PPP NH Poll: Romney 40, Huckabee 13, Palin 10, Gingrich 10

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/11/and-gop-primary-numbers.html


In the critical early state of New Hampshire Romney continues to hold a dominant polling advantage, with 40% to 13% for Huckabee and 10% each for Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. If Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, Mitch Daniels, or John Thune somehow emerges as the winner in New Hampshire they'll be able to truthfully say they started out with nothing- they poll at 4%, 3%, 1%, and 1% respectively.

[MRoCkEd]

Comment and ask them politely to include Ron Paul.

[TonySutton]

Contact Tom Jensen at tomj@publicpolicypolling.com or 919-744-6312 to discuss your project.

[Imperial]

Ever since their poll with Ron Paul as an Indy, PPP has decided that Ron Paul has no value running in the Republican primary- despite the fact that he is polling stronger than most of the 'other' candidates mentioned besides the big four.

[TheHumblePhysicist]

This fits well with my theory that politicians are just a face, not the brain of Washington. And of course, the public is there to rubber stamp anybody with an expensive smile and a fake tan, if they think they have a chance of winning.

This can only occur if people vote for the person they think other people will like, not the person they agree with. This fits right in with Game Theory.

So my message to voters is YOUR VOTE DOES NOT MATTER. And statistically, I am right. Your vote is an afterthought. You might as well vote to satisfy your own good sensibilities, morals and honor by picking the right choice, not the winning choice.

[klamath]

A Romney win assures another four years of Obama. I would rather have a divided government than have a RINO elected president. I would not vote for Obama but I sure will sit on my hands and not vote for Romney.

[wormyguy]

Giant Douche is headed for a landslide!

[Texan4Life]

WTF... Mittens? really?

fail

[JoshLowry]

This fits well with my theory that politicians are just a face, not the brain of Washington. And of course, the public is there to rubber stamp anybody with an expensive smile and a fake tan, if they think they have a chance of winning.

This can only occur if people vote for the person they think other people will like, not the person they agree with. This fits right in with Game Theory.

So my message to voters is YOUR VOTE DOES NOT MATTER. And statistically, I am right. Your vote is an afterthought. You might as well vote to satisfy your own good sensibilities, morals and honor by picking the right choice, not the winning choice.

Rand won after the establishment pulled every string they had.

Please do not discourage voting or political activism on these forums.

Thanks and welcome to Liberty Forest.

[oyarde]

Comment and ask them politely to include Ron Paul.

yep

[malkusm]

Rand won after the establishment pulled every string they had.

Please do not discourage voting or political activism on these forums.

Thanks and welcome to Liberty Forest.

He didn't discourage voting....he's advocating voting for a candidate who doesn't have as much of a chance (third party) over voting for a candidate who you think does have a chance but is the "lesser evil," thinking that your vote will matter.

As both a statistician and an economist, I appreciated your well-thought out post, TheHumblePhysicist....hope you stick around! :)

[speciallyblend]

the gop is not going to allow ron paul to win the nomination in 2012!! dealing with the gop leadership is like dealing with the mob!!

[yoshimaroka]

Rand won after the establishment pulled every string they had.

Rand had to compromise to get the GOP establishment on his side in order to win.


JL, if you will, checkout this post:
http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/09/principled-nonvoting-beginning-of.html


I enjoy frequenting the Liberty Forest… it's where my journey began. I've reached the conclusion that liberty is only possible to achieve outside of politics, because government and politics is absolutely antithetical to freedom.

Or maybe checkout a recent 3 part series about voting from the Complete Liberty podcast for more in-depth conversation with people who are for and against using the political process.


Right now I'm freeing myself and fulfilling all my personal potential:cool:

Cheers & all the best

[malkusm]

Rand had to compromise to get the GOP establishment on his side in order to win.


JL, if you will, checkout this post:
http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/09/principled-nonvoting-beginning-of.html


I enjoy frequenting the Liberty Forest… it's where my journey began. I've reached the conclusion that liberty is only possible to achieve outside of politics, because government and politics is absolutely antithetical to freedom.

Or maybe checkout a recent 3 part series about voting from the Complete Liberty podcast for more in-depth conversation with people who are for and against using the political process.


Right now I'm freeing myself and fulfilling all my personal potential:cool:

Cheers & all the best

Just so you know, you probably shouldn't post something that discourages people to vote in direct response to the owner of the forum telling someone else not to do it.

[specsaregood]

Rand had to compromise to get the GOP establishment on his side in order to win.


Some say "compromise", I prefer liberty virus. It appears to be a normal GOP douchebag, but after the gestation period it springs forth infecting the host.

[JoshLowry]

Rand had to compromise to get the GOP establishment on his side in order to win.


I'll read your link, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this.

His votes and actions in the Senate, even Rand recently threatening to uphold his promises, is changing the landscape.

The establishment GOP hates Rand. I point to the primary as the best example of this.

Cheney, Giuliani, and McConnell all endorsed his opponent during the primary, not a general election.

23 Republican US Senators also threw a fundraiser for his opponent in DC on Sept 23rd '09. Seventeen of them voted for the bank bailouts. (www.KentuckyFight.com (http://www.KentuckyFight.com))

Palin didn't endorse until February 2010 which is after two polls came out showing him with a 13 and 19 point lead in Oct/Nov. That's a calculated move by her handlers.

Rand is beholden to no one in my opinion.

His rhetoric might have been edgy, but until we see him vote, I trust him.

[JohnEngland]

If Mitt Romney were to become the Republican candidate, the Tea Party would rebel and go third party - knowing that the independent candidate probably wouldn't win, but they'd rather say F you to the system than be forced to vote GOP establishment.

There's no way people will have spent all this physical and emotional capital to get elected people like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, almost Sharron Angle etc etc etc only to have as the GOP candidate a useless RINO plastic-man.

I think many would prefer four more years of Obama than someone like Romney. At least Obama has united the people in unimaginable ways.

[LibertyEagle]

I wholeheartedly agree with Josh.

[nate895]

A Romney win assures another four years of Obama.

Not true. A poll last week put Huckabee and Romney ahead of Obama 52-44, and 50-45, respectively. If Obama doesn't move to where Bill Clinton was after 1994, he will lose in 2012 unless the Republicans put up someone that is already disliked in order to lose. If Obama doesn't change his tune, then the GOP could nominate "Mr. Republican" and win.

[TheHumblePhysicist]

no! I wasn't discouraging voting! I was just saying that if you believe your vote doesn't matter, you will vote more honestly and truthfully. If more people voted for who they believe in, rather than who they think will win, we would have better elections. A way to convince somebody to vote for who they believe him is to tell them that their vote doesn't matter, and that they might as well vote for the right person, not the winning person.

[South Park Fan]

Why wouldn't they poll Ron Paul after he got third in New Hampshire last summer?

[oyarde]

Not true. A poll last week put Huckabee and Romney ahead of Obama 52-44, and 50-45, respectively. If Obama doesn't move to where Bill Clinton was after 1994, he will lose in 2012 unless the Republicans put up someone that is already disliked in order to lose. If Obama doesn't change his tune, then the GOP could nominate "Mr. Republican" and win.

I tend to agree , right now Nate could run his dog against him and win.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

PPP's Dustin Ingalls responds in comments:


He was only ever once in double digits, at 10% in NH in one poll. And when you say he polled in fifth, that's the same as saying he polled in last, because we only used to name five candidates. We can only include 9 candidates, and while Pence declared for IN governor after these polls were in the field, making him unlikely to run now, he still was probably more likely to make a bid and do well than Paul.

[klamath]

Not true. A poll last week put Huckabee and Romney ahead of Obama 52-44, and 50-45, respectively. If Obama doesn't move to where Bill Clinton was after 1994, he will lose in 2012 unless the Republicans put up someone that is already disliked in order to lose. If Obama doesn't change his tune, then the GOP could nominate "Mr. Republican" and win. Have the other republicans pointing to Romneycare and a lot of conservatives are not going to go out of their way to vote for him. If harry Reid can win in nevada and Obama is ever bit as clever campaigner as Harry Obama can pull together a coalition again. A huge amount of the electorate voted for republicans not because they loved republicans but only for gridlock. I really don't see the american people handing the whole government back to bush like republicans again.

[JamesButabi]

PPP's Dustin Ingalls responds in comments:

Shows the lack of respect they give to Paul from the get go. They would rather poll people who earn <1% and tout that they are more likely to run and make a bid than RP.

[Brian4Liberty]

Anyone read the new book by Charlie Gasparino called "Bought and Paid For"? His inside sources say that Romney has always been Wall St's. GOP candidate of choice. In the last POTUS Primary election, they wanted Romney over McCain, and Obama over Hillary. They lost out to McCain last time, but expect a huge push for Romney in 2012. Of course Obama has always been in their pocket.

[nate895]

Have the other republicans pointing to Romneycare and a lot of conservatives are not going to go out of their way to vote for him. If harry Reid can win in nevada and Obama is ever bit as clever campaigner as Harry Obama can pull together a coalition again. A huge amount of the electorate voted for republicans not because they loved republicans but only for gridlock. I really don't see the american people handing the whole government back to bush like republicans again.

They like Bush as much as Obama. If Obama changes his tune and moves to a more moderately liberal position, then only a strong GOP candidate could knock him out. If Obama doesn't, then a generic Republican could beat Obama.

[Cherder]

I posted this:


Of the past 10 national GOP polls that have included Ron Paul (from February 2010 to September 2010), he placed last in 5 of them. The five instances in which he didn't place last, there were 11, 9, 9, 9, and 13 candidates included. He placed 7th, 4th, 5th, 5th, and 5th, respectively.

I think it's worth considering including him when you conduct polls in the future.

You can view the polls I mentioned here: http://bit.ly/aWUfKj

Hopefully they will reconsider.

[rich34]

This is really jacked up! With Rand just recently winning in Kentucky that could very well have a positive affect on Ron's numbers in New Hampshire and Nationally, but we'll never know if polling groups like this start to omit Ron from the polls. We better come up with a plan to combat this because you know they'll use this tactic like last time..

[american.swan]

Isn't this basically a name recognition poll?