Paul at 6% nationally in Nov...which is grand, because...

[Zydeco]

Ron Paul is at 6% in the national polls right now...and that is just fine, because in mid-December 2003, CBS News had the Democratic candidates polling like so:

Dean 23%
Clark 10%
Lieberman 10%
Gephardt 6%
Sharpton 5%
Kerry 4%
Edwards 2%
Moseley-Braun 1%

Remember those days? Mickey Kaus was saying Kerry should drop out...but instead, beginning less than 4 weeks after this poll, he won 45 primaries and rolled to the nomination.

How did the "top-tier" in this poll do? Dean won Vermont and DC, Clark won Oklahoma, and Lieberman didn't win squat.

So keep doing what you're doing, and remember: the polls truly, truly, truly don't mean jack until a week or two before the first caucus. 80% of people aren't even paying attention until then.

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

[MRoCkEd]

Great Post

[klamath]

Absolutely true!

[terlinguatx]

...

[gagnonstudio]

Nice, we are in a great position. We are on the upslope, and will peak at the right time!

[ronpaulfan]

The media destroyed Howard Dean by replaying this 900+ times right before the primaries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwODbl3muE

Don't let that happen to Dr. Paul. Educate & Inform ASAP.

[Bradley in DC]

Wahoo, beating Sharpton!

[Adamsa]

How the heck did Kerry do it with those figures?

[Zydeco]

Here's another classic: 6 weeks before the 2003 New Hampshire primary, Zogby polls Dean at 42% there and Kerry at 12%!

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=763

And how'd that turn out for ya, Howard? Kerry beat Dean, 39%-26%.

Why do we even look at the polls? They seem to be close to meaningless at this point.

[Zydeco]

Holy .... Kerry at 4% at this time in '03.

Not even -- way *after* this time! The 2008 Iowa Caucus is now 7 weeks away; this poll was taken just 4 weeks before the 2004 Iowa Caucus! And it's not as if Iowa was some especially strong state for Kerry, rather the contrary.

The polls really are meaningless at this point. Dean was leading them all, by a wide margin, and came up in the end with just 1 state plus this s***hole I live in called DC.

(sinkhole, the asterisks conceal the word sinkhole...it's built on a swamp)

[Richandler]

We are gonna win because we are big and strong and we will be heard. We'll be heard across this nation and no longer will we the people accept the tyranny of government again.

[Adamsa]

We'll win if every Ron Paul supporter in Iowa votes.

[skinzterpswizfan]

I don't think we should be celebrating that we are under 10% in the polls just because Kerry was too. Granted, it means that we certainly aren't out of it, but low poll numbers doesn't necessarily equal the Republican nomination.

[Zydeco]

I don't think we should be celebrating that we are under 10% in the polls just because Kerry was too. Granted, it means that we certainly aren't out of it, but low poll numbers doesn't necessarily equal the Republican nomination.

Right, but the point is that we should not be *discouraged* by the one metric we aren't winning. We've got more meetup groups, more internet buzz, larger crowds, all the online polls, all but one of the post-debate polls -- and now, more money raised (not even counting what's gonna happen on Dec. 16th).

The one metric they always shove in our faces are these "scientific" polls, and we see now how scientific they are -- 4 weeks before Iowa 2004, they had John Kerry at 4%, in sixth out of eight. And he won 45 states.

And we're going to win 45 states as well.

[dt_]

did Kerry win Iowa?

[Stealth4]

So what was it that made Kerry win? I dont remember.

Was it a single event that made him popular?

[quickmike]

Ron Paul is at 6% in the national polls right now...and that is just fine, because in mid-December 2003, CBS News had the Democratic candidates polling like so:

Dean 23%
Clark 10%
Lieberman 10%
Gephardt 6%
Sharpton 5%
Kerry 4%
Edwards 2%
Moseley-Braun 1%

So youre saying Ron Paul is Gephardt???????:eek:

[paulitics]

Kerry was also a skull and bones CFR member and was a MAJOR insider. So was Bill Clinton who was an underdog, as well as Carter. Not drawing conclusions, but it seems to help your odds a little, especially if your a democrat because history just amazingly keeps repeating itself.

[Zydeco]

did Kerry win Iowa?

Yes, Kerry 38%, Edwards 32%, Dean 18%, Gephardt 11%

Gephardt and Dean were way ahead in the polls just a couple of weeks before Iowa, when they both began running negative ads against each other. What happened? Voters got turned off and they fell to 3rd and 4th.

Which is one reason I strongly feel RP should NOT go negative, neither in Iowa or anywhere else.

[RPFTW!]

I think Kerry was just a puppet, I have no idea how people actually liked him,where the hell did he come from the media and diebold anointed him as the nominee to go up against Bush and lose

[Zydeco]

Kerry was also a skull and bones CFR member and was a MAJOR insider. So was Bill Clinton who was an underdog, as well as Carter. Not drawing conclusions, but it seems to help your odds a little, especially if your a democrat because history just amazingly keeps repeating itself.

Carter was CFR and an insider at that point? Doesn't sound right.

[deedles]

How the heck did Kerry do it with those figures?

Probably went to visit the CFR.

[paulitics]

Carter was CFR and an insider at that point? Doesn't sound right.

Carter was a trilateral comission member which is even more inside than CFR. He became CFR after his presidency. Carter was like Woodrow Wilson, a puppet that was recruited inside a couple years before his presidency. His cabinet was largely CFR and trilateral. Brezinski for instance who created AL Quada.

[paulitics]

Probably went to visit the CFR.

He and his wife were members. Not drawing any conslusions though.

[Zydeco]

You know who else is Skull & Bones? Washington Post White House reporter Dana Milbank.

And he "covered" the president for years. They pretended to hate each other. Talk about a rigged game!

[Zydeco]

Carter was a trilateral comission member which is even more inside than CFR. He became CFR after his presidency. Carter was like Woodrow Wilson, a puppet that was recruited inside a couple years before his presidency. His cabinet was largely CFR and trilateral. Brezinski for instance who created AL Quada.


OK, thanks.

[RPFTW!]

Wasn't Howard Dean also skull and bones?

[paulitics]

Wasn't Howard Dean also skull and bones?

Just George Bush SR, JR, and John Kerry from what I read.

[cmc]

RP is in a much better position than Kerry was in Nov/Dec '03. Yes the polls are higher, but Paul is also "richer" and is getting some decent attention now. As I recall, Kerry was a blip on the radar.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Kerry was built up over the past week as magically "coming from behind" due to the veterans' vote. (Kerry committed atrocities as a Lieutenant in Vietnam before he became a Senator.) Watching the foxwarchannel coverage of the Kerry victory in Iowa was very interesting. Neocon Trotskyite imperialist William Kristol smirks that he had called a Kerry win a week ago. Veteran Democrat strategist Susan Estrich remarks on how odd the results are, given that tons of Howard Dean people were visibly swarming everywhere throughout the day. Veteran Beltway election analyst Michael Barone said that it was the Saddam capture psy-op that turned people to Kerry away [from antiwar Dean.]

http://www.libertythink.com/2004/01/skull-bones-iowa.html

[Zydeco]

Kerry was built up over the past week as magically "coming from behind" due to the veterans' vote. (Kerry committed atrocities as a Lieutenant in Vietnam before he became a Senator.) Watching the foxwarchannel coverage of the Kerry victory in Iowa was very interesting. Neocon Trotskyite imperialist William Kristol smirks that he had called a Kerry win a week ago. Veteran Democrat strategist Susan Estrich remarks on how odd the results are, given that tons of Howard Dean people were visibly swarming everywhere throughout the day. Veteran Beltway election analyst Michael Barone said that it was the Saddam capture psy-op that turned people to Kerry away [from antiwar Dean.]

http://www.libertythink.com/2004/01/skull-bones-iowa.html

I remember a lot of people scratching their heads over Kerry's win. Didn't seem like had anywhere near that level of support.

Maybe Iowa voters shied away from Dean and Gephardt at the end -- or someday in the not too distant future we might find out more information.

[LinearChaos]

Just keep it up. Paul is already going to win :)

[paulitics]

Kerry was built up over the past week as magically "coming from behind" due to the veterans' vote. (Kerry committed atrocities as a Lieutenant in Vietnam before he became a Senator.) Watching the foxwarchannel coverage of the Kerry victory in Iowa was very interesting. Neocon Trotskyite imperialist William Kristol smirks that he had called a Kerry win a week ago. Veteran Democrat strategist Susan Estrich remarks on how odd the results are, given that tons of Howard Dean people were visibly swarming everywhere throughout the day. Veteran Beltway election analyst Michael Barone said that it was the Saddam capture psy-op that turned people to Kerry away [from antiwar Dean.]

http://www.libertythink.com/2004/01/skull-bones-iowa.html

And you know what also doesn't make sense. Kerry had a personality like a bag of rocks. How the hell would William Kristol predict a bag of rocks would come out of nowhere to enrapture the Iowans.

[JoshLowry]

bump

[Adamsa]

How did Kerry do it though, is there an explanation in particular. Anyone who says the Dean scream will die by my hand. :D

[JMann]

The Kerry numbers are telling but the Edwards numbers even more so because he didn't have the name recognition of Kerry and once his message started to spread in that party he took off. The race ended up being between Kerry and Edwards. The two bottom names of that poll.

Also, Cliton at this time in '92 wasn't very high in the polls.

[njandrewg]

Polls are even more meaningless with Paul, because 2/3ds of his supporters are coming from outside the party

[Daswiz]

The Kerry numbers are telling but the Edwards numbers even more so because he didn't have the name recognition of Kerry and once his message started to spread in that party he took off. The race ended up being between Kerry and Edwards. The two bottom names of that poll.

Also, Cliton at this time in '92 wasn't very high in the polls.


Edwards has been confirmed as to having attended at least one of the Bilderberg meetings. Kerry and Edwards were just pawns to keep Bush in for four more years. Kerry is not a true leader and lacks any sort of emotion and Edwards is your typical "hot shot" politician who grabs moderate amounts of support but cant capture the respect of all Americans. They were both just bodies propped up to make sure Bush would be back in office again. Not sure about Kerry, but our past three presidents have all attended at Bilderberg meetings at some point, as well as Hillary.

Rudy has been endorsed by Bilderberger Governor Rick Perry from Texas. He has also been seen smoozing with David Rockefeller another Bilderberg member. Why do you think his face is plastered all over the MSM as the man to beat. He is the pawn to make sure Hillary gets her red carpet ride into the white house.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

but aren't there differences between the GOP and the democratic party?

[James R]

*bump*

[DealzOnWheelz]

but aren't there differences between the GOP and the democratic party?

is there a difference between Cheerios and Oat O's??

[qwerty]

Ron Paul is at 6% in the national polls right now...and that is just fine, because in mid-December 2003, CBS News had the Democratic candidates polling like so:

Dean 23%
Clark 10%
Lieberman 10%
Gephardt 6%
Sharpton 5%
Kerry 4%
Edwards 2%
Moseley-Braun 1%

Remember those days? Mickey Kaus was saying Kerry should drop out...but instead, beginning less than 4 weeks after this poll, he won 45 primaries and rolled to the nomination.

How did the "top-tier" in this poll do? Dean won Vermont and DC, Clark won Oklahoma, and Lieberman didn't win squat.

So keep doing what you're doing, and remember: the polls truly, truly, truly don't mean jack until a week or two before the first caucus. 80% of people aren't even paying attention until then.

It´s a copy/paste


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

[American]

Polls give people something to do, they mean shit.

I know they piss me off to no end......=\

[ronpaulyourmom]

qwerty, it's good for media coverage at least. And keep in mind we might not win Iowa, I'm sure that had a lot to do with Kerry's success.

[James R]

It´s a copy/paste

qwerty, its annoying to me that you created a new message that is simply a copy of the old one, when you could have just given the original a bump. Why are you doing this?

[UtahApocalypse]

Can anyone show similar polling this time of the campaign cycle for the REPUBLICAN party!!!????? Thats what Ron Paul IS and is Running as. I really Don't care what happened in the Democraps party.

[qwerty]

qwerty, its annoying to me that you created a new message that is simply a copy of the old one, when you could have just given the original a bump. Why are you doing this?

LOL, cause people could use it agaisnt the attacks, OF COURSE.... :rolleyes:

What´s is the problem now ?

[qwerty]

Can anyone show similar polling this time of the campaign cycle for the REPUBLICAN party!!!????? Thats what Ron Paul IS and is Running as. I really Don't care what happened in the Democraps party.

The message is NOT about the parties, it´s about HOW THE MEDIA CREATES POLLS...

[Paul4Prez]

The main reason the polls are meaningless isn't even their structural inaccuracies (no cell phones, no people with caller ID, wrong sample of primary voters, no way to predict who will really turn out, etc.), it's because most people haven't made up their minds yet. The pollsters push them into making a decision, so they do, but they are very likely to change.

[jacmicwag]

It's kind of like predicting the path of a hurricane 10 days out. Things change. At the time the poll is taken, it is fairly accurate within the range of variability. A lot happened the month before the 2004 Iowa Caucuses - Dean and Gephardt were beating each other to death and the Iowans didn't take kindly to that. Kerry had a solid organization in Iowa, like Mitt, and they started to play ball the last few innings.

I don't know that we can catch up to Mitt and Huck but we don't have to. A third place finish will be hailed as a huge Ron Paul victory. We just need a solid showing leading to NH.

[Bradley in DC]

best to join existing conversations:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=37583

[BuddyRey]

I like the optimism, but this doesn't exactly cheer me up, for the following reason; Dean was the exciting grassroots favorite, and Kerry was the blowdried elite from Yale. He had powerful forces powering his machine, including most of the people who were able to destroy Dean.

[ClayTrainor]

I like the optimism, but this doesn't exactly cheer me up, for the following reason; Dean was the exciting grassroots favorite, and Kerry was the blowdried elite from Yale. He had powerful forces powering his machine, including most of the people who were able to destroy Dean.

ron paul has a powerful force driving his campaign as well.

I dont know if most people realize this, but Nov 5th was our doing.. not his... and dec. 16th will be as well.

We are the powerful force driving rons campaign... and we are more powerful than any corporate interest, and we intend to prove it.

We must not underestimate ourselves... we... in this forum... have an opportunity to change the United States of America!