Ron Underperformed the Polls....Again

[Nathan Hale]

Okay, in two states now (SC and FL), the polls leading right up to the election had Ron polling 4-5% higher than his final tallies in the actual election. I find that metric to be, well, weird - because if anything, Paul is the kind of candidate to outperform his polls. Attrition between polls and voting is usually greater among the other candidates because Paul's are more dedicated, at least that's what I thought. Any ideas why we see this new, unnerving, trend?

[fisharmor]

...The votes are rigged?

Seems like the obvious answer....

[Jeremy]

Because undecideds don't go for Paul in the end.

He overperformed in NH, though.

[Tonewah]

His numbers are the only ones to drop as the precincts come in. His numbers always start about 4 or 5 points higher than at the end of the count. Like in Iowa where he went from first, with 25%, through almost half of the vote count, to 3rd after "all" the votes were counted.

[Perry]

Best guess- pot smokers will answer their phones and say that they'll vote for Paul but they're too scared to leave their house and vote.

Sorry ahead of time.

[ronpaulhemp]

It could be some weird metric they're using just to artificially pump up Ron Paul's numbers to make him look worse when he loses by 4-5%+ more than they "expected."..not likely lol, but I can't think of anything else.

[Mark37snj]

It's the Diebold factor. We will do better in the caucuses.