Why is Ron Paul polling better in Iowa than NH?

[curtisag]

The highest NH poll I've seen for Ron is 9%. But the latest ARG poll (not a favorable poll in the past for him) has him at 10%. That's freaking unbelievable we're doing so well in Iowa. Is there strong anti-war sentiment in Iowa?

[TheIndependent]

MoE?

[NYgs23]

Perhaps the conventional wisdom about the "attitudes" of these states is just wrong, like so much of the rest of the conventional wisdom. Bunch of stereotypes.

[davidt!]

Because of the Infomercial :)

[FreedomLover]

If the polls were wrong when Ron paul was an asterisk, why are they correct now?

But, just looking at the polls, most of them count independents as 15-20% of the total voting population in NH (when in reality it's more like 30-40%). Ron Paul does extremely well with independents (20+ in Iowa and 17 in NH in some recent polls), but since they arn't counted as high because they make up a smaller portion, his total percentage is much lower.

[constitutional]

Because of the Infomercial :)

The polls were taken before the Infomercials.

FYI, take these polls with a grain of salt. ;) They are way off...

[voytechs]

I think we're going to see a lot of positive fluctuations over next 2 weeks. That is the reason, NH will go up as well.

[tmg19103]

My guess would be that RP is polling better in Iowa b/c McCain is not really campaigning there. McCain is hitting up N.H. bigtime and could be taking votes from RP.

I hope this not not true, but I don't really see Romney dropping much in N.H., so McCain is taking votes from someone and is polling second behind Romney. I just hope the independents turn out for RP in N.H.

Also, when you consider these polls have an accuracy of a +/- 4-5%, you can't really tell what is going on when you poll 8 or 9%.

The key, as always, will be how many people turn out for RP who are not polled for all the various reasons discussed on this forum.

[tmg19103]

The polls were taking before the Infomercials.

FYI, take these polls with a grain of salt. ;) They are way off...

I believe the latest Iowa poll that has RP at 10% covers the week the infomercial came out.

[nyrgoal99]

I do not think independents are really getting polled in NH

[rory096]

If the polls were wrong when Ron paul was an asterisk, why are they correct now?

But, just looking at the polls, most of them count independents as 15-20% of the total voting population in NH (when in reality it's more like 30-40%). Ron Paul does extremely well with independents (20+ in Iowa and 17 in NH in some recent polls), but since they arn't counted as high because they make up a smaller portion, his total percentage is much lower.
Wait, 30-40% of the total are independents? 20% sounds right then, since they only survey likely Republican primary voters, not all independents (and not all independents will be Republican primary voters).

[paulitics]

I think the polls are off in NH. They do not add up compared to donors per capita. With the free state project and a Buchanan stronghold, I am really surprised to see us still this low.

[tmg19103]

I think the polls are off in NH. They do not add up compared to donors per capita. With the free state project and a Buchanan stronghold, I am really surprised to see us still this low.

Good point. And as prevously posted, these polls in NH don't poll Independents. My hope is McCain does not sway many and they turn out for RP and not a Democrat.

[r3volution]

because polls are BULLSHIT and inaccurate . F-U Frank !! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4)

[AlexMerced]

I do think Mccain is proving to be thorn in our Poll #s in NH causehe's still perceived as the moderate republican, which he is... Ron Paul is the purest traditional conservative.

THough if we do well in Iowa we'll get back the points that would've been ours all along.

I'm starting to feel like we might win Iowa

[JAlli41]

there are two factors I can think of, the first is location, I don't know how the polling is being done, but the lower half of the state has had an influx of Massachusetts people finding residence in the state, so if polling is being done in these areas it would seem that Romney and the Democrats would likely poll better, whereas the more northern rural part into the moutains in NH, is where more of the libertarian population is located. The second factor I already alluded to, in 2004 Kerry won probably because of the Massachusetts connection, Romney has the local connection, I don't know if these NH people think theyre helping us in the commonwealth or what, but Mass politicians stink for the most part

[FreedomLover]

Wait, 30-40% of the total are independents? 20% sounds right then, since they only survey likely Republican primary voters, not all independents (and not all independents will be Republican primary voters).

I was basing that off 2000.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/primaries/NH/poll.rep.html

Republican 53%

Independent 41 %

Democrat 4%


Since there will be a even split between how many independents vote in each primary, I'm betting on in between 30-40%, while polls only account for independents being 10-20% of the total.

[jd603]

The polls are completely wrong, period. I'd bet my life on it.

Iowa was rigged in 2004 though and the Ames straw poll was suspicious so I doubt we can expect a legitimate election in that state.

I expect a win in NH, as long as everyone gets out to vote!


The highest NH poll I've seen for Ron is 9%. But the latest ARG poll (not a favorable poll in the past for him) has him at 10%. That's freaking unbelievable we're doing so well in Iowa. Is there strong anti-war sentiment in Iowa?

[adpierce]

The polls are completely wrong, period. I'd bet my life on it.

Iowa was rigged in 2004 though and the Ames straw poll was suspicious so I doubt we can expect a legitimate election in that state.

I expect a win in NH, as long as everyone gets out to vote!

I think the straw poll numbers were legit. There was a ton of out of state support at the straw poll, there was a lot less in-state support. I know I was one of the in-stater's who voted for RP in the straw poll. The voting machine malfunction I think was legit, they recounted it and I think the numbers were good. Some jump to the conclusion that the malfunction was a ploy to screw RP over... I think there's no real evidence to this claim, just a lot of speculation.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Simple, the polls are bullshit. :) Who knows what monkeying around they're doing with multipliers and whatnot.

[Mark Rushmore]

Since there will be a even split between how many independents vote in each primary...

May I ask why you are assuming an even split?

I read a good article (forget source) a few weeks back discussing the impact of the Iowa Dem. caucus on the Repub. NH vote. Something to the effect that if Obama cleans up in Iowa - many independents who are leaning towards him in NH might relax a bit and free up their votes to shift around (perhaps to Paul on the war issue). Whereas if Hillary or Edwards comes up strong in Iowa and Obama looks like he needs help - it'll activate a larger segment of the independents that might be inclined his way - and dampen the total Independent support that remains available for anyone else (in NH).

Of course that's the opinion of the article's writer - but I found it interesting to consider - and certainly wouldn't assume an even split re: independents.

[OReich]

Yes, Iowa is very anti-war. A month or two ago, we saw a poll amongst "likely Democratic voters" and "likely Republican voters," in which 86% of Democrats wanted troops out of Iraq within 6 months, 51% or 58% of Republicans wanted troops out of Iraq within six months. Surprisingly, however, was that the Republicans were also polled for their support of candidates, and that same pool gave Paul only 5%. 10% now? It's slowly heading toward political preferences matching candidate preferences.

Also, I think the difference between then and now is new commercials and infomercials, and maybe Iowa media coverage (which I haven't seen, as I'm not in Iowa). Paul didn't perform well in the debates recently, including the Iowa debates, so I don't think that brought up his numbers.

For everyone's optimism, remember that this is 10% of people who voted in the '04 Caucuses, a coronation for Bush; imagine his support among discontent Republicans, and imagine his support among the 700,000ish registered Independents who can vote in the Iowa Caucuses, 500,000 have recieved hand-written letters from Paul, and saw these apparently very influential commercials and infomercials. ~Humming "Hail To The Chief~

[AlexMerced]

Polls are legit representations of the Sample Set, now is the Sample Set a representative sample of the nation and those that will vote this year will be seen.

I think th evoter make up this year is gonna be drastically different, so I don't think the sample set is a accurate represetnation

[bbachtung]

His numbers are improving in Iowa because election day is getting closer and people are starting to jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon there; this will be repeated in NH as it gets closer to election day there (and will be repeated elsewhere after NH).

[Alex Libman]

New Hampshire is the state chosen by the Free State Project. If he's polling lower there, it's only because the MSM is more afraid of him there so they cheat more. The selection bias is so huge that the polls are completely meaningless. Ron Paul is the Antibush, and only Bushlovers are being polled!

[all J's in IL for RP]

Huckabee dipped somewhat, and I doubt Romney was the benificiary. I think they're finally coming around. Can't wait for Huck's Meet the Press grilling.

[rory096]

I think the polls are off in NH. They do not add up compared to donors per capita. With the free state project and a Buchanan stronghold, I am really surprised to see us still this low.
That donor per capita number means there are like 600 something donors overall in NH.

[Goldwater Conservative]

May I ask why you are assuming an even split?

I read a good article (forget source) a few weeks back discussing the impact of the Iowa Dem. caucus on the Repub. NH vote. Something to the effect that if Obama cleans up in Iowa - many independents who are leaning towards him in NH might relax a bit and free up their votes to shift around (perhaps to Paul on the war issue). Whereas if Hillary or Edwards comes up strong in Iowa and Obama looks like he needs help - it'll activate a larger segment of the independents that might be inclined his way - and dampen the total Independent support that remains available for anyone else (in NH).

Of course that's the opinion of the article's writer - but I found it interesting to consider - and certainly wouldn't assume an even split re: independents.

Then again, if Clinton gets a strong first in Iowa (easier now after weeks of lowered expectations), many NH indies might see her victory as a foregone conclusion and switch over to the GOP contest. But I definitely agree with the premise that the Dem race affects our prospects (and, oddly enough, Julie's, considering his appeal is mostly anti-Hitlery).

[j6p]

these polls are baseless. Not only is it a small sample (mostly bush supporters). The poll does not include Most independents, libertrians, green. We have a lot of support up in New Hampshire. The free state project and the small goverment attitude that is prevelent their. They are scared to really show how much support Ron has in NH. Should be sampling everyone.

[j6p]

just call 1,000 random people in NH

[pickfair]

I don't give much credit to these polls anyway. But... you know what, in a few days we'll see what's really going on behind the scenes and I'm already getting nervous.

[JordanL]

I believe the latest Iowa poll that has RP at 10% covers the week the infomercial came out.

You mean the infomercial that came out three days ago?