I agree. I think Thompson is the most vulnerable right now, and we need to be ahead of him in Iowa. I still think that if we finish 4th in Iowa (behind Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani) we still have a great chance with the upward movement in NH at winning in NH. There is still a great chance that after NH, Paul will have placed ahead of every other candidate in at least one of the first two contests except for possibly Romney if he finishes 2nd to him in NH. I think Paul beating McCain in NH will mortally wound McCain's campaign, and Thompson will be mortally wounded from finishing 5th or 6th in both Iowa and NH. If Huckabee finishes 4th or 5th in NH I think his lack of funds will leave his candidacy practically over as well. That would leave Giuliani, Romney, and Paul at first tier leaving NH, with Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee 2nd tier candidates (who sap votes from Giuliani and Romney).
Ron Paul up to 4th place in NH Marist poll
- Thread starter Micahyah
- Start date
I agree. I think Thompson is the most vulnerable right now, and we need to be ahead of him in Iowa. I still think that if we finish 4th in Iowa (behind Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani) we still have a great chance with the upward movement in NH at winning in NH. There is still a great chance that after NH, Paul will have placed ahead of every other candidate in at least one of the first two contests except for possibly Romney if he finishes 2nd to him in NH. I think Paul beating McCain in NH will mortally wound McCain's campaign, and Thompson will be mortally wounded from finishing 5th or 6th in both Iowa and NH. If Huckabee finishes 4th or 5th in NH I think his lack of funds will leave his candidacy practically over as well. That would leave Giuliani, Romney, and Paul at first tier leaving NH, with Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee 2nd tier candidates (who sap votes from Giuliani and Romney).
Some great tidbits in this poll:
Ron Paul at 8% with Republicans, but 6% with independents
Ron Paul at 9% with men, but 5% with women
Ron Paul at 18% among those earning less than $50K, but 4% with those earning more
Ron Paul at 12% among those aged 18-44, but 5% with the 45 and older crowd
Ron Paul at 10% with non-college grads, but 5% with college grads
Ron Paul at 8% with Republicans, but 6% with independents
Ron Paul at 9% with men, but 5% with women
Ron Paul at 18% among those earning less than $50K, but 4% with those earning more
Ron Paul at 12% among those aged 18-44, but 5% with the 45 and older crowd
Ron Paul at 10% with non-college grads, but 5% with college grads
Excellent point, I missed that the first time. Votes were tallied between November 2nd and 6th, which means that only about 1/5th of the voters knew about the money bomb when they were polled. Most people here noticed how our Rasmussen numbers went from 3% before the money bomb to 6% on Friday.
wow I missed that as well. Hopefully if they had done this poll a week later, we would be in double digits. That's what I'm really waiting for. Any poll that has us in double digits. The fear level from the establishment candidates would really rise then.
C
Chester Copperpot
Guest
partypooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 521
i understand that argument. but there is a cost to it - and that is attention paid to dr paul's message. the more ways the votes are split, the less attention goes to dr paul. and this matters, because his message is very unconventional and, in essence, complicated. it takes time to understand, and it takes time for people to reassess their beliefs. i don't think we need more than 3 neocons to split the vote. yes, all three of them would be polling somewhat higher than they are now, but everybody looking for something else will have much easier time finding it.
i don't think casual votes are lost - i just think that average voters need to pay attention, and if there are too many distractions they will never attend to our guy. and in any case we can't win without them. at the end of the day, we have to have the majority of republican votes.
Tons of great news in this poll. Obviously, the five-point bump from last month is terrific to see.
With regard to the independent discussion we're having here....
This poll takes into account "likely" Republican-leaning independents to vote in the Republican Primary. This means independents who typically vote in the Republican primary and independents who have been identified as "Republican-leaning" due to their stances on some issues. (Including, most likely, the war.) It's not taking into account tons of other independent voters in NH who will be flocking to Ron away from the Democratic primary over two issues that NH voters are hot and heavy over: Iraq and National ID card. I was in NH helping out the campaign there over my Fall Break from college, and independent voters there are getting very fired up about Ron, and these two issues in particular are doing EXTREMELY well with them. The last two TV ads with the Constitution in the background will work WONDERS in that state.
All in all, terrific news. And to those who think Ron's ceiling there is less than 20%...
I'm telling you, the campaign there has the ability to positively SHOCK THE WORLD. When I was up there, I stayed with two of the officers with the campaign, and they stated that their goal in the state is to get 40,000 voters, which, in what is expected to be a 100,000-120,000, means 33-40%. That would be enough for a pretty significant victory, especially in such a large field. But do not think for one second that McCain 2000 numbers aren out of the question for Ron in the state. Should he win the number of independent voters that I think he can win, Ron could very well get into the high-40s. And with the money they're bringing in, they can really toss a lot more money that way.
As far as Iowa is concerned... I would say the chances of Ron winning are very slim, if for no other reason than his steadfast opposition to ethanol subsidies. (Which seems to be issue #1 throughout Iowa.) However, I think he does have a VERY good chance for a top-3 finish, which would give him Iowa delegates. Firstly, Giuliani is tanking in Iowa, and there's very good reason to believe that he'll drop out of Iowa; he certainly isn't devoting the resources of a serious contender in Iowa. Thompson's campaign has flatlined there, and he's definitely not devoting anywhere near enough money there. McCain has always sucked in Iowa, and in the last couple of Iowa polls, Ron has been statistically tied with him there. Plus, there have been reports of lots of support in Iowa (the MSNBC article), there's very active anti-tax movements there, and a majority of Iowa Republicans polled in the latest Strategic Vision poll want US troops out of Iraq in 6 months. There's tons of room for growth there. Ivers is an ace political operative, and hiring him will make a HUGE difference. And according to reports I've heard, the radio ads are working very well there. Plus, Tancredo will probably tell his people to vote for Ron in the second round, which will be good for another 3% or so and could be the difference between 3rd and 5th.
If Ron pulls off 3rd in Iowa and wins NH, that's one hell of a springboard and it's game on for the nomination. Giuliani will take a big blow from two finishes in a row lower than 2nd (but he'll stay in, because he has Florida, NY, and NJ all but locked up), Romney's "steamroller" will be stop dead in its tracks in NH, and McCain will be knocked out. Thompson will make a last stand in South Carolina, but it won't be enough. Huckabee's ability to continue beyond NH as a serious contender will depend on how much money he raises this quarter.
With regard to the independent discussion we're having here....
This poll takes into account "likely" Republican-leaning independents to vote in the Republican Primary. This means independents who typically vote in the Republican primary and independents who have been identified as "Republican-leaning" due to their stances on some issues. (Including, most likely, the war.) It's not taking into account tons of other independent voters in NH who will be flocking to Ron away from the Democratic primary over two issues that NH voters are hot and heavy over: Iraq and National ID card. I was in NH helping out the campaign there over my Fall Break from college, and independent voters there are getting very fired up about Ron, and these two issues in particular are doing EXTREMELY well with them. The last two TV ads with the Constitution in the background will work WONDERS in that state.
All in all, terrific news. And to those who think Ron's ceiling there is less than 20%...
I'm telling you, the campaign there has the ability to positively SHOCK THE WORLD. When I was up there, I stayed with two of the officers with the campaign, and they stated that their goal in the state is to get 40,000 voters, which, in what is expected to be a 100,000-120,000, means 33-40%. That would be enough for a pretty significant victory, especially in such a large field. But do not think for one second that McCain 2000 numbers aren out of the question for Ron in the state. Should he win the number of independent voters that I think he can win, Ron could very well get into the high-40s. And with the money they're bringing in, they can really toss a lot more money that way.
As far as Iowa is concerned... I would say the chances of Ron winning are very slim, if for no other reason than his steadfast opposition to ethanol subsidies. (Which seems to be issue #1 throughout Iowa.) However, I think he does have a VERY good chance for a top-3 finish, which would give him Iowa delegates. Firstly, Giuliani is tanking in Iowa, and there's very good reason to believe that he'll drop out of Iowa; he certainly isn't devoting the resources of a serious contender in Iowa. Thompson's campaign has flatlined there, and he's definitely not devoting anywhere near enough money there. McCain has always sucked in Iowa, and in the last couple of Iowa polls, Ron has been statistically tied with him there. Plus, there have been reports of lots of support in Iowa (the MSNBC article), there's very active anti-tax movements there, and a majority of Iowa Republicans polled in the latest Strategic Vision poll want US troops out of Iraq in 6 months. There's tons of room for growth there. Ivers is an ace political operative, and hiring him will make a HUGE difference. And according to reports I've heard, the radio ads are working very well there. Plus, Tancredo will probably tell his people to vote for Ron in the second round, which will be good for another 3% or so and could be the difference between 3rd and 5th.
If Ron pulls off 3rd in Iowa and wins NH, that's one hell of a springboard and it's game on for the nomination. Giuliani will take a big blow from two finishes in a row lower than 2nd (but he'll stay in, because he has Florida, NY, and NJ all but locked up), Romney's "steamroller" will be stop dead in its tracks in NH, and McCain will be knocked out. Thompson will make a last stand in South Carolina, but it won't be enough. Huckabee's ability to continue beyond NH as a serious contender will depend on how much money he raises this quarter.
stevedasbach
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,392
Here's a link to a detailed article posted here in October:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22010
"[Dr. Drew] Ivers also has sustained battle wounds from working in the political trenches while campaigning for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and serving as Iowa state campaign chairman for Pat Robertson in 1988 and Pat Buchanan in 1996 and 2000. Ivers, who helped lead Reagan to a victory in his district, touts his role as a campaign district coordinator as his first major steppingstone in his career as a political activist. Drawing comparisons to what he called the Reagan Revolution during the 1980 campaign, Ivers sees the same thing happening with the Ron Paul Revolution and wanted to take an active role in the cause."
You are correct -- we only need to place well in Iowa. However, victory is a possibility.
Thanks for the link. Don't worry, I haven't counted out the state. It's important to keep everybody in that state motivated. But I think we need to have the mindset that a third place finish will be a good finish in Iowa. It would set us up to make a run at winning New Hampshire. If we finish lower than 4th in Iowa it will sap the support we will have already built in New Hampshire, so we obviously have to avoid that.
Thompson is floundering in Iowa, and McCain has practically written the state off. I really think that beating Giuliani there is possible, and that would get us 3rd place and put us in great shape to beat Giuliani in New Hampshire.
As you can tell, I'm a huge fan of the idea of setting expectations low and hopes high. You always want to beat the bar that you set for yourself.
Thompson is floundering in Iowa, and McCain has practically written the state off. I really think that beating Giuliani there is possible, and that would get us 3rd place and put us in great shape to beat Giuliani in New Hampshire.
As you can tell, I'm a huge fan of the idea of setting expectations low and hopes high. You always want to beat the bar that you set for yourself.
We could be handed an undeserved and awful defeat in Michigan - where Dr Paul polls well. The Democrats in the state house are blocking the primary. If that happens, the GOP chooses it's nominee by closed convention. Only elected GOP members / delegates / officers can vote.
This is not our strongest group of supporters.
This is not our strongest group of supporters.
ronpaulitician
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,942
When would this take place?
If it comes after Paul has already won at least one (important?) state, then this could actually be in Paul's favor as it would make for a memorable example of the way that we're slowly losing our freedoms. Yeah, I realize the way the Michigan primary might take place may be legally justified, but morally? It just feels wrong, and I think many voters would agree with that. At that point in time, Paul, with the momentum behind him, should be able to turn this to his advantage.
Don't expect to see this happen. The Democrats are just trying to be a pain in the butt, because the primary is meaningless on their side. All of the leading Democratic candidates pledged to skip the primary if it got moved up to January 15th, and all kept their word (except Hillary, of course, who's never met a promise that she hasn't broken). So since the primary is basically boycotted, the Democrats see no reason to spend millions on having the primary.
In the end, I'm pretty sure Michigan will end up having their votes counted. At worst, they'll lose half of their delegates. But that's okay - delegates aren't really all that important for these early primaries. It's about results and wins. If you win states then delegates will follow.
Can someone explain how the delegate thing works? I'm in California...I was under the impression that the only way we could nominate Ron Paul was to become delegates and vote at the convention next year.
I've never been that involved in to party politics but will heed the call if needed.
I've never been that involved in to party politics but will heed the call if needed.
Can someone explain how the delegate thing works? I'm in California...I was under the impression that the only way we could nominate Ron Paul was to become delegates and vote at the convention next year.
I've never been that involved in to party politics but will heed the call if needed.
You vote in the Cali primaries. You have to be a Republican to have your vote count (you can vote if you're independent but the vote doesn't count). Not sure about undeclared, I heard both.
I don't have to be a delegate to vote. I am a registered republican. I guess my question should have been. If the majority of delegates that attending the convention are Ron Paul supporter will he win?
I was under the impression it works similar to the way the electorial college works in the general election.
I was under the impression it works similar to the way the electorial college works in the general election.
Can someone explain how the delegate thing works? I'm in California...I was under the impression that the only way we could nominate Ron Paul was to become delegates and vote at the convention next year.
I've never been that involved in to party politics but will heed the call if needed.
Yes, the votes in primaries are converted into delegates. So, in the end, you need the most delegates to win. However, the primaries never ever last that long - the key is winning states and getting momentum. If we win New Hampshire it will be massive - doesn't matter if we get half the delegates or not, because New Hampshire isn't a big state anyway. The real thing that matters is how we place, because that will determine how the media reports us and whether a lot of people will vote for us.
CelestialRender
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 931
Remember guys, that primary turnout is usually < 10%...if 50% of our 7% shows up, that's 3.5% of the total...and if 10% (a generous figure) of Romney's 33% show up, that's only 3.3%.
The MSM is completely forgetting that these #s only matter to the degree that all candidates have evenly represented contingents.
How many RP Revolutionaries aren't going to show up to their primary???
The MSM is completely forgetting that these #s only matter to the degree that all candidates have evenly represented contingents.
How many RP Revolutionaries aren't going to show up to their primary???
Not every Ron Paul voter is a RP Revolutionary. I think we'll have good turnout, but we simply cannot assume that we are going to blow people away with our turnout.
If we go into primary day down 25% to 20% in the polls, we can win. If we are at 7% in the polls, we are going to lose. 7% in the polls and rising, for right now, is good. But we need to keep rising. Especially since tv coverage (like the coverage I'm watching right now on MSNBC) only lists the top three in the polls. We need to get in double digits, and we need to get ahead of McCain. That will put us in great position to make a run in January.
All Paul needs to do is finish 3rd or better in Iowa and 2nd in NH to have all the momentum.
Everyone knows Romney is cruising in Iowa and has spent a TON of money there. Huckabee has been polling at #2 in Iowa for awhile. Paul at number three would be considered a BIG upset and if he could somehow poll ahead of Huck at #2 Paul would be considered the "winner" of Iowa considering the $ spent and would be getting all the press. That press would likely propel Paul to #2 or better in NH (even if Romney wins Iowa and NH if Paul finishes close in either state he'll be the big press story).
Everyone knows Romney is cruising in Iowa and has spent a TON of money there. Huckabee has been polling at #2 in Iowa for awhile. Paul at number three would be considered a BIG upset and if he could somehow poll ahead of Huck at #2 Paul would be considered the "winner" of Iowa considering the $ spent and would be getting all the press. That press would likely propel Paul to #2 or better in NH (even if Romney wins Iowa and NH if Paul finishes close in either state he'll be the big press story).
Similar threads
