This is how you prove to people Ron Paul can win

[curtisag]

This simple link proves that polls are meaningless and nominations rarely go to the frontrunner this early in the cycle.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/opinion/polls/main589167.shtml

John Kerry was trailing behind Al Sharpton right around this point in the primary season of last election with 4%.

Amazing!!

[tarsus]

Nice. It's kinda funny how the "internet" guy was way ahead in polls until the first primary in 2004, now the "internet" guy is behind. I'll take way behind in polls for a win any day though, hehe.

[StateofTrance]

Reverse psychology. People get tired of "high-pollers" that they tend to vote someone else in real elections.

[Man from La Mancha]

The biggest difference now is it is the first time we have a honest well proven and experienced statesman, something not seen for over 100 years. All these past comparisons are useless.

.

[qsecofr]

If you do a bit of digging traditionally the Democrats seem to disregard polls in choosing a candidate, not so much Republicans. Since the 1950's the polls have been remarkably accurate for Republicans, except in 1964... which sets a good precedence for us. It makes me wonder what our country would be like today if Barry had the reach of our grassroots.

From what I've gathered this is a very atypical election cycle, there is no sitting president or VP running and for the first time in 50 years there are no Bushes, Nixons, or Dole's on the ticket. It is an inversion, the Democrats polling extremely consistent and Republicans largely undecided, for better or worse many will study this election cycle for years to come.

The country truly seems to have reached a crossroad, may our chains be light.

[tsetsefly]

john edwards was way behind as well...

[billjarrett]

Theres an article I wish I could find that came out slightly after Roves retirement where he claims partial responibility for this. He says that the Bush camp started targetting Kerry with the attacks so then Kerry would get more airtime, because out of all of them Kerry was the one they thought they had the best chance against.

[0zzy]

Theres an article I wish I could find that came out slightly after Roves retirement where he claims partial responibility for this. He says that the Bush camp started targetting Kerry with the attacks so then Kerry would get more airtime, because out of all of them Kerry was the one they thought they had the best chance against.

hah. interesting.

[billjarrett]

Theres an article I wish I could find that came out slightly after Roves retirement where he claims partial responibility for this. He says that the Bush camp started targetting Kerry with the attacks so then Kerry would get more airtime, because out of all of them Kerry was the one they thought they had the best chance against.


hah. interesting.

Not exactly the wording I was remembering, but it had been awhile since I read it (or maybe this is a similar yet different article than the one I read)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070819/D8R4BH980.html states:

"Rove might be revisiting his 2004 play book. Bush's re-election team aimed its harshest comments at Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the eventual nominee, because it wanted Bush to take on Kerry rather than Edwards, then a senator from North Carolina.?"

[LibertyEagle]

If you do a bit of digging traditionally the Democrats seem to disregard polls in choosing a candidate, not so much Republicans. Since the 1950's the polls have been remarkably accurate for Republicans, except in 1964... which sets a good precedence for us. It makes me wonder what our country would be like today if Barry had the reach of our grassroots.



Yeah, because the Republicans are scared to death of a Dem getting in power. Hillary is scaring them beyond belief. The latter sentiment I fully understand too. However, neither do I want to nominate a bald version of Hillary, for the Republican Party.

[Jwaksman]

There are a couple issues to remember here:



1) Dean was the "internet" guy, but he was high because he had become the establishment candidate at that point. He had already been on the cover of Newsweek and Time. This poll was taken just as Al Gore was endorsing him.

2) As another poster pointed out, people get tired of the top guy. Dean peaked too early. It's important that Paul begin his surge late in the campaign, so that he doesn't peak before the primaries start.

3) Kerry only won New Hampshire because of the boost of Iowa. People really need to remember how much a positive/negative result in Iowa has an effect on New Hampshire voters, who are attracted to a winner. Kerry only won New Hampshire because it was the perfect distance from New Hampshire. According to the ARG daily tracking polls, Kerry was down 8% to Dean the day of the Iowa caucus. Within five days of his big caucus win, he was up 22% over Dean. After that, the afterglow started to come off, and people started to remember that they liked Dean more. Within two more days, his lead was down to 10%. If the New Hampshire primaries had been another five days later, Kerry would have lost.


This is why Iowa is so important. If we can finish in 3rd place (or even higher) it will provide a huge boost in Iowa. If we finish in 5th or 6th in Iowa, our New Hampshire numbers will tank. This is the problem with the compressed schedule - once you start losing, there simply isn't enough time to stop losing. Everything snowballs.

[Jwaksman]

Yeah, because the Republicans are scared to death of a Dem getting in power. Hillary is scaring them beyond belief. The latter sentiment I fully understand too. However, neither do I want to nominate a bald version of Hillary, for the Republican Party.



I think it's more that Republicans have always had dominant candidates due to the fact that they've dominated the presidency. The modern primary system basically began in 1972, when Republicans had an incumbent. 1976 was wide open, but 1980 was all about Reagan/Bush. In 1984 there was an incumbent. In 1988, you had a popular sitting vice president in the race - hard for anyone to beat him. In 1992 you had an incumbent. In 1996, nobody took a serious run at Bob Dole, so he didn't really have to work hard to win. In 2000, Republicans had another favored son in George Bush. The fact that McCain won New Hamsphire and nearly pulled it out tells me that Republicans (especially New Hampshirites) are willing to buck the polls.


This year is an especially weak and wide field, the weakest and widest field of either party in the modern era. The perfect opportunity for someone like Ron Paul. Paul wouldn't have a shot if it was him vs a George W Bush kind of candidate. We have a perfect opportunity in the fact that our prime competitor is a former Mayor who disagrees with the base on pretty much every issue.