Ron Paul: why he could win.
- Thread starter Danzig
- Start date
- Status
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Basic math backs me up. If there are 100 people. 50 propose X 50, propose Y and you can only ask 50 how can you besure you are asking 25 from each side? You can't. All things said and done. Ron Paul support truely does sell it's self. There are still a few weeks to go until the primaries. We'll see what happens then. Until then I'm still waiting for absolute such as was promised by Thumper. If such is presented I might change my mind. But until then I am not making any oppinions based on educated quesses such as polling agencies.
Surefire_U2
New member
I appreciate that Mr. Paul is for the 2nd admendment...
But, this guy strikes me as a serious nutcase. He's so far extreme on every issue that there is no middle ground.
CNN broadcasts the debate tonight, and I found it very hard to take this guy seriously.
I'm leaning towards Huckabee or to a lesser degree Thompson based on the debates I've watched.
But, this guy strikes me as a serious nutcase. He's so far extreme on every issue that there is no middle ground.
CNN broadcasts the debate tonight, and I found it very hard to take this guy seriously.
I'm leaning towards Huckabee or to a lesser degree Thompson based on the debates I've watched.
Notice how carefully he phrased his response; "most" national polls? There's a reason for that. Yesterday it was "all" national polls.
The detractors are beating a dead horse. They're outta gas for their assertion that he "can't" win, so they just keep redefining what it takes to win. Every time he crosses the line, they just move it again. And of course, not a single one of 'em knows a blessed thing about primary politics.
They'll stay in denial for as long as they can, but it's becoming increasingly evident who's got their head in the sand.
When a candidate steps into the lead for fundraising, maintains the largest nationwide ground presence, draws the biggest crowds, and establishes complete dominance in everything except the single least historically reliable gauge...and they still deny the possibility that it might mean something, you know they're being intentionally obtuse.
There are some huge plans afoot this month; publicity stunts that will eclipse everything done up to this point. With the increasing media attention will come increasing poll numbers. Then all of a sudden they're not gonna like their random polling so much.
Unregistered
Moderator
One thing that is not taken into account by telephone polling is the level of motivation a person has for a candidate. I do not believe the average Romney or Huckabee supporter is as fired up about their candidate as the average RP supporter is.
So, if on primary day, it rains, or snows, or the car is low on gas, or there is something interesting on TV, I think a lot of supporters for Huckabee and Romney will just stay home. But the Ron Paul supporters will go to the polls despite the conditions.
For that reason, I think Ron Paul will do about twice as good as the polls predict, but I still don't think it will be enough to result in victory.
So, if on primary day, it rains, or snows, or the car is low on gas, or there is something interesting on TV, I think a lot of supporters for Huckabee and Romney will just stay home. But the Ron Paul supporters will go to the polls despite the conditions.
For that reason, I think Ron Paul will do about twice as good as the polls predict, but I still don't think it will be enough to result in victory.
Drew Ivers' educational background is genetics. It seems he's played a perfunctory role in local (state) campaigns.
He also happens to be your local (Iowa) campaign chair for Ron Paul.
Interesting appeal to authority, but what were you hoping to achieve by letting us in that Dr. Ivers, who "knows a thing or two about primaries" has shown you the "ins and outs?"
Are you saying that you expect Ivers to be able to deliver your own state?
This is a yes or no question.
He also happens to be your local (Iowa) campaign chair for Ron Paul.
Interesting appeal to authority, but what were you hoping to achieve by letting us in that Dr. Ivers, who "knows a thing or two about primaries" has shown you the "ins and outs?"
Are you saying that you expect Ivers to be able to deliver your own state?
This is a yes or no question.
unregistered,
That's just a tiny part of it, but it's a factor (right along with calling people on a landline in the first place when they're getting ready for dinner), but that's not the major flaw.
The major flaw is that they have to take a wild stab at who's a "likely" caucusgoer. This is what separates a primary from a general. There is no way to accurately gauge what will fall out of a primary because there's no way to accurately gauge who's gonna show up. The only thing that can be predicted with any certainty is that it's a different crew than last time, and unfortunately for the pollsters that's exactly what their model is based on. This goes double this year, when the caucuses have been moved to a new date right at the end of the holidays during crappy weather and people can register and participate right on the spot.
Caucus states are even worse than primary states in this regard because each campaign has the opportunity to make a pitch to the assembled voters immediately before the polling.
Primaries are a free-for-all, and the worst place to be in an early state is "polling well" with no organization. The goal is to exceed expectations. Falling short is death.
So long-short the Paul campaign doesn't have to win Iowa to get the media hype (which is really what early states are all about).
That's just a tiny part of it, but it's a factor (right along with calling people on a landline in the first place when they're getting ready for dinner), but that's not the major flaw.
The major flaw is that they have to take a wild stab at who's a "likely" caucusgoer. This is what separates a primary from a general. There is no way to accurately gauge what will fall out of a primary because there's no way to accurately gauge who's gonna show up. The only thing that can be predicted with any certainty is that it's a different crew than last time, and unfortunately for the pollsters that's exactly what their model is based on. This goes double this year, when the caucuses have been moved to a new date right at the end of the holidays during crappy weather and people can register and participate right on the spot.
Caucus states are even worse than primary states in this regard because each campaign has the opportunity to make a pitch to the assembled voters immediately before the polling.
Primaries are a free-for-all, and the worst place to be in an early state is "polling well" with no organization. The goal is to exceed expectations. Falling short is death.
So long-short the Paul campaign doesn't have to win Iowa to get the media hype (which is really what early states are all about).
Oh, don't be shy. Tell us why anybody should give any credence of your view of "how primaries work" (which, not incidentally, you have yet to provide).
Also, your posted link (Kerry leading) is obviously misleading to those of us who know what we're talking about. For those that might not be aware, the text from your link:
It seems our dear friend is trying to pull a fast one. Why would you attempt to deceive us with such a blatantly misleading citation?
Also, your posted link (Kerry leading) is obviously misleading to those of us who know what we're talking about. For those that might not be aware, the text from your link:
And for those of you who don't know, this is what the polling looked like exactly 4 years ago today in that race:
Source:ZogbySUSAResults
It seems our dear friend is trying to pull a fast one. Why would you attempt to deceive us with such a blatantly misleading citation?
Your table is much better at making my point. Where would your boy be in that poll?
Current zogby poll wouldn't even show him in the snippet you provided, would it? He's TWO PLACES out of your poll.
Hey, who was in sixth place in your example, by the way? You cut that information out...probably by accident.
And did you really just link to dailykos? I'm afraid your leanings might be showing a bit...
Current zogby poll wouldn't even show him in the snippet you provided, would it? He's TWO PLACES out of your poll.
Hey, who was in sixth place in your example, by the way? You cut that information out...probably by accident.
And did you really just link to dailykos? I'm afraid your leanings might be showing a bit...
Your math isn't off. You're simply lying. Blatantly. Verifyable at the Rasmussen site:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...idential_election/iowa/republican_iowa_caucus
Another poor attempt at obfuscation...why did you compare a Rasmussen Poll when you originally posted a Zogby poll, anyway? Do you understand the difference?
Again I ask my question...who was sixth in the Zogby poll you quoted from 2004?
Excuse me? Now you're directly insulting me.
Please post where the numbers in that link disagree with what I've quoted or retract the accusation with an apology.
Because the Rasmussen poll is the most recent one I found? If Zogby releases a poll today I'll certainly post it instead.
Lieberman at 2%(which of course has nothing to do with nothing).
- Status