Replies

>> Please explain why Paul has won most straw polls and Internet polls but somehow continually places at the bottom in traditional polls?

Because the polling sample in internet polls and straw polls are not randomized or representative. A relatively small number of Paul supporters, who are unquestionably enthusiastic, can flood internet and straw polls and skew the results.

>> Also explain why there is always a large percentage that vote “undecided” in these polls.

Because they answer “undecided”. Ron Paul’s name was a given choice - and they still answered “undecided”.

>> I don’t know what polls you’re looking at, but Paul’s name (and the same for Hunter & Tancredo) isn’t even on these polls.

Earlier in this thread I gave Paul’s numbers in a half-dozen different scientific polls. His name is on the questionnaire (otherwise they wouldn’t have had results to give).

>> The big polling firms such as Gallup & the networks/newspapers only poll registered or likely voters.

They do so, not by only calling those voters, but by polling all people they call as to whether they’re likely to vote in the primary. Like I said, my father was polled by Rasmussen a couple of weeks ago ... their first question was “How likely are you to vote in the primary election?” ... “Very Likely, Likely, Not likely, very unlikely”. That is how they determine “likely voters”. I see no reason to think Paul supporters are answering that they’re not likely to vote.

>> Paul’s supporters are affluent yuppies and suburban types who only use their cellphones. So the poll results are flawed to the point of inaccuracy.

You’ve shown no evidence to support either of these sentences. You’re making this stuff up in the hopes that you can discredit scientific polling that is showing Ron Paul making little headway in communicating to the public. Most of the Paul supporters I’ve run into are wacko college kids - not yuppie suburbanites. And, I’m a suburban voter - I know quite a few yuppie suburban people.

>> “About 13 percent of all households in the country have “cut the telephone cord” in favor of cell phones, according to federal figures released last month. That puts this group out of reach of traditional surveys that rely heavily on calls to standard landline phones.”

... blah, blah, blah. None of this says anything to support the contention that the inability to reach cellular phones in polling would have a particularly detrimental effect on Ron Paul ... which, incidentally, is the contention that I called a “wild-ass guess”. I know polling companies can’t call cell phones ... I just don’t see where that would hurt Ron Paul any more than any other candidate.

>> Can statisticians determine why one set of polls wrong but the other is right?

Yes.

>> You would get a more accurate poll if more people participated in an open internet poll rather than a poll that calls people and half the time get hung up on or doesn’t get an answer.

Nonsense.

>> So that $5.3 million Paul raised last quarter? The volunteers donating their time and money to Paul?

Paul’s fundraising was impressive for a bottom-tier candidate ... but lets put this into perspective. Thompson raised more than DOUBLE that ($12.7M), Giuliani doubled that ($11.6M), Romney had almost doubled that ($9.9M). Hell - John McCain ($5.7M) raised more money than Paul ... and nobody in their right mind considers McCain a “frontrunner”.

Those are frontrunners. Those are “volunteers donating their time and money”. Ron Paul’s $5.3M was impressive because it was unexpected ... but he’s still trailing the actual frontrunners by a HUGE margin.

>> (The other GOP candidates do not have this type of grassroots support)

Apparently they do. They’ve outraised Paul. They’re outpolling Paul. Their support is dwarfing Paul’s.

>> So how is Paul staying in the race then?

He’s spending less than he’s bringing in. He’ll be around for the long haul (possibly to prepare for a 3rd party bid) ... but his support is statistically insignificant for the GOP Primary.