PDA

View Full Version : These "Professional Polls" are dooming our campaign!




SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 09:27 AM
I was very glad to see RP address very clearly on CNN this morning how bogus the "professional polls" are. We must continue to be aggressive in exposing how faulty they are, and how they are even designed to bring about (if we let them) a self-fulfilling prophecy of non-success for the Ron Paul campaign.

Unless we effectively combat that "unelectable" tag the MSM and their cohorts at the "professional polling companies" have hung around our collective necks like an albatross, we CAN NOT WIN the Republican nomination. It's really that simple.

I have started this thread so that we can discuss combat strategies.

Without them, I can see us getting 6-8% in IA, 8-10% in NH, and 5% in SC.

With an effective strategy delivered to the public about what is going on, we can double those numbers, and be in this thing right through to the convention. Without a successful strategy, our new money dries up, and we are done right after Super Tuesday.

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3953021&pager.offset=0

Zydeco
12-19-2007, 09:54 AM
good post, but unnecessarily negative thread title

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 09:55 AM
WE NEED TO PAY FOR OUR OWN POLLS BEFORE IOWA...

...Polls that include independents and people with cell phones!

Otherwise we will NOT win IA or NH...

Cleaner44
12-19-2007, 09:56 AM
We will be in the top 3 both in NH and IA regardless of the polls. No doom here.

WilliamC
12-19-2007, 10:00 AM
I think that, since Ron Paul has won over half of the Republican Straw polls, all he needs to say is "well the other candidates have supporters who will answer a telephone, I have supporters who will actually vote for me".

FluffyUnbound
12-19-2007, 10:02 AM
The key to overcoming the polls - forever - is to finish 2nd or 3rd in Iowa.

If that happens, the polls are discredited and cease to be a factor.

So the only possible strategy I can see is "Kick ass in Iowa".

mosquitobite
12-19-2007, 10:04 AM
The key to overcoming the polls - forever - is to finish 2nd or 3rd in Iowa.

If that happens, the polls are discredited and cease to be a factor.

So the only possible strategy I can see is "Kick ass in Iowa".

Yup! Let's PROVE them wrong!

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 10:10 AM
2nd or 3rd in both NH and IA is a long shot with the way these polls are being used to manipulate public opinion.

For a few thousand dollars, we could change all that...

If we don't, it my honest opinion, and that is all it is, we will be 5th in IA and 4th in NH at best.

davidhperry
12-19-2007, 10:15 AM
The upside is that the media and everyone else has extremely low expectations for how we're going to do.

brandon
12-19-2007, 10:22 AM
2nd or 3rd in both NH and IA is a long shot with the way these polls are being used to manipulate public opinion.

For a few thousand dollars, we could change all that...

If we don't, it my honest opinion, and that is all it is, we will be 5th in IA and 4th in NH at best.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that the polls are lies meant to manufacture opinion. Then you are predicting that we are going to finish in these two states exactly where the polls say we are going to finish?

Make up your mind. Do you trust the polls or not?

ronpaulforprez2008
12-19-2007, 10:24 AM
I was very glad to see RP address very clearly on CNN this morning how bogus the "professional polls" are. We must continue to be aggressive in exposing how faulty they are, and how they are even designed to bring about (if we let them) a self-fulfilling prophecy of non-success for the Ron Paul campaign.
Lets Do Our Own National Poll
see: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=60206

Ethek
12-19-2007, 10:25 AM
WE NEED TO PAY FOR OUR OWN POLLS BEFORE IOWA...

...Polls that include independents and people with cell phones!

Otherwise we will NOT win IA or NH...

Those only work if MSM picks up on them and publishes them as if they were their own. Not gonna happen with Ron Paul

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 10:37 AM
So let me get this straight. You are saying that the polls are lies meant to manufacture opinion. Then you are predicting that we are going to finish in these two states exactly where the polls say we are going to finish?

Make up your mind. Do you trust the polls or not?

Softball question...

I believe they are seriously flawed and inaccurate.

I also believe they have tremendous power with Joe Sixpack.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 10:40 AM
Those only work if MSM picks up on them and publishes them as if they were their own. Not gonna happen with Ron Paul

If they are done by a professional polling company AND the contract calls for them to do their regular media releases it should work.

Of course, I understand the danger, too, that we may not get their full cooperation in running a truly un-biased poll.

pikerz
12-19-2007, 10:40 AM
doesnt the poll outcome depend on the buyer of the poll?

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 10:50 AM
doesnt the poll outcome depend on the buyer of the poll?

It depends. I think in more cases than not, you are correct, However, in our case, I would doubt that this charge could be as easily leveled against us. After all, it is the one time a different demographic has been asked to be polled, and if other polling agencies doubted the results, they could always run their own (=more free publicity and positive confirmation.)

In any event, I am convinced the few thousand spent would be VERY WELL spent.

wgadget
12-19-2007, 10:57 AM
I was very glad to see RP address very clearly on CNN this morning how bogus the "professional polls" are. We must continue to be aggressive in exposing how faulty they are, and how they are even designed to bring about (if we let them) a self-fulfilling prophecy of non-success for the Ron Paul campaign.

Unless we effectively combat that "unelectable" tag the MSM and their cohorts at the "professional polling companies" have hung around our collective necks like an albatross, we CAN NOT WIN the Republican nomination. It's really that simple.

I have started this thread so that we can discuss combat strategies.

Without them, I can see us getting 6-8% in IA, 8-10% in NH, and 5% in SC.

With an effective strategy delivered to the public about what is going on, we can double those numbers, and be in this thing right through to the convention. Without a successful strategy, our new money dries up, and we are done right after Super Tuesday.

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3953021&pager.offset=0



Yes, we must inform the sheeple who will only vote for a perceived "winner."

barcop
12-19-2007, 10:59 AM
Iowa polls right now are meaningless.

The ONLY thing that matters is the caucuses. Prove the polls wrong and show up to caucus.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 11:00 AM
I've written and called the campaign about the idea of getting our own poll done, and that was first thing this morning. No response yet...

Maybe if a few of you guys who also thought this was a good idea would do the same....?

ronpaulitician
12-19-2007, 11:02 AM
I wouldn't say "dooming" though I do believe they make it a lot harder. Face it, many voters will only vote for candidates they think have a shot, even in the primaries. However, based on personal experience in my daily dealings with people, Paul's name recognition is slowly creeping up. It's up to us (and the campaign) to get Paul's views the same kind of recognition. The rise in campaign donations and the steady rise in the "professional" polls are good signs. We just need to keep building.

jj111
12-19-2007, 11:03 AM
I think with $18 million, the campaign's purchase of a poll from a reputable company might help if it was designed in ways to reduce the known biases of the current polls.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 11:04 AM
Very good post ronpaulitician. Thanks!

Except there was a huge DROP in the latest national Gallop Poll that was splashed all over all the major networks that puts us at 3% again, and tied with Alan Keyes, who made a very big deal of that when he was interviewed by Hannity & Colmes last night.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 11:05 AM
I think with $18 million, the campaign's purchase of a poll from a reputable company might help if it was designed in ways to reduce the known biases of the current polls.

Thank you, JJ. I think you are right.

Would you be willing to "second" my call to national suggesting this?

ronpaulblogsdotcom
12-19-2007, 11:06 AM
I think when people talk to possible supporters of Ron Paul if it seems like a good time they could mention that lots of the polls are biased, possibly give examples, and tell them that they should ignore the polls.

We are sure the results will be different.

Vote who you want to win and your conscience will be clear.

Original_Intent
12-19-2007, 11:10 AM
I have only been polled once this election cycle. It was a live person giving the poll, and I got the call about a month ago.

Ron Paul was not an option on any question. There was no "other" option. He can't poll well when he is not an option.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 11:12 AM
I think when people talk to possible supporters of Ron Paul if it seems like a good time they could mention that lots of the polls are biased, possibly give examples, and tell them that they should ignore the polls.

We are sure the results will be different.

Vote who you want to win and your conscience will be clear.

True, but I believe with just a few well-place dollars we could do much better than that. One-on-one conversations are best, of course. But there are bound to be 1000s of people whose only impression of RP comes from what they see reported in the MSM, especially the TV news networks.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 11:14 AM
So, who will be willing to make phone call #2 to national HQ? I think if we got 10 calls, we would at least get a response...

Original_Intent
12-19-2007, 11:16 AM
We need to outperform the polls in a major way in Iowa. If we double or triple the numbers the polls have been giving us there, the bias will be exposed and we will surge in other states due to that alone.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 11:18 AM
We need to outperform the polls in a major way in Iowa. If we double or triple the numbers the polls have been giving us there, the bias will be exposed and we will surge in other states due to that alone.

True that, IF Jim Condit, Jr. is wrong, and we ever get to hear the REAL results out of Iowa.

Also, doing our own poll would give us at least SOME kind of baseline as to real expectations at the polls.

ronpaulblogsdotcom
12-19-2007, 11:19 AM
But even if you pay for a poll, we will be the only ones quoting it probably. I cant imagine the MSM running a story about how bad their polls are.

I like the idea, but don't think it will be like a reawakening. We need to work on what cant be manipulated away by the MSM. It could be cool if we could quote it when talking one on one but dont expect the MSM to run the story at all. Of course unless it flops.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 11:26 AM
But even if you pay for a poll, we will be the only ones quoting it probably. I cant imagine the MSM running a story about how bad their polls are.

I like the idea, but don't think it will be like a reawakening. We need to work on what cant be manipulated away by the MSM. It could be cool if we could quote it when talking one on one but dont expect the MSM to run the story at all. Of course unless it flops.

Except that, here again, the contract would call for the usual (or even superior) MSM distribution of the results of the poll when completed.

Then, if it is not reported, we have another bullet too!

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 11:28 AM
So, who will be willing to make phone call #2 to national HQ? I think if we got 10 calls, we would at least get a response...

Anyone?

ronpaulblogsdotcom
12-19-2007, 11:32 AM
Except that, here again, the contract would call for the usual (or even superior) MSM distribution of the results of the poll when completed.

Then, if it is not reported, we have another bullet too!

I don't think this is how polls and reporting work. It seems they run what they want and interpret how they want. I am not a journalist, maybe someone else knows.

I don't think the poll companies can dictate who reports it or how.

We just saw and AP story shredded by a TV station and they treat it like it is still news not an oped piece. They still cite the AP but the story is totally different.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 11:35 AM
I don't think the poll companies can dictate who reports it or how.

Correct, but the person paying for the poll can request levels of press release.

benhaskins
12-19-2007, 11:37 AM
the only real poll is the primaries. if people believe the distorted ones and base their vote off of that i feel sorry for them.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 11:42 AM
the only real poll is the primaries. if people believe the distorted ones and base their vote off of that i feel sorry for them.

No, I'd suggest that you feel sorry for the nation that allows its democratic processes to be thwarted by a few rich folks who control the major polling companies and the MSM.

I would also suggest that perhaps you should feel sorry for all the labor of love and the money put into this campaign by thousands of folks who probably really couldn't afford it, if we allow the election to be lost when we could have spent a few thousand from the $25,000,000+ donated thus far to do something about it.

Dan D.
12-19-2007, 11:50 AM
You won't find a polling company willing or able to poll cell phone users; in some states if not throughout the country, it's illegal to autodial through cell phone numbers. By the midterm elections, the polling companies will have gone out of business. It is unfortunate it hasn't happened already.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 11:58 AM
We'd collect a list of cell phone numbers and not use autodial. I am sure there is a way it could be worked out, and if we can't do that, we just poll from ALL Republicans and Independents, rather than just the diehard Bushites who voted the last time out.

MsDoodahs
12-19-2007, 11:59 AM
From LRC blog yesterday, I found this link.

This is a piece written by John Zogby IN 2004. I added italics to the key points to remember.

direct link:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=866

Released: September 17, 2004
Response to Breslin Column



I was recently interviewed by Jimmy Breslin, an icon in American journalism and politics. It was an honor for me to talk to a great man. I believe that there were some miscommunications that have appeared in his most recent Newsday column. Because of the great fanfare this column has received, I feel I must clarify a few issues.


First of all, I still conduct telephone polls. The reality is that polling on the telephone is becoming more difficult; caller id and the widespread use of cell phones are affecting response rates. That said, I feel that representative samples can still be achieved on the phone.


Second, I stand by both my telephone and interactive results. I have yet to see evidence that the situation has gotten to the point where telephone surveys are unusable, and I am equally confident that my interactive surveys have reached a point where they are valid.


Third, cell phones do pose a problem for the polling industry, but not to the level Mr. Breslin feels. It is illegal for polling firms to call cell phones, coupling that with the rapidly increasing rate of cell phone use and the gradual decrease of land lines, the polling industry will face a crisis within a decade. For now, the 170 million cell phones are largely duplicates and triplicates of landlines. Also, many of the people Mr. Breslin cites as missing because of cell phones, are notoriously difficult to each, no matter the circumstance.


To clarify, my statements to Mr. Breslin were aimed at pointing to growing problems in the industry. As an industry, we must adapt to the future or face extinction, because the telephone will not always be a valid method of conducting random samples.
-----

In 2004, Zogby admits that:

"The reality is that polling on the telephone is becoming more difficult; caller id and the widespread use of cell phones are affecting response rates.

In 2004, Zogby said:

I have yet to see evidence that the situation has gotten to the point where telephone surveys are unusable,

Perhaps it has now gotten to the point where telephone surveys are unusable. Especially in light of this next part...

In 2004, Zogby said:

"For now, the 170 million cell phones are largely duplicates and triplicates of landlines"

I refer you to yesterday's report which indicates that now, there are only 170 million landlines - but there are 250 million cell phones. I posted this information in general politics yesterday.

In 2004, Zogby said:

"It is illegal for polling firms to call cell phones, coupling that with the rapidly increasing rate of cell phone use and the gradual decrease of land lines, the polling industry will face a crisis within a decade. "

within a decade.

I think we're there.

:)

ronpaulforprez2008
12-19-2007, 11:59 AM
So, who will be willing to make phone call #2 to national HQ? I think if we got 10 calls, we would at least get a response...
Why do we need the campaign involved? First, the campaign probably won't do it for a whole host of resons. Second, the poll looses credibility if the campaign commissions it. The poll needs to come from the grassroots, so lets just raise the money and commission it ourselves.

But even if you pay for a poll, we will be the only ones quoting it probably. I cant imagine the MSM running a story about how bad their polls are.
Hogwash. If the poll is done using proven methodologies by a respected pollster, the MSM will quote it, perhaps with some "outside" pressure.


I don't think this is how polls and reporting work. It seems they run what they want and interpret how they want. I am not a journalist, maybe someone else knows.

I don't think the poll companies can dictate who reports it or how.
One can certainly dictate the questions asked in the poll and the presentation of the results. This presentation will frame the story and how its reported.

It is critical to get more data out into the public. For $50 - $100K we can get highly reputable polling firms to perform very scientific polls and report those results nationally to MSM. A positive poll result could result in millions of dollars in donations. We'd be nuts not to move forward with this. I'd say this is high priority.


From LRC blog yesterday, I found this link.

This is a piece written by John Zogby IN 2004.
Zogby is not well respected within the polling and statistical community.

benhaskins
12-19-2007, 12:00 PM
television is a failed source of information. if people still rely on it there is nothing i can do about it. if people want to figure something out they go to the internet period.

MSM is more for entertainment purposes. if a political talk show mixes politics and britany spears it is hard to take them seriously and most people with common sense have figured that out by now.

dfalken
12-19-2007, 12:01 PM
The last gallup poll released yesterday showing Alan Keyes with the same level of national support at 3% as Ron Paul completely exposes what a bunch of absolute crap those polls are. There is no possible way they can justify those results. A week ago I had no idea who Alan Keyes was and every person I have spoken to has never heard of him... I think he has raised 25thousand dollars this year for his campaign. I think the pollsters are overstepping the line of lies and it will only serve to burn them. Keep talking to people we need to wake them up one by one.

LFOD
12-19-2007, 12:05 PM
The last gallup poll released yesterday showing Alan Keyes with the same level of national support at 3% as Ron Paul completely exposes what a bunch of absolute crap those polls are. There is no possible way they can justify those results. A week ago I had no idea who Alan Keyes was and every person I have spoken to has never heard of him... I think he has raised 25thousand dollars this year for his campaign. I think the pollsters are overstepping the line of lies and it will only serve to burn them. Keep talking to people we need to wake them up one by one.

What polls like that show is just how freaking clueless most people are about politics at this point. We care, but most people don't, not for the primaries. Not necessarily a bad thing! Because Ron Paul supporters will vote, they won't, and we'll prove just how badly they miss the mark on predicting the result.

benhaskins
12-19-2007, 12:05 PM
alan keyes = ron paul's support.

yea im sure people believe these polls represent ~200 million voters by polling 500 75 year olds.

Ozwest
12-19-2007, 12:09 PM
In three weeks all will be put to rest.

GAME ON!

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 12:31 PM
OK....so, how do we raise the money on our own, conduct the poll, and get the results disseminated in time to do any good in IA and NH?

I'm all for it, if you guys think it can be done in time...

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 03:32 PM
First quote ($7800 total) is in to do 4 polls:




This quote is for everything. Data, Dialing, crosstabs, weighting, and analysis worksheet.

4 polls.

1. GOP NH
2. IND NH
3. IND National
4. GOP National

We will do a minimum of 350 and a maximum of 500 answers in each sample. (There could be more than 500, but we do not promise that).

We usually charge $2,500 each for these polls. If you agree to do all 4 at once we will charge $1950. We will require half up front and half when the project is complete.

Please advise.

I will call you to discuss these numbers soon, or call me at 404-819-3041

Thanks
John Garst
www.politicalecalling.com
404-819-3041

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone have ideas on how we can raise the money FAST, so that it will be done before NH?

GJ-CO4RonPaul
12-19-2007, 03:35 PM
Alex Jones did do a poll, and Ron Paul was a huge winner. I think Zogby did it, but the media never got a hold of that one. hmm..

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 03:36 PM
Yea, because:

A. It was Alex Jones, and
B. It mentioned no candidates

TheNewYorker
12-19-2007, 03:39 PM
I've met several people who like Ron Paul and his views but won't vote for him "because he's polling low and has no chance at winning based on the polls." I've tried my best to sway them, to tell them the polls mean nothing and it's best to vote in what you believe in and not vote for who is likely to win. But they just don't budge.

it's ridiculous. These people would rather vote for someone and something they don't believe in just because it has a better chance at winning.

If so, what's the fucking point in even voting? If we are all going to vote for the likely winner, why even have elections? I mean since the likely winner is going to win, let's not even have elections, let's just proclaim the likely winner to be the actual winner already.

Americans sadly are this stupid. And ths is the majority. This is why I'll say again, Ron Paul has no chance at winning. Americans are just too stupid.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 03:40 PM
Yea, because:

A. It was Alex Jones, and
B. It mentioned no candidates

Minuteman
12-19-2007, 03:43 PM
No matter what you think about polls, the truth is the vast majority of Americans look at a poll to gauge who they might vote for, its sad but true. Americans like to pick the winner so they can go around and tell people they voted for the winner.

You can keep dismissing polling all you want, but we need some better numbers. Want to know why Huckabee is doing so well? He got a big push in the polls and now people see him as the front runner.

RoamZero
12-19-2007, 03:53 PM
It still feels like we're flying blind in a way if the polls mean nothing. Is there a good way to accurately gauge just how many votes we'll get in the early states?

malkusm
12-19-2007, 03:53 PM
When hiring an independent poller to record results, we must absolutely make sure of two things:

1) That Dr. Paul will not only be an option, but that the BIAS is eliminated from the way the poll is worded. This includes cycling candidates names to ensure that the same candidate isn't always listed first (or that Dr. Paul is always listed last, more importantly).

2) That the independent poller who we hire is a CREDIBLE source who the media will trust enough to release the results of the poll.

If there is indeed a way to ensure that this will be done, BEFORE we spend money on such a poll....then I am 100% in favor.

malkusm
12-19-2007, 03:55 PM
It still feels like we're flying blind in a way if the polls mean nothing. Is there a good way to accurately gauge just how many votes we'll get in the early states?

Who cares what we get in this poll? The results can't possibly be any worse than the polls that people are seeing daily on the news - there are no potential drawbacks to having a new poll performed.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 03:59 PM
Can this be posted as a project, admins??

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 04:04 PM
bump

AceNZ
12-19-2007, 04:27 PM
I think commissioning our own poll is a great idea ("fight fire with fire"). I said the same thing quite a while back here on the forum, but very few others seem to agree. Maybe we need to take the USA Today advertising approach, and just fund it from our own pockets, rather than relying on group support.

If we do this, the polling company needs to be carefully instructed. For a description of some of the problems with current polls, have a look at the following articles:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/pitkaniemi1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/pitkaniemi2.html

For example, we need to include first-time voters. People should be called randomly, not using a list of previously-registered voters. The issue of multipliers should be worked out in advance, etc. A relatively large number of people should be polled, to account for the statistical impact of non-voters. The poll should include a question along the lines of "how likely are you to vote in the primaries?", with more than a yes or no choice. A plan for distribution of results, and estimates of media uptake should also be made in advance.

There is another important reason to do our own poll. With an honest estimate of results, it will help us know where to really focus our energies. Without that kind of knowledge, we and the campaign could easily be wasting resources.


If you talk to people who are influenced by polls, there are some things you can say to try to offset their impact. From another thread on this subject:

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.

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 05:06 PM
I think commissioning our own poll is a great idea ("fight fire with fire"). I said the same thing quite a while back here on the forum, but very few others seem to agree. Maybe we need to take the USA Today advertising approach, and just fund it from our own pockets, rather than relying on group support.

If we do this, the polling company needs to be carefully instructed. For a description of some of the problems with current polls, have a look at the following articles:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/pitkaniemi1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/pitkaniemi2.html

For example, we need to include first-time voters. People should be called randomly, not using a list of previously-registered voters. The issue of multipliers should be worked out in advance, etc. A relatively large number of people should be polled, to account for the statistical impact of non-voters. The poll should include a question along the lines of "how likely are you to vote in the primaries?", with more than a yes or no choice. A plan for distribution of results, and estimates of media uptake should also be made in advance.

There is another important reason to do our own poll. With an honest estimate of results, it will help us know where to really focus our energies. Without that kind of knowledge, we and the campaign could easily be wasting resources.


If you talk to people who are influenced by polls, there are some things you can say to try to offset their impact. From another thread on this subject:

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.

Good advice! Thanks...Also, we should have a website with a chip-in widget ready to go pretty soon.

shane2
12-19-2007, 05:31 PM
Lot of good suggestions above here that could be compiled, as below, to awaken that majority of voters normally pre-disposed to only vote for those candidates with a perceived good chance to win, according to the faulty polls...

#1 - Demonstrating to voters why they should not narrow down their own list of electable candidates, come election day, based upon polls; like the past examples above by AceNZ of those low in the polls later winning.

#2 - Explain why polls often get it so wrong; cell phones, new voters, independents, etc.

#3 - Show them an example of this disconnect specifically regarding RP between polls and reality; RP straw polls, underreported historic fundraising records showing immense support, left out of polls, etc.

#4 - For those not already RP sympathizers, invite them to check him out, see his positions that are so much more popular than polls may have led you to think, now that they have been shown he is truly a viable candidate.

Challenge is, once above put together and polished, is how do you get this info out to, and studied by, voters in Iowa and NH the week before they go to the polls?

For me, if I was a voter there, there's not much that would or could still catch my attention in the newspapers or in a mail-in piece after weeks of being bombarded, except maybe for this arriving in my mail and/or as a bold heading in a newspaper full page ad;

IF THE POLLS HAD BEEN MISLEADING YOU,
WOULD YOU WANT TO FIND OUT NEXT WEEK,
AFTER YOU'D VOTED, OR NOW BEFORE YOU DO?!?

I'd likely read that piece, whether it was mailed to me or was a full pager insert in the newspaper or was handed to me in a mall or arrived as an email, etc.

This whole poll/electability issue in Iowa and NH is the key to greater success or failure there, I'm convinced. It should be all our single most major strategy in addressing it and implementing a solution to it, whether we get our own poll or not, which I don't think is as essential if above 4 points are properly, widely and aggressively presented.

- Shane

SteveMartin
12-19-2007, 05:50 PM
Shane,

Good stuff. Thanks for taking the time to share that.

Maybe we'll have those 4, AND a poll to back it all up!

shane2
12-19-2007, 06:15 PM
Steve,
I'm thinking the write up and polishing of something along the lines of the four points should go ahead now independent of the DIY poll project.

If the poll idea has come together before the piece was to be printed and used, great, we'll add it to it, but I'd want the piece itself, and commitments to proceed on getting it out far & wide, not hinge on whether the poll idea happened or not.

Make sense?

- Shane

SteveMartin
12-20-2007, 03:58 AM
Sure.

SteveMartin
12-20-2007, 04:08 AM
Does anybody know why title editing doesn't take on these forums??

SteveMartin
12-20-2007, 06:35 AM
Admins??

chicksandpolitics
12-20-2007, 06:43 AM
Have you guys seen the World poll site? its amazing...

"Who Would the World Elect"

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

SteveMartin
12-20-2007, 07:30 AM
Yea, I have! Awesome!! I can't believe that we've had rallies in Europe too!

Proemio
12-20-2007, 08:14 AM
I cant imagine the MSM running a story about how bad their polls are.

If you listen carefully, they are already discouting their own polls "Polls in (wherever) are notoriously difficult at this stage..." or "Polls in (wherever) are notoriously unreliable..." - with historical examples. Doesn't prevent them from breathlessly announcing and 'analysing' just-in numbers, every hour, on the hour.

Local polls go up (because they need to), national polls go down (because they want to). It's all "manufactured perception". It won't help them much in the end...

Thomas Paine
12-20-2007, 08:14 AM
The only polls that will count will be on caucus/primary election days.

alien
12-20-2007, 08:44 AM
The key to overcoming the polls - forever - is to finish 2nd or 3rd in Iowa.

If that happens, the polls are discredited and cease to be a factor.

So the only possible strategy I can see is "Kick ass in Iowa".

Amen to that

shane2
12-20-2007, 10:07 AM
The only polls that will count will be on caucus/primary election days.True enough, but we can't ignore in the meantime that most voters will not waste their vote on those caucus/primary election days on any candidate they are convinced could not win the primaries and/or could not beat the opposing parties candidate. Yes, some few do and will vote their conscious regardless, but reality is, overwhelmingly most won't.

The polls the media pushes are how the voters get the supposed candidate rankings and popularity and ultimately their electability.

Now, we all know that these are flawed and often grossly, if not criminally so, but most voters do not know how badly they are being deceived to rely upon them.

The voters need to be informed about what we know about these polls to bust through their influence and unleash a flood of support for the best candidate (RP) regardless of their current supposed poll ranking.

Something is needed, perhaps along the lines of my post above #60, which is a rough outline of one strategy to accomplish this. I'm convinced, if it, or something similar was implemented, it could make a major impact on most voters who are currently only looking at voting for top poll ranking candidates and have written off those ranked not as highly.

Is any project or plan already effectively addressing this issue anywhere to awaken the voters to discredit and ignore these media publicized polls? I ask because I do not want to pursue this course if it would be redundant and I should, instead, be throwing in and supporting an existing and equally effective plan already in motion.

Bottom Line: We need to be proactive to inform the voters and thus minimize these faulty and deceptive polls affecting their decision of whom to vote for. I'm not content to let them stand and have us needlessly lose many, many votes for RP. Let me put it this way; if nobody voting relied on any polls to narrow down their list of supposed most electable candidates, we might be seeing a doubling, or more, of votes for Ron Paul, IMO. If true, then there is no other single project we could take on now, right before Iowa and NH primaries, that holds a better promise to greatly increase the votes for RP come primary election day!! THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE THE TOP PRIORITY GOING INTO IOWA & NH PRIMARIES!

- Shane

SteveMartin
12-20-2007, 01:31 PM
I am having trouble getting the programmer going today...maybe he is out of the office? I don't want to bug him too much because he is donating his time...

SteveMartin
12-20-2007, 02:45 PM
he just wrote to say the chipin widget should be ready to go tonight some time!

steve005
12-20-2007, 02:49 PM
[QUOTE][I think that, since Ron Paul has won over half of the Republican Straw polls, all he needs to say is "well the other candidates have supporters who will answer a telephone, I have supporters who will actually vote for me"./QUOTE]

I like this idea

BeFranklin
12-20-2007, 02:53 PM
2nd or 3rd in both NH and IA is a long shot with the way these polls are being used to manipulate public opinion.

For a few thousand dollars, we could change all that...

If we don't, it my honest opinion, and that is all it is, we will be 5th in IA and 4th in NH at best.

I think we should do it. Done in the right time, the media will spend their time trying to discredit it (more press for us), and they won't know what hit them. Call this January surprise.

Remember, we have information that can back up a poll taken anyway we want (has won most straw polls, has raised more money then anyone in history in a single day, which was Kerry did *after* democratic convention nomination in a single day, etc.

In which case, I think our poll should be high. It should be just the right amount and time to really cause the media to be shrill about it. Lets say 12-15% more then any of the candidates have ever received at their top in any poll.

BeFranklin
12-20-2007, 02:55 PM
I think we should do it. Done in the right time, the media will spend their time trying to discredit it (more press for us), and they won't know what hit them. Call this January surprise.

Remember, we have information that can back up a poll taken anyway we want (has won most straw polls, has raised more money then anyone in history in a single day, which was Kerry did *after* democratic convention nomination in a single day, etc.

In which case, I think our poll should be high. It should be just the right amount and time to really cause the media to be shrill about it. Lets say 12-15% more then any of the candidates have ever received at their top in any poll.

We should poll likely voters in the primaries. In our poll, likely voters will be people who voted in the straw polls :p