Republican presidential candidates in 2016 (Reuters 5-Day Rolling poll)

[Patrick Henry]

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150929/collapsed/false

Trump 30%
Carson 12.9%
Fiorina 10.8%
Bush 9.8%
Paul 5.6%
Rubio 5.3%
Huckabee 5.2%
Cruz 5.1%
Christie 3.2%
Jindal 1.5%
Kasich 1.4%
Santorum 1.4%
Pataki .3%
Graham .1%

[chronicaust]

Interesting! Gaining ground?!

[liberty_nc]

Does this poll count? Like in RCP average? or just a internet poll?

[Crashland]

I didn't realize they even had this, thanks for the link. It's interesting to play with the filters too

[luctor-et-emergo]

Now this is more of a realistic poll of how the landscape looks right now. It's still low-information season. Based on name recognition and media. Not a whole lot based on who people would actually support..

Sucks for Lindsey though.

[01000110]

Looking better!

[eleganz]

Interesting! Gaining ground?!


he isn't gaining ground.

We all need to look at these numbers with a calm and reasonable mind.

Rand has been between 2 and 6% (all within most surveys' margin of error) since before the first debate.

For Rand to average out to 5.6% might be telling us that he is on the higher end on the 2-6% spectrum but it is very difficult to tell.

It is hard to break out of this until Trump's grip on the low info voters is loosened. The most important thing to take away from this is that Rand hasn't been rising or falling for at least the last two months so all of the knee jerk reaction from liberty supporters is unwarranted and based on emotion more than fact.

Another takeaway is that we are still early in the Season and anything can happen, I think Fiorina might be next to be the front runner...

[Jan2017]

Yes, thanks for the link - people like Kasich don't have weird spikes suddenly in these moving averages.

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/ObamaMeOhio005f_zpsjgmn0rqg.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/ObamaMeOhio005f_zpsjgmn0rqg.jpg.html)

.

[brandon]

I can't find the source data for the poll, but the OP is misleading. When you only look at likely Republican primary voters, Rand gets 2.9%. About the same as the other polls.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,LIKELYR:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150929/collapsed/false

[LatinsforPaul]

I can't find the source data for the poll, but the OP is misleading. When you only look at likely Republican primary voters, Rand gets 2.9%. About the same as the other polls.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,LIKELYR:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150929/collapsed/false

The OP is not misleading as he stated (Reuters 5-Day Rolling poll).

[65fastback2+2]

I can't find the source data for the poll, but the OP is misleading. When you only look at likely Republican primary voters, Rand gets 2.9%. About the same as the other polls.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,LIKELYR:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150929/collapsed/false

you only worry about republican primary voters only if you're interested in losing.

winners look at all voters because they plan to grab some from other demographics.

[brandon]

The OP is not misleading as he stated (Reuters 5-Day Rolling poll).

Not sure what you mean. I agree that this is a "Reuters 5-Day Rolling poll"

[William Tell]

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150929/collapsed/false

Trump 30%
Carson 12.9%
Fiorina 10.8%
Bush 9.8%
Paul 5.6%
Rubio 5.3%
Huckabee 5.2%
Cruz 5.1%
Christie 3.2%
Jindal 1.5%
Kasich 1.4%
Santorum 1.4%
Pataki .3%
Graham .1%


Thanks for posting! :D

[carlton]

Trump 30%
Carson 12.9%
Fiorina 10.8%
Bush 9.8%
Paul 5.6%
Rubio 5.3%
Huckabee 5.2%
Cruz 5.1%
Christie 3.2%
Jindal 1.5%
Kasich 1.4%
Santorum 1.4%
Pataki .3%
Graham .1

​Read more at polling.reuters.com (http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150929/collapsed/false) ...

[Kotin]

Hmm well this could help with the debate invite..

[carlton]

Hmm well this could help with the debate invite..

Its not in RCP avg

[65fastback2+2]

repost, fyi: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?482886-Republican-presidential-candidates-in-2016-(Reuters-5-Day-Rolling-poll)

[kahless]

The RNC has not released the debate criteria to be used for the Oct. 28 debate. At one point they mentioned using New Hampshire and Iowa polls which would exclude Rand, Christie and others.

[Liberty Commentary]

This is great news?

[erowe1]

This is great news?

I'd call it good news. But the numbers aren't anything especially remarkable. It's essentially a 4-way tie for 5th place, pretty much the same as all the other recent polls, accounting for margins of error.

[libertyplz]

Not sure how accurate the polling is, but 5.6% looks a lot better than the 3% he has been polling, so that's good news and I'll take it! Rand has been getting out and doing more interviews lately so maybe that has helped? Most of his televised interviews have been really good lately

[Brett85]

I hope that's good news, but it's most likely just statistical noise. Reuters/Ipsos has a tendency to jump around a lot. So don't be disappointed if this poll has Rand lower the next time it's released.

[hells_unicorn]

The thing that I find most curious about this poll is not how much higher Rand appears to be in it, but how much lower Carson and Rubio are compared to the CNN and Fox polls, and also how it reflects Trump not losing any support in contrast to most of the other polls that had him dropping 10 or so points. Either the sample of this poll is completely different than the other polls, or it's reflecting a very soft and superficial level of support for certain candidates, whereas Trump's celebrity factor is more strongly ingrained in peoples' minds than I would think at this juncture.

If I see multiple polls reflecting these numbers in the coming days, I'll treat it as being more serious, but the good news of Rand being a little higher in this poll is almost canceled out by Trump's continued dominance. I don't think Trump will get nominated, but before he goes down in a blaze of glory, he may end up making the GOP brand so poisonous that if Rand was able to pull this thing out he'd still have problems in the general election.

At this juncture, I don't see anything beneficial about having Trump in this race, and I think Rand is wise not to get too closely associated with him.

[chronicaust]

I don't think Trump will get nominated, but before he goes down in a blaze of glory, he may end up making the GOP brand so poisonous that if Rand was able to pull this thing out he'd still have problems in the general election.

At this juncture, I don't see anything beneficial about having Trump in this race, and I think Rand is wise not to get too closely associated with him.

This made me think, and I know this isn't a new suggestion, but maybe a third party run wouldn't be such a bad idea given what Trump is doing to the GOP as a whole. I mean what's the point of winning the nomination if you're ultimately going to lose the general anyway? Better to distance yourself from the nonsense imo.

Just thinking out loud.

Edit: But either way I think his strategy of being anti Trump is based on this assumption, and it's for the best for the exact same reasons (winning the general).

[hells_unicorn]

This made me think, and I know this isn't a new suggestion, but maybe a third party run wouldn't be such a bad idea given what Trump is doing to the GOP as a whole. I mean what's the point of winning the nomination if you're ultimately going to lose the general anyway? Better to distance yourself from the nonsense imo.

Just thinking out loud.

Edit: But either way I think his strategy of being anti Trump is based on this assumption, and it's for the best for the exact same reasons (winning the general).

The problem with this is I don't think a big enough defection from the GOP would occur to give a 3rd Party or Independent run a victory. More than likely, this would end up giving either Hilary Clinton or some other Democrat if she isn't nominated a win in the general election, which is what Trump's actual goal has been in my eyes from day one.

Trump tries to buy everybody, but buying the Clintons seemed to be more a pleasure for Trump than a mere necessity of business, and the people on this forum who can't shut up about Trump are being played (in the words of Danny Devito) "...like a harp from hell".

[RonPaulFanInGA]

This is great news?

It's just funny because Trump lied on Twitter (what else is new?) on the same day this poll was released that Paul was at 1%. Also Paul is ahead of Cruz.

[cindy25]

it puts him at roughly the same level as Rubio and Cruz. not that bad a place. Carly and Carson will not even reach Iowa.

[Murray N Rothbard]

it puts him at roughly the same level as Rubio and Cruz. not that bad a place. Carly and Carson will not even reach Iowa.

Carson is right behind Trump in Iowa polling 17-25% lately.

Fiorina's latest polling there was at 13% and trending up.

Paul has been at 2-5% in Iowa since August and he held more events in Iowa than Carson and Trump combined.

Time to wake up guys...Rand isn't getting the nom. :eek:

But the sad part isn't just failing but that he did so not being himself....trying to appeal to the mainstream by ignoring or compromising on many of his libertarian based principles. It was just enough for his message not to be noticed.

[goldwater's ghost]

THIS IS REALLY GOOD NEWS.

[Paul4Prez]

All of the poll data is questionable at this point. Very few voters are paying attention yet, and fewer still have made up their minds. But this poll looks like an outlier -- Rand has been trending the wrong way. Even so, there's no reason to drop out. Let the other me-too candidates give up -- Rand has a distinct message and a good ground game.

[RabbitMan]

Keep running Rand!

[CPUd]

Carson is right behind Trump in Iowa polling 17-25% lately.

Fiorina's latest polling there was at 13% and trending up.

Paul has been at 2-5% in Iowa since August and he held more events in Iowa than Carson and Trump combined.

Time to wake up guys...Rand isn't getting the nom. :eek:

But the sad part isn't just failing but that he did so not being himself....trying to appeal to the mainstream by ignoring or compromising on many of his libertarian based principles. It was just enough for his message not to be noticed.

You are with Purple PAC?

[libertyplz]

649052121870929920

649086267108540416

The link Vincent Harris tweeted out showed that Reuters was most accurate in 2012, at least for the general election. As has already been pointed out, both good and bad news if this poll is accurate. Good that Rand is trending up, bad that Trump is still so high. Polls for Trump seem to be fluctuating between low 20's to low 30's, not sure why such a large discrepancy for him. Looking at the previous rolling polling data Rand through much of September was polling between 2 and 3% which is what most polls had him at, so Reuters trends seem to be pretty in line with most other polls, so looking at their past data, this increase in support I think is very much a real trend which is great news. If Rand can consistently stay above Cruz and Rubio that would be great and hopefully prevent the media from labeling Rand's campaign as dead (I know I know, wishful thinking)

[Rudeman]

It's nice to see but does it matter when Trump is citing online polls?

[Murray N Rothbard]

You are with Purple PAC?

Not sure what that even is, so no.

I just think enough is enough. He tried this experiment of trying to give libertarian views broad appeal without getting anyone to actually understand them. People were just bored and confused. I think it's just time to be straight forward and logical the way libertarian ideas are meant to be and let some people get offended or shocked if they're still too stupid to get it.

Honestly I don't think he ever had a real shot at POTUS...but he did have a chance to win over some new minds, introduce actual ideas that will resonate with a few people, grow the movement in the long run. So far that's all been wasted, no one has learned anything new, no one has even gotten on board either.

[eleganz]

Carson is right behind Trump in Iowa polling 17-25% lately.

Fiorina's latest polling there was at 13% and trending up.

Paul has been at 2-5% in Iowa since August and he held more events in Iowa than Carson and Trump combined.

Time to wake up guys...Rand isn't getting the nom. :eek:

But the sad part isn't just failing but that he did so not being himself....trying to appeal to the mainstream by ignoring or compromising on many of his libertarian based principles. It was just enough for his message not to be noticed.

Lol, its not even October yet. It was never easy for Rand to get the nomination to begin with, what made you think it was going to be easy??

[CPUd]

Not sure what that even is, so no.

I just think enough is enough. He tried this experiment of trying to give libertarian views broad appeal without getting anyone to actually understand them. People were just bored and confused. I think it's just time to be straight forward and logical the way libertarian ideas are meant to be and let some people get offended or shocked if they're still too stupid to get it.

Honestly I don't think he ever had a real shot at POTUS...but he did have a chance to win over some new minds, introduce actual ideas that will resonate with a few people, grow the movement in the long run. So far that's all been wasted, no one has learned anything new, no one has even gotten on board either.

Rand is not a libertarian, and he has said this multiple times over the past years. You keep trying to shoehorn him into your ideology and you will continue to be disappointed. Rand is running for POTUS, and the purpose of this forum is to support those efforts.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/RandGrassroots.png

[Liberty74]

Rand should tweet that there are 9 candidates below him in the Reuters polling average and that Trump LIES about his 1%. Trump losing. Paul gaining.

[Liberty74]

Carson is right behind Trump in Iowa polling 17-25% lately.

Fiorina's latest polling there was at 13% and trending up.

Paul has been at 2-5% in Iowa since August and he held more events in Iowa than Carson and Trump combined.

Time to wake up guys...Rand isn't getting the nom. :eek:

But the sad part isn't just failing but that he did so not being himself....trying to appeal to the mainstream by ignoring or compromising on many of his libertarian based principles. It was just enough for his message not to be noticed.

You number analysis leaves out an important fact. Almost NO ONE in either Party who leads this far out in Iowa and NH ends up winning the nomination. It's always someone else. Even Karl Rove said so in a recent WSJ article the other week.

These races are always very fluid this far out with people coming and going and with the media leading that charge. Voters are always finding new homes. Hell, 65% of voters of each candidate said they could change their mind. Walker voters had to change their mind by default, hence maybe why Rand has see a slight uptick to 5.6%.

I'm sure Rand and his team knows these races are fluid. It's why they are building in all the early states to be prepared for whatever. It's why having money to sustain and stay in is important. Anything could happen from a Dean scream to a Cain not being able to answer a foreign policy question. Heck, Walker was the frontrunner back in April.

[65fastback2+2]

Carson is right behind Trump in Iowa polling 17-25% lately.

Fiorina's latest polling there was at 13% and trending up.

Paul has been at 2-5% in Iowa since August and he held more events in Iowa than Carson and Trump combined.

Time to wake up guys...Rand isn't getting the nom. :eek:

But the sad part isn't just failing but that he did so not being himself....trying to appeal to the mainstream by ignoring or compromising on many of his libertarian based principles. It was just enough for his message not to be noticed.

You were pulling for Perry in 2012 then huh? lol

[jkob]

MOE but nice to see Rand over Cruz, don't think things are really moving in a positive direction. Stuck around 5% give or take.

[Liberty74]

MOE but nice to see Rand over Cruz, don't think things are really moving in a positive direction. Stuck around 5% give or take.

A moving average UP indicates a SURGE lol. Seriously, if at 5.6% now and that is an "average" over 5 days, would that not mean Rand is polling higher than 5% in the last few day(s)? I think that's how it works.

[erowe1]

Time to wake up guys...Rand isn't getting the nom.

You're basing this on poll numbers 4 months before the Iowa caucuses?

Who do you think is going to win the nomination then? Trump? Carson? Come on man. Shake yourself out of it.

[erowe1]

A moving average UP indicates a SURGE lol. Seriously, if at 5.6% now and that is an "average" over 5 days, would that not mean Rand is polling higher than 5% in the last few day(s)? I think that's how it works.

No. If his numbers differed from one day to the next, it's just as possible that the higher numbers were in the early days and lower in the later as vice versa. The fact that this is a 5-day average, unless they provide the breakdown, doesn't tell us anything about any trends.

[Liberty74]

No. If his numbers differed from one day to the next, it's just as possible that the higher numbers were in the early days and lower in the later as vice versa. The fact that this is a 5-day average, unless they provide the breakdown, doesn't tell us anything about any trends.

But that info was provided per the chart in this thread. Rand started at 2%.

[erowe1]

But that info was provided per the chart in this thread. Rand started at 2%.

Ahh. I see it now. You're right that it goes up over 5 days. I still don't think it's that significant of a move though. Notice the fluctuation over the whole graph. On 8/15 he was at 6.8%. That low point on 9/24 at the beginning of the last 5 days is just unusually low. Accounting for margins of error, he's just gone up and down slightly within a fairly small range over the whole graph, and needs to keep going up more before it definitely means something.

[Brian4Liberty]

Sen. Rand Paul Jumps Cruz+Rubio In New Reuters Poll


Judging by the latest polling numbers from Reuters, rumors of the death of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s 2016 GOP Presidential campaign have been greatly exaggerated. According to the Reuters poll, Paul has jumped ahead of Senate colleagues Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas. Paul garners 5.6 % while Rubio is at 5.3% and Cruz at 5.1%Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina continue to lead the field.

While the first nominating contests are still four months away, the poll is an immensely positive sign for Paul after a recent slump. His performance at the Reagan Library debate where he schooled New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on the 10th Amendment and state’s rights could definitely be a factor in Paul’s bounce.

The Paul campaign is pleased with the poll, saying it matches private polling they’ve conducted and shows the campaign’s strategies are paying off.
...
More: http://conservativeintel.com/2015/09/30/sen-rand-paul-jumps-cruzrubio-in-new-reuters-poll/

[Kade]

Trump is rising still.. despite that hiccup. $%&*balls.

Paul at 2% here (http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/9_30_2015_marginals.pdf).

Exclusion, or ratio polling is always interesting to me.. really not looking good.

Internal polls say the same.

[moraha]

Looks like he's going back down again. I'm sick of polls. Why can't there be one, besides the official elections obviously, where everybody that's registered can vote. Not just these small groups.

[brandon]

How is everyone misreading this poll? You are taking a large data set and applying selective filters to give Paul the best outcome. Not sure if intentionally misleading or just not thinking?

When you only look at republican primary voters in this poll Rand has <3%.

[YesI'mALiberal]

How is everyone misreading this poll? You are taking a large data set and applying selective filters to give Paul the best outcome. Not sure if intentionally misleading or just not thinking?


That 5.6% can be found using "Republican likely general election voters"


And his rise seems to be Tea Partyists fleeing from Carson. What stupid gaffe did the good Doctor emit this time?

[PCKY]

The thing that I find most curious about this poll is not how much higher Rand appears to be in it, but how much lower Carson and Rubio are compared to the CNN and Fox polls, and also how it reflects Trump not losing any support in contrast to most of the other polls that had him dropping 10 or so points. Either the sample of this poll is completely different than the other polls, or it's reflecting a very soft and superficial level of support for certain candidates, whereas Trump's celebrity factor is more strongly ingrained in peoples' minds than I would think at this juncture.

If I see multiple polls reflecting these numbers in the coming days, I'll treat it as being more serious, but the good news of Rand being a little higher in this poll is almost canceled out by Trump's continued dominance. I don't think Trump will get nominated, but before he goes down in a blaze of glory, he may end up making the GOP brand so poisonous that if Rand was able to pull this thing out he'd still have problems in the general election.

At this juncture, I don't see anything beneficial about having Trump in this race, and I think Rand is wise not to get too closely associated with him.
Rand could maybe be the only one that can overcome the poison pill that Trump has dropped into the Primary.

[Feelgood]

What Rand needs is to find something to filibuster in the Senate again. Seemed he had some great face time when he did before.

[HVACTech]

Now this is more of a realistic poll of how the landscape looks right now. It's still low-information season. Based on name recognition and media. Not a whole lot based on who people would actually support..

Sucks for Lindsey though.

the Federal reserve owns the media over here.
they are determined to call the shots.


In contrast to its predecessors, CNBC is only using polls conducted by or in partnership with the major news networks and Bloomberg, and only ones released between Sept. 17 and Oct. 21. So far, only four polls qualify.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/30/whos-in-and-whos-out-of-the-next-republican-debate/