Rand: "We have a real shot at winning"

ecard71 Sat, 12/26/2015 - 11:37

Can't wait for Iowa & NH to get a good, clear gauge.

What is the category of this post? (choose up to 2): 
ecard71's picture
About the author
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
TrumpetRoyale's picture

If you and I took a poll on the Call To Paul & asked "Who do you support for POTUS?"  Who do you think would win?  Rand, of course.  Because we polled from a group of his supporters.  When you see polls coming from Iowa, New Hampshire, & the MSM you are watching selective polling.  Their selections of who they poll are not unbiased.  They poll who they know will give them the intended result they want.  That is why campaigns have internal polling where they will poll independents & young people for more accurate numbers.  

Now, if you believe, or let yourself somehow come to the conclusion that the MSM is telling you the truth about polls, then why not believe them on the other things they tell you?  Remember in 2007 & 2012 when Ron came in second (lost by 1 or 2 votes) and the media didnt even mention his name?! WOW!  Almost tied for first place & they skipped right over Ron Paul to number 3, who didnt even come close to the votes that Ron had.  The MSM polling is controlled.  Like the information they give us, is read from a script sent down from two media outlets, Rueters & Associated Press control ALL MSM media, including print media.  

I dont read the MSM because I know what they are trying to do.  Whenever they print about Rand it is negative, or they disregard him.  This is meant to crush the spirits of those who are working hard in the campaign to win minds & hearts.  Dont let them crush your spirit.  Their words & deeds are poison.  I stay away & just work hard for the campaign & donate money & time during this very small window of opportunity in American history that we have to get these constitutional ideas at the forefront & plant an incredible amount of good seeds for the future.  Rand does have a great opportunity to win.  Dont get crushed by the negativity of the Machine.  Stay focused & remember, either way [if the establishment cheats & we lose, or if we succeed in winning]  we win, because constitutional ideas are at the forefront & seeds are being planted in the hearts & minds of people.  Once they have a revelation of the truth for themselves, they cannot go back to supporting the status quo of politics in America.  I am proof of this.  In 2007 I was awakened & I will not fall for the tricks of the Machine & all the phony liberty candidates that it spews forth.  Good luck & happy campaigning!

LibertyUserName's picture

I understand polls are skewed and often times made up. However a candidate does not go from polling so low to the nomination just because polls are skewed. I get that they are polling a small sample, I understand that they often don't give all info in polls, I understand all that.

But look at 2012, we all yelled about how Ron was polling better than the msm was letting on. We talked about how the polls were incorrect and not a good sample. Yet Ron was polling better than Rand is now and he still didn't get the nomination and or win Iowa.

We can all talk about how messed up the polls are all we want but that does not mean someone will go from polling this low to winning. 

TrumpetRoyale's picture

Yes, But..The reason you see people like sean hannity have Rand Paul on air so many times prior to the election cycle, and then flat out ignore & insult him during the election cycle is because the deceitful MSM walks a fine line.  They know that a lot of people were awakened in the past several years & they must speak to those ideas.  Yet they must also attempt to downplay the one candidate who would actually implement the changes.  They can have the constitutional ideas on display, but they must not help implement the ideas into reality.    Do you think the campaign did not know that this would happen?  Of course they did. This is politics.  If we are ONLY pushing forward to win the nomination then the eye is not on the complete prize.  The goal is multifaceted.  Winning the nomination is one tier in that process.  We push forward through the entire election cycle & beyond..  Just because you dont see money bomb fundraising like you did with Ron, thats ok. Ron was an anomaly.  Rand is fundraising in many other ways other than just the money bomb.  My friend just went to a packed fundraiser [dinner] in a very upscale neighborhood in Georgia last week.  They are working all angles.  And for me, instead of looking dismally upon the efforts, I would rather pay it forward & build on what we started in 2007.  There is this little known thing about life, that you never know how things will turn out, all you can do is push forward & do what YOU can do.  That is what makes the difference.  I dont get down about Rands fundraising not matching Ron's, instead I try to find creative ways to help raise money for the campaign & the ideas.  The media wants us to believe that everything hinges on these POTUS campaigns, which are largely rigged IMHO, but that is not true.  This is just one step in the process of bigger changes.  Win or lose, I dont care [though I work to win].  I get my hopes up that hard work pays off & that I never know what good can come from it.  The globalist are controllers, but they dont control everything.   Its like when Gandalf told Frodo [lol, but true] "There are greater forces at work in this world than evil".  And we never know what can happen. 

Peace

Ryan_76's picture

Any chance we will see Ron campaigning for Rand leading up to Iowa?  I would love to see it as it would be a good way to fire up the base and possibly win back some that bailed.  But I assume some think that will not be effective.  What do you think?

AKA Sunshine_State at Popular Liberty

If you can't trust people with freedom, how can you trust people with power?

GCN3030's picture

Ron Paul was at 21% in Iowa 6 weeks before the election. Sadly Rand is not anywhere close to that in ANY Iowa poll right now. He needs to find a way to differentiate himself from the other candidates quickly now or all is lost. His strategy has thus far failed to rally the base or achieve broad appeal; something needs to change fast.

<p>...</p>

ecard71's picture

way too much credit to the polls, and letting them sway you, as they do the uninformed masses?

I STILL STAND WITH RAND!

GCN3030's picture

Rand is clearly not doing as well as Ron did last go around and there are various reasons for that which need to be addressed if the campaign is serious about winning this election. We can pretend that the polls are wildly inaccurate but I don't see how that will do any good.

<p>...</p>

Denise B.'s picture

to pretend anything... the polls HAVE been shown to be wildly inaccurate many times over!!

.

ecard71's picture

Just look at the Kentucky Governor's race as an example.

Now I'm not going to argue that Rand isn't doing as well as Ron did in both donations and speaking turnouts - no argument there.

But what I do think is unrealistic is to discount that Rand even stands a chance at this point without having even reached the first caucus. Ron even thinks he stands a better chance. Is he lying? Hell, even Mitch McConnell endorsed him, aside from many others that never bothered with Ron.

You also seem to be discounting all the hard work Rand has put in to the Black community, their pastors, as well as meeting with Jewish leaders.

And while Rand's been blacked out by msm, he's not being blacked out nearly as much as Ron was either. He's obviously doing something right, different, or as Ron himself put it - better.

 

 

I STILL STAND WITH RAND!

HVACTech's picture

just in case YOU have not noticed. it is nearly 2016.

after the primaries. there is VERY little point in being involved or even voting.

.

GCN3030's picture

I won't post any more of my critical thoughts on the matter.

<p>...</p>

Joeinmo's picture

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_GOP_122011.pdf

in Iowa he was running 6-10% between 16-20 of Dec in all polls and as late as 1st week of Jan in some

 

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1213925.pdf

 

Ron is a little harder to find, but it's out there I seen it before 

 

 

...

GCN3030's picture

At this point in 2011 Ron Paul was polling at 21.5% in Iowa.  Rand Paul is now at 2.7% heading into the caucus right now.  IMHO the problem is that Rand is not being controversial enough so as a result he doesn't get any attention from the media.  He is making it is too easy for the other candidates to steal his thunder by mimicking his policy proposals; he has got to find a way to differentiate himself from the crowd by saying what they are afraid to speak out about.  He should come out swinging like Ron was doing around this time talking loudly about how he was going to cut a trillion $ in spending year one and eliminate whole agencies of the Federal Government.  Remember the big dog ad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA 

After it was released Ron Paul's poll numbers in Iowa DOUBLED over the next several weeks.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republica...

Beating around the bush talking about a measly $1 Billion in waste is not going to cut it.

<p>...</p>

TrumpetRoyale's picture

If you listen to MSM polls then you are listening to biased dealings.  They poll who will give them the intended & desired result to be aired on television & convince the public of who has a chance & who does not.  Remember 2012 when Ron Paul lost the Iowa caucus by 2 votes, and the MSM didnt even mention his name?!  Almost tied for first & they didnt mention his name...that was across the board for every media outlet omitted Rons name.  How is it possible that ALL the MSM omitted Rons name? Are they working together for the same agenda?  Of course.  Polls are misleading on purpose, for many reasons, but one reason is to crush the spirits of those involved in the campaign.  That is why you see less people at Rand campaigns then you did at Rons.  The media was partially successful in crushing some of the support.  I dont watch the MSM because I know what they are trying to do, and they aint trying to elect a consitutionalist to POTUS.  MSM is poision.  I stay away and dedicate my time planting seeds, donating money, & working for the ideas of the campaign, the constitutional ideas.  I couldnt care less about the MSM polling or information.  It means nothing to me.  Even if they cheat, and we lose, we still win because we broaden the base of thinking people who are awake, & we get constitutional ideas at the forefront.  If we win, then that is even better.  Stay positive, work hard & keep your sense of humor, we have a long way to go..  Happy Campaigning!

 

PS discounting someone with the stature & structure of Rands base BEFORE the first caucus is a big mistake.  We need Rand on that stage in the international spotlight, putting forth constitutional policies. It didn't take a few elections to get into this mess & it will take time to repair the damage. 

 

 

 

 

TheTaoistTroll's picture

I also remember there was a national poll or two that the media reported over and over had Ron at 0.00% the week before the Iowa Primary.  You have to consider the source when it come to polling. First off its human, when we consider them at best non biased and when conducted carefully they are still incredibility, at best, an educated guesses, and secondly you have to consider that almost all of these polling companies have an agenda: especially the media outlets. 

The augment you have put forth falls flat. Top three will most likely consist of Trump Cruz, and Paul/Rubio in some order. It is all up in the air.

Those who are; are those whom are not.

Joeinmo's picture

He was polling at 21% in all polls until the day before the caucus, I'm addition Santorum was at 6% literally until the week before and ended up in a tie for 1st.

...

GCN3030's picture

Here is a link to the Iowa polls from the 2012 election:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republica...

If you look carefully you can see that there is no evidence which backs up your assertion that Ron was at 6% in some polls 3 weeks out of the Iowa caucus, nor is there any truth to the claim that Santorum was at 6% until a week before the election.  No offense or anything, but I just don't see any data which corroborates your claims; do you happen to have any?

<p>...</p>

Joeinmo's picture

as I said "some" polls were still showing Ron at 6% three weeks out, and Santorum at 6% up to the week of the caucus.

 

im sure I can find, and if I get time I will

...

GCN3030's picture

I'm wondering if maybe you might be referring to national polls that may have been taken just before the Iowa Caucus which probably did show much lower numbers for both Paul and Santorum around the levels which you cite.

<p>...</p>

Joeinmo's picture

as I said "some" polls were still showing Ron at 6% three weeks out, and Santorum at 6% up to the week of the caucus.

 

im sure I can find, and if I get time I will

...

Pages