Rand at 2% in latest poll, Trump back on top

[TheNewYorker]

I heard there was a proposal to split the group in half by random selection. Then do two debates. Graham really really wants to go after Rand on FP.

What's Grahams deal with Rand? Why is he so hell bent on it?

I actually think having that idiot in a debate with Rand would send Rands ratings through the roof though.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't understand why a number of people here say Rand still has a decent shot at winning the nomination. I heard people on-line(on other websites) say that Ron Paul can win by massive write-ins in 2008 general election. And it came out not even close. I say Rand shouldn't continue the primaries if he does badly in IA and NH if that would cost him his senate seat. Rand is much better at being a senator and do those fillibusters or whatever he does. It's not smart to definitely lose the seat for a nearly impossible chance of winning the election. It's better to drop out and have a good chance of retaining the senate seat rather than continue, lose the senate seat and almost certainly lose the GOP primaries nomination.

Okay. You realize that the overwhelming majority of people didn't actually think Ron would win by a write in campaign right? I bet some of the people that said "He could win" didn't think he actually could. That wasn't the point. In fact when I got involved in RPFP back in 2007 initially I didn't think we had a shot. I don't think Ron thought that either. He was shocked as anybody at the amount of money that was raised for him online. Then...for a moment....we all thought "Maybe he can actually win this thing." That said, I don't think the money I donated or the time I spent phone banking or door knocking was a waste just because we didn't win. (Putting up signs saying "Google Ron Paul" was a waste because most people didn't "Google" him and just went around thinking "Who is this Ron Paul everyone wants me to Google?") But the bottom line is that my choices were work for the Ron Paul campaign or drop out of politics altogether because nobody else was worth a crap. (Well, ultimately I voted for Chuck Baldwin in the general and he was endorsed by Ron Paul. I have nothing against those that insisted on the write in except for the fact that it was a waste of even a protest vote. Votes for Baldwin showed up on election night coverage. Write ins didn't count for squat. But some folks just won't listen.)

That said, folks WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD THE FIRST REAL VOTE! Talk for Rand dropping out now is frankly chicken shit. If you feel like donated to someone at 2% is a waste then fine, don't donate. If you don't want to volunteer then don't volunteer. But don't discourage those who are doing something by saying "Rand should drop out." Why the hell should he? As some have pointed out, his senate seat is safe. The "Rand needs to protect his senate seat" is propaganda put out by the Erik Erickson fake conservatives of the world. "Oh we love Rand as a senator. But he should drop out to protect his seat." Bollocks! The only reason they "love Rand" is because Rand's been willing to meet them at least part way on foreign policy and do asinine things like sign the Tom Cotton letter or vote for Iran sanctions. That's acceptable to me because there is an end goal in mind...the presidency. But if Rand gives up on that before the first real votes are even cast then he should quit being Ted Cruz light and go "full Ron." In fact if he went "full Ron" a while back he might be higher than 2%. Certainly "full Ron" wouldn't have carried Mitch McConnell's water for him when it came to defending McConnell against Ted Cruz' truthful assertion that Mitch McConnell is a liar.

Now. Here's what you really need to look at. 2016 is not 2008. And in between there was 2012. In 2012, even with Ron in the crapper in the national polls, Ron won delegates. Rand was at one point the front runner in the national polls. Ron never was. Rand has much of the same team in place that won Ron delegates in 2012. Ron almost won Iowa in 2012 with a less experienced team and never leading in the polls and never having his face on the cover to Time magazine! So, there's a better than even chance that Rand will take Iowa. If Rand does worse in Iowa in 2016 than Ron did in 2012 then you can start talking about "Well maybe he should drop out." But talking about that now, when it might hurt the morale of the people at home donating and making phone calls or out in Iowa knocking on doors or in their home states working on ballot access, is beyond asinine. And sorry if I'm coming across harsh. This isn't meant to be personal. You just happen to be one of a growing group of people who were seemingly willing to stick with Ron regardless of how bad the polls were but are ready to join the RedState morons in calling for Rand to prematurely drop out. I get it. Regardless of how Ron was doing in the polls he was "carrying the message." Rand's carrying it too, though not as well as Ron, and that's because of campaign strategy. Let's see how Iowa and New Hampshire actually turn out before attacking that strategy. Otherwise this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. People say "Rand should drop out if he doesn't do well in Iowa and New Hampshire" and others who might jump in the fray sit on the sidelines waiting to see what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire and as a result he doesn't do well in Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

I heard there was a proposal to split the group in half by random selection. Then do two debates.

Where'd you hear that?

 

[Brett85]

It's weird that they would release a poll like this that was conducted almost entirely before the debate occurred.

 

[jmdrake]

You have made so many false statements that you don't even know what you are talking about.

First, Rand CAN run for President and the Senate. That was the whole point of having KY move from a primary to a caucus state.

Second, NO ONE said Rand was the "undisputed nominee." Rand has NEVER been a front runner or led in any national polls. Early in the game before there were a whopping 15 people, Rand was around 8, 10, maybe 12%.

Third, Ron was NOT at 8% nationally at this point in time. He was a 3% up until December 2011 when Ron broke out of the pack in Iowa and shot up to 25%. All hell broke loose within the media and establishment. Rush, Beck, Levin, you name them ALL went on the attack against Ron to drive his negatives up and the rest was history.

My point is anything can happen. Walker was the clear frontrunner earlier this year. Where is he now? Bush was a frontrunner. How's that going for him? Oh did you hear that Bush's top campaign aid departed? I still say Bush is gone very soon. Anything can happen in the next 3 months. I mean ANYTHING! Rand is simply holding tight, doing his "thang" and running a very tight low budget campaign with the grassroots. Iowa and NH is where the game it at. These national polls do not mean SHIT except to see if who get into the stupid fake debates.

Stay tuned...

Oh and I have never even heard of that polling company above. Much better ones out there to pay attention to especially the local polling companies in Iowa and NH doing their own states.

Good post. But you are wrong in your assertion that Rand Paul was never the front runner.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/09/13/rand-paul-2016-republican-frontrunner/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzog...ds-the-gop-pack-for-2016-and-not-by-a-little/

A new Zogby Analytics poll of likely Republican primary voters in 2016 shows Rand Paul starting to build a lead over better known – and more establishment – GOP figures. The poll of 282 likely and eligible voters in GOP presidential primaries was conducted June 27-29 and has a margin-of-sampling error of +/-6 percentage points.

In the poll, the junior Senator from Kentucky polls 20%, followed by “Establishment” candidates New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush with 13% each. In fourth place is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker with 8%, then Florida Senator Marco Rubio 7%, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindahl 4%, and New Mexico Governor Suzanna Martinez, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley all with 1% each.

This is the first time a GOP candidate has reached 20% in a crowded field and the first time a Zogby poll has shown someone emerging a bit from the pack.

So Rand Paul had a huge lead at one point in the national polls and that lead has been blown. It's not healthy to pretend that the lead was never there or that "polls don't matter." Polls tell you something. In this case people who at one time liked Rand either soured on him or were more excited about someone else. And that someone else turned out to be Donald Trump. And the "winning issue" for Trump was immigration attacked to his bombastic delivery style. Also Trump is the consummate outsider, and since going to Washington Rand has played some insider politics. Much less than any other senator IMO including Ted Cruz, but he has played some and it has hurt him. I think people are being "negative nancys" because they didn't like everything Rand did on his way to that 20% in the polls (I certainly don't) and now that he's down it's a chance to say "See? Kissing up to the teocons doesn't work anyway. Just drop out already and lets get ready for 2020." My concern is, the way things are going I don't know if we'll have a nation by then.

 

[jmdrake]

What's Grahams deal with Rand? Why is he so hell bent on it?

Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Hillary Clinton support Al Qaeda and Rand doesn't.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Liberty74 and jmdrake have made the most insightful responses here, so I'll just add that while the Trump and Carson phenomenon did not create the dense candidate field, it certainly is contributing to keeping the field large. In political physics, actions (including thought patterns) lead to equal and opposite reactions. Meaning, if people are going to insist that Trump and Carson are going to fade or can't possibly win the nomination, they can't complain if the other candidates think the same, and thus decide to stay in the race waiting for the top two to slide.

Given the reality that most of the candidates want to stay in due to ego, Super PAC backing, or believing Trump/Carson will collapse, or from thinking no one will have a majority of delegates (so they want to be brokers in a brokered convention), the field will remain dense. So this will create more problems for Rand in breaking out, or in emerging as the 'true' singular non-establishment candidate.

 

[MarcusI]

So Rand Paul had a huge lead at one point in the national polls and that lead has been blown. It's not healthy to pretend that the lead was never there or that "polls don't matter." Polls tell you something.

Yes, but you pick out one single poll from September 2013! To show the full picture:
Here is the look on the RCP average, starting July 2013 (maximum time span to which you can extend the graphical overview):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

Rand was at no point the undisputed frontrunner. In Oct 2013, and from May to August 2014 (which is ages ago, no candidate announced that he would run that early) he was leading the RCP average, but only by a margin - maximum difference to the 2nd place was exactly 1.0 %. He polled between 12% and 17% from July 2013 to July 2014 and between 8% and 12% from August 2014 to early July 2015. Since early July - thats exactly when T-Rumps polling numbers started to explode - Rand went down to below 5%.

There was never a "huge" lead.

 

[Jan2017]

Carly at 3% down from 9% in that poll a month ago - and margin of error +/- 5 points is large, so very small sample size

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

It's weird that they would release a poll like this that was conducted almost entirely before the debate occurred.

I first read about this poll on a NBC site. It seems to me that it is an attempt to seed the results they want for polls being conducted right now.

 

[Okie RP fan]

the senate seat is in no danger. its Kentucky, and the Dems don't even have a candidate. Rand is a great senator but they still pass what they want. we need a liberty president.

if Trump and Carson fall apart their votes will go to Rand, to Cruz but not the others. so good ground game could pull it out.

but more likely is the VP. 10% of delegates in a brokered convention could pull it off, and most VP do become president.

With all due respect, this is a delusion, and I figured most people on here would know that.
We will NEVER have a "Liberty President" and to think otherwise is extremely naive and foolish. Look what happened with Ron during all 3 of his campaigns…

I have advocated so many times but people seem to not care or want to pursue this method: we have a better shot at influencing with electing reps and sens, both on the state and federal levels, than we have of pursuing a presidential candidate.

-

Oh, and Rand still doesn't have half of Ron's support, and he's turned off too many of the dumb Republicans just by having the Paul name. He has no shot, sorry to lay it out there. People should have been pouring their money into other causes, because unlike Ron, Rand hasn't even been pushing a liberty message or a non-interventionist foreign policy (certainly not to the extent that it's awakening more people). I understand this is an unpopular opinion and will probably be met with criticism, but that's the way it is.

 

[BrooklynZoo]

but more likely is the VP. 10% of delegates in a brokered convention could pull it off, and most VP do become president.

Oh sure, and a testament to this is the terms of President Quayle, President Gore, President Cheney and soon to be President Biden.

 

[dillo]

Theres no reason to quit before Iowa, Santorum pulled a win from nowhere.

 

[Okie RP fan]

One other thing I will say is that if/when Rand drops out, watch the others do so. I still think the likes of Huckabee and Santorum are running to dilute and distract.
Rand had way more momentum with what he was doing and his name going into this race, so the establishment had to dilute the waters as much as they can, hence 16 (or however many) candidates.

 

[derek4ever]

It would be great if Rand uses his fillerbuster from the other day as part of a new ad. I think this would really help go after those people who are on the fence. If there's anything we've learned from the past years is the fact that, if we're well organized enough, we can make a major impact. We should contest all the states and territories we can. But I'd put a special emphasis on those caucus states and states with open or modified primaries, because of Rand's cross-over appeal. Let's get this started!!

 

[JohnCifelli1]

I'll point out that the sum of percentages in this poll appears to be less than normal by 6-7 points. There could be closer to 3% than 2% if the total was in line with the other polls. Small silver lining, but I love silver.

 

[Crashland]

Remember, in order to not get relegated to the undercard debate, Rand needs to have 2.5% in the 4 most recent national polls as of November 4. It will be close. I still haven't found which polling companies would be counted as national polls, and it is also very possible that at least 2 out of those 4 polls haven't even been released yet. Kind of surprised they are using such a low sample size of only the 4 most recent polls as the qualification measure.

 

[derek4ever]

I remember Ron was polling at about 3% this time in 08 and 9% this time in 2012. Rand is polling an average 3% in the RCP average.

If we go month by month, he had an average of 2.8% in October, 2.7% in September, 3% in August, 5.15% in July, 7.5% in June, 8.5% in May and 10% in April. That gives him an overall average of 5.67%.

Ron announced in May 13 2011 and I'll calculate his total average. If we go month by month, he had an average of 8.16% in October, 8.38% in September, 8.46% in August, 8.22% in July, 6.6% in June and 5.1% in May. That gives him an overall average of 7.49% (he got 10.89% of the popular vote, which is a 3.4% bump!)

Ron announced in January 11 2008 and I'll calculate his total average. If we go month by month, he had an average of 2.46% in October, 2% in September, 2.25% in August, 1.88% in July, 1.7% in June, 1.17% in May, 1.4% in April, 1.75% in March, 1% in February and 1% in January. That gives him an overall average of 1.66% (he got 5.54% of the popular vote, which is a 3.88% bump!)

If the primaries were over today, Rand would get about 9.31% of the total popular vote (add his 5.67% average plus the average of the margin of error bumps for Ron 08 and Ron 12, which is 3.64), so it may not be much, but it's still encouraging that Rand might have a secret plan that can help him later on in the game (plus the fact that the primaries don't start until February can also be a plus!)

 

[Aquinas]

One other thing I will say is that if/when Rand drops out, watch the others do so. I still think the likes of Huckabee and Santorum are running to dilute and distract.
Rand had way more momentum with what he was doing and his name going into this race, so the establishment had to dilute the waters as much as they can, hence 16 (or however many) candidates.

I know I'm new here, but it still surprises me every time I see the argument that candidate X or candidate Y is simply running to siphon support from Rand. Why would anyone go through the process of campaigning, hiring staff, traveling, sucking up to voters, debating, fundraising and so on and so on and so on for months on end when our sinister candidate X could just run a SuperPAC and nuke Rand with ads? Better yet, go on a talking head show and rhetorically kneecap Rand on TV! Saves a lot of time and effort! Even Lindsay Graham, who can't wait to confront Rand on a debate stage, is still salivating at the prospect of being "Your Commander-in-Chief".

What is wrong with the simple idea that a lot of Republicans with the ambition/ego/delusion to run for president have entered the race? Occam's Razor!

 

[Mr Stealth]

The other candidates are still pieces in the game, even though there may not be a sinister conspiracy club explicitly telling them to run because Rand is in the race.

Regardless of these individual candidates' motives, they are Republican establishment shills whose mere presence will draw attention from an anti establishment candidate like Rand who is working 100 times harder than any of them to gain traction.

Anyone who sees Rand as a threat should consider prolonging their campaigns. And yes, though Rand is not a libertarian purist, he is still a great and powerful threat to the establishment.