Rand at 2% in latest poll, Trump back on top

[Okie RP fan]

the senate seat is in no danger. its Kentucky, and the Dems don't even have a candidate. Rand is a great senator but they still pass what they want. we need a liberty president.

if Trump and Carson fall apart their votes will go to Rand, to Cruz but not the others. so good ground game could pull it out.

but more likely is the VP. 10% of delegates in a brokered convention could pull it off, and most VP do become president.

With all due respect, this is a delusion, and I figured most people on here would know that.
We will NEVER have a "Liberty President" and to think otherwise is extremely naive and foolish. Look what happened with Ron during all 3 of his campaigns…

I have advocated so many times but people seem to not care or want to pursue this method: we have a better shot at influencing with electing reps and sens, both on the state and federal levels, than we have of pursuing a presidential candidate.

-

Oh, and Rand still doesn't have half of Ron's support, and he's turned off too many of the dumb Republicans just by having the Paul name. He has no shot, sorry to lay it out there. People should have been pouring their money into other causes, because unlike Ron, Rand hasn't even been pushing a liberty message or a non-interventionist foreign policy (certainly not to the extent that it's awakening more people). I understand this is an unpopular opinion and will probably be met with criticism, but that's the way it is.

[BrooklynZoo]

but more likely is the VP. 10% of delegates in a brokered convention could pull it off, and most VP do become president.

Oh sure, and a testament to this is the terms of President Quayle, President Gore, President Cheney and soon to be President Biden.

[dillo]

Theres no reason to quit before Iowa, Santorum pulled a win from nowhere.

[Okie RP fan]

One other thing I will say is that if/when Rand drops out, watch the others do so. I still think the likes of Huckabee and Santorum are running to dilute and distract.
Rand had way more momentum with what he was doing and his name going into this race, so the establishment had to dilute the waters as much as they can, hence 16 (or however many) candidates.

[derek4ever]

It would be great if Rand uses his fillerbuster from the other day as part of a new ad. I think this would really help go after those people who are on the fence. If there's anything we've learned from the past years is the fact that, if we're well organized enough, we can make a major impact. We should contest all the states and territories we can. But I'd put a special emphasis on those caucus states and states with open or modified primaries, because of Rand's cross-over appeal. Let's get this started!!

[JohnCifelli1]

I'll point out that the sum of percentages in this poll appears to be less than normal by 6-7 points. There could be closer to 3% than 2% if the total was in line with the other polls. Small silver lining, but I love silver.

[Crashland]

Remember, in order to not get relegated to the undercard debate, Rand needs to have 2.5% in the 4 most recent national polls as of November 4. It will be close. I still haven't found which polling companies would be counted as national polls, and it is also very possible that at least 2 out of those 4 polls haven't even been released yet. Kind of surprised they are using such a low sample size of only the 4 most recent polls as the qualification measure.

[derek4ever]

I remember Ron was polling at about 3% this time in 08 and 9% this time in 2012. Rand is polling an average 3% in the RCP average.

If we go month by month, he had an average of 2.8% in October, 2.7% in September, 3% in August, 5.15% in July, 7.5% in June, 8.5% in May and 10% in April. That gives him an overall average of 5.67%.

Ron announced in May 13 2011 and I'll calculate his total average. If we go month by month, he had an average of 8.16% in October, 8.38% in September, 8.46% in August, 8.22% in July, 6.6% in June and 5.1% in May. That gives him an overall average of 7.49% (he got 10.89% of the popular vote, which is a 3.4% bump!)

Ron announced in January 11 2008 and I'll calculate his total average. If we go month by month, he had an average of 2.46% in October, 2% in September, 2.25% in August, 1.88% in July, 1.7% in June, 1.17% in May, 1.4% in April, 1.75% in March, 1% in February and 1% in January. That gives him an overall average of 1.66% (he got 5.54% of the popular vote, which is a 3.88% bump!)

If the primaries were over today, Rand would get about 9.31% of the total popular vote (add his 5.67% average plus the average of the margin of error bumps for Ron 08 and Ron 12, which is 3.64), so it may not be much, but it's still encouraging that Rand might have a secret plan that can help him later on in the game (plus the fact that the primaries don't start until February can also be a plus!)

[Aquinas]

One other thing I will say is that if/when Rand drops out, watch the others do so. I still think the likes of Huckabee and Santorum are running to dilute and distract.
Rand had way more momentum with what he was doing and his name going into this race, so the establishment had to dilute the waters as much as they can, hence 16 (or however many) candidates.

I know I'm new here, but it still surprises me every time I see the argument that candidate X or candidate Y is simply running to siphon support from Rand. Why would anyone go through the process of campaigning, hiring staff, traveling, sucking up to voters, debating, fundraising and so on and so on and so on for months on end when our sinister candidate X could just run a SuperPAC and nuke Rand with ads? Better yet, go on a talking head show and rhetorically kneecap Rand on TV! Saves a lot of time and effort! Even Lindsay Graham, who can't wait to confront Rand on a debate stage, is still salivating at the prospect of being "Your Commander-in-Chief".

What is wrong with the simple idea that a lot of Republicans with the ambition/ego/delusion to run for president have entered the race? Occam's Razor!

[Mr Stealth]

The other candidates are still pieces in the game, even though there may not be a sinister conspiracy club explicitly telling them to run because Rand is in the race.

Regardless of these individual candidates' motives, they are Republican establishment shills whose mere presence will draw attention from an anti establishment candidate like Rand who is working 100 times harder than any of them to gain traction.

Anyone who sees Rand as a threat should consider prolonging their campaigns. And yes, though Rand is not a libertarian purist, he is still a great and powerful threat to the establishment.

[CPUd]

I know I'm new here, but it still surprises me every time I see the argument that candidate X or candidate Y is simply running to siphon support from Rand. Why would anyone go through the process of campaigning, hiring staff, traveling, sucking up to voters, debating, fundraising and so on and so on and so on for months on end when our sinister candidate X could just run a SuperPAC and nuke Rand with ads? Better yet, go on a talking head show and rhetorically kneecap Rand on TV! Saves a lot of time and effort! Even Lindsay Graham, who can't wait to confront Rand on a debate stage, is still salivating at the prospect of being "Your Commander-in-Chief".

What is wrong with the simple idea that a lot of Republicans with the ambition/ego/delusion to run for president have entered the race? Occam's Razor!

I think it is normal. When I watch some of the other candidates' supporters in action, many of them are the same way about their candidate; they complain the press is biased and won't give favorable coverage (or any coverage at all), some or all of the other candidates are running to steal votes from their guy, etc.

It is true to some extent that someone will consider the other candidates in the race when making the decision to run. If there are 5 candidates in the race, and they are all taking the same position, someone is likely to enter the race taking the opposite position. If it were only that simple. Some issues have multiple positions that overlap or contradict with positions on other issues. this is why politicians like to frame positions as for/against a given issue. On a divisive issue, support could be split 5 ways on the "for" side, but taking the "against" side could get a candidate all of that support (including big donors). The recent Jack Hunter article does a good job explaining how Rand fits into all this.

In this race, we also have/had Perry, Santorum running because they saw some success in 2012 and believed they could duplicate it, Walker because he dominated Iowa for so long and had 350,000 donors from the recall he thought would be behind him, Jindal and Rubio because they were trotted out on national TV to be the face of the party for the SOTU response, and Christie, because he was sold as being the most bipartisan (prior to Sandy and the bridge stuff).

[Jonderdonk]

I know I'm new here, but it still surprises me every time I see the argument that candidate X or candidate Y is simply running to siphon support from Rand. Why would anyone go through the process of campaigning, hiring staff, traveling, sucking up to voters, debating, fundraising and so on and so on and so on for months on end when our sinister candidate X could just run a SuperPAC and nuke Rand with ads? Better yet, go on a talking head show and rhetorically kneecap Rand on TV! Saves a lot of time and effort! Even Lindsay Graham, who can't wait to confront Rand on a debate stage, is still salivating at the prospect of being "Your Commander-in-Chief".

What is wrong with the simple idea that a lot of Republicans with the ambition/ego/delusion to run for president have entered the race? Occam's Razor!

This is exactly right. But, as evidenced by many on this forum, it's a lot more comforting to shift the blame for Rand's low numbers to some giant establishment conspiracy

[ds21089]

Why would anyone go through the process of campaigning, hiring staff, traveling, sucking up to voters, debating, fundraising and so on and so on and so on for months on end when our sinister candidate X could just run a SuperPAC and nuke Rand with ads? Better yet, go on a talking head show and rhetorically kneecap Rand on TV! Saves a lot of time and effort!

Implying Rand has a lot of material for them to attack him on.

What is wrong with the simple idea that a lot of Republicans with the ambition/ego/delusion to run for president have entered the race? Occam's Razor

Feel free to watch how Cruz was obviously trying to steal Rand's support in the last debate; talking over him, trying to one-up him, nodding to everything Rand said like "me too, me too!" Notice how the first couple debates Trump had all the talking time and Carson had a lot as well? Last debate which was supposed to be about economic policy and fixing the economy, they weren't given much talking time. Why?.. Because their lack of a real plan (since they know they wont be the president already) would be painfully obvious and it would've made them look bad, lowering support. Also it's time to pump up Rubio and Cruz, anyone but Paul. A lot of the debate seemed super scripted. Even through the "attacks" on each other, how come none of them ever get truly pissed / flustered and turn red? These people know it's all theatrics. Aren't they all so quick with these witty rebuttals that always seem to sound so amazing. Almost as if they had time to plan the words.

If they aren't trying to steal Rand's support, why are they mimicking Rand's ideas and pawning them off as their own when they clearly took different stances in the past? If everyone sounds similar to Rand then it drowns his message. You see all these people talking about media corruption and small government as if half of them vote that way or have shown support in that way in the past. Why are Christie, Fiorina, Huckabee, and Kasich still in the race when they have no consistent support or ground game at all? The more people still in the race, the less time in the debates Rand gets. The debates are Rand's biggest chance to shine; they are afraid of a potential Ron Paul moment or him dispelling the illusions he can't win when he likely polls better than everyone else against Hillary.

[Aquinas]

Implying Rand has a lot of material for them to attack him on.

It implies nothing about Rand. An opponent can certainly come up with a bunch of ridiculous/stupid/misleading ads in an attempt to stifle Rand's support, and it would be much easier than running a false campaign.

Feel free to watch how Cruz was obviously trying to steal Rand's support in the last debate; talking over him, trying to one-up him, nodding to everything Rand said like "me too, me too!"

They are competing! The tactic may be frustrating, but Cruz wants to win the nomination and he needs to win over some Rand voters to do so. And vice versa. The same competition is happening between the Bush and Rubio camps right now to win the establishment vote/money.

Notice how the first couple debates Trump had all the talking time and Carson had a lot as well? Last debate which was supposed to be about economic policy and fixing the economy, they weren't given much talking time. Why?.. Because their lack of a real plan (since they know they wont be the president already) would be painfully obvious and it would've made them look bad, lowering support.

The networks need ratings, and ratings equals money. Trump, the reality TV buffoon extraordinaire, brings lots of ratings. Of course they want him to talk, and they will ask plenty of stupid questions to gin up conflict and drama. It doesn't help that the moderators are also liberals, so they naturally see Rand as fringe and Kasich/Christie as more serious candidates. The talking times reflect this. Is this an indictment of a pathetic debate format? Yes, yes it is. A conspiracy it is not.

Look, this is just a tough election. A lot of candidates see an opening in the void that Obama left in his wake. Beyond Hillary (who has a lot of baggage), who do the Democrats really have? Of course, every ambitious Republican would see 2016 as the time to strike. Yes, in a field this large there will be overlap in constituencies, and Rand has an uphill battle. But I am encouraged by his ground game in Iowa, and I think he will surprise some media types come February.

I would love to see a few candidates leave so that Rand has more speaking time, but until the funding dries up (like with Perry) or support completely falls off a cliff (like with Walker) there is no reason whatsoever to leave the race this early. Honestly, in some ways having a larger field is a good thing. We want Rubio to split the vote with Bush. We want Huck to steal some of Cruz's evangelical base. Right now it is just too large. If Kasich and Christie and maybe even Fiorina fall to the undercard, that will open up more time for Rand to speak.

[ds21089]

They are competing! The tactic may be frustrating, but Cruz wants to win the nomination and he needs to win over some Rand voters to do so. And vice versa. The same competition is happening between the Bush and Rubio camps right now to win the establishment vote/money.

So go after the supporters of somebody polling 2-3% instead of Trump or Carson pulling over 20% each? Cruz also claims to be anti-establishment just like Trump and Carson.

The networks need ratings, and ratings equals money. Trump, the reality TV buffoon extraordinaire, brings lots of ratings. Of course they want him to talk, and they will ask plenty of stupid questions to gin up conflict and drama. It doesn't help that the moderators are also liberals, so they naturally see Rand as fringe and Kasich/Christie as more serious candidates. The talking times reflect this. Is this an indictment of a pathetic debate format? Yes, yes it is. A conspiracy it is not.

My point was they actually weren't going to Carson and Trump as much when it came to serious questions unlike the other debates. They are obviously trying to avoid them failing and losing support by goofing up on economic questions which they have no answers to. That's not a bad debate format, those are planned moves.

Look, this is just a tough election. A lot of candidates see an opening in the void that Obama left in his wake.

When half of them would do the same exact things Obama has done. Again back to my point of why people polling super low and not putting forth any effort on ground game are continuing? Obviously not for fame because polling so low doesn't necessarily make you a beloved celebrity.

but until the funding dries up (like with Perry) or support completely falls off a cliff (like with Walker) there is no reason whatsoever to leave the race this early.

Wont happen when they dont have to bother spending much because they have no intention to win since they are merely there to dilute the field. Then the ones with ground game are being funded by rich people.

[PCKY]

Well said!

[PCKY]

They are in for the promise of something yet to come....

[Aquinas]

So go after the supporters of somebody polling 2-3% instead of Trump or Carson pulling over 20% each? Cruz also claims to be anti-establishment just like Trump and Carson.

That's a good point. I think that Cruz and many of the other candidates have seen that attacking Trump hasn't done anything to dent his support and it won't win you any converts at the moment. The safer strategy is to continue to believe that Trump and Carson will eventually succumb to reality and start bleeding support as the real votes near. Until then, the candidates have to gain traction somewhere, hence the Bush/Rubio grudge match and the mounting Cruz vs. Paul battle for the conservatarian vote. Of course, this strategy could fail if Trump/Carson maintain their support through Iowa... I think that Rand is avoiding direct confrontation at the moment and trying to build a young-voter base, which could work if the Iowa vote ends up being splintered.

My point was they actually weren't going to Carson and Trump as much when it came to serious questions unlike the other debates. They are obviously trying to avoid them failing and losing support by goofing up on economic questions which they have no answers to. That's not a bad debate format, those are planned moves.

I wish Trump and Carson would be treated like serious candidates, too, and receive serious questions. When all of Trump's policy consists of "I'll negotiate, it'll be yuuge!" he would be seen for the fraud that he is. And I agree that Carson, while I respect his accomplishments in medicine, basically only speaks in platitudes. When he has tried to get into details, he shows a great deal of weakness.

I don't see any proof the moderators are acting this way to directly hurt Rand. I still believe that the simplest explanation is the desire for ratings and inside-the-beltway thinking. The temptation for a Trump clown show is too great ("Are you a comic book candidate?"), and I just don't think the moderators take Carson seriously, yet. I've noticed once the topics get more serious, Trump and Carson seem to fade into the background. I think that's just the moderators addressing questions to those they consider viable candidates. Unfortunately, the moderators also include Rand in the unviable category and he brings no reality TV fireworks. So they ignore him.

When half of them would do the same exact things Obama has done. Again back to my point of why people polling super low and not putting forth any effort on ground game are continuing? Obviously not for fame because polling so low doesn't necessarily make you a beloved celebrity.

Wont happen when they dont have to bother spending much because they have no intention to win since they are merely there to dilute the field. Then the ones with ground game are being funded by rich people.

Maybe they don't have the funds to have a real ground game, but haven't financially expired either. Maybe guys like Huck and Santorum keep saying "We've won before, we can do it again!" and can't admit that their time has passed. Maybe guys like Christie and Jindal can't shake the memories of being considered 2012 contenders, and cannot admit that they missed their window.

I'll return to my original point and leave with Occam's razor: "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

[ds21089]

I still believe that the simplest explanation is the desire for ratings and inside-the-beltway thinking

Ratings? If they truly wanted ratings they'd just praise Paul like crazy hailing him as a God then when he's elected and exposes corruption on a daily basis giving speeches of what's happening, vetoing $#@!, repealing bad laws..People would be tuned to that like crazy. It's not about ratings, it's about pushing an agenda. They dont want to lose their influence on peoples' minds, which would happen in a Paul presidency..you cant put a price on that. They'd gladly lose millions..billions to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Jonderdonk]

Ratings? If they truly wanted ratings they'd just praise Paul like crazy hailing him as a God then when he's elected and exposes corruption on a daily basis giving speeches of what's happening, vetoing $#@!, repealing bad laws..People would be tuned to that like crazy. It's not about ratings, it's about pushing an agenda. They dont want to lose their influence on peoples' minds, which would happen in a Paul presidency..you cant put a price on that. They'd gladly lose millions..billions to make sure that doesn't happen.

What are you even talking it about? Of course it's about ratings. It's always about ratings. And, I hate to break it to you, but Rand does more MSM interviews than every single other candidate. There is no suppression. There is no conspiracy theory. Why don't you go do some phone banking with the time you're spending coming up with these outlandish excuses?

[LawnWake]

8 candidates versus 15, no Liberty candidate competition versus two sorta-kinda-libertyish candidates for competition. Plus Bernie. Plus Trump.

There is no way to compare 2008 or 2012 to this cycle.

These are numbers that make it a very different field and imcomparable. But they might also be numbers that make it impossible for Rand to win

[CPUd]

These are numbers that make it a very different field and imcomparable. But they might also be numbers that make it impossible for Rand to win

The campaign will have a pretty good idea of that in March, when they decide whether or not to continue.

[Mike4Freedom]

What are you even talking it about? Of course it's about ratings. It's always about ratings. And, I hate to break it to you, but Rand does more MSM interviews than every single other candidate. There is no suppression. There is no conspiracy theory. Why don't you go do some phone banking with the time you're spending coming up with these outlandish excuses?

Rand does do a lot of interviews. The problem is they don't hardly mention him when he is not being interviewed. All the other candidates get hundreds of name drops. They can get there name out there without even having to do an interview. Also when Rand does an interview they usually ask him a question about him dropping out, one about trump, one about another opponent, then finally they ask him a legit question, sometimes.

[givemeliberty2010]

You have made so many false statements that you don't even know what you are talking about.

First, Rand CAN run for President and the Senate. That was the whole point of having KY move from a primary to a caucus state.

Second, NO ONE said Rand was the "undisputed nominee." Rand has NEVER been a front runner or led in any national polls. Early in the game before there were a whopping 15 people, Rand was around 8, 10, maybe 12%.

Third, Ron was NOT at 8% nationally at this point in time. He was a 3% up until December 2011 when Ron broke out of the pack in Iowa and shot up to 25%. All hell broke loose within the media and establishment. Rush, Beck, Levin, you name them ALL went on the attack against Ron to drive his negatives up and the rest was history.

My point is anything can happen. Walker was the clear frontrunner earlier this year. Where is he now? Bush was a frontrunner. How's that going for him? Oh did you hear that Bush's top campaign aid departed? I still say Bush is gone very soon. Anything can happen in the next 3 months. I mean ANYTHING! Rand is simply holding tight, doing his "thang" and running a very tight low budget campaign with the grassroots. Iowa and NH is where the game it at. These national polls do not mean $#@! except to see if who get into the stupid fake debates.

Stay tuned...

Oh and I have never even heard of that polling company above. Much better ones out there to pay attention to especially the local polling companies in Iowa and NH doing their own states.

Your poll number for Ron in November/December 2011 seems relatively far below where he was. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-1581.html

[givemeliberty2010]

By the traditional measurements, Rand is doing badly. Just face it. The difference is that most of the other candidates are doing badly too.

[Okie RP fan]

I know I'm new here, but it still surprises me every time I see the argument that candidate X or candidate Y is simply running to siphon support from Rand. Why would anyone go through the process of campaigning, hiring staff, traveling, sucking up to voters, debating, fundraising and so on and so on and so on for months on end when our sinister candidate X could just run a SuperPAC and nuke Rand with ads? Better yet, go on a talking head show and rhetorically kneecap Rand on TV! Saves a lot of time and effort! Even Lindsay Graham, who can't wait to confront Rand on a debate stage, is still salivating at the prospect of being "Your Commander-in-Chief".

What is wrong with the simple idea that a lot of Republicans with the ambition/ego/delusion to run for president have entered the race? Occam's Razor!

Is it really that hard to believe that this is all a game? Is it really that hard to believe the establishment, that picks their candidates has coerced some of the other candidates to distract and manipulate? During the 2012 debates, Santorum was chosen, yes, I'm going to use that rhetoric, chosen to go after Ron during the debates as a pathetic attack dog. Like clockwork, every debate he'd single out Ron, it became extremely obvious that the guy either had something super personal against Ron, or was told to go after him and attack his foreign policy in attempts to embarrass him.

Secondly, your options make it (the motives) too obvious. If they simply set up attack after attack, people catch on, so you make it subtle. Politics 101. Life 101. Strategy 101…
Thirdly, as if these career politicians really can't handle what you're saying: The campaigning, the staff, etc. This is what they do for a living, and to add, when you're financed through PACs and otherwise, I'm sure your points (finances) are last on their mind. Furthermore, these people are egomaniacs, they enjoy the spot light.

That's great that you and a couple other posters want to continue thinking this is all a fair game and all, but I've learned my lesson. I see you and a couple other posters who reflect your views have join dates of 2015 or a little earlier. I've been here, there, and done all that. I'm speaking from a personal experience. So, take it for what you will.
If my post comes off a little harsh, don't take it personally. I'm just saying, I, along with many, many others, have been through this charade before and have accepted it all for what it is.

The other candidates are still pieces in the game, even though there may not be a sinister conspiracy club explicitly telling them to run because Rand is in the race.

Regardless of these individual candidates' motives, they are Republican establishment shills whose mere presence will draw attention from an anti establishment candidate like Rand who is working 100 times harder than any of them to gain traction.

This is just two sides of the same coin. You acknowledge that there most likely is something in play in this race that is outright keeping Rand down - be it a grand conspiracy (that you said is unlikely), or that it's GOP establishment/M.I.C. shills doing it for their own gain… Regardless of how you try to rationalize it, the outcome is/will be the same: Rand/Ron Paul, liberty, etc. is being kept down and silenced by these forces.

I haven't even been paying much attention to this race and I certainly haven't been supporting Rand or any other candidate for that matter. But, when something does come across the computer screen, something catches my attention even so: Rand is being left out of many polls and tv spots. They are ignoring him and trying to erase him JUST. LIKE. THEY. DID. TO. RON.

[Barrex]

What are you even talking it about? Of course it's about ratings. It's always about ratings. And, I hate to break it to you, but Rand does more MSM interviews than every single other candidate. There is no suppression. There is no conspiracy theory. Why don't you go do some phone banking with the time you're spending coming up with these outlandish excuses?

[Jonderdonk]

What about this is in contradiction with what I said? It's all about ratings. People who watch the MSM don't go there to hear Rand; they go there to hear Trump. That's what sells, so that's what they talk about. There is no Rand suppression conspiracy. We just have to adapt to how the world works.

[Barrex]

What about this is in contradiction with what I said? It's all about ratings. People who watch the MSM don't go there to hear Rand; they go there to hear Trump. That's what sells, so that's what they talk about. There is no Rand suppression conspiracy. We just have to adapt to how the world works.

Ok that explains Trump... and I agree that he is media sensation...

Rand is more interesting than at least 4 candidates in that picture and he is still getting less talking time, mentions etc. Rand is only candidate that has designated smear reporter (Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post). That person wrote over 60 articles smearing, lying and insulting Rand.


You must understand that people here watched debates where Ron stood for hours and got less than 80 seconds in a debate and in post-debate program wasn't mentioned even once (less crowded field, every article,blog or about Ron would be most visited and shared article that day regardles was it from CNN, FOX, MSNBC... Ron was extremely popular and they still didn't report on him). Rand is now constantly getting the least amount of speaking time during any debate.


I could go on but this should be enough for you to understand why there is this feeling among many of us that liberty candidates are not treated fairly.

[AngryCanadian]

The elites want to give people the illusion that Hillary is the only Anti-War Candidate vs the GOP war party.

Rand Paul stands up for the middle man, and thats not something the elites want to occur no matter the condition, even if it means to bring up clowns like Ben who? I am surprised that Chris still hasn't dropped out of the race dispute being hated and disliked by the voters in New Jersey, not sure why decided that running for POTS was a great idea but if he ever was the front runner.