Ron at 7% in new Rasmussen Poll

[Incrimsonias]

Republican Presidential Nomination.

It’s Mike Huckabee at 23%,
Rudy Giuliani 17%,
Mitt Romney at 15%,
Fred Thompson at 13%
and John McCain at 13%

Ron Paul currently attracts 7% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[RevolutionSD]

Is that up or down from last week?
We need double digits.
Is anyone SERIOUSLY still voting for Fred Thompson?

[PimpBlimp]

So that means 7% of old time republicans with land lines who actually like answering telephone surveys are now supporting Ron Paul.

Good deal, lets keep it up.

[Adamsa]

Thats up if it's national, it was 5%.

Movin' on up!

[Ridiculous]

That means he is realistically, and because of the margin of error, he is probably at the same level as Huckabee, McCain and Romney due to a lot of Ron Paul supporters having land lines and being first time and cross over voters.

[mwkaufman]

We've been as high as 8%, but the last week or so has been mostly 5-6% so this is good.

[mwkaufman]

That means he is realistically, and because of the margin of error, probably at the same level as Huckabee, McCain and Romney due to a lot of Ron Paul supporters having land lines and being first time and cross over voters.

I think 11% right now would be fair, but like Paul was saying in his interviews this morning, no one will know until we count the votes.

And due to how the election is conducted over several months, we'll never know.

[Bilgefisher]

I wonder how the polls will look tonight after Glenn Beck show.

[1997 F250]

Dont Belive What They Tell Ya

[tanverenzo]

Keep in mind, nationwide polling doesn't mean very much right now. It's based more on name-recognition than anything else. Plus, the percentages will change dramatically after the first few primaries. The only polls that matter are the ones coming out of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and Michigan.

[Freedom 7]

Keep in mind, nationwide polling doesn't mean very much right now. It's based more on name-recognition than anything else. Plus, the percentages will change dramatically after the first few primaries. The only polls that matter are the ones coming out of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and Michigan.

The MSM seems to rely on these polls as if they were gold. In reality the empirical evidence suggests that primary polls in particular have done little to predict outcome.

In 1996 Pat Buchanan was polling under 10% 13 days before the New Hampshire primary. The true result was a victory for Pat with 27% of the vote. What happened to 5% margin of error?

I agree that Dr. Paul's poll numbers are not accurate due to the other reasons that have been suggested (cell phones, first time voters, etc. ) but I'd like to back it up with this data. I think pointing out historical precedent would be much more effective.

An article to reference Pat's poll results.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...30/ai_n9631351

Actual New Hampshire Primary Results

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/...s/result.shtml
Edit/Delete Message

[Coola]

Sorry to be off topic but I suddenly have a taste for ramen noodles.

[tanverenzo]

The MSM seems to rely on these polls as if they were gold. In reality the empirical evidence suggests that primary polls in particular have done little to predict outcome.


Good point, esp. with the data.

[Todd]

If you add in the 7% of likely democrats that will switch for the primaries... That makes 14%.

Stay away from polls people.