National polls are almost pointless

[IDefendThePlatform]

We win this election by winning Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Everything else falls into place after that.

I really don't have any right to ask them for this, but I personally would like to see Ron and Rand live in those 4 states for the next 3 months. If either of them absolutely must be present for a certain vote in DC, that's understandable. Otherwise, it's town to town to airport to town to airport to.... you get the idea.


My personal opinion would be 40% of campaign time (for both Ron and Rand) in New Hampshire, 40% Iowa, 10% South Carolina, 10% Nevada. Just my opinion.

[TheTexan]

Indeed. It is absolutely 100% critical that we win at least two of those states. The entire success of the campaign hinges on it.

[craezie]

I agree with the part about the importance of the early sates. I think you underestimate the importance of Nevada--that state is actually winnable (unlike South Carolina) and out here in the western states is a much bigger deal. A lot of people out here (wrongly) view Iowa as backward redneck bumkins and winning that state, while increasing media attention, might not do much for increasing prestige.

I don't agree that national polls are pointless. Unfortunately the polls in 2008, while everyone always said they were inaccurate and didn't matter, were spot-on more often than not. We MUST get those numbers up or there is no hope.

[sailingaway]

Indeed. It is absolutely 100% critical that we win at least two of those states. The entire success of the campaign hinges on it.

I don't know. Both give proportionate delegates to the top few. If he took second in both I think he couldn't be dismissed. But I guarantee media will do its best. We have to give it our all, though, no question.

[sailingaway]

I agree with the part about the importance of the early sates. I think you underestimate the importance of Nevada--that state is actually winnable (unlike South Carolina) and out here in the western states is a much bigger deal. A lot of people out here (wrongly) view Iowa as backward redneck bumkins and winning that state, while increasing media attention, might not do much for increasing prestige.

I don't agree that national polls are pointless. Unfortunately the polls in 2008, while everyone always said they were inaccurate and didn't matter, were spot-on more often than not. We MUST get those numbers up or there is no hope.

I don't think he was saying they were or weren't inaccurate (although they certainly can't all be accurate, they are so different.) I think he is saying after the first states a number of candidates will drop out and their supporters will be up for grabs so they don't predict where things actually will be once the primaries get to the later states.

[TheTexan]

I don't agree that national polls are pointless. Unfortunately the polls in 2008, while everyone always said they were inaccurate and didn't matter, were spot-on more often than not. We MUST get those numbers up or there is no hope.

Someone made a post earlier with stats and figures (he was trying to prove you right) but actually the statistics and poll / primary results showed that no, they are not accurate. Ron Paul averaged ~5% in the polls, and 10% in the actual primaries/caucuses.

Also, we have polls showing 5% and 13% on the same day. Proof positive that they are not accurate.

Second, the polling methodologies are statistically proven to be at Paul's disadvantage.

Third, there is a good reason why this is different from 2008: 2008, Paul didn't have a chance in hell of winning. This year, he does. You will see higher turnouts this time around, guaranteed.

The point being... the polls are inaccurate. How inaccurate? Can't say. We can try to use them as a trend... and maybe analyse some of the crosstabs for info, but as for actual relative standing compared to the other candidates? Useless. 100% useless.

The polls aren't ever going to be on our side. The primaries and caucuses are the only things that matter.

[IDefendThePlatform]

I agree with the part about the importance of the early sates. I think you underestimate the importance of Nevada--that state is actually winnable (unlike South Carolina) and out here in the western states is a much bigger deal. A lot of people out here (wrongly) view Iowa as backward redneck bumkins and winning that state, while increasing media attention, might not do much for increasing prestige.

I don't agree that national polls are pointless. Unfortunately the polls in 2008, while everyone always said they were inaccurate and didn't matter, were spot-on more often than not. We MUST get those numbers up or there is no hope.

I'll accept your criticism that maybe I'm overestimating Iowa (I do live here) but if I had to redo my percentages I still wouldn't add any to Nevada. If I had to choose one state that's the best combination of important and winnable I'd go with New Hampshire.


Also, I agree with sailingaway that consecutive 2nd place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire means that we couldn't be so easily dismissed, but I do think that would end any realistic hope we have of winning as it would almost surely be followed up by huge losses in South Carolina and Florida.

Now if we get 2nd in Iowa and then win New Hampshire, we would have a chance to win South Carolina and maybe win the nomination, IMO. Even that might not be enough to get South Carolina on board, though. We might need to win them both to prevent any establishment candidate from coalescing support.

[progressiveforpaul]

The one area that a national poll is helpful is comparing various candidates in general election match with Obama. Unfortunately the latest nbc-wsj poll compares Romney, Perry, and Cain with Obama but no one else including of course the candidate who probably polls best against Obama. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Se...tober_Poll.pdf

[bluesc]

Karl Rove just said it

"This race will be decided by organization in early states and fundraising"

Also just called out the Cain bump as being artificial haha.

[TheTexan]

The one area that a national poll is helpful is comparing various candidates in general election match with Obama. Unfortunately the latest nbc-wsj poll compares Romney, Perry, and Cain with Obama but no one else including of course the candidate who probably polls best against Obama. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Se...tober_Poll.pdf

I wouldn't even rely on those being accurate to be honest. Kinda silly to dismiss polls that are not in favor while touting true the ones that are.

(Though I do fully expect we'll smash Obama in the general... zero chance, he has.)

[brandon]

In a campaign for an establishment candidate this would be spot on. They win a couple of the first states and the media bump propels them to national victory. I doubt Ron would get that media bump even if he won all the early states. We're in a good place though.

[acptulsa]

I don't agree that national polls are pointless. Unfortunately the polls in 2008, while everyone always said they were inaccurate and didn't matter, were spot-on more often than not. We MUST get those numbers up or there is no hope.

In 2008, they agreed with each other. In 2008, the Democrats had their own primary to worry about, and lots of the Independents worried about it too. In 2008, there weren't any significant number of Democrats switching their registration under the pollsters' radar. In 2008, rat%$#@ing this election wasn't considered a do or die situation by the people behind the scenes.

Wonder why the polls don't all agree with each other this year?

In a campaign for an establishment candidate this would be spot on. They win a couple of the first states and the media bump propels them to national victory. I doubt Ron would get that media bump even if he won all the early states. We're in a good place though.

Blacking out a straw poll is one thing. Blacking out the results of a primary gets noticed.

[TheTexan]

In a campaign for an establishment candidate this would be spot on. They win a couple of the first states and the media bump propels them to national victory. I doubt Ron would get that media bump even if he won all the early states. We're in a good place though.

I'm not looking for a media bump out of the early states. Relying on the media for anything is foolish.

The point is to prove that we're in it to win it. They can make lies all day long but the truth is in the primaries.

[ZanZibar]

We win this election by winning Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Everything else falls into place after that.