Ron Paul Wins Poll Among Iowa State Students
A twenty-five member undergraduate course on survey research methods led by Dr. Bill Woodman at Iowa State University produced a poll that attempts to guage the level of participation of college student in the Iowa caucuses come January 3rd.
The results are quite satisfying. Here are some of the more relevant excerpts:
A large-scale survey of Iowa State University students (sample size was 2,185 out of 26,160 enrolled students which represented 8% of all enrolled students) showed an uncharacteristically high level of student interest in the upcoming Iowa presidential caucuses with 73% (1,589) of the respondents reporting that they were registered to vote at the time of the survey and 58% (921) of those registered to vote indicted that they intend to participate in January 3, 2008 caucuses. Looked at another way, the die may already be cast for student participation at the caucuses, as 80% (477) of those not now registered to vote indicated that they also did not intend to register on-site at the presidential selection event. A wide-ranging list of reason were given for non-participation including alienation from and disinterest in politics and a lack of knowledge about the issues and candidates.
Of those registered to vote in Iowa and planning on participating in the caucuses, more identified themselves as Democrats (47% or 436) than Republicans (31% or 289) while 21% (196) identified themselves as Independents.
Students identifying themselves as Republicans registered to vote reported that they would make the following choices among Republican candidates at the January 3, 2008 caucuses:
1. Ron Paul - 27% (104)
2. Mitt Romney - 24% (93)
3. Mike Huckabee - 15% (60)
4. Rudy Giuliani - 13% (50)
5. Fred Thompson - 10% (38)
6. John McCain - 10% (38)
7. Tom Tancredo - 2% (8)
Republican students, self identified as such, indicated that while Ron Paul was more likely to be their choice at the caucuses, the three percentage point difference was not great; meanwhile a mere five percent differentiated the next five candidates with Tancredo very far behind at a mere two percent.
When self-identified Republican students were asked whether any of the candidates in the Republican field were unacceptable their responses were:
1. Rudy Giuliani - 32% (126)
2. Ron Paul - 23% (90)
3. Mitt Romney - 20% (79)
4. John McCain - 18% (69)
5. Tom Tancredo - 16% (61)
6. Fred Thompson - 16% (61)
7. Mike Huckabee - 10% (39)
8. All are acceptable - 37% (142)
The first interesting thing about the unacceptable Republican list is that a smaller percentage of the total Republican respondents found the entire list acceptable than was the case with Democrats (37% of Republicans versus 53% of Democrats). Also, the Republican attracting the most unacceptable ratings was Rudy Giuliani (32%) who was, it turns out, nine percentage points higher than the highest negative rating among Democrats (Hillary Rodham Clinton at 23%).
The sample of 2,185 students (which represented eight percent of 26,160 enrolled students with a margin of error of +/- 1% at the 95% confidence interval) at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa was drawn between November 14, 2007 and November 19, 2007. Starting at noon on November 14, all enrolled students were sent an email message containing a link to the survey site which was open until noon on November 19, 2007.
Curious?
Where is Duncan Hunter in this list? Is he not participating in the Iowa caucuses? Are we looking at the next to dropout? Remember that once we found out that Sam Brownback didn't register for the Utah primary, it was only a couple of days later that he announced his withdrawal.
How do we
make sure these students are at the caucus??
------------
"...it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
"...it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
not so satisfied either
It's hardly comforting to see such high numbers in the unacceptable category. Maybe I'm not understanding the numbers correctly. It's almost like the two numbers negate eachother.
Actually its AWESOME!
You're looking at this all wrong.
104 students are going to vote for Ron Paul.
However the 90 who would NOT vote for Ron Paul have their republican votes split between 6 other republican candidates.
In other words, through their division, WE CONQUER ALL!
That's what's great about all these candidates running. We only need the top number of votes spread out over 8 candidates. So what we really need is 15% of the republican vote and 15% of the independent vote in these states to TAKE ALL since 30% is the highest any single candidate is polling.
Get it?
And remember if 23% of Republicans find Ron Unacceptable
Remember, these kids could have voted anyone as unacceptable.
If 23% chose Ron Paul as unacceptable, that means there is potential for the other 77% who did not find Ron Paul unacceptable.
It's all how you read the numbers.
I think the "all
I think the "all unacceptable" category contains people who have dismissed the entire GOP. I believe that this has to do with the overall dissatisfaction with the GOP in general and the lack of exposure to Dr. Paul's message. The people that they have been exposed to turn them off, and who can blame them? If they haven't heard the Paul message, they would automatically assume that he's one of the rest. Once enlightened, they will move toward the light.
www.paulforronpaul.com
I'm not too surprised by the high negatives
I think in a place like Iowa there are going to be more Sean Hannity Kool Aid drinkers than in NH. The people who would vote for Rudy McRomney really don't like Ron Paul, and they think hes unacceptable just as you and I think Rudy McRomeny is unacceptable.
Most of these are probably pro war types who drink the Kool Aid because they somehow think guys with AK's are a threat to us without realizing the only way they are a threat to us is if they come across our wide open borders. The way to at least attempt to change these peoples minds is make them realize we stopped fighting the war 3 weeks after it started. It's been a failed attempt at nation building ever since. Our border is wide open and we are no more safer now than we were when the war started due to it. Ron Paul is the only one who understands this and has the record that can be trusted to secure the border, yet still bring the hammer down on the real terrorists like Osama. Some people will listen, and some won't. You can't win everyone, but you don't have to either.
They do better than Gallup!
Just a few weeks ago one Gallup "National" Poll showed Ron at 5-6% of "likely Republican Voters." How many did they poll? The survey said it-- 394 people in a "national" poll.
At least in Iowa they are getting some substantive numbers to back their findings. I would have liked to see what the independents were thinking. And we also know that Ron is drawing from the Dem's side as well.
Still, the primaries themselves will tell the tale and no amount of polling will give us a true and clear snapshot until after those numbers and votes are cast.
i don't know how satisfied I am...
those results make me wonder if college kids have been paying attention to the debates and reading up on the candidates. Look at the number one republican candidate among women... Rudy Guiliani! God help us.
The logical approach
Just mention the fact that in 40 years of practice as an OB-GYN, Ron Paul has NEVER performed an abortion.
Never?
Nope, he mentions specifically that he has had to abort tubal pregnancies. Now these are completely necessary and fairly early, though he mentions that it does sadden him to have to do even that. I'll see if I can find links.
I am concerned with Dr.Paul's polling with women
I think I know why as I have gotten the following response from middle aged women I know.(I am middle aged so that is who I hangout with).
The first objection is he is anti abortion. I do not wish to start this debate on this thread so please refrain.
What I am concerned about is that too many women are making this negative association for the wrong reasons. We live in a busy world and no one has time to engage in a long unpleasant debate on a tough issue.
I think the campaign needs to look at this with a couple of other biggies and have the doctor explain himself in simple language that people can grab and get on with their lives.
"Dr. Paul is a constitutionalist who feels that the decision on choice belongs with each state. I can see it from another perspective also. He is a great grandfather and has had a distinguished career as an obstetrician, gynecologist and embryologist. I would see him as a hypocrite if he held another view."
I don't know if the above is any good. It is how I answered the pro life objection. His poll numbers in Iowa indicate he is doing poorly among women and I feel the issue is best if firmly and directly addressed.
The next point is eliminating the IRS. This statement must always be accompanied by: when, where and how. We all know why. My Dog knows why...that's easy.
When it was explained to me that our income tax only pays for 1/3 of our federal budget it was easy for me to make the budget reduction conclusion. We end the war, roll up the empire and we can eliminate the IRS. Real easy to understand. This was not made clear in Dr.Paul's interview with the Nevada news guy the other day and if it is not will leave people in the fog. This is not a Libertarian party nomination we are shooting for here. People do not have time to study this stuff they need an answer they can understand.
Another point is bringing the troops home. People do not understand how to do this. It is assumed there will be a disaster if we leave Iraq. I think it is important to make clear the extent of Iraqi oil revenue relative to the future of their country.They have a lot of money coming in. I think it is equally important to point out that Iraqi's can figure out their own problems and how to solve them far better than a bunch of US military personnel could ever do. In conclusion, our presence in the middle east screws up all of our relationships in the middle east. Once we are out of there, we can strive for equal footing with ALL of the countries in the middle east.
Dr. Paul brings up really big subjects that can be addressed quickly and effectively over and over again until new people can understand why we need him now.
Eliminating he DOE is a great start, why and how?
etc.
Best to all,
T
Unify
need further explanation(sp)
I understand about explaining the issues to people. Most people need it stated plain and simple so they can understand. A lot of people don't know what NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA these government organizations are or how they impact us. I know it is hard to explain, but if we can explain it in a simple way it might change people's views. I don't know if I am getting through to anyone by my explanations, maybe someone else might be able to explain it better. I just know that a lot of Americans need simple easy words and explanations to get the message across. RP is doing great at cutting all the bs and getting down to the point. He doesn't run around the topic like all of the rest of the canidates.
ps...i can't spell
Courting Women
I think your responses are fine and I share your general concern about Dr. Paul and women. Those I've spoken to respond to the basics in a big way: country doctor, delivered 4,000 babies, married 50 years, great grandfather, 5 years in the military, grew up poor, son of an entrepreneur. After that sets in the next go around contains 'lobbyists don't even bother knocking on his door,' he's called Dr. No, he's 3rd in fundraising, etc.
I find once the possibility of voting for RP is created, women respond favorably to his policy positions which are very well (and simply) iterated at the official website. After that, I tend to switch to why NOT Ron Paul.. do you want more of the same, bankrupting our children, spilling blood oversees, etc.
As for the DOE, the middle-aged women I know (are 40's middle-aged?; they seem so young) know well that the biggest piece of their property taxes funds local public education and that the DOE is a haven for bureaucrats.
-JP
The first 5 million supporters of Dr. Paul are 'early adopters.' The next 10 million will require a modified approach.
I believe the 2nd set is a little different Oldmom
I think they had a blanket list which said "mark each and any candidate you find unnaceptable here" I believe the percentages were a fraction of the total participants for each candidate.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.
~Mahatma Gandhi
100%?
I'm not good with statistics but the second set of numbers adds up to 172%. How is that possible?
If you add those numbers and divide Ron Paul's 90 by the total 667 then multply by 100, you get an unacceptable rating of 13.4%.
To me a 13.4% unacceptbility rating means that the white supremacist, anti-semite, neo-nazi smear tactic is not working.
Either that or Americans think he is those things and don't care. Yeah,that must be it.
It's possible...
...because multiple candidates can be "unacceptable" to a given person. That question allows the interviewee to provide multiple answers.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995