PPP MN Presidential caucus poll

[kasjun]

I think Ron Paul needs to show that his foreign policy is sound by emphasizing the endorsement of the former CIA chief. I have heard several people say that they like his domestic policies but are afraid of his foreign policies. Maybe if we spread this video around it would help.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Aiz85NejIyE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[da32130]

Wow,

Kind of embarassing to see Ron polling so low in my state, very surprising.

However I think it's more just a symptom of the nation as a whole with all these people who go...


"Hmmmm, uhh Gingrich I guess"

it frustrates me that these people go out and vote based on the nonsense they see on tv.


Anyway.

There is a good deal of Ron Paul support here, more than that poll would indicate.
I feel like with a good GOTV effort we could move up to a close second.


What's the most helpful thing I can do right now?

Wesley, do you remember 2008 at all? Can you compare the presence then vs now (we got 16% in the caucus then, when we were getting 4% in a normal primary)?

Here is some background on why MN is the focus:

One thing to keep in mind: The reason we do well in caucus states isn't because the people in those states love us more. It is because of turnout.

Minnesota has 5 million people. 25k wins. 0.5% of the population.

In Iowa we needed over 1% to win.

Last time in Minnesota barely 1% of the population even voted.

I can't vouch for the passion on the ground relative to other candidates, but having better turnout is how we win.

For comparison, South Carolina has a slightly smaller population than Minnesota. We pulled 78k there and 13% of the population voted.

Another fun fact. In SC in 2008 we had 16k votes. In MN we had 10k.

So this time SC gives us 78k. What will MN give this time? Last time 14k would have given us 2nd. Yes, under 0.3% of the population.

 

[NinjaPirate]

The numbers do leave much to be desired however the article also states the numbers are NOT set in stone:

"Gingrich shouldn't get too comfortable though. The race in Minnesota is incredibly fluid. 15% of voters are undecided and out of the 85% who do have a current preference, 63% say they could change their minds between now and the caucus in two weeks. That leaves almost 70% of the electorate up for grabs in the closing stretch..."

With that said stay the course and continue working hard! It's far from over!!

 

[WD-NY]

Everywhere is reacting right now to 'Ron Paul isn't competing in Florida' and the media pretense that he has essentially dropped out of the running. when they quit focusing on FL and start focussing on the caucus states-- ASSUMING WE DO OUR WORK-- Ron will be a necessary focus, and polls will change.

Of course, but Ron isn't campaigning in any of the caucus states this week so Team Paul's argument that "Ron isn't campaigning in FL so that he can focus on caucus states" just isn't accurate or true.

Is Ron sick? Is he chilling out in TX? Where the heck is he?!?!

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

regardless of how we do.. ride this out until the end. ron paul will expose these B@stards and expose the government.

 

[gerryb]

To kickstart a viable alternative party for those of us who believe in constitutional government. Ron wouldn't win, but if he could get say 20% of the vote it could start something good.

What makes you think if we can't get 20% IN A PRIMARY we'd get 20% in a General????

Literally 10-20 times more people vote in a general election than a primary.

 

[jkob]

Last in SC hurt imo. We really need to try to beat Frothy in Florida.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Finishing last place never looks good.

 

[EndTheECB]

What if... Rand Paul debated instead of his father tomorrow? Is this possible? He would totally rock the stage and convert many neocons.

 

[bluesc]

Of course, but Ron isn't campaigning in any of the caucus states this week so Team Paul's argument that "Ron isn't campaigning in FL so that he can focus on caucus states" just isn't accurate or true.

Is Ron sick? Is he chilling out in TX? Where the heck is he?!?!

The campaign is playing the "secret shadow delegate" strategy where we don't have to win any states and just leave a few people behind to become delegates. That way Ron isn't needed because we don't need to win any votes

It's all ridiculous, of course.

 

[da32130]

Of course, but Ron isn't campaigning in any of the caucus states this week so Team Paul's argument that "Ron isn't campaigning in FL so that he can focus on caucus states" just isn't accurate or true.

Is Ron sick? Is he chilling out in TX? Where the heck is he?!?!

Unlike everyone else he plans on doing this for another 6 months. So he is probably pacing himself.

 

[doctorfunk]

What makes you think if we can't get 20% IN A PRIMARY we'd get 20% in a General????

Literally 10-20 times more people vote in a general election than a primary.

This. If Ron would decide to run 3rd party (which I don't think he will), he'll be lucky to get 5% of the vote. It may be enough to ensure that Obama wins, but it would hurt the movement as republicans would blame Ron and kick out Rand.

 

[69360]

What makes you think if we can't get 20% IN A PRIMARY we'd get 20% in a General????

Literally 10-20 times more people vote in a general election than a primary.

The polling.

 

[da32130]

Finishing last place never looks good.

Well, it didn't prevent Newt from surging. He did horribly the first two states. Then wins the 3rd state and rockets in the polls.

If we can do well in the caucus states we can turn this around. We focus on those states hoping our energetic base can increase turnout. In 2008 when we were getting 4% in the SC primary we got 16% in the MN caucus. We also got 9% in CO, 18% in Maine, and 14% in NV (all caucuses). At that same time we got 4% in SC, 3% in Florida, 6% in TN, 3% in AL, etc. (all primaries).

This time we got 13% in SC. What will be the turnout at these caucuses? That is the question. Last time it was 2-4x percentage wise what it would have been in a primary.

Here is some background on why MN is the focus:

One thing to keep in mind: The reason we do well in caucus states isn't because the people in those states love us more. It is because of turnout.

Minnesota has 5 million people. 25k wins. 0.5% of the population.

In Iowa we needed over 1% to win.

Last time in Minnesota barely 1% of the population even voted.

I can't vouch for the passion on the ground relative to other candidates, but having better turnout is how we win.

For comparison, South Carolina has a slightly smaller population than Minnesota. We pulled 78k there and 13% of the population voted.

Another fun fact. In SC in 2008 we had 16k votes. In MN we had 10k.

So this time SC gives us 78k. What will MN give this time? Last time 14k would have given us 2nd. Yes, under 0.3% of the population.

 

[One Last Battle!]

You guys are overreacting (as per usual).

The last poll before 2008 Minnesota had McCain winning by 20% vs Romney and then Huckabee around 20% (to McCain's 40%) and Ron had 5%. It ended with Romney 40%, Huckabee 22%, Ron 16%. Caucus polls aside from Iowa are exceptionally unreliable.

 

[EndTheECB]

This Should be Dr. Pauls Schedule:

Wednesday:
10:00 Speech at College Y
11:30 Speech at University X
12:00 Veterans town hall meeting
13:30 Florida Seniors town hall meeting
19:00 Town hall meeting Reno

Thursday
10:00 ......Reno
11:30 ......Elko County
14:00 ......University of Nevada
....

Instead of:
10:00-15:00 Read economics textbook from 1952 in the hammock
15:00-16:00 Help my wife cook delicious dish from the Ron Paul Famliy cook book
17:00-17:45 Take a ride on my bicycle

 

[da32130]

You guys are overreacting (as per usual).

The last poll before 2008 Minnesota had McCain winning by 20% vs Romney and then Huckabee around 20% (to McCain's 40%) and Ron had 5%. It ended with Romney 40%, Huckabee 22%, Ron 16%. Caucus polls aside from Iowa are exceptionally unreliable.

Do you have a link to that poll? I was looking for something like that. That gives some evidence of the turnout factor being important. A similar increase would put Paul 13% * 3.2 = 41.6% above Newt 36%.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Well, it didn't prevent Newt from surging. He did horribly the first two states.

Gingrich did poorly, but he didn't finish last among the major running candidates. Gingrich beat out Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman in Iowa; Santorum and Perry in New Hampshire.

If just about any other state after New Hampshire was next, Gingrich would be finished from those showings. As with Romney and New Hampshire though, Gingrich got a state that neighbored his home state.

 

[da32130]

Just for reference. Here is the turnout factor from 2008 (all results from before Feb 10, when most candidates still in, list by date):

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

primary:
New Hampshire 8%
Michagan 6%
South Carolina 4%
Florida 3%
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 was 8%.
The highest caucus was 25%, the lowest primary was 3%.

Turnout can make a huge difference.

 

[da32130]

Gingrich did poorly, but he didn't finish last among the major running candidates. Gingrich beat out Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman in Iowa; Santorum and Perry in New Hampshire.

If just about any other state after New Hampshire was next, Gingrich would be finished from those showings. As with Romney and New Hampshire though, Gingrich got a state that neighbored his home state.

Newt finished last amongst the remaining candidates in Iowa. And essentially tied for last in NH. Yet he won in the next state.

He may do well in Florida, but within a few days Paul may do well in the next four states Coloroda, Nevada, Maine, and Minnesota. After those it is a couple weeks before another primary. Hypothetically, if Paul were to win 1-4 of those the narrative could change again.