Quote (thundercock @ Jun 8 2015 11:18pm)

So what you're saying is that women can't be independent and need men?

Quote (bernie)

guess women just aren't crazy enough to think Rand is any different than every other crack-pot GOP candidate.

Quote (thundercock @ Jun 8 2015 10:18pm)

So what you're saying is that women can't be independent and need men?

Quote (cambovenzi @ Jun 8 2015 10:36pm)

It shows a large amount of willful ignorance and malice when you suggest he isn't different from the other GOP candidates. The massive differences are clear as day.

The poll was also an outlier. He fared much better among women in the recent wapo/abc poll, and in the PPP national poll.
Its not like low polling among Republican women indicates sameness either.

Quote (cambovenzi @ Jun 8 2015 11:36pm)

It shows a large amount of willful ignorance and malice when you suggest he isn't different from the other GOP candidates. The massive differences are clear as day.

The poll was also an outlier. He fared much better among women in the recent wapo/abc poll, and in the PPP national poll.
Its not like low polling among Republican women indicates sameness either.

Quote (Pollster @ Jun 8 2015 10:13pm)

Um, words, meaning. Being more aggressive than his competitors in trying to build an infrastructure (because he knew he would run for president before them) is helpful for it's own sake, but that doesn't make the actual organization "substantial," which was the word you used. Being a Senator, it's likely that he can at least claim that he receives donations from more states than most of the governors (which is where that distinction is coming from), but as far as the actual organizational strength of the infrastructure he's created -- it doesn't even begin to approach "substantial." Paul is seriously entertaining the idea that he'll outright skip South Carolina completely. You don't skip key states if you have a substantial organization in all 50 states.

I'm obviously not ignoring the polling either (yawn), I'm only correctly applying the correct scrutiny to it: Paul currently enjoys an artificial standing that'll soon be replaced by fully fleshed-out opinions of him. That means his standing could improve or worsen, and there's every reason to believe it'll worsen. Right now the vast majority of respondents know little to nothing about his economic views and don't fully understand the rationale behind most of his social views either. The only thing that most respondents know about him are the eclectic foreign policy views that stand in contrast to those belonging to the rest of the field.

There are a lot of artificial elements to the early-primary polling, including Jeb Bush faring the same as Carly Fiorina against Hillary Clinton in various states. If anyone thinks that there isn't a very large artificial element to such polling then they clearly don't understand polling, campaigns, or both.

Quote (Santara @ Jun 8 2015 07:51pm)

Yes, yes, we all know that anything short of billion-dollar campaigns with legions of door-knockers, call centers, and ad execs in every CD falls far short of "substantial" is your world.

Candidates skip states all the time. It's all about maximizing your efforts and you know that.

Looks like you're doing the polling wrong then.

Quote (thundercock @ Jun 8 2015 10:53pm)

He's right in this case though. In this day and age, in order to win, you need a billion dollar campaign.

Quote (Skinned @ Jun 8 2015 11:38pm)

Not massive, GOP has a small umbrella and he falls in the range.

Quote (berniehack)

Open your eyes, stop listening to what he is saying and look at the facts and his history. He is as bad, and even more extreme conservative on some issues as every other GOP mainline policy.

Quote (Santara @ Jun 8 2015 08:02pm)

Says some, sure. Money may help, but it doesn't always win.

Quote (thundercock @ Jun 8 2015 11:35pm)

When does it not win?