Bellevance
New member
C'mon people..... He's a nut!!
Yup.
C'mon people..... He's a nut!!
The reality is that the wired internet "masses" who are supporting Ron Paul are a very small part of the electorate. In 2000, the wired internet masses (Moveon.org) were in favor of John Kerry. They didn't push him over the top then either.
You are welcome to your opinion. I remain firm in mine.The entire foundation of your argument has already been thoroughly debunked. Your vaunted random polling has already firmly established it's track record of uselessness in the primaries. If you don't understand why this is to be expected, you don't understand how primaries work.
It was sufficient to secure him the party's nomination.
Your vaunted random polling has already firmly established it's track record of uselessness in the primaries. If you don't understand why this is to be expected, you don't understand how primaries work.
Count blimps?Ok, so then what method of polling should we use to determing who is winning?
That's what I've been trying to tell you; this is a primary. There is no reliable polling method to determine who is "winning" other than the results themselves.Ok, so then what method of polling should we use to determing who is winning?
No, it wasnt' the fringe internet kooks who got him the nomination. It was a combination of who else was running and most of the democratic base.
That's what I've been trying to tell you; this is a primary. There is no reliable polling method to determine who is "winning" other than the results themselves.
If you want to gauge support (which doesn't guarantee a win either) you have to count individual donors, lawn signs, rally attendance, straw poll results, and volunteers on the ground. If people are going to all the trouble to to do this stuff, you can best believe that they'll (as said in another thread) crawl over broken ice in a NH blizzard to vote for their guy.
Your average constituent, otoh, is undecided and not particularly engaged yet. Most of 'em (who bother to show up) don't make up their minds until they enter the booth. Despite what the polls tell you, nobody (not even they themselves) can tell you who they'll vote for until it comes time to actually do it.
The media, however, has to report something on the horse race, and they can't go to all the trouble to gauge support, so they gauge name recognition instead (which is completely meaningless).
This is why primaries so often result in upsets. I'm not saying that this primary will result in an upset....but I'm not sayin' it won't either.
Well, look who else is running in the Republican primaries - a Rudy "gun-grabber" Guiliani, Mitt "Taxachusetts" Romney, Mike "Give Me Any Tax!" Huckabee, Fred "Sominex" Thompson, John "Screw the First Amendment" McCain...
Here's *your* homework assignment: try the search function and find the thread where I already cited this information.Well then here is your homework assignment. Look up that last few presidential primaries and look at who was the frontrunner and how many times they actually won the nomination assuming no one else was within either the statistical margin of error or close to it.
Here's *your* homework assignment: try the search function and find the thread where I already cited this information.
The difficulty, says Clark, is that those polled represent the entire electorate, not those who will actually vote. "No one has found a reliable way of identifying those people most likely to come out to vote," explains Clark. "In general elections, people remember voting before, and you can rely on their memories. They tend to forget their own behavior patterns in previous primary elections."...
The real problem is that since polling can assess the views of a body of voters but not which of those voters will actually vote, a preprimary sampling is only an approximation of what is likely to happen. Any politician or pundit who attributes to such a poll more accuracy or importance than it can realistically have does so at his own risk.
Dr. Paul just buried himself in the debates. Painful to watch.