Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

Alabama
New Hampshire

Ron Paul won these two state's straw polls by an absolute landslide, 81% in Alabama and 73% in New Hampshire. I don't really know that much about straw polls, they seem like they're a bit silly, but this seems like big news. Could somebody that knows about straw polls tell me how important this is? Ron Paul supporters seem like they're a lot more gung-ho and dedicated than most, so these results have to be skewed in his favor. That being said, it would take a lot of skewing before you could make the argument that these results aren't a big deal.

As a sub-point, I haven't seen anything in the mainstream media about these results yet. Do the Ron Paul conspiracy theorists have a legitimate point?

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

Paul is up to 3% in the latest Gallup poll too. Clearly a landslide in the making.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]

Paul is up to 3% in the latest Gallup poll too. Clearly a landslide in the making.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's partly why I'm asking what I should make of these straw polls, it seems like there is conflicting information. Does this mean that the straw polls are just totally bunk? Does it mean Gallup poles are biased? Maybe it means that nobody is very good at polling. I have no idea, thought somebody might be able to elaborate for me.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

well i know that iowa straw poll used diebold electronic voting machines, I wouldn't be surprised if these two used paper ballots or something.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

Straw polls are largely bunk in terms of judging candidate strength. Notice how Romney won in Iowa but finished a distant 3rd in the telephone polls. This is because the straw polls are much more about how big your organization is and how much effort you are willing to put in. They aren't completely worthless because the media loves to cover the horserace and doing well will get you some press coverage. Witness Huckabee's rise in the polls.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

Yep, Huckabee has shot up to 4% in the latest Gallup poll. His 2nd place in Iowa was well worth the effort. I'd argue that no one is paying attention to politics yet and therefore both straw polls and national polls are worthless at this point. National polls are basically name recognition especially this early in the process. Straw polls are about what you put into it and how much money you can spend to bus people in and vote for you. The straw polls Ron Paul won are very small samples. He was actually in New Hampshire and I'm not sure if any of the other candidates were or not. It'd be pretty sad if they were and got that few people to show up.

So, the national telephone polls don't accurately represent Ron Paul's support because he has a lot of supporters who won't be called, but will change their party affiliation to vote for him the primaries. The straw polls are too unknown and too small to gauge his support as well as we all know that he's not at 70-80% approval among Republicans. But we do see people voting for him who won't be called in the telephone polls in the straw polls. Wait a little while for people to start paying attention to politics and we'll see where Ron Paul is at then.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

A straw poll is typically a vote taken among people who are attending a local party meeting or convention. It is not in any way a sampling of the voters in the county, just a count of the people who happened to show up at the meeting.

It is likely that the voters in these polls consisted of (a) leaders of the county Republican party organization and (b) a bunch of Paul supporters who decided to "crash" the meeting in order to generate some press for their candidate.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

Any time Ron Paul wins anything the poll is rigged. Anytime Paul loses the poll was not rigged. Duh

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, the national telephone polls don't accurately represent Ron Paul's support because he has a lot of supporters who won't be called...

[/ QUOTE ]

We've gone over this several times. It's not true, and any polling organization worth it's salt has accounted for them.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

The Illinois Republican Presidential Straw Poll was conducted on electronic voting machines and ran from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Final Results:

Mitt Romney – 40.35%
Fred Thompson – 19.96%
Ron Paul – 18.87%
Rudy Giuliani – 11.61%
John McCain – 4.12%
Mike Huckabee – 3.04%
Sam Brownback – 1.08%
Duncan Hunter - .65%
Tom Tancrado - .33%

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, the national telephone polls don't accurately represent Ron Paul's support because he has a lot of supporters who won't be called...

[/ QUOTE ]

We've gone over this several times. It's not true, and any polling organization worth it's salt has accounted for them.

[/ QUOTE ]


NO you've asserted this a few times and your still wrong.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

ron paul got EXACTLY 281 votes in Alabama.

why is this a big deal?

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
ron paul got EXACTLY 281 votes in Alabama.

why is this a big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it may prove selection bias.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ron paul got EXACTLY 281 votes in Alabama.

why is this a big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it may prove selection bias.

[/ QUOTE ]


ok smart guy how about this way of looking at it.


Cumulative Straw poll concept

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ron paul got EXACTLY 281 votes in Alabama.

why is this a big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it may prove selection bias.

[/ QUOTE ]


ok smart guy how about this way of looking at it.


Cumulative Straw poll concept

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be carefull if he is counting county polls with state wide polls, can (will) bias the results.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, the national telephone polls don't accurately represent Ron Paul's support because he has a lot of supporters who won't be called...

[/ QUOTE ]

We've gone over this several times. It's not true, and any polling organization worth it's salt has accounted for them.

[/ QUOTE ]


NO you've asserted this a few times and your still wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now there's a convincing argument.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

LOL, strawpollaments.

This would be the same event that Alan Keyes won in 1999. When you think about it, Alan Keyes is a good comparison for Ron Paul.

These straw polls are fundraisers. The Iowa straw poll is a huge newsmaker because most candidates treat it seriously. Other straw polls are not important because the candidates don't.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, strawpollaments.

This would be the same event that Alan Keyes won in 1999. When you think about it, Alan Keyes is a good comparison for Ron Paul.

These straw polls are fundraisers. The Iowa straw poll is a huge newsmaker because most candidates treat it seriously. Other straw polls are not important because the candidates don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keyes (only one of two) attended the event while Paul didn't but garnered 50 or so more percent but no matter what happens some of the Dr. Paul haters will dismiss it.
Paul's support is smaller but much more fervent than the current 'front runners'.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

who?

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
who?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]

Keyes (only one of two) attended the event while Paul didn't but garnered 50 or so more percent but no matter what happens some of the Dr. Paul haters will dismiss it.
Paul's support is smaller but much more fervent than the current 'front runners'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing the math, it looks like George W. Bush finished third in 1999 without showing up while having more votes cast for him than total votes cast for any candidate in 2007. Now is just not a good time to be a Republican.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
no matter what happens some of the Dr. Paul haters will dismiss it

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on, who are the "Paul Haters"? I, for one, don't hate Paul, I just think he is largely irrelevant to the big picture in this race(much like Dennis Kucinich.) If I were a Paul supporter, I would be happy with these numbers. But, I would also know that these numbers mean VERY little. Maybe they are a sign of Paul being a sleeper contender in the votes that really matter. Otherwise, they are just one positive thing to say about a candidate who is polling very low right now.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

One other thing. I think these straw polls are more negative if you show poorly than they are positive if you show well.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]

Oh come on, who are the "Paul Haters"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a liberal Democrat who hates Ron Paul. (Then again, I also hate Dennis Kucinich.)

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh come on, who are the "Paul Haters"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a liberal Democrat who hates Ron Paul. (Then again, I also hate Dennis Kucinich.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm shocked that anyone hates Ron Paul, I suppose it stems from a lack of belief in freedom itself, because it's got to be hard to hate the man right? He's the only politician I've ever heard of that doesn't result to slime-ball pandering, says clearly what he believes and behaves in a way consistent with his stated beliefs. Even if you disagree with him philosophically, can you really hate a man like that? He's a true statesman in the best sense of the word, arguing with that will be an uphill battle. I suppose if his principles were vile enough you could still hate him... but is it really that vile to be pro individual liberty and responsibility?

</head asplode>

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
...but is it really that vile to be pro individual liberty and responsibility?


[/ QUOTE ]

Except he's not. He flunks the test on this majorly by being "pro-life" and not having a problem with states outlawing abortion, as long as they do it on the state level. That's about as anti-libertarian as it comes. If you really look at him closely, he's an anti-federalist, not a libertarian. A libertarian should be opposed to excess government at all levels, not just the federal one.

I don't hate him, mostly, I don't think about him. He's a non-factor, except on this forum.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
He flunks the test on this majorly by being "pro-life" and not having a problem with states outlawing abortion, as long as they do it on the state level. That's about as anti-libertarian as it comes.

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be anti-libertarian to not hold his position. DUCY?

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]

Doing the math, it looks like George W. Bush finished third in 1999 without showing up while having more votes cast for him than total votes cast for any candidate in 2007. Now is just not a good time to be a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet that makes it a perfect (by perfect i mean best you could ask for) opportunity for a "3rd" tier candidate no one has heard of going in with a small semi fanatical base. Paul's problem, like all politicians, is gaining face time and name recognition.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He flunks the test on this majorly by being "pro-life" and not having a problem with states outlawing abortion, as long as they do it on the state level. That's about as anti-libertarian as it comes.

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be anti-libertarian to not hold his position. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

ICY, although I understand to some extent what Mr. Mon is getting at as well. Care to elaborate where the past libertarian candidates have stood?

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He flunks the test on this majorly by being "pro-life" and not having a problem with states outlawing abortion, as long as they do it on the state level. That's about as anti-libertarian as it comes.

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be anti-libertarian to not hold his position. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what you mean by "libertarian". There's also a difference between "libertarian" and "Libertarian".

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...but is it really that vile to be pro individual liberty and responsibility?


[/ QUOTE ]

Except he's not. He flunks the test on this majorly by being "pro-life" and not having a problem with states outlawing abortion, as long as they do it on the state level. That's about as anti-libertarian as it comes. If you really look at him closely, he's an anti-federalist, not a libertarian. A libertarian should be opposed to excess government at all levels, not just the federal one.

I don't hate him, mostly, I don't think about him. He's a non-factor, except on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, so in order to be "opposed to excess government at all levels" what would you have him do? Sounds like you want him to wield federal power to impose legislative restrictions on the states. What a joke.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...but is it really that vile to be pro individual liberty and responsibility?


[/ QUOTE ]

Except he's not. He flunks the test on this majorly by being "pro-life" and not having a problem with states outlawing abortion, as long as they do it on the state level. That's about as anti-libertarian as it comes. If you really look at him closely, he's an anti-federalist, not a libertarian. A libertarian should be opposed to excess government at all levels, not just the federal one.

I don't hate him, mostly, I don't think about him. He's a non-factor, except on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being pro life is entirely consistent with being libertarian for people who view a fetus as a human being.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...but is it really that vile to be pro individual liberty and responsibility?


[/ QUOTE ]

Except he's not. He flunks the test on this majorly by being "pro-life" and not having a problem with states outlawing abortion, as long as they do it on the state level. That's about as anti-libertarian as it comes. If you really look at him closely, he's an anti-federalist, not a libertarian. A libertarian should be opposed to excess government at all levels, not just the federal one.

I don't hate him, mostly, I don't think about him. He's a non-factor, except on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being pro life is entirely consistent with being libertarian for people who view a fetus as a human being.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general I agree with you here but, to be fair, there are some compelling arguments for why this might not be the case. A libertarian wouldn't have a problem with somebody killing in self-defense, so there are some cases where the killing of another human are consistent with libertarian principles. One of the most famous academic articles on abortion is Judith Thomson's A Defense of Abortion where she starts with the premise that we should consider a fetus a human life, and then still argues a pro-choice position. She does the mainly by reference to analogous parasite-type situations where we'd have no moral qualms with 'aborting' the dependent life-form. Kindof a nitty point to make, I just think the article is interesting [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

On another note, regardless of what Ron Paul's views on abortion may be, it takes a big man (he's one of the only politicians alive today that qualifies) to bracket his own strong personal beliefs about an issue in favor of decentralization and the freedom to self-govern.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
In general I agree with you here but, to be fair, there are some compelling arguments for why this might not be the case. A libertarian wouldn't have a problem with somebody killing in self-defense,

[/ QUOTE ]

Subject to individual interpretation of course, but I find that most libertarians are in favor of proportional defense only. You don't get away with killing a man who just was going to punch you in the nose. In real life it is very hard to know what that man intended to do, but in the case of pregnancy the risks are very easily measurable, and only in rare cases does the likelihood of serious injury or death (imo) warrant killing the fetus for the health of the mother.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

Thompson's Defense of Abortion is a very famous but flawed comparison. It works very well for rape, but does not fare as well in cases of consensual sex. If the woman agreed to be part of a lottery where she would support the violinist, and she "won" the lottery, if she backed out, it could very well be considered a form of murder.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...but is it really that vile to be pro individual liberty and responsibility?


[/ QUOTE ]

Except he's not. He flunks the test on this majorly by being "pro-life" and not having a problem with states outlawing abortion, as long as they do it on the state level. That's about as anti-libertarian as it comes. If you really look at him closely, he's an anti-federalist, not a libertarian. A libertarian should be opposed to excess government at all levels, not just the federal one.

I don't hate him, mostly, I don't think about him. He's a non-factor, except on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, so in order to be "opposed to excess government at all levels" what would you have him do? Sounds like you want him to wield federal power to impose legislative restrictions on the states. What a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are violations of individual liberty any more palatable at the state level than at the federal level? Should blacks in 1955 Mississippi have felt better about their plight because it was the state of Mississippi oppressing them rather than the federal government? Should some poor guy about to be lynched by his town think, "Well, it could be worse, it could be the Feds doing this."

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...but is it really that vile to be pro individual liberty and responsibility?


[/ QUOTE ]

Except he's not. He flunks the test on this majorly by being "pro-life" and not having a problem with states outlawing abortion, as long as they do it on the state level. That's about as anti-libertarian as it comes. If you really look at him closely, he's an anti-federalist, not a libertarian. A libertarian should be opposed to excess government at all levels, not just the federal one.

I don't hate him, mostly, I don't think about him. He's a non-factor, except on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, so in order to be "opposed to excess government at all levels" what would you have him do? Sounds like you want him to wield federal power to impose legislative restrictions on the states. What a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are violations of individual liberty any more palatable at the state level than at the federal level? Should blacks in 1955 Mississippi have felt better about their plight because it was the state of Mississippi oppressing them rather than the federal government? Should some poor guy about to be lynched by his town think, "Well, it could be worse, it could be the Feds doing this."

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Feds are oppressing you, its far harder to move than if an individual State is. It is also less likely that every state will be oppressing you.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh come on, who are the "Paul Haters"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a liberal Democrat who hates Ron Paul. (Then again, I also hate Dennis Kucinich.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be interested in knowing who you support.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why are violations of individual liberty any more palatable at the state level than at the federal level? Should blacks in 1955 Mississippi have felt better about their plight because it was the state of Mississippi oppressing them rather than the federal government? Should some poor guy about to be lynched by his town think, "Well, it could be worse, it could be the Feds doing this."

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Feds are oppressing you, its far harder to move than if an individual State is. It is also less likely that every state will be oppressing you.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this justfies the action of the state how? And the act of the Federal government stopping a state from oppressing its citizens is somehow worse than the act of oppression itself?

So, by this logic, if a state wanted to ban lynching, but a county in that state wanted to continue it, the county should have supremecy. And if a state and county wanted to ban it, yet a town within the county wanted to continue it, the town has supremecy.

Wow. Just wow.

Re: Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide
 

[ QUOTE ]
And this justfies the action of the state how?


[/ QUOTE ] It doesn't. It just makes things better. I would rather get beaten than murdered. That doesn't justify beatings. Decentralization is at worst as bad as centralization.

[ QUOTE ]

And the act of the Federal government stopping a state from oppressing its citizens is somehow worse than the act of oppression itself?


[/ QUOTE ]
Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Oppression is a very subjective term.

[ QUOTE ]

So, by this logic, if a state wanted to ban lynching, but a county in that state wanted to continue it, the county should have supremecy. And if a state and county wanted to ban it, yet a town within the county wanted to continue it, the town has supremecy.

Wow. Just wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

This situation is far superior than a situation where a single authority can be as much of a tyrant as it wants over EVERYONE. In this situation, my guess is a lot of people would get out of this county. Not many people would do business with them, and they would become incredibly isolated.