Public Policy Polling - Vote Rand Paul

[JohnG]

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/

They're having a poll about who to include as their extra republican in their monthly 2012 poll. Surely that should be Rand Paul, right?

/John

 

[rprprs]

Well, I could eliminate all but ONE other contender.

 

[Fozz]

No. Ron Paul.

 

[robmpreston]

No thanks. I'll vote Ron.

 

[low preference guy]

please don't suggest Rand Paul. wait until he wins the Senate Seat.

 

[TheDriver]

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/

They're having a poll about who to include as their extra republican in their monthly 2012 poll. Surely that should be Rand Paul, right?

/John

I voted Rand, thanks!

 

[silverhandorder]

Chris Christie also looks like a good choice lately. Not better then RP but still he is a bad ass.

 

[sailingaway]

Well, I could eliminate all but ONE other contender.

Exactly. In fact it is slimy to split the vote. Rand can't run in 2012 because he would have zero record when he started running. He needs some time to get Kentucky firmly in his corner. I'm all for Rand in 2016, though. Between the two they are winning but by splitting the vote they may not do EITHER.

 

[trey4sports]

Ron kicks Rands ass on every single issue. I'll take a "fringe" candidate over a watered-down Paul any day of the week

 

[MRoCkEd]

You aren't interested in how Rand would do? This is not "who would you vote for" but who would you like to see polled.

We already know Ron gets 8-10%.

 

[freedoms-light]

I keep changing my choice... For now it's Ron...
Don't care if it's Ron or Rand polled, but if we could agree we would have the most votes. I'm going with whichever of the two has the most votes. Would rather have either one polled than neither of them.

 

[Nathan Hale]

We're splitting our vote here and it's going to cost us the spot!!!!

Rand has yet to even win his election and even if he does I consider it moral hazard to win a senate seat and then turn around and run for President. Make a commitment to serve in a seat for 6 years and then live up to that commitment (cough cough Hillary cough cough).

Ron, however, is often considered a possible 2012 candidate already, and since Gary Johnson isn't on the list, we should all unify and vote Ron.

 

[Nathan Hale]

You aren't interested in how Rand would do? This is not "who would you vote for" but who would you like to see polled.

We already know Ron gets 8-10%.

Do we? Polling can change rapidly, and Ron's spent a lot of time in the news.

 

[K466]

Ron Paul all the way, let's stop splitting our vote.

 

[sailingaway]

Do we? Polling can change rapidly, and Ron's spent a lot of time in the news.

I think that would vary by state. I could imagine 20% in Idaho or Montana, South Dakota (where he was in the 20%s of primary voting before the bailouts), Maine, or Pennsylvania (where he got 16% of the vote even before the bailouts), maybe even higher. And he came in second in Nevada, remember.

And that would be headlines.

 

[JohnG]

Hm, I believe this is for the 2012 poll against Obama, isn't it? Not the republican primary.

 

[amisspelledword]

Rand can't run in 2012 because he would have zero record when he started running.

i agree with you, but our current elected President had zero record also. I mean, Rand spent time "organizing" in his tax and charity organizations........

 

[TheDriver]

Go to the Ron Paul forum and plead your case for Ron.

This is Rand Paul forum!

Vote Rand!


ha!

 

[libertybrewcity]

Ron Paul is still winning despite Rand on the ballot splitting the vote!

 

[sailingaway]

Hm, I believe this is for the 2012 poll against Obama, isn't it? Not the republican primary.

Even better. Ron doesn't do as well in primaries as in head to head with Obama because some of his support comes from Dems and a LOT comes from independents. The GOP likes him ok but the various factions have their various favorites.