Ron Paul Wins Alabama/New Hampshire Straw Polls by Landslide

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it means that nobody is very good at polling.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a winner!

Polling is mostly crap since you simply can't measure the preferences of the type of person who chooses to not take the poll. Exit polling is probably the best, but even that doesn't measure the people who just shake their heads and walk on past.

The problem with straw polls is they only measure the most fanatical supporters. Ron Paul almost certainly has more fanatical supporters than any other candidate. People who just "kind of like" a candidate but don't really care a lot and aren't really big into politics aren't going to be voting in a straw poll, and that's most people.

OTOH, polls like Gallup measure only people they call and who choose to answer, and it's been pointed out many times on this forum that Ron Paul supporters are more tech oriented and thus less likely to have land based phone lines to receive calls. It should also be pretty obvious to anyone that collectivists are going to be much more likely to make time to answer a pollsters phone call while individualists are going to be much more likely to hang up, and of course the individualists are all about Ron Paul.

Personally, I'd say if it were possible to make an accurate poll, Ron Paul would probably be around 7%, but I pretty much pulled that number out of my ass. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[AlexM]

[ 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 polling organization is able to account for the people that hang up when they call. I know that whenever anyone calls me with any kind of telemarketing or polling, I just hang up the phone. I'll be voting for Ron Paul in the primaies.

[AlexM]

[ 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 ]

A minarchist libertarian is fine with local laws concerning violent crimes such as murder. People who oppose abortion see abortion as murder. Most libertarians are certainly pro-choice, but I wouldn't call anyone less libertarian because they're pro-life.

[iron81]

Even if you think the polls are inaccurate you can't say that Paul's support is double what he polls at. Polls taken immediately before an election have an excellent track record of being within 5%. Also, pollsters can compensate for certain groups hanging up on them disproportionately. They can and do count young respondents more heavily because of the low response rate.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you think the polls are inaccurate you can't say that Paul's support is double what he polls at. Polls taken immediately before an election have an excellent track record of being within 5%. Also, pollsters can compensate for certain groups hanging up on them disproportionately. They can and do count young respondents more heavily because of the low response rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The more individualistic the candidate's supporters, the less accurate the polling. Polls concerning standard elections are going to be pretty accurate because both parties' supporters aren't amazingly individualistic.

The real question here is "what percentage of Ron Paul supporters hang up the phone when they receive a poll phone call compared to other candidates' supporters, in addition to those Ron Paul supporters without land lines at all," and I think it's certainly greater than 50%.

[Borodog]

[ALawPoker]

LOL

A+

[MrMon]

[ 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 ]

A minarchist libertarian is fine with local laws concerning violent crimes such as murder. People who oppose abortion see abortion as murder. Most libertarians are certainly pro-choice, but I wouldn't call anyone less libertarian because they're pro-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the interest of not creating a flame war over abortion, I've just abandoned a two hour essay to refute your statement. Sometimes it's better just to walk away and realize that nothing good is going to come from such a post. But it was interesting to write it.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you now making my arguments for me? Thanks! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]


The more individualistic the candidate's supporters, the less accurate the polling. Polls concerning standard elections are going to be pretty accurate because both parties' supporters aren't amazingly individualistic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any data to support this assertion? If this trend existed, it doesn't seem like it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate by comparing past election results of "individualistic" candidates to their poll numbers.