• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


9% in NH

This is PERFECT. He's tied with Huck and Rudy in NH (a big show of strength considering Huck is polling near the front nationwide and Rudy was the early-on favorite) and tied in Iowa with Giuliani at 8%, beating McCain by 1%, and behind Fred only by 1%...another huge show of strength.

Let me rephrase that: of CONSISTENT strength. Everyone else but Romney's all over the map, so in my estimation it might just be down to Romney and Paul, although my voting analysis is far from accurate.

This basically shows that Ron can take on ANY candidate, and that the other candidates are not necessarily able to match Paul's ability to gain and sustain consistent numbers. Nationwide numbers are infinitely more malleable over time than individual primary states as the early states do have significant influence on what people think, hence my perception that Huckabee's supposed 'national lead' is nothing more than a mirage. Keep in mind that when Iowa really started coming out for Huckabee in the telephone polls a few weeks ago, the entire nation's perception changed virtually overnight according to those national polls. It can just as easily be turned to dust.
 
Last edited:
This is not rosy guys. We must get this to 15% before the 8th to be in the position to possibly win.
 
This is not rosy guys. We must get this to 15% before the 8th to be in the position to possibly win.

Actually, political history is littered plentifully with examples of people in Paul's position winning the 'big game' in the primaries. The fact that he's sustaining growing numbers in EVERY state as opposed to just one or two of the early primary states gives me a hell of a lot of hope that Paul's in for an excellent early primary season with huge new momentum going into February 5th. What we're seeing here is strength all around...and that's just from the 'likely voters'. Keep in mind who comprise those rolls.
 
Last edited:
Exponential growth baby!

Double figures next.

This is great news.
 
He will jump up between the 3rd and the 8th if he gets 3rd (or better) in Iowa.

We are in great shape. We are definitely better than Pat Buchanan was when he won NH.
 
It would be nice to have a huge number, but John Kerry was polling like 6% and won Iowa, and Pat Buchanan was about the same when he won New Hampshire.
 
It would be nice to have a huge number, but John Kerry was polling like 6% and won Iowa, and Pat Buchanan was about the same when he won New Hampshire.

A huge number makes you a target. Huckabee's learning that the press (both MSM and otherwise) loves to take the king of the hill down. Check out his 'peak' on the graph here (in his strongest state, Iowa, no less) if you don't believe me: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html

We're under the radar just enough to mount a strong rise just prior to the elections and ride it out. Ivers in Iowa stated that this was the plan and I have immense trust that we'll get there at the right time.
 
Last edited:
Polling at 9%-10% with REPUBLICANS before the primary puts us in great position if we can get the independent vote out in droves. That is who we should be targetting.

It'd be incredible to win Iowa, but anything 3rd Place and above is a HUGE victory for the campaign heading into New Hampshire.
 
Polling at 9%-10% with REPUBLICANS before the primary puts us in great position if we can get the independent vote out in droves. That is who we should be targetting.

The polls sample independents. Of course though it is impossible to get a proper sample weight for independents because of numerous factors (such as Hillary vs Obama in Iowa effecting the NH Republican race)...... but it still remains that they sample Independents, even if the figure is arbitrary.
 
Polling at 9%-10% with REPUBLICANS before the primary puts us in great position if we can get the independent vote out in droves. That is who we should be targetting.

It'd be incredible to win Iowa, but anything 3rd Place and above is a HUGE victory for the campaign heading into New Hampshire.



These are not Republicans....... these are Likely Republican Primary voters. There is a big difference.
 
It would be nice to have a huge number, but John Kerry was polling like 6% and won Iowa, and Pat Buchanan was about the same when he won New Hampshire.



Kerry was polling at 6% in December 2003 nationally. Kerry was significantly higher nationally be the time Iowa came around and was significantly higher in Iowa than he was nationally. Iowa also cannot be looked at through the same lenses as NH. NH is more about getting support. Iowa is more about getting out voters. EVERY SINGLE candidate has enough supporters in Iowa to win; the question is all about turnout.
 
Kerry was polling at 6% in December 2003 nationally. Kerry was significantly higher nationally be the time Iowa came around and was significantly higher in Iowa than he was nationally. Iowa also cannot be looked at through the same lenses as NH. NH is more about getting support. Iowa is more about getting out voters. EVERY SINGLE candidate has enough supporters in Iowa to win; the question is all about turnout.

Do you have a link for this info? I've always heard he was polling in single digits in Iowa before he won.
 
I don't believe these kind of polls. Ever since Huckabee started surging i have not believed in them. I don't even know a single person who likes huckabee and i don't know anyone who has been asked who they are going to vote for either. It seems liek polls where people actually have to do somthing (go out and vote or call in), ron paul always wins.
 
Back
Top