Ron Paul On Megyn Kelly 14:15ET (11/16) - Official Thread

[Uriah]

Rasmussen is going to be on with a new poll as well. I dont think it is state specific but rather a gen. election poll.

When?

 

[trey4sports]

When?

It was on before Ron. Basically said that Obama's right track/wrong track numbers are bad. Nothing about GOP candidates.

 

[sailingaway]

tube?

 

[InTradePro]

Good interview.

What's interesting is that he said the internal polling has looked like this for a while.

Yeah, that suggests the polls in the few days before the Bloomberg polls was a bit rubbish.

 

[jct74]

tube?

no tube yet, will post it if I see it. can you please merge some of the other threads while we wait? no need for 3 separate threads.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...p-on-FOX-at-top-of-the-hour!!&highlight=kelly
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...News-w-Megyn-Kelly-at-2pm-EST&highlight=kelly

 

[revgen]

tube?

It's uploading.

Will take awhile since it's HD.

 

[sailingaway]

off twitter:

Even after an interview with Ron Paul, Megan from Fox 5 news, didn't include his name as a front runner but other Rep candidates, after math

 

[parocks]

Yeah, that suggests the polls in the few days before the Bloomberg polls was a bit rubbish.

The reason the polls are different from day to day is that different pollsters talk to different percentages of different age groups.

We only look at toplines.

So, we're dazzled when Ron Paul's topline changes for the better. In Iowa, Bloomberg talked to MORE 18-34s than 65+.

18-34 loves us. And if we (or someone else) did a poll where only 18-34 males were polled, we'd be in 1st and happy with the results. If we (or someone else) did a poll where only 65+ women were polled, we would probably be in single digits and very disappointed.

This is a good poll, not because it actually shows any movement, because news media is treating it like it's actually showing movement.

And when the next poll comes out where they talk to a lot more 65+ women, everyone will say "woah is me, this is terrible, why is this happening?" But the truth is that it hasn't really changed at all.

We're pretty much about "enjoy", so, yay, it's a good thing.

 

[jeremiah89]

 

[wgadget]

Thanks for the tube, jeremiah89, and welcome to RP Forums!

 

[69360]

Did I just hear Fox news say Ron Paul surging in the polls? I'm in shock.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

off twitter:

Her math error was kinda funny. "Romney ahead of Obama but within margin of error. Wait, why are we saying that, it's not within the margin of error...after break...it was within the margin of error... no oops from Megyn though." Rick Perry needs to learn how to cover up errors like that...

 

[lucent]

The reason the polls are different from day to day is that different pollsters talk to different percentages of different age groups.

We only look at toplines.

So, we're dazzled when Ron Paul's topline changes for the better. In Iowa, Bloomberg talked to MORE 18-34s than 65+.

18-34 loves us. And if we (or someone else) did a poll where only 18-34 males were polled, we'd be in 1st and happy with the results. If we (or someone else) did a poll where only 65+ women were polled, we would probably be in single digits and very disappointed.

This is a good poll, not because it actually shows any movement, because news media is treating it like it's actually showing movement.

And when the next poll comes out where they talk to a lot more 65+ women, everyone will say "woah is me, this is terrible, why is this happening?" But the truth is that it hasn't really changed at all.

We're pretty much about "enjoy", so, yay, it's a good thing.

You have no idea what you are talking about. We poll more favorably with younger voters than older voters, but not that much better. The Bloomberg poll was conducted by the same polling company that does the Des Moines Register poll and in the previous DMS poll Ron Paul was at 12%. Plus as Ron Paul said in just this interview, he wasn't surprised because of the campaign's internal polling.

 

[cdc482]

That interview was awesome!

 

[revgen]

HDTV Video

 

[sailingaway]

HDTV Video

+rep!

 

[LibertyEsq]

awesome interview.

 

[WD-NY]

Everything after the 1st question was fantastic. I do wish that Paul wouldn't laugh and/or act sort of 'goofy' when asked about the media blackout and/or getting only 89 seconds in the CBS debate. The tone he used during the economy question was great - he just needs to apply his very solid 'im-not-kidding-around-here' voice more often imo.

 

[parocks]

You have no idea what you are talking about. We poll more favorably with younger voters than older voters, but not that much better. The Bloomberg poll was conducted by the same polling company that does the Des Moines Register poll and in the previous DMS poll Ron Paul was at 12%. Plus as Ron Paul said in just this interview, he wasn't surprised because of the campaign's internal polling.

Yes we do poll that much better with younger than older.

I'll go try to find some evidence of that.

I'm not surprised either. Depending on what turnout assumptions you make, Ron Paul's numbers could be wide ranging.

iowa
under 25 - 9%
25-34 - 17%
65+ - 17%

That's who they talked to. A ton of kids.

26% 18-34 (or 17% 18-29)
17% 65+

That's way out of line from what most pollsters have been talking to. I'm not making a prediction of who is going to turn out. If the caucus was held today, and 26% of the people who showed up were between 18-34, 19% might be about right.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_Iowa_1108.htm
Read this, and try to understand it.

This was from Insider Advantage.

They talked to 48 Iowas 18-29

Ron Paul got 31.5% of that group.

They talked to 115 Iowans 65+.

Ron Paul got 5.2% of that group.

Yes, we do poll that much better.

Overall, we got 11.4%

*********************

Ok, let's figure out what the Ron Paul number would've been if they talked to the same number of 18-29s as 65+, as Bloomberg did.

*****************************************

48 / 115 / 436

115 / 115 / 503

48 133 140 115
31.5 11.9 9.4 5.2
15.12 15.827 13.16 5.98 = 50.087 / 436 = 11.4878

115 133 140 115
31.5 11.9 9.4 5.2
36.22 15.827 13.16 5.98 = 71.187 / 503 = 14.1524

****************************

What this analysis indicates is that there is a combination of both.

1) Talking to more kids increased the number

2) Our numbers within each age group, or within a certain age group, did increase the number substantially.

****************************

So, yes, you are substantially right. There has been about a 5% bump, from 14% to 19%, even taking into account the increased numbers of kids they talked to.
We did gain somewhere, or everywhere.

 

[JorgeStevenson]

Yes we do poll that much better with younger than older.

I'll go try to find some evidence of that.

I'm not surprised either. Depending on what turnout assumptions you make, Ron Paul's numbers could be wide ranging.

iowa
under 25 - 9%
25-34 - 17%
65+ - 17%

That's who they talked to. A ton of kids.

26% 18-34 (or 17% 18-29)
17% 65+

That's way out of line from what most pollsters have been talking to. I'm not making a prediction of who is going to turn out. If the caucus was held today, and 26% of the people who showed up were between 18-34, 19% might be about right.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_Iowa_1108.htm
Read this, and try to understand it.

This was from Insider Advantage.

They talked to 48 Iowas 18-29

Ron Paul got 31.5% of that group.

They talked to 115 Iowans 65+.

Ron Paul got 5.2% of that group.

Yes, we do poll that much better.

Overall, we got 11.4%

*********************

Ok, let's figure out what the Ron Paul number would've been if they talked to the same number of 18-29s as 65+, as Bloomberg did.

*****************************************

48 / 115 / 436

115 / 115 / 503

48 133 140 115
31.5 11.9 9.4 5.2
15.12 15.827 13.16 5.98 = 50.087 / 436 = 11.4878

115 133 140 115
31.5 11.9 9.4 5.2
36.22 15.827 13.16 5.98 = 71.187 / 503 = 14.1524

****************************

What this analysis indicates is that there is a combination of both.

1) Talking to more kids increased the number

2) Our numbers within each age group, or within a certain age group, did increase the number substantially.

****************************

So, yes, you are substantially right. There has been about a 5% bump, from 14% to 19%, even taking into account the increased numbers of kids they talked to.
We did gain somewhere, or everywhere.

Wait, so are we improving, or are we not? I'm in the prepare-to-be-disappointed camp, but I don't have time to analyze the numbers like you just did. Were the Bloomberg polls padding our stats with under-30 voters, or is there some legit improvement there?