wow i never thought I would see heroin applauded" is a horrible way to start. RP has the libertarian vote tied up and if he keeps directing his efforts to them that is what his base will stay as.
And polls are generally right at the time they were taken. If you really believe they are wrong do yourself a favor and walk your neighborhood and poll the people randonly. Reality check.

[Kade]

And polls are generally right at the time they were taken. If you really believe they are wrong do yourself a favor and walk your neighborhood and poll the people randonly. Reality check.

The question is, after having gone door to door and I walk up after you, has the person learned anything about Ron Paul yet?

[dannno]

I know its early, but polls tend to be accurate. To the folks that try to discredit the polls, please understand that the same argument was made during RP's 2007/8 campaign.

In the end, the polls were proven right.

I hope RP and his staff are working to bring his poll numbers up in the early states.

How were the polls proven right?

They all had him at 0-2% when we knew for a fact that he wasn't anywhere near there, and he ended up getting 5-10% in most states, and coming in 2nd place in Nevada with something around 20%.

[heavenlyboy34]

They show an indication, this time in 2007 this same poll had Huckabee at 4% and didn't even register Ron. Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses and Ron Paul took 10%.

So yes, they show that at this moment when Bachmann is announcing and had a good debate, she is polling high. She hasn't yet been vetted and the next thing to find out is what sort of legs she has. But she was running radio ads to get people to get to her event tonight in Waterloo and to her announcement tomorrow. It isn't entirely organic.
I think her legs are pretty nice looking. They look nice and smooth, too. ;) lulz. :)

[johnrocks]

I know its early, but polls tend to be accurate. To the folks that try to discredit the polls, please understand that the same argument was made during RP's 2007/8 campaign.

In the end, the polls were proven right.

I hope RP and his staff are working to bring his poll numbers up in the early states.

Why internet polls no longer interest me, only the major straw polls do and that's just for the media/notoriety effect.

[1836]

Actually Libertarians comprise about 1/2 percent of the vote and there are about 8 to 12 percent libertarian republicans. Probably 5 to 10 percent libertarian democrats.
RP has pretty much captured all of the libertarian Republican voters and a good part of the pure Libertarians and some of the libertarian democrats that switched parties for RP. In order for RP to break out of the libertarian only base he has to get a portion of the christian right, get a slice of strong defense republicans, and and a cut of the populists.
One thing thing that will assure he nevers get them is to keep over emphsizing drugs. Starting the republicans first debate by prompting a debate moderater to say "wow i never thought I would see heroin applauded" is a horrible way to start. RP has the libertarian vote tied up and if he keeps directing his efforts to them that is what his base will stay as.
And polls are generally right at the time they were taken. If you really believe they are wrong do yourself a favor and walk your neighborhood and poll the people randonly. Reality check.

Best post ever. +rep

[Kade]

Best post ever. +rep

YAYAYYYYY BEST POST EVA!!!

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/mike_meyers.gif

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Unfortunately, that 10% number is probably pretty accurate.... That's why it's vital we do a lot of outreach and carve out big chunks of the independent, Republican, and even Democratic voting population.

Actually, with that 10% stuck with Ron, the GOP & all the establishment candidates know that they need that 10% to beat Obama & that's why all the establishment candidates have shifted towards Ron to attract this bloc. So if we consider scenarios put forth in this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?299298-Frank-Luntz-RAND-has-MOST-LIKEABILITY-of-ANY-candidate-he-s-EVER-polled-the-audience-on&p=3353569&viewfull=1#post3353569) post then getting Rand on-board as VP might turn out to be a masterstroke because Rand has a strong mainstream following, not just among GOP voters but he scores well with democrats as well & he forms a perfect foil for the "extreme" Ron as Rand is seen more of "centrist" & mainstream. Let's say declaring Rand as VP even gets us another 5-10% of the mainstream GOP vote then GOP will be caught between rock & a hard place because they'll realize that not only they can't beat Obama but they'll be risking destruction of the party itself & therefore more mainstream GOP voters might start falling in line behind a Paul/Paul ticket with no other recourse in sight.

I've been saying this for a while that it's very unlikely that Ron's numbers are going to shoot up drastically in the few months remaining & he's been completely sold to the public as a "kook", "unelectable", etc by the media even though they admit on some of his positions & Rand's stature has grown so much in the short period that many asked him if was going to run for presidency so talks of nepotism wouldn't stand a chance & a father-son ticket could be also sold as a "historic event" as much as "first black president", "first lady president", etc are sold.

I just don't want 2012 to be like 2008 where people hoped & hoped that some miracle would happen & regular voters would "see the light" all of a sudden & Ron would become president but of course, it never happened & if one looks at things objectively, it mayn't happen this time around either so we ought to do something more than just running a conventional campaign & hoping that "somehow everything will work out", & Rand might just be the ace that we need to pull out to put GOP in a catch 22 situation; are they willing accept Paul/Paul to overthrow Obama or do they hate Ron so much that they'd let Obama win! I think the answer would be clear to anyone who understands the mentality of the mainstream GOP voters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyQSN3U_vU8&feature=player_embedded

[anaconda]

Ballot fraud can tend to make polls accurate. See New Hampshire 2008:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM

[TheTyke]

No, the polls were horribly innacurate as has been pointed out repeatedly. Giuliani leading big, and Huckabee barely registering. In KY, PPP released a fake poll showing Conway tied with Rand to keep Conway's campaign going and shed doubt on Rand.

Polls have their uses, and ignoring them completely is a mistake... but so is taking them as gospel...