Why does RP have only 4% in New Hampshire?

[LibertyEagle]

People, regardless of what you think of the polls, very few people yet know about Ron Paul. It's a fact. Face it. Then go do something about it!

If you doubt what I'm saying, go to a shopping center or something, tomorrow, and ask the first 20 people you run into, if they know who Ron Paul is. Then, you will have your answer.

 

[I Am Weasel]

well, no matter what, we can't keep this endless stupid game up of twisting the poll figures around to work in our favor. Heck, we could take a poll in which he wasn't registering at all and say it was all because he was deleted. We could take a poll where he was listed and say they only polled "luckly" finding the people who wanted Guilliani.. but the fact of the matter is, he's behind, and we need to do something about it!

 

[Energy]

We need to campaign hard and wide to ensure a huge primary win such that it debunks and brings into question every poll out there.

 

[fj45lvr]

I think people underestimate the draw of HUCK's "pandering"..

the "in Jesus name" crap that he is dishing out is being devoured by many churches..

Dr. Paul in contrast is following Jesus' own admonition to not "pray out in the open"....

It's too bad people can't see through the PHONY and realize the difference between a humble man doing and living the right and a self-promoter using Christianity as a "tool" which I most certainly believe is WRONG. There is a tendency for these people to only drink milk from Christian cows....to the point of nausea.

Huckabee is the equivalent of the traveling SNAKE-OIL salesmen with tophat and circus wagon.

 

[goRPaul]

F--k you, Frank!

 

[PINN4CL3]

Both sides are right here. Campaign like we are in last, and that the very heart of this country relies on his election (which it does).

However, for those who think these polls are infallible. I started a thread on this topic not long ago.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=32927

In it there's a link to an article, that explains just how inaccurate Primary polling can be, written by a 25 year veteran pollster. In General Elections yes, political scientists claim they can predict an outcome 2 months in advance, but that's also a general. You need ask only this guy or that guy, and take a large enough sample, and the outcomes should be clear. In primaries they limit polling to those super voters who voted in prior primary elections. Hard core Bushies.

Anyway, here's that article:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/are_primary_polls_meaningful.php

 

[LibertyOfOne]

I think it's pretty clear at this point that they aren't telling the ENTIRE story but rather are telling part of it. That doesn't make them worthless or invalid that simply means they understate his support for whatever reason.

Buchanan was polling around 15% in New Hampshire before he won the state in 1996. He ended up with almost 30% of the vote. Clearly the polls weren't accurate.

That being said do have some idea what Paul is polling at based on the polls and we can safely say he's getting at LEAST 4% of the vote in the state. But really we don't know any more than that. We CANNOT assume that he is somehow leading. We have NO evidence of that.

Since 4% isn't enough to win and we have no idea what the real number is it seems to me we should do everything we can to campaign as hard as possible to assure victory. Either way nobody can say with any assurance that we are definitely winning so our only response can be to work as hard as we can.

All the polls say are that out of x amount of people polled y amount supported candidate z. No one makes the claim that they can predict a primary. They can only be used as an indicator. Paul is not at 15% now is not the time to pretend that everything will just go smoothly.