PPP Poll - Ron Paul at 8% in Texas

[KramerDSP]

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/gingrich-up-in-texas.html


Thursday, September 9, 2010
Gingrich up in Texas
You could make a pretty strong argument that Texas is the heart of the Republican Party and the top choice of GOP voters there for the 2012 Presidential nomination is Newt Gingrich. It's becoming more and more clear that Gingrich will be a very legitimate contender if he does indeed make a bid for the White House in two years.

Gingrich is at 23%, with Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin tied at 19% and Mitt Romney at 17%. His particular strength is with Republican men. He has 29% with them, putting him fully 11 points ahead of Huckabee and Romney with that demographic. That's a trend we're seeing in our polling nationally as well- our August survey found Gingrich at 28% with men but only 14% with women, a much larger gender gap in his support than any of the other candidates showed.

Many have assumed that Palin will be the candidate of choice for conservatives if she launches a White House bid but Gingrich beats her out on that front 24-21 with voters in Texas.

The other interesting thing on the 2012 GOP numbers in Texas is that Ron Paul is not getting much support in his home state- only 8%. Paul does not have a serious chance at the Republican nomination and if he wants to get a serious airing for his views in 2012 it's probably going to have to come as an independent candidate in the general election.

Full results here (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_TX_909.pdf)

Man.... PPP really pissed me off with that last paragraph. "does not have a serious chance" my ass. What was McCain polling at prior to the 2007 debates? Probably at the same percentage Ron is at now.

[anaconda]

Why would Texans want Newt? That's just crazy.

[KramerDSP]

Apparently, twice as many people over the age of 65 in Texas would vote "someone else" (8%) over Ron Paul (4%) and the field, while another 8% voted "undecided". Sickening. We need a video that shows the part where Ron says "Get rid of social security? I'm the only one who has a plan to save it in the first place", juxtaposed with "I haven't voted to spend a dime of Social Security, and none of the other candidates can say that". Over and over again.

[KramerDSP]

Why would Texans want Newt? That's just crazy.

This is when my heart tells my brain "See! Your logic does not work! Ron Paul 2012 as an Indpendent FTW, getting all the disaffected republicans, democrats, and independents. He's already hovering near 15% in hypothetical polls!". My brain says "We must steer the course, young padawan".

[freshjiva]

This is just...frustrating. 8% in Texas? I would've thought Texans were growing more libertarian with the popular vote Debra Medina pulled with 15%+. Where are all the Liberty loving Texans??

Sigh. Lets face it: we just don't have the numbers.

[Lucille]

Boobus Americanus.

[Flash]

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/gingrich-up-in-texas.html



Man.... PPP really pissed me off with that last paragraph. "does not have a serious chance" my ass. What was McCain polling at prior to the 2007 debates? Probably at the same percentage Ron is at now.

PPP wants Ron Paul to run as an Indie or Libertarian so he can hand the election over to Obama.

[MRoCkEd]

Remember, in 2007 we started with <1% or *.

[nate895]

Like polls in 2010 mean anything. You don't want to be the front runner through the previous year. They lose quite a lot if it there are several viable alternatives. The best thing to do is what McCain did in 2008: hide in the back while the main front-runners beat each other up, and then sprint across the home stretch against a tired pack. Ron Paul can easily do that if he runs an education-based campaign full of New Hampshire and Iowa town halls and then does a huge ad campaign with a boatload of cash over the last month or two of the race.

[DamianTV]

Now at 16% in 2nd place behind Glen Beck with 19%. 250 votes for RP vs 298 for Glen Beck...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is going to be a long battle, and the more victories will pile on as the older generations die off, and the younger generations of today become the majority force of tomorrow. We have to focus on the youth and not worry about the older generation if we are to effect a revolution, and by this I mean that our resources should be directed towards the youth. Cultivating organizations, affiliations, businesses, investors, entreprenuers, in the young who will become tomorrows leaders, not trying to squander resources on the old who are notorious for their rigidity of views.

As long as todays older generation is around it's going to be nigh impossible to get rid of SS. In 10 to 20 years, though it is going to be much much easier. (Hence, why I don't care about the views of older generation in these polls...sure it would be nice if we had more, but lets not delude ourselves we can change many of their views)

[silentshout]

PPP wants Ron Paul to run as an Indie or Libertarian so he can hand the election over to Obama.

Honestly, I think they want someone like Newt or Palin to run, who will hand the election to Obama.

[DamianTV]

Oh come on, we cant get 40 more people to vote?

[james1906]

A lot of Texans are dumb in their voting. Rick Perry is unpopular here, I have yet to meet someone who likes him, yet he keeps getting reelected and will likely serve at least 14 years as governor.


A recent poll came out where Texans wished they had other candidates running for governor, but we had Medina.

[Bern]

From my experience, people who would never vote for Ron Paul do recognize his expertise in monetary issues. There is a lot of time between now and the elections. Should the economy continue to deteriorate (and I fully expect that it will), people are going to give give Ron Paul more serious consideration IMO.

One thing I noticed from the 2008 effort is that people see Ron Paul as offering radical solutions because the end game is usually promoted instead of the reasonable, gradual plan/path/road to get there. Radical change scares people. I hope that should Ron run again, he does a better job of communicating a baby steps plan that people can be comfortable with.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

From my experience, people who would never vote for Ron Paul do recognize his expertise in monetary issues. There is a lot of time between now and the elections. Should the economy continue to deteriorate (and I fully expect that it will), people are going to give give Ron Paul more serious consideration IMO.

One thing I noticed from the 2008 effort is that people see Ron Paul as offering radical solutions because the end game is usually promoted instead of the reasonable, gradual plan/path/road to get there. Radical change scares people. I hope that should Ron run again, he does a better job of communicating a baby steps plan that people can be comfortable with.

This is exactly why Democracy is abhorrent, and so is Government. Why the fuck should we not be radical? If we don't advocate abolishing parts of Government it'll continue to grow, because those on the "other side" continue to create new departments, grow old departments, etc. If you don't axe them THEY WILL GROW.

Trying to say you won't cut x and x because it is untenable with a portion of the population defeats the entire purpose of your principles and views if you believe Government should be smaller. This tip-toeing is bullshit. People were attracted to Ron Paul because he was radical. If he talks like the average politician he will just be that -- another in the sea of tyrants. Why would anyone vote for him? Spewing the same non-sense talking points and rhetoric as any other politician..why not vote for the other politician who is more cute, younger, and "slicker"?

No, Ron should continue what he is doing and do not listen to this foolishness. If he does this what will happen is he will lose his principled support (myself and lots of others), and gain little to no one.

Why is it not radical to create new departments and bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, Education, Energy, etc.? Why is it radical to advocate for their abolition? By admitting that very fact you are losing the ideological war, and are going to lose in the long run, because you admit that they are right that they shouldn't be abolished..People realize this also. Why if you believe they hurt your rights/economy don't you advocate for their abolishment?

We shouldn't be timid in our views. Only radical change will ensure a more free prosperous tomorrow. Being timid and weak will encourage government to grow.

PS: That radical change scares people bit is stupid. If it did the Department of Education, Energy, Homeland Security, SS Administration, etc. would have never been created.

I didn't fucking hear Patrick Henry be this timid little shit. Nor shall I.

[MRoCkEd]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is going to be a long battle, and the more victories will pile on as the older generations die off, and the younger generations of today become the majority force of tomorrow. We have to focus on the youth and not worry about the older generation if we are to effect a revolution, and by this I mean that our resources should be directed towards the youth. Cultivating organizations, affiliations, businesses, investors, entreprenuers, in the young who will become tomorrows leaders, not trying to squander resources on the old who are notorious for their rigidity of views.

http://yaliberty.org/contribute

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

http://yaliberty.org/contribute

I do and am a member :D

[Bern]

... Why the fuck should we not be radical? ...

I appreciate where you are coming from. I understand the issues and appreciate Ron's solutions to the problems. I'm not advocating that Ron change his solutions - just the manner in which they are communicated.

Politics is a game involving people. I don't know how many long time Republican party members/voters you talked to during the last go 'round, but the ones I talked to echoed the same refrains. If you want their votes, you need to tailor the message to reach them.


... PS: That radical change scares people bit is stupid.

Wow.

[libertybrewcity]

If we were at 1 percent three years ago, 8 percent now, imagine where we will be in two years.

IMO Ron Paul supporters do not waver on their vote. Most of the time they will not switch their vote to Palin or anyone else. So, we can largely assume that this number can only increase. However, in order to be a serious contender for the nomination we need to get a majority of the delegates.

The nomination will basically be us vs them. For example, if there are a total of 100 delegates and Ron Paul has 45, that is an amazing number. There might be two other candidates with 25 and 20 delegates. The neocon candidate with 20 delegates could easily endorse the neocon with 25 and win.

We need to aim for AT LEAST 50 percent of the primary vote in each state. AT LEAST.

[erowe1]

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/gingrich-up-in-texas.html



Man.... PPP really pissed me off with that last paragraph. "does not have a serious chance" my ass. What was McCain polling at prior to the 2007 debates? Probably at the same percentage Ron is at now.

At the start of the primary season in 2007, McCain was considered the front runner.

I do think it's interesting that he would only pull 8 in Texas with that field of candidates when Medina pulled around 20 against Hutchinson and Perry (who I consider similar in their policies to the range of pseudo-conservatism offered by the 2012 presidential contenders). I think that if we are lucky enough to have a competitive primary season that extends late, we should see the numbers she got in Texas as realistic for him to get.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Ignorance and Failed Education in Texas? Like Obama and the leftist Zombies... the right has their Morons.

The Right is Glued to NEOCON TV, Radio, and Print. Don't forget the evangelical crusade too.

[erowe1]

Don't forget the evangelical crusade too.

Evangelicals are some of the people who are liable to be most receptive to RP. Don't write them off.

[YumYum]

Evangelicals are some of the people who are liable to be most receptive to RP. Don't write them off.

You don't think his latest comments defending Islam won't hurt him with Evangelicals?

[Inkblots]

Apparently, twice as many people over the age of 65 in Texas would vote "someone else" (8%) over Ron Paul (4%) and the field, while another 8% voted "undecided". Sickening. We need a video that shows the part where Ron says "Get rid of social security? I'm the only one who has a plan to save it in the first place", juxtaposed with "I haven't voted to spend a dime of Social Security, and none of the other candidates can say that". Over and over again.

Agree completely. We need to counter the 'he's a compleat monstar! He'll throe yoo out ta starv in da street!' scare tactics used against Ron Paul by pointing out that being clear-eyed and honest about the deficits facing social programs is the only way to save them for the truly dependent and needy. All the other politicians who lie to people and say that things can continue like they are now do no kindness to the poor and vulnerable - they'll be the hardest hit if things are allowed to collapse suddenly.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Why would Texans want Newt? That's just crazy.

The same reason they wanted Rick Perry...

[RonPaulFanInGA]

At the start of the primary season in 2007, McCain was considered the front runner.

"The" front-runner? No. That was Giuliani. But McCain was consider a front-runner along with Giuliani and Romney.

I'm starting to lean towards a Ron Paul independent run. Yes, his odds of winning the White House that way drop from 2% to 1% or whatever, but at least we'd be able to carry the race into November and make our case to all Americans and not just Republicans that vote in these party primaries. Maybe Paul would get enough support to get into the presidential debates and spread his message to millions of Americans.

The Republican party is just not that into openly pro-choicers (Johnson) or hardcore anti-war types. Also Paul's recent comments about Islam and that Mosque will be a big drag in a national GOP primary.

[freshjiva]

One thing I noticed from the 2008 effort is that people see Ron Paul as offering radical solutions because the end game is usually promoted instead of the reasonable, gradual plan/path/road to get there. Radical change scares people. I hope that should Ron run again, he does a better job of communicating a baby steps plan that people can be comfortable with.

Here's a good solution to that. Make this poster viral:


http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/439/libertyprosperitypeace.jpg

[erowe1]

You don't think his latest comments defending Islam won't hurt him with Evangelicals?

I do think they will hurt him. I think his press releases about the mosque protesters and the Quran burning were mistakes. But by the time of the primaries they'll be old news. He'll have chances to reach out to evangelicals when he's campaigning.

[erowe1]

"The" front-runner? No. That was Giuliani. But McCain was consider a front-runner along with Giuliani and Romney.

No. At the very beginning McCain was the front runner, and had been since 2000. Romney was not well-known nationwide at all when the primary season started, although Giuliani was. It was only after McCain's campaign imploded in the spring of 2007 with dismal fund raising and a shake up of his staff that other candidates such as those two took turns being considered the front runners.

[paulitics]

"The" front-runner? No. That was Giuliani. But McCain was consider a front-runner along with Giuliani and Romney.

I'm starting to lean towards a Ron Paul independent run. Yes, his odds of winning the White House that way drop from 2% to 1% or whatever, but at least we'd be able to carry the race into November and make our case to all Americans and not just Republicans that vote in these party primaries. Maybe Paul would get enough support to get into the presidential debates and spread his message to millions of Americans.

The Republican party is just not that into openly pro-choicers (Johnson) or hardcore anti-war types. Also Paul's recent comments about Islam and that Mosque will be a big drag in a national GOP primary.

The republican party is not open to hardcore anti-war types now, but are becoming less hostile more and more. How many libertarian leading republicans won their primaries? This is only possible because they are following RP's lead in taking the party back. If they ran on a 3rd party ticket, it would have been a sure loss. If Ron Paul runs on a 3rd ticket, it will just reverse all that has been accomplished.

It never makes sense to me, to change course as soon as progress is made.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The republican party is not open to hardcore anti-war types now, but are becoming less hostile more and more. How many libertarian leading republicans won their primaries? This is only possible because they are following RP's lead in taking the party back. If they ran on a 3rd party ticket, it would have been a sure loss. If Ron Paul runs on a 3rd ticket, it will just reverse all that has been accomplished.

It never makes sense to me, to change course as soon as progress is made.

I don't know why people think that if Ron Paul ran Independent it would doom everyone who shares his views in the GOP...It certainly won't hurt him with the people who all ready agree with his views, and the people who put party first aren't going to vote for Ron in the first place, or anyone that shares his views. Will we lose some people because they think as soon as the people who share his views don't win that we will run against the GOP? Perhaps, but again, why the fuck would you not vote for someone who runs against a non-conservative as being more conservative, unless you weren't going to vote for him in the first place.

As a movement to effect change and a revolution (something that won't happen as long as we stay purely in the GOP), Ron should run independent and get the message to a lot more people. Ron should be able to hit 15% to get into the debates. Will 2012 be like 1964? Who knows, but Goldwater ran a tight ship and had good campaigners along with a huge grassroots. We have a few of those things, but Ron has never been known for his campaign team :p Getting the GOP nod is going to be more difficult than getting into the debates as an Independent. I say go Independent. It's better in the long run.

[Epic]

RP should try to get the GOP nomination, and then go independent if that fails.

That's the option that gives him the best chance of winning, and gives him the best opportunity to get his ideas out there.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

RP should try to get the GOP nomination, and then go independent if that fails.

You really want Ron Paul to go the Joe Lieberman 'sore loser' route?

A few states have laws against that. Other states the GOP will again require Paul to sign a pledge not to go third party to appear on the Republican primary ballot like in 2008. Also, it just seems a waste of money to spend millions and millions on a GOP nomination you think you're not going to get and then basically start from scratch again in fundraising for an independent bid.

[AJ Antimony]

Great news!

[Galileo Galilei]

Right now, these polls mean little. What matters are:

1) Rand wins Senate seat
2) Ron hits $10 million with moneybomb
3) Ron wins CPAC
4) Ron announces
5) Ron and Rand push for Audit of the Fed and repeal of Obamacare
6) Ron tells voters about this in TV debates
7) * Ron wins Iowa Straw poll *

This is what matters at the time.