CNN poll, Dr. Paul up to 2%

[Lord Xar]

I have GOT to look into the details of how they are doing these polls. 99.5% of the remarks I see on the internet about Rudy are negative at best and usually venomous. He literally has no significant support anywhere that I look. So who the hell are they polling? People living under rocks or what?

Personally, I think these polls are fixed.

hahahha.... I am starting to think we are GIVEN the choices based on "what they want us to choose"... so of course they will say Guilani is up there.. He supports North America Union and amnest etc... (he will fold just like Bush).

 

[Tim724]

Amazing to see Romney fading so fast.

I remember in the CNN debate when Romney was asked why he ran ads in spanish if he thinks english should be the official language of the US. He got really flustered and went off on some half-baked pseudo-inspirational speech about making America great that had absolutely nothing to do with the question asked.

After seeing that, I had a feeling Mr Slickster was going to crash and burn before 2008.

 

[kalami]

I didn't follow the race early one, but why was Romney such hot stuff? The guy polls really high, but I've never heard of him before he ran for president. I could understand Giuliani and McCain because of their name recognition, but what's the deal with Romney?

 

[Harald]

Check http://mittromney.permissiontv.com/index.html.
Especially "Ask Mitt Anything" sections. The guys is very very slick

 

[torchbearer]

I didn't follow the race early one, but why was Romney such hot stuff? The guy polls really high, but I've never heard of him before he ran for president. I could understand Giuliani and McCain because of their name recognition, but what's the deal with Romney?

He got MSM recognition as a 'top tier' candidate, so people followed the blessing of the MSM to research the 'top tier' candidates, and not bother looking at the other 'second tier' candidates because 'that would be a waste of your time because they can't win' et al.

 

[Tighe]

For those who say they will support Guiliani, McCain or Hiliary, I would like to see how many of those same people have ever even heard of the Federalist papers or how many of them could even find Iraq or Iran on a map. I think you'll find most of them know very little about either and he lies the problem with mass demoCRAZY. This is what we're up against, a mob of uninformed voters and a controlled media that tells the mob what to think.

 

[torchbearer]

Don't you pawn mobs in WOW?
(if you can understand the above statements, you might be a gamer)

 

[Bradley in DC]

I didn't follow the race early one, but why was Romney such hot stuff? The guy polls really high, but I've never heard of him before he ran for president. I could understand Giuliani and McCain because of their name recognition, but what's the deal with Romney?

Romney is a good businessman from a solid, Republican family. He "saved" the Salt Lake City Olympics after the scandals, lost a Senate race against Ted Kennedy then won the governorship there.

People we should ALWAYS try to be positive and polite. Think and ask yourself, "What would Ron Paul do?" We need to win over friends and make allies.

 

[PatriotOne]

I didn't follow the race early one, but why was Romney such hot stuff? The guy polls really high, but I've never heard of him before he ran for president. I could understand Giuliani and McCain because of their name recognition, but what's the deal with Romney?

Because the polls are done in Utah maybe? Who knows! Since I'm a firm believer that the polls are fixed, it's kind of a moot question for me anyways. I only worry about the so-called scientific polls because many people still believe they are a true reflection of popularity and will choose amongst and vote for one of the candidates they think actually has a chance according to the damn things.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Because the polls are done in Utah maybe? Who knows! Since I'm a firm believer that the polls are fixed, it's kind of a moot question for me anyways. I only worry about the so-called scientific polls because many people still believe they are a true reflection of popularity and will choose amongst and vote for one of the candidates they think actually has a chance according to the damn things.

There are polls, and then there are polls. They are not "fixed" but can be skewed. Polling has come a long way. One thing to look for is who commissioned a poll and see if you can look at the actual polling questions. One, internal polls commissioned by a campaign (think Richardson in Iowa now) can be written to show what you want them to show. Which brings us to, two, lead in questions (would you be more or less likely to support Dr. Paul if you knew he were racist) which is why if you can see the polling questions then you know what's up. Lead in questions are fine, for what they're worth, and are used to test messages before buying ads, etc. Three, "push" polls aren't really polls at all but aim to steer opinion (inappropriate lead in questions).

 

[Aeschylus]

I don't know if Ron Paul will win the primary or not but these polls are not legit. Pollsters only being able to call land-lines is a huge deal. There is a recent poll that shows that the American people's belief that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 has increased. Think about what could cause this. The land-line is a dinosaur.

 

[PatriotOne]

There are polls, and then there are polls. They are not "fixed" but can be skewed. Polling has come a long way. One thing to look for is who commissioned a poll and see if you can look at the actual polling questions. One, internal polls commissioned by a campaign (think Richardson in Iowa now) can be written to show what you want them to show. Which brings us to, two, lead in questions (would you be more or less likely to support Dr. Paul if you knew he were racist) which is why if you can see the polling questions then you know what's up. Lead in questions are fine, for what they're worth, and are used to test messages before buying ads, etc. Three, "push" polls aren't really polls at all but aim to steer opinion (inappropriate lead in questions).

Yeah..I agree. It's just out of lazyness that I use the term "fixed".
They aren't that blatant about it because they can get the desired answers through manipulation using the questions themselves or a sort of caging technique prior to making the phone calls.

Then there are the polls that are so bold as to not even include RP in the list of candidates!

So many battles to fight, so little time........sigh

 

[Bradley in DC]

Pollsters only being able to call land-lines is a huge deal.

No one knows how big a deal it is--that is the point. The pollsters are aware of the issue. The important thing is reaching the appropriate number of selected demographics (gender, geography, age, party affiliation, etc.). Whether one is land line or mobile is irrelevant if the demographics in the sample match the general population.

The more questions on a poll and the longer the questions, the more money it costs. When you pay for your own poll, you can add as many names as you like.

 

[hells_unicorn]

No one knows how big a deal it is--that is the point. The pollsters are aware of the issue. The important thing is reaching the appropriate number of selected demographics (gender, geography, age, party affiliation, etc.). Whether one is land line or mobile is irrelevant if the demographics in the sample match the general population.

The more questions on a poll and the longer the questions, the more money it costs. When you pay for your own poll, you can add as many names as you like.

The entire philosophy behind public polling is quite suspect, if it measures the opinion of the same public that it informs, it puts the poller in a state of power that makes me uneasy. The entire concept is based on the concept that human beings rely on group think rather than function as individuals, it is it's own end in addition to the means to an end.

I am one of several individuals who has openly refused to be polled because I don't support what it perpetuates, and that is group think.

 

[Bradley in DC]

The entire philosophy behind public polling is quite suspect, if it measures the opinion of the same public that it informs, it puts the poller in a state of power that makes me uneasy. The entire concept is based on the concept that human beings rely on group think rather than function as individuals, it is it's own end in addition to the means to an end.

I am one of several individuals who has openly refused to be polled because I don't support what it perpetuates, and that is group think.

As I explained previously, there are polls, and then there are polls. For example, I worked for the Tarance Group, a Republican polling company (on a side note, it was through a consultant on a campaign of theirs that I got my connection with Ron Paul's campaign). They team up with Celinda Lake's (Democratic) group for the "Battleground" poll which does an excellent job reflecting public opinion. For example, rather than just ask if someone is a "likely voter" they ask a series of questions (are you registered to vote, do you know where your voting place is, did you vote in the last election, etc) and determine if you are one based on how many of the questions one answers (no, they don't check to see if you got them right).

Since there are some intensely interested in polling, a little trivia: The Republican polling and media companies are clusted in Old Town, Alexandria (VA) and the Democratic counterparts are concentrated in Georgetown (DC).

 

[LibertyCzar]

Taking these numbers at face value, do you realize that five candidates polled lower than Ron Paul, and are going to be at the Forum on Saturday? And they claim Ron Paul is not viable. Geez! And this is before CNN even knows about the fundraising for the quarter.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I tend to look at poll #'s this way: media says Pauls at 2-3% of republicans, what about all the anti-war dems, constitutionalists, libertarians, independents, non-voters that we are picking up; plus I'd say that most meetup groups consist of maybe ten percent republicans, so in reality the support could be anywhere from five to ten times higher than the bullshit poll numbers, thus ten to twenty percent already. Does anyone else feel me on this?

 

[kylejack]

I tend to look at poll #'s this way: media says Pauls at 2-3% of republicans, what about all the anti-war dems, constitutionalists, libertarians, independents, non-voters that we are picking up; plus I'd say that most meetup groups consist of maybe ten percent republicans, so in reality the support could be anywhere from five to ten times higher than the bullshit poll numbers, thus ten to twenty percent already. Does anyone else feel me on this?

No. Almost all of these polls ask for likely Republican primary voters rather than currently registered Republicans, which could include all of those people.