Paul Jumps to 5% Nationally in Rasmussen Poll

[Exponent]

Rasmussen: "Ron Paul, in the aftermath of a huge fundraising day, jumps to 5%"

The 4% from back a week or two was apparently a bit of standard statistical fluctuation, and after he dropped back to 3% or lower, they didn't mention his name. This time, however, he suddenly jumped up to 5% (and this is a a four day rolling average, so if his previous days were, say, 5% (Tuesday, after the money bomb was complete), 4% (Monday, while the money bomb was in progress), and 3% (Sunday, before the money bomb), then to get a 5% overall, Wednesday's results (I'm assuming today's noon report covers polling done up through the previous evening; I doubt polling is done in the morning) would have to be at least 6%, assuming percentages at or above .5 are rounding up.

(3 + 4 + 5 + 6) / 4 = 4.5, or 5 rounded

But if the day before was only 3%, which I do believe it was, then that means the day that dropped out of the 4 day rolling average this time had to bring it down to 3%, and thus could be no higher than 1%.

(1 + 3 + 4 + 5) / 4 = 3.25

So more likely, it was something closer to 2%, 3%, 3%, 5%, meaning that this last individual day likely jumped up to 7%. Granted, they do a rolling average to avoid statistical fluctuations, and maybe it will bounce around between 4 and 7 from now on, for example. But I remember that when Huckabee started moving up, he really started moving up, and stayed there very well. Again, like I said last time Ron Paul got listed on this poll, I really hope it happens for him as well.

 

[Rivington Essex]

cant win with 5%. I think we need 50%.

 

[kylejack]

cant win with 5%. I think we need 50%.

Right, but we're finally significantly on the boards. We don't need 50%. 70% will be split by the pro-war guys. We only need a 20-30% plurality.

 

[Seanmc30]

cant win with 5%. I think we need 50%.

Agreed!!


But to turn a battleship around in a water puddle takes time...if we keep passionate the growth will be exponential!

 

[margomaps]

cant win with 5%. I think we need 50%.

We could conceivably win the GOP nomination with 25%.

 

[yongrel]

We could conceivably win the GOP nomination with 25%.

Less even.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

keep in mind.. this 5% is the old neocon vote, not counting our core and new GOP

 

[margomaps]

keep in mind.. this 5% is the old neocon vote, not counting our core and new GOP

It is? Who told you that?

 

[Patriot]

We could conceivably win the GOP nomination with 25%.

Does anyone know for certain what percentage we need to win the primary. Is it a simple majority or a 51% majority or will there need to be a run-off?

With 8 candidates running would a 13% majority give us (RP) the win?

 

[Fig]

I think I know why RP is doing so poorly in the polls. His supporters are not being polled! I know that sounds almost stupid, its so sophmoric, but here is what I think is happening:

Of the large national polls that are being conducted, that are being conducted to see who is leading in each party, the sample group is being stratified, obviously, into republicans and democrats. So, the ron paul movement is made up largely of libertarians, disaffected republicans and liberals who either want to end the war or are discovering they are really libertarians. NONE of these groups of people are considered in the polling body:

I'd say its highly likely that the national polls only include 'likely republican voters' who are likely considered by whether or not they voted in the last republican primary, and/or the main election as a republican!

 

[margomaps]

I'd say its highly likely that the national polls only include 'likely republican voters' who are likely considered by whether or not they voted in the last republican primary, and/or the main election as a republican!

What makes you think that the polling organizations are basing their samples off lists of previous Republican primary voters? I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I haven't seen any evidence that what you're guessing is in fact true.

 

[Hurricane Bruiser]

Welcome to the board Fig

 

[stevedasbach]

What makes you think that the polling organizations are basing their samples off lists of previous Republican primary voters? I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I haven't seen any evidence that what you're guessing is in fact true.

Polling organizations have various ways of determining who is a "likely Republican primary voter". One of the methods used is to ask whether the person voted in Republican primaries in either 2006 or 2004. They will also sometimes ask who the person voted for for President in 2004.

Other organizations poll from lists of primary voters, or from lists of people registered in a particular party.

Each organization handles it differently, which is one of the reasons you can see major differences between polls.

www.pollster.com has some good articles about the subject. They also ofter have links to the entire poll, including all the questions asked.

 

[Edward]

cant win with 5%. I think we need 50%.

Right, but we're finally significantly on the boards. We don't need 50%. 70% will be split by the pro-war guys. We only need a 20-30% plurality.

We could conceivably win the GOP nomination with 25%.

Winning the nomination is not as simple as having the highest percentage of Republican voters during the primaries or winning the most number of primary delegates. If the end of the primary season is reached without one candidate having a majority of the delegates, then the nominee will be decided during the national convention.

 

[SovereignMN]

Keep in mind that in 1996 Pat Buchanan had a dedicated 25-30% of the REpublican base in the primaries. That was enough early on when there were 7 other candidates but it killed him when they all dropped out and endorsed Dole.

You can bet your bottom FRN the same thing will happen...Huckabee, Thompson, McCain and Romney will all get behind Guiliani around Super Tuesday. Paul DOES need to have 50% shortly after the first few states.

 

[Smiley Gladhands]

Keep in mind that in 1996 Pat Buchanan had a dedicated 25-30% of the REpublican base in the primaries. That was enough early on when there were 7 other candidates but it killed him when they all dropped out and endorsed Dole.

You can bet your bottom FRN the same thing will happen...Huckabee, Thompson, McCain and Romney will all get behind Guiliani around Super Tuesday. Paul DOES need to have 50% shortly after the first few states.

Exactly....that's why I don't believe that it's necessarily in our best interest to have the neocon vote split 8 different ways. It won't matter how many ways it's split if 7 of them drop out and endorse the other. Also, the more ways it's split, the more ways the media has to distract potential voters. Right now they're being force-fed a decision between Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee, and could spend MONTHS worth of brain power trying to figure out the differences between these guys (line-item veto debate, anyone?).

Not that I think we're gonna sit on our hand when Ron starts polling at 25%, but I think a small plurality would be negated by neo-con tag-teaming. We'll need to keep working, to get those %ages up to a majority if possible.

 

[kylejack]

Winning the nomination is not as simple as having the highest percentage of Republican voters during the primaries or winning the most number of primary delegates. If the end of the primary season is reached without one candidate having a majority of the delegates, then the nominee will be decided during the national convention.

Winning a plurality gives you ALL the delegates in most but not all states, So a majority of the delegates can be earned with a mere plurality in the states where you win. Even California is winner-take-all at the Congressional district level.

 

[dt_]

5%?

Iowa debate, here we come!

 

[xao]

I think I know why RP is doing so poorly in the polls. His supporters are not being polled! I know that sounds almost stupid, its so sophmoric, but here is what I think is happening:

Of the large national polls that are being conducted, that are being conducted to see who is leading in each party, the sample group is being stratified, obviously, into republicans and democrats. So, the ron paul movement is made up largely of libertarians, disaffected republicans and liberals who either want to end the war or are discovering they are really libertarians. NONE of these groups of people are considered in the polling body:

I'd say its highly likely that the national polls only include 'likely republican voters' who are likely considered by whether or not they voted in the last republican primary, and/or the main election as a republican!

Perfectly stated.

This is exactly correct and it has been mentioned many times before that Ron Paul has been left off of most of these phone polls that they conduct.

Also it is interesting that Ron Paul is crushing all other republican candidates in the Straw Polls where people actually go to vote.

Why does the MSM avoid the scientific straw polls??

Next time they mention that he is at 4% and Ron is interviewed, he should just state right off the bat,

"Hey if I am so low in the unscientific polls, then why have I won MORE of the actual REAL Scieintific Straw Polls than any other Republican Candidate? Why am I cleaning house in the scientific polls?"

They won't know what to say.

 

[xao]

What makes you think that the polling organizations are basing their samples off lists of previous Republican primary voters? I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I haven't seen any evidence that what you're guessing is in fact true.

They do phone polls of the republican party and leave ron paul off of those polls as an option.
The other polls they use are from websites that virtually NO ONE goes to where the vote count is rarely in the hundreds and again they mainly leave ron off of those polls.

All one has to do is see rons tv debate poll wins when millions of americans were watching and straw poll wins where ron has won more than anyone in his party.

End of story.