Quinnipiac poll: Rand beats Clinton head-to-head in Colorado, only GOPer to do so

[Inkblots]

2016 Presidential Race

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is the strongest candidate in Colorado in the 2016 presidential race, topping former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 48 - 43 percent. There is a huge gender gap as men back the Republican Paul 55 - 35 percent while women go with the Democrat Clinton 50 - 40 percent. Independent voters back Paul 48 - 37 percent.

In other possible matchups:

Clinton ties New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie 42 - 42 percent;
Clinton leads former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush 45 - 40 percent;
Clinton gets 45 percent to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 44 percent.

Paul also has the highest favorability rating, 41 - 30 percent, edging Huckabee's 37 - 30 percent favorability. Clinton gets a divided 48 - 47 percent favorability, with Christie tilting slightly negative at 35 - 38 percent and Bush getting a negative 29 - 40 percent score.

"The road to the White House has many twists and turns, but right now, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul is the man to beat in Colorado," Malloy said.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2034

It looks like Rand's strategy to appeal to purple voters is paying dividends. Pity that the Republican donor class seems so hell-bent on losing to Clinton.

[rprprs]

Pity that the Republican donor class seems so hell-bent on losing to Clinton.

Ain't that the truth.
Only hope is that this will change if we continue to rack up these kinds of numbers in additional polls.

(But, I still won't hold my breath.)

[RonPaulFanInGA]

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is the strongest candidate in Colorado in the 2016 presidential race, topping former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 48 - 43 percent. There is a huge gender gap as men back the Republican Paul 55 - 35 percent while women go with the Democrat Clinton 50 - 40 percent. Independent voters back Paul 48 - 37 percent.

In other possible matchups:

Clinton ties New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie 42 - 42 percent;
Clinton leads former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush 45 - 40 percent;
Clinton gets 45 percent to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 44 percent.

Paul also has the highest favorability rating, 41 - 30 percent, edging Huckabee's 37 - 30 percent favorability. Clinton gets a divided 48 - 47 percent favorability, with Christie tilting slightly negative at 35 - 38 percent and Bush getting a negative 29 - 40 percent score.

"The road to the White House has many twists and turns, but right now, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul is the man to beat in Colorado," Malloy said.

Seems very positive, but did they take into account the number of delegates for each candidate?

[FSP-Rebel]

[Vanguard101]

50-40 for women but there's a war on women. I hope they don't ask him about equal pay.
48-37 for independents.....


This revolution is real

[puppetmaster]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2034

It looks like Rand's strategy to appeal to purple voters is paying dividends. Pity that the Republican donor class seems so hell-bent on losing to Clinton.

WE are the donor class.

[surf]

is it just me, or will others feel a bit dirty when the rest of the big-government warmongers that are the "leaders" of this "republican" party begin to praise our guy?

seriously, when Lindsay f#cking Graham and John dumbasf#ck McWar start heaping praise on Rand, i'm not sure how comfortable i'll be with that and I bet a lot of my liberty minded d friends may pause as well.

if Peter King or Mike Rogers campaign for him i'll question myself....

[menciusmoldbug]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2034

It looks like Rand's strategy to appeal to purple voters is paying dividends. Pity that the Republican donor class seems so hell-bent on losing to Clinton.

The Republican donor class saw this poll for the first time today just like you. If Rand consistently polls significantly better against Clinton than any other Republican, you will begin to see many of them jump ship to support him. Not Adelson, obviously, but we can get by without him and the other extremists. We CANNOT get by (that is, win a general election) without the majority of the donor class supporting him, so it is vitally important that we not "pull a Goldwater" and see the establishment abandon him en masse. Polls like this are a huge step in the right direction.

[menciusmoldbug]

Ain't that the truth.
Only hope is that this will change if we continue to rack up these kinds of numbers in additional polls.

(But, I still won't hold my breath.)

Believe it or not, most of the big Republican donors value winning above all else. If Rand continues to rack up these kinds of numbers in additional polls, they WILL rally behind him, but they're less likely to do so if they perceive that Rand's base of support is overtly hostile to them and their interests.

Endorsing McConnell was a brilliant move, and I am extremely glad that Rand chose to do so (I'd still vote for Bevin if I lived in Kentucky though).

[menciusmoldbug]

50-40 for women but there's a war on women. I hope they don't ask him about equal pay.
48-37 for independents.....


This revolution is real

He's DOWN by ten points with women, in case that wasn't clear. And I trust Rand('s team) to be capable of developing an intelligent answer on the issue of "equal pay."

[menciusmoldbug]

WE are the donor class.

Nice slogan, but let's be serious here - we can't come up with the billion+ (that's billion with a B) dollars that'll be needed to fund his general election campaign.

It's common for Tea Party/libertarian groups to be fond of pointing out that the Republican establishment can't win elections without their support, and that is absolutely true. But we can't win elections without support from the establishment, either. This is an alliance of convenience, and neither group should be going out of its way to alienate the other.

[menciusmoldbug]

is it just me, or will others feel a bit dirty when the rest of the big-government warmongers that are the "leaders" of this "republican" party begin to praise our guy?

seriously, when Lindsay f#cking Graham and John dumbasf#ck McWar start heaping praise on Rand, i'm not sure how comfortable i'll be with that and I bet a lot of my liberty minded d friends may pause as well.

if Peter King or Mike Rogers campaign for him i'll question myself....

I do not expect Graham/McCain/King/Rogers to campaign for him - indeed, I would not be at all surprised to see them stay out of the race entirely or fail to formally endorse (possibly even defecting to support Hillary). However, I would MUCH prefer that they put away the intra-party squabbles and rally behind Rand as the nominee. If that happens, you shouldn't see that as evidence of Rand having "sold out." It should be viewed as what it is - indisputable evidence that we are #winning.

[puppetmaster]

Nice slogan, but let's be serious here - we can't come up with the billion+ (that's billion with a B) dollars that'll be needed to fund his general election campaign.

It's common for Tea Party/libertarian groups to be fond of pointing out that the Republican establishment can't win elections without their support, and that is absolutely true. But we can't win elections without support from the establishment, either. This is an alliance of convenience, and neither group should be going out of its way to alienate the other.

Not just talking donating money but an army of time. You can't buy passionate activism.

[FriedChicken]

Not just talking donating money but an army of time. You can't buy passionate activism.

That is Rand's edge, yes. Every campaign manager out there wishes their candidate could get the grassroots fired up like the Pauls.
unfortunately there's a lot of voters out there that someway or somehow base their vote on who spends the most ... I guess ... because it is an undeniable pattern that the candidates with the most money win the vast majority of the time.

but the grassroots is a HUGE benefit to places like Iowa and New Hampshire. So I'm not knocking one or the other. Activism is important just like money is.

[Superfly]

Sure Rand is winning now but did the poll remember to mention that rand's dad ran a quixotic campaign and is a Libertarian gadfly??

[rp08orbust]

Sure Rand is winning now but did the poll remember to mention that rand's dad ran a quixotic campaign and is a Libertarian gadfly??

Not one but THREE quixotic campaigns, each with greater quixoticity that the last.

[menciusmoldbug]

Not just talking donating money but an army of time. You can't buy passionate activism.

Indeed. But as the 2008 and 2012 Ron Paul campaigns demonstrated, passionate activism isn't sufficient to win the Presidency. You need both passionate activists and lots of money. You also need support from the establishment - whenever the establishment abandons a candidate in the general election, they lose. The flip-side is that whenever the grassroots abandon a candidate, they lose. No one can win without both - that's why Rand has to court both and walk a tightrope to do so.

[menciusmoldbug]

That is Rand's edge, yes. Every campaign manager out there wishes their candidate could get the grassroots fired up like the Pauls.

+1

This is why the smarter establishment players (Reince Preibus, Michael Steele, etc) have embraced Rand in an effort to help the GOP absorb some of the energy his supporters bring to the table.

unfortunately there's a lot of voters out there that someway or somehow base their vote on who spends the most ... I guess ... because it is an undeniable pattern that the candidates with the most money win the vast majority of the time.

It's not that people base their vote on who spends the most, it's that donors give to candidates who attract the most support.

There have been tons of studies and papers published on the subject. Here's a podcast on it: http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/d...place-podcast/

Key quote: When a candidate doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra one percent of the popular vote. It’s the same if you cut your spending in half, you only lose one percent of the popular vote. So we’re talking about really large swings in campaign spending with almost trivial changes in the vote.

What Levitt’s study suggests is that money doesn’t necessarily cause a candidate to win — but, rather, that the kind of candidate who’s attractive to voters also ends up attracting a lot of money. So winning an election and raising money do go together, just as rain and umbrellas go together. But umbrellas don’t cause the rain. And it doesn’t seem as if money really causes electoral victories either, at least not nearly to the extent that the conventional wisdom says.

but the grassroots is a HUGE benefit to places like Iowa and New Hampshire. So I'm not knocking one or the other. Activism is important just like money is.

Indeed. There is an important sense in which activists serve as money magnets - when a candidate gets huge numbers of volunteers and voters, big donors become more interested in them and tend to give more generously.