Comments on: Decision 2008: How Committed are Republicans to their Candidates?

By: bixia

bixia — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:20:24 +0000

cheap nfl jerseys

By: merdiven

merdiven — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:51:00 +0000

Hi, We have been manufacturing stair. 624 merdivenci 624

By: bassan

bassan — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:37:21 +0000

hi, msj 595 wonderful blog 595 share

By: bill

bill — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:24:12 +0000

the game moves fast at this stage of the race. no doubt its constantly changing.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:35:37 +0000

Matt,
Hmmm… seems your info is wrong…
“Paul’s seems a stretch and kinda of silly given just the fact that Brownback has so far outraised your candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/2008_EG_FINANCES.html ”

According to that site:
Brownback raised $4.2 million
Paul raised $8.3 million

Now to be fair, I am posting on November 15th, and it appears that this article originated on August 1. So back in August Brownback may have been outraising Dr. Paul. There is no way to tell from that link. This is obviously no longer the case.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:27:48 +0000

Matt,
Regardless of how well candidates do in landline phone poll of “likely” republican voters, don’t you think it is a bit disingenuous of you to not cover the *leader* in website hits among the GOP candidates?

Don’t you think Ron Paul’s surge of hits in the last 3 months is a little interesting?

What are you thoughts on landline phone polls in this web age? Do you really think they are better than using webstats (as evidence by your reason for not including him)

Ask yourself this: Would you tell your potential customer to trust landline phone polls over compete.com stats in order to gauge popularity?

By: disinter

disinter — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:43:20 +0000

And another:

http://btetc.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-scientific-polling.html

By: ronpaulin2008

ronpaulin2008 — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:29:29 +0000

Matt, that nytimes link is a bit misleading on the surface - the amount a candidate has raised is not nearly as important as how much they have left and the rate they will be intaking over the next few months. According to that link McCain has raised an impressive 26.4M. Except the truth of the matter is that McCain has already spent 90% of that money, and now Ron Paul is on par with him in cash on hand. Likewise Brownback is nearly broke and his campaign has effectively stagnated. Paul’s campaign has barely started pushing outside of the internet. So yes, I think it is fair to say that Paul and Brownback are headed in very opposite directions.

By: disinter

disinter — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:54:59 +0000

Here’s another one:

http://www.micahnelson.com/?p=56

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:06:44 +0000

You make some bold assertions and predictions ronpaul2008. It’s also great to see you using our site analytics data to bolster your opinions. While I won’t debate the merits of one candidate over another in this forum, I will say that calling Brownback’s campaign “laughable” in comparison to Paul’s seems a stretch and kinda of silly given just the fact that Brownback has so far outraised your candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/2008_EG_FINANCES.html

Paul certainly has an active online army, which no amount of mentioning is likely to satisfy. Be that as it is, we’ve been planning to feature him in an upcoming post. Stay tuned.

By: ronpaulin2008

ronpaulin2008 — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:57:14 +0000

Ron Paul is as much of a contender as Mitt Romney and John McCain are at this point. (McCain already has a fork in his back and Romney isn’t far off.) Sam Brownback is a laughable comparison. I could write a dissertation on how skewed “traditional” polls are towards “traditional” candidates, such as the 4 reviewed in this post - but the preceding link covered the gist of it pretty well. Fact of the matter is, Ron Paul has no chance in the traditional polls, but the incredible groundswell of Internet support has already turned into serious funding for the Paul campaign. You can safely bet that he’s going to do well in the real elections.

Use the Compete data to see for yourself - it’s a shame the first legitimate candidate to ever grow from the Internet can’t even get in the discussion with the company that preaches the value of Internet data:
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/joinrudy2008.com+ronpaul2008.com?metric=uv

By: disinter

disinter — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:45:39 +0000

Matt,

I highly recommend you read this:

http://libertyupdate.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-i-dont-support-ron-paul.html

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:21:30 +0000

Bryan and disinter (and future Ron Paul supporting posters) -

Thanks for the questions. We excluded Ron Paul from this analysis for the same reason Tommy Thompson and Sam Brownback were left out. As I mentioned in the post, we chose to focus this analysis on the leading GOP candidates, based on national polling averages. Ron Paul undoubtedly has attracted a loyal online following; however to date, his impact on the race has been limited. I can tell you though that 8% of visitors to RonPaul2008.com visited one of the leading rival GOP’s sites in Q2, up from 6% in Q1.

Take heart, we have additional political posts in the works which will shed light on all of the candidates. Please keep checking back.

Also, disinter, July data will be available by mid August.

Matt

By: disinter

disinter — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:24:03 +0000

Why did you exclude Ron Paul??

When will you have data for July on your site?

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:03:31 +0000

Too bad you didn’t include Ron Paul which has had a very successfull internet campaign.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/mittromney.com+johnmccain.com+ronpaul2008.com+?src=wp-blsnp