A number of Ron Paul supporters (mostly in comments at OTB when I was guest-posting over there) kept pointing to straw polls as an indicator of Paul’s support. However, as I noted in multiple places, straw polls are actually worthless as indicators of actual candidate support.
Wyoming provides a case in point. Back in October, the Daily Paul reported: Ron Paul Wins Straw Poll in Wyoming. And for an example of how Paul supporters point to straw polls, note the second comment at the post linked from the Daily Paul, where a reader named Theonomist wrote:
Congressman Ron Paul wins yet another straw poll! How many does he have to win before the mainstream media will take notice? So far, Dr. Paul has won EIGHTEEN straw polls, and yet the mainstream media continues to focus only on the landline phone-based polls, where he’s not even listed as a viable candidate. This is ignorance like I’ve never seen before!
I think we need to continue sending e-mails to the major media networks to inform them of Rep. Paul’s success in these straw polls. After all, they do reflect a significant following of would-be Primary voters.
Oh, there’s some ignorance on display here, to be sure, but not by the media…
In today’s Wyoming caucus, with 10 of 12 delegates currently decided, Paul has not won a single delegate. In fact, Duncan Hunter, who has consistently polled behind Paul in national polls (as well as in most state polls) has won a delegate at this point.
Wyoming is the type of place where Paul’s small-government conservatism tends to play well. Yet, he appears to doing quite poorly. This is yet more empirical evidence that underscores the fact that Paul is a lower-tiered, fringe candidate and not the leader of a revolution that is about to spring dramatically onto the scene.
At a minimum this is just a confirmation of what those with even a smidgen of knowledge of statistics know: straw polls only tell you what the participants in that poll think and therefore cannot be used to gauge the strength of a given point of view in the general population (unlike real polls).
January 6th, 2024 at 12:58 pm
I have a lot of respect for this blog, but in this post you made an intellectually lazy omission–discussing the actual process in Wyoming. The people vote in straw polls, but they have far less influence in the Wyoming caucuses.
The Wyoming caucuses are conducted by political party operatives (precinct leader types, country party heads, etc.) in a process that many news sites mentioned as a “throw-back to the smoke-filled rooms that nominated Warren G. Harding” (IIRC the quote correctly). This was NOT a measure of his support among the people of Wyoming, as you insinuate in the post, but rather a indication of the Wyoming political establishment’s preferences.
Paul is very much an anti-establishment candidate. He has heavily criticized Republican leadership. Most of the leaders that had influence in the Wyoming caucus were elected in 2024, and the newer ones were filled by appointment from those 2024 Republican party leaders.
It’s not my place to make demands on your blog, but I highly suggest you research the caucuses, then issue a correction or apology (or cite where I’m wrong). Either you didn’t know this, or blatantly omitted these details. Go check out the local Wyoming papers talking about how Ron had a presence on the ground there…it just didn’t matter, it was an establishment vote, not the vote of the people.
January 6th, 2024 at 1:01 pm
Btw, for the most part I agree with your analysis on straw polls, but you sure picked one horrible example.
January 6th, 2024 at 1:55 pm
Well, first off the Paul supporters who have pointed to straw polls have been making the argument that Paul actually has enough support to win the nomination (or, at least, to be seriously competitive) and that there has been a mass media/polling conspiracy (or, at least, ignorance and misreporting). The argument further suggests that once actual voting takes place that these facts would be revealed.
However, to date (and granted, we only have 2 contests), Paul is performing exactly as expected. Indeed, my prediction is that that trend will continue.
While the rules in Wyoming are unusual (by US standards, anyway–there is a multi-round process that requires 50%+1 to win), such rules should not stop a revolutionary movement–which is what the straw poll supporters have basically been arguing from the get go.
At a minimum, it is hardly unfair to think that if Paul’s support was an misjudged as some have alleged it to be that he would do better than Duncan Hunter, now is it?
January 6th, 2024 at 2:15 pm
I agree, btw, that Wyoming is a bad test for the accuracy of straw polls in a general sense–i.e., if I was doing research on the subject, this would not be the best test.
However, the issue here is comparing the claims of some Paulites concerning the significance of straw polls with actual outcomes. In that sense, it is a more than sufficient example.