Cruz 51,649
Trump 45,416
Rubio 43,132
Carson 17,393
Even if Rand had matched Ron's 26k votes...4th place. Even if Rand had gotten his 37k votes...4th place.
Yeah, we got our asses kicked, but it wasn't happening either way. Chin up, on to NH.
Non-violence is the creed of those that maintain a monopoly on force.
Well, your calculation only works assuming Rand would get from 8.5k voters to 37k by getting some 30k non-caucusgoers to vote for him, but the more "realistic" scenario would be that Rand would get the bigger part of that 30k from ppl who voted for Trump, Cruz, Rubio, so he would have had a good shot to become 2nd with 37k votes.
Anyways, on to NH.
I'm a bit of a statistical junkie. I like to analyze or sum up polling or voting data. That doesn't mean that I believe all the pollmakers - I simply dont know most of the time if they counterfeit their data because of an agenda or not. It's just the only data I have to work with.
And I love the message of liberty!
Polls were much more accurate than we all thought. Trump has been pulling 30+ strongly in NH. No one even close as of Saturday. I know things will tighten, but I'm not really encouraged today that in one week he collapses.
The wisdom of Swordy:
On bringing the troops home
Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
On fighting corruption:
Fascism Defined
right . . . if 37k votes, which would have won in previous years they would have been drawn from Rubio and Cruz especially.
lots of Democrats might have voted in the GOP side of the caucus
Who's we, pail face?
The polls have been historically accurate every year, save for one wild card candidate. This year it was Rubio as the wild card
Yes. Against my better judgement I slipped into the hope that perhaps they were wrong. Many people here hoping that Rand would win thought the polls were off. That was also the narrative Rand went with for the last quarter.
The wisdom of Swordy:
On bringing the troops home
On fighting corruption:
Fascism Defined
Regarding Rand, they were pretty accurate (Pauls RCP average was 4.1, in the end it was 4.5), but for others candidates they werent that much.
Rubio: RCP 16.9, in the end 23.1, not a single poll had him so high, and only one came even close
Trump: RCP 28.6, in the end 24.3, only one poll of the more recent ones had him at 24 or lower.
The other candidates were more or less in the margin of error to their polling data.
I'm a bit of a statistical junkie. I like to analyze or sum up polling or voting data. That doesn't mean that I believe all the pollmakers - I simply dont know most of the time if they counterfeit their data because of an agenda or not. It's just the only data I have to work with.
And I love the message of liberty!
the polls were off...but the polls also manipulated public sentiment.
everyone wants to say they voted for the winner like this is the kentucky derby.
Rand had some fourth place finishes like Johnson County with 9.6%, and all the third place finishes by Trump kinda show the polls were wrong to me -
this is a Trump loss which polls didn't show.
I think many of us aren't so much disappointed that we were crushed--it's that the campaign narrative had led us to believe there was a very serious path to victory.
I was always suspicious of the 10,000 Student program, but the campaign made such a convincing pitch between it and the 37k identified voters/1 million phone calls.
I'm really curious as to what the heck happened.
I feel like a real schmuck on Facebook right now since I bought into the narrative.
"Freedom, then Pizza!" - Oklahoma State GOP Convention 5/11/2012
Not me. I knew they were close and expected Rand to finish 5th. I thought 7%, it was 5%.
He is going to lose even worse in NH unfortunately. That will probably be the end of this campaign.
"'m really curious as to what the heck happened."
What happened is they blew smoke up yours, mine and everyone else's arses to keep us engaged in the campaign because the public polling was so terrible. They wanted people calling. Otherwise there really would have been a lot of apathy towards the campaign.
I asked kbs specifically if the campaign had the names and commitments of the thousands of Iowa college students that were going to caucus for Paul. He said yes.
Well, if that was true a lot people broke their word. But they're human and thus they're fickle and obviously they didn't see any reason to fulfill that pledge because they didn't think Rand was going to win.
You can't expect the polls to be perfect. They did show Rubio trending up at the very end. A lot of people don't decide until the day of the caucus which is impossible to capture in advance. The candidates where most of their supporters had likely already made up their mind in advance are the ones with the most accurate polling, like Rand.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
I got hooked as well. I think they were using it as media repellent. Rand has been fighting this narrative since June that he has first an unhappy campaign, and then his poll numbers started dropping. Polling science is predictive by nature and uses elements of the past to predict the future. So when the pundits say that the youth vote typically is not there they mean that young voters are a small minority of participatory. So accurate samples would not include many young voters. He was forced to counter with the "young people are under represented" narrative.
I wasn't a fan of MOE's above 4, and I think polls were incorrectly relied upon to drive the narrative about candidates. Allowing the voters to help us out with that would have been preferable to the 2 hour sound bite extravaganza that the debates turned out to be. At the end of the day, Rand seems to have painted himself into a corner.
Now I think he should fly his Libertarian freak flag, pretend that he is the only one in the Republican race and focus on his solutions to counter the Democrats.
The polls were not accurate - the age demographics were off which would have boosted them up a bit for Rand. They only polled 5-10% Ron Paul voters when over 20% voted for him in 2012, that is not an accurate compositions of voters. Over 26% of cell phones polled in one poll went for Rand - the question is why didn't they vote for him? Polls create perception. The low polling was a self-fulfilling prophecy and drove down Rand's totals. People are more likely to poll for who they want to win but once the election comes around many will vote strategically against a candidate whom they don't want to win, and that is at least partially what we saw last night.
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
Ben Carson is on the war path after Cruz campaign had a coordinated effort at the caucus sites to claim Ben Carson had quit and went back to Florida.
Ben Carson called Cruz' victory tainted
That sounds pretty accurate to me. Almost half of the voters this time didn't vote last time. I'm guessing a lot of Ron Paul voters stayed home.
What happened is Rand was trying to come in on one engine, and kept selling us on that one engine, and the engine failed.
Stepping back in hindsight, we can see that basing a campaign strategy on the one voting demographic that is the least reliable to turn out, was a dicey losing proposition. Young people know how to date, and know how to party, and that's about it. They are not reliable about turning out to vote, and unless you conduct an aggressive absentee or early voting campaign that takes care of most of the steps for them, or literally drive them to the precinct center, they just won't vote. We have gone three times to the well on this, and failed, thus it's time we abandon the notion that merely getting young voters to 'pledge' to show up, will make them show up.
Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 02-02-2016 at 12:20 PM.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
Which points out the real issue. Whether the original RP base was cut in half by Rand, or was too soft to begin with, it needed to be built on, but Rand (and perhaps Ron as well) was unable to. And you can't win the nomination unless you attract a major voting bloc. The opportunity was there to engage the evangelicals, the anti-establishment folks, the Tea Party, etc, but it wasn't taken.
Perhaps the issue is that Pauls are stellar liberty statesmen who managed to get elected in their states, but were not, and are not great national liberty candidates. Perhaps we should field someone from our ranks with full-fledged liberty views who happens to be an evangeical, Tea Party friendly, and overtly anti-establishment, in the cycles going forward.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
Seeing these numbers make me sick. That size of the turnout is stupid in comparison to what we deal with normally.
R party is a lost cause. If I go 3rd party they may not have a chance but at least I don't have to associate with the jokes within the R party.
Polls do influence perception but it would be ridiculous to put forward that the polls can just spit out whatever number they want and that the actual results will magically follow the poll. There is no reason to think that many polling agencies are colluding. Voters' attitudes of the candidates are heavily influenced by the MSM or really *any* media. Poll results are just one piece of that.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
Yup, Rand was the GOP's best chance of surviving the next generation if they would follow his lead. I'll be happy to watch the party get rejected like it should. Just too bad the other party is also bad.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
Damn Rand killed it!
My question would the number and frequency of them. And I still don!t like huge MOE's and sample sizes that are too small. Pollsters have become very important in the political class and the media manipulating results to support a particular narrative is disengenuous . The high road for the RNC would be to figure out an equal playing field for debates and then limit the polls, or not even get involved with it. Ultimately, with the way we use technology I think you have one main primary and then perhaps a run off and be done with it.
I would suggest the standing ovation effect. Polls can, and I believe do, drive that to some degree...along with cable news. It's not your granddaddy's politics anymore.
I think many voted Trump or moved away as well.
Poll companies answer to the clients who sponsor them, usually the media. Those organs approve of the pollster's questions, topics and persons raised, and sampling criteria. Is it accidental that every poll sponsored by the MSM (over seven months) under-sampled each demographic group that could have possibly supported Rand, thereby keeping his poll numbers lower than they might have been?
How about in 2007, when nearly all the polls, conducted across that year for different media organizations, somehow all left out Ron Paul's name as an option? The odds of that being accidental are more remote than, well, winning six coin tosses in a row. The most likely explanation is that the major media agreed upon the same guidelines for using polls to suppress Paul's representation in the polls, plain and simple. The MSM then used those low numbers as cover to ignore Paul, or limit his coverage and debate time---and this loss of publicity went on to ensure low actual results for Ron and Rand in the primaries.
Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 02-02-2016 at 03:14 PM.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
I'm not sure if there is much choice in that matter. It is very sadly true that far too many people - possibly 90% - vote based on a perception of who is going to win. As there is no feasible means for the campaign to have "led US" in a different direction than the sheep, I'm not sure what choice they have in that matter. Perhaps it would help to have talking points insisting that people 'vote their conscience' and explaining how the MSM manipulates perception of victory to determine the victors.
Also, I don't have a problem with the civil liberties / young-minority voters strategy. I wish it was expanded. The only thing I think he could have done differently is run hard against the AMA (including license mandates) and Big Insurance and Big Pharma (import restrictions and the connection to the war on drugs and the war on pain relief). He ought to have called out HARD the GOP as the Obamacare/Medicaid/Medicare/COBRA/drugwar/licensing/insurance pushing morons that they are. Called out the biggest corporate bailout yet.
This is, IMO, weak:
https://randpaul.com/issue/health-care
Healthcare and its tie-ins to our personal budgets, civil liberties, national debt could have been HUGE.
As far as seeking out the Christian/Evangelical votes?! If there is a hell, 97% of them deserve to burn in it. $#@! them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us