Ron Paul at 2% in NH

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

CNN/WMUR Poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire
7/13/2007
Mitt Romney 33%
Rudy Giuliani 18%
Fred Thompson 13%
John McCain 12%
Newt Gingrich 3%
Mike Huckabee 2%
Ron Paul 2%
Tommy Thompson 1%
Unsure 12%
Other 3%

I haven't found a direct link or details yet

[JaylieWoW]

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

CNN/WMUR Poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire
7/13/2007
Mitt Romney 33%
Rudy Giuliani 18%
Fred Thompson 13%
John McCain 12%
Newt Gingrich 3%
Mike Huckabee 2%
Ron Paul 2%
Tommy Thompson 1%
Unsure 12%
Other 3%

I haven't found a direct link or details yet

Something that seems to be obvious about the representation of numbers in the scientific polls vs. the donations is that for whatever reason (and yes, I've seen all of them), the scientific polls are either A. Rigged or B. Not that scientific. I only say this because it just seems more obvious now.

[R_Harris]

In a thread I posted earlier, I talked about how he had slipped from 3% to 2%. Given that he won handily at the straw poll two weeks ago (getting 65% of the vote), I would have thought that he would be at 5-6% in a wider poll.

Also see my comment about Hugh Hewitt and a "poll" saying that 75% of NH republicans "strongly support" the war in Iraq. I find that hard to believe.

[Bradley in DC]

Something that seems to be obvious about the representation of numbers in the scientific polls vs. the donations is that for whatever reason (and yes, I've seen all of them), the scientific polls are either A. Rigged or B. Not that scientific. I only say this because it just seems more obvious now.

No, not rigged, yes scientific. They're just looking at two different things. Have you gone door to door for Ron Paul and found anyone who knew who he was? Among the statistically insignificant percent of the population who gives to political campaigns, yes, we're doing better than the polls would show.

Basically, in a country where no one knows who their own governor or senator or congressman is, very very few people have heard of Ron Paul. Among the politically-minded, we're doing much better. After Labor Day, more people will start to pay attention and we'll see a convergence.

[JaylieWoW]

No, not rigged, yes scientific. They're just looking at two different things. Have you gone door to door for Ron Paul and found anyone who knew who he was? Among the statistically insignificant percent of the population who gives to political campaigns, yes, we're doing better than the polls would show.

Basically, in a country where no one knows who their own governor or senator or congressman is, very very few people have heard of Ron Paul. Among the politically-minded, we're doing much better. After Labor Day, more people will start to pay attention and we'll see a convergence.

I agree. I put in shameless plugs for him all the time whenever I overhear anyone talking about corruption, merciless taxation, etc. I find that when plugged while someone is bemoaning the evils of government nearly 80% of them are converted almost immediately. And, what you say is true, the first response is always "Who is Ron Paul?"

[Bradley in DC]

I agree. I put in shameless plugs for him all the time whenever I overhear anyone talking about corruption, merciless taxation, etc. I find that when plugged while someone is bemoaning the evils of government nearly 80% of them are converted almost immediately. And, what you say is true, the first response is always "Who is Ron Paul?"

Exactly, the polls just reflect that (and many of those people will either not vote or will make up their mind at the very end).

The Belly of the Beast Meetup group is using a list of the registered Republicans in DC (I got it for $10 as a "data request" from the Board of Elections)--there are only 30k of us here! This weekend we're going to start going door-to-door make sure every Republican in DC has heard of Ron Paul before our primary.

[rich34]

It's still hard to believe because the people of New Hampshire do pay more attention to the process and imo are more familer with the candidates than the rest of the country. Add that in with the recent straw poll results and it's still hard to believe that in a place like New Hampshire Ron Paul is only poling 3%. Oh well that will not hold forever, we'll soon see a spike in the polls.

[paulitics]

He needs to do well in NH and Iowa to have any chance. Iowa is along shot. NH should be his state. To only poll at 2% is surprising considering the meetup groups, the debates, etc.

[Slugg]

In a thread I posted earlier, I talked about how he had slipped from 3% to 2%. Given that he won handily at the straw poll two weeks ago (getting 65% of the vote), I would have thought that he would be at 5-6% in a wider poll.

Also see my comment about Hugh Hewitt and a "poll" saying that 75% of NH republicans "strongly support" the war in Iraq. I find that hard to believe.

Remember, the 65% victory was kind of an unfair straw poll for Ron. Wasn't it hosted by a Tax Reform Grassroots Group? Or was it an Anti-Income Tax Grassroots group? Something politically minded....can't remember.... Regardless, there were like 260voters, and they are all grassroots 'activists' and politically minded.

This poll is a better representation of what our politically minded population (in NH anyway) is feeling, but it's just as unfair to the other candidates as their polls are to us (I'm not complaining...I wish the election process was all Grassroots)

....It's a good sign though. It tells me that people who are politically minded to not find Ron Paul to be 'fringe.' Now we have to convince everyone else.