What if a new poll showed Ron Paul at 18% in Iowa & 23% in NH!!!
Posted December 23rd, 2007 by fight4liberty
output
How would you like to see an accurate poll come out for Ron Paul with double digit polling numbers similar to those in the above title and from a recognized polling organization? And what if the MSM reported these double digit polling numbers in Iowa and NH before they voted in those states? Would it cause a similar positive effect on the undecided and RP leaning voters in those states as it just did on you when you read the title? No question about it, right?
(NOTE: THIS IS GOING TO BE A “VOTING THREAD”. PLEASE READ AND VOTE! COMMENTS ARE HELPFUL BUT ARE NOT NECESSARY. WE NEED AT LEAST 50 MORE VOTES BEFORE DAILY PAUL GETS SHUT DOWN TODAY.)
By the MSM constantly reporting the higher polling numbers of the chosen front runners and the repeated reporting that RP “still has only single digit numbers” they are able to control the perception of the millions of people that only get their news from TV and this convinces the voters that RP doesn’t have a chance to win and then, because of the “horse race” effect which causes voters not to want to vote for someone they think can’t win, they will vote for a front runner even if they like RP.
Up until now RP HQ and we in the grassroots have been thinking that we can’t do anything directly right now to counter this MSM strategy and that all we can do is continue doing the many standard campaign activities (which are, of course, vital to do) and hope that the results in the Iowa caucuses and the NH primary will be good and that this will raise RP’s polling numbers.
But what if we could raise RP’s polling numbers before Iowa and NH so as to add some insurance that RP will do great in these states? Well, I’ve done some research recently and found out that there is one standard campaign activity that HQ is not doing. Let me quote a key paragraph from an article on Lew Rockwell’s site written by a two time past presidential campaign director of polling, “What we have today is...rigged polls. Ron Paul is running a brilliant campaign...He should be putting out a press release every day on the subject [of polls] and commissioning his own polls.” [emphasis mine]
http://www.lewrockwell.co......
The idea is to commission our own polls that are accurate in order to challenge the validity of the rigged polls. And our own polls will be accurate because they will take into account that there are going to be many voters in this election that are voting for the first time either because they are just turning 18 or because they have been disillusioned and apathetic about politics; or they are Independent voters; or voters who have switched parties to vote for RP; or voters who use only cell phones. None of these factors gets accounted for in the "scientific" polls. The press releases would contain all this information which would explain to the public why the other polls are inaccurate and answer the constant question asked by the MSM of why is RP still “low in the polls despite the fact that he has all this money” and supporters.
As you probably know Zogby (well known pollster) just the other day reported, "Ron Paul: He's going to do better than anyone expects. Look to Paul to climb into the double-digits in Iowa.” So, it’s clear that Zogby is basically admiting his own polls of 7 or 8% are wrong. In an email I received from the author of the above Lew Rockwell article he told me that he estimates RP could get as high as 20% in Iowa! And by using his estimate for Iowa I calculated that RP could get over 25% in NH!
There have been several comments made in other DP polling related threads in the last few days that are asking why don’t we do our own accurate polls? And that is exactly what we should do!
And there's no need to wait and hope the results of the Iowa caucuses and the NH primary are good enough to raise RP’s polling numbers when we can do something right now to give the voters confidence in RP’s chances to win the nomination which will cause more of them to vote for him!
So I am making this thread a “voting thread”. If the vote count goes the way I believe it will then I can tally the votes and give the results to RP HQ hopefully tomorrow or at the latest Monday and then trust that they will see the wisdom of using some of their donation money to commission a poll to be done ASAP (hopefully in time to send press releases of the poll results to the MSM a few days before the Jan. 3rd Iowa caucuses). Yes, I know that is very little time which is why I think our best bet is to try to get RP HQ to use some of the donation money they currently have rather than taking the time to try to get new donations from the RP supporters. Worst case scenario is that it doesn't get done in time for Iowa but in time for NH (and even if it can't be done in time for NH, well we can poll some of the key Super Tuesday states instead).
WE NEED AT LEAST 50 MORE VOTES TODAY BEFORE DAILY PAUL SITE GETSSHUT DOWN. IF YOU NOTICE ANYBODY HAS VOTED TWICE OR THEIR COMMENT IS DISRUPTING THE VOTE PROCESS FLAG THEIR COMMENT AND IT WILL BE DELETED.
(Note: It is only necessary for you to vote. Comments are helpful but not necessary.)
Here’s the voting questions:
1. Are you in favor of the official RP campaign using some of its present RP grassroots campaign donations to commission our own accurate polls of Iowa and NH voters and that the poll be done by an MSM recognized polling organization ASAP (hopefully in time to influence more voters in Iowa and NH to vote for Ron Paul)?
2. If RP Hdqtrs doesn’t respond favorably and promptly would you be in favor of the RP supporters taking it on as a new donation project and would you donate money to it?
PLEASE TYPE IN YOUR VOTE AS SHOWN BELOW
Title of comment: (no need to type anything in the title line unless you want to)
Body of comment:
1. Yes or No
2. Yes or No
3. Comment: “I think ..............................”
THANK YOU!
GO RON GO!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
The issue is moot
It would take too long to commission, to design, to run, and to analyze a good study from a dead stop.
In less than two weeks, we're going to get something far more valuable than any stinkin' poll; we're going to get actual voting results!
My preference is for the poll numbers to continue to track low, and then the actual results come in and -- BLOW THEM OUT OF THE WATER!
Think of the OM coverage then:
"...far better than expected...".
"...with surprising results coming in now from IA..."
"...brings into question why we didn't pick this up...."
"..What does this say about the polls we have for other states?"
"...One thing's for sure, his support is broader than we ever expected..."
I would prefer not to distract with a hastily put-together poll that might or might not overcome the severe problems of polling and that may deliver results by the eve of the actual voting, results that would anyway be immediately dismissed by many as simply self-promotion.
The key is to have real results that cannot be questioned on method.
We did it with real people with real signs covering the nation.
We did it with real dollars setting new campaign contribution records.
And we can do it again with real voters selecting Ron Paul in a real election!
Focus! Get Out the Vote!!!!! Focus!
reLOVEution,
Dennis
"The best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in nursery." - Disraeli
Yes Yes
Polls are the way the media keep the other so called second tier candidates from gaining ground. The other is ignor them. Like Tancredo. Paul has gotten press. Not to the success of Huck A Buck or Clinton, Romney, Barack, etc. They have propelled Huckaboo into the top tier by giving him recognition and saying his poll nubers were rising.
www.ronpaul2008.com
There is stewardship at the end of the tunnel my friends!
one other point...
if some don't think this is a good idea to increase support for RP, lets not do it for that, lets do it for the knowledge of RP supporters.....I personally want to know how big RP really is........if the numbers are staggering, it's going to increase the momentum, excitement and monetary support
YES YES
I agree with shock factor and keeping momentum going. Polls seem to be an influencing factor in peoples decisions. I think they would be very effective when local media news stations broadcast the news of Ron Paul polls increasing dramatically. It will get more people to research Ron Paul.
yes/yes
No and No.
A poll cannot be run by the campaign or the supporters. It would have no credibility, even less than the real ones.
But anyway a poll is just a survey of people who don't have caller ID. If the person calling me has an unfamiliar area code (Read: Is probably a telemarketer) the only time I'll pick up is when I want to practice various accents, pretend I don't speak English, or act out whatever other scenario might make the person calling my house feel very awkward. (Hello? Hel- I'M ON THE PHONE! SHUT YA MOUTH! DAMMIT WOMAN I'M ON THE PHONE! I'm sorry 'bout that, what were you saying, a timeshare, that sounds interesting.
Yes, it's an incredibl-
Just a second I just need to check one thing.
Sure that's no-
SON OF A *****, WOMAN ATE MY GODDAM HAM!
You deal with that? I said, 'I wont touch your Ice Cream, but don't you eat my Ham.' And she says, 'Okaaay I won't'. And now I look in the fridge and WHERE IS MY HAM!
I'm sorry about that sir, about the tim-
Oh this ends NOW!
WOMAN YOU ATE MY HAM! I KNOW IT'S YOU! NOONE ESE LIVES HERE!
I DIDN'T EAT YA HAM, YOU ATE YA OWN DAMN HAM!
OH YES YOU DID, AND IMA COME IN THERE AN GET IT BACK!!! AND THEN I'LL- Oh hey!!! Here it is. I LEFT IT ON THE TABLE BABY IT'S OK!!
You were saying?
click *dial tone*)
1. Yes 2. Yes 3. I wish HQ
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. I wish HQ would rise to the high standard of Ron Paul, himself, and the grassroots. This isn't a measure of intent so much as imagination and willingness to reach out and communicate.
1. No 2. No 3. It would be a
1. No
2. No
3. It would be a waste of time. The MSM would dismiss it as slanted due to the source. It would not change any minds.
vote
1. no
2. yes
commisoned new poll
#1 yes #2 yes
Yes and Yes
Good idea!
No and No
No
No
In light of what Dennis had to say as an expert, I have to vote no to both questions. Of course, he could be fudging about his expertise, but even if that were the case (I'm not suggesting that it is), he makes good points that stand on their own merit.
Regardless, I'd have to vote no simply because I'd rather see the campaign spend its money on advertising, and I'd rather that supporters donate their money to the campaign than to any side-project.
It's a nice feel-good proposal; I suspect most of the "yes" votes are knee-jerk responses to that.
-Signature-
Liberals want to be your Mommy. Conservatives want to be your Daddy. Libertarians want to treat you like an adult.
-
Stop the Thought Crimes Act (H.R.1955 / S.1959) with one click: http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10596231
NO, NO
NO
NO
In a few days there will be a Caucus and it will be obvious the polls are full of it. And, Ron Pauls numbers will rise in the polls mysteriously. It would be a waste of money.
We NEED DELEGATES AND VOTERS NOT POLL NUMBERS.
yes yes Great idea
yes
yes
Great idea
Too Hard to be "Objective"
1. no
2. no
3. As a market research with decades of experience trying to get accurate information from survey data, the assumptions underlying this topic are, to me, naive.
The problems here are just gigantic. There is no need to assume malice. Occam's Razor. Even if any malice were eliminated, we would still have the problems.
The problems here are just gigantic. You have very good people trying to get a good pulse of what is going on. And they really can't.
As a person who teaches market researchers, I see no proof that we have expertise that can overcome the problems better.
They will assume that our survey is just as flawed and biased, even if we were able to measure differently.
Our best use of resources is to get Ron Paul voters to the voting booths.
reLOVEution,
Dennis
"The best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in nursery." - Disraeli
Proposed poll
Great to have a person on board with experience in polling. I totally agree with your comments and reservations.
I am thinking that there are some very good reasons why the polls don't show the correct number for RP, e.g.
1) new young voters are not called
2) people who voted for the other party last time are not called
3) people who didn't vote last time are not called
As I understand it they only call people who voted republican at the last election (I am not suggesting any bad intentions at all)
I am therefore thinking "how can the polling method be improved to better reflect that the RP campaign is expected to have a higher number of the above voters than other candidates?"
And to answer my own question, how about calling a number of people at random and ask them:
1) "Who would you vote for out of all the republican and democrat candidates"
2) "If you haven't decided then chose from the following options:
2a) I would vote republican
2b) I would vote democrat
2c) I haven't decided yet
2d) I can't vote
2e) I won't vote
As an example, let's say all the republican candidates in total got 550 votes and 2a) got 50 votes (600 republican votes in total). If RP then got 150 votes in this poll, that would give RP 25% of the total republican votes.
As I said I agree totally with your comments and the question is therefore: Would it be possible to get a well respected polling institute to perform this poll??? Do you know anybody you could ask? Would they perform an independent poll if we could cover their costs??
Here is just a subset of the issues pollers face
(Overlap of phone numbers from different lists all considered 'current' are often only about 80%)
(30% of phone numbers change per year)
(How do you know?)
(Different numbers for family members, different numbers for personal businesses. Famous polling errors have occurred just due to this error.)
(Do not call lists have really skewed survey results.)
(More and more people have only one.)
(You can't double count them.)
(Zogby has lamented that fewer and fewer of their calls actually ever get through -- too many screening with ANI and answering machines.)
("Good" non-refusal rates used to be 40%.)
(Polls that were done just two weeks ago had 80% of respondents saying they hadn't really made up their minds yet.)
(People may not want to tell you the truth, or may want to tell you what they think you want to say.)
(How the caller asks the question (or says candidate name) impacts results.)
(Which name you mention when impacts results.)
(If multiple people in a household, how do you allocate the stated vote by the person who answered the phone?)
(People saying they will "definitely vote" have something like 50% chance of voting, depending on the race and weather, etc.)
I've said it elsewhere, this is very hard stuff.
reLOVEution,
Dennis
"The best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in nursery." - Disraeli
Thanks
Great to have you put this in perspective. The problem as I see it is that we are now entering a new phase of the race. Up til now RP has been largely ignored and this is now slowly changing (and that's great and due to very hard work and money from all involved). From now on they will start to ridicule us and RP (this has already accelerated this morning - see MTP interview). This is going to be a very ugly phase. When we get through his they will fight RP with everything they have got (including cheating and worse).
We need something to counteract all these efforts to put RP down and I think a poll is one of the best weapons we can have. After all, if we succeed in getting people behind RP that message must get out or other potential RP supporters may/will change ship.
Do you see any way we can pull this off?
yes yes
yes
yes
Poll
#1.....Yes
#2....Yes
#3...If we need to fund it ourselves we must do it QUICKLY !!!!!
1. no, 2. yes.
America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. - Ayn Rand
1. Yes 2. Yes
1. Yes
2. Yes
1- yes 2- yes 3- We need to
1- yes
2- yes
3- We need to be proactive, not just lie there and take whatever made up poll numbers they use to paint us as "fringe". The media won't be able to claim bias if we are up-front about the poll methodology and results.
yes yes good idea
yes
yes
good idea
Would it be possible
to make some well known polling company make a simple poll like this:
1) Call a number of people at random (1000 seem to be the normal number)
2) Ask who they would vote for (either party)
From this poll they could see how many voted for a Republican and how many votes for a Democrat. The percentages could then be calculated as number of votes for each candidate as a percentage of all the votes for that candidate's party.
I say, we organise ourselves and find a way to get noticed. A few suggestions:
1) we could write a lot of emails to the main polling companies
2) we could maybe find a "friendly" polling company who would do this
3) we could raise money and pay a company to do it
4) ???
This method seems to me to be one fair way that would include most of the RP supports (especially if they also call cell phones).
Thanks for the suggestion...
but it's a little hard to follow what your saying.
yes yes
yes
yes
March on New Year's Eve
I just heard about the country-wide March planned for new year's eve.
An example is in New York, get several hundreds of people with huge Ron Paul signs spread out amongst the Time's Square crowd. There will be over a million people present, and dozens of camera's broadcasting the event to millions more. Every city should have their own local TV stations covering a large celebration, WE MUST BE THERE.
Imagine a person sitting at home flipping through the coverage of New Year's Eve on TV and on almost every channel they turn to there are several Ron Paul signs in the background.
To do this we need to find out the following for each city:
1) Where are the biggest crowds going to be?
2) Where are the TV Stations going to be covering New Years?
This is off the topic.
Please just vote and make a comment about the idea of this thread it you want.
Thanks.
1 yes 2 yes 3 what could it
1 yes
2 yes
3 what could it hurt? at least, it is some ammunition
1. Yes 2. Yes 3. A fair
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. A fair poll would be a good thing for a change. Dr. Paul's results will be much better than the numbers the mainstream media and their polls show.
Please take a look at this:
http://www.pollster.com/b...
Wow!
Very complex and variable stuff. "Scientific polls"? No way!!!
Thanks.
I'm reading it.
1. no
1. no
2. no
3. A poll with "true" results will likely make no difference in the public's perception about RP. Look up "confirmation bias" in wikipedia and browse over the evans experiment, tolstoy syndrome, and myside bias subsections. I believe that single concept is one of the biggest roadblocks in our efforts to spread the truth and RPs message. And it explains why this idea, while well-intentioned, would very likely fail.
1. no 2. no Ron Paul 2008
1. no
2. no
Ron Paul 2008
Independent is better
Title of comment: (no need to type anything in the title line unless you want to)
Body of comment:
1. No
2. Yes
3. Comment: “I think we could sponsor an independent org to do the poll. If the campaign hires them, it won't be credible."
So you're saying...
...that the grassroots should get donations and hire an 'independent org" to do the poll? What is an example of an "independent org"?
clarification
I think a grassroots effort to hire a credible independent polling organization (a "known" pollster with some reputation) would be optimal. We could then make sure, with this organization's expertise and credentials, that the criteria was modern (cells, etc.) and fair (the questions, and the method of selecting people to poll) without creating an easily-attacked bias, After all, we want to know what the real number is, even if the MSM does not.
Thanks...
...for clarifying that.
1 No 2 No
1 No
2 No
Who would publish it or broadcast it?
The old media is not going to broadcast your poll when it differs from theirs.
1-no
2-no
Almost all of Zogby's polls...
...are commissioned by one campaign or another. This is very normal, and as long as its done through a major polling company it will get broadcasted.
This is entertaining
This is entertaining so...
1. yes
2. yes
Who cares? Shock factor!
Say 10% of any other candidates' suppurters show up at the caucuses and primaries. How do you think that compares to us?
I've told people that I would rip out my IV and walk from the hospital (12 miles) to vote for Dr. Paul. And I've been voting since '92 and have never voted in a primary before!
And then someone here outdid me, saying that if his legs were cut off he'd drag himself through mud to vote!
I'd put the likelihood of Paul supporters getting out at AT LEAST 90%.
People will be very surprized.
I'd up that to 98%
We are the only ones who fully appreciate what's at stake here in the primaries...I can't imagine anyone pitching in money for the campain and not want to get their moneys worth. A real Ron Paul supporter is a guaranteed voter. Take this country BACK! No excuses!
--SOB--
I agree...
...98% sounds about right!
Poll
1. Yes
2. Yes
Could the pollsters access the list of GOP voters from the 2000 election? Would probably be problematic since many phone numbers would likely have changed, but it would certainly be more representative than a list of voters who showed up to vote for Bush a year after the Iraq invasion in an uncontested primary.
yes yes yes
-----------------DO YOU REALLY WANT RON TO WIN------------------
Ron needs more than just money. Send this strategy to mail@ronpaul2008.com and also to press@ronpaul2008.com if these ideas make sense to you
www.dailypaul.com/node/14...
pls vote here. urgent!!
pls vote for ron paul, huckabee is winning here.
http://www.theiowacaucus....
No. Cannot solve the cell/no
No. Cannot solve the cell/no land line issue, unregistered before, independents and democrats. Same problem other polls have (just without removing RP's name).
No