24 votes

Paul Takes Third in New LA Times Poll; Dominates Non-White Vote

Check out the new LA Times poll here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0905-po...

You can see the dataset here:

http://www.gqrr.com/articles/2666/6786_USC%20Dornsife%20Coll...

Of course, it's great that he's at third (above Bachmann) and that he's only at about half of Romney and Perry.

But the interesting thing to note is that he wasn't matched against Obama and that Bachmann was. That means that when the pollsters designed the poll, they assumed that the top three candidates were Perry, Romney, and Bachmann and so they matched those three against Obama. Their subsequent results indicate that they should have matched Paul against Obama as well as Bachmann, or instead of Bachmann. In other words, they assumed that Paul wasn't in the top three. Their results showed that Paul is in the top three.

The other interesting thing to note is that Paul dominates the other candidates in the non-white vote. And not just in the general 'non-white' category, but also in the specifically black and latino categories. He doesn't do as well among women, but he does very well among the young voters.

This is good news. Regular people need to just keep making up for where the media and pundits are excluding him. At this point, this race is about crowd-sourced and emergent social activity. Remember, in the last presidential race almost half the population eligible to vote didn't vote. I didn't vote, but I will this time. That population combined with the population that changes its vote can matter. Even for those who don't agree very much with Paul - he represents a protest vote that means something. It's the first time in a long time where there's a chance to move beyond the two-category choice that's given every four years.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They showed the results of

They showed the results of this poll this morning on KTLA's good day LA...They showed a graphic with Rick Perry then Mitt Rommney and then Michelle Bachmann...they completely ignored Ron Paul and made it look like Bachmann is in 3rd place in the poll.

So no surprise there...

So no surprise there...

Poll Manipulations

All polls are manipulative in the questions they ask, the people they poll, and the interpretation of the results, case in point, the recent USC Dornsife College/LA Times poll of California. While Ron Paul came in 3rd (1), when you drill down to the numbers some interesting things are clear. First, Ron Paul leads the republican field in crossover votes from those who voted for Obama in 2008 by 12%. Second, Ron Paul leads the independent vote by 4%. Third, Ron Paul leads the under 39 years old categories, and of the 1408 people polled the under 39 category accounted for only 428 people or 30%. The percentage of voters who voted in 2008 under the age of 44 according to the census bureau is 55% (2). The median age of Americans is 36.5 years (3), while the median voting age is 44 years (4). If a poll where trying to reflect the current voting population, than more young people should have been polled, but likely they did not have land line phones. By projecting the numbers in this poll to reflect the voting population the numbers change as follows:

_____________Poll______Projected to Reflect Voter Median Age (5)
Perry:_______22%_______14%
Romney:______22%_______8%
Paul:________11%_______25%
Bachmann:____10%_______4%

Further, to those that say Ron Paul is a racist, look at the numbers in this poll, he is ahead by 39% in self-identified black voters capturing 59% of those polled. Yet again in another poll the direct head-to-head match up of Obama vs Ron Paul was not asked, but instead Obama vs Romney, Obama vs Perry, and Obama vs Bachmann was asked.

The point is not to say that Ron Paul should have won this poll, but rather how easy and slick it is to manipulate polls.

Sources/Calculations:
1. http://www.gqrr.com/articles/2666/6786_USC%20Dornsife%20Coll...
2. http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf
3. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts
4. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/todays_med...
5. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&...

I think a lot of it has to do

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that there are a lot fewer young Republicans, so the median age of a Republican voter is going to be higher than the general median age

Rick Perry...no-show...constant victory???

I will be the first to admit that I am NOT an expert at understanding all things, politics. But I am so very puzzled but the fact that Rick Perry remains so competitive, yet he NEVER shows up at a Republican Debate!! It's kinda like a stock car race. Each car (candidate) shows up and races for the win. Rick Perry does not show up at the race track, yet he is automatically handed the checkered flag of victory???? So basically, the media is smitten by and sold out to a guy who never arrives to the show, but is always declared the victor. This is so obvious, that is STUPID-OBVIOUS!!! So, what is the next step? To figure out how to defeat a guy (Perry) who isn't even there to compete??? That's like trying to have a boxing match against the invisible man!

Robby Lane

In my hometown...

...we recently had an mayoral election. There was the incumbent, who is a Ron Paul disciple, so to speak - very fiscally conservative, and agrees on principle with RP.

The challenger was the former mayor, and was corrupt as the day is long. He was Santa Claus, promising all things to everybody.

For anybody who took the time to investigate, his record of corruption and ineptitude spoke for itself.

And here's why I bring this up: his handlers made sure he completely stayed out of the public. And despite many calls for debate, he absolutely refused to debate the RP disciple, and instead relied on pure marketing. He had the support of many special interests and just did PR stuff, but he would not dare do anything resembling a debate.

The end result: he won! The Liberty candidate loss. She had virtually no money, and despite her great record, she still lost, though by a small margin. She was trying to have a boxing match against an invisible man.

Now that he is in office, as you might expect, he's reneging on his promises. Of course, there is no money, but the sheeple believed anyway, and we're already in much more debt due to his inability to stay on budget.

The difference between this race and RP's is that RP has money, and the biggest and most passionate grassroots organization maybe of all time.

But defeating a man who doesn't show up is hard, but I sense the tide is turning against the globalists.

Rand won, and won big, and that's in the same state I live in. We shall see...

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

It's easy for Republicans to

It's easy for Republicans to fall in love with an unknown if they "look presidential" (Perry), but once he opens his mouth... the honeymoon's over.

Well, it's on the workbench...

We know there's pockets of low support, we'll have to figure out how to crack that nut. I won't make assumptions, I'm going to talk with friends who are in advertising and marketing and see what they do when asked to appeal to this demographic.

Ron Paul

Keep up the good work and pray for your success.

interesting..

RP soars among males 18-49 and among black republican voters, he also soars among single people.

The weakest are over 64 and women in all brackets.

Interesting

The weakest are over 64

Basicically the same people who voted for the bankruptcy of this country the last 50 50 years with their ignorance are now voting that way because they just can't help themselves..Pieces of Shi%

Well...

At least Ron Paul gets the good looking women.(knock on wood)

Press Release

The campaign needs to compile these various polls where Ron is winning in the younger age group(s) and tied/virtually-tied in the 18-49 overall group. They need to send out a press release to the media and declare Ron Paul the champion of the future of America/Republican Party/conservatism.

This type of information could lead to some excellent editorial pieces in different newspapers and get great spots on TV talking about why Ron Paul is bringing in the young people and how it will revolutionize American politics and policy as the old guard dies off and is replaced by this new group of people interested in liberty.

@SPENTHOM

Working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness; and this, I should say, is just the condition calculated most effectively to pique the interest of any prophet who is properly gifted with the imagination, insight and intellect

I liked this idea, so I did

Not Surprised

...to see the pollsters making those assumptions. One RINO, one bankster bought and paid for Governor, and Ron. Status quo. Nothing to see here. Pls move along now..

This tells me

It is great that educated people support Ron Paul independent of race or gender as this means we just have to keep getting the word out. The media has not been able to indoctrinate these people.

Sorry about the older folks, this may be a hard nut to crack but at least that is very positive for the future. Ron Paul is second only to Romney in the 18-49 category.

We have to get better support from woman. Any idea why woman don't like the message? Or don't they know of it?

Re: Why women do not support Ron Paul

I'm an immigrant woman from India who has lived in the United States for 20+ years, and an ARDENT supporter of Dr. Paul. Here is the problem with most women in the United States: They are taught NOT to be assertive, they are taught by society to ACCEPT the status quo and go with the flow, they are taught very early on in school to NOT rock the boat, they are taught that if they're assertive they will stand out like a sore thumb and will not have any friends. And most importantly, women are taught to dumb themselves down deliberately to fit into society, what is called the herd mentality. In fact, most women now have truly dumbed themselves down and are more interested in gossip such as the Kardashian sister's wedding than they are with important issues such as the monetary and foreign policy of the United States. Furthermore, several of my women colleagues at work for instance delusionally believe in sex appeal. Most of these women believed that Obama and Clinton were sexy and hence VERY electable. Of course my salient question to them would be: How about looking at the issues and integrity of the candidate rather than the sexiness scale? They tell ME I'm delusional. So, to answer your question: women have been indoctrinated to stop thinking critically, accept the status quo, and allowed to believe that sexiness and hotness majorly TRUMP important and vital values such as integrity, consistency, honesty, morality and steadfastness to the constitution of the United States. This is more a moral and cultural issue than it is a gender based issue. Most women I BELIEVE are not smart enough to understand Dr. Paul, let alone admire him for what he stands for. We need to desperately educate the women in this country. Dr. Ron Paul is the BEST candidate out there, the rest are ALL intellectual and moral pygmies. I hope this answers your question.

Poornima

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

An interesting read. Thanks.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

"pro-choice"

Many pro-choice women seem to object to his pro-life stance and they don't realize that he believes it should be a state issue rather than a federal issue.

I'd bet that if he clarified his position he'd pick up some of those women voters who haven't taken the time to research for themselves.

yeah, but Paul's lack of

yeah, but Paul's lack of support among women extends to Republican women, who overwhelmingly are pro life

Good point.

Perhaps it's just that he's too old and doesn't have fancy hair, or they simply don't agree with him. Maybe they don't like the idea that Ron would let the States decide the abortion issue.

I can only speculate, but I do think the "pro-life"/"pro-choice" issue is a strong factor in how women voters view Dr. Paul.

I don't have as many conversations with voters as I did last election because we live in the middle of nowhere now, but last time it seemed to be an important consideration from either "side" of the aisle.

Women, it seems, must be the

Women, it seems, must be the real focus of the campaign. Women of all ages.

Yes.

And don't forget that "the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world."

I would expect huge gains in the women vote as more and more people are educated about RP.

The challenge is the years and years of brainwashing and government indoctrination, further compounded by the fact that women are forced to work.

Back 45+ years ago, life in America was different precisely because women were largely at home and raising babies. In that America, the woman's influence was even more powerful, because she HAD TIME to stay educated on politics.

By design, both spouses are working, and this has had a direct and negative impact on Liberty.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Part of it is biology....

Generalizing here. Obviously there are exceptions, but men are programmed to be bigger thinkers - go out and tackle the environment. While women are more focused on the nest and kids. And they'll take any handout they can to keep the kids alive - they could care less where it came from and whether it's constitutional or moral.

I try to educate my wife, daughters, and MIL on Ron Paul and they are not interested. Too busy decorating the house and planting flowers.

I have pushed this education on my daughters - along with pushing them to question things and have their own careers, etc. So then a couple months ago I overheard them discussing their college classes and majors and they admitted to each other that they just wanted to marry a guy who makes alot of money so they can stay home and have babies.

There are plenty of other

There are plenty of other plausible explanations. For example, many older women were raised and received their formal education in a time when they weren't expected or encouraged to think about the "bigger issues".

But more importantly, it really isn't very useful to engage in casual speculation about a phenomena that we're simply not in a position to assess very well right now. Moreover, we gain little from speculation like this and stand to lose more than we stand to gain. Why speculate in ways that might turn off the very demographic we all wish was more interested in Ron Paul?

Let's not waste our attention and effort on divisive issues when those issues aren't critical to the main task at hand: getting Ron Paul nominated.

I will second that...

I am a female supporter of Dr Paul... and passionate about Liberty, but I have a hard time communicating with other women most of the time. Their eyes glaze over the minute I start talking about Economic or Foreign Policy.... about the same way mine do when they start going on about the latest reality star, or celebrity!

Dagny
"I don't know if the world is full of smart men bluffing
or imbeciles who mean it."

Although I will also add....

there ARE quite a few women in our C4L meetup group!!! So perhaps things aren't as bad as they feel when I am out in the general population!

Dagny
"I don't know if the world is full of smart men bluffing
or imbeciles who mean it."

What about the (conspiracy)

What about the (conspiracy) theory that the GOP is trying to push candidates they know 'won't' win because the economic cycle indicates we'll have a depression in 2013? (This is the last conspiracy theory I'll push for today)...

But that means Rand Paul will

But that means Rand Paul will be a shoe-in next time around no matter which establishment clone wins.
I don't get it...

That's a "Hide the conspiracy theory"

The conspiracy is that both the Democrats and the Republican establishments work for the same banksters - as well as the media and every other powerful organisation - but I guess we all know that by now.