# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  2016 Primary Map Thread

## Bastiat's The Law

Let's create a map so we can see which candidates are leading in each state.  I will continually update this map as new polling is done.  If you know some polling numbers please post them in this thread.

----------


## compromise

Different polls seem to have different views on this.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Different polls seem to have different views on this.


If there's radically differing numbers we can either go with the most reputable or average between the two.

----------


## PatriotOne

Awesome.  Just minutes ago I was wishing for a consolidated place to keep track of the polls while perusing Montana's PPP polls.  You read my mind .

Using a map would be great!

----------


## PatriotOne

Any chance you could include past polls so we can see if he is gaining or losing ground?  Maybe a link or roll over with past data?

----------


## Federico

Here, this will probably help: Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016

----------


## compromise

> Here, this will probably help: Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016



Paul leads in:

New Hampshire (NEC July 19%, PPP April 28%)
Michigan (PPP May/June 18%)
Kentucky (PPP April 31%)
Iowa (PPP July 18%)

----------


## Barrex

Great Idea. You should show his place in polls and not just percentage.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

polls rejig after the early states

win iowa and nh and i like our chances. 

otherwise, you're competing with cruz and christie for veep.

----------


## RPfan1992

> Paul leads in:
> 
> New Hampshire (NEC July 19%, PPP April 28%)
> Michigan (PPP May/June 18%)
> Kentucky (PPP April 31%)
> Iowa (PPP July 18%)


How is Rand polling in Maine? Does anyone know?

----------


## T.hill

Someone should sticky this and consider identifiers for the states he places 2nd or 3rd in as well

----------


## The Rebel Poet

Bump

Thanks!

----------


## whoisjohngalt

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/rand-paul/

----------


## whoisjohngalt

Iowa- Rand 18%, Kentucky- Rand 31%, Texas- Cruz 27% (Rand at 11%), Michigan- Rand 18%, New Hampshire- Rand 28%

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Updated the map once again.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Updated the map once again.


Rubio is done.  New North Carolina poll from PPP today has Rand at 18% in the lead.  Christie is second at 16%.  Rubio is at 9%.  

The map is looking great for us.  With Rubio's collapse and Sarah Palin singing Rand's praises, we should overtake Alaska soon as well.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Updated the map once again.


Also, if you could figure out a way to show Rand's relative position and % in the state's where he isn't leading that would be awesome.  Also, perhaps we should include his margin over the next closest opponent in the states he is leading.  

Thanks so much for doing this.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Rubio is done.  New North Carolina poll from PPP today has Rand at 18% in the lead.  Christie is second at 16%.  Rubio is at 9%.  
> 
> The map is looking great for us.  With Rubio's collapse and Sarah Palin singing Rand's praises, we should overtake Alaska soon as well.


There was a North Carolina poll today??

----------


## Michigan11

I also like how you chose the colors. Green for Rand Paul, cause it's money in our pockets.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> How is Rand polling in Maine? Does anyone know?


It is Maine so not important to the national debate. Since ME is a caucus state and not early. No offense.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> It is Maine so not important to the national debate. Since ME is a caucus state and not early. No offense.


Ouch.  Considering their libertarian/independent streak and how well Ron did during their caucus, I'd wager Rand would be leading the state with Christie probably in 2nd place.  I haven't seen any polling out of the state so that is just my speculation.  Maybe we could bug PPP to do some focused polling there.  They're polling Alaska this coming week.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Looking over the data in all these polls you can definitely see trends emerging for candidates.  Rand and Cruz are gaining.  Rubio is clearly losing ground.  Rand wasn't even registering in double digits in some of these early polls, but now he's routinely in the top 3 even in states he's not placing first in.  Very good sign for Rand.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Ouch.  Considering their libertarian/independent streak and how well Ron did during their caucus, I'd wager Rand would be leading the state with Christie probably in 2nd place.  I haven't seen any polling out of the state so that is just my speculation.  Maybe we could bug PPP to do some focused polling there.  They're polling Alaska this coming week.


Libertarian streak in ME? It is well known as 1 of the least free states. Maybe you aren't aware of the massive tax increases this year? Surely you are joking?

It is possible Rand is leading, even if Romney people control the state GOP. The point is, ME is 1 of the least important states in Presidential elections.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Libertarian streak in ME? It is well known as 1 of the least free states. Maybe you aren't aware of the massive tax increases this year? Surely you are joking?
> 
> It is possible Rand is leading, even if Romney people control the state GOP. The point is, ME is 1 of the least important states in Presidential elections.


For New England, yes, both Maine, New Hampshire, and even Vermont to a certain extent have a libertarian/independent streak bubbling beneath the surface.  The right candidate could make things interesting in those states.  I think all states are important in the primary and general election, whether that be tangible or not.  Had Ron won Maine it would've felt pretty damn important and been well worth the media coverage.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> For New England, yes, both Maine, New Hampshire, and even Vermont to a certain extent have a libertarian/independent streak bubbling beneath the surface.  The right candidate could make things interesting in those states.  I think all states are important in the primary and general election, whether that be tangible or not.  Had Ron won Maine it would've felt pretty damn important and been well worth the media coverage.


Why do you think ME, and especially why do you think VT as a libertarian streak? VT and libertarian, I'm shocked!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Why do you think ME, and especially why do you think VT as a libertarian streak? VT and libertarian, I'm shocked!


It will probably shock you more when Rand competes in those states not only during the primary, but the general election if he secures the nomination.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> There was a North Carolina poll today??


My bad, the Wyoming polls by line was Raleigh, NC.  I guess that was my confusion because I can't find the poll I thought existed now.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Ouch.  Considering their libertarian/independent streak and how well Ron did during their caucus, I'd wager Rand would be leading the state with Christie probably in 2nd place.  I haven't seen any polling out of the state so that is just my speculation.  Maybe we could bug PPP to do some focused polling there.  They're polling Alaska this coming week.


I can't wait to see Alaska numbers.  I would bet quite a lot that Rand is now in first.  For sure, it won't be Rubio.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I can't wait to see Alaska numbers.  I would bet quite a lot that Rand is now in first.  For sure, it won't be Rubio.


Yeah it will be a very interesting state to take the pulse of, not only for Rand, but the Senate primary race with Joe Miller running.  I think you're right.  Rand should be leading the state.  Alaska hasn't been polled for nearly 6 months and Rand was 3rd place at the time (12%).

----------


## Keith and stuff

> It will probably shock you more when Rand competes in those states not only during the primary, but the general election if he secures the nomination.


As for primary and cacus elections, NH is the most important. IA, SC, NV and FL are also very important as they are early states. ME is a no early caucus state. It isn't important to the national debate. VT is a primary so it isn't as unnoteworthy. VT still has very little importance in the national debate, especially since it is such a strong Democratic state.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

How on earth has PPP not polled South Carolina or Nevada yet?  3rd and 4th to vote.  I like that they are spreading it around, but logically I would think they would base their choices off the order they vote in cases unless there is a down ticket race in 2013 or 2014 causing them to specifically target that state.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> As for primary and cacus elections, NH is the e most important. IA, SC, NV and FL are also very important as they are early states. ME is a no early caucus state. It isn't important to the national debate. VT is a primary so it isn't as unnoteworthy. VT still has very little importance in the national debate, especially since it is such a strong Democratic state.


The Red/Blue state false dichotimy will be exposed as you have candidates that are increasingly libertarian.  Consistently Democratic states doesn't mean they are full of Democrats.  Have you looked at the purple blend map?  Although, I agree with you on Vermont. But a lot of other states thought of as deep blue can be turned.

Florida is pushing theirs back so they can get their full slate of delegates back.  Foolish decision. Position is far more influential on the process than population ever can be.  It will certainly help Rand and do great damage to Jeb/Rubio.  Not sure if they can still change it again.

It's between Hawaii and Vermont for bluest state in the country.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> As for primary and cacus elections, NH is the e most important. IA, SC, NV and FL are also very important as they are early states. ME is a no early caucus state. It isn't important to the national debate. VT is a primary so it isn't as unnoteworthy. VT still has very little importance in the national debate, especially since it is such a strong Democratic state.


It's before Super Tuesday so Maine is one of the earliest primary/caucus states we have.  Obviously Iowa and New Hampshire are the most important and set the tone for the rest of the process to play out.  Putting the electoral votes of Maine in play will be important come the general election.  I believe Rand has a better chance at winning Maine, than say, Pennsylvania.  Republicans haven't won Maine nationally since 1988, but Rand might be the candidate to put it back in play.  I think Rand could also put Washington, Oregon, and Nevada in play, as well as several midwest and rustbelt states the dems have been winning lately.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> How on earth has PPP not polled South Carolina or Nevada yet?  3rd and 4th to vote.  I like that they are spreading it around, but logically I would think they would base their choices off the order they vote in cases unless there is a down ticket race in 2013 or 2014 causing them to specifically target that state.


I think they're focused on 2014, hence the Wyoming polling once Cheney announced her primary challenge.  We'll probably see an explosion of polling come the Fall/Winter.

----------


## enoch150

I was doing this for a while in 2011/12, until the first dozen primaries and caucuses were over. I ended up putting the date of the poll on the state. Things can change fast and a poll six months out of date isn't worth as much. A date lets people judge what it's worth for themselves. 

I also used the most recent poll, not an average. An average of two or three polls from the last two weeks might tell you something, but a current poll and one from three months ago doesn't mean much.

I ended up making two maps, one with polls just for Paul, and one showing the leaders in each state. The second one had how many points behind Paul was from the leader, if he wasn't in the lead.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-state-polling

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Red/Blue state false dichotimy will be exposed as you have candidates that are increasingly libertarian.  Consistently Democratic states doesn't mean they are full of Democrats.  Have you looked at the purple blend map?  Although, I agree with you on Vermont. But a lot of other states thought of as deep blue can be turned.
> 
> Florida is pushing theirs back so they can get their full slate of delegates back.  Foolish decision. Position is far more influential on the process than population ever can be.  It will certainly help Rand and do great damage to Jeb/Rubio.  Not sure if they can still change it again.
> 
> It's between Hawaii and Vermont for bluest state in the country.


New York is  the most authoritarian though

As for libertarian candidates... I don't think it will matter.  Too many people don't care about anything but their money.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I was doing this for a while in 2011/12, until the first dozen primaries and caucuses were over. I ended up putting the date of the poll on the state. Things can change fast and a poll six months out of date isn't worth as much. A date lets people judge what it's worth for themselves. 
> 
> I also used the most recent poll, not an average. An average of two or three polls from the last two weeks might tell you something, but a current poll and one from three months ago doesn't mean much.
> 
> I ended up making two maps, one with polls just for Paul, and one showing the leaders in each state. The second one had how many points behind Paul was from the leader, if he wasn't in the lead.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-state-polling


What software did you use to do that?

----------


## enoch150

> What software did you use to do that?


Paint works fine as long as it's saved as png rather than jpeg.

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

If Cruz doesn't run will his support transfer to Rand?

----------


## cindy25

> If Cruz doesn't run will his support transfer to Rand?


some will go to Rand, some to Rubio, some to Jeb

----------


## AuH20

> If Cruz doesn't run will his support transfer to Rand?


3/4s I would guess. Paul and Cruz are so diametrically different than the RINO field.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Rubio is done. New North Carolina poll from PPP today has Rand at 18% in the lead. Christie is second at 16%. Rubio is at 9%. 
> 
> The map is looking great for us. With Rubio's collapse and Sarah Palin singing Rand's praises, we should overtake Alaska soon as well.


No, Rubio is our biggest threat right now. You see, all this blustering about his immigration plan is just that, blustering. Rubio is the perfect Republican candidate: a tea-o-con; he has establishment creds AND tea party creds. If you don't believe that conservatives will forgive Rubio, just google "Willard Romney" (he was the choice of the self-described tea party in the 2012 primaries).

A couple of years ago I asked some conservative Republican friends what they liked about Rubio and they couldn't even explain it! It seemed like he had an aura of conservatism that didn't need explanation or reason, like he produces Republican pheromones. Add to that that now he can forever claim the "electable" mantle. Throw in some of them thar Spanish voters from Mexico (in case you missed it the Repugnicans think they can magically win elections if they just convince Hispanics that they are "no el partido de gringos no mas!") and...viola!

Rubio may not even run, but if you think he's damaged goods now, your very naive about how dishonest The Red Team robovoters are.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Paint works fine as long as it's saved as png rather than jpeg.


Smallest font on paint is size 8-9 for me.  Still pretty big.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> If Cruz doesn't run will his support transfer to Rand?


80-90% will go to Rand.  The rest will scatter between everyone else.

----------


## jjdoyle

> 80-90% will go to Rand.  The rest will scatter between everyone else.


Do we have numbers that show this? From what I can see of Cruz supporters, especially if he is the more "evangelical" candidate, those supporters are more likely to find a Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum candidate I believe, and some in the media have been touting Cruz here lately as an "evangelical" candidate.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Humor me for a minute, but what difference does it make who's leading in all of the states?  Once someone wins Iowa and New Hampshire it's pretty well going to thin out the herd.  So someone who is leading in Texas or Florida right now may not even be around once those states have their primaries.

----------


## mwkaufman

> Humor me for a minute, but what difference does it make who's leading in all of the states?  Once someone wins Iowa and New Hampshire it's pretty well going to thin out the herd.  So someone who is leading in Texas or Florida right now may not even be around once those states have their primaries.


It drives the news and sends signals to donors about candidate viability. Also, some pollsters will ask about second choice candidates, but not very much of that polling is done or at least made public.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Humor me for a minute, but what difference does it make who's leading in all of the states?  Once someone wins Iowa and New Hampshire it's pretty well going to thin out the herd.  So someone who is leading in Texas or Florida right now may not even be around once those states have their primaries.


Well, FL has been 1 of the earliest states recently so it does matter but I see your point.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Humor me for a minute, but what difference does it make who's leading in all of the states?  Once someone wins Iowa and New Hampshire it's pretty well going to thin out the herd.  So someone who is leading in Texas or Florida right now may not even be around once those states have their primaries.


Polls pretty much don't matter now at all, because the media has shown with Rick Santorum they can take a candidate from basically last, to first, in a matter of about 2-4 weeks. They also showed that winning things like straw polls doesn't matter a whole lot, because they can and will ignore it.

----------


## enoch150

> Smallest font on paint is size 8-9 for me.  Still pretty big.


8 is the smallest font on the drop down menu, but you can type in any size font down to 1. I thought I used size 10. Definitely not smaller than 8. The map was a little larger. 901x588 rather than 794x542.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> 3/4s I would guess. Paul and Cruz are so diametrically different than the RINO field.


Cruz is only really different on economics...

----------


## enoch150

> Cruz is only really different on economics...


Cruz is only different on economics from the rest of the Republicans or different from Rand? If you meant different than the Republicans, Cruz is also against SOPA/PIPA and indefinite detention without trial. And he supported the Texas TSA anti-groping bill and he helped Rand with the drone filibuster.

----------


## eduardo89

> Cruz is only really different on economics...


Cruz is different on virtually every issue than the neoconservative element of the GOP. On the issues where his views align with theirs, 99% of the time Rand's do too.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Do we have numbers that show this? From what I can see of Cruz supporters, especially if he is the more "evangelical" candidate, those supporters are more likely to find a Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum candidate I believe, and some in the media have been touting Cruz here lately as an "evangelical" candidate.


It's not scientific.  And I haven't seen any polls asking voters second choices yet, so it's just my speculation at the moment.  That's the feeling I get from Cruz people.

----------


## mwkaufman

Turn Alaska green!

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Turn Alaska green!


Yay! As predicted, Rand the new leader in Alaska with 20%. Wooohoooo!

----------


## PatriotOne

Rubio fell 8 pts in Alaska.  Was it worth it Rube?  Huh, huh, was it?

* PPP 2016 GOP Primary Poll - Alaska / Rand Paul 1st with 20%* 

Alaska
 July 25-28, 2013
 507 Republican primary voters
 +/-3.5%

 Paul 20%
 Bush 15%
 Christie 14%
 Ryan 14%
 Rubio 10%
 Cruz 9%
 Santorum 6%


 General Election:

 Christie 46%
 Clinton 38%

 Bush 49%
 Clinton 42%

 Paul 49%
 Clinton 43%

 Rubio 45%
 Clinton 42%

 Ryan 47%
 Clinton 46%

----------


## Inkblots

Rackin' 'em up!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Rubio is such a rube.

----------


## Michael Landon

I know this is not an official poll but it is worth stating....


https://www.facebook.com/DunnCountyC4L


*The 2013 Dunn County Fair booth Republican Presidential Straw Poll results are in:

 20.65% - Rand Paul
 18.71% - Scott Walker
 11.61% - Paul Ryan
 10.97% - Other
 9.68% - Ted Cruz
 7.74% - Sarah Palin
 7.10% - Chris Christie
 5.16% - Marco Rubio
 3.87% - Jeb Bush
 3.23% - Rick Santorum
 1.30% - Bobby Jindal*

- ML

----------


## Jackie Moon

> Let's create a map so we can see which candidates are leading in each state.  I will continually update this map as new polling is done.  If you know some polling numbers please post them in this thread.


As much as I don't like to put too much in to these early polls, this is getting pretty exciting.

Just six months ago there's no way that I would have believed that Rand would be leading in 7 out of 14 states - including the two most important of Iowa and New Hampshire - and in a nationwide poll.

I always expected Rand to rise eventually but I assumed it would come during the debates.  I was just hoping he'd at least be somewhere near the middle of the pack going in to the debates.  Then the combination of people getting to know Rand, the organization and grassroots we have in Iowa, and the other candidates imploding would to bring us to to the top.

Being the front runner this early is amazing.  But sometimes I have to stop and ask myself,

----------


## anaconda

> Different polls seem to have different views on this.


How recent are the two Rubio states?

----------


## anaconda

> Being the front runner this early is amazing.


I had assumed we would see a 4 year black out on Rand. It's almost the opposite.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> How recent are the two Rubio states?


Not very recent at all.  I think NC was polled in 2012, but it's all we have to go on at this point.

----------


## PaleoPaul

> I had assumed we would see a 4 year black out on Rand. It's almost the opposite.


I really really hope Rand continues to sizzle, not fizzle, all the way until 2016!

----------


## Galileo Galilei

This is a good thread.

----------


## philipped

So Rand has 7 of 14 states??? OMG

He needs to pick up moves in the south tbh.

----------


## AuH20

Rand's accent should pay big dividends in the South as more people get to hear him.

----------


## Rocco

Not only does Rand have 7 of 14, but the other 7 are split between 5 people. In other words,  only 2 other candidates have multiple states. 




> So Rand has 7 of 14 states??? OMG
> 
> He needs to pick up moves in the south tbh.

----------


## cocrehamster

> Not only does Rand have 7 of 14, but the other 7 are split between 5 people. In other words,  only *2* other candidates have multiple states.


3. Rubio, Bush, Christie.

----------


## alucard13mm

We can probably assume Texas will go to Rand, as long as Cruz doesn't have any skeletons and if/when he endorses Rand. It'll be a fierce fight between Rand and Jeb Bush in Texas. Especially if Bush won a state or two prior to Texas.

----------


## fr33

> We can probably assume Texas will go to Rand, as long as Cruz doesn't have any skeletons and if/when he endorses Rand. It'll be a fierce fight between Rand and Jeb Bush in Texas. Especially if Bush won a state or two prior to Texas.


Texas tends to go establishment but Rand has shown the ability to change the norm. I'm not sure that he will but am hopeful.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Rubio is done.  New North Carolina poll from PPP today has Rand at 18% in the lead.  Christie is second at 16%.  Rubio is at 9%.  
> 
> The map is looking great for us.  With Rubio's collapse and Sarah Palin singing Rand's praises, we should overtake Alaska soon as well.


And NC is an early State in 2016.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

NC (Probably) votes last Tues in Feb in 2016. Depending on SC's date.

----------


## enoch150

The four oldest polls in the OP are NC (12/9/12), LA (2/12/13), PA (3/10/13), and FL (3/18/13). They all include Mike Huckabee getting between 9% and 18% and NC also includes Condoleeza Rice at 9% and Sara Palin at 5%.

Excluding those four, adding Arkansas, updating Iowa and New Hampshire, adding dates and how much Rand leads or trails by... OP, please consider using this map and format.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Rand needs to get active in NC since we will be holding our Pres Primary in February now.  I keep trying to get that info to him but I feel like I am shouting at a brick wall being outside of Kentucky and all that.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Rand needs to get active in NC since we will be holding our Pres Primary in February now.  I keep trying to get that info to him but I feel like I am shouting at a brick wall being outside of Kentucky and all that.


I'm sure he will campaign for Brannon if we can get him over the hump.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> The four oldest polls in the OP are NC (12/9/12), LA (2/12/13), PA (3/10/13), and FL (3/18/13). They all include Mike Huckabee getting between 9% and 18% and NC also includes Condoleeza Rice at 9% and Sara Palin at 5%.
> 
> Excluding those four, adding Arkansas, updating Iowa and New Hampshire, adding dates and how much Rand leads or trails by... OP, please consider using this map and format.


I don't trust Rasmussen polling.

----------


## Okaloosa

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2...-calendar.html

2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

January

Monday, January 18:
Iowa caucuses 1(***tentative given current information***)


Tuesday, January 26: 
New Hampshire (***tentative given current information***)


February
Tuesday, February 2:
Colorado caucuses2
Minnesota caucuses3
Missouri (2013 Legislation: March primary: House/Senate, April primary -- all Died in Committee)
Utah4 (2013 Legislation: Primary funding -- Signed into Law)


Saturday, February 6:
Nevada caucuses (***tentative given current information***)

Saturday, February 13:
South Carolina (***tentative given current information***)

Tuesday, February 16: 
North Carolina (***tentative given current information***)

Tuesday, February 23:
Arizona (2013 Legislation: Fix primary date to date of Iowa caucuses)
Michigan
March
Tuesday, March 1:
Colorado caucuses2 
Florida5 (2013 Legislation: March primary -- Died in Committee; Primary on first unpenalized date -- Signed into Law)
Massachusetts (2013 legislation: June primary)
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas (2013 Legislation: Saturday primary, February primary -- all Died in Committee)
Vermont
Virginia


Tuesday, March 8:
Alabama
Hawaii Republican caucuses
Mississippi
Ohio


Tuesday, March 15:
Illinois


Saturday, March 19:
Louisiana


April
Tuesday, April 5:
Maryland
Washington, DC (2013 Legislation: June primary)
Wisconsin6


Tuesday, April 26:
Connecticut
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island


May
Tuesday, May 3:
Indiana


Tuesday, May 10:
Nebraska
West Virginia


Tuesday, May 17:
Kentucky
Oregon


Tuesday, May 24:
Arkansas


June
Tuesday, June 7:
California
Montana (2013 Legislation: May primary -- Died in Committee)
New Jersey
New Mexico
South Dakota


Primary states with no specified date:
Georgia
Kansas7
Maine (2013 Legislation: establish primary -- Died in Committee)
Nevada8 (2013 Legislation: January primary -- Died in Committee)
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina9 (2013 Legislation: Move primary to Tuesday after South Carolina primary if South Carolina is before March 15 -- Signed into Law)
South Carolina


Without dwelling on something that is WELL before its time, FHQ should note that those February states are only problematic in 2016 if the two parties' delegates selection rules mirror the rules from the 2012 cycle. They may or may not. The real problem children, if you will, are the primary states without specified dates for 2016. As of June 2013 they remain the free agents for the 2016 primary calendar and the ones that may bear the most intense watching between now and mid-2015. That said, first things first: The first step is a set of rules from the DNC and RNC. We have a ways to go before the parties settle on/finalize something on that front (summer 2014). The Republican Party is further along in its process than are the Democrats.


--
1 This date does conflict with the Martin Luther King Day holiday in 2016. As John Deeth points out  that is an issue that was a source of some discontent among Iowa Democrats when the caucuses and holiday overlapped in 2004. If that is an issue again in 2016, it may affect the date of the caucuses above. Moving it up further would perhaps push the envelope a bit too much, but the state parties may opt to hold the caucuses on a Tuesday -- a week before New Hampshire on January 19 -- as they did in 2012. 
2 The state parties have the option of choosing either the first Tuesday in March date called for in the statute or moving up to the first Tuesday in February.
3 The state parties must agree on a date on which to hold caucuses by March 1 in the year prior to a presidential election. If no agreement is reached, the caucuses are set for the first Tuesday in February.
4 The Western States Presidential Primary in Utah is scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, but the contest will only be held on that date if the state legislature decides to allocate funds for the primary.
5 Democratic-sponsored legislation would establish a specific date for the Florida presidential primary; the second Tuesday in March. 
6 See definition of "Spring primary" for clause dealing with the timing of the presidential primary.
7 Kansas has not held a presidential primary since 1992. Funds have not been appropriated by the legislature for the primary since that time. That said, there are laws in place providing for a presidential preference primary. Assuming funding, the Kansas secretary of state has the option of choosing a date -- on or before November 1 in the year preceding the presidential election -- that either coincides with at least 5 other states' delegate selection events or is on the first Tuesday in April or before.
8 A Republican-sponsored bill during the 2013 session of the Nevada legislature would create a consolidated primary (presidential primary together with state primaries) and move the contest from June to January.
9 The North Carolina primary is now scheduled for the Tuesday following the South Carolina primary if the South Carolina contest is prior to March 15. Given the protected status South Carolina enjoys with the national parties, a primary prior to March 15 is a certainty for both parties in the Palmetto state. The link to the North Carolina statute does not yet reflect the change made to the presidential primary law. Language laying out the parameters for the primary can be found in the bill (HB 589) recently signed into law.

----------


## Keith and stuff

Thanks for sharing.




> Colorado caucuses2
> Minnesota caucuses3
> Missouri (2013 Legislation: March primary: House/Senate, April primary -- all Died in Committee)
> Utah4 (2013 Legislation: Primary funding -- Signed into Law)


If these states go before NV and SC, they are gonna have a bad time. Why cannot government workers learn!  Rand Paul can maybe do very well in at least MN. The people that control the party should move it back so that MN will get all of its delegates. Rand might need those. No need to throw them away...

----------


## enoch150

> I don't trust Rasmussen polling.


... am I missing something?

The New Hampshire poll was done by the University of New Hampshire and WMUR, the Iowa poll was done by Cygnal, and the Arkansas poll was done by The Polling Company.

In any case, I was talking more about adding dates and leads than any specific poll. 

There might be worse than Rasmussen.

----------


## PatriotOne

Louisiana has gone green...in a good way.

*PPP 2016 GOP Primary Poll - Louisiana / Rand Paul 1st with 18%* 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/161910086/...ll-August-2013

Louisiana
 August 16-19, 2013
 274 Republican primary voters

 Paul 18%
 Bush 17%
 Ryan 11%
 Christie 10%
 Jindal 10%
 Cruz 8%
 Rubio 8%
 Santorum 5%
 Martinez 0%

----------


## RabbitMan

Can we get this updated?




> Louisiana has gone green...in a good way.
> 
> *PPP 2016 GOP Primary Poll - Louisiana / Rand Paul 1st with 18%* 
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/161910086/...ll-August-2013
> 
> Louisiana
>  August 16-19, 2013
>  274 Republican primary voters
> ...

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Updated!

----------


## Uriah

Looks good at the moment.

----------


## cjm

> I was doing this for a while in 2011/12, until the first dozen primaries and caucuses were over. I ended up putting the date of the poll on the state. Things can change fast and a poll six months out of date isn't worth as much. A date lets people judge what it's worth for themselves. 
> 
> I also used the most recent poll, not an average. An average of two or three polls from the last two weeks might tell you something, but a current poll and one from three months ago doesn't mean much.
> 
> I ended up making two maps, one with polls just for Paul, and one showing the leaders in each state. The second one had how many points behind Paul was from the leader, if he wasn't in the lead.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-state-polling


"The Votemaster" has always had pretty good results with averaged polls.   But like enoch150 says, you need to average recent polls, not polls from several weeks or months back.  He also uses lighter and darker shades of a color to indicate how strongly a candidate is winning a state.  Knowing that Paul is winning in NH is nice, but is he up by 1% or 8%?

From the electoral-vote.com FAQ:




> *Which polls do you use?*
> First of all, only neutral pollsters are used. Pollsters whose primary business is helping Democrats or Republicans get elected are not used. They tend to make their horse look better. When there are multiple polls for a race, the most recent poll is always used. The middle date of the polling period is what counts (not the release date). If other polls have middle polling dates within a week of the most recent one, they are all averaged together. This tends to smooth out variations.
> 
> *What algorithm formula) is used to compute the map?*
> In 2004, we ran three different algorithms. The main page just used the most recent poll. The second algorithm averaged three days' worth of polls using only the nonpartisan pollsters. The third one included a mathematical formula for predicting how undecided voters would break based on historical data. The second one was most stable and gave the best final result, so this time a slight variation of it is used: The most recent poll is always used, and, if any other polls were taken within a week of it, they are all averaged together. This method tends to give a more stable result, so the colors don't jump all over the place due to one unusual poll.


Feedback/suggestions aside, great thread!  Subscribed!

----------


## Xenliad

PPP is asking where to poll next.




> Voting open for where we'll poll this weekend, choices are CT, FL, IL, ME, MD, MN, NH, NM, and WI: hxxp://publicpolicypolling.com/main/


Should we strategize in this thread every time they have an online poll?

Current results are 


> Connecticut
> 	 33%
> Florida
> 	 4%
> Illinois
> 	 13%
> Maine
> 	 31%
> Maryland
> ...

----------


## Meritocrat

This confirms my thinking.  I see Paul as having the best chance of getting the nomination followed by Bush, followed by Ryan.  One could fairly easily extrapolate the other states, e.g., NM would go to Cruz, NY, CT, MA to Christie...  As soon as intrade.com 2016 presidential future market opens I'm probably going to make a bet on Paul.

----------


## tennman

Wow! Way early on this and I love that because this is important and I want to talk about it now!

I bet that Rand Paul will take a lot of those states like Tennessee, Florida and others who don't have a state income tax. The people in those states, I've found, are usually more conscious of how the government (both federal and state) tries to get its hands in their pockets and I think that would push a lot of them toward Rand whose political philosophies are to keep the government's hands it its own pockets.

I don't see Christie doing well and he shouldn't. He's a big-government "conservative" with a few conservative bits and pieces.

How Bush is running second right now is beyond me.

----------


## Uriah

Ohio out now. Rand tied in 1st with Christie at 17%.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ul-1st-with-17

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> This confirms my thinking.  I see Paul as having the best chance of getting the nomination followed by Bush, followed by Ryan.  One could fairly easily extrapolate the other states, e.g., NM would go to Cruz, NY, CT, MA to Christie...  As soon as intrade.com 2016 presidential future market opens I'm probably going to make a bet on Paul.


They shut it down.  Sorry to be the one to break the bad news.

TURN OHIO GREEN!!!

----------


## RabbitMan

> TURN OHIO GREEN!!!


This.

----------


## enoch150



----------


## rich34

> This.


Uhh, am I seeing the wrong colors or are you guy's?  Green would mean turncoat Ted?  You guy's really want to turn Ohio away from Rand to trojan Ted?  Not me!!

----------


## enoch150

> Uhh, am I seeing the wrong colors or are you guy's?  Green would mean turncoat Ted?  You guy's really want to turn Ohio away from Rand to trojan Ted?  Not me!!


They're talking about OP's map. I made a different one because OP's didn't have dates or how much Rand was leading or trailing by. I didn't pay attention to the color scheme OP used when I did mine. OP has Rand green.

----------


## Jackie Moon

> They're talking about OP's map. I made a different one because OP's didn't have dates or how much Rand was leading or trailing by. I didn't pay attention to the color scheme OP used when I did mine. OP has Rand green.


I really like your idea of adding dates and the % that Rand is ahead/trailing by.  

I added it to the map that I made to share on Facebook and stuff, so I want to give you credit for the idea.

Unfortunately I also didn't use the same colors as either of the maps in this thread.  Doh. 



http://wearsmyliberty.com/2016map

----------


## anaconda

Does Iowa need to be colored in for Rubio? Per the Cygnal July 10-12 poll?

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Does Iowa need to be colored in for Rubio? Per the Cygnal July 10-12 poll?


Hopefully IA goes to Paul. However, yes, the above map is wrong, as of the most recent info

----------


## Jackie Moon

> Does Iowa need to be colored in for Rubio? Per the Cygnal July 10-12 poll?


Yeah, I used the PPP poll that came out just days earlier:

*Iowa - PPP - July 7th, 2013*

-  Rand Paul       *18%*
-  Chris Christie   *16%*
-  Paul Ryan        *15%*
-  Jeb Bush         *14%*
-  Marco Rubio     *11%*
-  Ted Cruz         *10%*

*Iowa - Cygnal - July 12th, 2013*

-  Marco Rubio    *11.4%*
-  Rand Paul       *10.5%*
-  Paul Ryan        *9.3%*
-  Jeb Bush         *8.7%*
-  Chris Christie   *7.7%*

I used the PPP poll because they both came out at the same time, and the Cygnal poll seemed like it was the outllier.

But I don't want to be biased and pick and choose polls so I'll change it if that one is more accurate.

----------


## Uriah

> Yeah, I used the PPP poll that came out just days earlier:
> 
> *Iowa - PPP - July 7th, 2013*
> 
> -  Rand Paul       *18%*
> -  Chris Christie   *16%*
> -  Paul Ryan        *15%*
> -  Jeb Bush         *14%*
> -  Marco Rubio     *11%*
> ...


The Cygnal poll must have a large number of undecideds. Right? Looks like PPP pushed people into making a decision. I wonder what the wording was.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

Is It Too Early for 2016 Polls?
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...or-2016-polls/

(this is from March)

There are more than 1,000 days before the 2016 Iowa caucuses, but several polls have already been released testing national support for prospective candidates for the Republican and Democratic nominations for president.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has a huge lead on the Democratic side. Surveys show the possible Republican field as more competitive, with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida out front and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey clustered with several other candidates in the top tier.

But isnt it too early to even look at such polls? Arent they more valuable as entertainment than information?

Not necessarily.

An examination of pre-midterm presidential polling since 1984  surveys conducted from the day after the preceding presidential vote to the day before the midterm elections  shows that while early primary polls are not determinative, they are not meaningless, either.

Presidential polls generally become more numerous after midterm elections, and our polling database is too spotty in the pre-midterm period to draw a solid picture before 1984. Since 1984, however, we have at least two pre-midterm polls for each party for each election, and those surveys have followed a consistent pattern: the early leader on the Republican side is very likely to become the nominee, while the early leader on the Democratic side is not.

(A few quick notes about the chart that follows: It shows polling for the past five primary contests for each party in which the party was not running an incumbent president. The eventual nominee is highlighted in yellow, candidates who never formally entered the campaign are in blue, and the right-most column of each chart shows the number of polls each candidate was included in as a fraction of the total number of polls in our database for that primary cycle.)



For both the Republican and Democratic parties, pre-midterm polls have generally guessed only about 50 percent of the field of candidates correctly  about half of the candidates included in early polling decided not to run, and roughly just as many candidates not included in any early polls entered the race.

Significantly, however, the eventual nominee for each party has been included in at least one pre-midterm poll in every cycle since 1984. With half of the actual candidates missing from early polling, the surveys perfect record in including the nominee might seem surprising.

But in addition to including the eventual nominee, early polls also correctly identified the top tier contenders, especially since 2004 when pre-midterm polling become more robust. The last miss of a major candidate was in 2000: Senator John McCain of Arizona was not included in any of the six polls conducted before the 1998 midterms, yet he proved to be the main challenger to the ultimate nominee, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas.

In fact, most of those not included in the early polls who did later get into the race fizzled once voting began (for 2012 that list includes Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Buddy Roemer). This, perhaps, speaks to the need for successful candidates to begin laying the groundwork for a campaign early, gathering money, party support and campaign infrastructure in the invisible primary and thus tipping off pollsters of their potential interest in running for president.

Identifying the field is one thing, but how have pre-midterm polls done in identifying the eventual nominee? Polls of the Republican contests have been prescient. Since 1988, the early Republican front-runner went on to win the nomination in three of the five open primary campaigns.

In the other two election cycles, 2008 and 2000, the second-place candidate went on to win. In early polls for 2008, Mr. McCain was just two percentage points behind Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor whose campaign fizzled once voting began. And in pre-midterm surveys of the 2000 Republican primary, Mr. Bush was five percentage points behind the former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who did not run.

On the Democratic side, however, the early Democratic front-runner failed to win the nomination in all five years in our sample, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008. (The 2000 cycle is not included because there were no Democratic primary polls available in the pre-midterm period, from the day after the 1996 presidential election to the day before the 1998 midterms).

Early Democratic polls came closest to calling the winner in 1984, when former Vice President Walter Mondale of Minnesota  the eventual nominee  ran a strong second behind Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who never entered the race. Besides 1984, the only other year in our sample in which the eventual Democratic nominee polled in double digits before the midterms was in 2008, an anomalous case.

President Obama, with 17 percent, was second to Senator Clinton. But while our database has 26 Democratic primary polls between the 2004 re-election of President Bush and the 2006 midterms, Mr. Obama was included in just one. It was not until after the midterms that Mr. Obama, the Illinois senator, began to appear in most surveys.

In 1988, 1992 and 2004  all years with a Republican president or vice-president running for election or re-election  many Democratic front-runners in early polls never entered the race, and candidates in the single digits went on to win the nomination. In 1992, for instance, Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas won just 3 percent support in the one pre-midterm poll that included him. He was stuck behind eight other Democrats. But, perhaps scared off by President George Bushs strong approval ratings in 1989 and most of 1990, all eight of the Democrats polling ahead of Mr. Clinton declined to run.

What does all this say about the early 2016 surveys (almost all of them are from the Democratic-leaning pollster Public Policy Polling)? 



If Mr. Rubio can maintain the polling lead until the 2014 midterms, history would suggest that he will very likely run in 2016. In our sample, just one early front-runner on the Republican side, Mr. Powell, decided not to seek the nomination.

Recent history might also suggest that Mrs. Clintons current lead cannot hold. Imbalances in name recognition among the candidates can have a substantial effect on early primary polling, and Mrs. Clinton and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the onetime Delaware senator, are much more well-known than other possible contenders like Gov. Martin OMalley of Maryland.

But Mrs. Clinton may be able to break the Democrats early front-runners losing streak. Her lead in the polls we have so far exceeds that of any other candidate  of either party  in any election cycle in our sample. Many observers have pointed out that Mrs. Clinton also had a large lead in early polls of 2008 and yet lost that race. But her 2016 lead over Mr. Biden (33 percentage points) exceeds even her 2008 lead over Mr. Obama (22 percentage points). And she may benefit from the sense of being the next in line, having been the runner-up in her partys last open contest  a dynamic seen in several recent Republican primaries.

With such a small sample  only five election cycles for each party  and just a few pre-midterm polls available in each cycle before 2000, it could be risky to read too much into the pattern of Republican accuracy and Democratic inaccuracy in pre-midterm primary polls. There will be many more polls before the 2014 midterms, the Republican and Democratic front-runners may change, and recent history suggests the eventual field for each party is quite likely to look very different than the one shown above. But that doesnt mean that the polls we see over the next 18 months arent worth noting. 

-t

----------


## Jackie Moon

> The Cygnal poll must have a large number of undecideds. Right? Looks like PPP pushed people into making a decision. I wonder what the wording was.


Yeah, that's right.

The Cygnal poll had 36.3% vote for "Undecided" and PPP's was only 7%.

Also, 21.5% of the people in the Cygnal poll answered that they were "likely not" going to participate in the 2016 caucus.

http://www.cygn.al/surveys/130717-Io...Flash_Poll.pdf

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p..._Iowa_7111.pdf

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I never understood the appeal of Romney in the 2012 primaries, I mean, his record in Massachusetts was not Conservative by any definition of the word.  How did he win any states beyond the Northeast?

----------


## Keith and stuff

> I never understood the appeal of Romney in the 2012 primaries, I mean, his record in Massachusetts was not Conservative by any definition of the word.  How did he win any states beyond the Northeast?


He had such widespread support because of his moderate views and the money behind him. Please, people thought he was the most electable candidate Much like Christie in 2016. Hopefully there is a strong Democratic primary in 2016 so less moderates vote in the Republican primary.

----------


## Uriah

> He had such widespread support because of his moderate views and the money behind him. Please, people thought he was the most electable candidate Much like Christie in 2016. Hopefully there is a strong Democratic primary in 2016 so less moderates vote in the Republican primary.


Agreed. If Hillary doesn't run Democrats will be flocking to get in the race. In that case, there should be plenty of candidates to pull many moderate voters away from the Republican primary/caucus.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Agreed. If Hillary doesn't run Democrats will be flocking to get in the race. In that case, there should be plenty of candidates to pull many moderate voters away from the Republican primary/caucus.


That would be wicked awesome!

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> He had such widespread support because of his moderate views and the money behind him. Please, people thought he was the most electable candidate Much like Christie in 2016. Hopefully there is a strong Democratic primary in 2016 so less moderates vote in the Republican primary.


Yeah, no one was excited about Romney, he wasn't a very interesting candidate.  My dad voted for him because by the time the primaries come to Kentucky they are completely irrelevant.  I understand in 2008 when he was against McCain, but he just seemed kind of bland.  Ron Paul had the Liberty Movement, Santorum had a Populist appeal, Gingrich always had some new idea, but Romney was just a Liberal.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Romney was just a Liberal.


I think you need to check your history. Romney was no liberal, he was a conservative, in fact he was severely conservative. Severely. He wrote a book. You can read it; it's in the book. Romney believed in an America where millions of Americans can believe in the America that millions of Americans believe in; that's the America he loved. He wrote a book. You should read his book. Severely.

----------


## philipped

So any idea on how Florida is gonna swing? Is it looking an easy pick up for Rubio or is he gonna have to fight for it?

----------


## enoch150

Updated New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Added South Carolina.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

Someone posted a previous version of the primary calendar in this thread about 2 months and a half ago.  Some things have changed.  What's most interesting is that most "early" states have NO polling data.

What's also concerning is the possibility of loosing delegates (RNC penalty) for going early in states we are doing well in.

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2...-calendar.html

1/18 - IA
1/18 - AZ (pending legislation)  NO POLLING DATA

2/2 - CO  NO POLLING DATA
2/2 - MN  NO POLLING DATA
2/2 - MS  NO POLLING DATA
2/2 - UT  NO POLLING DATA

2/6 -  NV  NO POLLING DATA

2/13  SC

2/16  NC  

2/23  MI

3/1 -  OK  NO POLLING DATA
3/1 -  TN  NO POLLING DATA
3/1 -  TX  
3/1 -  VT  NO POLLING DATA
3/1 -  VA

3/8 -  AL  NO POLLING DATA
3/8 -  HI  NO POLLING DATA
3/8 -  MS  NO POLLING DATA
3/8 -  OH  

3/10 - FL  

3/15 -  IL  NO POLLING DATA

3/19 -  LA  

WILDCARDS:  States without a primary data yet.  Any of these states could go in Jan/Feb.
GA - NO POLLING DATA
KS -  NO POLLING DATA
ME -  NO POLLING DATA
NH - (expect early)
NY -  NO POLLING DATA

So of the first 36 states (expected Jan - Mar), only 10 have polling data and 26 do not.  

What's important here is that the order we have been talking about in this thread is largely wrong.  It's also very hard to make predictions with such huge gaps.


I think we should be focusing on Nov '14 elections in this order:
US Senate
State Republican Party committees
US House
State Legislatures

Lets also look at who is probably not going to run or will run with an eye toward the VP slot.
Palin:  Has been cheer leading Rand, not positioning herself for a run.
Christie:  Has not completely ruled it out, but stated it's not in his plans and he wants to keep being the NJ Governor.
Jindal:  Has abysmal poll numbers.
Others - IDK.

-t

----------


## klamath

Christy winning SC and Rubio winning iowa? That will finish Rand off. Neocon resurgence.

----------


## brandon

Where are the Florida, Maine, and Nevada polls?

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Someone posted a previous version of the primary calendar in this thread about 2 months and a half ago.  Some things have changed.  What's most interesting is that most "early" states have NO polling data.
> -t


Fair enough based on your research. But the 2 most important early states, NH and IA have polling data. The 3rd well known early state, SC has polling data, also. So at least the early states that people think of, having polling data. NV, which is likely to be the 4th early state if the other states follow the RNC guidelines, doesn't having polling data. That's the only possibly glaring issue with early polling, IMO.

----------


## philipped

> Where are the Florida, Maine, and Nevada polls?


This...

----------


## klamath

bump

----------


## Keith and stuff

> This...


True. 1 of those states is a traditional early voting state, NV.

----------


## klamath

Yeaw Christie can't win out of NY/NJ. I guess VA and NC and Ohio are now part of the northeast.

----------


## enoch150

Updated Texas, added Mississippi, North Carolina, and Maine.

----------


## Keith and stuff

Not bad. 
Paul is in the lead in 8.5 states
Christie in 5.5 states
Cruz in 2 states
Walker in 1 state
Rubio in 1 state

----------


## Uriah

If a poll were taken today in Iowa I believe Paul & Cruz would take the top spots. I don't here Rubio mentioned anymore. The last I've heard about Rubio has all been negative.

----------


## enoch150

I'm surprised Christie is doing so well in Virginia and the Carolinas.

I'm also surprised Jeb Bush has been creeping up lately.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

That poll showing Rubio winning Iowa is a joke.  Nobody with any political sense believes that.  That's Paul and Cruz territory.  Steve Deace rides Ted Cruz's jock everyday on the radio.  Jan Mickelson is fond of Rand and has him on frequently.

----------


## jjdoyle

Louisiana needs to be given to Cruz, like Texas. If Cruz runs, he will probably win Louisiana just like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee did before him.

----------


## eduardo89

> Louisiana needs to be given to Cruz, like Texas. If Cruz runs, he will probably win Louisiana just like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee did before him.


If Louisiana stays as a primary-caucus state then Rand can win a lot of delegates. 26 of the 46 delegates were awarding via the caucuses in 2012.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Louisiana needs to be given to Cruz, like Texas. If Cruz runs, he will probably win Louisiana just like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee did before him.


What happens if Santorum or Huckabee run again?

----------


## gwax23

> What happens in Santorum or Huckabee run again?


I doubt Huckabee will run again. He has a comfortable position on Fox news. 

Even if Santorum runs again I still thing Rand can be competitive in Louisiana.

----------


## fr33

> What happens in Santorum or Huckabee run again?


Then the idiots that vote for them become the butt of many jokes, again.

----------


## jjdoyle

> What happens if Santorum or Huckabee run again?


Santorum may, if just to keep his name in the public and try to make some money off it:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...iable_for.html

Huckabee would be interesting, but I think he's perfectly happy doing what is he now (Fox and talk radio). He also built a nice big house down in Florida to relax at, so unless he was planning on using that to get Florida votes, I don't think he'll run again.

If Santorum runs though, I don't know that he would do as well as he did this last time, only because Cruz would have the "new" factor. But Santorum definitely has a base to run off of in Iowa and other states. So, he is one to watch I think.

----------


## ican'tvote

Ted Cruz is ahead in Montana.
Cruz: 20%
*Paul: 14%*
Christie: 14%
Bush: 11%
Ryan: 10%
etc.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Ted Cruz is ahead in Montana.
> Cruz: 20%
> *Paul: 14%*
> Christie: 14%
> Bush: 11%
> Ryan: 10%
> etc.


Thanks for the update. 

So now it is:
Paul is in the lead in 7.5 states
Christie in 5.5 states
Cruz in 3 states
Walker in 1 state
Rubio in 1 state

----------


## philipped

> Thanks for the update. 
> 
> So now it is:
> Paul is in the lead in 7.5 states
> Christie in 5.5 states
> Cruz in 3 states
> Walker in 1 state
> Rubio in 1 state


Does anybody on this site truly think that he's gonna end up being ignored and labeled fringe and not a "top-tier" candidate, like how Ron was treated in 2012?

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Does anybody on this site truly think that he's gonna end up being ignored and labeled fringe and not a "top-tier" candidate, like how Ron was treated in 2012?


Of course they will try, but it won't work if Rand can win Iowa.  Which won't be easy if Canada Ted injects himself in the race to sabotage Rand.

----------


## rich34

> Of course they will try, but it won't work if Rand can win Iowa.  Which won't be easy if Canada Ted injects himself in the race to sabotage Rand.


Better watch many around here seem to love canada ted even though it's obvious what his masters want him to do and he'll gladly do it..

----------


## rich34

> Ted Cruz is ahead in Montana.
> Cruz: 20%
> *Paul: 14%*
> Christie: 14%
> Bush: 11%
> Ryan: 10%
> etc.



Must be the cross over appeal from Canada?  

And seriously, how is fun grabbing Christie doing so we'll in Montana?  Surely there's not that many establishment republicans in Montana especially when you put Bush and Christie together.  

On a side note before Teddy got put into these polls Rand was about to start gaming them.  Iowa was the first state poll they put him in if memory serves me correctly and before that happened Rand was heading into the 30's maybe 40's, but Teddy is serving his purpose by holding Rand down in the polls.  They are counting on him to keep Rand from winning the nomination and handing it over to yet again another liberal republican.  Id love it if Christie does win and Ron takes the gloves off and runs independent!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> What happens if Santorum or Huckabee run again?


Social cons do well in Iowa.

----------


## Uriah

> Social cons do well in Iowa.


If Santorum and Huckabee run neither will win. Social cons try to consolidate behind one candidate to increase their power as a voting base. I can't see social cons getting behind just one of these two guys though.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> If Santorum and Huckabee run neither will win. Social cons try to consolidate behind one candidate to increase their power as a voting base. I can't see social cons getting behind just one of these two guys though.


I don't see it going down that way.  Huckabee won't run.  Santorum might, but even that isn't assured.  One thing is certain though, there will be an opening for a social conservative candidate to play spoiler to us (libertarian/tea party wing).  We'll only win if we can tap into those social conservatives and bring them over to our side.

----------


## KingNothing

> Does anybody on this site truly think that he's gonna end up being ignored and labeled fringe and not a "top-tier" candidate, like how Ron was treated in 2012?


No, it would be totally impossible to ignore him or relegate him to the sidelines along with other Unserious Candidates.

This will be doubly true once he's thrown into the formal debates and able to take principled stances while expressing a nuance, a tact, and a clarity, that will endear him to voters.

----------


## FriedChicken

I don't think Santorum will run and if he does he will be squashed embarrassingly in Iowa (IMO). But I do think the race is short one "social conservative" (that is not a good term for what it means and I don't like using it).

But it does seem that those candidates usually pop up from no where and peak suddenly. When they've been around for a few years they start losing support very quickly for some reason. 
Santorum won't be able to get anywhere close to his 2012 numbers. There will be a new rival to enter the scene last minute that will revive that voting block.
That candidate won't be a threat to win the nomination, only a threat to play spoiler for Rand/true conservative candidates.

----------


## compromise

> I don't see it going down that way.  Huckabee won't run.  Santorum might, but even that isn't assured.  One thing is certain though, there will be an opening for a social conservative candidate to play spoiler to us (libertarian/tea party wing).  We'll only win if we can tap into those social conservatives and bring them over to our side.


Santorum will almost certainly run.
http://www.statecolumn.com/2013/11/r...l-bid-in-2016/

After how well he did on his first time in 2012, it makes sense for him. I remember him saying somewhere that hinted he would run as a moderate populist next time round, can't find the source right now.

I definitely expect to see Rick Santorum, Peter King, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman run in 2016. Rubio/Bush, Walker/Ryan are also likely.

----------


## enoch150

> Must be the cross over appeal from Canada?  
> 
> And seriously, how is fun grabbing Christie doing so we'll in Montana?  Surely there's not that many establishment republicans in Montana especially when you put Bush and Christie together.  
> 
> On a side note before Teddy got put into these polls Rand was about to start gaming them.  Iowa was the first state poll they put him in if memory serves me correctly and before that happened Rand was heading into the 30's maybe 40's, but Teddy is serving his purpose by holding Rand down in the polls.  They are counting on him to keep Rand from winning the nomination and handing it over to yet again another liberal republican.  Id love it if Christie does win and Ron takes the gloves off and runs independent!


The most current polls from every state, sorted by date. Rand was taking the top spot when he was making headlines, like after his filibuster (March), and trying to cut off foreign aid to Egypt (July). Christie started taking the top spot when Syria was in the news (August/September), and again after his election (November). Cruz, I think, is picking up because he was willing to shut down the government over Obamacare.

----------


## rich34

> I don't see it going down that way.  Huckabee won't run.  Santorum might, but even that isn't assured.  One thing is certain though, there will be an opening for a social conservative candidate to play spoiler to us (libertarian/tea party wing).  We'll only win if we can tap into those social conservatives and bring them over to our side.


McCain did win without them in 2008, but everybody knows he was the establishment pick getting all the free media after he spent up all his money.  

But yes, Rand will certainly need to win a good portion of the social cons in order to win.  But hell, I wouldn't say Christie would need to get the social cons to win, I think he'll be the McCain of 2016 and be able to win despite getting their support.  Must be nice having the media behind you...

----------


## enoch150

I think Christie is going to be more like Giuliani than McCain. Once people actually get to see Christie in the debates his support outside of the NY/NJ area is going to implode.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm surprised Christie is doing so well in Virginia and the Carolinas.
> 
> I'm also surprised Jeb Bush has been creeping up lately.


Karl Rove has been slithering all over NC since 2012.  NC is voting early for President in 2016.  Rand is not paying enough attention to NC.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Does anybody on this site truly think that he's gonna end up being ignored and labeled fringe and not a "top-tier" candidate, like how Ron was treated in 2012?


They might, but that just means there won't hardly be any blind people left at all.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't think Santorum will run and if he does he will be squashed embarrassingly in Iowa (IMO). But I do think the race is short one "social conservative" (that is not a good term for what it means and I don't like using it).
> 
> But it does seem that those candidates usually pop up from no where and peak suddenly. When they've been around for a few years they start losing support very quickly for some reason. 
> Santorum won't be able to get anywhere close to his 2012 numbers. There will be a new rival to enter the scene last minute that will revive that voting block.
> That candidate won't be a threat to win the nomination, only a threat to play spoiler for Rand/true conservative candidates.


There is a big difference between a social conservative and a social authoritarian.  One honors Christ, while the other takes after the Pharisees.  I'd say that was a pretty big difference.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> The most current polls from every state, sorted by date. Rand was taking the top spot when he was making headlines, like after his filibuster (March), and trying to cut off foreign aid to Egypt (July). Christie started taking the top spot when Syria was in the news (August/September), and again after his election (November). Cruz, I think, is picking up because he was willing to shut down the government over Obamacare.


That's good but Ted Cruz is leading in MT now.

----------


## enoch150

> That's good but Ted Cruz is leading in MT now.


Eh. Yeah. I typed it in under Colorado instead of updating Montana.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> McCain did win without them in 2008, but everybody knows he was the establishment pick getting all the free media after he spent up all his money.  
> 
> But yes, Rand will certainly need to win a good portion of the social cons in order to win.  But hell, I wouldn't say Christie would need to get the social cons to win, I think he'll be the McCain of 2016 and be able to win despite getting their support.  Must be nice having the media behind you...


I was talking mostly of Iowa.  McCain didn't win there.

----------


## WD-NY

> And seriously, how is fun grabbing Christie doing so we'll in Montana?  Surely there's not that many establishment republicans in Montana especially when you put Bush and Christie together.


The good news is that even you combine Bush, Christie and all the other establishment candidates/votes together, it still doesn't equal a majority of Republican primary voters in any state (assuming the other candidate = an "electable" conservative). 

The bad news is that the RHINO Establishment will focus their $$, media & votes on a single candidate while the conservatives will divide theirs up between several.




> On a side note before Teddy got put into these polls Rand was about to start gaming them.  Iowa was the first state poll they put him in if memory serves me correctly and before that happened Rand was heading into the 30's maybe 40's, but Teddy is serving his purpose by holding Rand down in the polls.  They are counting on him to keep Rand from winning the nomination and handing it over to yet again another liberal republican.


Another way of looking at Cruz's numbers is that if you add them to Rand's, the two become virtually unbeatable (especially in the early primary states).

If you're Cruz, what sounds like a better (safer, more realistic) deal? 

*Sell soul to the Establishment, play spoiler to Rand,* (by staying in the race and splitting the conservative vote, Christie will win primary states with only 35-40%), effectively ensure that Hillary Clinton becomes POTUS and... *hope* that the establishment pays you back in 2024, after 8 years of Clinton.

*Stand with Rand, help him win the GOP primary (which with your support is a better than 50/50 proposition), play the role of Rand's #2 wing-man while beating Hillary Clinton in a Regan-level landslide* and... instead of hoping to be paid back sometime in the distant future by a bunch of honorless/untrustworthy RHINOs, you cash in your chips immediately after President Paul takes office (e.g. SOS, Supreme Court, Leader of Senate, etc.) - just like Hillary did with Obama - and become the Hillary Clinton of 2024 because you've spent the last 8 years setting yourself up as the de facto GOP nominee and favorite to win the general.

----------


## rich34

> I was talking mostly of Iowa.  McCain didn't win there.


You're correct.

I suppose I was extending it to the whole race in general.  I think Rand will need a good portion of social cons   to win the primary.

----------


## Keith and stuff

New IA poll is out. Paul moves down from 1st to 3rd. Christie is first followed by Cruz. Rubio goes from 1st to 5th and now 6th place. Christie is also the only Republican able to bear Hillary, according to the poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ucus-3194.html

Details of the specific poll.
http://www.conservativeintel.com/112...tial-contests/

----------


## eleganz

There hasn't been any action in the Senate.  Rand will bounce back, no problem.

----------


## WD-NY

> There hasn't been any action in the Senate.  Rand will bounce back, no problem.


I don't think it's so much the lack of action but rather Rand's recent comments against Cruz/Lee and the shutdown strategy (re: "dumb idea") which were straight out of the RHINO/MSNBC playbook (re: disavow support of Cruz/Lee/the-strategy; belittle/mock/question the intelligence of those who supported a last ditch effort to repeal Obamacare before it went into effect; agree with the DEM/MSM talking points that it was Cruz/Lee who were responsible for the shut down even though 1. they funded every part of govn't except for Obamacare and 2. Obama and the DEMs refused to negotiate).

The MSM likes to present Rand & Cruz supporters (re: tea party voters) as idiots, but actual polling says they're the smartest and most informed block of voters in the country (probably bc they watch Fox News in the evening and read conservative blogs instead of newspapers). Which makes it highly likely that they heard or read about Rand's comments against Cruz, Lee and the repeal/delay Obamacare strategy.

Put yourself in the shoes of all the tea party & conservative primary voters who have Rand and Cruz as their #1 & #2 picks for president (re: like them both equally). Now ask yourself, "what has Rand said recently that would push you towards him rather than Cruz?" Not much I'd wager... which is fine since we're 3 years out. What isn't fine though is that rather than saying nothing, he's said things that may have turned a block of tea partiers off entirely.

----------


## rich34

> I don't think it's so much the lack of action but rather Rand's recent comments against Cruz/Lee and the shutdown strategy (re: "dumb idea") which were straight out of the RHINO/MSNBC playbook (re: disavow support of Cruz/Lee/the-strategy; belittle/mock/question the intelligence of those who supported a last ditch effort to repeal Obamacare before it went into effect; agree with the DEM/MSM talking points that it was Cruz/Lee who were responsible for the shut down even though 1. they funded every part of govn't except for Obamacare and 2. Obama and the DEMs refused to negotiate).
> 
> The MSM likes to present Rand & Cruz supporters (re: tea party voters) as idiots, but actual polling says they're the smartest and most informed block of voters in the country (probably bc they watch Fox News in the evening and read conservative blogs instead of newspapers). Which makes it highly likely that they heard or read about Rand's comments against Cruz, Lee and the repeal/delay Obamacare strategy.
> 
> Put yourself in the shoes of all the tea party & conservative primary voters who have Rand and Cruz as their #1 & #2 picks for president (re: like them both equally). Now ask yourself, "what has Rand said recently that would push you towards him rather than Cruz?" Not much I'd wager... which is fine since we're 3 years out. What isn't fine though is that rather than saying nothing, he's said things that may have turned a block of tea partiers off entirely.


I'd like to think or hope that if Spiker can hang onto the leadership position of the republican party in Iowa and what I hope to be is a great ground game in 2016 even being within 3 points Rand will overcome the polling numbers based on working this state for what will be the last 8 years.  Having Ron run the last two go arounds has really set Rand up nicely with the organization to win Iowa.  I can't imagine Christie's support being as solid as what Rand's is.  Cruz I'm not sure about, but this $#@!er needs to throw his support behind Rand if he's actually serious about getting a liberty minded individual who is the most trustworthy into the White House.  Unfortunately, I don't see Cruz as being on Team Liberty and will do whatever is asked of him to derail Rand and hand Christie the nomination.  I'd love to be wrong though as many here suggest, but I just don't see it based off who he's connected to and his past connections.  Hell I'd come back here everyday for a year admitting I was wrong about Cruz and do so gladly if the guy would throw his support behind Rand.

----------


## rich34

Well I just noticed that the narrative I was bitching about a month n a half ago during Cruz'....healthcare posturing or whatever it was, I felt like the foundation was being laid for the pollsters/msm to push Cruz ahead of Rand.  It just hit me that it's starting to come to pass.  The new numbers in Iowa and Penn. showing Cruz ahead of Rand, imo shows what the Ted healthcare thing did.  Essentially providing the pollsters cover to push Cruz up the ladder.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> And seriously, how is fun grabbing Christie doing so we'll in Montana?  Surely there's not that many establishment republicans in Montana especially when you put Bush and Christie together.


No, but there _are_ a lot of fall-in-line Republicans who will believe what they are told to believe: Chrispy Chreme "Willard McCain Dole" Christie is the electable candidate.
Now, everyone say it together "electable." Ahora, para mis amigos que se conocen votantes hispanos eres mas importante para 2016: "elegible".

----------


## compromise

Rand now in 3rd in Iowa in recent Harper poll.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Rand now in 3rd in Iowa in recent Harper poll.


Correct. He moved from 1st to 3rd in IA according to the 2 most recent polls, as has been said. From Rand Paul to Chris Christie. And Ted Cruz is 2nd.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> The good news is that even you combine Bush, Christie and all the other establishment candidates/votes together, it still doesn't equal a majority of Republican primary voters in any state (assuming the other candidate = an "electable" conservative). 
> 
> The bad news is that the RHINO Establishment will focus their $$, media & votes on a single candidate while the conservatives will divide theirs up between several.
> 
> 
> 
> Another way of looking at Cruz's numbers is that if you add them to Rand's, the two become virtually unbeatable (especially in the early primary states).
> 
> If you're Cruz, what sounds like a better (safer, more realistic) deal? 
> ...


Good breakdown.

----------


## rich34

It would be nice that if Rand don't win the nomination, Ron takes the gloves off and finally runs 3rd party.  I could only imagine a July 4th moneybomb.  Ron imo wouldn't certainly poll high enough to get into the debates.  I know that's asking a lot of him, but I really don't think he'd need to do a ton of campaigning, hell everyone knows him now.  Just hit the states that he most likely has a chance at winning and prevent either Christie or Hillary from hitting the 270 mark and just maybe, ( I know unlikely ) the compromise will be Ron among both group's delegates.  I know I'm dreaming, but I can still do that right?  Right??

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> It would be nice that if Rand don't win the nomination, Ron takes the gloves off and finally runs 3rd party.  I could only imagine a July 4th moneybomb.  Ron imo wouldn't certainly poll high enough to get into the debates.  I know that's asking a lot of him, but I really don't think he'd need to do a ton of campaigning, hell everyone knows him now.  Just hit the states that he most likely has a chance at winning and prevent either Christie or Hillary from hitting the 270 mark and just maybe, ( I know unlikely ) the compromise will be Ron among both group's delegates.  I know I'm dreaming, but I can still do that right?  Right??


Don't you think Ron is tired of it all?

----------


## PaleoPaul

> It would be nice that if Rand don't win the nomination, Ron takes the gloves off and finally runs 3rd party.  I could only imagine a July 4th moneybomb.  Ron imo wouldn't certainly poll high enough to get into the debates.  I know that's asking a lot of him, but I really don't think he'd need to do a ton of campaigning, hell everyone knows him now.  Just hit the states that he most likely has a chance at winning and prevent either Christie or Hillary from hitting the 270 mark and just maybe, ( I know unlikely ) the compromise will be Ron among both group's delegates.  I know I'm dreaming, but I can still do that right?  Right??


No, you're not dreaming.  You're high.

----------


## enoch150

Added New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Illinois. Updated Montana and Iowa.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Added New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Illinois. Updated Montana and Iowa.


Candidate / Number of States 
Christie 9.5
Paul 7.5
Cruz 3
Bush 1
Walker 1

----------


## gwax23

I see a lot of red. Im scared.

----------


## philipped

AT THIS POINT all these polls and pictures confirm 1 thing: Rand Paul vs. Chris Cristie for GOP nomination.

----------


## Varin

> AT THIS POINT all these polls and pictures confirm 1 thing: Rand Paul vs. Chris Cristie for GOP nomination.



Cruz is beating Paul to in the latest polls.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> I see a lot of red. Im scared.


Just based on that map, Christie is leading in the Northeast, Southeast and Midwest. Cruz is leading in the West. Paul is 2nd in all 4 regions.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Just based on that map, Christie is leading in the Northeast, Southeast and Midwest. Cruz is leading in the West. Paul is 2nd in all 4 regions.


And Ron was lucky to be polling 5th this early in advance.

----------


## rich34

> Cruz is beating Paul to in the latest polls.


I could be wrong, but I really think Rand's organization and ground game will be enough to handle Cruz in a close race especially in Iowa.  Same goes for Christie in Iowa only unless he's got a big lead which I don't see him having in Iowa.  Outside of Iowa I think Rand's ground game should be enough for everyone, but Christie.  Rand really needs to keep doing what he's doing and keep it close until the debates, that's where I really see him setting himself apart from everyone, so long as they give him questions to answer and not like Ron.

----------


## rich34

> And Ron was lucky to be polling 5th this early in advance.


You're right, and not just 5th, but outside of Iowa, NH, and NV was lucky to be at 5%

----------


## philipped

> Added New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Illinois. Updated Montana and Iowa.


How can we save florida? :/

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> How can we save florida? :/

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Candidate / Number of States 
> Christie 9.5
> Paul 7.5
> Cruz 3
> Bush 1
> Walker 1


With the new CO poll, Cruz goes to 4. It is within margin of error for the top 3 in CO, though.

Christie 9.5
Paul 7.5
Cruz 4
Bush 1
Walker 1

Colorado
December 3-4, 2013
355 usual Republican primary voters
+/-5.2%

Cruz 18%
Christie 17%
Paul 16%
Rubio 10%
Ryan 9%
Bush 8%
Walker 6%
Jindal 3%
Santorum 2%

----------


## rich34

> With the new CO poll, Cruz goes to 4. It is within margin of error for the top 3 in CO, though.
> 
> Christie 9.5
> Paul 7.5
> Cruz 4
> Bush 1
> Walker 1
> 
> Colorado
> ...





I hate it but I knew when Cruz was doing his fake filibusterthey would use that as the narrative to push him above Rand.  For how long who knows, but at least with him in there they can't attack Rand for not being in office long enough they'll have to be attacking Cruz for that. Being like Obama. and all..

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How can we save florida? :/


By the youngest Ron Paul voter turning 70.

----------


## compromise

Florida is unattainable. Focus on the other states.

Can someone sticky this thread?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Paul got a higher percentage of the vote in Kentucky, in May, than he did in Florida in January.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I could be wrong, but I really think Rand's organization and ground game will be enough to handle Cruz in a close race especially in Iowa.  Same goes for Christie in Iowa only unless he's got a big lead which I don't see him having in Iowa.  Outside of Iowa I think Rand's ground game should be enough for everyone, but Christie.  Rand really needs to keep doing what he's doing and keep it close until the debates, that's where I really see him setting himself apart from everyone, so long as they give him questions to answer and not like Ron.


I'm not too worried about Cruz in Iowa (if he even runs), but we do have to worry about a social conservative candidate stealing our thunder in Iowa.  Especially a well-known one like Huckabee.

----------


## cindy25

much of Cruz's support is people being politically correct, much as they did/would with Herman Cain or Ben Carson.  Rand has to worry about Huck, Jeb, and maybe Rick Perry.  Governors win far more nominations than senators.

----------


## Keith and stuff

The newest poll shows Huckabee (the most big government candidate in the poll) leading SC with 18%. Paul is 10 points back at 4th place with 8%, it seems.

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-a...ry-republican/

If my numbers are correct, here are how many states each candidate is leading in:
Christie 8.5
Paul 7.5
Cruz 4
Bush 1
Walker 1
Huckabee 1

----------


## Keith and stuff

Rand Paul has improved in KY from 31% to 34%. He is still ahead by 14 points.

Kentucky
December 12-15, 2013
540 Republican primary voters
+/-4.2%

Paul 34%
Bush 20%
Christie 12%
Cruz 7%
Rubio 5%
Ryan 5%
Jindal 3%
Santorum 2%
Walker 2% 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-leads-with-34

----------


## Galileo Galilei

OK, things looking good for Rand now, with most of the GOP establishment candidates having gone down in flames.  Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Jindal, and McDonnell all basically out, and Paul Ryan is not likely to run, he has a cushy committee chair.

----------


## anaconda

> OK, things looking good for Rand now, with most of the GOP establishment candidates having gone down in flames.  Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Jindal, and McDonnell all basically out, and Paul Ryan is not likely to run, he has a cushy committee chair.


Jeb not down in flames. He's lurking in the shadows. And I saw a Washington Post poll last night with Walker in double digits.

----------


## compromise

Jeb will jump in to take Christie votes.

----------


## ssunlimited

here's the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewi...rimaries,_2016

----------


## philipped

> Jeb will jump in to take Christie votes.


Establishment is ready for Rand. It's up to us to go hard for him, I'm down bro.

----------


## anaconda

> here's the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewi...rimaries,_2016



Not sure I fully comprehend the coloring scheme. For example, why isn't Michigan all green?

----------


## ssunlimited

> Not sure I fully comprehend the coloring scheme. For example, why isn't Michigan all green?


If its a close race with lots of undecided there are more than one color depending on the front runners.

----------


## specsaregood

I guess we sorta gave up on this thread.

Current RCP:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I guess we sorta gave up on this thread.
> 
> Current RCP:
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html


You have to go by individual states, since that's how the primary/caucuses roll.

----------


## rich34

> I guess we sorta gave up on this thread.
> 
> Current RCP:
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html



I think right now it's mostly about name recognition and the elderly folks doing whatever fox news tells them.  If Rand is going to win this, he's really going to need to have stellar debate performances which I have no doubt he will deliver.  It's obvious fox news is going to turn on him like a dog with rabies.  Rand will have the biggest opportunity during the debates to counter whatever narrative they portray of him.  And unlike Ron, Rand will attack the other candidates if he feels it's necessary to do so.  Thus far, he's been very, very good at making sure he stays out in front of whatever label they try to put on him.  I know a lot were upset when him proposing a bill to declare war on ISIS, but fast forward to the first debate and we'll see just how much that is going to help him counter the isolationist label.  He's playing a stellar game of chess thus far.

----------


## philipped

> I think right now it's mostly about name recognition and the elderly folks doing whatever fox news tells them.  If Rand is going to win this, he's really going to need to have stellar debate performances which I have no doubt he will deliver.  It's obvious fox news is going to turn on him like a dog with rabies.  Rand will have the biggest opportunity during the debates to counter whatever narrative they portray of him.  And unlike Ron, Rand will attack the other candidates if he feels it's necessary to do so.  Thus far, he's been very, very good at making sure he stays out in front of whatever label they try to put on him.  I know a lot were upset when him proposing a bill to declare war on ISIS, but fast forward to the first debate and we'll see just how much that is going to help him counter the isolationist label.  He's playing a stellar game of chess thus far.


Which is why it is going to be extremely interesting by Mid 2015. Someone should post an update picture like in the beginning of the thread.

----------

