Seriously, folks, quit worrying about opinion polls!!

[foofighter20x]

The damned things are rigged. Thus, they are meaningless.

I really wish Bradley would stop posting them. :rolleyes:

Article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/pitkaniemi1.html)


3) In order to reduce the inaccuracy between two polls conducted by the same pollster, vote multipliers are added, which can be based on earlier polls, prior elections, "scientific" analyzes or just simply guesses. Here is how they work. Let's say that a vote multiplier for Rudy Giuliani is 1.2, for John McCain 1.5 and for Ron Paul –3.0. If the pure poll gives Giuliani 25%, McCain 10% and Ron Paul 10% of the vote, the opinion polls are counted to show 30% for Giuliani, 15% for McCain and only 3% for Ron Paul. The chances are that opinion polls for Ron Paul have negative multipliers, since no-one conducting the polls believes that he can win. The same phenomenon has happened in various European countries during the last five years when so-called far right parties (with anti-immigration, anti-EU and fiscal conservative views) have taken many land-slide victories, even if their results in opinion polls have been often either poor or mediocre.

[wecandoit]

100% agree. They are rigged and are meant to discourage us.

[TexMac]

Here's a better poll. (http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22ron+paul%22%2C+%22Hillary+clinton%22%2 C+%22barack+obama%22%2C+%22rudy+giuliani%22%2C+%22 mitt+romney%22&ctab=0&hl=en&geo=all&date=2007-7&sort=0)

Blogged and screen shot here. (http://ancapistan.typepad.com/unfairwitness/2007/07/ron-paul-supp-2.html)

[wecandoit]

If you don't think that the polls are rigged from evidence of Paul's numbers. Just look who the polls say are the frontrunners.

Clinton?
Guiliani?

RIGGED

[foofighter20x]

Besides, it's pretty well known that the big media pollsters don't call cellphones, and exclude both new voters (youth or apathetic voters) and crossover/switched-party voters.

[LibertyEagle]

I know they're depressing, but the reality is that only a small fraction of the U.S. population even knows who Ron Paul is, much less knows his platform.

If that's going to change, WE are going to have to make it happen, by making sure every single person in our own towns and communities knows all about him.

Do we want him to win badly enough to do it?

[CodeMonkey]

Besides, it's pretty well known that the big media pollsters don't call cellphones, and exclude both new voters (youth or apathetic voters) and crossover/switched-party voters.

This is exactly why the polls are important. We need to know where we stand with land line-using, older voters. Apparently not so well. We really need to do a better job penetrating this demographic; it is necessary for victory.

[Thor]

While the polls are depressing, and we know better for the online world, the bottom line is, people pay attention to what the polls say. And if someone hears about Ron Paul, and they like him, but they see his is @ 1%, they might write him off without realizing how much of a following there is online.

So it is still important and frustrating. As long as we are being marginallized, whether real or manipulated, it impacts what others think of Ron Paul and his chances for success.

[Elwar]

One article I read showed that pollsters filter out people based on, if they recently switched parties, or if they've voted in the past election...along with other filters meant to make the poll more "accurate".

This will filter out most of Ron Paul's supporters in those polls all the way up until the first Tuesday in November 2008.

[beermotor]

If you don't think that the polls are rigged from evidence of Paul's numbers. Just look who the polls say are the frontrunners.

Clinton?
Guiliani?

RIGGED

Yeah - dude, your man Huck ain't doin so hot! Heh, I lol'd when I saw the 2Q fundraising numbers. I was expecting more of a challenge from him, but it was not to be (thankfully).

[Derek]

Well, all of this poll nonsense comes to an end on August 11 anyway, when we find out exactly how strong a candidate Paul really is. I hope he can place at least third, which would be a good showing for someone getting only 1-3 percent in national polls.

[R_Harris]

"While the polls are depressing, and we know better for the online world, the bottom line is, people pay attention to what the polls say. And if someone hears about Ron Paul, and they like him, but they see his is @ 1%, they might write him off without realizing how much of a following there is online.

So it is still important and frustrating. As long as we are being marginallized, whether real or manipulated, it impacts what others think of Ron Paul and his chances for success."


BINGO.


Let me tell everyone something. I worked on Dr. Paul's campaign when he ran for the US Senate in 1984. In fact, I even escorted him in my car to several campaign events and had nice conversations with him, but I'll talk about that later.

When he was running, the polls often had him in the 10-15% range. We too discarded them, saying they were "rigged" and that his support was much stronger than that.

On actual election day (May 5), voter turnout was low. We thought that gave us an edge, because the typical RP supporter is going to make it to the polling place.

Phil Gramm buried us. RP only got 17%, Gramm got 71% (!), and the others (there were 3 others, I can only remember Rob Mosbacher right now) got bread crumbs.

A number of people told me and other campaign staffers that they liked Ron's message, but they did not feel that he could be Gramm or Lloyd Doggett in the general race - so they voted for Gramm.

On another note: back then, LIKE NOW, the campaign was run on a shoestring. If there was a major lesson I learned from that campaign, it was this: if you run a STATEWIDE or larger campaign on a shoestring, then you will only get a shoestring amount of votes. Money is everything.

In Iowa, NH, SC, and Florida, he will need to HAMMER the TV and radio waves day and night. To reach the "masses," this is what you have to do. Everything people on this forum are doing are certainly helpful, but big media advertising cannot be beat.

[ladyjade3]

Robert Novak said polls this early are MEANINGLESS. :) He's been reporting on polics for 50 years. I believe him.

Except the polls that show Ron Paul winning. ;) Those I believe.

[bygone]

On another note: back then, LIKE NOW, the campaign was run on a shoestring. If there was a major lesson I learned from that campaign, it was this: if you run a STATEWIDE or larger campaign on a shoestring, then you will only get a shoestring amount of votes. Money is everything.

Insightful post.

I have a question(s). During this effort, did you have the "grassroots" type support you have today, and did you have the internet support you have today?

If you did, what effect did it have on the outcome? What could or should have been done differently?

[Thor]

While the polls are depressing, and we know better for the online world, the bottom line is, people pay attention to what the polls say. And if someone hears about Ron Paul, and they like him, but they see his is @ 1%, they might write him off without realizing how much of a following there is online.

So it is still important and frustrating. As long as we are being marginallized, whether real or manipulated, it impacts what others think of Ron Paul and his chances for success.



BINGO.


Let me tell everyone something. I worked on Dr. Paul's campaign when he ran for the US Senate in 1984. In fact, I even escorted him in my car to several campaign events and had nice conversations with him, but I'll talk about that later.

When he was running, the polls often had him in the 10-15% range. We too discarded them, saying they were "rigged" and that his support was much stronger than that.

On actual election day (May 5), voter turnout was low. We thought that gave us an edge, because the typical RP supporter is going to make it to the polling place.

Phil Gramm buried us. RP only got 17%, Gramm got 71% (!), and the others (there were 3 others, I can only remember Rob Mosbacher right now) got bread crumbs.

A number of people told me and other campaign staffers that they liked Ron's message, but they did not feel that he could be Gramm or Lloyd Doggett in the general race - so they voted for Gramm.

On another note: back then, LIKE NOW, the campaign was run on a shoestring. If there was a major lesson I learned from that campaign, it was this: if you run a STATEWIDE or larger campaign on a shoestring, then you will only get a shoestring amount of votes. Money is everything.

In Iowa, NH, SC, and Florida, he will need to HAMMER the TV and radio waves day and night. To reach the "masses," this is what you have to do. Everything people on this forum are doing are certainly helpful, but big media advertising cannot be beat.


Thanks for that insight. I thought my statement was accurate and you proved it was from your previous real world experience with Dr Paul.

I think so many people want so badly for Dr Paul to win, they are ignoring and marginalizing the important realities around them (polls, main stream media)

I agree some of it is biased and unfair. But I also know that is still is important and we have to break through those hurdles to really have others (the Main Stream Americans) take notice.

There is another thread on here talking about the IQ of a Ron Paul supporter and how it is higher than the average American. Well truth be told, the average American is going to decide who wins the POTUS in 2008. And someone said it will come down to who has the best hair. I would not go that far, but the Average Joe is not going to just "get it" with RP. It needs to be sold to them like the latest pair of $150 Nike shoes or the latest McDonalds McWhatever sandwich.

Sad, but true.

[R_Harris]

"Thanks for that insight. I thought my statement was accurate and you proved it was from your previous real world experience with Dr Paul.

I think so many people want so badly for Dr Paul to win, they are ignoring and marginalizing the important realities around them (polls, main stream media)

I agree some of it is biased and unfair. But I also know that is still is important and we have to break through those hurdles to really have others (the Main Stream Americans) take notice. "


You are exactly right.

While I might agree that RP's numbers probably are higher than 2% (again, there is a +- 5% error involved), I do not believe that his real numbers are 20-30%. The polls aren't THAT far off. Unfortunately, those are the levels he is going to have to be at for probably at least ONE MONTH prior to the primaries to do well on the primary voting day. To go from 5% to 30% in one or two months is a herculean tasks that few campaigns are capable of achieving.

That is why the Iowa straw poll is so critical - I feel that if he finishes low with only 3-5% of the vote, his already difficult, uphill campaign is going to get that much tougher. The PERCEPTION of "he can't win" is going to be an exceptional thing to overcome.

I do agree that young, prior unregistered voters, recently registered voters with only cell phones, etc., may make some difference - but a 20-30% swing? Very hard to convince me of that, but obviously we will see.

Sorry if I sound negative, but the 1984 campaign made an indellible impression upon me in many ways I cannot even communicate. So I don't get my hopes up, because I went down that road in 1984 and was very depressed after his defeat. At this point in my life, it is hard to risk obtaining a high energy level only to be let down again. Hence my caution.

[R_Harris]

bump