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

[Mani]

RP is the only Republican I have any respect for - for starters, he actually believes what he says about limiting the role of government.

 

[Moonbeam]

Interesting for sure. People are finally waking up to Obummer's socialist agenda, November is going to be the month of the Tea Party Hammer.

Billions are being spent to convince America that Obama threatens the rich, I mean is a socialist monster, and lots of the brain dead like yourself are picking up on it.

 

[blackangst1]

He'd be the only Republican Candidate worth voting for if you actually wanted a change, the rest of them are sock puppets.

Realistically he's as electable as Palin. In other words, wouldnt make it past the primaries.

 

[Moonbeam]

RP is the only Republican I have any respect for - for starters, he actually believes what he says about limiting the role of government.

So what? How does that differentiate between a truth teller and a fanatic? I bet it's because you agree with him, eh? So which are you?

 

[Deeko]

Deeko you arnt reading the thread

I give up

What aren't I reading? A poll says that Ron Paul currently has 41% in a poll. I'm not denying that the poll says that, or that people in the poll voted that way. I'm saying it doesn't really matter, because he won't win. I explained why. What am I missing?

The article does not actually say what the poll options were. Was it "who would you vote for" and those 4 are the tallied responses, or was it "would you vote for RP, BO, other, or dunno"? These are very different polls.

 

[Carmen813]

This was a Ramussen poll, which has been polling Republican leaning districts more heavily since last summer. They have a R bias of around 5% when compared to other pollers.

The reason this is interesting is that it means perhaps Ron Paul could survive the Republican primaries.

There are other reasons which lead me to think this poll is bunk (and indeed, all polls this year) but this doesn't seem to be the right thread to discuss it.

 

[blackangst1]

The reason this is interesting is that it means perhaps Ron Paul could survive the Republican primaries.

I disagree.

 

[Carmen813]

I disagree.

You never know. Ron Paul would struggle mostly with social conservatives. He would do fairly well in all other areas.

 

[umbrella39]

Interesting for sure. People are finally waking up to Obummer's socialist agenda, November is going to be the month of the Tea Party Hammer.

Most Americans aren't that stupid I'm afraid. Not everyone knows this... but most do.

There aren't enough tea party fools with transparent bullshit self hating agendas to change things. The vast majority of America has been awake for quite some time now, thanks, and knows exactly where the blame lies.

 

[Moonbeam]

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?

These are not the questions you are asking and the concerns you have. I think what you're saying is that if Paul is elected and is effective it's bye bye Israel.

He believes that American money and American blood are for Americans and the aggressive uncompromising land grabbing apartheid of Israel is their problem and theirs alone.

I think Paul has less chance to be President and get anything real done than a snowball has a chance in hell, but it would be a sad but tough way to teach Israel the path she took is one that runs over a cliff. He who lives by the sword dies by it. Oh and, love thy neighbor.

 

[nick1985]

This was a Ramussen poll, which has been polling Republican leaning districts more heavily since last summer. They have a R bias of around 5% when compared to other pollers.

The reason this is interesting is that it means perhaps Ron Paul could survive the Republican primaries.

There are other reasons which lead me to think this poll is bunk (and indeed, all polls this year) but this doesn't seem to be the right thread to discuss it.

Can you cite sources for your claims?







http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us

A Record of Accuracy
Rasmussen Reports takes pride in its accuracy. We were right on the money in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

But it’s more than getting the final answer right that matters. Our polling is generally less volatile than other firms. In 2008, for example, we showed essentially the same result for just about every day over the final six weeks of the campaign. In 2004, our data showed that hardly anybody changed their mind from the moment John Kerry won the Democratic nomination until George W. Bush won the election.
Because Rasmussen Reports polls more frequently than others, we are usually the first to pick up on major trends.

In 2008, for example, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Barack Obama gaining on Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters, the first to show John McCain on top among Republicans and the first to show the massive unpopularity of the bank and auto company bailouts.

In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!”

In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley in a Massachusetts Senate race. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico wrote, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties … was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." The New York Times Magazine opens a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has “an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”
See our Senate polling summary for 2004, 2006, and 2008.

Rasmussen Reports does not do polls-for-hire. But because of our track record for accuracy, we frequently get asked to do so.

To meet this demand, Pulse Opinion Research was launched as a separate company several years ago to provide field work (interviews and processing) for surveys. Pulse licenses methodology developed by Scott Rasmussen and provides the field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys. It provides all customers with the same quality field work that we rely on every day.

 

[StageLeft]

I agree with above about RP and Palin except I think Palin is more electable as a president than RP. I'm not saying she'd be better, but he would be obliterated in primaries. Realize that America despite some of its apparent differences is constructed in great part of sheep who bleat the same song on either side of the isle. When you've got statements from RP that can be mocked by BOTH democrats and republicans alike, it would simply be an almost inconceivable turn of events that saw him winning the primaries.

To be frank, he has good ideas in some areas but even I with no propaganda training at all could come up with an endless litany of one-liners that would rally the typical voter against him, everything from "If RP was president in WWII we'd be speaking German" to "RP voted against such and such measure to support the Brits fighting terrorism in Syria [or something], why is he a terrorist sympathizer." to "RP hates welfare" to "RP voted against such and such bill that put money back into your pocket when you needed it most in this recession". I mean truly endless, he'd be torn apart.

 

[nick1985]

What aren't I reading?

My posts.

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.

Keep believing the pipe dream if you wish, but Ron Paul will not be president.

 

[Deeko]

You haven't really disagreed with anything I've said. You said it would be an uphill battle and that it will be a challenge to gain the Republican nomination. I said he won't win no matter what current polls are saying.

 

[nick1985]

"RP hates welfare"

So do a lot of people.

 

[nick1985]

You haven't really disagreed with anything I've said.

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.

Post #17, I disagreed with your assertion that people will not vote for him, implying I think he COULD win (him getting to a general election is another matter)

 

[Moonbeam]

I agree with above about RP and Palin except I think Palin is more electable as a president than RP. I'm not saying she'd be better, but he would be obliterated in primaries. Realize that America despite some of its apparent differences is constructed in great part of sheep who bleat the same song on either side of the isle. When you've got statements from RP that can be mocked by BOTH democrats and republicans alike, it would simply be an almost inconceivable turn of events that saw him winning the primaries.

To be frank, he has good ideas in some areas but even I with no propaganda training at all could come up with an endless litany of one-liners that would rally the typical voter against him, everything from "If RP was president in WWII we'd be speaking German" to "RP voted against such and such measure to support the Brits fighting terrorism in Syria [or something], why is he a terrorist sympathizer." to "RP hates welfare" to "RP voted against such and such bill that put money back into your pocket when you needed it most in this recession". I mean truly endless, he'd be torn apart.

Ron Paul aside, what you describe would be the fate of anybody honest who runs.

 

[bamacre]

You never know. Ron Paul would struggle mostly with social conservatives. He would do fairly well in all other areas.

Ron Paul would never win a Republican primary, and he'll never be president. And believe me, he knows that more than anyone else.

 

[Deeko]

Alright. Well, as I said in my reply to that - some people will vote for him, but not enough of the general population.

Of course the general election is easier than the primary - in the general election is largely becomes a R vs D partisan battle, so were he nominated, of course the majority of Republicans are going to vote for him over Obama. However, I agree that he would have a much tougher (and in my opinion, impossible at this point) battle in the primaries.

I do think that you'd actually see some more center-leaning Republicans vote for Obama over Paul. Lets be serious...the Republican party is not fiscally conservative for the most part, so his hardcore conservatism would scare them. Also, Obama is seemingly much more willing to use the military than Paul would ever be, which would further draw certain Republican camps.

 

[bamacre]

So do a lot of people.

Yeah, but those people aren't in the GOP leadership. And it's not so much they "like welfare," but they like the what comes with it, i.e, they like the political contributions coming from things like Big Pharma. It wasn't the Democrats who passed Medicare D, in fact the Democrats strongly opposed it.

 

[Anarchist420]

Ron Paul is far from socially liberal. He's the most pro-life one out there, even voting for a federal ban on partial-birth abortion; he's even more pro-life than Sarah Palin, and he's very anti-illegal immigration.

These days too damn many people who consider themselves Republicans only care about Israel and having bases all over the world and that's why he'll have a tougher time in the primaries than in the general election.

In the debates, he'd crush Obama. Obama would look like a complete idiot, and start running negative, false ads against Dr.Paul in desparation, while Dr. Paul will win even more votes because he won't respond to Obama's BS personally.

 

[woolfe9999]

Realistically he's as electable as Palin. In other words, wouldnt make it past the primaries.

He's actually the opposite of Palin. Palin could possibly have a shot in the primaries, but no shot whatsoever in the general election, whereas Paul might have a shot in the general election, but could never win a republican primary.

- wolf

 

[bamacre]

Post #17, I disagreed with your assertion that people will not vote for him, implying I think he COULD win (him getting to a general election is another matter)

I don't think so. And I'll tell you why. No one has really had to fire their big guns at Paul. He's not a threat to them, and hypothetically speaking, if he were in the general election, he'd have a bigger fight on his hands. And I don't say this because he's full of bad ideas, but because his ideas are a hard sell to the American people. Americans are much more likely to buy into fear than anything Paul has to offer.

 

[Carmen813]

Can you cite sources for your claims?







http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us

A Record of Accuracy
Rasmussen Reports takes pride in its accuracy. We were right on the money in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

But it’s more than getting the final answer right that matters. Our polling is generally less volatile than other firms. In 2008, for example, we showed essentially the same result for just about every day over the final six weeks of the campaign. In 2004, our data showed that hardly anybody changed their mind from the moment John Kerry won the Democratic nomination until George W. Bush won the election.
Because Rasmussen Reports polls more frequently than others, we are usually the first to pick up on major trends.

In 2008, for example, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Barack Obama gaining on Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters, the first to show John McCain on top among Republicans and the first to show the massive unpopularity of the bank and auto company bailouts.

In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!”

In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley in a Massachusetts Senate race. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico wrote, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties … was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." The New York Times Magazine opens a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has “an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”
See our Senate polling summary for 2004, 2006, and 2008.

Rasmussen Reports does not do polls-for-hire. But because of our track record for accuracy, we frequently get asked to do so.

To meet this demand, Pulse Opinion Research was launched as a separate company several years ago to provide field work (interviews and processing) for surveys. Pulse licenses methodology developed by Scott Rasmussen and provides the field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys. It provides all customers with the same quality field work that we rely on every day.

Sure, it's a liberal blog, but I find his statistical analysis to be valid.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/house-effects-render-poll-reading.html

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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 amazing how many people saw him ias a lunatic and that he had these crazy ideas. Now that we've seen what real crazy people do when in the white house RP doesn't look so bad anymore. I would have and still would Vote for RP.