Poll: Ron Paul More Electable Than Mitt Romney

[howardroark]

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/poll-ron-paul-more-electable-than-mitt-romney/

Poll: Ron Paul more electable than Mitt Romney
The State Column | Friday, March 23, 2012

The Ron Paul for President Campaign released the following statement:

2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul polls better against President Barack Obama in a head-to-head matchup than establishment-choice moderate Mitt Romney, according to a recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling.

The poll found that Obama defeats Romney by 4 percentage points (48-44) and Newt Gingrich by 8 percent (50-42). While Santorum also joins Paul being within striking distance of the President by 3 points (48-45 and 46-43 respectively), Paul brings Obama a noticeable 2 percentage points further away from the 50 percent a candidate seeks to win on election day. Considering the +/- 3.3-percentage point margin of error, Paul in this poll is statistically tied for the presidency.

Reinforcing the electability case for Paul is that he ties Obama among independent voters, while Romney loses the largest voting segment by 6 percent, Santorum by 8 percent, and Gingrich by 15 percent – a cause for concern whether Paul’s three rivals would even be competitive come November.

While many polls have shown Paul to be the most competitive Romney alternative, it also shows Paul to be making substantial progress and momentum for a general election bid. The new poll reveals that Paul is narrowing the gap between himself and Obama by 5 percentage points since last month’s PPP poll.

Other notables are that among one of the fastest growing voter segments, the Hispanic vote, Paul takes a full third of the Hispanic vote against the sitting President, with no other candidate able to come within 5 points of Paul’s Hispanic support.

Among the largest voter segment, self-identified independents, Paul is viewed favorably by 41 percent, whereas Romney and Santorum are relegated to a melancholy 29 percent and Gingrich further behind with a mere 24 percent favorability. These favorability numbers among independents translate into a clear Election Day advantage unique to Paul, where he would tie President Obama 42 to 42 for their votes.

Young voters, those 18 to 29 years in this poll, have long been considered to be in the President’s court. Yet, in a Paul-Obama matchup, these voters leave Obama and comparatively flock to Paul, backing him with a hefty 40 percent of their support. The range of youth support for Paul’s three competitors in a head-to-head with Obama ranges 22 to 29 percent, meaning about half of Paul’s margin to weak at best.

“The media may find an inevitability about Romney becoming nominee, but it is clear that with anyone other than Ron Paul as nominee a second term for Obama is the inevitability,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

“When polls say ‘Romney is actually not the most electable Republican candidate,’ voters should flock to the candidate who can defeat Obama by winning on true conservative principle. That man is Ron Paul,” added Mr. Benton.

The PPP poll is based on telephone surveys of 900 voters and has a +/- 3.3-percentage point error margin.

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/poll-ron-paul-more-electable-than-mitt-romney/#ixzz1q0WfAQK5

[whork]

Fuck FOX if they had supported him he would be the candidate

[240 is Back]

Fuck FOX if they had supported him he would be the candidate

yep.  they went very much out of their way to mock his supporters.  levin calling them 'RuPaul fans" was beyond criticizing his political positions.  I mean, IF Rachel maddow went on tv and said all Mitt supporters are Trannies, the repubs would be outraged.  Exact same thing here.

[George Whorewell]

Howard,

I support RP, but that poll is utter nonsense.

[howardroark]

Howard,

I support RP, but that poll is utter nonsense.

How so? Don't you think that Ron Paul's consistent libertarian principles are more likely to unite people across the political spectrum than Mitt/Newt/Frothy's faux conservatism?

[Dos Equis]

Might as well compare Pawlenty and Obama.  He has about as much chance as Ron Paul to be the nominee.  

[240 is Back]

Might as well compare Pawlenty and Obama.  He has about as much chance as Ron Paul to be the nominee. 

yeah, RP is probably just working to pave his Rand2016 ticket, or maybe be up for that VP nod.

Ron Paul in the VP slot would be a DREAM for Romney.  In fact, so many ppl are suggesting it, that RP had to create the etch a sketch ad to show he wasn't just there to weaken santorum to get romney the nod.

ANY suspicion that romney is just another RINO would be ignored with ron paul on that ticket.   Repubs would get romney on the war & economy, with ron paul as the spending slashing specialist in the VP role.   How cool woultd that be?

[howardroark]

Might as well compare Pawlenty and Obama.  He has about as much chance as Ron Paul to be the nominee.  

You clearly don't get the point of putting Ron Paul's name in there then. The point isn't to compare different etch-and-sketch politicians like Romney and Santorum. The point is to compare how well Ron Paul's conservative libertarianism performs against Obama's statist  progressivism compared to the faux conservatism of the other Republican candidates.

[Dos Equis]

You clearly don't get the point of putting Ron Paul's name in there then. The point isn't to compare different etch-and-sketch politicians like Romney and Santorum. The point is to compare how well Ron Paul's conservative libertarianism performs against Obama's statist  progressivism compared to the faux conservatism of the other Republican candidates.

That's your point. 

My point is it's pointless (so to speak) to compare someone who has zero shot to be the nominee with Obama. 

Ron Paul has 71 delegates.  He needs 1073 of the remaining delegates to reach 1144.  Romney has 563.  Paul is currently polling in last place nationally and in his home state of Texas.  He hasn't won a single primary or caucus.  This is what makes comparing him to Obama head-to-head as relevant as Pawlenty, Palin, Cain, or anyone else who is never going to be the nominee. 

[George Whorewell]

That's your point. 

My point is it's pointless (so to speak) to compare someone who has zero shot to be the nominee with Obama. 

Ron Paul has 71 delegates.  He needs 1073 of the remaining delegates to reach 1144.  Romney has 563.  Paul is currently polling in last place nationally and in his home state of Texas.  He hasn't won a single primary or caucus.  This is what makes comparing him to Obama head-to-head as relevant as Pawlenty, Palin, Cain, or anyone else who is never going to be the nominee. 

Exactly-- not to mention the fact that despite Paul's ideological purity-- it is pure fantasy to expect Paul campaign funded polling data to release numbers that are anything but fictional.

This isn't about agreeing with the man, its about numbers. God bless him,  but Paul doesn't have the support.

[Dos Equis]

Exactly-- not to mention the fact that despite Paul's ideological purity-- it is pure fantasy to expect Paul campaign funded polling data to release numbers that are anything but fictional.

This isn't about agreeing with the man, its about numbers. God bless him,  but Paul doesn't have the support.

Yep.  Agree. 

[howardroark]

That's your point. 

My point is it's pointless (so to speak) to compare someone who has zero shot to be the nominee with Obama. 

Ron Paul has 71 delegates.  He needs 1073 of the remaining delegates to reach 1144.  Romney has 563.  Paul is currently polling in last place nationally and in his home state of Texas.  He hasn't won a single primary or caucus.  This is what makes comparing him to Obama head-to-head as relevant as Pawlenty, Palin, Cain, or anyone else who is never going to be the nominee. 

And you know the delegate count how, exactly? The delegates from the caucus states have not yet been determined.

But yes, I agree that he has almost no shot at being the GOP nominee.

That said, it is not pointless to compare him in a match up vs. Obama. It is worthwhile to see how many Republicans, Independents, and even Democrats would vote for a radical conservative-libertarian like Ron Paul in a match up vs. Obama.

[howardroark]

Exactly-- not to mention the fact that despite Paul's ideological purity-- it is pure fantasy to expect Paul campaign funded polling data to release numbers that are anything but fictional.

This isn't about agreeing with the man, its about numbers. God bless him,  but Paul doesn't have the support.

PPP is an independent polling company not funded by the Ron Paul Campaign.

[Dos Equis]

And you know the delegate count how, exactly? The delegates from the caucus states have not yet been determined.

I've been posting the poll numbers and delegate count for months.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=367282.575

[howardroark]

I've been posting the poll numbers and delegate count for months.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=367282.575

Those delegate counts are 100% bullshit. Nobody even knows what the delegate counts are from any of the caucus states that have already voted. They're up for grabs and if the GOP Establishment doesn't lock Ron Paul out, then he has a real shot at grabbing a plurality of delegates from many of these caucus states. Non-binding straw polls are practically worthless.

[Soul Crusher]

At this point RP would have more appeal the myth.   Romney is a lying dirtbag and a piece of garbage.  what he pulled against st Rick in puerto Rico is telling. 


Ron Paul appeals to tons of indes and demos sick of both parties as well as the average guy like myself sick of this charade. 

[Dos Equis]

Those delegate counts are 100% bullshit. Nobody even knows what the delegate counts are from any of the caucus states that have already voted. They're up for grabs and if the GOP Establishment doesn't lock Ron Paul out, then he has a real shot at grabbing a plurality of delegates from many of these caucus states. Non-binding straw polls are practically worthless.

You may think they are 100 percent BS, but they determine the nominee in every election.  Delegates are determined by voting outcomes in the primaries and caucuses.  They aren't "non-binding straw polls." 

Romney has an estimated 563 delegates.  When he hits 1164 before the convention he will be the nominee.   http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html

[howardroark]

You may think they are 100 percent BS, but they determine the nominee in every election.  Delegates are determined by voting outcomes in the primaries and caucuses.  They aren't "non-binding straw polls." 

Romney has an estimated 563 delegates.  When he hits 1164 before the convention he will be the nominee.   http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html

They are non-binding straw polls. In caucus states, the delegates are determined through a long series of voting starting with the voting for delegates after the non-binding straw polls.

Or as I said in another post in another thread:

Tell me BB, how will the delegates from Iowa be apportioned? How about Minnesota? Nevada? Colorado? Washington? Missouri? Louisiana? etc.

Hint: None of these have been decided yet, and Ron Paul's superior grassroots organization still stands a chance.

[240 is Back]

In another 4 years, the things repub CTers are saying will be proven to be true.  Just like in 2008.

So just roll with it, republicans.  If you lose in 2012, its not a bad thing.  It won't be close in 2016, you'll wreck the dem, outright.  You won't put up another RINO.  You won't let voices on your republican radio dictate what you think about Rand paul, like you did for rand.

And we all know it - the 'old' voices who repeat those lies - we're seeing thru them.  As we see more and more clips of organizers discounting RP votes, hosts calling RP fans trannies, etc - it'll add up.  People grow wise and while they fall for it once, they don't fall for it twice.  In 2012, today's CTers will be the wise men.  Today's "loyalists" on the forums will be those blind water carriers.

[Dos Equis]

They are non-binding straw polls. In caucus states, the delegates are determined through a long series of voting starting with the voting for delegates after the non-binding straw polls.

Or as I said in another post in another thread:

This is silly.  The caucus votes mirror the election results.

It's like saying the general election is a "non-binding straw poll," because the electoral college actually elects the president.  The electoral college always mirrors the general election results.    

[howardroark]

This is silly.  The caucus votes mirror the election results.

It's like saying the general election is a "non-binding straw poll," because the electoral college actually elects the president.  The electoral college always mirrors the general election results.    

The way electors are apportioned is determined by the election results. The way delegates from state conventions and from caucus states are determined is completely different. These are two completely different processes which you and the MSNBC useful idiot apparently do not understand... or perhaps choose not to understand.

[Dos Equis]

The way electors are apportioned is determined by the election results. The way delegates from state conventions and from caucus states are determined is completely different. These are two completely different processes which you and the MSNBC useful idiot apparently do not understand... or perhaps choose not to understand.

Uh, yeah, ok.  Whatever.  Why don't you bump this thread in June and we'll see who got it right. 

[Soul Crusher]

Ron Paul is really the only person most people would vote for vs holding their nose vs Obama. 

the more I read on economics, history, money, etc, it is a sin that Ron Paul is not in top spot. 

Wish he ran a better race!!!

[howardroark]

Uh, yeah, ok.  Whatever.  Why don't you bump this thread in June and we'll see who got it right. 

So I guess this is you admitting that you don't have a fucking clue regarding the difference between how delegates are chosen/apportioned in caucus states and state conventions vs. how electors are apportioned the night of the general election?

And I'll be sure to start a "Roark PWNS Beach Bum" thread when Ron Paul outperforms your clueless MSM delegate counts.

[Soul Crusher]

So I guess this is you admitting that you don't have a fucking clue regarding the difference between how delegates are chosen/apportioned in caucus states and state conventions vs. how electors are apportioned the night of the general election?

And I'll be sure to start a "Roark PWNS Beach Bum" thread when Ron Paul outperforms your clueless MSM delegate counts.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that can argue pn an intellectual basis the satanic and evil nature of the Obama agenda. 


Obama is a communist demon and a terrorist, and we need an idealogical icon like Ron Paul to attack him.