PDA

View Full Version : New USA TODAY/Gallup poll shows Herman Cain, Mitt Romney tied




RDM
11-07-2011, 02:01 PM
Despite accusations of sexual harassment, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows Georgia Republican Herman Cain staying at the front of the pack in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. In the new poll, Cain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney were tied, with each receiving 21%.

The new poll also showed former House speaker Newt Gingrich gaining support, up to 12% and edging into third place over Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who stands at 11%. The other GOP hopefuls, including Rep. Michelle Bachmann and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, are still garnering only single-digit support.

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/new-usa-todaygallup-poll-shows-herman-cain-mitt-romney-tied/#ixzz1d3GWt8qr

mwkaufman
11-07-2011, 02:08 PM
lol nicely crafted article. Don't mention Ron in 5th place with more support than Bachmann, Santorum, and Huntsman combined.

harikaried
11-07-2011, 02:09 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150617/Cain-Ties-Romney-Atop-GOP-Field.aspx

Numbers from 11/6 (from 10/7) Change
Romney 21 (20) +1
Cain 21 (18) +3
Gingrich 12 (7) +5
Perry 11 (15) -4
Paul 8 (8) +0
Bachmann 3 (5) -2
Santorum 2 (3) -1
Huntsman 1 (2) -1
Other 0 (1) -1
Undecided 21 (20) +1

Maximus
11-07-2011, 02:12 PM
I'll pay attention to the polls next week after this latest round of allegations against Cain plays through

bluesc
11-07-2011, 02:14 PM
Ouch.

Cain gains after all the crap and Ron is not moving.

trey4sports
11-07-2011, 02:14 PM
god damnit

michaelkellenger
11-07-2011, 02:18 PM
People here are ridiculous. these polls take into account the accusations. A majority say they are false. They are still supporting Cain, sickening. Only way Cain drops is if the allegations can be proven.

RDM
11-07-2011, 02:21 PM
It's time for the campaign and grassroots to turn it on...full speed ahead. Iowa must be taken with every last drop of energy within us.

mwkaufman
11-07-2011, 02:23 PM
Don't stress too much about national polls. It's not good news, but Ron Paul can win despite it.

USA Today/Gallup National 11/2/07-11/4/07

Democratic Nominee

50% Clinton
22% Obama
15% Edwards
4% Richardson
1% Biden
1% Dodd
1% Kucinich

Despite hitting 50% nationally at this point in the cycle last time, Clinton managed to lose the nomination. Though certainly she came very close.

Republican Nominee

34% Giuliani
18% McCain
17% Thompson
14% Romney
6% Huckabee
1% Hunter
1% Paul

Despite polling at 6% nationally, Huckabee won Iowa and challenged for the GOP nomination. Paul did surprisingly well.

JoshS
11-07-2011, 02:24 PM
we lost.

this country's retarded, time to deal with the fact

Inkblots
11-07-2011, 02:41 PM
we lost.

this country's retarded, time to deal with the fact

Seriously? You're giving up based on national polls 2 months out? For heavens sake, this is the silly season!

bluesc
11-07-2011, 02:43 PM
we lost.

this country's retarded, time to deal with the fact

Instead of discouraging everyone and giving up based on a national poll, why not help us win Iowa?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?317029-Ron-Paul-Phone-from-Home-Program
https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/

brendan.orourke
11-07-2011, 02:46 PM
We need to all stop obsessing and reading so much into these polls as we saw above from what it looked like at this time in 08.

Shit is going to ebb and flow constantly and people are going to win and lose. But nobody, absolutely nobody, has as strong of a base as Paul, and we all know that. If we keep up our best efforts all the way through primary/caucus season, and with a little luck (honestly), we can do it!

I mean do you remember how Howard Dean was a shoe-in for the nomination, and then he yells one night and ruined his entire career? What is certain, Paul's support does not, and will not go down. It can only go up!

sailingaway
11-07-2011, 02:52 PM
we lost.

this country's retarded, time to deal with the fact

http://evilbomb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/epic-face-palms.jpg

anaconda
11-07-2011, 02:54 PM
Are getting defectors? Or, are they polling a larger base with a different make-up, which we become a smaller part of? I am having difficulty understanding how we lose percentage points. I could sort of understand not increasing, but I don't understand decreasing...

jasonxe
11-07-2011, 03:10 PM
The only way Paul can win is if he provides a persuading argument for his foreign policy. Even if Cain goes down, they're just going to go to Newt. We're getting skipped for Perry, Cain to Newt. We need to make ourselves attractive in the foreign policy dept which we know a good number of goper don't like. Problem is it takes a good play with wording and I suggest never mention Israel if you don't have to.

jmdrake
11-07-2011, 03:14 PM
lol nicely crafted article. Don't mention Ron in 5th place with more support than Bachmann, Santorum, and Huntsman combined.

If Ron had been in 3rd place they would have only mentioned the top 2. When Ron came in second in the Iowa Caucus behind Bachman they mentioned positions 1,3,4 and 5. That said how the hell are we behind Perry and Gingrich? :confused:

JoshS
11-07-2011, 03:20 PM
The fact is we are behind Perry and Gingrich and everyone wants to continue down the same path of phone banking and door to door and the same old stuff that will get us 13%.

This isn't a normal campaign, we won't win with normal campaign tactics.

limequat
11-07-2011, 03:21 PM
http://evilbomb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/epic-face-palms.jpg

How am supposed to sleep now?

bluesc
11-07-2011, 03:22 PM
The fact is we are behind Perry and Gingrich and everyone wants to continue down the same path of phone banking and door to door and the same old stuff that will get us 13%.

This isn't a normal campaign, we won't win with normal campaign activities.

What do you propose (aside from giving up)?

We need to win Iowa. You win Iowa with those very activities along with good early fundraising.

limequat
11-07-2011, 03:24 PM
In a way this is good. RP stayed the same. Ginchrich's rise has taken from Romney and Cain. The more the group clusters that better RP's shot of breaking through.

KEEF
11-07-2011, 03:27 PM
Hey all,

The media is going to dig up every crappy pole that puts Paul down. Don't let it get us down. We push through and the rest can eat a fat one.

zerosdontcount
11-07-2011, 03:29 PM
When I look at the last USA Today poll it hows Paul previously at 13. Which means a drop of 5.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

JamesButabi
11-07-2011, 03:33 PM
I think the latest polls are the most promising. Why? Perry and Gingrich have become players again.

In my opinion the best chance we have is to have the ignorant electorate fractured. We will get the Ron Paul people to the polls. The more the others are dispersing their voters, the easier it is for us to convert, and the less votes we will need to win.

RonPaul101.com
11-07-2011, 03:46 PM
I think the latest polls are the most promising. Why? Perry and Gingrich have become players again.

In my opinion the best chance we have is to have the ignorant electorate fractured. We will get the Ron Paul people to the polls. The more the others are dispersing their voters, the easier it is for us to convert, and the less votes we will need to win.

Exactly! Especially places like Iowa that require stability and ground game, I don't think you can get by in Iowa being the flavor of the week at the right time.

sailingaway
11-07-2011, 03:46 PM
Did you know Gingrich supported TARP? Michelle Malkin knows: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/10/17/gop-2012-the-hold-your-nose-tracker/

zerosdontcount
11-07-2011, 03:46 PM
Perry hasn't become a player again. The only reason his graph looks like it went up a little bit is because they took the CBS poll out at 6%. If they included it Perry would be at 9.5% right now

JamesButabi
11-07-2011, 03:50 PM
Perry hasn't become a player again. The only reason his graph looks like it went up a little bit is because they took the CBS poll out at 6%. If they included it Perry would be at 9.5% right now

Perry and Gingrich weren't even second tier until a few weeks ago. Now they are polling just as well if not better than RP in most national polls I see.

sailingaway
11-07-2011, 03:50 PM
Perry is apparently making a move in Iowa, with organization and ads. Or at least ads, but one write up said he and Ron had the best organizations. First time I heard Perry used in conjunction with 'organization' but there it is.

bluesc
11-07-2011, 03:51 PM
Perry is apparently making a move in Iowa, with organization and ads. Or at least ads, but one write up said he and Ron had the best organizations. First time I heard Perry used in conjunction with 'organization' but there it is.

We were warned about a month ago, hopefully the campaign took notice.

JoshS
11-07-2011, 03:57 PM
What do you propose (aside from giving up)?

We need to win Iowa. You win Iowa with those very activities along with good early fundraising.

We'd need a revolutionary idea, like fully embracing the occupy movement and making that the top priority. Something along those lines or we're dead in the water.

This is a revolutionary campaign and people treat it like a normal one. We will not win that way, what revolution has ever arose out of normalcy?

bluesc
11-07-2011, 04:00 PM
We'd need a revolutionary idea, like fully embracing the occupy movement and making that the top priority. Something along those lines or we're dead in the water.

This is a revolutionary campaign and people treat it like a normal one. We will not win that way, what revolution has ever arose out of normalcy?

Weird, I actually already knew you would suggest that the OWS movement would win us the Republican primaries. That's a good way to hit 3%.

JoshS
11-07-2011, 04:05 PM
I said something along those lines, chief.

samforpaul
11-07-2011, 04:06 PM
Did you know Gingrich supported TARP? Michelle Malkin knows: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/10/17/gop-2012-the-hold-your-nose-tracker/


If you are canvassing in Iowa (or any other state for that matter) I think you'd be wise to have multiple copies of the above link.

Uriah
11-07-2011, 04:06 PM
we lost.

this country's retarded, time to deal with the fact

It ain't over til it's over. Keep that comment to yourself or at least until after the Iowa caucus. 57 days to work our hearts out. If you resign now we'll most certainly lose.

Lord Xar
11-07-2011, 04:08 PM
I just don't understand HOW Newt can be placing higher and Perry.. HOW THE FUCK!!!

Newt is a friggin distrustful piece of shit who believes in global warming and tarp -- Perry isn't much better.. HOW!! HOW are they ahead.. I DO NOT GET IT!

I feel Ron needs to just start calling spades a spade.. He needs to call them ALL out on supporting Tarp etc..
I don't have any answers here.. I am just not understanding what is going on.

prop up Bachman, she falls
prop up Perry, he falls
prop up Cain, he is faltering
Start propping up Newt & Perry

I am not understanding the tactics going on....

JoshS
11-07-2011, 04:08 PM
OR maybe we should face some reality on this forum once in a while rather than the endless stream of baseless optimism.

WE need to change our approach

bluesc
11-07-2011, 04:10 PM
OR maybe we should face some reality on this forum once in a while then the endless stream of baseless optimism.

WE need to change our approach

... By embracing OWS? How's that working out for Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson?

Badger Paul
11-07-2011, 04:15 PM
National polls mean nothing at this point.

JoshS
11-07-2011, 04:15 PM
I didn't say Ron Paul or his campaign should publicly endorse OWS.

Maybe we as supporters should focus on the group. AGAIN, I said something along those lines, that's an idea.

Keith and stuff
11-07-2011, 04:16 PM
... By embracing OWS? How's that working out for Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson?

And Fred Karger http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/290763/karger-im-not-going-anywhere


Fred Karger says he relates more to Occupy Wall Street than to the Tea Party. He supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights. He voted in the last two presidential elections for Ralph Nader.

Although, Paul has already come out somewhat if favor of OWS again and again.

JoshS
11-07-2011, 04:16 PM
National polls mean nothing at this point.

Yeah when they don't say what you want them to that's pretty easy to say.

da32130
11-07-2011, 04:22 PM
Yeah when they don't say what you want them to that's pretty easy to say.

It is a fact that we've already got enough supporters in Iowa to win the caucus. We just need them to caucus. It is that simple.

We can ensure that by focusing on getting turnout higher by phoning from home (http://rp2012.org).

If you want facts then read this:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?328197-How-Ron-Paul-Wins

Lord Xar
11-07-2011, 04:22 PM
I didn't say Ron Paul or his campaign should publicly endorse OWS.

Maybe we as supporters should focus on the group. AGAIN, I said something along those lines, that's an idea.

Here is the problem with supporting OWS -- the media has already created the divide. With Bachman/Cain coming out against them, this OWS is seen now - as a leftist issue. I know that isn't the truth, and many people "Get it", but he fact is --- the left/right paradigm has already been laid on OWS. It is a done deal.

Associating Ron Paul to it, in earnest, will result in nothing but negativity.

The time for Ron to come out for OWS would be when he is facing off against Obama. Till then, it is a strictly left/right divide now.

Badger Paul
11-07-2011, 04:26 PM
Of the 11 candidates it looks like the field is dividing into three tiers: A top 5 (Cain, Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Paul) a Low 3 (Bachmann, Santorum, Hunstman) and Bottom 3 (Johnson, Karger, Roemer).

The Dark Knight
11-07-2011, 04:39 PM
People here are ridiculous. these polls take into account the accusations. A majority say they are false. They are still supporting Cain, sickening. Only way Cain drops is if the allegations can be proven.

Wait another week or two and people will start to move away from Cain as the allegations sink in. Especially with today's development.

JoshS
11-07-2011, 04:40 PM
Here is the problem with supporting OWS -- the media has already created the divide. With Bachman/Cain coming out against them, this OWS is seen now - as a leftist issue. I know that isn't the truth, and many people "Get it", but he fact is --- the left/right paradigm has already been laid on OWS. It is a done deal.

Associating Ron Paul to it, in earnest, will result in nothing but negativity.

The time for Ron to come out for OWS would be when he is facing off against Obama. Till then, it is a strictly left/right divide now.

See, again, you're going right back to the normal campaign mantra. This isn't a normal campaign and the longer we treat it like one the more we're digging our graves.

I ask again - What revolution has ever arose out of normalcy?

The Dark Knight
11-07-2011, 04:40 PM
Of the 11 candidates it looks like the field is dividing into three tiers: A top 5 (Cain, Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Paul) a Low 3 (Bachmann, Santorum, Hunstman) and Bottom 3 (Johnson, Karger, Roemer).

I would say the new top tier is Romney, Gingrich, Paul and possible Perry

JoshS
11-07-2011, 04:41 PM
Of the 11 candidates it looks like the field is dividing into three tiers: A top 5 (Cain, Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Paul) a Low 3 (Bachmann, Santorum, Hunstman) and Bottom 3 (Johnson, Karger, Roemer).

Any non-RP supporter would say a top 3, without Paul.

da32130
11-07-2011, 04:49 PM
I ask again - What revolution has ever arose out of normalcy?

What campaign has ever won without people going to vote for them? Hence the need to find those voters and get them to vote.

If you can show how dealing with OWS gets more voters then explain it.

Give me liberty
11-07-2011, 04:49 PM
Thats it i am going to call USA TODAY/Gallup poll to find out how they are polling these idiots, its really pissing me of.

bluesc
11-07-2011, 04:50 PM
See, again, you're going right back to the normal campaign mantra. This isn't a normal campaign and the longer we treat it like one the more we're digging our graves.

I ask again - What revolution has ever arose out of normalcy?

What will OWS do for us?

How many of them are there? 60,000*? How many of them are Republicans? 1,000? How many of those Republicans already support Ron? 970?

Okay, so that's 59,030 people. We convince all of them that Ron is the right guy. How many of them will actually register to vote for Ron? Let's say half. 29,515. How many of them live in a significant early state? 10%? Okay, that's 2951. They all vote for Ron. What kind of a difference did that make? Well let's account for all the conservative media coverage of our efforts. How many votes would we lose? I'd say it would be a huge net negative and a huge waste of resources and time.

The very last thing we need is the OWS people chanting "RON PAUL! RON PAUL!" while they are damaging private property and assaulting old women.

*Numbers are not accurate obviously.

Philosophy_of_Politics
11-07-2011, 04:50 PM
With the votes being further divided among GOP members, with their numbers fluctuating; this is actually good for us. We remain consistent, which means we have a sound platform and argument.

da32130
11-07-2011, 04:50 PM
Any non-RP supporter would say a top 3, without Paul.

We can't control the national polls or tiers. We can only control our own actions.

One thing we can do to ensure victory in Iowa is by focusing on getting turnout higher by phoning from home (http://rp2012.org).

michaelkellenger
11-07-2011, 04:55 PM
Ron is in the middle of the pack, not on top by and stretch of imagination

JoshS
11-07-2011, 04:55 PM
What will OWS do for us?

How many of them are there? 60,000*? How many of them are Republicans? 1,000? How many of those Republicans already support Ron? 970?

Okay, so that's 59,030 people. We convince all of them that Ron is the right guy. How many of them will actually register to vote for Ron? Let's say half. 29,515. How many of them live in a significant early state? 10%? Okay, that's 2951. They all vote for Ron. What kind of a difference did that make? Well let's account for all the conservative media coverage of our efforts. How many votes would we lose? I'd say it would be a huge net negative and a huge waste of resources and time.

The very last thing we need is the OWS people chanting "RON PAUL! RON PAUL!" while they are damaging private property and assaulting old women.

*Numbers are not accurate obviously.

You're only looking at the direct physical results, this is a movement, not strictly numbers. It's the way the world is moving toward obviously shown through almost every major country in the world going through a similar movement, for them to have a major political leader would be huge. You play into the medias hands accepting the divide and conquer mentality as unchangeable - Ron's ideas are ideas that hit EVERYONE if conveyed correctly.

AGAIN - I SAID THIS IS ONE IDEA. My main point is phone banking and door to door isn't going to cut it, we need something more, something bigger.

No one will answer my revolution question because you can't, no revolution has started through normalcy. If we believe we can just quietly remove the power structure, overhaul monetary policy, completely change this countrys' outlook on foreign policy and return to truly small government, WE'RE KIDDING OURSELVES. This will need be done loudly, through physical presence with the people. And look! Conveniently there's a physical group already there for the taking.

da32130
11-07-2011, 05:02 PM
You're only looking at the direct physical results, this is a movement, not strictly numbers. It's the way the world is moving toward obviously shown through almost every major country in the world going through a similar movement, for them to have a major political leader would be huge. You play into the medias hands accepting the divide and conquer mentality as unchangeable - Ron's ideas are ideas that hit EVERYONE if conveyed correctly.

AGAIN - I SAID THIS IS ONE IDEA. My main point is phone banking and door to door isn't going to cut it, we need something more, something bigger.

No one will answer my revolution question because you can't, no revolution has started through normalcy. If we believe we can just quietly remove the power structure, overhaul monetary policy, completely change this countrys' outlook on foreign policy and return to truly small government, WE'RE KIDDING OURSELVES. This will need be done loudly, through physical presence with the people. And look! Conveniently there's a physical group already there for the taking.

You haven't answered any of my questions.

I don't even know what you mean by revolution. It is a slogan. Ron Paul is running a campaign and he needs votes. Frankly, your idea is what happened last time and there was a lot of wasted energy. If we focus on what matters we can win.

PHONE BANKING CAN CUT IT. It is a fact.

bluesc
11-07-2011, 05:03 PM
You're only looking at the direct physical results, this is a movement, not strictly numbers. It's the way the world is moving toward obviously shown through almost every major country in the world going through a similar movement, for them to have a major political leader would be huge. You play into the medias hands accepting the divide and conquer mentality as unchangeable - Ron's ideas are ideas that hit EVERYONE if conveyed correctly.

AGAIN - I SAID THIS IS ONE IDEA. My main point is phone banking and door to door isn't going to cut it, we need something more, something bigger.

No one will answer my revolution question because you can't, no revolution has started through normalcy. If we believe we can just quietly remove the power structure, overhaul monetary policy, completely change this countrys' outlook on foreign policy and return to truly small government, WE'RE KIDDING OURSELVES. This will need be done loudly, through physical presence with the people. And look! Conveniently there's a physical group already there for the taking.

What else is OWS achieving other than a physical presence? We all turn up there and Ruin Ron's chances of winning the Republican primaries. Where will our change for all of those things be then? In the hands of the 2nd term President Obama.

JoshS
11-07-2011, 05:04 PM
LOL

You're telling me what Ron wants to do with our government isn't revolutionary? Isn't Ron's standard quote "Ask yourselves what the role of government ought to be." He wants to change the role of government.

JoshS
11-07-2011, 05:07 PM
What else is OWS achieving other than a physical presence? We all turn up there and Ruin Ron's chances of winning the Republican primaries. Where will our change for all of those things be then? In the hands of the 2nd term President Obama.

What I'm more shocked at is this thought that if we funnel every cent into Iowa, then win it, the rest of the country will flip on their candidate and join the bandwagon. Please. Most of those people are under the idea "Ron Paul's a nut." And after Iowa, we wouldn't have a strong showing with the way things are looking.

And that's only if by a miracle we actually win it.

JoshS
11-07-2011, 05:12 PM
You haven't answered any of my questions.

I don't even know what you mean by revolution. It is a slogan. Ron Paul is running a campaign and he needs votes. Frankly, your idea is what happened last time and there was a lot of wasted energy. If we focus on what matters we can win.

PHONE BANKING CAN CUT IT. It is a fact.

Looks like the revolution is alive and well in X, how many times have you heard that? When your leader's calling it a revolution...that's what it is.

da32130
11-07-2011, 05:12 PM
LOL

You're telling me what Ron wants to do with our government isn't revolutionary? Isn't Ron's standard quote "Ask yourselves what the role of government ought to be." He wants to change the role of government.

Revolutary can mean different things. Overthrowing a governement by force is also a revolution. Coming up with a new direction for government can seem revolutionary, but you've got to get voters. There is a reason why phonebanking, etc is standard political stuff. It works.

JoshS
11-07-2011, 05:14 PM
Revolutary can mean different things. Overthrowing a governement by force is also a revolution. Coming up with a new direction for government can seem revolutionary, but you've got to get voters. There is a reason why phonebanking, etc is standard political stuff. It works.

Overthrowing a government by force is a coup.

It works for normal campaigns where no one's policies are different and they're just looking for name recognition.

JTforRP
11-07-2011, 05:17 PM
We need a miracle.

JoshS
11-07-2011, 05:18 PM
or a different approach

da32130
11-07-2011, 05:22 PM
What I'm more shocked at is this thought that if we funnel every cent into Iowa, then win it, the rest of the country will flip on their candidate and join the bandwagon. Please. Most of those people are under the idea "Ron Paul's a nut." And after Iowa, we wouldn't have a strong showing with the way things are looking.

And that's only if by a miracle we actually win it.

One of his biggeset obstacles is "He can't win". The polling has had us #2 in New Hampshire fairly regularly.

These aren't our opinions about Iowa and a boost. These are facts based on how people are betting on the election.

While some people may believe that "Ron Paul's a nut" idea as well. That can change with more exposure to his ideas. Also, the other candidates have got problems as well.

The fact is: winning Iowa and that boost is the only chance he has. What is the alternative? dealing with OWS can only make the "nut" objection worse.

TER
11-07-2011, 05:24 PM
I didn't say Ron Paul or his campaign should publicly endorse OWS.

Maybe we as supporters should focus on the group. AGAIN, I said something along those lines, that's an idea.

Whoever is capable and determined to go bring the OWS people into voters for Ron Paul should do so.

These polls, by the way, do not tell us who will win Iowa. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, it is the game changer.

TER
11-07-2011, 05:26 PM
We need a miracle.

Thankfully, Ron Paul is a believer. His chances for a miracle go way up.

da32130
11-07-2011, 05:45 PM
Overthrowing a government by force is a coup.

It works for normal campaigns where no one's policies are different and they're just looking for name recognition.

"A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:

1.Complete change from one constitution to another
2.Modification of an existing constitution.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution

Are we changing the constitution? We are trying to go back to the constitution. So it seems revolutionary. Did we have a socialist revolution in the 30s?

Fermli
11-07-2011, 05:45 PM
People must forget about Paul without any debates to jog their memory.

da32130
11-07-2011, 05:49 PM
We need a miracle.

You are objectively wrong. He has about a 10% chance of winning Iowa. Except Romney, others aren't much better. By your logic it would be a miracle if anyone won, but somebody will.

This type of thinking is not productive, fact based, or what makes a winner.

What we think of the chances doesn't change those chances. All we can do is try to improve those chances.

IterTemporis
11-07-2011, 06:07 PM
What I'm more shocked at is this thought that if we funnel every cent into Iowa, then win it, the rest of the country will flip on their candidate and join the bandwagon. Please. Most of those people are under the idea "Ron Paul's a nut." And after Iowa, we wouldn't have a strong showing with the way things are looking.

And that's only if by a miracle we actually win it.

Not to intervene, but many are also under the illusion that he is 'unelectable'. If he wins Iowa, then perhaps people will see that he is actually doing well and may change their vote to him, since it wouldn't be a 'wasted vote'.

da32130
11-07-2011, 06:14 PM
Not to intervene, but many are also under the illusion that he is 'unelectable'. If he wins Iowa, then perhaps people will see that he is actually doing well and may change their vote to him, since it wouldn't be a 'wasted vote'.

Exactly. If Ron Paul Forums doesn't think he can do it (when bettors are giving him a 10% chance), do we wonder why the average voter doesn't think he can.

Brett85
11-07-2011, 06:21 PM
Whoever is capable and determined to go bring the OWS people into voters for Ron Paul should do so.

These polls, by the way, do not tell us who will win Iowa. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, it is the game changer.

If Ron becomes associated with the far left OWS movement, he'll drop to 2% in the polls. It almost seems like some people here want to sabotage Ron's campaign.

bolidew
11-07-2011, 08:30 PM
This is polling All. Ron does a little better when polling Registered Voters in the NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/November_Poll.pdf) poll that comes out at the same time.

Keith and stuff
11-07-2011, 08:48 PM
Of the 11 candidates it looks like the field is dividing into three tiers: A top 5 (Cain, Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Paul) a Low 3 (Bachmann, Santorum, Hunstman) and Bottom 3 (Johnson, Karger, Roemer).

There are 30 Republicans in NH and that doesn't include the ones that dropped out, http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111028/NEWS0605/111029903/-1/news0605

Johnson is a pretty big candidate by NH standards because he actually shows up in the polls with 1% or 2%. Most of the NH candidates will never get 1% in any of the polls.

J_White
11-07-2011, 09:38 PM
Just winning Iowa wont help much. RP needs to win at least one more State in Jan and show a strong second in others. Iowa win will be ignored and wont give any momentum to us. If someone else wins, then its a different story. Get on the ground game in NH and SC.

FSP-Rebel
11-07-2011, 09:45 PM
Just winning Iowa wont help much. RP needs to win at least one more State in Jan and show a strong second in others. Iowa win will be ignored and wont give any momentum to us. If someone else wins, then its a different story. Get on the ground game in NH and SC.
Winning IA is the plan which sets us up for better #s in later states. Now, we're 3rd allegedly in the first 3 states (poll-wise) but winning IA ups us afterwards. Thinking that winning the first state won't grab momentum is amusing..

Badger Paul
11-07-2011, 09:50 PM
"Yeah when they don't say what you want them to that's pretty easy to say. "

I'll tell that to Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, George McGovern, George Bush I, Pat Robertson, John McCain, John Kerry, Pat Buchanan who were all polling about the same nationally as Paul at roughly this time in the campaign.

Anti Federalist
11-07-2011, 09:56 PM
What's going on is simple, the GOP base will not, ever, accept a candidate who is not for eternal warfare and Israel First.


I just don't understand HOW Newt can be placing higher and Perry.. HOW THE FUCK!!!

Newt is a friggin distrustful piece of shit who believes in global warming and tarp -- Perry isn't much better.. HOW!! HOW are they ahead.. I DO NOT GET IT!

I feel Ron needs to just start calling spades a spade.. He needs to call them ALL out on supporting Tarp etc..
I don't have any answers here.. I am just not understanding what is going on.

prop up Bachman, she falls
prop up Perry, he falls
prop up Cain, he is faltering
Start propping up Newt & Perry

I am not understanding the tactics going on....

Anti Federalist
11-07-2011, 10:05 PM
Just winning Iowa wont help much. RP needs to win at least one more State in Jan and show a strong second in others. Iowa win will be ignored and wont give any momentum to us. If someone else wins, then its a different story. Get on the ground game in NH and SC.

The best that can be hoped for is a second in NH.

Very well made commercials are running all the time, the outreach and campaign is much more professional this time around.

But unless Romney starts barbecuing babies or something, he's got this stitched up.

2012 New Hampshire Republican Primary
http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l617/race42012/11-6-11-nh.png

bolidew
11-07-2011, 10:16 PM
A 20%+ showing in NH would still be respected by any MSM.

da32130
11-07-2011, 10:18 PM
The best that can be hoped for is a second in NH.

Very well made commercials are running all the time, the outreach and campaign is much more professional this time around.

But unless Romney starts barbecuing babies or something, he's got this stitched up.

2012 New Hampshire Republican Primary
http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l617/race42012/11-6-11-nh.png

He was up huge last time too and lost.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html

If Ron Paul wins New Hampshire he essentially wins the nomination (80-90% chance). 2nd could be OK, but there is always a chance of 1st, especially if he wins Iowa.

Anti Federalist
11-07-2011, 10:25 PM
He was up huge last time too and lost.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html

If Ron Paul wins New Hampshire he essentially wins the nomination (80-90% chance). 2nd could be OK, but there is always a chance of 1st, especially if he wins Iowa.

He must win Iowa, place second at a minimum in NH, to have any hope of emerging winner or even near the top in SC and FL, two states we are notoriously weak in.

RDM
11-07-2011, 10:26 PM
The best that can be hoped for is a second in NH.

Very well made commercials are running all the time, the outreach and campaign is much more professional this time around.

But unless Romney starts barbecuing babies or something, he's got this stitched up.

2012 New Hampshire Republican Primary
http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l617/race42012/11-6-11-nh.png

How's that Power Plant protest you guys got started up there. Is it coming along?

idiom
11-07-2011, 10:31 PM
Well.

While we are having our mid-campaign panic attack...

How about wimmins? If we got as many women to support RP as men do we would have won already.

da32130
11-08-2011, 03:24 AM
He must win Iowa, place second at a minimum in NH, to have any hope of emerging winner or even near the top in SC and FL, two states we are notoriously weak in.

I essentailly agree. However, if we win Iowa we're going to have a 20-50% chance to win New Hampshire. That knocks Romney out and wins the nomination.

TheTexan
11-08-2011, 03:27 AM
What exactly happened to the Live Free or Die state anyway? Did the FSP make a mistake when they chose NH?

Anti Federalist
11-08-2011, 03:52 AM
What exactly happened to the Live Free or Die state anyway? Did the FSP make a mistake when they chose NH?

Nope.

NH is one of lowest taxed, least regulated, freest states in the nation, all within 1-12 hours of driving time to the Eastern megalopolis.

The problem is the same as any other place, hidebound party loyalists making decisions based on who looks good and who can speak with most grease.

Flip Flopney is well known here, with good hair, good looks, and is perceived to be able to "beat Obama".

The fact that there is little difference between the two, in reality, is meaningless and moot to these folks, they don't care.

In fact there's very little they do care about, other than beating Obama.

If they did care about freedom and debt and integrity and the constitution "our guy" would be ahead by double digits.

But NH people are no different than most, they love to get suckered and swindled just as much as the next guy.

bluesc
11-08-2011, 04:30 AM
I essentailly agree. However, if we win Iowa we're going to have a 20-50% chance to win New Hampshire. That knocks Romney out and wins the nomination.

Agree that if we win Iowa and NH, the race is essentially over. If we win Iowa I have no doubt we can hit 20% in NH, but a win there is extremely unlikely. McCain only won NH last time with the help of the media. Notice the RCP chart you linked to. Ron will never surge like that (unless he wins Iowa).


The best that can be hoped for is a second in NH.

Very well made commercials are running all the time, the outreach and campaign is much more professional this time around.

But unless Romney starts barbecuing babies or something, he's got this stitched up.


I lol'd.

da32130
11-08-2011, 04:42 AM
Agree that if we win Iowa and NH, the race is essentially over. If we win Iowa I have no doubt we can hit 20% in NH, but a win there is extremely unlikely. McCain only won NH last time with the help of the media. Notice the RCP chart you linked to. Ron will never surge like that (unless he wins Iowa).



I lol'd.

I'm not giving a guess. It is based on how people are betting. 2.5% chance to win New Hampshire now(which most likely assumes we win Iowa). 8% chance to win Iowa. So if we win Iowa we have a 2.5/8 = 31% chance to win NH.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/

mwkaufman
11-08-2011, 07:49 AM
Agree that if we win Iowa and NH, the race is essentially over. If we win Iowa I have no doubt we can hit 20% in NH, but a win there is extremely unlikely. McCain only won NH last time with the help of the media. Notice the RCP chart you linked to. Ron will never surge like that (unless he wins Iowa).

Eh, if Romney wins Iowa and NH the race is essentially over. If we win Iowa and NH, we'll gain a lot in South Carolina and Florida, but could easily lose those and be in a race.

e.g.

Iowa

Paul 25
Cain 23
Romney 17
Gingrich 12
Perry 10
Bachmann 8 (drops out)
Santorum 5 (drops out)

New Hampshire

Paul 35
Romney 31
Cain 13
Gingrich 11
Huntsman 7 (drops out)
Perry 3

South Carolina

Cain 31
Romney 27
Paul 22
Gingrich 13 (drops out)
Perry 7 (drops out)

Florida

Romney 38
Cain 35
Paul 27

I can definitely see the media spinning it as a fluke that Paul won Iowa and New Hampshire and make it out to be a two man race going into February. At this point we have to hope the field is thinned down enough that people actually research all their options and realize Paul is the best.

da32130
11-08-2011, 08:14 AM
Eh, if Romney wins Iowa and NH the race is essentially over. If we win Iowa and NH, we'll gain a lot in South Carolina and Florida, but could easily lose those and be in a race.

e.g.

Iowa

Paul 25
Cain 23
Romney 17
Gingrich 12
Perry 10
Bachmann 8 (drops out)
Santorum 5 (drops out)

New Hampshire

Paul 35
Romney 31
Cain 13
Gingrich 11
Huntsman 7 (drops out)
Perry 3

South Carolina

Cain 31
Romney 27
Paul 22
Gingrich 13 (drops out)
Perry 7 (drops out)

Florida

Romney 38
Cain 35
Paul 27

I can definitely see the media spinning it as a fluke that Paul won Iowa and New Hampshire and make it out to be a two man race going into February. At this point we have to hope the field is thinned down enough that people actually research all their options and realize Paul is the best.

You can tell just by seeing how people are betting on the election. http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/

Winning NH should be harder for us than actually winning the nomination.

My impression is if we win Iowa it may mean no tea party candidate can consistently get enough support to beat us. (and then the voters don't know who to turn to for the rest of the states since support is divided)

If we win NH it means even Romney can't beat us in his backyard, much less the South, Texas, etc.

That is my take.

Also, South Carolina should be easier to win than NH based on betting. If we win NH support amoung the rest could be so divided we take SC, too.

Matthew Zak
11-08-2011, 08:28 AM
This smells like '07

da32130
11-08-2011, 09:06 AM
This smells like '07

Well we have to win the same states as back then. However, our support is much greater now and the field is weaker.

We have the support to win Iowa right now. We can ensure that by focusing on getting turnout higher by phoning from home (http://rp2012.org).

If you want a detailed breakdown here it is:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?328197-How-Ron-Paul-Wins

What we believe about our current standing doesn't really matter. We have to focus on those actions that can increase our votes. If we all did that we would win easily.

JamesButabi
11-08-2011, 10:48 AM
This smells like '07

How were we looking in Iowa and NH at this point? I only recall seeing national polls to which we were in the ~2% mark.

da32130
11-08-2011, 12:16 PM
How were we looking in Iowa and NH at this point? I only recall seeing national polls to which we were in the ~2% mark.

We didn't break 5% in Iowa until mid November last time. We didn't break 7% in New Hampshire until mid November last time. Our highest Iowa poll last time was 10%. Until Janaury our highest New Hampshire poll was 9%.

We're undeniably doing better this time.

Iowa:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html

New Hampshire:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html

Join The Paul Side
11-08-2011, 12:27 PM
we lost.

this country's retarded, time to deal with the fact

I agree this country is full of stupid people, but it ain't about the polls. It's all about Iowa. :)

trey4sports
11-08-2011, 12:32 PM
I think Iowa is make or break for us. If we win, then we have a chance to win the nomination. N.H. I believe is in the bag for Romney. If we can get the nomination down to Paul vs. Romney we have a shot.

da32130
11-08-2011, 12:40 PM
I think Iowa is make or break for us. If we win, then we have a chance to win the nomination. N.H. I believe is in the bag for Romney. If we can get the nomination down to Paul vs. Romney we have a shot.

He was up huge last time too and lost:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html

If Ron Paul wins New Hampshire he essentially wins the nomination (80-90% chance). 2nd could be OK, but there is always a chance of 1st, especially if he wins Iowa.

It is based on how people are betting. 2.5% chance to win New Hampshire now(which most likely assumes we win Iowa). 8% chance to win Iowa. So if we win Iowa we have a 2.5/8 = 31% chance to win NH.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/