PDA

View Full Version : Politico: Poll: GOP 2016 pick a 4-way split




ssunlimited
11-09-2013, 12:02 PM
"Republican voters remain undecided over their favorite candidate for the 2016 presidential election while Democrats are rallying heavily behind Hillary Clinton as their front-runner, according to a new poll released Tuesday.

The Public Policy Polling survey shows that Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul are the favorites among Republican voters, tied at 16 percent. But Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Jeb Bush closely follow at 15 and 14 percent, respectively, setting up a virtual tie between the four potential candidates.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/poll-republicans-2016-president-99414.html#ixzz2kAlgMk8j"

Tywysog Cymru
11-09-2013, 12:02 PM
I'm surprised Rubio is still popular, thought he was kind of fading away.

kahless
11-09-2013, 12:08 PM
Full results here:http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_US_110513.pdf

Mr.NoSmile
11-09-2013, 12:11 PM
I'm surprised Rubio is still popular, thought he was kind of fading away.

Token minority carries far. And yes, between this and folks like Rove going against grassroots type, it just shows the ever growing divide within the GOP while the Democrats, for the most part, remain united.

Matt Collins
11-09-2013, 12:33 PM
Is Hillary even healthy enough to run for President? :confused:

Seraphim
11-09-2013, 12:35 PM
Obamacare is quickly fracturing the Dems. Fear not.

2016 will not be the Hillary landslide so many people think.


Token minority carries far. And yes, between this and folks like Rove going against grassroots type, it just shows the ever growing divide within the GOP while the Democrats, for the most part, remain united.

thoughtomator
11-09-2013, 12:42 PM
Obamacare is quickly fracturing the Dems. Fear not.

2016 will not be the Hillary landslide so many people think.

It was not so long ago that everybody thought 2008 would be a Hillary landslide. I predict that in 2016, as in 2008, she will be rejected as a nominee.

CPUd
11-09-2013, 12:46 PM
It was not so long ago that everybody thought 2008 would be a Hillary landslide. I predict that in 2016, as in 2008, she will be rejected as a nominee.

She won't even run if the DNC doesn't guarantee her the nomination.

Fredom101
11-09-2013, 12:56 PM
I'm predicting it will be Jeb Bush vs Hillary.

Do you guys even want Rand to win? First of all, he's not a libertarian. Second, he will be blamed for everything that will be going wrong by that time, and the media will blame it also on libertarianism.

I say give it to Hillary and let statism die an ugly death by 2020.

James Madison
11-09-2013, 12:57 PM
Whites are evenly split between most candidates, but did you see the minority percentages? Republicans are getting killed with every group. Also, what's with all the old farts supporting Hillary?

Origanalist
11-09-2013, 01:02 PM
I'm predicting it will be Jeb Bush vs Hillary.

Do you guys even want Rand to win? First of all, he's not a libertarian. Second, he will be blamed for everything that will be going wrong by that time, and the media will blame it also on libertarianism.

I say give it to Hillary and let statism die an ugly death by 2020.

I don't see that happening. And it's always somebody else's fault when government nirvana fails anyway.

Acala
11-09-2013, 01:15 PM
. Also, what's with all the old farts supporting Hillary?

I think that is the influence of Fox news. They have been subtly boosting Hillary for quite a while.

Seraphim
11-09-2013, 01:18 PM
Some of Obama's most ridiculous failures are still being attributed to "well he inherited it".

The way to solve this is changing local communities.

Secession/nullification/civil disobedience/disobedience to the IRS...

There's no solution in any politician.

Not Rand. Not Hillary. No one.

That also includes sitting by and letting someonelike Hillar get the Presidency in 2016 and "Letting Statism run it's course and die".

HELLOOOOOO Statism NEVER dies. Sociopath/psychopaths and the sheep that follow them are HERE TO STAY.

REJECTING them at EVERY turn and every day is the path to solving this mess.

Liberty is about solving issues through human connection and the market. NOT the political realm. It won't work. It never has. Not once.

Push to get Rand elected because he would be exponentially better than Hillay/Jeb and the ilk...but electing Rand would be the tip of the iceberg AT MOST.

His election would be largely irrelevent to the grand scheme of things if the people electing him don't recognize that they must tend their own garden first and foremost.

Obama and his voters are a prime example. Once the dems/indepedents got their man in they ACTUALLY thought, as a whole, that that was it. Things would change.

Electing Rand would be no different. It would be barely a blip on the radar in terms of actually changing America.

That's up to YOU (the way it was meant to be).

Red Green
11-09-2013, 01:30 PM
I'm surprised that Jeb Bush has any showing whatsoever. You would think the Bush name would be toxic by now. I guess the people who are supporting Jeb are the same 30% that gave his brother a favorable job approval rating towards the end of 2007.

LibertyEagle
11-09-2013, 01:31 PM
I'm predicting it will be Jeb Bush vs Hillary.

Do you guys even want Rand to win? First of all, he's not a libertarian. Second, he will be blamed for everything that will be going wrong by that time, and the media will blame it also on libertarianism.

I say give it to Hillary and let statism die an ugly death by 2020.

Naivete at its finest. Statism won't die. They will just move us to world government. So, yes, I want Rand to win. He's definitely leans libertarian; even his father says they agree on 99% of the issues.

LibertyEagle
11-09-2013, 01:32 PM
I'm surprised that Jeb Bush has any showing whatsoever. You would think the Bush name would be toxic by now. I guess the people who are supporting Jeb are the same 30% that gave his brother a favorable job approval rating towards the end of 2007.

It's amazing what the media can do. If we could do anything, I sure wish we'd get some kind of major media presence. We certainly need it.

Quark
11-09-2013, 01:35 PM
Is Hillary even healthy enough to run for President? :confused:

That's what comes to my mind as well. She also would be the second oldest president (after Reagan.) If not her they'd probably try Biden.

Original_Intent
11-09-2013, 01:38 PM
Naivete at its finest. Statism won't die. They will just move us to world government. So, yes, I want Rand to win. He's definitely leans libertarian; even his father says they agree on 99% of the issues.

The one time I've ever caught Ron stretching the truth. I like Rand pretty well, but he is a far cry from 99% Ron Paul. Far.

It is typical of Ron to be generous, and certainly in this case he was to his son.

Brian4Liberty
11-09-2013, 01:48 PM
I'm surprised Rubio is still popular, thought he was kind of fading away.


I'm surprised that Jeb Bush has any showing whatsoever. You would think the Bush name would be toxic by now. I guess the people who are supporting Jeb are the same 30% that gave his brother a favorable job approval rating towards the end of 2007.

The media and the establishment still push Rubio and Jeb constantly.

Brett85
11-09-2013, 02:09 PM
I'm predicting it will be Jeb Bush vs Hillary.

Do you guys even want Rand to win? First of all, he's not a libertarian. Second, he will be blamed for everything that will be going wrong by that time, and the media will blame it also on libertarianism.

I say give it to Hillary and let statism die an ugly death by 2020.

Rand would be the most libertarian President our country has ever had.

Mr.NoSmile
11-09-2013, 02:50 PM
That's what comes to my mind as well. She also would be the second oldest president (after Reagan.) If not her they'd probably try Biden.

She's only 62. If she runs, she'd still be younger than Ron Paul was when he ran in 2012.

RonZeplin
11-09-2013, 03:11 PM
Rand would be the most libertarian President our country has ever had.

More than Tom Jefferson?

Brett85
11-09-2013, 03:19 PM
More than Tom Jefferson?

More than the guy who supported sodomy laws and federal involvement in education? It sure seems like it.

alucard13mm
11-09-2013, 03:23 PM
How to grab some of Jeb Bush's supporters?

AngryCanadian
11-09-2013, 03:27 PM
Why do some want Hillary? even after the failures of the Libyan intervention and the one in Bosnia have they learned anything? and Seriously Jeb Bush? :rolleyes:

Matt Collins
11-09-2013, 03:33 PM
More than Tom Jefferson?Quite possible.... TJ enacted some atrocious tariffs, and he also conducted the Louisiana Purchase which I believe to be at best Constitutionally questionable in the way he went about it.

Ender
11-09-2013, 03:45 PM
Rand would be the most libertarian President our country has ever had.


Maybe not:


Warren G. Harding, Unsung American Hero
Damon W. Root|Feb. 17, 2009 3:22 pm

Historian David Beito surveys the latest presidential rankings and stands up in defense of the much-maligned Warren G. Harding:

Rated by the historians in the "worst" category, by contrast, is, you guessed it, Warren G. Harding: a president who successfully promoted economic prosperity, cut taxes, balanced the budget, reduced the national debt, released all of his predecessor's political prisoners, supported anti-lynching legislation, and instituted the most substantial naval arms reduction agreement in world history. Go figure.

dinosaur
11-09-2013, 04:21 PM
I'm predicting it will be Jeb Bush vs Hillary.

Do you guys even want Rand to win? First of all, he's not a libertarian. Second, he will be blamed for everything that will be going wrong by that time, and the media will blame it also on libertarianism.

I say give it to Hillary and let statism die an ugly death by 2020.

Yes I want Rand to be president during the crash. Not so it can be blamed on him, but so he can lead the country, protect civil liberties, and give us a chance to rebuild. Hopefully he could keep the congress from voting us into a war as well. If it is anyone else, statism won't die.

Quark
11-09-2013, 05:40 PM
She's only 62. If she runs, she'd still be younger than Ron Paul was when he ran in 2012.

She is 66, not 62. In 2016 she'll be 68, placing her a year younger than Reagan when he won, who was the oldest president.

James Madison
11-09-2013, 05:52 PM
She is 66, not 62. In 2016 she'll be 68, placing her a year younger than Reagan when he won, who was the oldest president.

The voters who want Hillary don't care about age. They would vote for her if she was 96. All they care about is the unlimited right to an abortion and getting a woman elected president.

RabbitMan
11-09-2013, 06:55 PM
The voters who want Hillary don't care about age. They would vote for her if she was 96. All they care about is the unlimited right to an abortion and getting a woman elected president.

You don't seriously believe that do you? Many people I know who would vote for Hillary do so because they view her as a competent leader in Government who would uphold progressive values. Unlimited right to abortion(who pushes for that?) is not really the issue, although access to abortions is.

Ender
11-09-2013, 06:59 PM
The one time I've ever caught Ron stretching the truth. I like Rand pretty well, but he is a far cry from 99% Ron Paul. Far.

It is typical of Ron to be generous, and certainly in this case he was to his son.

RP did not say that Rand was 99% him. He said that they agree 99% of the time- which is different. I can agree a great deal with someone I know and trust when they proceed in a different manner than I do. I realize they are not me and are doing what is right in their own way.

James Madison
11-09-2013, 07:53 PM
You don't seriously believe that do you? Many people I know who would vote for Hillary do so because they view her as a competent leader in Government who would uphold progressive values. Unlimited right to abortion(who pushes for that?) is not really the issue, although access to abortions is.

I do believe that.

Deny it all you want, the only reason Hillary is viewed as a strong leader is because she is female. There's really nothing in her past that qualifies Hillary. Her years in the Senate were mediocre; her tenure as SoS was a complete joke; never-mind her vapidness as a First Lady. I do believe she is smart, but nowhere near this model of a 'strong woman' the left paints her as.

Abortion is a major issue, like it or not. 20% of female voters said 'abortion' was their most important issue in the race for VA Governor, and the majority of those voters went to McAuliffe. This is in Virginia, which has been a reliably red state until a few years ago.

HOLLYWOOD
11-09-2013, 09:37 PM
Another Poll... :rolleyes:

You mean inside the DC beltway POLITICO poll... approved by the propaganda bosses, Mike Allen & Jim VandeHei?

Both of those cocksuckers went out of their way(with their employed staff) to destroy Ron Paul, months before any vote was even cast.

Stop buying into this horseshit... TPTB have their "Heir & Spare" in every office of importance and to drones to dilute any of the valid challengers. Focus on discrediting the propaganda.

matt0611
11-09-2013, 09:58 PM
I do believe that.

Deny it all you want, the only reason Hillary is viewed as a strong leader is because she is female. There's really nothing in her past that qualifies Hillary. Her years in the Senate were mediocre; her tenure as SoS was a complete joke; never-mind her vapidness as a First Lady. I do believe she is smart, but nowhere near this model of a 'strong woman' the left paints her as.

Abortion is a major issue, like it or not. 20% of female voters said 'abortion' was their most important issue in the race for VA Governor, and the majority of those voters went to McAuliffe. This is in Virginia, which has been a reliably red state until a few years ago.

Don't forget she is a wife of a former president. What has she accomplished in her life of any real meaning or any real significance?

People support Hillary because her last name is Clinton, she is a woman, she has a (D) next to her name, and she is a leftist-progressive-statist.

I'm so glad she is going to be the nominee in 2016. The democrats are practically giving the republicans the presidency in 2016 if they can nominate someone decent (hopefully Rand).

MRK
11-10-2013, 03:30 AM
It was not so long ago that everybody thought 2008 would be a Hillary landslide. I predict that in 2016, as in 2008, she will be rejected as a nominee.

I don't think nearly everybody thought 2008 would be a Hillary landslide. Many people were put off by the idea of making 6 consecutive Presidential terms presided by either a Bush or a Clinton.

Quark
11-10-2013, 06:03 AM
The voters who want Hillary don't care about age. They would vote for her if she was 96. All they care about is the unlimited right to an abortion and getting a woman elected president.

Yes, but it's not her base that decides the elections. It's the median voter.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P34SUDahiA0

PaleoPaul
11-10-2013, 09:34 PM
I'm hoping the race comes down to Rand Paul vs. Elizabeth Warren.

Quark
11-11-2013, 06:33 AM
I'm hoping the race comes down to Rand Paul vs. Elizabeth Warren.

That would be great because then it would mean the end of the "moderate" establishment in politics (neither Rand nor Elizabeth are moderates), and we can finally have a battle that isn't about incrementalism toward statism, but about philosophical goals: (freedom) vs. (regulation/slavery.)

Red Green
11-11-2013, 09:06 AM
I'm hoping the race comes down to Rand Paul vs. Elizabeth Warren.

Yeah but then we'll hear about how the US can make history by electing the first Native American woman as president....