How to respond to comments about poll results

[AceNZ]

A few important facts to keep in mind about polling results:

1. In 1975, Jimmy Carter was polling 1% and won the presidency.

2. In 1991, Clinton was polling 2% and won the presidency.

3. In 1996, Pat Buchanan won an upset victory in NH, driven in large part by his pro-life position (he received around 37% of the vote, while polling at only about 15%, although I haven't been able to find a reference to re-confirm those numbers).

4. In 1999, McCain polled at 3% and still won the NH primary.

5. In 2003, John Kerry was polling at 3% before the primaries. He then went on to win both IA and NH.

6. In Europe, polls regularly mis-predict the results elections with candidates who are considered "extremist" by the MSM -- who often end up winning by a landslide.


Polls are worse than useless. They are propaganda used by the MSM in an attempt to convince the public to vote for their candidates -- and we should begin treating them as such.

Straw polls are more revealing. Ron Paul won a straw poll in NH in August with 73% of the vote, and that was well before the large campaign push that's been happening over the last few months.

[Think12345]

like it

[Maverick]

3. In 1996, Pat Buchanan won an upset victory in NH, driven in large part by his pro-life position (he received around 37% of the vote, while polling at only about 15%, although I haven't been able to find a reference to re-confirm those numbers).

4. In 1999, McCain polled at 3% and still won the NH primary.


I've said it in another thread, and I'm going to ask it here. If Ron Paul wins NH, so what? Buchanan and McCain may not have been polling well, and they may have won NH despite that, but they still didn't win the nomination.

I'd love dearly to believe that winning NH will get us to the nomination, but it may not turn out that way. Is NH really all that relevant? Why did Dole and Bush win the nominations even though they lost a "key" early state? Did Buchanan and McCain screw up somehow? How will it be different for RP this time?

[Highstreet]

I've said it in another thread, and I'm going to ask it here. If Ron Paul wins NH, so what? Buchanan and McCain may not have been polling well, and they may have won NH despite that, but they still didn't win the nomination.

I'd love dearly to believe that winning NH will get us to the nomination, but it may not turn out that way. Is NH really all that relevant? Why did Dole and Bush win the nominations even though they lost a "key" early state? Did Buchanan and McCain screw up somehow? How will it be different for RP this time?

Who cares how relevant NH is. It is important to win all the states. Every one is an In Your Face to the LSM that want to ignore the only Unifying Candidate.

[nist7]

In 2003, John Kerry was polling at 3% before the primaries.

He then went on to win both IA and NH.

[Henry]

I've said it in another thread, and I'm going to ask it here. If Ron Paul wins NH, so what? Buchanan and McCain may not have been polling well, and they may have won NH despite that, but they still didn't win the nomination.

I'd love dearly to believe that winning NH will get us to the nomination, but it may not turn out that way. Is NH really all that relevant? Why did Dole and Bush win the nominations even though they lost a "key" early state? Did Buchanan and McCain screw up somehow? How will it be different for RP this time?

Difference is this time it's a simple fromula that didn't exist in the past .

1) $= winning

2) Winning & $ = Media Attention

3) 1 + 2 = Winning

[Maverick]

Difference is this time it's a simple fromula that didn't exist in the past .

1) $= winning

2) Winning & $ = Media Attention

3) 1 + 2 = Winning

Yeah, well I hope you're right. I'm not trying to dis NH or anything, and I think that winning the state is obviously a positive thing, but I just want to make sure that RP is doing things differently than Buchanan and McCain.

[AceNZ]

I've said it in another thread, and I'm going to ask it here. If Ron Paul wins NH, so what? Buchanan and McCain may not have been polling well, and they may have won NH despite that, but they still didn't win the nomination.

I'd love dearly to believe that winning NH will get us to the nomination, but it may not turn out that way. Is NH really all that relevant? Why did Dole and Bush win the nominations even though they lost a "key" early state? Did Buchanan and McCain screw up somehow? How will it be different for RP this time?


RP could win the nomination without winning NH -- but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Rather, the idea is to be able to have a reasoned argument when people say "Ron Paul can never win -- just look at the poll results".

Also, winning NH isn't the be-all-end-all, and it's certainly not enough by itself to secure a nomination (as Buchanan and McCain discovered), but it would definitely give the campaign a boost:

1. It will dispell the notion that Ron Paul is a "longshot"

2. It will provide valuable momentum to the campaign

3. It will directly impact other Republican candidate's ability to raise money. One or more are likely to drop out of the race if they don't win either Iowa or NH.

4. It will help people who are leaning toward RP, but who don't want to "waste their vote on someone who could never win", be more comfortable voting for him.


McCain and Buchanan didn't get the nomination for a whole bunch of reasons (and yes, they both screwed up badly). Winning in NH wasn't one of them.

How will it be different for Ron Paul? RP's support is extremely broad, unlike Buchanan and McCain, who were basically one-trick ponies. A win for RP in NH could easily cascade into wins in many other states.

[rbu]

Please understand that old media attention isn't the be-all and end-all of winning an election. If it was, would any of us be here supporting Dr. Paul? We found him through other means of information and so can others. We just have to let others know that the information is out there. I just don't understand why so many people on here are so concerned about the old media. Baffles me really.

[AceNZ]

In 2003, John Kerry was polling at 3% before the primaries.

He then went on to win both IA and NH.


Excellent. I edited my post to include this info too.

[ronpaul4pres]

"Traditional polling greatly underestimates Dr. Paul's support,'' campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said. "He's bringing back conservatives who have been alienated from the Republican Party. He pulls in independents because of his antiwar stance, and, finally, he's motivating people who have not been involved in politics before.''

[DirtMcGirt]

we will win

[nist7]

Excellent. I edited my post to include this info too.

Awesome :cool:

[AceNZ]

Please understand that old media attention isn't the be-all and end-all of winning an election. If it was, would any of us be here supporting Dr. Paul? We found him through other means of information and so can others. We just have to let others know that the information is out there. I just don't understand why so many people on here are so concerned about the old media. Baffles me really.


I agree that the Old Media is not the be-all-end-all of winning. If it was, Ron Paul wouldn't have a chance.

However, like it or not, they are still incredibly influential. We need to take advantage of every opportunity we can to discredit them, while supporting RP in the process. Just ignoring them and hoping people will "find him through other means" is too passive. Most people aren't that curious or persistent.

[nist7]

Please understand that old media attention isn't the be-all and end-all of winning an election. If it was, would any of us be here supporting Dr. Paul? We found him through other means of information and so can others. We just have to let others know that the information is out there. I just don't understand why so many people on here are so concerned about the old media. Baffles me really.

Because the old media has the largest audience. Period. The perfect example is Huckabee....who was probably even more of a "fringe" candidate than Paul until the old media started bombarding the airwaves with Huckabee....and now he is actually leading the GOP pack in the national polls.

It's simple human psychology and the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy. If you are told this guy has a chance....then he will have a chance.