• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pretty shocking poll numbers I'd never thought I would see

Given that in 2006, I think "everyone" was saying it would be Giuliani vs Clinton in 2008, I don't think that any polling now matters.

So much can happen between now and 2012 that this is pointless.
 
He'd be the only Republican Candidate worth voting for if you actually wanted a change, the rest of them are sock puppets.
 
Red Dawn said:
He'd be the only Republican Candidate worth voting for if you actually wanted a change, the rest of them are sock puppets.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, last election I thought he was a loon. Now I would support him. I agree 100% with his limited federal government stance, I believe thats how the Constitution was framed.
 
It's interesting but as I've said in the past and been absolutely correct about, when push comes to shove people do not always vote the same way when it matters that they said they'd vote when it didn't.

Ron Paul never was nor ever will be a viable contender in any capacity whatsoever. Not unless there is a monumental change to the entire country first, which there very likely won't be.
 
nick1985 said:
I have to admit, last election I thought he was a loon. Now I would support him. I agree 100% with his limited federal government stance, I believe thats how the Constitution was framed.
Click to expand...
I bet the majority of Wingnuts could never get behind his policies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Gay Marriage, Non aggressive stance towards Iran, ending the embargo on Cuba, cutting financial aid to Israel, decriminalizing drugs, etc

Seems to me that he'd probably have an easier time with the Moderate Dems than the Wingers.
 
Skoorb said:
Ron Paul never was nor ever will be a viable contender in any capacity whatsoever. Not unless there is a monumental change to the entire country first, which there very likely won't be.
Click to expand...

Which is dumb, the guy makes a lot of sense.

Holy shit, I just defended Ron Paul. lol. He is by no means my 1st choice, but I am a big fan of his limited government stance.
 
You never thought you would see an internet poll that favored Ron Paul?

Really?

You must have forgotten the ridiculous disparity between Paul's internet poll numbers for the 2008 election primaries, and his actual votes. He's an internet superstar, but it doesn't translate to the real world.

Ron Paul is the opposite of the Republican party. In virtually every way. An actual fiscal conservative? In many ways socially liberal? Yea right. Democrats won't vote for him because of his strong fiscal conservative beliefs. Republicans won't vote for him because of his socially liberal leaning ways and his isolationist views. Until the country massively changes, he'll never come close to being elected.
 
Red Dawn said:
I bet the majority of Wingnuts could never get behind his policies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Gay Marriage, Non aggressive stance towards Iran, ending the embargo on Cuba, cutting financial aid to Israel, decriminalizing drugs, etc

Seems to me that he'd probably have an easier time with the Moderate Dems than the Wingers.
Click to expand...

But it's the context in which he takes those stances that many would agree with him. And you have to love this stance:

International organizations

Paul advocates withdrawing U.S. participation and funding from organizations he believes override American sovereignty, such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the WTO, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.[7][41][42]
 
So first America was punished with the election of Obama, now we're about to see a political oscillation that gets Ron Paul in office, for America to be punished the second time.

While some of his ideas do make sense, others - such as nonintervention - simply aren't realistic. Would nonintervention work during WWII? What kind of world would we have then?
 
SamurAchzar said:
So first America was punished with the election of Obama, now we're about to see a political oscillation that gets Ron Paul in office, for America to be punished the second time.

While some of his ideas do make sense, others - such as nonintervention - simply aren't realistic. Would nonintervention work during WWII? What kind of world would we have then?
Click to expand...

A Russian speaking one.
 
Deeko said:
You never thought you would see an internet poll that favored Ron Paul?

Really?
Click to expand...

This was an internet poll?


Really?


Just because poll results are posted online doesn't make it an online poll.

Come on Deeko, I thought you were smarter than that. Do you know how Rasmussen does their polling?
 
I actually didn't click the link, its 8am, cut me some slack here!

I stand by my last paragraph, though.
 
Deeko said:
I actually didn't click the link, its 8am, cut me some slack here!

I stand by my last paragraph, though.
Click to expand...

Claiming people wont vote for him might be a little bit overzealous of a statement, I mean, he has about the same support nationwide as Obama right now (granted, thats not saying a lot).

I agree he would have an uphill battle though.
 
Deeko said:
Sure, some people will vote for him. He still won't come close to winning the election.
Click to expand...


He just came within 1% in a traditionally very reliable poll.

His toughest challenge wouldnt be winning the election, it would be winning the GOP nomination IMO
 
Ron Paul is for the most part is the direction the GOP needs to go but I do not think he is the man that should (publicly) lead the GOP in 2012.

He is out there on a lot of issues.

The GOP needs to find a young Ron Paul.
 
I'm curious to see what the poll would have been like if it asked both Obama vs Paul and Obama vs Generic Center-Right Republican Governor X

Paul could just as easily be a stand-in for "Not Obama." I find it incredulous to think that his policies are widely known amongst a national mainstream audience.
 
nick1985 said:
[/b]

He just came within 1% in a traditionally very reliable poll.
Click to expand...

A completely meaningless poll that's nowhere close to the election. He polled very well in 2008, too. I mostly remember his internet dominance, I have no idea how he did in other poll formats, but in the end his poll numbers did not translate to votes.

You think Democrats are going to vote for him? He goes against everything they stand for. A small amount of Republicans would vote for him, but too many of them care too much about the social issues and the isolationism to sway them.

Where the options in the poll Obama, Paul, or other? That changes things. Gather up likely Republican primary candidates and poll Republican voters on them. That's what he has to surpass first.
 
Deeko said:
Where the options in the poll Obama, Paul, or other? That changes things. Gather up likely Republican primary candidates and poll Republican voters on them. That's what he has to surpass first.
Click to expand...

Drink some coffee and read the article, you will answer your own questions.

"Eleven percent (11&#37😉 prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top