GET ANGRY: True Reason For Low "Scientific" Polls

[ronpaulfan]

This was a great read: http://the-fifthhorseman.blogspot.com/2007/10/of-yankee-fans-and-ron-paul-polls.html

I just made a YouTube video with that information called "True Reason for Ron Paul's Low "Scientific" Polls"
Please rate and Digg it!


Here is my quick summary of the blog post:

Bush won the 2004 Republican nomination with almost no competition. He was the incumbent wartime president and was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

Since Bush was guaranteed victory, the only real reason to vote was to show your support for Bush and the Iraq War.

If Republicans back then were really gung-ho about Bush and the war, they would have flocked to the primaries to support him, but, that is not what happened. According to USA Today, "Republican turnout — at 6.6% — was the lowest on record"

Unfortunately that 6.6% is who these "scientific" polls are calling today. Almost all of them are diehard pro-war Bush supporters

How do we combat this?

 

[ronpaulfan]

I was thinking something like this when responding to low polls:

"The people being polled are the hardcore Bush supporters from 2004. The fact Ron Paul registers at all with them is amazing!"

I don't like the wording though. Any other ideas?

 

[Sematary]

This was a great read: http://the-fifthhorseman.blogspot.com/2007/10/of-yankee-fans-and-ron-paul-polls.html


Here is my quick summary of the blog post:

Bush won the 2004 Republican nomination with almost no competition. He was the incumbent wartime president and was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

Since Bush was guaranteed victory, the only real reason to vote was to show your support for Bush and the Iraq War.

If Republicans back then were really gung-ho about Bush and the war, they would have flocked to the primaries to support him, but, that is not what happened. According to USA Today, "Republican turnout — at 6.6% — was the lowest on record"

Unfortunately that 6.6% is who these "scientific" polls are calling today. Almost all of them are diehard pro-war Bush supporters

How do we combat this?

Get everyone you know to get out and vote for Ron Paul. It's the only way.

 

[quickmike]

we dont have to combat this.


They wont change the rules just for us. Lets just wait till the early primary votes start rolling in and that will give a true representation of whos voting for who.


I wouldnt worry about these worthless phone polls.

 

[Hook]

we dont have to combat this.


They wont change the rules just for us. Lets just wait till the early primary votes start rolling in and that will give a true representation of whos voting for who.


I wouldnt worry about these worthless phone polls.

I would. We still have a lot of work to do.

 

[American]

you need to find the methodology for the polls, its somewhere but without it, its all hearsay

 

[ronpaulfan]

we dont have to combat this.


They wont change the rules just for us. Lets just wait till the early primary votes start rolling in and that will give a true representation of whos voting for who.

We don't have to wait! We can combat all the spin right now. The only defensive talking point we have at the moment is regarding "landlines"

I wouldnt worry about these worthless phone polls.

I strongly disagree! The media is spewing these polls all over the population!

 

[quickmike]

I would. We still have a lot of work to do.

Hows worrying about the phone polls going to help get work done? It shouldnt change what we do should it? We need to keep promoting as much as we can, no matter what these polls say.

Would you be spreading the word any less if we were higher in the polls? I wouldnt. To me, these polls mean nothing.

Are you going to waste your time trying to get the MSM to be fair about reporting the inacuracies of phone polling(good luck on that one LOL), or are you going to spread the word and prove them wrong? I choose the latter.

 

[terlinguatx]

...

 

[SlapItHigh]

I spent this past Saturday at a gun show (we had a Ron Paul booth there). The most common comments I heard were people saying that they agreed with everything Ron Paul has to say but he doesn't have a chance so there is no point in voting for him. I hear this all the time, not just at the gun show but I think the show just had a large concentration of like minded people so it seemed in the forefront.

It can't hurt to try to combat this, can it? When people think these polls are more representative of our country than online polls, why not point out the flaws? There is a massive audience to tap into that could support RP but they just don't think it is worth it for someone who is polling so low.

 

[terlinguatx]

...

 

[ronpaulfan]

I spent this past Saturday at a gun show (we had a Ron Paul booth there). The most common comments I heard were people saying that they agreed with everything Ron Paul has to say but he doesn't have a chance so there is no point in voting for him. I hear this all the time, not just at the gun show but I think the show just had a large concentration of like minded people so it seemed in the forefront.

It can't hurt to try to combat this, can it? When people think these polls are more representative of our country than online polls, why not point out the flaws? There is a massive audience to tap into that could support RP but they just don't think it is worth it for someone who is polling so low.

I think you're exactly right. The media is essentially brainwashing the country into thinking Ron Paul can't win.

 

[Sematary]

I spent this past Saturday at a gun show (we had a Ron Paul booth there). The most common comments I heard were people saying that they agreed with everything Ron Paul has to say but he doesn't have a chance so there is no point in voting for him. I hear this all the time, not just at the gun show but I think the show just had a large concentration of like minded people so it seemed in the forefront.

It can't hurt to try to combat this, can it? When people think these polls are more representative of our country than online polls, why not point out the flaws? There is a massive audience to tap into that could support RP but they just don't think it is worth it for someone who is polling so low.

I have combated this ridiculousness for years because I vote Libertarian. I let people know right up front that if they REALLY want change, then they have to vote change or it will never occur!

 

[quickmike]

I spent this past Saturday at a gun show (we had a Ron Paul booth there). The most common comments I heard were people saying that they agreed with everything Ron Paul has to say but he doesn't have a chance so there is no point in voting for him. I hear this all the time, not just at the gun show but I think the show just had a large concentration of like minded people so it seemed in the forefront.

It can't hurt to try to combat this, can it? When people think these polls are more representative of our country than online polls, why not point out the flaws? There is a massive audience to tap into that could support RP but they just don't think it is worth it for someone who is polling so low.

Ok, I see what you guys are saying now. I thought you meant that we should try and change how the polls are done. LOL

Nevermind.

Yeah, definitely point out to people that the only way you can get what you want is by voting for what you want, otherwise you end up with what you always get.

 

[Tidewise]

Has anyone seen a good article noting Paul's low rankings in the telephone polls with his absolute dominance of the straw polls?

 

[mport1]

This was a great read: http://the-fifthhorseman.blogspot.com/2007/10/of-yankee-fans-and-ron-paul-polls.html


Here is my quick summary of the blog post:

Bush won the 2004 Republican nomination with almost no competition. He was the incumbent wartime president and was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

Since Bush was guaranteed victory, the only real reason to vote was to show your support for Bush and the Iraq War.

If Republicans back then were really gung-ho about Bush and the war, they would have flocked to the primaries to support him, but, that is not what happened. According to USA Today, "Republican turnout — at 6.6% — was the lowest on record"

Unfortunately that 6.6% is who these "scientific" polls are calling today. Almost all of them are diehard pro-war Bush supporters

How do we combat this?

Wow, never even thought about that. That is some HUGE selection bias and it makes the results of these things completely inaccurate.

 

[ronpaulfan]

This pissed me off so much, I just made a YouTube video about it called True Reason for Ron Paul's Low "Scientific" Polls - GET MAD!

Also, tell me what you think of the video of course

 

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Good video - the only thing i would add is ronpaul2008.com for a few seconds at the end, but I like it otherwise

 

[LibertyEagle]

This was a great read: http://the-fifthhorseman.blogspot.com/2007/10/of-yankee-fans-and-ron-paul-polls.html

I just made a YouTube video with that information called "True Reason for Ron Paul's Low "Scientific" Polls - GET MAD!"


Here is my quick summary of the blog post:

Bush won the 2004 Republican nomination with almost no competition. He was the incumbent wartime president and was guaranteed victory in the primaries.

Since Bush was guaranteed victory, the only real reason to vote was to show your support for Bush and the Iraq War.

If Republicans back then were really gung-ho about Bush and the war, they would have flocked to the primaries to support him, but, that is not what happened. According to USA Today, "Republican turnout — at 6.6% — was the lowest on record"

Unfortunately that 6.6% is who these "scientific" polls are calling today. Almost all of them are diehard pro-war Bush supporters

How do we combat this?

I'm not seeing the source for the claim that the sample is the 6.6 percent that voted for Bush in the last election. Did I miss it?

 

[The Dane]

This information should be checked with each polling company and if true shared wide and far.

Maybe its something for www.usaelectionpolls.com to look into?