CNN poll: Rand Paul in 3rd among GOP presidential candidates with 13%

[satchelmcqueen]

we have a new top tier....crispy cream, paul ryan and the other guy who isnt rand paul... - MSM

 

[klamath]

Is Christy or Ryan leading in Iowa NH or SC? Nothing else matters. Christy probably has huge majorities in NJ, NY and which skews the national percentages. Do they have early primaries? No. By the time those states vote the person that won the majority of the first three will be wrapping it up.

 

[SilentBull]

CNN's rigged "polling" before the Iowa caucus that influenced Santorum to win: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-top-gingrich-fading-santorum-rising-in-iowa/

Yup: How The Media Won Iowa

 

[Brett85]

Rand does a lot better with Republican leaning independents in this poll than with Republicans. I guess Rand's run in 2016 might be similar to Ron's Presidential runs in that regard.

 

[PSYOP]

we have a new top tier....crispy cream, paul ryan and the other guy who isnt rand paul... - MSM

Well played.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Very much likely, but only by certain factions.

The real truth of the matter is, the VOTERS can be won over, and the election can be WON by shaping the message to appeal to the masses, and being an attractive option on the poll sheet.

The very real truth is that RAND PAUL is taking the GOP and turning it over and shaking all the ants out, and is doing an impressive job so far - Its the only chance at winning, and its a very good chance.

Some of you people here must just want to lose. Or reject winning because that would mean you are not cool anymore because everyone else is voting the same way. 3rd party, freaking REALLY?

At this point to get a lousy poll from a lousy and biased pollster showing rand in 3rd with 13% probably means the actual number is much higher - I don't believe for second that anything the media says or does is fair or honest reporting. The plain fact of the matter is that RAND IS WINNING (the hearts and minds of voters everywhere) and that my friends is what it takes to WIN.

Delusion time, on steroids. We don't want to lose, but are just pointing out the current system is rigged to make us lose whether within or without the major party structure. In trumpeting token interim victories, you're saying only what every other liberty faction has past said, that tried to take back the Republican Party from the elite controllers at the top. They all failed, freaking really. The party is controlled by big banks, big business, big military contractors and big lobbies, NOT the masses. It's going to stay that way, just as with the Democratic party, at the top.

Rand is winning over the rank and file during the off season. Not the controlling establishment. At crunch time, they will rig primaries, gag journalists, smash fingers, pour hundreds of millions onto establishment frontrunners, and run conventions by teleprompter instead of by Robert's Rules to stop the liberty reformers. And then they're going to get nasty. Afterwards, the rank and file will follow the next milquetoast statist moderate the PTB shove to the top in 2016, straight to another defeat.

So instead of fostering the useless GOP vs 3rd Party divisiveness, try thinking beyond the current box that is designed to beat us in either direction, and has already done so repeatedly. Building a liberty establishment that is NOT dependent on ANY party, or any corporate media in order to flourish, is how we have been winning. Running liberty candidates in open seat primaries (be they as Democrats or Republicans, depending on the area) is the winning approach. Displacing the old order altogether, instead of pretending to ourselves to be taking a part of it over, is how we will win going forward.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It might be, but it's more likely it's 3rd place.

Not with a sampling error of +/- 4.5% and a range of 4% between the top three placers, it isn't.
Given only the information provided in the OP, there is no way to say which of the three is "more likely" to win.

There's not enough data to call an election on it, but Christie and Ryan are more likely to win said election based on the poll.

No they aren't. If this particular poll had actually been an election and only the particular 452 respondents to this poll had voted, Christie would have won and Paul would have placed third. That is all. There is not merely "not enough data to call an election" (within a much larger population) here - there is no data at all for that purpose here. The sampling error is too large and the separation between the candidates/options is too small.

By your logic, Santorum is tied with Paul.

"My logic" has got nothing to do with it. It's what these numbers as presented mean (to whatever extent, if any, that they actually mean anything at all).

So yes: Santorum is indeed "tied" with Paul for second place - as are all the other options shown after Paul.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Very much likely, but only by certain factions.

The real truth of the matter is, the VOTERS can be won over, and the election can be WON by shaping the message to appeal to the masses, and being an attractive option on the poll sheet.

The very real truth is that RAND PAUL is taking the GOP and turning it over and shaking all the ants out, and is doing an impressive job so far - Its the only chance at winning, and its a very good chance.

Some of you people here must just want to lose. Or reject winning because that would mean you are not cool anymore because everyone else is voting the same way. 3rd party, freaking REALLY?

At this point to get a lousy poll from a lousy and biased pollster showing rand in 3rd with 13% probably means the actual number is much higher - I don't believe for second that anything the media says or does is fair or honest reporting. The plain fact of the matter is that RAND IS WINNING (the hearts and minds of voters everywhere) and that my friends is what it takes to WIN.

Great post. I'm tired of the libertarian hipsters as well. It's funny how they keep promoting the failed 3rd party route even after Ron showed us the way.

Using a major party has allowed us to get these guys into office, which only energizes me to get even more people like Amash, Massie, Paul, etc into office.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Great post. I'm tired of the libertarian hipsters as well. It's funny how they keep promoting the failed 3rd party route even after Ron showed us the way.

Using a major party has allowed us to get these guys into office, which only energizes me to get even more people like Amash, Massie, Paul, etc into office.

This misdescribes the issue. Paul showed the way by running as a third party themed candidate in a winnable major party primary race, while building a grassroots network that was independent of either. The alternative mentioned is not "the third party route," but one that is based on the movement being independent from parties, using them as a means only, and not as a home.

E.g., use the third party universe as a means of vetting true liberty candidates, while using the major parties (both of them) as a means of leveraging them into office, as the opportunities arise. Thus, no marginalization from being outside a major party, AND no neutralization from within. That's the winning way going forward.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Delusion time, on steroids. We don't want to lose, but are just pointing out the current system is rigged to make us lose whether within or without the major party structure. In trumpeting token interim victories, you're saying only what every other liberty faction has past said, that tried to take back the Republican Party from the elite controllers at the top. They all failed, freaking really. The party is controlled by big banks, big business, big military contractors and big lobbies, NOT the masses.

Rand is winning over the rank and file during the off season. Not the controlling establishment. At crunch time, they will rig primaries, gag journalists, crush fingers, pour hundreds of millions onto establishment frontrunners, and run conventions by teleprompter instead of by Robert's Rules to stop the liberty reformers. And then they're going to get nasty. Afterwards, the rank and file will follow the next milquetoast statist moderate the PTB shove to the top in 2016, straight to another defeat.

So instead of fostering the useless GOP vs 3rd Party divisiveness, try thinking beyond the current box that is designed to beat us in either direction, and has already done so repeatedly. Building a liberty establishment that is NOT dependent on ANY party, or any corporate media in order to flourish, is how we have been winning. Running liberty candidates in open seat primaries (be they as Democrats or Republicans, depending on the area) is the winning approach. Displacing the old order altogether, instead of pretending to ourselves to be taking a part of it over, is how we will win going forward.

That way hasn't worked and won't ever work. You know how I know? Because there's no liberty movement within the DNC and no third party candidate elected higher than dog catcher anywhere in the country. Besides, the democratic party is fundamentally flawed, central planning will always trump individual liberty within their ideology. Even the diehard progressives like that that lady from the Green party and Ralph Nader answer the issue of government abuse and overreach by seeking to empower government even more. Never mind the fact that they are utterly hopeless on economic liberty and economics in general.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

This misdescribes the issue. Paul showed the way by running as a third party themed candidate in a winnable major party primary race, while building a grassroots network that was independent of either. The alternative mentioned is not "the third party route," but one that is based on the movement being independent from parties, using them as a means only.

E.g., use the third party universe as a means of vetting true liberty candidates, while using the major parties (both of them) as a means of leveraging them into office, as the opportunities arise. Thus, no marginalization from being outside a major party, AND no neutralization from within. That's the winning way going forward.

I disagree with your characterization of Paul as a "third party themed" candidate. Now that aside, you only change the political landscape by being political and in a major party. This is why the tea party and liberty movement have enjoyed success and Occupy Wall Street went the way of the Dodo bird.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Listen to what Matt Kibbe says here.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

That way hasn't worked and won't ever work. You know how I know? Because there's no liberty movement within the DNC and no third party candidate elected higher than dog catcher anywhere in the country. Besides, the democratic party is fundamentally flawed, central planning will always trump individual liberty within their ideology. Even the diehard progressives like that that lady from the Green party and Ralph Nader answer the issue of government abuse and overreach by seeking to empower government even more. Never mind the fact that they are utterly hopeless on economic liberty and economics in general.

"There you go again." I didn't suggest there was a liberty movement within the DNC, or that any should be attempted from within to reform it, anymore than it can ultimately the reform the GOP. The US establishment is hardwire designed (through gerrymandered seats at all levels) for only the major parties to win, and that is why 3rd parties don't win elections. Within the major parties, the cost of winning electorally is losing legislatively, which is why both parties have failed to reverse a single aspect of the growth of the Total State in almost a century. After all those decades of losing, I have suggested we try something else.

I'm saying, if we really believe there's no real difference between the leadership of both parties on liberty issues (other than rhetoric), we'll run a liberty candidate as a Republican in an open seat primary race in a GOP leaning district, AND we'll run a liberty candidate as a Democrat in an open seat primary race in a Dem district. We won't ignore 50% of the winnable races on the table, simply because we don't want the candidate to run on the D line. We will emphasize the liberty candidate, not the D or R label they happen to slap on to win office.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I disagree with your characterization of Paul as a "third party themed" candidate. Now that aside, you only change the political landscape by being political and in a major party. This is why the tea party and liberty movement have enjoyed success and Occupy Wall Street went the way of the Dodo bird.

Paul was and is an uncompromising constitutionalist and libertarian, and that is why his candidacy stood out in two GOP primary races stacked with statists. So let's not re-write history, he ran a principled 3rd party campaign in a major party race, using resources from outside a party establishment. That is the core method, not the save the GOP holy grail that came later, that the establishment knows how to beat.

That establishment otherwise has two modes with regards to alternatives--they either co-opt and/or neutralize it from within, or they marginalize it and/or crush it from without. The Tea Party has been basically co-opted or neutralized, it 'enjoys success' from the Republican hip pocket. Occupy refused to be co-opted, so the establishment crushed it. Either way, be it crushed or neutralized, a movement is defeated from changing the landscape.

The liberty movement is so far succeeding (fitfully) because its infrastructure (the grassroots, CFL, the Paul mailing list, alternative media, money bombs, etc) remain OUTSIDE Republican control. Your examples illustrate my point, not rebut it.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

CNN's rigged "polling" before the Iowa caucus that influenced Santorum to win: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-top-gingrich-fading-santorum-rising-in-iowa/

I love how Santorum was basically the runner-up to Romney in the 2012 GOP primaries, but is already back in low single digit land. It's like 2012 never even happened for him.

 

[RickyJ]

The real truth of the matter is, the VOTERS can be won over, and the election can be WON by shaping the message to appeal to the masses, and being an attractive option on the poll sheet.

Unfortunately, the real truth of the matter is your vote doesn't count. The elite will not let anyone win that is not going to do their bidding, it just won't happen.

 

[TheTyke]

Unfortunately, the real truth of the matter is your vote doesn't count. The elite will not let anyone win that is not going to do their bidding, it just won't happen.

/facepalm We had people posting repeatedly saying that "they" wouldn't let Rand win his senate race either. We did it anyhow. Rand's opponent was Sec. of State, running the election. There are ways to counter voter fraud. It all comes down to tactics. What that mentality says though is: "They won't let us win. If we win, it means we sold out." or in other words "There's no way to win! Deessspaaaiiir."

 

[jbauer]

Means nothing right now.

We're three years before it matters. Who thought frothy would win any states prior to January 12?

 

[KingNothing]

This is MSM polling... question the credibility.

This again? Really, guys?

 

[KingNothing]

/facepalm We had people posting repeatedly saying that "they" wouldn't let Rand win his senate race either. We did it anyhow. Rand's opponent was Sec. of State, running the election. There are ways to counter voter fraud. It all comes down to tactics. What that mentality says though is: "They won't let us win. If we win, it means we sold out." or in other words "There's no way to win! Deessspaaaiiir."

Some posters are this message board are insane.