FreedomLover
11-04-2007, 12:00 PM
1. Throw out every national poll that says Guiliani is in the lead, Thompson second, with Romney and McCain rounding out the top 4. These do not matter to us. Not because of any alleged innaccuracies in polling, but because there is no national primary. There are only state primaries.
Once we've done that, we can look at state polls.
2. Throw out all polls from states that have primaries on or after february 5. These are the states that determine about half of all delegates needed to win, but they come on the same day. The voters in these states base their vote heavily on what has happened in the past month. Before Super Tuesday, there are 4 or 5 early states giving the winner (s) national recognition and an infusion of popularity and aura of inevitability.
All polling data before these early primaries are useless because the distinction of winning or coming in the top 3 of these primaries changes the game permanently. Every single other poll from then on is dramatically changed.
We saw this phenomenom most recently with John Kerry.
In a CBS Poll taken January 15th, just 4 days before the Iowa Caucuses, John Kerry was in 4th place nationally, polling at 7%. he was behind Dead (24%) Clark(12) and Gephardt(11).
In Iowa and New Hampshire he was polling around 3rd place.
An NBC poll taken around the same time had him in 5th place nationally.
THEN, After his surprise victory in the Iowa Caucus, John Kerry shot up to 30% nationally in Newsweek, Quinnipac Poll, and Fox news (29%) Polls, doubling the percentage of his closest rival.
Many attribute his surprise 1st place finish to Dean and Gephardt squabbling for 1st place and too much negativity, but for whatever the reason, when John Kerry won Iowa, his fortune snowballed rapidly...
Then, with this bit of momentum, he won New Hampshire, the state that just a month ago, before the Iowa caucuses, had Howard Dean with a 25 point lead.
After his New Hampshire victory, John Kerry shot up to between 40-50% nationally in most polls, right before Super Tuesday, leading to his eventual domination.
As you can see, John Kerry went from being around where mike huckabee and ron paul are right now, polling 4th or 5th place nationally and 3rd or 4th in Iowa and New Hampshire, to winning over 90% of all delegates, all because of the Big Mo' Iowa and NH supplied him.
If I were to pick a winner now, it would be Romney. He seems to have recognized this strategy early on and rightfully put all his work and money into these two states.
If Ron Paul is to be elected, his only hope in getting the extra GOP primary voters necessary to outright win a plurality and thus the delegates needed to win the nomination on February 5th and beyond, is to either win or come in second in Iowa AND/OR New Hampshire. Anything else is failure. I believe we are on the right track in New Hampshire, but Iowa is looking pretty bad. If New Hampshire doesn't pan out like we hope, we should atleast have a buffer in Iowa in hopes that we can get a suprise third or second.
Comments, Concerns, Critiques, etc?
Once we've done that, we can look at state polls.
2. Throw out all polls from states that have primaries on or after february 5. These are the states that determine about half of all delegates needed to win, but they come on the same day. The voters in these states base their vote heavily on what has happened in the past month. Before Super Tuesday, there are 4 or 5 early states giving the winner (s) national recognition and an infusion of popularity and aura of inevitability.
All polling data before these early primaries are useless because the distinction of winning or coming in the top 3 of these primaries changes the game permanently. Every single other poll from then on is dramatically changed.
We saw this phenomenom most recently with John Kerry.
In a CBS Poll taken January 15th, just 4 days before the Iowa Caucuses, John Kerry was in 4th place nationally, polling at 7%. he was behind Dead (24%) Clark(12) and Gephardt(11).
In Iowa and New Hampshire he was polling around 3rd place.
An NBC poll taken around the same time had him in 5th place nationally.
THEN, After his surprise victory in the Iowa Caucus, John Kerry shot up to 30% nationally in Newsweek, Quinnipac Poll, and Fox news (29%) Polls, doubling the percentage of his closest rival.
Many attribute his surprise 1st place finish to Dean and Gephardt squabbling for 1st place and too much negativity, but for whatever the reason, when John Kerry won Iowa, his fortune snowballed rapidly...
Then, with this bit of momentum, he won New Hampshire, the state that just a month ago, before the Iowa caucuses, had Howard Dean with a 25 point lead.
After his New Hampshire victory, John Kerry shot up to between 40-50% nationally in most polls, right before Super Tuesday, leading to his eventual domination.
As you can see, John Kerry went from being around where mike huckabee and ron paul are right now, polling 4th or 5th place nationally and 3rd or 4th in Iowa and New Hampshire, to winning over 90% of all delegates, all because of the Big Mo' Iowa and NH supplied him.
If I were to pick a winner now, it would be Romney. He seems to have recognized this strategy early on and rightfully put all his work and money into these two states.
If Ron Paul is to be elected, his only hope in getting the extra GOP primary voters necessary to outright win a plurality and thus the delegates needed to win the nomination on February 5th and beyond, is to either win or come in second in Iowa AND/OR New Hampshire. Anything else is failure. I believe we are on the right track in New Hampshire, but Iowa is looking pretty bad. If New Hampshire doesn't pan out like we hope, we should atleast have a buffer in Iowa in hopes that we can get a suprise third or second.
Comments, Concerns, Critiques, etc?