Polling, we are in good shape, check this out.

[gagnonstudio]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004064147_peterhart11.html

Here is an article that shows how the media is obsessed with polls, but shouldn't be. It talks about the polling in the 2003 Iowa democratic caucus.

I'll summarize. Kerry was polling at 4% nationally, and between 9 - 18% in Iowa right before the caucus. John Edwards was polling at 5% in Iowa right before the caucus.

The two "frontrunners" were Howard Dean polling at 26 - 29% and Gephardt polling at 21- 22 % in Iowa.

So how did the IA caucus actually turn out? Kerry wins, and Edwards comes in a close second. And they both blow away Dean and Gephardt.
This is the breakdown of the IA results:
Kerry 37%
Edwards 32%
Dean 18%
Gephardt 11%

I think the most interesting thing is Edwards polling at 5%. We are higher than that now, and we are shooting for 3rd in IA. I think we could really pull off an upset here and place higher. Let's keep our heads up, and not let these ridiculous polls phase us. We have the numbers, we have the desire, we have the money.
Polls aren't accurate in this stage of the game, especially for us.

Let's win this thing.

[ronpaulfollower999]

//

[UziSprayTF]

Interesting.

For a long time now I have just been multiplying what I hear our polls at by 2.5 times. First off because AT LEAST 20 percent of our members have no land line or are registered as an independent and we are AT LEAST twice as dedicated as any other candidate. So if we are polling 10% then we should actually be polling at 12.5% and since we will turn out twice as much that would make it 25%. All we really need is 10% "polling" and we have the primaries won. Thank goodness there is no clear front runner for the GOP, if there were it would be a lot harder.

[CelestialRender]

The polls do well to show our progress, against ourselves...but they don't really have much meaning when compared to the other candidates.

[Micahyah]

The polls do well to show our progress, against ourselves...but they don't really have much meaning when compared to the other candidates.


+1

[Thom1776]

I multiply Ron's numbers by three.

If they SAY he's polling at 8%, he's got at least 24% REAL support of people who will actually vote.

[gb13]

Hell yeah.

I put that puppy in the news-feed of my website.

[Myerz]

We are breaking the mold....

From here on out we are making everything irrelevant....MSM & POLLS!

A change is coming in more ways than one!

[Myerz]

The polls do well to show our progress, against ourselves...but they don't really have much meaning when compared to the other candidates.

I'm gonna borrow some of your signature....ok...thanks.

[rooteroa]

The problem with this thinking is it doesn't mean the polling frontrunner will ALWAYS lose. Hell, if the polls are that inaccurate then Romney could be at 80% in Iowa and everybody else completely screwed.

[Myerz]

The problem with that thinking...... is your thinking.....again.

[Cunningham]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004064147_peterhart11.html

Here is an article that shows how the media is obsessed with polls, but shouldn't be. It talks about the polling in the 2003 Iowa democratic caucus.

I'll summarize. Kerry was polling at 4% nationally, and between 9 - 18% in Iowa right before the caucus. John Edwards was polling at 5% in Iowa right before the caucus.

The two "frontrunners" were Howard Dean polling at 26 - 29% and Gephardt polling at 21- 22 % in Iowa.

So how did the IA caucus actually turn out? Kerry wins, and Edwards comes in a close second. And they both blow away Dean and Gephardt.
This is the breakdown of the IA results:
Kerry 37%
Edwards 32%
Dean 18%
Gephardt 11%

I think the most interesting thing is Edwards polling at 5%. We are higher than that now, and we are shooting for 3rd in IA. I think we could really pull off an upset here and place higher. Let's keep our heads up, and not let these ridiculous polls phase us. We have the numbers, we have the desire, we have the money.
Polls aren't accurate in this stage of the game, especially for us.

Let's win this thing.

Here is the problem. The democrat caucus has different rules than the republican caucus. This resulted in the huge shift. In the democrats caucus, if your
canidate doesn't receive a certain threshold of votes then they negotiate to have those votes thrown to another canidate.

[rooteroa]

The problem with that thinking...... is your thinking.....again.

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have blindly said Ron Paul is going to win the vote with 40%. You guys need to be real and stop shutting out any opposing thought.

[gagnonstudio]

Here is the problem. The democrat caucus has different rules than the republican caucus. This resulted in the huge shift. In the democrats caucus, if your
canidate doesn't receive a certain threshold of votes then they negotiate to have those votes thrown to another canidate.

You're right. That sucks, I forgot about that. Oh well...

[davver]

The turnout in the Caucuses is very low. If other candidates have a 20% turnout and Paul has a 90% turnout, walla.

[parke]

I agree. Here is a great page for this kind of thought...

http://truthmason.com/articles/view/56

[LFOD]

Turnout and bringing in "non" likely Republican primary voters are going to be the factors that bust those polls as far as Ron Paul is concerned. That's my working theory.

[shane2]

We all know...

#1 - Most voters will not waste their vote 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 don't.

#2 - The polls the media pushes are how the voters get the candidates supposed rankings of popularity and ultimate electability.

#3 - These polls are flawed and often grossly, if not criminally, so, but most voters do not know how badly they are being deceived in relying upon them.

#4 - If the voters knew what we know about these polls they would begin to discount and ignore them in ranking the popularity and electabilty of candidates.

#5 - If the voters knew how truly high Ron Paul would be ranked if the polls were accurate, a great many more then would both take a closer look at his message and many more then would also vote for him, perhaps twice or more as many!

#6 - Going into Iowa and NH primaries, no single event could more dramatically impact to the upside Ron Paul's % of the vote than our accomplishing #4 & #5 above.

Therefore, if this is not already a project being aggressively addressed elsewhere, I'm proposing we make it the highest priority to develop the following to do so immediately now to impact the Iowa and NH primaries:

Whether it is delivered to the voters in Iowa & NH via inserts or full page ads in newspapers, TV, radio, direct mail, handouts, email, etc., it will need a very bold title to cut throw all the clutter and voter burnout, something along the lines of:

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

The body of text, following the title above, would cover these four main points:

#1 - Short list of past examples of those low in early primary polls later doing much better in votes.

#2 - Why polls often get it so wrong; sampling size, cell phones, new voters, independents, candidates left off, etc.

#3 - Example of this disconnect specifically regarding Ron Paul between polls and reality; RP straw polls, underreported historic record-breaking fundraising and meet-up groups showing immense grassroots support, left out of polls, etc.

#4 - Invite them to check out RP to see his positions for themselves that are so much more popular than polls may have led them to think, now that they have been shown both that polls are faulty, often fail to predict winners, and that RP is truly a very popular, viable, and electable candidate.
_____________________

I'm convinced that many voters, once they discover that Ron Paul truly has great support and momentum, regardless of what polls say, will both then take a closer look at his positions to see why, and that many of them will then embrace and support him when they do. And, amongst those who already liked much of what they've heard about him, but had written him off as being unelectable, will reconsider.

Destroying the credibility of relying upon the polls is the key, even more so than sponsoring our own poll which likely would not get much press and be lost amongst all the others anyways.

We've all worked very hard to raise money and visibility and recruit support for Ron Paul and his message and there is tremendous momentum and IF the polls were accurate they would reflect that, but they are not and thus fewer see RP as a viable and electable candidate and look no further and will not consider him for their vote.

We have both earned and deserve a proper representation, via the polls, of how well we've done and, failing that, we need to have voters be made aware of it.

This project above, IMO, is the single most important and essential strategy that will substantially raise the % of votes that Ron Paul will receive in Iowa and NH.

After those primaries, the actual vote count will erode the public's faith and reliance on polls, but until then voters will continue to rely upon them and vote only for the top contenders according to the polls, IF we fail to take this issue on and make this project our top priority for the next two weeks!

Make sense?

- Shane

[rollingpig]

The polls do well to show our progress, against ourselves...but they don't really have much meaning when compared to the other candidates.

+1

[Derek Johnson]

We all know...

#1 - Most voters will not waste their vote 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 don't.

#2 - The polls the media pushes are how the voters get the candidates supposed rankings of popularity and ultimate electability.

#3 - These polls are flawed and often grossly, if not criminally, so, but most voters do not know how badly they are being deceived in relying upon them.

#4 - If the voters knew what we know about these polls they would begin to discount and ignore them in ranking the popularity and electabilty of candidates.

#5 - If the voters knew how truly high Ron Paul would be ranked if the polls were accurate, a great many more then would both take a closer look at his message and many more then would also vote for him, perhaps twice or more as many!

#6 - Going into Iowa and NH primaries, no single event could more dramatically impact to the upside Ron Paul's % of the vote than our accomplishing #4 & #5 above.

Therefore, if this is not already a project being aggressively addressed elsewhere, I'm proposing we make it the highest priority to develop the following to do so immediately now to impact the Iowa and NH primaries:

Whether it is delivered to the voters in Iowa & NH via inserts or full page ads in newspapers, TV, radio, direct mail, handouts, email, etc., it will need a very bold title to cut throw all the clutter and voter burnout, something along the lines of:

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

The body of text, following the title above, would cover these four main points:

#1 - Short list of past examples of those low in early primary polls later doing much better in votes.

#2 - Why polls often get it so wrong; sampling size, cell phones, new voters, independents, candidates left off, etc.

#3 - Example of this disconnect specifically regarding Ron Paul between polls and reality; RP straw polls, underreported historic record-breaking fundraising and meet-up groups showing immense grassroots support, left out of polls, etc.

#4 - Invite them to check out RP to see his positions for themselves that are so much more popular than polls may have led them to think, now that they have been shown both that polls are faulty, often fail to predict winners, and that RP is truly a very popular, viable, and electable candidate.
_____________________

I'm convinced that many voters, once they discover that Ron Paul truly has great support and momentum, regardless of what polls say, will both then take a closer look at his positions to see why, and that many of them will then embrace and support him when they do. And, amongst those who already liked much of what they've heard about him, but had written him off as being unelectable, will reconsider.

Destroying the credibility of relying upon the polls is the key, even more so than sponsoring our own poll which likely would not get much press and be lost amongst all the others anyways.

We've all worked very hard to raise money and visibility and recruit support for Ron Paul and his message and there is tremendous momentum and IF the polls were accurate they would reflect that, but they are not and thus fewer see RP as a viable and electable candidate and look no further and will not consider him for their vote.

We have both earned and deserve a proper representation, via the polls, of how well we've done and, failing that, we need to have voters be made aware of it.

This project above, IMO, is the single most important and essential strategy that will substantially raise the % of votes that Ron Paul will receive in Iowa and NH.

After those primaries, the actual vote count will erode the public's faith and reliance on polls, but until then voters will continue to rely upon them and vote only for the top contenders according to the polls, IF we fail to take this issue on and make this project our top priority for the next two weeks!

Make sense?

- Shane

Yes. Hey Shane, excellent analysis.

[rpfreedom08]

the reason why the old media holds on to polling is because this is thier grasp on the general public. They can sway anyone by just putting up these polling numbers. People's dumb mentality of voting for "the person most likely to win" has been the downfall of freedom and the rise to power for the old media. We need to teach people it's about voting your conscience after all the facts and records have been laid out on the table.

[SteveMartin]

Let's get our own polls done ASAP. For $7800 we get 2 polls in NH and 2 nationally:

Check here:

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3953021

[Noble]

If theres one thing we Ron Paul supporters are good at, it's getting out to vote.

I think we might be 10x more likely than any other candidate's supporters to show up, all other things being equal.

That being said, I look forward to the impending landslide.

[Energy]

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

- Shane

Great write-up Shane. Yeah, if we can undeniably debunk these damn polls beforehand, we'd have guaranteed landslide victory.

As someone wrote, "The 'scientific' polls are the final illusion standing between the American people and the new reality."

[shane2]

Yes. Hey Shane, excellent analysis.I'd be willing to substantially help fund making this happen IF there are leaders on the ground in Iowa and NH that can and would execute it there. Pass this onto anyone up there that might want to explore doing this. PM me if interested.

- Shane

[Energy]

Other approaches:

"Kerry polled at 4% right before the Iowa caucus and WON. Guess who this year's underdog is?"

"Do you want the opinions of a select group of people to decide for you?"

"The polls examine campaign performances. Would you rather learn about a candidate's public record and full life as opposed to his or her campaign performance?"

Let's get something together to inject this "meme virus" into the populace.

[tsetsefly]

bump...

[wstrucke]

The turnout in the Caucuses is very low. If other candidates have a 20% turnout and Paul has a 90% turnout, walla.

I think you mean "Voila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voila)"

[Todd]

The polls do well to show our progress, against ourselves...but they don't really have much meaning when compared to the other candidates.

yeah people....become delegates.....History has proven this to be the biggie. See this article.... It all came down to who has the Delegates...See link
:eek:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/12/21/is_it_down_to_mitt_and_mike

[Goldwater Conservative]

Here is the problem. The democrat caucus has different rules than the republican caucus. This resulted in the huge shift. In the democrats caucus, if your
canidate doesn't receive a certain threshold of votes then they negotiate to have those votes thrown to another canidate.

I doubt Kucinich and the rest were enough to swing Edwards from 5% to 32%. ;)

[voisine]

The fact that the R's don't have the type of caucus where other candidates negotiate for the votes of candidates that don't do as well, is a good thing for RP. We don't want the pro-war voters polling their votes behind one candidate. This will work to our advantage.

[shane2]

As someone wrote, "The 'scientific' polls are the final illusion standing between the American people and the new reality."Energy, is their a notable name attributed to that quote and a reference pointing to it?

- Shane

[itsnobody]

yeah he'll definitely win in Iowa...there's a very low voter turn out, and for Ron Paul supporters there's a very high voter turn out

[walt]

agree

[MCockerill08]

Good post, but winning 1st in this caucus is still unlikely and isn't necessary to get this nomination.
We will greatly exceed expectations, and that's the name of the game. If we exceed expectations, we get a bump going into NH.

[FreedomWon]

Just look at the NPR data thread and see the percentages of first time voters, democrats, independants there are as compared to republicans. If the statistics applied to 4000 Ron Paul supporters are any indication of who will be actually voting in the primaries then the Polls are WAY off. This is very good news!

[B of R guy]

This is a good post. I have been telling everyone how unreliable the polls are and now have evidence to support that.
RP will do well because he has a lot of very committed supporters :Dand the vote is going to be divided by multiple candidates.

[TwiLeXia]

The article is false. The media doesn't focus on how well candidates manage their campaigns either. The media simply cares about the hyped "front-runners," thinking that as long as you talk about Rudy Giuliani, people will listen, instead of say, Tom Tancredo. They think that any small event that happens to these "front-runners" is worth mentioning, be their issues, their squabbles with other candidates, their appearances in random areas, or whatever. They don't cover Ron Paul simply because they don't consider him a front-runner.

[wfd40]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004064147_peterhart11.html

Here is an article that shows how the media is obsessed with polls, but shouldn't be. It talks about the polling in the 2003 Iowa democratic caucus.

I'll summarize. Kerry was polling at 4% nationally, and between 9 - 18% in Iowa right before the caucus. John Edwards was polling at 5% in Iowa right before the caucus.

The two "frontrunners" were Howard Dean polling at 26 - 29% and Gephardt polling at 21- 22 % in Iowa.

So how did the IA caucus actually turn out? Kerry wins, and Edwards comes in a close second. And they both blow away Dean and Gephardt.
This is the breakdown of the IA results:
Kerry 37%
Edwards 32%
Dean 18%
Gephardt 11%

I think the most interesting thing is Edwards polling at 5%. We are higher than that now, and we are shooting for 3rd in IA. I think we could really pull off an upset here and place higher. Let's keep our heads up, and not let these ridiculous polls phase us. We have the numbers, we have the desire, we have the money.
Polls aren't accurate in this stage of the game, especially for us.

Let's win this thing.

:: puts on tin foil hat::

Anyone else think that Kerry was literally THE LEAST LIKELY TO WIN democrat that could've been elected in 04??

I mean, polls have show that both Edwards and Dean would have TROUNCED BUSH in a general.

Kerry was just about PERFECT in terms of retaining all DEM loyalists.. but galvanizing enough (re: clinton) to rouse up GOP resistance...

If so, forget about IOWA... as the game is totally rigged. Seriously, I refuse to believe that Kerry took 37% of Iowa in 03 legitimately.

Thoughts?

[Paul4Prez]

I think Dean was hurt in Iowa by having concentrated support in a few of the bigger cities and college towns. The way Iowa works, you need support throughout the state. Most of the polls have no way to capture this distinction.

[itsnobody]

Ron Paul will get 1st in Iowa I already bet $100 on it...

Just wait until January 3rd, 2008 and see