Primary poll in a caucus state?
This is PPP's response:
Not filtering for caucus participants 7 months away from the vote.
Primary poll in a caucus state?
Not filtering for caucus participants 7 months away from the vote.
what does the favorability rating really reprsent, and how could it change so drastically, even though the poll numbers didn't change statistically as much?
on the surface, it seems to point to a fickleness that I thought the Iowans were less susceptible to.
if cain becomes president, man, i just truly will have no hope left for this country.
Polls this far out should be taken with a grain of salt and PPP is a Democratic leaning pollster to begin with. Not to mention the margin of errror is +/-4.5% and the sample was pretty small too, being only 481 Republicans. According to this poll the field is a lot tighter too since last time, which is a good thing.
However, the unfavorables jumped and we only picked up 2% of the 41% that went up for grabs. I'm not exactly sure what to make of this. I would say that the debate hurt us, but I doubt many Iowans watched the debate. The only other thing that happened in the time span between the two polls was the official campaign beginning operations in Iowa. Maybe this is just an outlier. Whatever it is, these results make the June 5th moneybomb more important and make me even more cautious about the grassroots phonebank operation.
Apparently you didn't notice that Paul's fave numbers dropped more than...anyone else's!
And the book hit store shelves. Oh, and there's Bin Laden.
Guys, this poll should be depressing. I know y'all won't want to admit it, but this proves Ron Paul is not doing his job. Whether you want to admit or not, Ron Paul is the person people are going to vote for. They want someone who represents them. Ron Paul had an amazing turnaround in popularity numbers over the past four years. He was deep in the negative territory last primary season. The kind of turnaround from those hig negs (-30 to -40 range) doesn't just happen. There was a change of heart about a lot of things in the GOP, and Ron Paul ran as a Constitutional Conservative last time, which is where over half of the party is right now, but now he is running as a libertarian and the GOP will not follow. If Ron Paul would have just said stuff in a more tactful way than he did, this wouldn't have happened. I am not sure he can recover because a lot of what he has been saying is backed up in his book, and, whether you want to admit or not, Republican voters read, which is why conservative books hit the NY Times bestseller's list almost every time one is released.
Apparently, one cannot point out the obvious on this forum without getting neg repped. Good luck in y'all's endeavors, but I ain't hangin' around here much longer.
That's nothing, you should see the number of negative rep points I got for suggesting that Bin Laden's assassination wasn't faked. Some people around here apparently have a really hard time accepting reality.
The polls in 08 didn't count because they were faked, and when Ron got the number of votes he was projected to get, that didn't count either because the voting results were faked, and when Obama got inaugurated, that didn't count either, because he wasn't an American citizen, and when Obama released his birth certificate, that didn't count either, because that too was fake.
I agree.
Some people here don't like Rand's less bold approach, but to be honest, it's the only way libertarianism is ever going to advance
Ron played his role in bringing attention to some key issues, but the future is with Rand's approach.
Rand holds 99% of Ron's positions but presents it in a more polished manner. He makes what was formerly unpalatable to the GOP rank-and-file into something that is palatable. Hell, he just sold Sean Hannity on why the Patriot Act goes too far
Ron gets distracted by non-issues (heroin legalization?). Rand has done a good job of avoiding philosophical arguments except for the CRA controversy