Las Vegas Review Journal and 8NewsNow Nevada Poll

[Mini-Me]

Sorry guys but if Ron is polling a weak 10% or so in NV, it's not looking good to rack up any delegates. We can play what ifs all day long for every state, reality is reality. Everyone on RPF was saying Ron could win or at least come in second because of last time. Zero evidence of such. Romney has got this thing rapped up after FL. No polling data suggest otherwise. A major unforeseen event would have to happen to change that. To run a campaign on such is foolish. Truly disappointed in the campaign and the American voters.

Seriously, it's time to start thinking Independent run.

Independent run? To what end? You can't win. You can't even get in the debates, and exposure will be even less than it is now. The only purpose is to serve as a spoiler, and the NOBP crowd will already almost guarantee a Republican loss even without an independent run.

We simply have no choice but to continue trying for the nomination and hope to pick up momentum somewhere. The Nevada polls do look very bad, but it's important to remember that caucus states are very different from primary states: Actual voter turnout is skewed much more heavily toward candidates with deeper support (like Ron).

 

[da32130]

Sorry guys but if Ron is polling a weak 10% or so in NV, it's not looking good to rack up any delegates. We can play what ifs all day long for every state, reality is reality. Everyone on RPF was saying Ron could win or at least come in second because of last time. Zero evidence of such. Romney has got this thing rapped up after FL. No polling data suggest otherwise. A major unforeseen event would have to happen to change that. To run a campaign on such is foolish. Truly disappointed in the campaign and the American voters.

Seriously, it's time to start thinking Independent run.

this suggests otherwise:



Don't worry about the poll numbers. If we do well in Nevada, Minnesota, Maine, and Colorado it won't be because of high poll numbers compared with other states. It will be because of turnout.

Here is the impact of turnout in 2008, and a results comparison with 2012 (all results from before Feb 10, when most candidates were still in, listed by date):

caucus:
Iowa 10% (21% in 2012)
Nevada 14%
Maine 18%
Alaska 17%
Colorado 9%
Minnesota 16%
Montana 25%
North Dakota 21%
Washington 22%
Kansas 11%

primary:
New Hampshire 8% (23% in 2012)
Michagan 6%
South Carolina 4% (13% in 2012)
Florida 3% (7% in 2012)
Alabama 3%
Tennessee 6%
Connecticut 4%
Arizona 4%
Georgia 3%
Delaware 4%
California 4%
Arkansas 5%
etc.

The lowest caucus was 9%, the highest primary pre Feb 10th in 2008 was 8%.
The highest caucus was 25%, the lowest primary was 3%.

Turnout can make a huge difference in the poorly attended caucuses.


Also, Nevada and Iowa are similar in size. We got 26k in Iowa this time. Romney won Nevada with 22k in 2008. Romney got 30k in Iowa both times.

 

[Sean]

We need wins. I have never been too hopeful about Nevada. Sure we can do well in Nevada, but we might be able to win in Maine and Minnesota. I think the biggest mistake of the campaign has been to not going hard in SC. Right after NH we went up to 20% there . We should have had FP and electability ads running right from the start. We also should have held huge campaign rallies instead of going back to Texas for a few days. If Ron Paul needed rest he should have rested in the state of SC and maybe just held some press conferences or something lite.

 

[Liberty74]

OMG so many still live in la la land. What do you mean an Independent run won't get you into the debates? Ron's polling numbers as an Indy already suggests he would participate in the debates according to the thresh hold. Coming in a weak third and fourth doesn't rack up any delegates. You can't win long term with that strategy.

Stop playing this game of "what ifs" too. That is not a strategy when all polling data are suggesting otherwise. You can run hypothetical numbers all you want, it doesn't change reality.

There is no skewing in voter turnout between caucus and primary polls. So this made up idea that Ron is gonna do way better than what all the polls suggest is completely unfounded.

 

[da32130]

There is no skewing in voter turnout between caucus and primary polls. So this made up idea that Ron is gonna do way better than what all the polls suggest is completely unfounded.

Are you saying Paul's support just happened to be 3x higher in caucus states in 2008? That those states just happened to be more supportive of Paul?

That idea is unfounded. He did well due to turnout. Paul was polling 5th in Nevada when he got 2nd in the Caucus.

Here are the numbers:

And here is the impact of turnout in 2008, and a results comparison with 2012 (all results from before Feb 10, when most candidates were still in, listed by date):

caucus:
Iowa 10% (21% in 2012)
Nevada 14%
Maine 18%
Alaska 17%
Colorado 9%
Minnesota 16%
Montana 25%
North Dakota 21%
Washington 22%
Kansas 11%

primary:
New Hampshire 8% (23% in 2012)
Michagan 6%
South Carolina 4% (13% in 2012)
Florida 3% (7% in 2012)
Alabama 3%
Tennessee 6%
Connecticut 4%
Arizona 4%
Georgia 3%
Delaware 4%
California 4%
Arkansas 5%
etc.

The lowest caucus was 9%, the highest primary pre Feb 10th in 2008 was 8%.
The highest caucus was 25%, the lowest primary was 3%.

Turnout can make a huge difference in the poorly attended caucuses.

Also, Nevada and Iowa are similar in size. We got 26k in Iowa this time. Romney won Nevada with 22k in 2008. Romney got 30k in Iowa both times.

 

[thelaibon]

I REALLY hate polls. I hate anything that "sets the tone" of momentum for voting. It SOOOOO skews the voters going in. So many people likely to change their vote to a more "effective vote," looking at only the frontrunners, ie, basically those that the media or straw polls are focusing on last minute. It's like when someone gives you semi-critical plot-spoiling info about a movie as you're walking in the theatre to see it.

 

[SCOTUSman]

Independent run? To what end? You can't win. You can't even get in the debates, and exposure will be even less than it is now. The only purpose is to serve as a spoiler, and the NOBP crowd will already almost guarantee a Republican loss even without an independent run.

We simply have no choice but to continue trying for the nomination and hope to pick up momentum somewhere. The Nevada polls do look very bad, but it's important to remember that caucus states are very different from primary states: Actual voter turnout is skewed much more heavily toward candidates with deeper support (like Ron).

The commission on presidential debates put the threshold at 15% for a 3rd party/independent to get to be in the debates....Ron is always polling over that in 3rd party polling against Romney and Obama. He would get to be in the debates.

 

[SCOTUSman]

I REALLY hate polls. I hate anything that "sets the tone" of momentum for voting. It SOOOOO skews the voters going in. So many people likely to change their vote to a more "effective vote," looking at only the frontrunners, ie, basically those that the media or straw polls are focusing on last minute. It's like when someone gives you semi-critical plot-spoiling info about a movie as you're walking in the theatre to see it.

People should be smart enough to vote on their own, not according to polls. That is the voter's fault. Not the pollsters.

 

[Gravik]

I have a friend who is Mormon and he is voting for Romney because he is a Mormon....

 

[SCOTUSman]

I have a friend who is Mormon and he is voting for Romney because he is a Mormon....

Yep. That's how many of them vote.

 

[kah13176]

Hardly deluded...Mitt will win with a majority. Paul performed twice as well as his poll numbers in 2008 in Nevada. Hard to poll (as non iowa cacus states are hard to do) and the actions of the state gop in 2008 have an effect on people. Our state chairs says as much. We can get second with 20% support or more. We won't win but to say I'm deluded is a joke.

Paul was vastly underpolled in 2008 in Iowa. He overpolled considerably in 2012.

 

[SCOTUSman]

Paul was vastly underpolled in 2008 in Iowa. He overpolled considerably in 2012.

Yes because turnout is a lot lower in non-Iowa caucus states (in this case), that and Paul is getting a lot more independent and democratic votes.

 

[JJ2]

If Paul voters are not answering/lying to pollsters that is the stupidest mistake ever. If Paul was in 2nd in the polls, all the anti-Romney voters would vote for Paul just to slow Romney down!

 

[JJ2]

OMG so many still live in la la land. What do you mean an Independent run won't get you into the debates? Ron's polling numbers as an Indy already suggests he would participate in the debates according to the thresh hold. Coming in a weak third and fourth doesn't rack up any delegates. You can't win long term with that strategy.

But he can't win running third party. The best you could possibly hope for would be to send the election to Congress. And do you really expect anyone (besides Ron and Rand ) in Congress to support Paul???

 

[seapilot]

If Paul voters are not answering/lying to pollsters that is the stupidest mistake ever. If Paul was in 2nd in the polls, all the anti-Romney voters would vote for Paul just to slow Romney down!

Yes because that worked great in Iowa.

 

[phil4truth]

I'm a bit surprised and confused by this poll too.

According to Fox today Nevada is a two man race between Mittens and Ron. Who is right and who is wrong?

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/02/fox-...tm_campaign=Feed:+RonPaulFlix+(Ron+Paul+Flix)

 

[phil4truth]

And here they repost the results from the poll differently:

Mitt Romney 34%
Ron Paul 24%
Undecided 19%
Newt Gingrich 14%
Rick Santorum 9%

http://2012nevadacaucus.com/romney-lead-poll-paul-leaps/

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

who cares about these polls!

if we are polling high, people will get lazy and do less.
if we are polling low, people get depressed and don't feel like doing anything.

i think the polls is a form of social psychology. it is meant to screw with us.

 

[twomp]

OMG so many still live in la la land. What do you mean an Independent run won't get you into the debates? Ron's polling numbers as an Indy already suggests he would participate in the debates according to the thresh hold. Coming in a weak third and fourth doesn't rack up any delegates. You can't win long term with that strategy.

Stop playing this game of "what ifs" too. That is not a strategy when all polling data are suggesting otherwise. You can run hypothetical numbers all you want, it doesn't change reality.

There is no skewing in voter turnout between caucus and primary polls. So this made up idea that Ron is gonna do way better than what all the polls suggest is completely unfounded.

So you're saying he should just declare he's an independent now? That makes no sense what so ever. How is he going to get into a Republican Debate as an independent? Do you want him to just fly home to Texas and wait till after Romney wins the nomination then start campaigning again? How will he get any television coverage till then? You are Delusional. An independent run should be a last resort.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

I have a friend who is Mormon and he is voting for Romney because he is a Mormon....

And believe me... the Mormons will come out and vote for a Mormon, even if he said we're going to War on inauguration day.

Romney will get 95% of the Mormon vote. He doesn't even have to campaign... Mitt only does for the cameras and the following primary states.