New Gallup tracking poll shows Santorum crashing after his week long focus on culture wars

[Agorism]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx?ref=interactive


PRESIDENT – NATIONAL – GOP PRIMARY (Gallup Tracking)
Mitt Romney 31%
Rick Santorum 29%
Newt Gingrich 15%
Ron Paul 11%


He has around 10 point lead one week ago over Romney.

[Dublin4Paul]

I like to see Santorum crashing, but us staying so stagnant is kind of disheartening.

[RPit]

The problem. We didn't get anything.

Why. Because although Ron admits the biggest misconception is 'he's unelectable'.. There is nothing the campaign has done to counter those misconceptions by ads. Until they do that Santorum and Gingrich will just seesaw with the anti-Romney vote. This is plain and simple fact.

[Agorism]

I actually think this is bad. If Romney wins both Michigan and Arizona, then it's going to be hard to stop him from getting the nomination.

As much as a despise santorum, I think we would be better off with Santorum winning Michigan and Romney Arizona.

[airborne373]

Santroum's Communist Party Leader grandpa (http://www.bing.com/search?q=santorum+communist+party+italy&FORM=AWRE) would be proud of his grandsons culture war on America.

[Tyler_Durden]

Was really looking for to post-debate surge.

[LibertyEagle]

The problem. We didn't get anything.

Why. Because although Ron admits the biggest misconception is 'he's unelectable'.. There is nothing the campaign has done to counter those misconceptions by ads. Until they do that Santorum and Gingrich will just seesaw with the anti-Romney vote. This is plain and simple fact.

The campaign can only do so much. Until Ron acts like he can win and starts clearly and consistently laying out what HE would DO as President to turn around the economy and not only in the long-term, I don't foresee any big bump in the polls.

[EaSy]

The problem. We didn't get anything.

Why. Because although Ron admits the biggest misconception is 'he's unelectable'.. There is nothing the campaign has done to counter those misconceptions by ads. Until they do that Santorum and Gingrich will just seesaw with the anti-Romney vote. This is plain and simple fact.

One ad won't change months of not-electable/fringe/racist/old indoctrination.

[Agorism]

The campaign can only do so much. Until Ron acts like he can win and starts clearly and consistently laying out what HE would DO as President to turn around the economy and not only in the long-term, I don't foresee any big bump in the polls.

Paul supports deflation. I've always thought going ahead with such plans would be economic disaster anyways as the various ponzi schemes imploded.

...but that's the point

[rp08orbust]

The campaign can only do so much. Until Ron acts like he can win and starts clearly and consistently laying out what HE would DO as President to turn around the economy and not only in the long-term, I don't foresee any big bump in the polls.

It seems that bumps in the polls are almost entirely MSM creations. Did Santorum ever lay out a plan for turning the economy around?

[TIMB0B]

It seems that bumps in the polls are almost entirely MSM creations. Did Santorum ever lay out a plan for turning the economy around?This.

RP campaign can do EVERY thing we suggest, but it won't make a dent in these polls.

[BUSHLIED]

if you look at the gallup crosstabs they show the similar pattern we have been seeing historically:
Ron does well among young, independent, males of slightly lower income and does the worst among older, conservative, men and women of both high and low incomes. You can't win without this substantial voting block...unless you can generate massive turnout among your base...in Ron's case, historically turnout is low among his base...but I am glad to see Santorum dropping...and Ron is campaigning so...

[goldpants]

In reference to airborne's communist party link-That last part of the article in which his cousin Bruno said Rick would send the presidential airplane for his extended family in Italy and have them celebrate at the white house sums up the Santorum family philosophy. Sell your principles but never pay for what you can have handed out to you for free.

[sailingaway]

In reference to airborne's communist party link-That last part of the article in which his cousin Bruno said Rick would send the presidential airplane for his extended family in Italy and have them celebrate at the white house sums up the Santorum family philosophy. Sell your principles but never pay for what you can have handed out to you for free at taxpayer expense.

fify

[Xelaetaks]

One ad won't change months of not-electable/fringe/racist/old indoctrination.

Still could make a difference in certain states though. In fact that and a foreign policy ad could make a big difference IMO.

I don't think Ron Paul adresses too much people's main worries about foreign policy which is our defense.

[hunter100]

This is exactly why negative attack adds can backfire. Paul's latest add trashes Santorum, but does not effectively encourage the viewer to vote for Ron Paul. Same thing with the debate performance in Arizona, Paul didn't really encourage voters to shift to him, he merely said don't vote for Santorum. So the voters are leaving Santorum and moving to Romney and Gingrich. In my opinion, Paul's most effective add was the "Big Dog" add, which used the first half to trash the opposition and the second half to promote Paul's policies. He needs to do more of this.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I actually think this is bad. If Romney wins both Michigan and Arizona, then it's going to be hard to stop him from getting the nomination.

As much as a despise santorum, I think we would be better off with Santorum winning Michigan and Romney Arizona.

You want to drag this out and delay the inevitable, why? Paul needs to win some states before people concern themselves with one of the other candidates winning too much, and thus not splitting wins.

[Agorism]

You want to drag this out and delay the inevitable, why? Paul needs to win some states before people concern themselves with one of the other candidates winning too much, and thus not splitting wins.

Unlike others here I think Intrade is reasonably accurate. Right now Santorum is at 5% or to win the nomination.

Romney is the real threat not Santorum. Also I prefer a brokered convention to Romney running away with it.

[cmo4ever]

Here's the rub. There are still, alot, of warmongering Republicans we probably are never going to convince that Ron doesn't have a "crazy" foreign policy. For them it makes him a nonchoice I think even next to Romney. You guys are asking the campaign to change the minds of a bunch of VERY entrenched dogma about the War on Terror that Fox News and NeoCons have perpetuated. The Paul campaign was always going to have to be grassroots, 1 on 1 campaigning via internet and personal relationships. The above people who think he is "crazy" won't listen to sound arguments, the golden rule, and you can talk to them till they are blue in the face, it won't matter.

This was always going to be an uphill fight against the entrenched establishment, precisely because it's rough to change their minds on this Iran thing. If crowds are booing the golden rule, there is no hope for these people to change before the economy collapses. In order to win this election we're going to probably NEED to have nobody above 1144 before Tampa. I don't know if we can be the "anti-Romney" because clearly they just bounce back and forth between Gingrich and Santorum. So our best interest is to see a see-saw going between these 3 till August, while we quietly aquire a mass amount of delegates. 400-500 commited would be good, hopefully enough stealth delegates to win outright after first rounds of voting.

Barring some kind of economic catastrophe Paul to force people out of their comfort zones, and get people off their couches, it's going to be what it always is. A tireless minority.

[RPit]

One ad won't change months of not-electable/fringe/racist/old indoctrination.

So it means we shouldn't even try? Good game.

[EaSy]

So it means we shouldn't even try? Good game.

Well, he is trying 4 years now. There is no reason to stop now. It is just my observation.

[Brett85]

Here's the rub. There are still, alot, of warmongering Republicans we probably are never going to convince that Ron doesn't have a "crazy" foreign policy. For them it makes him a nonchoice I think even next to Romney. You guys are asking the campaign to change the minds of a bunch of VERY entrenched dogma about the War on Terror that Fox News and NeoCons have perpetuated. The Paul campaign was always going to have to be grassroots, 1 on 1 campaigning via internet and personal relationships. The above people who think he is "crazy" won't listen to sound arguments, the golden rule, and you can talk to them till they are blue in the face, it won't matter.

This was always going to be an uphill fight against the entrenched establishment, precisely because it's rough to change their minds on this Iran thing. If crowds are booing the golden rule, there is no hope for these people to change before the economy collapses. In order to win this election we're going to probably NEED to have nobody above 1144 before Tampa. I don't know if we can be the "anti-Romney" because clearly they just bounce back and forth between Gingrich and Santorum. So our best interest is to see a see-saw going between these 3 till August, while we quietly aquire a mass amount of delegates. 400-500 commited would be good, hopefully enough stealth delegates to win outright after first rounds of voting.

Barring some kind of economic catastrophe Paul to force people out of their comfort zones, and get people off their couches, it's going to be what it always is. A tireless minority.

I still think a big part of it is that Ron is 76 years old, doesn't really look Presidential, is seen as "unelectable," and isn't the smoothest debater and speaker. If Mitt Romney were to run on Ron Paul's platform, I guarentee you he would be getting more than 10-15% of the vote. I still don't believe Ron's platform is actually unpopular.

[Peace&Freedom]

So it means we shouldn't even try? Good game.

The game that should be played is one where we try something THAT WORKS. Running an ad that simply repeats the logical arguments Paul has made on debates is not enough, the programming of the GOP masses has to be changed based on addressing their fears, which neocons have hammered on for years.

[evadmurd]

The campaign can only do so much. Until Ron acts like he can win and starts clearly and consistently laying out what HE would DO as President to turn around the economy and not only in the long-term, I don't foresee any big bump in the polls.

A very comprehensive (not just rhetorical) plan to cut 1T from the first year budget and bringing our troops home post haste by ending all the wars is not laying out what he will do as President? The fact of the matter is that the President can't do much else, as it should be. To say that he can, he becomes a no better lying buffoon than any of the others.

[EaSy]

I am just saying that one positive add won't change the game in this stage. He needs to win something. He also needs to hammer all opponents somehow and promote himself as a "cure". Problem with RP is that he polarized himself too much which is good for us, but bad for average voter. From my observation people just cherrypick one issue like "he will close US Environmental Protection Agency" and just never even consider voting for him. It doesn't matter that it is fascist like and useless agency.

But there is always a chance of another US economy meltdown. That is the only one thing that could help him to become frontrunner in matter of weeks.

[tbone717]

I still think a big part of it is that Ron is 76 years old, doesn't really look Presidential, is seen as "unelectable," and isn't the smoothest debater and speaker. If Mitt Romney were to run on Ron Paul's platform, I guarentee you he would be getting more than 10-15% of the vote. I still don't believe Ron's platform is actually unpopular.

If that were the case this would be all over by now and we'd be saving up cash for the general. For those of us that have been working our local area for years, we know that the platform is very popular - the issue all along has been connecting the platform to the candidate.

[cmo4ever]

I still think a big part of it is that Ron is 76 years old, doesn't really look Presidential, is seen as "unelectable," and isn't the smoothest debater and speaker. If Mitt Romney were to run on Ron Paul's platform, I guarentee you he would be getting more than 10-15% of the vote. I still don't believe Ron's platform is actually unpopular.

I don't think it's unpopular with the Country at large, thus the high independents and Dems, but it does seem to be unpopular with Establishment Republicans, and yes Iran and his Foreign Policy IS completely unacceptable to a good deal of these people. Watch the debates, listen to all the audiences boo when he talks about overseas policy. These people are not thinking rationally or critically, and I doubt there is a chance of reaching them anytime soon, so we have to focus elsewhere / controlling the Party in the future. Near term goals are Paul as President, long term goals are controlling the GOP at the local/state/Congressional levels. To achieve near-term goals it's got to be a practical approach. Establishment Repubs by and large HATE Paul. I've read their forums, I've seen the comments on news articles.... these people are completely out of touch with reality and Reason. So the only choice is to go around them, use the tools in place for a Republic to overcome an uninformed rabid majority. For this reason direct Democracy is a bad thing, and why our system is so much better. Tireless and informed minority CAN beat an ignorant majority without drive or enthusiasm.

[affa]

I still don't believe Ron's platform is actually unpopular.

I still don't believe Ron is actually unpopular.

[jay_dub]

Ron had a great opportunity the other night at the debate when asked what is the most common mis-perception about him. He answered that it's that he's unelectable. While true, it was a chance to correct the wrong notions that lead people to think he's not electable. He could have said that he's not for legalizing drugs, but for the states to decide this matter. That he doesn't want to dismantle the entire gov't but transition it to one more in line with our founders intent. That his foreign policy will make us safer than the current strategy. And there's the elephant in the room of the debt, which makes most of the other candidates proposals pie in the sky wishful thinking. His policies are based on reality and a respect for the Constitution. That makes him the only true Conservative running, which needs to be stressed.

This is all Monday morning quarterbacking, but it was a missed opportunity that shouldn't be missed if given another chance. We only get so many shots at this and it could come in either a debate or an interview.

[No Free Beer]

I actually think this is bad. If Romney wins both Michigan and Arizona, then it's going to be hard to stop him from getting the nomination.

As much as a despise santorum, I think we would be better off with Santorum winning Michigan and Romney Arizona.

This.

Also, it would be nice to see Newt rise again and win some southern states.

Strategy: Get a brokered convention.

[economics102]

I actually think this is bad. If Romney wins both Michigan and Arizona, then it's going to be hard to stop him from getting the nomination.

As much as a despise santorum, I think we would be better off with Santorum winning Michigan and Romney Arizona.

This is my thought as well, anything that weakens Romney should be good for us if our aim is a brokered convention, especially since Santorum and Gingrich are candidates the party will NOT accept because, unlike Ron Paul (who the party also won't accept), Santorum and Gingrich really ARE unelectable.

[sailingaway]

This is my thought as well, anything that weakens Romney should be good for us if our aim is a brokered convention, especially since Santorum and Gingrich are candidates the party will NOT accept because, unlike Ron Paul (who the party also won't accept), Santorum and Gingrich really ARE unelectable.

I lean towards the other view, that Santorum solidifying himself as the anti Romney keeps his funding and the attention of other conservatives to the end whereas if he falters, Ron has a chance to rise.

[cmo4ever]

I lean towards the other view, that Santorum solidifying himself as the anti Romney keeps his funding and the attention of other conservatives to the end whereas if he falters, Ron has a chance to rise.

The other problem with that though, what if Santorum and Gingrich remain imploded, and Romney just runs away with it? What if the "not-Romney" people would still rather have Romney than Paul? It's just a risky strategy to eliminate them all, because then Romney might just be a freight train taking the nomination. Better for all 3 of them to remain competetive with eachother, which still yet RAISES our chances of getting delegates in states. Much easier to get the lions share if we only need 30-40% of delegates to be ahead in a state rather than 50%.

[sailingaway]

The other problem with that though, what if Santorum and Gingrich remain imploded, and Romney just runs away with it? What if the "not-Romney" people would still rather have Romney than Paul? It's just a risky strategy to eliminate them all, because then Romney might just be a freight train taking the nomination. Better for all 3 of them to remain competetive with eachother, which still yet RAISES our chances of getting delegates in states. Much easier to get the lions share if we only need 30-40% of delegates to be ahead in a state rather than 50%.

that is possible, but with Gingrich and Santorum trading honors we KNOW Ron isn't given a chance, because that has already been what happens. If Santorum wins MICHIGAN specifically, it will impact Santorum's standing in WASHINGTON and imho Ron needs Washington.

And add to that, Ron's ads indicate he believes what I believe, and I'd rather work WITH the campaign than against it.

[kill the banks]

Here's the rub. There are still, alot, of warmongering Republicans we probably are never going to convince that Ron doesn't have a "crazy" foreign policy. For them it makes him a nonchoice I think even next to Romney. You guys are asking the campaign to change the minds of a bunch of VERY entrenched dogma about the War on Terror that Fox News and NeoCons have perpetuated. The Paul campaign was always going to have to be grassroots, 1 on 1 campaigning via internet and personal relationships. The above people who think he is "crazy" won't listen to sound arguments, the golden rule, and you can talk to them till they are blue in the face, it won't matter.

This was always going to be an uphill fight against the entrenched establishment, precisely because it's rough to change their minds on this Iran thing. If crowds are booing the golden rule, there is no hope for these people to change before the economy collapses. In order to win this election we're going to probably NEED to have nobody above 1144 before Tampa. I don't know if we can be the "anti-Romney" because clearly they just bounce back and forth between Gingrich and Santorum. So our best interest is to see a see-saw going between these 3 till August, while we quietly aquire a mass amount of delegates. 400-500 commited would be good, hopefully enough stealth delegates to win outright after first rounds of voting.

Barring some kind of economic catastrophe Paul to force people out of their comfort zones, and get people off their couches, it's going to be what it always is. A tireless minority.

I was watching the war amps series called ' never again ' ... it was about the terrible aspects of wars and the horrible tragic graphics that the paid media whores do not show to the public ... what really happens in war might sink into these neocon types that have perverted wars into honor and glamour without showing the true hell ... not to mention most are chicken hawks at best

[klamath]

Went to a party last week and this is shows the picture in a nutshell. Ron Paul's name comes up.
Young girl says, "RP was hot in his younger days!"
I know she doesn't follow politics so I ask her. "How did yousee that picture?"
Girl. "So in so on facebook posted it."
I ask. "Is so in so that guy that you girlfriend just married that is the raving neo nazi, white supremacist you have been talking about?"
Girl sheepishly. "Yeaw..."
Older solid republican demographic women speaks up. "I LOVE everything about RP except his foriegn policy."
"Why?" I ask.
"He would massively cut US defence."
"But he really wouldn't." I yell across the room.
"It is what he says in the debates. We wouldn't be safe with the cuts he is proposing."
"So you like Romney?" I ask.
"I absolutely hate Romney!" she says empatically.
I don't ask her about Santorum directly but she starts talking about how much she doesn't like the religious right and really wasn't for the wars.
The party's converstaion quickly moves to something else.

The older women was solid RP demographic, a republican party donating passionate ex pot smoking baby boomer yet RP has done such a poor job of getting his defense of America plan across I believe she is gagging down Gingrich. RP getting introduced to the face book generation by a strident well know white supremacist is the other problem.

[cmo4ever]

I was watching the war amps series called ' never again ' ... it was about the terrible aspects of wars and the horrible tragic graphics that the paid media whores do not show to the public ... what really happens in war might sink into these neocon types that have perverted wars into honor and glamour without showing the true hell ... not to mention most are chicken hawks at best

It's become I am convinced it's a religious act for some NeoCons to continue this war thing. We have that propaganda piece Act of Valor out this weekend, it's so ingrained into them that war and going after "brown people" is the proper and right thing, and we're all going to die tomorrow if we leave. I am optimistic about the movie "Monumental" coming out next month by Kirk Cameron. It's precisely the Christian leaning, but civics centered, movie that could work in our favor. It seems to be very oriented on improving our situation in our country NOW rather than waiting for judgement day, or speeding the process up. Also seems very focused on Founders and Liberty, and even thought it won't directly endorse Paul, it's ideas and values are closely related to his campaign I think. Could be good.

[moonshine5757]

we didn't make any gains? oh my lord that is bad.

[Bruno]

Santorum surge draining

[cmo4ever]

It looks like Santorums implosion is leading to another Gingrich lead, maybe too early to tell, but seems possible. If that's true it means 20-40% of people have no memory whatsoever and are ping-ponging between these 2.

The way I think ST will pan out, is hopefully Gingrich gets a state or 2, Santorum a State or 2, Romney 3-4 States, and God-willing Paul gets a handful of state "wins" and a large amount of delegates. Idaho, ND, Alaska, etc. Person above me might be right about a Santorum implosion helping Paul out to get a win in Washington. I don't see Washington voting for Romney or Gingrich so that could be really good if he falls out of that state. A win right before ST throws this whole thing off.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

we didn't make any gains? oh my lord that is bad.

I was under the impression that these polls reflect activity that was recorded many days prior to the release of the results. If that truly is the case, then perhaps the debate hadn't really reflected upon the results in this poll. Anyone know how this pans out?

[Brett85]

I still don't believe Ron is actually unpopular.

He's not unpopular with Americans as a whole, but he's unpopular with the GOP base.

[freneticentropy]

The main problem is and always has been foreign policy. He never effectively communicated on this issue, and therefore has always had a ceiling no matter what else he's done. Sadly, he's not going to change now, and it's probably too late anyway. It's quite frustrating.

[WD-NY]

One ad won't change months of not-electable/fringe/racist/old indoctrination.

One speech could/would.

[Brett85]

The main problem is and always has been foreign policy. He never effectively communicated on this issue, and therefore has always had a ceiling no matter what else he's done. Sadly, he's not going to change now, and it's probably too late anyway. It's quite frustrating.

But if that's the case, then how did Pat Buchanan ever get so close to winning the GOP nomination? Buchanan's foreign policy views are essentially the same as Ron's.

[cmo4ever]

The main problem is and always has been foreign policy. He never effectively communicated on this issue, and therefore has always had a ceiling no matter what else he's done. Sadly, he's not going to change now, and it's probably too late anyway. It's quite frustrating.

I don't agree. I think he HAS communicated properly, but the GOP establishment has rejected his argument. I'll say it again, he could have had the most perfect, articulate argument in the world against it, and these people are so bloodthirsty and blind it won't matter. A decade on indoctrination from Fox and other sources has killed their critical thinking skills.

[cmo4ever]

But if that's the case, then how did Pat Buchanan ever get so close to winning the GOP nomination? Buchanan's foreign policy views are essentially the same as Ron's.

That was before the party / nation lost it's goddamn mind after 9/11.

[WD-NY]

I still think a big part of it is that Ron is 76 years old, doesn't really look Presidential, is seen as "unelectable," and isn't the smoothest debater and speaker. If Mitt Romney were to run on Ron Paul's platform, I guarentee you he would be getting more than 10-15% of the vote. I still don't believe Ron's platform is actually unpopular.

And yet, he continues to speak off-the-cuff at every rally he hosts.

(I agree 100% that it's not Ron's platform that's unpopular - it's how he delivers it. The great thing about speeches are that they allow you put your 'best foot forward')

[SamuraisWisdom]

But if that's the case, then how did Pat Buchanan ever get so close to winning the GOP nomination? Buchanan's foreign policy views are essentially the same as Ron's.

9/11 and ten years of pro-war conditioning by the GOP.

[Brett85]

9/11 and ten years of pro-war conditioning by the GOP.

That's true. The GOP is much more pro war than it was in the 90's.

[freneticentropy]

oops. screwed up and double posted.

[freneticentropy]

But if that's the case, then how did Pat Buchanan ever get so close to winning the GOP nomination? Buchanan's foreign policy views are essentially the same as Ron's.

1. He didn't really get that close. After his win in Iowa, he fell pretty quickly.
2. 9/11 completely destroyed any sense the republican party ever had.


Captain Hindsight says Paul should have come out swinging on foreign policy early. I wish he'd have given a major 'Paul Doctrine' speech laying out a positive vision for defense and destroying all the nonsense people have been saying about him concerning being weak, concerning Israel, and so on. Unfortunately, the campaign decided the best route was to focus on domestic policy and ignore foreign policy except to give the blowback argument in campaign speeches, which mainstream republicans don't glom too.

If he goes on the offensive on fp right now, there is still an outside chance of turning it around. But he has to throw a hail mary. Slow and steady is not going to win the race.

[Peace&Freedom]

I don't agree. I think he HAS communicated properly, but the GOP establishment has rejected his argument. I'll say it again, he could have had the most perfect, articulate argument in the world against it, and these people are so bloodthirsty and blind it won't matter. A decade on indoctrination from Fox and other sources has killed their critical thinking skills.

More precisely, the neo-con-influenced public's framework on the issue is dominated by the "they threaten us" construct of fear and vengeance, for which the knee-jerk posture of "so let's get 'em, before they get us!" is considered the only relevant response. Paul never counters this emotional mindset, he just repeats logical arguments for non-intervention and blowback. As long as the "they threaten us, they started it" framework is not challenged, the pro-peace message will fall on deaf or slumbering ears, no matter how well articulated. Paul's position is based on non-interventionism, but by conceding "they threaten us" from the start of the dialog, he cedes the very basis for foriegn intervention that he is arguing against.

[walt]

Anybody but Santorum.

[jemuf]

Here's the rub. There are still, alot, of warmongering Republicans we probably are never going to convince that Ron doesn't have a "crazy" foreign policy. For them it makes him a nonchoice I think even next to Romney. You guys are asking the campaign to change the minds of a bunch of VERY entrenched dogma about the War on Terror that Fox News and NeoCons have perpetuated. The Paul campaign ......

......bounce back and forth between Gingrich and Santorum. So our best interest is to see a see-saw going between these 3 till August, while we quietly aquire a mass amount of delegates. 400-500 commited would be good, hopefully enough stealth delegates to win outright after first rounds of voting.

Barring some kind of economic catastrophe Paul to force people out of their comfort zones, and get people off their couches, it's going to be what it always is. A tireless minority.

Great post. I've been and am optimistic, but not naively so. I believe Dr. Paul is still ahead of his time but just by one decent sized catastrophe (like 12% unemployment).

In about 10 days things should be pretty clear. If the Paul campaign loses every state between now and Super Tuesday but doesn't change course then you have to wonder about the campaign managers and advisers.

[Emperius]

WA is a must win. It can really push us over the edge or get us close to wins in VT, Alaska, Idaho, Oklahoma, and maybe edge us closer to some strong seconds elsewhere.

[parocks]

The problem. We didn't get anything.

Why. Because although Ron admits the biggest misconception is 'he's unelectable'.. There is nothing the campaign has done to counter those misconceptions by ads. Until they do that Santorum and Gingrich will just seesaw with the anti-Romney vote. This is plain and simple fact.

There is nothing the campaign has done to counter those misconceptions by WINS.

[RonPaul101.com]

Great, so now Romney has a clear and easier path to the nomination, and my donations help provide it with ads in MI... :rolleyes:

[PolicyReader]

As in the other thread I don't think it's accurate to say Romney is a lock in the current state of the race (but since I went over it there I won't reiterate here)

[ifthenwouldi]

I'll say it again, he could have had the most perfect, articulate argument in the world against it, and these people are so bloodthirsty and blind it won't matter.

Ron Paul said as much at the last debate, saying that he *would* win the economic argument. Personally, I think the "we can't afford these wars" tact should've been the preferred one for the campaign from the beginning.

[Student Of Paulism]

Here's the rub. There are still, alot, of warmongering Republicans we probably are never going to convince that Ron doesn't have a "crazy" foreign policy. For them it makes him a nonchoice I think even next to Romney. You guys are asking the campaign to change the minds of a bunch of VERY entrenched dogma about the War on Terror that Fox News and NeoCons have perpetuated. The Paul campaign was always going to have to be grassroots, 1 on 1 campaigning via internet and personal relationships. The above people who think he is "crazy" won't listen to sound arguments, the golden rule, and you can talk to them till they are blue in the face, it won't matter.

This was always going to be an uphill fight against the entrenched establishment, precisely because it's rough to change their minds on this Iran thing. If crowds are booing the golden rule, there is no hope for these people to change before the economy collapses. In order to win this election we're going to probably NEED to have nobody above 1144 before Tampa. I don't know if we can be the "anti-Romney" because clearly they just bounce back and forth between Gingrich and Santorum. So our best interest is to see a see-saw going between these 3 till August, while we quietly aquire a mass amount of delegates. 400-500 commited would be good, hopefully enough stealth delegates to win outright after first rounds of voting.

Barring some kind of economic catastrophe Paul to force people out of their comfort zones, and get people off their couches, it's going to be what it always is. A tireless minority.

Yea, that about sums it up. There are just too many thumb suckers and programmed monkeys out there who just refuse to see the real truth or get past the facade of sewage and propaganda that the papers and msm spew every day and only see things one way only. You just aren't going to change people's minds much at this point in the game. Ron has been at this same number, give or take 1% or so, for the last 2 months, which says quite enough as far as where the bulk of the zombies stand. It's quite pathetic, but not surprising. I was listening to AJ awhile ago and he was talking cops/ex-soldiers only, and one of them who served in Iraq talked about the terrible things he has seen from his own 'friends' there and the abuses that go on. He said many of them act as if its just some normal, every day thing, laugh about it, etc. The whole point of the calls were about measuring if the military or people like that would be on the side of the people if some civilian backlash broke out due to all the corruption going on, and he said he really doesn't think they would, because theyve been so programmed and mentally indoctrinated to buy into the system's agenda.

It's no different with the 'common folk'. These people had their chance and the only way they will ever wake up is when they experience something terrible for themselves. People just seem unable to wake up until something catastrophic and disastrous happens, and then they will have the audacity to complain about it and say 'well we didn't have a choice or alternative to help stop it all'


I still think a big part of it is that Ron is 76 years old, doesn't really look Presidential, is seen as "unelectable," and isn't the smoothest debater and speaker. If Mitt Romney were to run on Ron Paul's platform, I guarentee you he would be getting more than 10-15% of the vote. I still don't believe Ron's platform is actually unpopular.

Totally agree. While i believe age means nothing, again, all the zombies are way too visual and vote with their eyes too much, rather than what is under the onion. I know people wont like seeing this, but cmon, whether you wall want to admit it or not, you know if Ron was Rand's age, we would be nearly double in the polls right now (and that doesnt even include Rand's articulation and speaking skills being far better.) It's just a fact the average voter doesn't want an 'old' president these days. Yes, it's sad and it shows how pathetic people have come, but it's the sad truth of it all.

[Brett85]

I've never really heard Ron make the "war is the health of the state" argument, which is that war always expands the size and scope of government. Just look at the Bush years, when Bush doubled the size of the federal government. A lot of that was due to the fact that we were always at war during the Bush years. Historically, during times of war the government has ALWAYS dramatically increased in size and scope. That's a very good argument for only going to war as a last resort, and only going to war when our own country is actually under attack.

[alucard13mmfmj]

It is strange... for example. Christians don't want muslim or hindu values or whatever forced onto them... while Christians want to force their values on other groups. (i just choosed those groups as an example).

Clearly, a lot of people don't take this "golden rule" seriously.

[D.A.S.]

Yea, it's sad that we're not getting any bump in the polls. Ron's modesty in debates and interviews just might cost us this election cycle, too. And it's not that I blame Ron for it, but the people need a certain perception because an average voter isn't very smart and isn't very caring in regards to how they vote. So if Ron can't speak up enough about himself and speak like he's really trying to win, he simply won't be able to punch through the media firewall.

[floridasun1983]

I would argue that we're not going to see the bump until we win somewhere. People don't understand the delegate stuff. Ron Paul wins a state, his average here is going to surge. We have got to deliver a state to Dr. Paul.

[Brett85]

...

[tbone717]

1. He didn't really get that close. After his win in Iowa, he fell pretty quickly.

Just to clarify: Buchanan won 4 states (AK, LA, NH, MO). After NH, he remained somewhat competitive being in the mid 20's to low 30's. MO was his final win and that was post Super Tuesday. Additionally, Kemp was chosen for the VP slot. Many would say Buchanan had a lot to do with that. As a side note Buchanan didn't run in 88 because Kemp was running. So he won 4 states and had influence on the VP selection - not a bad day at the office.

[Student Of Paulism]

Great, so now Romney has a clear and easier path to the nomination, and my donations help provide it with ads in MI... :rolleyes:

Heh yea. I guess you can look at it that way. The ad and knock on Santo, helped Mitt more than it did for Ron. It is really a microcosm of the mind set of the voters and how they just ignorantly shun Paul's message.

[roversaurus]

I would argue that we're not going to see the bump until we win somewhere. People don't understand the delegate stuff. Ron Paul wins a state, his average here is going to surge. We have got to deliver a state to Dr. Paul.

This.

[Agorism]

PPP just tweeted


PublicPolicyPolling ‏ @ppppolls Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Mitt Romney's taken a very small lead on our new Michigan poll...full results between 10 and 10:30

Bad news Bears for Santorum although if it's close he could still win that state, which I hope occurs.

[Peace&Freedom]

It is strange... for example. Christians don't want muslim or hindu values or whatever forced onto them... while Christians want to force their values on other groups. (i just choosed those groups as an example).

Clearly, a lot of people don't take this "golden rule" seriously.

Overgeneralization. Christian authoritarians want to force their values on others, while many other Christian social conservatives simply want to stop social liberals from imposing their values on them. It's a culture war, meaning there are at least two sets of combatants.

Remember the history---evangelicals were largely separationists who stayed out of politics, prior to the school prayer ban and legalization of abortion, et al issues drew them in the arena, to reverse the trend or prevent any more social liberal authoritarianism from being codified into law. The fact that neocons then manipulated many of them into a fanatical embrace of political Zionism and militarism is unfortunate, but correctable, and should be pursued to grow the base of the liberty movement.

[Anti Federalist]

I still don't believe Ron's platform is actually unpopular.

It is, sadly.

Look through human history, most people have never wanted freedom, they want to be fed and entertained.

And they certainly aren't inclined to radically change things if they can help it.

Waiting around for some "mass awakening" is a fool's dream.

If we want our freedom bad enough, we'll take it, with two thirds of our fellow citizens dragging along, kicking and screaming, if need be.

Thus is the truth of all revolutions, a battle in front and a battle behind.

[J_White]

attack ads have been good, but it seems there are no more positive ads from the Campaign, maybe because they are short on $$.
I would have liked to have a "Big Dog" or "Fake" styled ad with all the info about his positives - taxes, budget cuts, ndaa, etc.

on second thoughts what are the real possibilities of getting the war-loving not-Romney vote ?

[Champ]

It is, sadly.

Look through human history, most people have never wanted freedom, they want to be fed and entertained.

And they certainly aren't inclined to radically change things if they can help it.

Waiting around for some "mass awakening" is a fool's dream.

If we want our freedom bad enough, we'll take it, with two thirds of our fellow citizens dragging along, kicking and screaming, if need be.

Thus is the truth of all revolutions, a battle in front and a battle behind.

So true. Excellent post.