PDA

View Full Version : Are we forgetting something regarding the poll numbers?




rutgerscamdenYAL
12-25-2011, 09:28 AM
I think there is something extremely important that we are forgetting when we are looking at the poll numbers especially with the 17% we just saw in NH. When these polls are conducted, most of them are conducted by calling a home where the parents are answering the phone. Younger people are not really accounted for in these polls. The Youth vote is going to play an enormous factor that I believe is being heavily overlooked by the MSM and even us. That's where our strength is, in the youth! I expect Paul's numbers to be even higher in IA and NH so I think we are much closer to Mitt in NH and even further ahead in IA. Thoughts?

Brett85
12-25-2011, 09:32 AM
That's what people said in 2008, and the polling results then were almost completely accurate.

rich34
12-25-2011, 09:50 AM
That's what people said in 2008, and the polling results then were almost completely accurate.

Very true..

Hopefully with no democratic primary we'll get Obama type numbers with turn out. Probably won't get as much, but should be better than last time.

ctiger2
12-25-2011, 09:59 AM
That's what people said in 2008, and the polling results then were almost completely accurate.

Well, this isn't 2008 anymore. Lots has changed. IMO Ron will overperform a tad.

Joe3113
12-25-2011, 10:02 AM
That's what people said in 2008, and the polling results then were almost completely accurate.

NH is a heavy vote fraud state. Remember 4 years ago?


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


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

Carole
12-25-2011, 10:02 AM
I do not necessarily agree with your theory, but here is another tidbit. If only Republicans are being polled, are any of those Republicans recently converted from either Democratic or Independent? If so, our support is registering this in the current polls possibly. Thus we still need to grow the base.

lakerssuck92
12-25-2011, 10:02 AM
The only poll which is iffy is Rasmussen (since they ONLY poll people with landlines). Hence the reason we perform poorly in them...

rutgerscamdenYAL
12-25-2011, 10:09 AM
But also look at what has happened since 2007...C4L, Young Americans for Liberty, Students for Liberty....These activist will play a big part I think.

Carole
12-25-2011, 10:16 AM
I remember it well. :(

idiom
12-25-2011, 10:18 AM
It is harder to poll youth, but it is also harder to get them to show up.

JasonM
12-25-2011, 10:20 AM
Well, experience has told us that polls tend to be fairly accurate when it comes to telling us where we are in a campaign, it's why folks pay attention to them.

There is a reason why these polls tend to be +/- 2-4% depending on the sample size. So if you get a poll showing us 20%, then all the folks not being contacted may make us optimistic that we MAY be on the positive side of that rounding error.

Until the REAL polls tell us otherwise (you know, the one where peoples' votes count?), treat the current polls as a barometer of where we currently are and only hope to outperform these polls by 2-4% at BEST if the vote were held today. Don't rely on false hopes that the polls are somehow flawed and the reality is far better than we think it is.

Remember, even if the under age 45 group turns out better than expected, the over age 45 age group who tends to outvote the younger folks by a margin of two to one. Baby Boomers are still firmly in control of our country's future until the whole lot of them start dropping like flies into the graveyards (although don't count on it given the upward trend in life expectancy).

And excluding Ron Paul baby boomers in this forum, there is a good majority of over 45 people that still buy into the neocon lies.

GunnyFreedom
12-25-2011, 10:33 AM
It is harder to poll youth, but it is also harder to get them to show up.

This. I totally gave up on the under-23 vote after 2008. They love to agree with everything Paul says, but come voting day the couch and cheetos seem more important. :(

JasonM
12-25-2011, 10:40 AM
This. I totally gave up on the under-23 vote after 2008. They love to agree with everything Paul says, but come voting day the couch and cheetos seem more important. :(

I think every single under 23 vote that believed in Ron Paul voted for him. I just think that the over 45 vote happened to turn out very well.

Remember, when it comes to primaries, only 20% of the population (some numbers put it as low as 12 or 13%) tend to vote, which exaggerates the over 45 vote even more. But we are able to make the waves we do for this exact same reason, since we're drawing out support from a massive black hole of apathetic voters who don't really think their vote counts or think that the only vote they need to cast is the one on general election day. The population just doesn't get the concept that the primaries are where the true elections happen, and the general election is effectively a two-way runoff.

If Ron Paul does really well, and we see a massive uptick in voter participation in the primaries, you will know why Ron Paul did well!!

69360
12-25-2011, 10:42 AM
If you are saying Ron will overperform his polling numbers by 2-3 points sure, I agree. If you think he's going to win by a large margin from 3rd in the polls you are kidding yourself as history has shown.

JasonM
12-25-2011, 10:44 AM
If you are saying Ron will overperform his polling numbers by 2-3 points sure, I agree. If you think he's going to win by a large margin from 3rd in the polls you are kidding yourself as history has shown.

This!!

braane
12-25-2011, 10:45 AM
This. I totally gave up on the under-23 vote after 2008. They love to agree with everything Paul says, but come voting day the couch and cheetos seem more important. :(
With better campaign organization and a good chance to win Iowa the vote will turnout. Throwing the voters we need under the bus is counter-intuitive anyways.

Crickett
12-25-2011, 10:48 AM
I remember it well. :(
I do too. As a matter of fact, not only did Ron get only like 5% which floored all of us, and almost EXACTLY matched the poll, but $65,000 was raised for the recount (which is the outlandish price they charged) and the boxes were already OPEN and the ballots strewn around. It was a travesty, not at all secure, and I hope we have plenty of people watching, this year in ALL states. No one that is a supporter NOW, that was THEN will forget the MANY shenanigans that went on at GOP conventions and voting booths. Each place needs to be watched, somehow, and results verified. There is also a special place that I think is in NY where ALL of the votes are counted. I have said for months that this place needs to be monitored by American Citizens, from the Tea Party, or whatever..

ronpaulhawaii
12-25-2011, 10:58 AM
campaign like we're 10 pts behind!

Omnica
12-25-2011, 11:35 AM
I have a bad feeling about a corrupt corporation like Diebold or a foreign owned entity,
electronically massaging the results as they please, and then using the media to drown out election fraud investigations.

http://www.rense.com/general79/sis.htm
This link is about the Democratic primary corruption, but one would think in today's one party state, similar or worse tricks would be employed in 2012 by the GOP establishment to ensure Dr. Paul doesn't overturn their ultra profitable apple cart.

Omnica
12-25-2011, 11:38 AM
I do too. As a matter of fact, not only did Ron get only like 5% which floored all of us, and almost EXACTLY matched the poll, but $65,000 was raised for the recount (which is the outlandish price they charged) and the boxes were already OPEN and the ballots strewn around. It was a travesty, not at all secure, and I hope we have plenty of people watching, this year in ALL states. No one that is a supporter NOW, that was THEN will forget the MANY shenanigans that went on at GOP conventions and voting booths. Each place needs to be watched, somehow, and results verified. There is also a special place that I think is in NY where ALL of the votes are counted. I have said for months that this place needs to be monitored by American Citizens, from the Tea Party, or whatever..
Hopefully the campaign is ultra prepared to ensure a fair vote for the peoples' Constitutional champion!

GunnyFreedom
12-25-2011, 01:07 PM
With better campaign organization and a good chance to win Iowa the vote will turnout. Throwing the voters we need under the bus is counter-intuitive anyways.

Oh I believe we are going to win. I'm just not going to rely on kids, who don't bother to vote, to do it.

dbill27
12-25-2011, 01:10 PM
What I think were forgetting is that either Bachman or santorum drop out after Iowa. Nh polls will change

69360
12-25-2011, 01:33 PM
What I think were forgetting is that either Bachman or santorum drop out after Iowa. Nh polls will change

They won't. Why would they?

Austin
12-25-2011, 01:36 PM
Ron might outperform his poll numbers by 3 or 4 percent, but I think that's more likely to be attributed to the overall independent and Democrat vote coming our way, not the youth in particular. But that's still within the margin of error, so I don't expect to see any significant bumps.

I'd sure love to be wrong though.

gerryb
12-25-2011, 01:41 PM
campaign like we're 10 pts behind!

We are 20 points behind......

Brett85
12-25-2011, 01:54 PM
Well, this isn't 2008 anymore. Lots has changed. IMO Ron will overperform a tad.

I agree that Ron will overperform a tad, but just not a large amount.

Matthew Zak
12-25-2011, 01:57 PM
I do not think he will over perform at all. Where are you guys from??????

We need to wash away any expectation that he'll do as well as we hope he will. We need to assume he's behind and act accordingly, or just give up.

We can not afford to think we're winning anything, ever.

Matthew Zak
12-25-2011, 02:00 PM
I do not expect that we're going to win, and I will not be in any way surprised if we don't. Because I've seen too many dirty tricks by the establishment. They play all the angles. They're always one step ahead. The ONLY thing we have to our advantage is the truth. So let's not hand them the election by pretending Iowa is in the bag.

Galileo Galilei
12-25-2011, 02:13 PM
That's what people said in 2008, and the polling results then were almost completely accurate.

The poll results were way off in 2008 in Iowa and Nevada. The polls in Nevada said Paul would get 6th and he got 2nd. In Iowa, almost every single poll lowballed Paul, not a sinlge Paul overpolled him. In NH, most of the polls lowballed Paul as well, only a 5th place finish in Iowa dampened Paul's numbers in NH making the polls seem legit.

In additon, the polls for Rand Paul in 2010 were extremely atrocious in both the prmary and general. The primary polls were off by an average of 11%, a tremendous error. The general election polls were low as well, with one poll near election time claiming an unbelieavable tie.

The polls this time around are rigged as well. But the rigged polls put the puppet masters in a Catch-22 situation: If they do not increase Paul's poll numbers, their rigged polls will be exposed and discredited on election day. If they DO increase Paul's poll numbers, then it will create the impressiion that Paul is surging in the polls. It looks like they picked option 2.

PS

Normally, the pollsters can get away with rigged polls because candidates who are declared to have no chance to win, typically poll a lot better 6 months before an election than compared to the month immediataly prior to the election. So if the polls are rigged 6 months before the election and then the real poll numbers drop and voters the candidate is not worth a wasted vote, the initial rigged polling data is vindicated. But Ron Paul has finally defeated the machinations of the pollster masters. Now the actual issues will have to be debated instead.

Brett85
12-25-2011, 02:16 PM
The poll results were way off in 2008 in Iowa and Nevada. The polls in Nevada said Paul would get 6th and he got 2nd. In Iowa, almost every single poll lowballed Paul, not a sinlge Paul overpolled him.

In Iowa in 2008, the RCP average had Ron at about 6 or 7%, and he ended up at 10%. So he did overperform slightly. Ron tends to do better in caucus states since there's lower turnout and enthusiasm counts for more.

maxoutco
12-25-2011, 02:27 PM
Well, this isn't 2008 anymore. Lots has changed. IMO Ron will overperform a tad.

We cannot bank on that. Remember young voters are the most likely not too vote do to too many reasons. That's why I brought up the buddy system a while ago, so that we can create a system to hold voters accountable to other people.

I think RonPaulCountry.com was heading off that project. Not sure where it is though. We really need to push this through the colleges to get the young vote out.

Galileo Galilei
12-25-2011, 02:30 PM
In Iowa in 2008, the RCP average had Ron at about 6 or 7%, and he ended up at 10%. So he did overperform slightly. Ron tends to do better in caucus states since there's lower turnout and enthusiasm counts for more.

Per RCP, there 53 polls done in Iowa. 51 of them low-balled Ron Paul. 2 were correct. ZERO over-polled Paul.

And at the exact same time Paul got 9% in the Iowa Straw Poll, Ron Paul was supposedly polling at 0%.

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

jacmicwag
12-25-2011, 02:54 PM
Next week's polls will tell the story. I'm hoping for the best but prepared for other news also following this nonstop on-slaught.

GunnyFreedom
12-25-2011, 04:53 PM
With better campaign organization and a good chance to win Iowa the vote will turnout. Throwing the voters we need under the bus is counter-intuitive anyways.


Oh I believe we are going to win. I'm just not going to rely on kids, who don't bother to vote, to do it.

You may have found it insulting, but reality does not change according to what we like and dislike. Kids under 24 just don't vote. Not even for Obama in 2008, look at the numbers, the press created an illusion of an Obama youth surge. I learned that the hard way in 2007 2008 when I gave up my life to campaign for Ron Paul. We had some gigantic portion of the 24-and-under vote but come election day, 5%.

So hit me again brother. :D Doesn't change reality.

affa
12-25-2011, 05:25 PM
That's what people said in 2008, and the polling results then were almost completely accurate.

This neglects the possibility of vote fraud.

If you were going to commit vote fraud, it would make sense to change the numbers to what polls suggested if the polls happened to represent what you wanted to happen. Because if you did, people like you would never suspect vote fraud happened since they'd just assume "the polling results then were almost completely accurate."

I am not saying vote fraud did or did not happen, nor to what degree it did happen if it did occur. Personally, I think it's quite likely it did.

But the larger point is... that polls=voting in 2008 does not necessarily mean the polls were accurate.

Brett85
12-25-2011, 05:28 PM
This neglects the possibility of vote fraud.

If you were going to commit vote fraud, it would make sense to change the numbers to what polls suggested if the polls happened to represent what you wanted to happen. Because if you did, people like you would never suspect vote fraud happened since they'd just assume "the polling results then were almost completely accurate."

I am not saying vote fraud did or did not happen, nor to what degree it did happen if it did occur. Personally, I think it's quite likely it did.

But the larger point is... that polls=voting in 2008 does not necessarily mean the polls were accurate.

I've never been one to believe in voter fraud or conspiracy theories in general. Why are people working so hard to get Ron elected if they think that the election is simply going to be stolen from him anyway?