Drudge - CNN Poll - SC - Ron Paul 11%

[Daveforliberty]

This is with TRADITIONAL Republican voters. That leaves out independents, new Republicans, young people with cell phones or VOIP phones, Libertarians, Democrats, and people who've never voted before. We are polling above the numbers in all states and nationwide, guaranteed, because of those factors. The question is how much. Since most (I believe) voters in NH are independents, the polling could be more severely off there than anywhere else.

----------------------
Libertarian Girl
http://www.libertariangirl.com

You are correct on all of the above, of course. That only adds to the polling argument. I don't know the rules in SC (anyone?), but even if it's a closed primary, Ron should do way better than the polls indicate.

Yes, New Hampshire is even better.

 

[globalguru]

South Carolina here. The primaries are open and I will be there in full force with friends and family. Bring the blimp to Columbia.. Lots of Ron paul signs popping up around here also. Let the truth be known.

 

[VicVixvi]

Upon reading this a second time ... they are reporting that "this was reported on Drudge" ... since when the the National Review report the breaking news that "other news sources are saying ...".

National Review Online is also reporting these poll numbers:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGI4OTllNDJhM2ExODRlOGNhNmFkNmE1NGQ1ZDI1YWI=

 

[Chester Copperpot]

South Carolina here. The primaries are open and I will be there in full force with friends and family. Bring the blimp to Columbia.. Lots of Ron paul signs popping up around here also. Let the truth be known.

SC Primaries are open??? I didnt know that.. AWESOME!!!

 

[all J's in IL for RP]

Don't count on 6% turnout. This is an open field and may turn into an ideological battle. Still, double digits may be the tipping point.

From NRO:

Huck Leads in South Carolina, But Look Where Paul Is

Another way to look at these CNN numbers in South Carolina, reported on Drudge: Ron Paul is six percent away from second place.

That subtitle's got 'em quaking!

 

[JacobLyles]

true, These polls show nothing. They need their own comedy subforum

They are not for us, they are for the media. Ron will get treated TOTALLY differently if he starts pulling big poll numbers! This will lead to more actual support.

 

[xao]

They are not for us, they are for the media. Ron will get treated TOTALLY differently if he starts pulling big poll numbers! This will lead to more actual support.

Then let's put them in their own forum for the media. They clog up this board.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

don't worry we'll be back to 2% in the morning lol I must say.. we have some real crazy number fluctuations lol

2
11
9
8
9
1
7

hmm

 

[Bigboyen]

The pollsters typically qualify 35-40% of the people they call as "probable primary voters." In reality, for example in the last election, Republicans turned out at a 6% rate. That means most of the people polled who say they will vote for Huckabee, Thompson, etc. actually will skip the primary. Ron Paul supporters will not.

No, it's not typically. For Iowa (that is a low turn out caucus) the average is around 10% - last time it was 5.3% in Iowa. It will probably be higher this year, but maybe not as high as 10%.

I don't know for South Carolina, but I will guess it's higher since it's an open primary.

 

[Bigboyen]

This is with TRADITIONAL Republican voters. That leaves out independents, new Republicans, young people with cell phones or VOIP phones, Libertarians, Democrats, and people who've never voted before. We are polling above the numbers in all states and nationwide, guaranteed, because of those factors. The question is how much. Since most (I believe) voters in NH are independents, the polling could be more severely off there than anywhere else.

I have not seen this poll yet, so don't know anything about how big margin of error and how the poll has been conducted.

But most of the pollster use random calling, so they don't use any list of registered voters (some use it in caucus). Then they have different screening question to get the likely voters, and they have different expectation on how high voter turn out it will be on Election Day. But I guess we get more information from this poll later today.

 

[Jwaksman]

You are correct on all of the above, of course. That only adds to the polling argument. I don't know the rules in SC (anyone?), but even if it's a closed primary, Ron should do way better than the polls indicate.

Guys, you are being far more disingenuous than the pollsters you are accusing here. First of all, turnout will not be at 2004 levels. How can you possibly think that with 6 viable candidates the turnout will be as high as an election with no competition? I was, frankly, shocked that ANYBODY cared enough to show up and vote for Bush. Why trudge through the snow for a meaningless vote? Obviously people will show up this year.


Dr. Paul will have the highest turnout, but to think it's going to be far beyond everyone else is just naive. People constantly think we're going to win an election when we're at 4% in the polls because everyone else is going to have 5% turnout and we're going to have 50% turnout. This is just ridiculous. Don't deceive yourself into thinking that we're winning right now (in any state) - we have a lot of work left to do.

 

[Thomas Paine]

I wish I was in the Land of Dixie...

 

[kylejack]

This poll really doesn't make sense to me. 3% undecided is far too low to be believable.

 

[Jwaksman]

This poll really doesn't make sense to me. 3% undecided is far too low to be believable.

This is where a pollster asks undecided voters something along the lines of "Well, I know you're undecided, but if you had to vote today who would lean towards?" This is a way to get "leaners" to line up with somebody, and typically drops the undecideds from about 15% to about 5%.