How is Rand polling this low?

jonhowe

jonhowe

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
1,820
Looking at the newest polls on RealClearPolitics, Rand is at 1-3%. 2.3% average. How is it possible that Ron (who was older, far less 'main stream', far less 'well spoken', and a mere congressman) was polling above where Rand is now? The difference is stark from 2011 to now. We're literally getting less than half as much support. I don't understand how this is possible.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Are we doing something wrong? Does Rand just not capture the 'purist' voters? Has the demographic changed? Is it Bernie Sanders? What do we do?
 
It is largely due to the demographics they are polling, plus the top 2 or 3 candidates dominating the media coverage. If you take into account the margins of error, there are 5 or 6 candidates who are all tied for 3rd or 4th.
 
CPUd said:
It is largely due to the demographics they are polling, plus the top 2 or 3 candidates dominating the media coverage. If you take into account the margins of error, there are 5 or 6 candidates who are all tied for 3rd or 4th.
Click to expand...

Or its rigged. If they wanted Paul he would be the main front runner by now, noticed how they are keeping Bush at 9% or 11% in the polls?
 
There's definitely many factors but my gut feel is it's a lot of the following:

  • A very large segment of voters supported Ron Paul because he always spoke his mind and never backed down. The candidate that does that this cycle is Trump.
  • Rand speaks like an extremely calculated politician. I think a lot of people pick up on this
  • 35% of Republicans are anti-war, and Rand did not attempt to position himself as an anti-war candidate until the most recent debate, which was likely too late for many.
  • Rand Paul does not speak well or have leadership stature. Trump called him "shrill" and honestly I think a lot of people outside this forum would agree with that.
  • Internet/youth activists have gone to Bernie Sanders. There was no comparable candidate in previous cycles except Mike Gravel who just never caught on like Bernie did.

(Embracing for incoming neg reps, let me preemptively say that I'm not a Troll, nor a Trump supporter)
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
There's definitely many factors but my gut feel is it's a lot of the following:

  • A very large segment of voters supported Ron Paul because he always spoke his mind and never backed down. The candidate that does that this cycle is Trump.
  • Rand speaks like an extremely calculated politician. I think a lot of people pick up on this
  • 35% of Republicans are anti-war, and Rand did not attempt to position himself as an anti-war candidate until the most recent debate, which was likely too late for many.
  • Rand Paul does not speak well or have leadership stature. Trump called him "shrill" and honestly I think a lot of people outside this forum would agree with that.
  • Internet/youth activists have gone to Bernie Sanders. There was no comparable candidate in previous cycles except Mike Gravel who just never caught on like Bernie did.

(Embracing for incoming neg reps, let me preemptively say that I'm not a Troll, nor a Trump supporter)
Click to expand...

I agree with all of your points except for the third one. There's no way that 35% of Republicans are anti war. If that were the case then Ron would've received a far higher percentage of the vote when he ran in 2008 and 2012, and GOP voters are even more hawkish this time around due to the rise of ISIS.
 
CPUd said:
It is largely due to the demographics they are polling, plus the top 2 or 3 candidates dominating the media coverage. If you take into account the margins of error, there are 5 or 6 candidates who are all tied for 3rd or 4th.
Click to expand...

Yes, with everyone splitting the percentages so thin there is a group that's virtually tied when considering the margin of error.

Also, although the debates started earlier in 2012... after the first two debates Ron still only polled 3% and 5% in Iowa.

At the time Bachmann was at 30% and it was only around the third debate that she started falling off and Ron picked up.

And we all know that he finished with 21.5%... 3% short of winning.

So the season started a bit later this time, but the caucus is pushed back too. Comparing this point in the campaign/debate schedule with 2011 Rand is pretty much right where Ron was. No reason to panic now.
 
Last edited:
Brett85 said:
I agree with all of your points except for the third one. There's no way that 35% of Republicans are anti war. If that were the case then Ron would've received a far higher percentage of the vote when he ran in 2008 and 2012, and GOP voters are even more hawkish this time around due to the rise of ISIS.
Click to expand...


Fair enough... "anti-war" was not the right choice of words. I got the 35% figure from a poll on the Iran deal which claimed 35% of GOP voters supported it.
 
brandon said:
There's definitely many factors but my gut feel is it's a lot of the following:

  • A very large segment of voters supported Ron Paul because he always spoke his mind and never backed down. The candidate that does that this cycle is Trump.
  • Rand speaks like an extremely calculated politician. I think a lot of people pick up on this
  • 35% of Republicans are anti-war, and Rand did not attempt to position himself as an anti-war candidate until the most recent debate, which was likely too late for many.
  • Rand Paul does not speak well or have leadership stature. Trump called him "shrill" and honestly I think a lot of people outside this forum would agree with that.
  • Internet/youth activists have gone to Bernie Sanders. There was no comparable candidate in previous cycles except Mike Gravel who just never caught on like Bernie did.

(Embracing for incoming neg reps, let me preemptively say that I'm not a Troll, nor a Trump supporter)
Click to expand...

I don't think he's calculating, I think he see's problems as less black and white and more nuanced.
 
Here I thought a shrill was that hairy thing that lives on top of Donald Trumps head.
 
brandon said:
Fair enough... "anti-war" was not the right choice of words. I got the 35% figure from a poll on the Iran deal which claimed 35% of GOP voters supported it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which poll that was, but most polls show a much smaller percentage of Republican voters in favor of the Iran deal than that.
 
brandon said:
Fair enough... "anti-war" was not the right choice of words. I got the 35% figure from a poll on the Iran deal which claimed 35% of GOP voters supported it.
Click to expand...
Some of them may not support it for anti-war reasons, though. Some may support it because they feel that something bad might happen in the future that can be blamed on Iran, and then they can blame it on the Democrats for GOP political advantage. Weird, I know, but I've talked to a few people who feel that way.
 
There's many factors:

-Trying to appeal to mainstream Republicans and the liberty movement in the way he has just ends up turning both wings off
-Railing against Trump like he did made him look like part of the establishment
-Labeling himself a s a "different kind of Republican", "a real conservative" and "libertarianish" muddles his message
-Attempting to appeal to some rainbow coalition of minority voters is a stillborn strategy that will never work

His campaign has been dysfunctional and inconsistent for a long time now. I hate to say it, but it's true.
 
carlton said:
I don't think he's calculating, I think he see's problems as less black and white and more nuanced.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that he likely does see the nuance in issues more than others, but he doesn't really come off that way. I can't even count how many times I've heard him asked a hard hitting question and his response is "Well, The interesting thing is..." and then he goes on to give some milquetoast response about a tangentially related topic while skirting what was asked.
 
Here's a case study of the difference between Ron and Rand. The actual subject matter isn't important. What's important is Ron comes across as honest, confident, and strong. Rand comes across as weaselly and calculated. I think voters, regardless of their stance on drug issues, just loved Ron's in your face, fuck political correctness attitude.

Ron Paul asked about his stance on drug legalization. He's completely confident and defends his position, no questions asked and no sugar coating("Are you suggesting heroin and prostitution are exercise of personal liberty?" Ron Paul: "Yes"):


Rand Paul asked about marijuana legalization. His answer is politically calculated and soft. He defers to racial issues and some weak emotional appeal about medical marijuana.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
Here's a case study of the difference between Ron and Rand. The actual subject matter isn't important. What's important is Ron comes across as honest, confident, and strong. Rand comes across as weaselly and calculated. I think voters, regardless of their stance on drug issues, just loved Ron's in your face, fuck political correctness attitude.

Ron Paul asked about his stance on drug legalization. He's completely confident and defends his position, no questions asked and no sugar coating:


Rand Paul asked about marijuana legalization. His answer is politically calculated and soft. He defers to racial issues and some weak emotional appeal about medical marijuana.
Click to expand...


They also said Ron Paul wanted to legalize heroin because of his drug positions.
 
It makes sense if you think about it.

First, Rand is less "pure" than his father, so Rand is only going to get a part of his father's original base. To surpass his father's total, Rand would have to win new supporters from elsewhere. But Rand's campaign thus far has mostly been about pissing off traditional conservative voters, so he hasn't really gained any new voters to make up for the Ron Paul voters put off by his lack of "purism". In truth, Ron probably did a better job appealing to traditional conservative voters because at least with his positions on things like Abortion and Home Schooling brought in some single issue Conservatives that cared passionately about those issues but weren't otherwise "Libertarian" at all.
 
Ron Paul never won a single primary or caucus. Let's not pretend like Rand's only problem is that he's not enough like Ron.
 
brandon said:
Here's a case study of the difference between Ron and Rand. The actual subject matter isn't important. What's important is Ron comes across as honest, confident, and strong. Rand comes across as weaselly and calculated. I think voters, regardless of their stance on drug issues, just loved Ron's in your face, fuck political correctness attitude.

Ron Paul asked about his stance on drug legalization. He's completely confident and defends his position, no questions asked and no sugar coating("Are you suggesting heroin and prostitution are exercise of personal liberty?" Ron Paul: "Yes"):


Rand Paul asked about marijuana legalization. His answer is politically calculated and soft. He defers to racial issues and some weak emotional appeal about medical marijuana.
Click to expand...


I love Ron's response to that question so much. And I've never noticed this before, but Chris Wallace called Ron "Senator" at 1:35 in the first clip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top