PPP Poll - Nevada GOP Presidential Primary

[tsai3904]

Nevada (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/04/romney-leads-by-smaller-margin-in.html)
4/21 - 4/24
300 Republican primary voters
+/-5.7%


With Trump:

Romney 24%
Trump 16%
Gingrich 11%
Huckabee 10%
Palin 8%
Pawlenty 8%
Bachmann 7%
Paul 5%


Without Trump:

Romney 29%
Gingrich 17%
Palin 12%
Huckabee 9%
Bachmann 9%
Paul 7%
Pawlenty 7%


Demographics:

18-29 8%
30-45 26%
46-65 38%
Older than 65 28%


I'm very skeptical of this poll because within the 18 to 29 age group, Ron Paul got ~0% of the votes (page 30 of the pdf).

[sailingaway]

That's awful.

[Matt Collins]

We will win Nevada.

[rp08orbust]

Keep your eyes on Ames, IA.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Doesn't say exactly when this poll was taken.

So what location were these 300 people polled? Ely, Vegas, Panaca...

We know PPP is a Romney push pollster

[tsai3904]

Doesn't say exactly when this poll was taken.

Poll was conducted from 4/21 to 4/24.

[Liberty_Mike]

Well, I live in Nevada and I was never polled...

[The Dark Knight]

this poll asked PRIMARY voters....not CAUCUS voters, huge difference because we do much better in Caucuses

[UtahApocalypse]

The good news is that we will get most if not all of Huck's 10% when he don't run

[The Dark Knight]

The good news is that we will get most if not all of Huck's 10% when he don't run

yep, and if Huck does not run that makes us the front runner in Iowa I think. Romney hasnt even been to Iowa yet

[sailingaway]

this poll asked PRIMARY voters....not CAUCUS voters, huge difference because we do much better in Caucuses

Well, this is true, and we took the convention.... to be honest, we still need Huntsman and Romney to cancel eachother out a bit.

[TheState]

The good news is that we will get most if not all of Huck's 10% when he don't run

It doesn't look like that's quite the case:

If Huck, Palin, and Trump don't run:

Paul -10%
Bachman - 14%
Gingrich - 21%
Pawlenty -8%
Romney - 38%

[furface]

It's kind of depressing. If history is any indication, 2nd runners at this point in time seem to do well. That would mean Romney is likely the Republican choice. Check out this poll done in 2007.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1019

Why is there resistance to Ron Paul? The only thing I can think of is that Republicans are hooked on war.

[sailingaway]

Well, this was taken not of caucus goers, and not after Ron announced and got a bunch of media. And today he is there for the first time.



Why is there resistance to Ron Paul? The only thing I can think of is that Republicans are hooked on war.

I think a bunch of people dismiss him out of hand because of age without looking into him to see why, even with his age, he is by far the best candidate. And Bachmann has played her part very cleverly and I don't mean that as snark. She has given Ron respect, and has spoken with him at a big event in MN, and went to his lunches and learned at least superficially about the Fed, and while she might not be able to articulate alternatives and solutions, she sounds good to people who have less knowledge than she does. Palin has adopted the Fed thing too. I'm not sure both might not be willing to segue to IMF dominance world wide, but I HOPE they wouldn't given their populist personas. At this point, if Bachmann runs, I think she is angling to get Ron's endorsement down line and perhaps to make him Treasury Secretary or something if she wins. I'm not sure she knows that would put her on a budget where wars are concerned... but then, Treasury Secretaries can also be asked to resign.

[The Dark Knight]

does anyone else agree with me that a vote for Huntsman is a vote for Ron? (only in Nevada)
For the record I am Mormon and I have some pretty good ideas of how to get Mormons to vote for Huntsman (one of them being that Huntsman dad is a general authority(an executive position) in the Mormon church and you shouldn't vote against Mormon leaders...trust me Mormons will fall for this stuff)

[White Bear Lake]

Nevada is going to be tough simply because of the Mormon thing. It's unfortunate people get hung up on identities and vote for Mormons simply because they're Mormon, or vote for Blacks simply because they're Black. But that's the way it goes I guess. I have family members who still drool over JFK simply because he was Catholic even though they'd disagree with pretty much every one of his stances.

BTW, I agree that Bachmann would probably be the best alternative to a liberty candidate if we do come up short. She might not be perfect but if it came down to her vs Huckabee or her vs Romney, I'd suck it up and vote for her. She is my congresswoman so I guess I'm a little biased but I still think she's the most liberty minded even if she's far from being an actual liberty candidate.

I'm crossing my fingers Huckabee, Palin, and Trump don't run.

[The Dark Knight]

Nevada is going to be tough simply because of the Mormon thing. It's unfortunate people get hung up on identities and vote for Mormons simply because they're Mormon, or vote for Blacks simply because they're Black. But that's the way it goes I guess. I have family members who still drool over JFK simply because he was Catholic even though they'd disagree with pretty much every one of his stances.

BTW, I agree that Bachmann would probably be the best alternative to a liberty candidate if we do come up short. She might not be perfect but if it came down to her vs Huckabee or her vs Romney, I'd suck it up and vote for her. She is my congresswoman so I guess I'm a little biased but I still think she's the most liberty minded even if she's far from being an actual liberty candidate.

I'm crossing my fingers Huckabee, Palin, and Trump don't run.

yes it is unfortunate but this time we have two Mormons so it will split the vote.....my only fear is that Huntsman drops out early and then endorses Romney....kinda like the Gary Johnson and Ron Paul......but I have heard that Romney and Huntsman do not like each other much.

[zacharyrow]

We haven't had any debates, yet. Just wait.

[furface]

I think a bunch of people dismiss him out of hand because of age without looking into him to see why, even with his age, he is by far the best candidate.

You think it's age? I don't know. I can think of 3 Republicans whom I've asked about Ron Paul and they have given me reasons they won't vote for him:

1. We NEED to fight the wars we're involved in. When you try to drill down with these people about why the wars need to be fought, they get very vague.

2. We MUST support foreign countries financially that are our allies. Again, when you try to get a decent conversation with these people, they get lost.

3. America is the world's policeman and that's the way it needs to be. And of course they can't tell you why.

In my view it has a lot to do with foreign policy. Republicans and Americans in general feel comfortable with war. It's a big problem. Even though 70% of Americans want to withdraw from Afghanistan, when you suggest Ron Paul's "we just march on out" solution, they cringe. "These things are complex, you know." How? Who knows.

Don't take this wrong, but somebody's got to sit down with Ron and practice talking/debating about some of these issues.

For instance I watched the video of him on The View recently. When asked about funding for Planned Parenthood he kept talking about the Constitution, but didn't differentiate between Planned Parenthood's right to operate and their federal funding. He can deal with a lot of these touchy issues by just bringing up the issue of State Rights. States decide on it end of question. I know he's gotta say what he personally believes himself, but it's not worth the political capital to go get into wrestling matches over State issues in a national election.

He should also put away his crystal ball. He's been warning about run away inflation for the last 10 years now and it hasn't happened. Run away medical inflation has happened and he should use that as an opportunity to discuss the merits of allowing more competition in the medical industry.

[sailingaway]

does anyone else agree with me that a vote for Huntsman is a vote for Ron? (only in Nevada)
For the record I am Mormon and I have some pretty good ideas of how to get Mormons to vote for Huntsman (one of them being that Huntsman dad is a general authority(an executive position) in the Mormon church and you shouldn't vote against Mormon leaders...trust me Mormons will fall for this stuff)

No, because they changed the rules this year and if you vote for one candidate your delegate votes are locked in until the RNC you can't vote for someone else's delegates even if your guy drops out. They don't want that happening twice. And now you can get PROPORTIONAL delegates so Romney can get 10 and huntsman can get 5 and the state will end up voting the establishment's way, likely. They put some thought into this.

[sailingaway]

You think it's age? I don't know. I can think of 3 Republicans whom I've asked about Ron Paul and they have given me reasons they won't vote for him:

1. We NEED to fight the wars we're involved in. When you try to drill down with these people about why the wars need to be fought, they get very vague.

2. We MUST support foreign countries financially that are our allies. Again, when you try to get a decent conversation with these people, they get lost.

3. America is the world's policeman and that's the way it needs to be. And of course they can't tell you why.

In my view it has a lot to do with foreign policy. Republicans and Americans in general feel comfortable with war. It's a big problem. Even though 70% of Americans want to withdraw from Afghanistan, when you suggest Ron Paul's "we just march on out" solution, they cringe. "These things are complex, you know." How? Who knows.

Don't take this wrong, but somebody's got to sit down with Ron and practice talking/debating about some of these issues.

For instance I watched the video of him on The View recently. When asked about funding for Planned Parenthood he kept talking about the Constitution, but didn't differentiate between Planned Parenthood's right to operate and their federal funding. He can deal with a lot of these touchy issues by just bringing up the issue of State Rights. States decide on it end of question. I know he's gotta say what he personally believes himself, but it's not worth the political capital to go get into wrestling matches over State issues in a national election.

He should also put away his crystal ball. He's been warning about run away inflation for the last 10 years now and it hasn't happened. Run away medical inflation has happened and he should use that as an opportunity to discuss the merits of allowing more competition in the medical industry.

With the ones I know who are convertable they like him but it is age and or social security/medicare concerns. Or immigration, given that I live in California (which doesn't have a big pro war GOP in the rank and file) Those who are still wedded on wordlwide war and military control at all times, once the finite quantity of the budget is explained and the cost to other programs, are likely lost causes.

[zacharyrow]

It's no secret a lot of Republicans don't like Paul because of his foreign policy. The hope is that during debates and interviews he can explain his position and get them to sway to his side.

If they don't, then they don't. We have to try though. It's frustrating that there are so many people out there who just want war! We need to be the policeman of the world! Set the example! And how do they do that? By bombing and scaring people with weapons.

Yeah...way to be a leader.

[White Bear Lake]

I actually think the reason they distrust him is simply because they've been conditioned to think of him as some kooky old man who is jsut trying to get attention. Even the war issue is easy to get around if you frame it economically and not try and explain blowback. The only people that are really opposed to Paul are the die-hard Israel-firsters who will do anything and everything to aid that country for whatever reason. They're the only ones who I absolutely cannot get to atleast take another look at Paul.

[VegasPatriot]

No, because they changed the rules this year and if you vote for one candidate your delegate votes are locked in until the RNC you can't vote for someone else's delegates even if your guy drops out. They don't want that happening twice. And now you can get PROPORTIONAL delegates so Romney can get 10 and huntsman can get 5 and the state will end up voting the establishment's way, likely. They put some thought into this.
Do you have a link for this rule change? If this is true it could hurt us here in Nevada. Last time Romney got about 51 percent of the vote but by the time of the state convention came around he had dropped out, and so did many of the Romney delegates. As Ron Paul supporters we will stick with Ron till the end... hopefully Romney is not around again by the time of the Nevada state convention.

[Brett85]

Why is there resistance to Ron Paul? The only thing I can think of is that Republicans are hooked on war.

It's not that they disagree with his policies. It's that they don't view him as being electable. Polls show that Ron's favorability ratings are second only to Huckabee.

[Brett85]

You think it's age? I don't know. I can think of 3 Republicans whom I've asked about Ron Paul and they have given me reasons they won't vote for him:

1. We NEED to fight the wars we're involved in. When you try to drill down with these people about why the wars need to be fought, they get very vague.

I don't think that's the case when Trump gets 16% of the vote and Huckabee gets 10%. They're both opposed to nation building in Afghanistan as well.

[zacharyrow]

I don't think that's the case when Trump gets 16% of the vote and Huckabee gets 10%. They're both opposed to nation building in Afghanistan as well.

Yeah, but would that actually do something significant about it? No. Republicans know this. Half of Republicans just want to "look" good and look like they're for cutting spending. We have to get those people to come to our side and get serious about it.

Trump is a joke.

[TNforPaul45]

When Trump, Gingrich, Huckabee, and Pawlenty endorse Romney, which they will, it will be over.

We have a fight on our hands.

[tangent4ronpaul]

yep, and if Huck does not run that makes us the front runner in Iowa I think. Romney hasnt even been to Iowa yet

I thought Romney said he was skipping Iowa and concentrating on NH.

[Aratus]

Nevada (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/04/romney-leads-by-smaller-margin-in.html)
4/21 - 4/24
300 Republican primary voters
+/-5.7%


With Trump:

Romney 24%
Trump 16%
Gingrich 11%
Huckabee 10%
Palin 8%
Pawlenty 8%
Bachmann 7%
Paul 5%


Without Trump:

Romney 29%
Gingrich 17%
Palin 12%
Huckabee 9%
Bachmann 9%
Paul 7%
Pawlenty 7%


Demographics:

18-29 8%
30-45 26%
46-65 38%
Older than 65 28%


I'm very skeptical of this poll because within the 18 to 29 age group, Ron Paul got ~0% of the votes (page 30 of the pdf).

with TRUMP, we see gingrich with less backers, as well as mitt romney...?

without trump's arrival... NEWT's EGO getz very tired way fast? for it SWELLs?

[libertybrewcity]

There a few things wrong with this poll that make it mostly invalid:

1. 300 is an extremely small sample size. house seats should poll about 400 people.

2. The poll was taken over the course of four days. A lot can change in four days.

PPP needs to work on its form.

[cbunce]

Libertarian minded people don't give their phone information to the Elections Department. Privacy concerns you know... Nevada is going to be quite surprising to most people. All Nevadans in Southern Nevada need to get involved in Nevada for Liberty. http://nevadaforliberty.org (http://nevadaforliberty.org) This site will be used to get information out to Ron Paul Supporters. The most important steps right now are to join the Meetups and be Republican and join your county central committees. Ron is in Reno today and will be in Las Vegas on May 17th to speak to the Clark County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC). If you live in Clark County you need to become a member of the CCRCC. All the information in on Nevada for Liberty.

[cbunce]

Nevada is a caucus state: Information at the link below...

https://sites.google.com/site/precinctpatriots/caucus-information

[sailingaway]

Do you have a link for this rule change? If this is true it could hurt us here in Nevada. Last time Romney got about 51 percent of the vote but by the time of the state convention came around he had dropped out, and so did many of the Romney delegates. As Ron Paul supporters we will stick with Ron till the end... hopefully Romney is not around again by the time of the Nevada state convention.



According to CNN:

“Last weekend, in hopes of preventing a repeat performance, Republican state party leaders changed the rules to make the 2012 caucus results binding, meaning that delegates attending the Republican National Convention in Florida the following summer must stick with the candidate choices determined by the caucus results.”

The Nevada caucus, which will be the third of four early nomination voting states in 2012, along with Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, will award its delegates on a proportional, as opposed to a winner-take-all basis. The hope of party leaders is to have a more energetic and active exchange among the candidates.

http://www.rightspeak.net/2010/12/romney-to-vegas-as-nevada-caucus-looms.html

The good news is that it IS a caucus, not a primary. But, still....

[sailingaway]

Libertarian minded people don't give their phone information to the Elections Department. Privacy concerns you know... Nevada is going to be quite surprising to most people. All Nevadans in Southern Nevada need to get involved in Nevada for Liberty. http://nevadaforliberty.org (http://nevadaforliberty.org) This site will be used to get information out to Ron Paul Supporters. The most important steps right now are to join the Meetups and be Republican and join your county central committees. Ron is in Reno today and will be in Las Vegas on May 17th to speak to the Clark County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC). If you live in Clark County you need to become a member of the CCRCC. All the information in on Nevada for Liberty.

Are you/they going to see Ron in Reno tonight? It is his first visit there since he announced his exploratory committee, and the media will be looking at support, I would think. I'm concerned that I haven't seen more talk about that on here.

[randomname]

Didnt we win Nevada in 2008?

[virgil47]

Libertarian minded people don't give their phone information to the Elections Department. Privacy concerns you know... Nevada is going to be quite surprising to most people. All Nevadans in Southern Nevada need to get involved in Nevada for Liberty. http://nevadaforliberty.org (http://nevadaforliberty.org) This site will be used to get information out to Ron Paul Supporters. The most important steps right now are to join the Meetups and be Republican and join your county central committees. Ron is in Reno today and will be in Las Vegas on May 17th to speak to the Clark County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC). If you live in Clark County you need to become a member of the CCRCC. All the information in on Nevada for Liberty.

Unfortuneately there are many prospective voters that will only vote with the majority as touted in the polls. When we refuse to participate we lose our influence with these mindless voters. Our loss is someone else's gain!

[virgil47]

You think it's age? I don't know. I can think of 3 Republicans whom I've asked about Ron Paul and they have given me reasons they won't vote for him:

1. We NEED to fight the wars we're involved in. When you try to drill down with these people about why the wars need to be fought, they get very vague.

2. We MUST support foreign countries financially that are our allies. Again, when you try to get a decent conversation with these people, they get lost.

3. America is the world's policeman and that's the way it needs to be. And of course they can't tell you why.

In my view it has a lot to do with foreign policy. Republicans and Americans in general feel comfortable with war. It's a big problem. Even though 70% of Americans want to withdraw from Afghanistan, when you suggest Ron Paul's "we just march on out" solution, they cringe. "These things are complex, you know." How? Who knows.

Don't take this wrong, but somebody's got to sit down with Ron and practice talking/debating about some of these issues.

For instance I watched the video of him on The View recently. When asked about funding for Planned Parenthood he kept talking about the Constitution, but didn't differentiate between Planned Parenthood's right to operate and their federal funding. He can deal with a lot of these touchy issues by just bringing up the issue of State Rights. States decide on it end of question. I know he's gotta say what he personally believes himself, but it's not worth the political capital to go get into wrestling matches over State issues in a national election.

He should also put away his crystal ball. He's been warning about run away inflation for the last 10 years now and it hasn't happened. Run away medical inflation has happened and he should use that as an opportunity to discuss the merits of allowing more competition in the medical industry.

If RP does as he did in the last election and wings it during the debates he WILL lose and lose badly. The public does not want rambling answers they want direct succinct answers that they do not have to research to figure out what he is talking about. The vast majority of voters are lazy and ignorant but their votes count.

[eduardo89]

We will win Nevada.

You keep saying that, and I sure hope it's true!!!

[DamianTV]

A lot of this still has to do with the proportion of Media Coverage that Ron Paul is given.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9nOIusbDwI

(2008 election video)

[Matt Collins]

You keep saying that, and I sure hope it's true!!!
I have sources....


And a crystal ball :-P

[rp08orbust]

I have sources....

And a crystal ball :-P

I appreciate your optimism, but I think it tends toward overconfidence at times. Let's not forget that on the eve of the Nashville County GOP convention in 2008, you told us you had the chairmanship clinched. Now you did come close and you ended up with the vice chairmanship, but you were way over-confident IMO. Likewise, you posted to this forum from the SRLC in 2010 assuring us that we had the straw poll in the bag. I don't know how your predictive powers about a statewide caucus nine months and 2,000 miles away can be more accurate than they were about your own chairmanship race in your home town or about a straw poll you attended.

[Matt Collins]

I appreciate your optimism, but I think it tends toward overconfidence at times. Let's not forget that on the eve of the Nashville County GOP convention in 2008, you told us you had the chairmanship clinched. Now you did come close and you ended up with the vice chairmanship, but you were way over-confident IMO. Likewise, you posted to this forum from the SRLC in 2010 assuring us that we had the straw poll in the bag. I don't know how your predictive powers about a statewide caucus nine months and 2,000 miles away can be more accurate than they were about your own chairmanship race in your home town or about a straw poll you attended.HA! We lost both by 1 single vote a piece. I can't go into the details as to why for either of those two situations, but let's just say ALL indicators were that we had it before hand.

[puppetmaster]

Do you have a link for this rule change? If this is true it could hurt us here in Nevada. Last time Romney got about 51 percent of the vote but by the time of the state convention came around he had dropped out, and so did many of the Romney delegates. As Ron Paul supporters we will stick with Ron till the end... hopefully Romney is not around again by the time of the Nevada state convention.
Yea its true