New 2012 GOP Primary Poll: Gingrich 23%, Huckabee 21%, Romney 19%, Palin 17%, Paul 7%

[MRoCkEd]

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/07/gingrich-leads.html


Friday, July 16, 2010
Gingrich leads
Our monthly look at who GOP voters prefer as their 2012 nominee finds that Sarah Palin is the most popular potential Republican hopeful with the base...but that she finishes just fourth when it comes to who they want as their nominee. For the first time Newt Gingrich is the leader in this poll with 23%, followed by Mike Huckabee at 21%, Mitt Romney at 19%, Palin at 17%, and Ron Paul at 7%.

70% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Palin, putting her tops. That's followed by Huckabee at 64%, Gingrich at 63%, and Romney at 59%. But only 24% of the GOP loyalists who like Palin list her as their top choice for the 2012 nomination. Gingrich is ahead even though he's not as popular because 34% with a positive opinion name him as their top choice for the nomination. That figure is 31% for Romney and 28% for Huckabee. There is a significant disconnect between liking Palin and thinking she should be President, and that's one of the biggest things she'll have to overcome if she does end up getting into the race.

Angry white men were credited for making Gingrich Speaker of the House in 1994 and they're propelling him to the lead in this poll. He gets 26% from them with Romney at 20% and Huckabee and Palin both at 17%. Huckabee has the advantage with women at 26% to 19% for Gingrich, 18% for Romney, and 17% for Palin.

The big picture on this poll is the same as it is every month: the leading GOP contenders are closely bunched with no clear frontrunner.

[MRoCkEd]

State polls as of now:
11% in Pennsylvania (PPP, June 19-21 2010, 5 choices - ): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/06/little-support-for-perry-pres-bid.html
8% in Texas (PPP, June 19-21 2010, 6 choices - Perry + 5 regulars): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/06/little-support-for-perry-pres-bid.html
10% in Texas (PPP, June 19-21 2010, 5 choices - no Perry): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/06/little-support-for-perry-pres-bid.html
7% in Iowa (PPP, May 31 2010, 7 choices - Demint & Thune + 5 regulars): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/05/early-republican-numbers.html
7% in South Carolina (PPP, May 31 2010, 6 choices - Demint -): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/05/early-republican-numbers.html
6% in Michigan (PPP, May 31 2010, 5 choices): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/05/early-republican-numbers.html
6% in New Hampshire (Magellan, May 2010, 7 choices): http://www.magellanstrategies.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Magellan-New-Hampshire-GOP-US-Senate-Primary-Survey-Release-0528101.pdf
10% in California (PPP, May 2010, 5 choices): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/05/gingrich-looking-serious.html
9% in Colorado (PPP, May 2010, 5 choices): http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CO_518.pdf (PDF)
8% in North Carolina (PPP, May 2010, 5 choices): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/05/looking-at-our-gop-polling.html
8% in Kentucky (PPP, May 2010, 5 choices): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/05/paul-still-up-big.html
6% in Kentucky (PPP, May 2010, 5 choices): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/05/paul-continues-to-lead-big.html
9% in Arizona (PPP, April 2010, 5 choices ): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/04/2012-gop-in-arizona.html
7% in New Hampshire (PPP, April 2010, 8 choices): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/04/romney-up-big-in-new-hampshire.html

National Polls:
PPP July 2010 national poll - 7% for Ron Paul - 5 way race - http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/07/gingrich-leads.html
PPP June 2010 national poll - 6% for Ron Paul - 5 way race - http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/06/monthly-gop-poll.html
PPP May 2010 national poll - 8% for Ron Paul - 5 way race - http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/05/jumble-for-gop.html
CNN April 2010 national poll: 8% for Ron Paul - 9 way race (w/Santorum, Pence, Barbour, Pawlenty, Gingrich): http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/13/rel7d.pdf (PDF)
PPP March 2010 national poll - 11% for Ron Paul - 4 way race (no Gingrich): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/03/romney-leads-tight-republican-race.html
Gallup February 2010 poll: 2% for Ron Paul (open ended poll, so it's lower): http://www.gallup.com/poll/125777/Voters-Divided-Obama-Republican-Candidate-2012.aspx

Versus Obama:
PPP June 2010 poll: Obama 46 Paul 36 (Pauls win independents 46-28) http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/06/obama-up-in-2012-contests.html
Rasmussen March 2010 poll: Obama 42 Paul 41 (highlighted by Drudge) http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41

[Uriel999]

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/07/gingrich-leads.html

they just never learn do they...

[FSP-Rebel]

Gingrich in the lead huh.. My how short memories many people have.

[South Park Fan]

Giuliani was leading at one point too.

[itshappening]

what matters is Iowa, stay focused. if Iowans elect Ron Paul then it will blow alot of the competition out of the water, if NH follows we have the nomination

The sheep will fal in line. I dont believe newt can win those states

[Epic]

7% for RP is slightly below average, but is better than his 6% last month.

It is nice to see the top 4 so evenly split. That means that if Ron Paul could just get up to around 20-22% in the 2012 campaign, then he could be in the lead or even.

Also, keep in mind that people who are not currently registered as republicans but who do end up voting in the republican primaries will break heavily for Paul. That is to say he does well among independents and democrats when facing other republican candidates.

Ron Paul also got 16% of the 18-29 age group in the poll, although the sample size was very small.

[yokna7]

Newt Gingrich.........the name alone gives me douche chills. Ignorance is bliss........apparently.

[Pennsylvania]

If Ron announces, what about a signature drive for pledges that if Ron Paul does not with the GOP nomination, the undersigned will defect and vote for Barack Obama? I think we could get a lot of sigs and scare the hell out of people. 7% of the GOP is enough to turn an election.

[t0rnado]

http://rlv.zcache.com/newt_gingrich_poster-p228720374707675302tdad_210.jpg

Also, the percentage of young peoples polled:


18 to 29................................................ ........... 5%

[NewFederalist]

If Ron announces, what about a signature drive for pledges that if Ron Paul does not with the GOP nomination, the undersigned will defect and vote for Barack Obama? I think we could get a lot of sigs and scare the hell out of people. 7% of the GOP is enough to turn an election.

Why defect to vote for Obama? Throwing the Ron Paul-style Republican support behind an alternative party nominee would accomplish the same thing and not make us all puke on election day!

[Philhelm]

If Ron announces, what about a signature drive for pledges that if Ron Paul does not with the GOP nomination, the undersigned will defect and vote for Barack Obama? I think we could get a lot of sigs and scare the hell out of people. 7% of the GOP is enough to turn an election.

I'd consider it. At this point, I don't give a fuck. I'll be laughing as our nation spirals downward into madness and ruin. People get the governments they deserve.

[Philhelm]

Why defect to vote for Obama? Throwing the Ron Paul-style Republican support behind an alternative party nominee would accomplish the same thing and not make us all puke on election day!

True. I don't think I could really stomach voting for Obama, actually.

[randolphfuller]

At last!! A Ron Paul supporter who understands the Republican Presidential primary process!!I didn't think they existed. I'll never forget 2008 when they were frantically raising money in an effort to demonstrate that De. Paul finished third in New Hampshire instead of fifth!. Later they adopted what they referred to as their"stealth strategy" by which they proposed to win the nomination without ever winning a caucus or primary! Maybe a new effort can be run on an intelligent and realistic basis.

[Imaginos]

No Paul = No Future.
If America ignores him again in 2012, then we deserve dollar collapes, mandatory draft (on men AND women), police state, Iran war, fema camp, and more.
For the sheeple, it's much more important to keep up with American Idol and sports games than read and educate themselves on monetary policies, constitution, interventionist policies and etc.
Disgusting, just absolutely disgusting.
(puke, puke, and more puke)

[Pennsylvania]

Why defect to vote for Obama? Throwing the Ron Paul-style Republican support behind an alternative party nominee would accomplish the same thing and not make us all puke on election day!

My main goal is still to send a loud and clear message to the GOP that anything short of Ron Paul's message will not be tolerated, the "prime directive" so to speak. I feel the best way to do this is to vote against the GOP (especially by voting for their perceived nemesis - but actual ally - the Democratic Party) each and every time they nominate a candidate who does not genuinely care about freedom. The GOP should never be allowed to compromise.

Nominate Gingrich? Lose the general election
Nominate Palin? Lose the general election
Nominate Romney? Lose the general election

Repeat as many times as it takes to let them know that unless it walks talks and acts like Ron Paul, it will not be rewarded. Authoritarian behavior in any shape or form must not be tolerated.

We need to think long term, like Ron Paul does. If we fail to do this, what we get is all the Scott Browns the GOP can throw at us. It is true this may temporarily benefit the Democrats, but we need to understand that there is fundamentally no difference between the Obamas of the world and the Gingriches of the world.

[FrankRep]

New 2012 GOP Primary Poll: Gingrich 23%, Huckabee 21%, Romney 19%, Palin 17%, Paul 7%


The Real Newt Gingrich on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/6445068)


Newt Gingrich is often viewed as a conservative politician. This video is a speech John McManus, president of the John Birch society, gave which exposes the REAL Newt Gingrich by examining his track record and showing his true motivations.

[charrob]

If Ron announces, what about a signature drive for pledges that if Ron Paul does not with the GOP nomination, the undersigned will defect and vote for Barack Obama? I think we could get a lot of sigs and scare the hell out of people. 7% of the GOP is enough to turn an election.


-am from the left; haven't voted for the dems. or repubs. since Clinton's first term, but supported RP in 2008.

-can't stand Obama, but if the repubs put palin as the nominee, count me in to vote obama (she scares the hell out of me).

[Jordan]

It is nice to see the top 4 so evenly split. That means that if Ron Paul could just get up to around 20-22% in the 2012 campaign, then he could be in the lead or even.


With the top four contenders so evenly split, Ron Paul would only need the anti-war vote to win.

However, these are republicans. Once a clear front runner is established after a few primaries/caucuses they band together behind one person. Always happens.

[Elwar]

Ron Paul needs to let it be known that if he doesn't win the Republican primary, he will run as an Independent this time.

He had to promise last time that he wouldn't do that in order to get on the ballot in many states. This time he should just go for it.

[Pennsylvania]

-am from the left; haven't voted for the dems. or repubs. since Clinton's first term, but supported RP in 2008.

-can't stand Obama, but if the repubs put palin as the nominee, count me in to vote obama (she scares the hell out of me).

Nice! Folks in from the left seem to be in the minority here (not sure why) but my story is similar.

Just doing a little brainstorming here: we could always loosen the pledge to say that the undersigned simply pledge not to vote for the GOP nominee if it is anyone other than RP. Of course, I still think voting for Obama against a neocon is a much stronger scare-tactic, and I'm very much interested in scaring the shit out of RINOs.

[jmdrake]

Newsflash. 36% of republicans are against the war in Afghanistan. (Maybe that's why Newt is all of a sudden critical of it?) All we need to do is to win that 36% and we're in the lead. The question is, how to reach them.

[Kregisen]

YouTube - Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi - We Can Solve It (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaZFfQKWX54)

[ChaosControl]

I guess the GOP doesn't care about values any more with picking an adulterous scumbag as their top pick.

[Matt Collins]

PPP doesn't have a good track record, do they?

[Imperial]

PPP doesn't have a good track record, do they?

They have one of the best in the game generally. The ones who run it are openly Democrat, but their poll methodology hasn't found some massive criiticism or bias (unlike Rasmussen and R2K)

[RM918]

I guess the GOP doesn't care about values any more with picking an adulterous scumbag as their top pick.

I would vote for someone who went through 7 wives and has 15 illegitimate children, if he had Paul's reliability and ideas.

[TheDriver]

Newsflash. 36% of republicans are against the war in Afghanistan. (Maybe that's why Newt is all of a sudden critical of it?) All we need to do is to win that 36% and we're in the lead. The question is, how to reach them.

They may be against the War now, but they are far from the term antiwar. As soon as some of the righties hear a ROnpaulsupporter say the term antiwar, they are going to think were a bunch of lefties. (if they're over 30, they probably think we're peace activist tie dye types)

Until Ron Paul learns to talk GOPspeak on foreign policy, he has no chance at the GOP nod nationwide. (I know some people don't agree with this, but some people thought ROn was going to win last time too)

Why waste our time trying to convert war mongers to be against pointless, endless wars?

Either speak GOPspeak or run independent. Anything in between will be a losing battle (when considered in the terms of winning or losing an election).

If he runs indy, the news media will keep him in the news thinking it will take away for the GOP and not the dems. :p

If Ron somehow won the GOP nod and faced Obama, you would have what is happening to Rand times 100.

[Deborah K]

Newsflash. 36% of republicans are against the war in Afghanistan. (Maybe that's why Newt is all of a sudden critical of it?) All we need to do is to win that 36% and we're in the lead. The question is, how to reach them.

All we need is for Ron to reach them. I wonder what their demographics are, like what part of the country they live in, do they vote in every presidential primary, etc.

Wish I knew a pollster.

[NewFederalist]

Voting for Obama under ANY circumstances makes no sense to me. Whether it shoves it up the bum vent of the GOP establishment or not it just makes no sense. If a quality guy like former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is running in the background on the Libertarian and/or Constitutional tickets and Ron Paul is rejected again by the GOP, why vote Obama over Johnson?

[Sentient Void]

If Ron Paul doesn't get the GOp nomination, I will personally vote and convince everyone I know to vote third party or independent. Abso-fucking-lutely. The conservatives will try to blame us for splitting the vote - bit both sides are the same anyays, really.

After 2012 if we don't have a LEGIT liberty candidate nominated, I'm completely done with the GOP.

We should definitely all organize and rally all RP supporters, libertarians etc to vote separate from the republicrat warmongering big govt party regime.

[Fredom101]

Even for a politician, Newt is horrendously corrupt.
Palin has been shoved down our throats since the media invented her in 08.

Until people stop paying attention to the MSM, I'm afraid liberty is going to be a huge uphill battle.

[Deborah K]

They may be against the War now, but they are far from the term antiwar. As soon as some of the righties hear a ROnpaulsupporter say the term antiwar, they are going to think were a bunch of lefties. (if they're over 30, they probably think we're peace activist tie dye types)

Until Ron Paul learns to talk GOPspeak on foreign policy, he has no chance at the GOP nod nationwide. (I know some people don't agree with this, but some people thought ROn was going to win last time too)

Why waste our time trying to convert war mongers to be against pointless, endless wars?

Either speak GOPspeak or run independent. Anything in between will be a losing battle (when considered in the terms of winning or losing an election).

If he runs indy, the news media will keep him in the news thinking it will take away for the GOP and not the dems. :p

If Ron somehow won the GOP nod and faced Obama, you would have what is happening to Rand times 100.

Right now the issue is Afghanistan, and 36% of them are against it. That could be used strategically to Ron's advantage, if we could figure out where these people are. I guess where Newt speaks (venues, publications) Ron should be speaking too.

[Pennsylvania]

Voting for Obama under ANY circumstances makes no sense to me. Whether it shoves it up the bum vent of the GOP establishment or not it just makes no sense. If a quality guy like former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is running in the background on the Libertarian and/or Constitutional tickets and Ron Paul is rejected again by the GOP, why vote Obama over Johnson?

If there's another genuine candidate in the race, sure I'd throw my vote to him too.

[Deborah K]

Even for a politician, Newt is horrendously corrupt.
Palin has been shoved down our throats since the media invented her in 08.

Until people stop paying attention to the MSM, I'm afraid liberty is going to be a huge uphill battle.

The problem is, the majority of people who vote in elections watch TV indiscriminately. It would behoove RP and his supporters to utilize that information to our advantage. If they can win an election manipulating the masses through the media, then we should be able to do it as well. Only in our case, they will be getting doses of truth, not propaganda.

[TheDriver]

Right now the issue is Afghanistan, and 36% of them are against it. That could be used strategically to Ron's advantage, if we could figure out where these people are. I guess where Newt speaks (venues, publications) Ron should be speaking too.

My point is: I think those 36% are going to the one with the moderate tone on War. Not the person saying come home from everywhere. Perhaps, there is 36% out there among the indies and lefties that want to come home from everywhere, but that's not who we are talking about.

These GOPers are like recovering alcoholics (war mongers) they can't fathom the idea of no liquor stores. So, you have to give them a moderate approach. No liquor on Sundays or after midnight. :o

[dr. hfn]

great starting points! we were just an asterisk last time! 11% in PA woohooooo!!! we must win CPAC 2011 and the Iowa Straw Poll.

[nandnor]

nvm

[Sentient Void]

It does look like Gingrich has similar positions to Ron, libertarian leaning, anti-bailout, anti-climate tax, anti- socialist healthcare. Whats the big problem if he gets prez instead?

Because Ron Paul has voted consistently with his rhetoric - Newt has not. What makes you think he won't change his positions once elected? Hell, many politicians go for the nomination in such ways, ten once they are nominated the change it up.

[FrankRep]

It does look like Gingrich has similar positions to Ron, libertarian leaning, anti-bailout, anti-climate tax, anti- socialist healthcare. Whats the big problem if he gets prez instead?

Nandnor, don't get tricked by Gingrich.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US_9-2009/2525-coverstory.jpg (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/tna/subscriptions/1-year-standard-subscription.html)



Self-proclaimed conservative Newt Gingrich could be the next Republican candidate for President, but with his unconstitutional track record, will he be right for America? By Rebecca Terrell


Newt Gingrich: The Establishment's Conservative (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2396-newt-gingrich-the-establishments-conservative?showall=1)


Rebecca Terrell | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Friday, 27 November 2009

[Elwar]

Paul at 7% just encourages me to do another tour in Iraq and build up a nest egg to ride this out better.

If you can't beat them join them. Then beat them.

[Working Poor]

not gingrich no no no no no.......

[Anti Federalist]

I would vote for someone who went through 7 wives and has 15 illegitimate children, if he had Paul's reliability and ideas.

That's the thing.

Somebody like that would not be reliable and would not stick fast to his ideas.

[Anti Federalist]

Ugh, I really am starting to dislike republicans.

[One Last Battle!]

Honestly, if Palin didn't run and Ron Paul campaigned heavily in Iowa/NH, I think he could definitely pull off a win, or at least a close second.

All the "mainstream" candidates basically play off against each other and all take votes from the same base. Meanwhile, Palin and Paul are the only two going straight for the "Tea Party" crowd (albeit the different sides of the Tea Party crowd). All the other Republicans will split the Neo Con/Evangelical Conservative/wtf crowd and Ron Paul will pick up what they don't.

Even if Palin ran, I still think Ron Paul could win it (though it would be very tough).

[Fredom101]

Paul at 7% just encourages me to do another tour in Iraq and build up a nest egg to ride this out better.

If you can't beat them join them. Then beat them.

And use waste of our money and possibly kill innocent people? Please don't.

[t0rnado]

It does look like Gingrich has similar positions to Ron, libertarian leaning, anti-bailout, anti-climate tax, anti- socialist healthcare. Whats the big problem if he gets prez instead?

Gingrich's positions aren't even close to Ron Paul's. Gingrich is a neoconservative and is in no way libertarian leaning.

For some reason, I could see Glenn Beck backing Gingrich in 2012.

[anaconda]

If Ron announces, what about a signature drive for pledges that if Ron Paul does not with the GOP nomination, the undersigned will defect and vote for Barack Obama? I think we could get a lot of sigs and scare the hell out of people. 7% of the GOP is enough to turn an election.

Ron can single handedly sink the GOP and give the election to Obama if he wants to run third party. That's quite a bit of power. Consequently, he should be able to influence GOP platforms and nominees. He should be able to negotiate for the VP slot and a troop withdrawal, Fed audit, Patriot Act repeal platform. Or he could negotiate another VP pick. Perhaps Gary Johnson or Rand.

[Pennsylvania]

Ron can single handedly sink the GOP and give the election to Obama if he wants to run third party. That's quite a bit of power. Consequently, he should be able to influence GOP platforms and nominees. He should be able to negotiate for the VP slot and a troop withdrawal, Fed audit, Patriot Act repeal platform. Or he could negotiate another VP pick. Perhaps Gary Johnson or Rand.

Very true. Sounds good to me.

[KramerDSP]

Goldwater ran as Goldwater and nobody else. The minute Ron Paul starts engaging in GOP-speak is the minute he stops running as Ron Paul. I want the 2008 Ron in the debates in 2012, shoving it in their (Romney/Huckabee/etc) faces. The majority of us were hooked when he kept speaking truth to power. I say let Ron do what he always been doing.

In 2007, he was at 1% before the debates. By the end of the primaries, he was at roughly 5 to 8%. Right now he's at 8-11% before the debates. Similar numbers as a guy by the name of McCain. After the first two debates and the moneybombs, I could see Ron at 15% or higher. Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, et al have very little substantive differences in their platforms and Palin is not a good debater. If RP keeps winning the debates and leads the pack in fundraising, I dare say he has a GREAT shot. The Keys are: 1) Rand wins the senate seat, 2) Ron wins CPAC 2011, and 3) Ron finishes first or second in Iowa and NH. If all three are satisfied, people wll say "I always liked that guy and he CAN win!".

[Paulitical Correctness]

As far as I'm concerned, polls are meant to encourage apathy/hopelessness.

Pretend there are no polls and do everything possible to ____________. (poll numbers be damned)

[Bobster]

Goldwater ran as Goldwater and nobody else. The minute Ron Paul starts engaging in GOP-speak is the minute he stops running as Ron Paul. I want the 2008 Ron in the debates in 2012, shoving it in their (Romney/Huckabee/etc) faces. The majority of us were hooked when he kept speaking truth to power. I say let Ron do what he always been doing.

In 2007, he was at 1% before the debates. By the end of the primaries, he was at roughly 5 to 8%. Right now he's at 8-11% before the debates. Similar numbers as a guy by the name of McCain. After the first two debates and the moneybombs, I could see Ron at 15% or higher. Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, et al have very little substantive differences in their platforms and Palin is not a good debater. If RP keeps winning the debates and leads the pack in fundraising, I dare say he has a GREAT shot. The Keys are: 1) Rand wins the senate seat, 2) Ron wins CPAC 2011, and 3) Ron finishes first or second in Iowa and NH. If all three are satisfied, people wll say "I always liked that guy and he CAN win!".
This. It's also worth noting how many people will be in from the beginning this time. I wasn't apart of the movement until two or so debates had taken place. Now, I'll be doing everything I can right from the start. :D

[KramerDSP]

Is Ron a household name now? If not, he's close, IMO. In the 2007 debates, few people knew who he was. This time? The first few GOP debates will be watched by a lot more people, and if Ron delivers, they'll be shaking their heads and agreeing with him more and more. You can bet the Independents and GOP will be paying far closer attention to what he says this time around.

[Depressed Liberator]

We're fucked.

[BlackTerrel]

Newt Gingrich is the leader in this poll with 23%, followed by Mike Huckabee at 21%, Mitt Romney at 19%, Palin at 17%, and Ron Paul at 7%.

Being completely objective the only two on there I could see winning a general against Obama are Romney and Paul. The other three are popular with the base but strongly disliked by the rest of Americans. If Republicans select one of those three they might as well just hand the election to the Democrats.

All that said this is really too early to do polling. A lot is going to change between now and 2012. Most importantly the economy is going to get worse and the deficit is going to get bigger. Paul is the only one with a sensible solution to the economic mess.

[ProBlue33]

This is way too earlier to mean anything, Ron Paul's 7% is solid, the rest is soft a percentage. Look how early polling in 2007-2008 showed McCain getting averages and Rudy leading by decent margins. But once the primaries started, Rudy got crushed.

Iowa and NH are critical states, trying to wait for super Tuesday didn't work for the losers for either party in 2008.

[puppetmaster]

http://rlv.zcache.com/newt_gingrich_poster-p228720374707675302tdad_210.jpg

Also, the percentage of young peoples polled:
18 to 29................................................ ........... 5%

yep

[AdamT]

Who are these zombies they're polling? Gingrich? Reeeaaallly? God help us.

[charrob]

Who are these zombies they're polling? Gingrich? Reeeaaallly? God help us.

They're called "Republicans". :D

[Anti Federalist]

They're called "Republicans". :D

^^^ That.

WTF...Newt...Jesus weeping Christ...

If brains were gunpowder, these knotheads couldn't blow their nose.

[Stary Hickory]

Well Gingrich was a nobody as far a spolling went not oo long ago. Paul does not get as mch support as he might get because he will not commit to running. If he was out there with fire in his belly saying he would run and do whatever it took to get this country on the right track his poll numbers would be higher.

Paul got 7% and has not even said he would run plus he is older and most people expect that he will not run or physically cannot.

[TruckinMike]

Originally Posted by nandnor View Post
It does look like Gingrich has similar positions to Ron, libertarian leaning, anti-bailout, anti-climate tax, anti- socialist healthcare. Whats the big problem if he gets prez instead?

Nandor, Newt wants to destroy the Constitution!! ---he is a globalist!!! and a NWO %$#&!!!! Please watch the video that frank Rep posted.

TMike

The Real Newt Gingrich on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/6445068)

[low preference guy]

Paul got 7% and has not even said he would run plus he is older and most people expect that he will not run or physically cannot.

Do you rule out that he is physically capable?

[TNforPaul45]

Everyone remember the polling issues we had 2 years ago. Like you saw above, the Ron Paul Core Demographic was only 5% of the quantity polled, and I BET they did Landline cold calls as well (I've not read the poll, correct me if it was questionnaire), which excludes, again, a lot of young people and their cell phones, Skype.

Unfortunately, Online Polls which the RPD (Ron Paul demographic) has ample access to and awareness of tends to be skewed as well.

The Beck/Palin "Tea Party" has done a LOT to lure a lot of potential RPDs back over to Neo-Con-Soft GOP agendas. They were very wise to get out ahead of us and provide a steam vent for the anger that welled up inside the GOP when McCain took his dive, as they knew he would and they would.

I have no idea how we would accurately gage true support for Paul at this point, and I'm open to suggestions. It's also a bit too early, no one has declared yet, and the majority of the "riled up" people who are paying attention to the presidency this early, are GOP Tea Partiers worshiping at the alter of Father Beck and Sister Palin.

[Anti Federalist]

Hickory had it right.

Polls concerning RP are pretty meaningless at this point, the man has not even announced he will run, in fact, has made it clear he would only do it reluctantly if at all.

If he held a press conference and announced that he was all in, hell or high water and was prepared to do anything it took, then those numbers would be higher I suspect.

But not too much higher.

We're all fooling ourselves if we think the hidebound lunkheads who resurrected McPain in 2008 have gone away.

The core of the GOP remains a Christian Zionist/war party/social values coalition, no matter how much any of us want to think otherwise.


Everyone remember the polling issues we had 2 years ago. Like you saw above, the Ron Paul Core Demographic was only 5% of the quantity polled, and I BET they did Landline cold calls as well (I've not read the poll, correct me if it was questionnaire), which excludes, again, a lot of young people and their cell phones, Skype.

Unfortunately, Online Polls which the RPD (Ron Paul demographic) has ample access to and awareness of tends to be skewed as well.

The Beck/Palin "Tea Party" has done a LOT to lure a lot of potential RPDs back over to Neo-Con-Soft GOP agendas. They were very wise to get out ahead of us and provide a steam vent for the anger that welled up inside the GOP when McCain took his dive, as they knew he would and they would.

I have no idea how we would accurately gage true support for Paul at this point, and I'm open to suggestions. It's also a bit too early, no one has declared yet, and the majority of the "riled up" people who are paying attention to the presidency this early, are GOP Tea Partiers worshiping at the alter of Father Beck and Sister Palin.

[freshjiva]

One thing that works in favor of Ron Paul's contingent is that we are very vocal, well organized, and have a large corps of volunteers. Even though Gingrich and Romney are both polling almost three times Paul, I'd be willing to bet the core volunteer force is about equal.

However, I would like to see Ron's polling numbers get into double-digit percentages. I think if Rand wins plus one more Liberty candidate (be it BJ Lawson, Justin Amash, or others), that'll be plenty to boost Ron into drawing 10% nationally.

[Pauls' Revere]

Ron Paul needs to let it be known that if he doesn't win the Republican primary, he will run as an Independent this time.

He had to promise last time that he wouldn't do that in order to get on the ballot in many states. This time he should just go for it.

Yeah, I agree what would it hurt really?
:cool:

[Sentient Void]

Question for everybody... Don't you guys think the GOP doesn't want Paul inthe debates? He caused a lot of damage and got a lot of people really thinking and woke up tons of apathetic individuals... What's to stop them from trying to find some way to keep him from running, getting on the ballots, or even at least being in the debates? They kept him out of at least one back in his last run - what will stop them from trying to keep him out altogether or as much as possible?

And what are some options we have for effctive pushback?

[low preference guy]

hat's to stop them from trying to find some way to keep him from running, getting on the ballots, or even at least being in the debates?

Ron Paul became way too big to keep him out.

It will likely end up in an alternative event hosted by Ron Paul, maybe in the same city, that will get more attention than the debate itself.

[trey4sports]

honestly, 7% is damn good. real damn good.

Thats not even accounting for the massive war chest he'll have coming into Iowa

we were polling at .0000000000000000000000000000000001% when we undertook this movement. And we have EXPLODED our ranks

A revolution does not happen overnight and no army can stop an idea thats time has come

[LibertyMage]

All this high level talk about "doing X to win" worries me. We should have realized that we are going to have to start thinking long term to win. That means putting people in precincts NOW.

[libertybrewcity]

Although I love polling I think these are crap because they don't poll everyone in the race and the leaders now always lose. Also, independents are not polled which make up the majority group in the country.

Also, some have mentioned that Ron Paul should run as an independent if he loses the Republican nomination. This is absolutely 100 percent counter productive, would destroy Ron's credibility and his "leadership position" in the GOP, whatever that may be. He would destroy what he has advocated for many years, and that is to take back not only America, but the REPUBLICAN PARTY. We have made so much progress, why ruin these past few years of work?

Ron can win this. He can win Iowa and he has unbelievable name recognition across the United States. In 08 he won delelgates from 5 states: Alaska, Iowa, West Virginia, Nevada, and North Dakota. He will win these states or do much better. Even though they are a small, a win is a win and Nevada is one of the first states to vote.

Lastly, I just want to make a comment on infrastructure because I believe this is the most important part of the campaign, and it something that billions of dollars can't buy and the other party front runners are pissed they don't have. Ron has the army of supporters all over the country from federal, state, and local postions (hopefully from 2010 wins), to precinct leaders, delegates, etc etc. This is what Ron scrambled to get in place during the 08 election and this is what will give us a win in 2012.

[Stary Hickory]

Do you rule out that he is physically capable?

Well he seems healthy enough, still he will hit 80 and still have like 4 more years to go after that. It's a stressful job. I know how my grandparents were when they were 80, but you never can tell.

I think Ron Paul will know if he is able to or not. If Ron Paul runs I will support him, because there is no one else out there. Romney, Huckabee, and Ginrich will do nothing. I think they will be less harmful by a long shot and would probably reduce government spending when the time for Austerity comes around, but that is a far cry from having the right ideas about liberty and understanding the Federal Reserve and how it is responsible for so much damage.

How can any of us know how physically capable Ron Paul is? He should know better than any of us. If he says he is fine I will vote for him, I just want him to have a solid VP.

[anaconda]

Goldwater ran as Goldwater and nobody else. The minute Ron Paul starts engaging in GOP-speak is the minute he stops running as Ron Paul. I want the 2008 Ron in the debates in 2012, shoving it in their (Romney/Huckabee/etc) faces. The majority of us were hooked when he kept speaking truth to power. I say let Ron do what he always been doing.

In 2007, he was at 1% before the debates. By the end of the primaries, he was at roughly 5 to 8%. Right now he's at 8-11% before the debates. Similar numbers as a guy by the name of McCain. After the first two debates and the moneybombs, I could see Ron at 15% or higher. Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, et al have very little substantive differences in their platforms and Palin is not a good debater. If RP keeps winning the debates and leads the pack in fundraising, I dare say he has a GREAT shot. The Keys are: 1) Rand wins the senate seat, 2) Ron wins CPAC 2011, and 3) Ron finishes first or second in Iowa and NH. If all three are satisfied, people wll say "I always liked that guy and he CAN win!".

Sounds good to me. And let's hope for minimal voter fraud in New Hampshire this time.

[j6p]

Thats why we should all run as delegates even if we have to become a delegate of a neo-con so we can switch later on.

[Knightskye]

PPP said Doug Hoffman would win in NY-23.

I think they might be accurate on Ron Paul's numbers right now, but that's only a coincidence.

[Fredom101]

The age thing is why they're trying to get Gary Johnson in the GOP primaries as a younger Ron Paul, and possibly a VP candidate. But, I've met Ron Paul, and, Gary Johnson, you are no Ron Paul!

[South Park Fan]

Thats why we should all run as delegates even if we have to become a delegate of a neo-con so we can switch later on.

Exactly. We can infiltrate them for once. :D

[Stary Hickory]

Exactly. We can infiltrate them for once. :D

This is exactly what needs to happen. Take the party over from the inside. Its not really even shady, the GOP has been lying to get into office for years now, people who actually do the things the GOP only talk about should be a welcome change.

I have gotten tired of the GOP being the party for small government, when it never makes government small at all.

[Flash]

Question for everybody... Don't you guys think the GOP doesn't want Paul inthe debates? He caused a lot of damage and got a lot of people really thinking and woke up tons of apathetic individuals... What's to stop them from trying to find some way to keep him from running, getting on the ballots, or even at least being in the debates? They kept him out of at least one back in his last run - what will stop them from trying to keep him out altogether or as much as possible?

And what are some options we have for effctive pushback?

That was when he was polling like... 3% in Iowa. So far hes polling above 5% in every single state, hes guaranteed to be in every debate.

[freshjiva]

I have gotten tired of the GOP being the party for small government, when it never makes government small at all.

+1.

Anyway, about this PPP poll, its "nice to know" the results of the poll, but its irrelevant. All we need is Ron to announce his candidacy, and it's gametime, baby. The first moneybomb we organize for him will break some serious records, and get him on at least a few front pages of periodicals and on MSM interviews.

Set our fundraising and marketing sights high in the sky, and people will take notice.

God, I can't wait.

[Kregisen]

+1.

Anyway, about this PPP poll, its "nice to know" the results of the poll, but its irrelevant. All we need is Ron to announce his candidacy, and it's gametime, baby. The first moneybomb we organize for him will break some serious records, and get him on at least a few front pages of periodicals and on MSM interviews.

Set our fundraising and marketing sights high in the sky, and people will take notice.

God, I can't wait.

I've never donated for any campaign in my life, but I will donate on Ron's moneybomb(s).

[american.swan]

This is 2010 about 100 days before Novembers midterm elections.
What were the polls like 100 days before the 2006 midterms before the 2008 primary season?

Newt is number one now! Maybe that's his job. Hold down number one like NY City Mayor you might remember.

I think we need a forum/group to look at election/media/polling history to see what the "typical" game plan is. That NY Mayor maybe was never supposed to win, maybe it was a smoke screen. What about money? Did McCain have more money than he really did? Was he supposed to be virtually broke before "coming out of no where"? There will be a "mass" of candidates for the GOP nomination again. Will the script be almost the same? Why is Paul still so low in the polls? Is there a reason for that? Maybe it's our fault. Why is Paul even put in the list of possible candidates?

Everyone is going to be sounding very fiscally conservative. That's for sure. I seriously think this is an uphill battle. We have to start campaigning NOW!! Full court press!! We need to be calling every GOP voter in CT, because we need them voting for Paul!!! Even if they don't vote for Schiff!!

[AlterEgo]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/Campaign%202008%20IV/n835874687_170899_6657.jpg

[american.swan]

I agree with your post Anti Federalist.
I'm wondering with the tea party logo
so strong right now, if it wouldn't be better
to run under that name, third party.

What Ron Paul did last election was wake up a group of people who agreed deep down with Paul on enough issues, but never had a person who nationally spoke to them.

What would happen if in the same week candidates said, "I'm running for the GOP nomination" Paul spoke up and said, I'm running for the nomination of the Tea Party Coalition, like Rand is doing. Rand framed the primary as GOP vs Tea Party and won. The establishment is going to do the same exact thing for the GOP nomination and they KNOW they have to have candidates in both camps who can control the media.

[american.swan]

"DNC Memo: The GOP can’t party like it is 1994 | Politisite" http://j.mp/bIu6sS

This memo isn't encouraging.