Yes. From the interviews he was giving on the news, the entire main floor as well as everything behind the camera was full. Could he have done this for a PR moment, sure.
You wouldn't happen to have these interviews linked on youtube or something, would ya? The stills I posted are from his own website and they show conclusively that he did not fill the stadium, let alone for a week. Just sayin'; a Monkees reunion tour could have filled the place better than this.
Of course, this really is a huge distraction from the main question of whether Romney, Guliani, and the other main republicans have "grassroots" support. Of course they do.
I was at the Iowa straw poll. I didn't see no steenkin' "grassroots support" for him. It's not "grassroots" if you have to pay for it. He and the other "main Republicans" may have someone somewhere who qualifies as grassroots, but it's nothing compared to what the Paul campaign has. These people are waving signs in the rain, paying for campaign materials out of their own pockets, hanging signs from bridges, and yelling themselves into heat stroke. *That's* grassroots. Paul's got it to the tune of over 50,000 volunteers in over 1,000 locations. The others don't.
The reason it doesn't seem like it does is because the ONLY thing Paul has is grassroots support.
Not true. He's also #3 in net assets and #1 in the straw polls.
You can't win elections on that alone.
I agree with you here. It takes votes to do that. Votes that are generated by shoe leather and money. He's doing just fine on both counts.
National polls are the msot accurate method of determining primaries. Look at all of the presidential elections since Bush the elder and look at the polls a month before the election.
I have. That's the problem. Even predating Bush Sr. the national polls have an incredible record of picking who
won't win. I can't find enough data to analyze the track record of aggregate straw polls or chickens pecking at levers, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the dismal performance of national polls in primaries isn't difficult to exceed. It's like proclaiming a skinniest kid in fat camp.
Random polling has a fatal flaw in primaries; it has to be weighted. Somebody has to guess who's gonna show up to vote and *surprise* they always get it wrong in primaries. They assume that the same people are going to show up as last time and they will vote the same way....except they never do.
Random polling in primaries is a fiction. A useless statistic for measuring the horse race that has no bearing on reality. It's based on a guess that's always wrong.
Straw polls have random polls beat hands-down in this regard; there's no guessing about who showed up. The participants will almost certainly vote in the primaries....but who else will join them?
Truth is
nobody knows what's going to happen until the end of the primaries. For all we know, the next Republican candidate could be Keyes.
Here's what I do know: The Iowa straw poll has a 50% success rate for predicting the Republican nominee. The national polls can't even exceed that. Therefore, national polls are *not* the most accurate predictors. They're good for gauging name recognition and nothing else.
So save your random polling for the general election. It works reasonably well there.