I'm afraid to ask, but how's it looking in Washington to those IN Washington?

[GraspingForPeace]

So, obviously many of us saw the new PPP poll that came out today where we were third in Washington. However, I'm not very inclined to believe that due to it being a caucus. I was wondering to those people who have been working day-in and day-out in Washington, how is it looking for us? What are your predictions?

 

[jemuf]

I haven't done any door-to-door or phone from home, and I'm not a part of any political groups.

It doesn't look good...apathy and ignorance.

I work for a company that has over 150 employees and most are conservative. The ones I've talked to really like Ron Paul, but none of them knew about the March 3rd caucus, and they don't know about the importance of delegates.

One guy will vote for Ron Paul in the general that's it. Another woman will vote in the caucus, but she has no interest in becoming a delegate.

Another guy may or may not vote in the caucus. A couple months ago he was expressing concern about Ron Paul supporters as "weird" and Paul's stance on Iran. What's disturbing about this guy is that he should be the classic Paul supporter.

After supporting everyone but Ron Paul, a 70 year old woman is now going to try to become a delegate for him. She's an ex-college registrar, she's smart, but was incredibly uninformed.

And now there's already problems between the Paul campaign and the GOP in Washington: ht tp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2017631274_ron_paul_campaign_claims_irreg.html

 

[sailingaway]

But low participation doesnt necessarily hurt us, if that is all you are seeing. It is more a question of whether OTHER candidate supporters are turning out more than Ron's.

that is why polls of caucus states are so all over the place (PPP had to issue an apology/explanation after one of theirs recently). It is all about who will turn out.

 

[GraspingForPeace]

I haven't done any door-to-door or phone from home, and I'm not a part of any political groups.

It doesn't look good...apathy and ignorance.

I work for a company that has over 150 employees and most are conservative. The ones I've talked to really like Ron Paul, but none of them knew about the March 3rd caucus, and they don't know about the importance of delegates.

One guy will vote for Ron Paul in the general that's it. Another woman will vote in the caucus, but she has no interest in becoming a delegate.

Another guy may or may not vote in the caucus. A couple months ago he was expressing concern about Ron Paul supporters as "weird" and Paul's stance on Iran. What's disturbing about this guy is that he should be the classic Paul supporter.

After supporting everyone but Ron Paul, a 70 year old woman is now going to try to become a delegate for him. She's an ex-college registrar, she's smart, but was incredibly uninformed.

And now there's already problems between the Paul campaign and the GOP in Washington: ht tp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2017631274_ron_paul_campaign_claims_irreg.html

How does that look bad for us? I mean, it IS a caucus and turnout is going to be low (I don't buy for a second that 60,000 people will show up like the state GOP claims), then wouldn't you expect most of your company not to go at all?

 

[jemuf]

How does that look bad for us? I mean, it IS a caucus and turnout is going to be low (I don't buy for a second that 60,000 people will show up like the state GOP claims), then wouldn't you expect most of your company not to go at all?

I never said I expected high turnout. But I do expect people to turnout if they've been complaining AND know when/where to go for a caucus.

My co-workers lean Ron Paul's way and they have time to spare on March 3rd. They have all expressed disgust with the political system and the Obama administration. They have very strong opinions and have taken steps (buying silver, guns, and canned food) to protect their families in the event of an economic collapse.

If you can buy a gun can't you at least vote in a caucus?

I'm surprised people think that we'll win Washington. Dr. Paul didn't win Iowa, Maine, or Wyoming.

 

[Jeremy]

Low turn out means a Maine repeat, no? And that was pretty good for us...

 

[GraspingForPeace]

I never said I expected high turnout. But I do expect people to turnout if they've been complaining AND know when/where to go for a caucus.

My co-workers lean Ron Paul's way and they have time to spare on March 3rd. They have all expressed disgust with the political system and the Obama administration. They have very strong opinions and have taken steps (buying silver, guns, and canned food) to protect their families in the event of an economic collapse.

If you can buy a gun can't you at least vote in a caucus?

I'm surprised people think that we'll win Washington. Dr. Paul didn't win Iowa, Maine, or Wyoming.

Okay, I'm a bit confused by what you're saying now. You said things didn't look good and then turn around and say that your coworkers support Ron Paul and you convinced some of them to caucus. So, why do you say it doesn't look good?

 

[sailingaway]

I never said I expected high turnout. But I do expect people to turnout if they've been complaining AND know when/where to go for a caucus.

My co-workers lean Ron Paul's way and they have time to spare on March 3rd. They have all expressed disgust with the political system and the Obama administration. They have very strong opinions and have taken steps (buying silver, guns, and canned food) to protect their families in the event of an economic collapse.

If you can buy a gun can't you at least vote in a caucus?

I'm surprised people think that we'll win Washington. Dr. Paul didn't win Iowa, Maine, or Wyoming.

Paul was close enough in Maine that with weird counting, I consider that a tie. No one else may, but I do. Wyoming I agree was an eyebrow raiser given the tiny numbers involved for EVERYONE. Heck, Ron had more people at CPAC last year....

But this is one where Ron did well last time even though it was before other candidates dropped out, and we hope to build on that. We didn't do as well in Iowa or Maine or Wyoming in 2008..... well, we did about as well in Maine, but to have Maine to do over.... we were REALLY close.

 

[sailingaway]

Okay, I'm a bit confused by what you're saying now. You said things didn't look good and then turn around and say that your coworkers support Ron Paul and you convinced some of them to caucus. So, why do you say it doesn't look good?

I think he's saying he works with a bunch of people who support Ron and most wont get off their duffs to caucus. The issue is, how are the other candidates doing on turn out? And that we can't tell from an anecdotal account.

 

[gerryb]

I think he's saying he works with a bunch of people who support Ron and most wont get off their duffs to caucus. The issue is, how are the other candidates doing on turn out? And that we can't tell from an anecdotal account.

From what he said.. we will landslide it.

Sounds like he will caucus, someone else will caucus and be a delegate, and there are 2 fence sitters.

Out of 150 folks, 2 is 1.3%, 4 is 2.6% - this is WAY BEYOND historical participation/turn out rates in the WA caucus, and is only RP supporters... using such a small sample size, it looks like turn-out will be up, hopefully it is good for us.

 

[jcarcinogen]

How does that look bad for us? I mean, it IS a caucus and turnout is going to be low (I don't buy for a second that 60,000 people will show up like the state GOP claims), then wouldn't you expect most of your company not to go at all?

The GOP insiders and older types that have been going to these for years will still go. So if turn out is low they make up a higher percentage.

 

[GraspingForPeace]

From what he said.. we will landslide it.

Sounds like he will caucus, someone else will caucus and be a delegate, and there are 2 fence sitters.

Out of 150 folks, 2 is 1.3%, 4 is 2.6% - this is WAY BEYOND historical participation/turn out rates in the WA caucus, and is only RP supporters... using such a small sample size, it looks like turn-out will be up, hopefully it is good for us.

Nah, terrible conclusion. Small sample size in one part of the state with one staunch RP supporter. Let's be conservative in our optimism, here.

 

[gerryb]

Nah, terrible conclusion. Small sample size in one part of the state with one staunch RP supporter. Let's be conservative in our optimism, here.

I don't see a staunch RP supporter. They didn't phonebank, canvass, lit drop, etc. =)

 

[Xenophage]

In the Vancouver, WA area the enthusiasm is high and there are tons of volunteers, as well as an incredibly good organization. I don't know what the other campaigns have got going on for them (nothing visible), but I will be shocked and puzzled if we lose in this area tomorrow.

 

[GraspingForPeace]

In the Vancouver, WA area the enthusiasm is high and there are tons of volunteers, as well as an incredibly good organization. I don't know what the other campaigns have got going on for them (nothing visible), but I will be shocked and puzzled if we lose in this area tomorrow.

Great news, thank you!

 

[RabbitMan]

I'm in Seattle, attended a C4L meetup group in '10(before I realized it was just like the conspiracy-minded '07-08 group back in Arkansas), phoned-banked a little here, a little there. Everyone knows that I'm the Ron Paul guy, and I routinely shatter their misconceptions about Paul WHEN they are brought up. Although I'm not pushy, I've managed to convert my two roommates and fiancee to the message and am taking them to the Caucus to vote for Paul tomorrow. I made a token effort to become a PCO, and was basically told that I wouldn't become one because I was affiliated with Ron Paul and the party here HATES him, or at least the people who worked here on the '08 campaign. Some word about bad-blood or something.

That being said, the few conservatives I've talked to here either admitted that Paul was wrong on being an isolationist, but that we were headed in that direction anyway due to finances, or were disillusional. Neither would vote for Paul in the Primary, but said they would in the General if he was the nominee to get rid of Obama. I don't know a single other person who is going to caucus tomorrow. When i phone banked for the Yakima area, I got a slight majority Romney(this was before the Newt/Santorum surges though). Almost no Pauls. Here in North Seattle, it is not uncommon to see Ron Paul signs. Haven't seen any other signs of organization from the other campaigns. That's about all I have to report.

Let's do what we can and GOTV. I'm doing my part.

 

[KMX]

WA is going to be a Ron Paul win or Fraud.

 

[Liberty74]

It does not matter if it is a primary or caucus. The polls are usually dead on within the margin of error. The polling companies call up normal voters, ask them a series of questions, then determine if they are "likely" to vote. Those indicating yes are included. Those that answer no, aren't. Hence, the whole myth that polls are wrong with caucus voters is just that, a freaking myth.

Unless there is momentum for a candidate occurring now or someone falling rapidly, the polls are correct. Ron is polling about 16% in WA. So he will end up somewhere between 12-20% unless the recent polls are showing serious movement which currently they are not like in Iowa for Santorum, SC for Newt, MN for Santorum, MI for Mitt, etc.

 

[Butchie]

Paul was close enough in Maine that with weird counting, I consider that a tie. No one else may, but I do. Wyoming I agree was an eyebrow raiser given the tiny numbers involved for EVERYONE. Heck, Ron had more people at CPAC last year....

But this is one where Ron did well last time even though it was before other candidates dropped out, and we hope to build on that. We didn't do as well in Iowa or Maine or Wyoming in 2008..... well, we did about as well in Maine, but to have Maine to do over.... we were REALLY close.

Wyoming? Are you talking about '08 or now, I don't remember Wyoming, when was it?

 

[sailingaway]

It does not matter if it is a primary or caucus. The polls are usually dead on within the margin of error. The polling companies call up normal voters, ask them a series of questions, then determine if they are "likely" to vote. Those indicating yes are included. Those that answer no, aren't. Hence, the whole myth that polls are wrong with caucus voters is just that, a freaking myth.

Unless there is momentum for a candidate occurring now or someone falling rapidly, the polls are correct. Ron is polling about 16% in WA. So he will end up somewhere between 12-20% unless the recent polls are showing serious movement which currently they are not like in Iowa for Santorum, SC for Newt, MN for Santorum, MI for Mitt, etc.

Nate Silver ‏ @fivethirtyeight
So far this cycle, polls conducted 6-10 days before a primary/caucus have missed the final margin by an average of 12 points (!)

and the reason other pollsters aren't polling Washington is because of the unpredictability of polling a caucus. also see PPP's memo explaining why Nevada, I think it was, wasn't possible to actually be predicted hence their errors weren't their fault.