Gallup Poll: 2% Choose Ron Paul in 2012

[Epic]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125777/Voters-Divided-Obama-Republican-Candidate-2012.aspx

(open ended)

Romney 14
Palin 11
McCain 7
Brown 4
Huckabee 3
Gingrich 3
Paul 2
Pawlenty 1
McDonnell 1
Jindal 1
Thompson 1

[TastyWheat]

7% for McCain? Is this a joke?

[sofia]

we may just have to write off the GOP.

seriously...these people are retarded

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

we may just have to write off the GOP.

seriously...these people are retarded

Free State Project.

[Epic]

Free State Project +1776

[CCTelander]

Ah, progress.

[RM918]

Ah, progress.

Well, in 2006 he wouldn't have even been in the poll.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well, in 2006 he wouldn't have even been in the poll.

2% Monumental rise! :rolleyes:

[No1ButPaul08]

Scott Brown 4%?? Idiots

[CCTelander]

2% Monumental rise! :rolleyes:

If memory serves, didn't RP poll above 5% during the actual campaign? If I'm remembering correctly, then 2% is actually a monumental decline.

[TonySutton]

It is important to note this was an open ended question. They were not given a choice, they had to come up with their own answer. I see this as good news.

[Peace&Freedom]

Yes, progress. At least Paul is mentioned in the poll, which is more than you can say for most of the polls in 2007. This tells us, again, of how important a role omitting a candidate from most surveys plays in suppressing their visibility, as it amounts to a soft blacklisting of that candidate. This in turn provides cover for the media's later hard blacklisting of the candidate (as seen in 2008). Paul needs to sponsor his own major polls, if he runs again, to head this off.

This poll also tells us (again) to not give much weight to all the internet and cable news or financial interviews Paul has gotten since the election, or cable debates he appears in if he runs again. MOST VOTERS DON'T WATCH CABLE INTERVIEWS. It's broadcast TV, and offline visibility that matters to get a candidate into the double digits of voter consciousness.

[gls]

I would prefer a second Obama term over everyone on that list (except for Paul of course).

[RM918]

If memory serves, didn't RP poll above 5% during the actual campaign? If I'm remembering correctly, then 2% is actually a monumental decline.

I said 2006. This is 2 years before 2012, so 2 years before 2008. *I* hadn't even heard of Paul in 2006.

[johnrocks]

Join the GOP, this is still a new movement. We can't dethrone the ones who have controlled it for years by just hoping it will happen. Join local GOP functions, get people involved in local and State elections, State Legislatures are an excellent launchpad for Congressional runs for example.

[Epic]

Guys, he wasn't mentioned in the poll.

It was open ended. People just picked a name without prompting.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Romney's cursaders are pushing hard on all polls and of course the NEOCONS at FOX and such jumping in to FIX the results.

[kahless]

It sure look like this movement is doomed without a 24 hour news channel and a network news broadcast that favors this movement to educate the sheeple in this country. Where are all the rich Conservatives - Liberatarians when you need them.

[yokna7]

The Palin nod would be funny if it weren't so tragic. I can't believe Pawlenty only go 1%. I think he will be the next republican nominee. I calls it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It sure look like this movement is doomed without a 24 hour news channel and a network news broadcast that favors this movement to educate the sheeple in this country. Where are all the rich Conservatives - Liberatarians when you need them.

There are no billionaire libertarians. Howard Koch the beltwaytarian and his CATO Anti-RonPaul and Anti-Ludwig von Mises Institute crap hole are about the closest you will get. Besides, the media moguls will not allow any competition against the big networks.

Does anyone here know how to hijack a TV broadcast? We need a Guy Fawkes and V for Vendetta moment.

[FSP-Rebel]

Free State Project.
It's starting to look like the only answer left to attaining some sort of freedom in one's lifetime. Clearly, I'm biased in favor of the Project as I've altered my life to be a part of it. I had high hopes for Texas but I think that momentum may be on ice right now. All I know is, we've increased the # of libertarian-republicans (81 as of now) in the state house in a couple of special elections last month and we're poised to do even better in November. The political activists are out in droves pushing for great candidates all over this state and also attending bill hearings to ensure some of our obscure taxes get repealed. We're also seeing great support this time around for passage of a 10th Amend/Nullification bill which may happen this spring. Also, a marijuana decrim bill just past committee this morning 16-2, which is historical. On to the full house, if not this year, definitely next.

As more new movers/activists pour into NH, you can expect this type of progress to increase exponentially. So everyone, come join us if you can. We don't have the dead weight of Fox nipping at our heals every time we turn around up here.:)

[K466]

We have a LOT of educating to do.

Scott Brown at 4%? What are these people thinking? And McCain will be too old to run again anyway.

[LibertyMage]

Here is the problem - that poll is retarded. That fact that Sarah Palin only received 11% shows it is busted.

[RPTXState]

It is important to note this was an open ended question. They were not given a choice, they had to come up with their own answer. I see this as good news.

This.

[RPTXState]

We have a LOT of educating to do.

Scott Brown at 4%? What are these people thinking? And McCain will be too old to run again anyway.

For the record, Ron Paul is older than McCain.

[tpreitzel]

Unfortunately, Ron Paul should probably remain in the US Congress. We need other supporters of constitutional liberty to lead this movement as a candidate for POTUS, e.g. Debra Medina in 2016. Besides Ron Paul, who has the integrity, commitment to the US Constitution, and recognition to run for POTUS in 2012?

[HenryAlan]

Too bad you couldn't have coalitions, IE majority conservative with some libertarians otherwise you simply dont have the broad appeal.

[s35wf]

does anyone here know how to hijack a tv broadcast? We need a guy fawkes and v for vendetta moment.

^^^ this :d

[BlackTerrel]

7% for McCain? Is this a joke?

Keep in mind that 90% of people are not thinking about 2012 right now. You're a Republican and they ask you "who you want to see on the ticket in 2012" - McCain is the first name that is going to come to many peoples minds.

[BlackTerrel]

It sure look like this movement is doomed without a 24 hour news channel and a network news broadcast that favors this movement to educate the sheeple in this country. Where are all the rich Conservatives - Liberatarians when you need them.

#1 That's not going to happen so saying we're doomed unless that happens is pretty defeatist.

#2 This isn't 1998. How many people do you think watch Fox News? A lot less people than get their news from the Internet. Adam Carolla's FREE podcast that he does entirely from his own money and isn't paid a dime to do gets as many downloads a day as people who watch Glenn Beck.

[South Park Fan]

I'm not buying it. Presumably the overwhelming majority of the 5% of GOP primary voters who voted for Ron Paul in 2008 would do so again in 2012; I seriously doubt that 60% of his supporters would abandon him. Also, Ron Paul did very well among independents in 2008, so with no competitive Democratic primary to vote it, a lot of those independents are going to vote in the Republican primary, where they would be more likely to vote for Ron Paul then registered Republicans. Thus, Ron Paul's poll numbers should if anything be higher than 5%. Although the poll should be taken with a grain of salt for the reasons I provided, it is still a sign of encouragement that when you substitute Ron Paul's 2008 numbers in for the poll, he is only 9% away from toppling the frontrunner.

[Andrew-Austin]

I think most of us know Ron Paul didn't campaign to win in 2008, and if he ran again in 2012 he would not "campaign to win" either. I'm not saying he shouldn't run, just pointing that out.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think most of us know Ron Paul didn't campaign to win in 2008, and if he ran again in 2012 he would not "campaign to win" either. I'm not saying he shouldn't run, just pointing that out.

By campaign to win we all know what that means. It's code for word lying. Can you folks not see how this system is self-corrupting? How do you plan to fix the system if it is the direct cause of the corruption?

[BlackTerrel]

I think most of us know Ron Paul didn't campaign to win in 2008, and if he ran again in 2012 he would not "campaign to win" either. I'm not saying he shouldn't run, just pointing that out.

Bullshit. You play to win.

YouTube - You Play To Win The Game (INFL Mixtape) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zLlIdZikDk)

[Ricky201]

There are no billionaire libertarians. Howard Koch the beltwaytarian and his CATO Anti-RonPaul and Anti-Ludwig von Mises Institute crap hole are about the closest you will get. Besides, the media moguls will not allow any competition against the big networks.

Does anyone here know how to hijack a TV broadcast? We need a Guy Fawkes and V for Vendetta moment.

This has been a fantasy of mine for awhile.

[Peace&Freedom]

Bullshit. You play to win.



It's more faceted than that. Electoral victory minded candidates play to win the election. Issue or third party candidates (who know they are not going to win the election) play to win the battle to inject their issues into the campaign, to gain regular ballot access, or to send a message by being a margin of dfference in an election. Educational campaigns and electoral victory oriented campaigns are both campaigns to win, just scaled to different targets.

Whatever his intentions or announcements through 2007, Paul ended up not playing to win the primary race. He talked more and more about "injecting issues into the campaign" from February 2008 onward. This is most clearly seen by how he switched gears when it came to retaining his House seat. When he stepped back to concentrate on defeating his congressional primary opponent, Paul switched to electoral victory mode. There was no talk about "injecting issues," or ballot fraud isn't a serious issue," or "winning isn't the important thing" when it came to staying in Congress---he ran to win the primary, period.

Paul put poll monitors in place all over his district to defend against vote fraud. He raised the half million all successful congressional candidates raise to win/regain a seat, etc. I suspect the reason Paul's congressional campaign manager never involved himself in the presidential campaign effort (and why staffer Penny Langford left early on) was precisely because of feeling that the campaign was not serious about winning the primaries. Paul was, in the end, playing to win the game of getting a greater presence for the liberty movement in the mainstream. In that respect, Paul clearly was a victor.

[Kilrain]

Paul ignited a movement, Obama won a beauty contest. Paul's ideas benefited immensely from the race. Does anyone even know what Obama's ideas are?

Trick question, he doesn't have any.

[BlackTerrel]

It's more faceted than that. Electoral victory minded candidates play to win the election. Issue or third party candidates (who know they are not going to win the election) play to win the battle to inject their issues into the campaign, to gain regular ballot access, or to send a message by being a margin of dfference in an election. Educational campaigns and electoral victory oriented campaigns are both campaigns to win, just scaled to different targets.

Whatever his intentions or announcements through 2007, Paul ended up not playing to win the primary race. He talked more and more about "injecting issues into the campaign" from February 2008 onward. This is most clearly seen by how he switched gears when it came to retaining his House seat. When he stepped back to concentrate on defeating his congressional primary opponent, Paul switched to electoral victory mode. There was no talk about "injecting issues," or ballot fraud isn't a serious issue," or "winning isn't the important thing" when it came to staying in Congress---he ran to win the primary, period.

Paul put poll monitors in place all over his district to defend against vote fraud. He raised the half million all successful congressional candidates raise to win/regain a seat, etc. I suspect the reason Paul's congressional campaign manager never involved himself in the presidential campaign effort (and why staffer Penny Langford left early on) was precisely because of feeling that the campaign was not serious about winning the primaries. Paul was, in the end, playing to win the game of getting a greater presence for the liberty movement in the mainstream. In that respect, Paul clearly was a victor.

I understand what you're saying. I still think it's defeatist to go into 2012 and say there's no chance of winning. It just deflates the entire campaign. It doesn't matter if you're Nantucket high school basketball and you're playing the LA Lakers you still give it your all and play to win - and let the chips fall where they may.

[nate895]

I understand what you're saying. I still think it's defeatist to go into 2012 and say there's no chance of winning. It just deflates the entire campaign. It doesn't matter if you're Nantucket high school basketball and you're playing the LA Lakers you still give it your all and play to win - and let the chips fall where they may.

+1, Even if a candidate is simply in the race to inject ideas and not win the race, the best way to do that is to campaign like you want to win, at least in the early days. Heck, if it works out, the ideas you inject might wind up winning you the election anyway.

[BlackTerrel]

+1, Even if a candidate is simply in the race to inject ideas and not win the race, the best way to do that is to campaign like you want to win, at least in the early days. Heck, if it works out, the ideas you inject might wind up winning you the election anyway.

If you had polled NFL experts 6 months ago who would win the Superbowl how many do you think would have said Saints? 2 maybe 3%? Probably the same number who would give Ron Paul a shot now.

It's not the most likely outcome but it's possible. Keep in mind that by 2012 we are still going to be involved in an unpopular war and the economy is going to be even worse. Neither of these things make me happy since I live in this country - but those are both things that will play in RP's favor.

[rp08orbust]

What a difference one "meaningless" straw poll (CPAC) has made:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=236453
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=237578

Want to see the difference another one would make? http://battleofneworleans2010.com/

[Anti Federalist]

Hey, this is good news, Ron only has to live to, I dunno, 185 or so, to finally have educated enough people to win.

//sarcasm//

and

//facepalm//

[TCE]

The point is: Dr. Paul isn't the front runner, and he is in last place in every poll against the front runners. He is a few percent up from 2007 at this time (and WAY up from 2006 obviously), but there is a long track ahead of us. Would the major pollsters be taking him seriously four years ago? No. But again, he is not a front runner. On average, he has about 4% of the vote. That's what we have to work with, we need at least 30%.

[rp08orbust]

The point is: Dr. Paul isn't the front runner, and he is in last place in every poll against the front runners. He is a few percent up from 2007 at this time (and WAY up from 2006 obviously), but there is a long track ahead of us. Would the major pollsters be taking him seriously four years ago? No. But again, he is not a front runner. On average, he has about 4% of the vote. That's what we have to work with, we need at least 30%.

Where did you get this 4% figure?

[low preference guy]

Straw poll wins such as CPAC are positive. He gets a lot of attention and press from that, and he uses it to spread the message. Don't be so negative guys. Even Karl Rove is talking about Ron Paul now. He wouldn't do that if he didn't considered Ron a threat.

[TCE]

Where did you get this 4% figure?

PPP had him at 8%, Gallup has 2%, PPP had him around 4% in a couple states, so 4 seems like a good compromise. It is definitely not over 6% but it's not under 3% either.

[rp08orbust]

PPP had him at 8%, Gallup has 2%, PPP had him around 4% in a couple states, so 4 seems like a good compromise. It is definitely not over 6% but it's not under 3% either.

In other words, you pulled it out of your ass.

PPP had him at 11%. Why would you throw out the PPP result and throw in a couple state polling figures, mixing both pre-CPAC and post-CPAC results?

[Pete_00]

Who says you can trust this polls?

[TCE]

In other words, you pulled it out of your ass.

PPP had him at 11%. Why would you throw out the PPP result and throw in a couple state polling figures, mixing both pre-CPAC and post-CPAC results?

Essentially, but I am giving more weight to Gallup since PPP seems to be caught up in the pollster game (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/house-effects-render-poll-reading.html) this cycle. Either way, it's clear that Romney is way ahead if the primary were held today.

Yes, I don't see CPAC having much of an impact. Around here, hardly anyone has heard of it, much less known about the straw poll and who won. I told several of my classes and I had one person know what CPAC even was.

[mstrmac1]

Ron Paul will run 2012 .... this is our last hope, for awhile. We need to start now! I think we are forgetting what has gotten us all together? It's RON PAUL! The time is now. The time to continue the momentum is upon us... dont get a blurred message. Ron Paul 2012!

[rp08orbust]

Let's not bump this obsolete thread anymore--when I posted the pre-CPAC and post-CPAC comparison, I was intending to start this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=237916