Zogby national poll: Rand Paul 20%, Christie 13%, Bush 13%, Walker 8%, Rubio 7%

[anaconda]

I think the Republican establishment itself has different factions, but I don't think the Romney-type, northeastern establishment is cold to Rand at all. I think they recognize the need to actually expand the party and win. People may think northeastern Repubs are crony/corporate welfare types, but that's not completely true. Many of those people are full-on with the Democratic party now. I've listened to executives, professors who are ex-executives, finance types and other business people speak, and a lot of them sound JUST LIKE Rand and Ron when it comes to economic and monetary issues. It's the neocon establishment that will be against Rand, and I've been saying this since 2011, that establishment is different from the traditional northeast business establishment.

Do you see this group as willing to part with the Federal Reserve as their holy grail?

 

[LibertyEsq]

Do you see this group as willing to part with the Federal Reserve as their holy grail?

It depends on who you talk to. A lot of the people I mentioned think the Federal Reserve keeps interest rates artificially low for political reasons. Whether that means they want to shut it down or not I don't know. I don't think the issue disqualifies Rand for many of them like Iraq does for the neocons.

Certaily it's worth at least trying to make the coalition.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

This poll is useful not for its accuracy (since it omits potential rivals) but for the momentum it fosters for Rand. It does not prove a deal was struck to make Rand the 'inside track' guy in 2016, as I think the Romney endorsement deal was a gambit to grant him a reprieve, to position Rand as somebody "who didn't abandon the GOP" when Ron didn't win in 2012. That gambit prevented the establishment from marginalizing Rand in the interim period (2013 - early 2015), but it won't help him come late '15 primary season, when the crunch time comes down.

The media and GOP establishment will be pushing Christie/Bush/Huck/Santorum hard at that point, and likely depress Rand to second tier contender at best. Events of recent weeks (Ukraine, Iraq, etc) show how effortlessly the neocon/pro-war/pro-surveillance set bounce back to life when a pretext for a new intervention emerges. More such pretexts will doubtless magically appear just in time to provide a drumbeat for the establishment guys.

 

[Brett85]

This is nice, but I doubt if this poll will even be included in the RCP average.

 

[anaconda]

It depends on who you talk to. A lot of the people I mentioned think the Federal Reserve keeps interest rates artificially low for political reasons. Whether that means they want to shut it down or not I don't know. I don't think the issue disqualifies Rand for many of them like Iraq does for the neocons.

Certaily it's worth at least trying to make the coalition.

This is probably naive and silly, but sometimes I wonder if Rand can actually inspire some of these establishment types into recovering a bit of patriotic pride for a bustling free and energetic society. Something they may have idealized at one time or another but became jaded to and cynical of.

 

[IndianaPolitico]

Pushing this on my Rand Paul facebook pages. (As should everyone else...)

 

[idiom]

Eye on the ball lads.

Ryan is the internal nominee. He gets Bush+Christie = 26% ++ the other dregs.

Rand has to at least double his take.

 

[RickyJ]

I knew from the second Rand endorsed Romney, that a deal was struck. Ron played a very strong hand in getting his son the future nomination. This was a master move.
From everything I have seen, the GOP, the media and the ground forces for positioning have been paying back Ron for the deal he made at the convention.
Now he just has to steal enough swing votes from Clinton and win the WH.

You believe there is honor among these people? They have no honor and lie constantly. No deal can ever be made with the devil and turn out good.

 

[Matt Collins]

1- this is Zogby, and they are Democrats, and not that accurate...

2- if this is true, it worries me, if he's at the top, that means he has one direction he can go.... don't want to peak too early

 

[jtstellar]

One poll doesn't mean much. Its the compilation that matters.

for me i would say the most up to date information is the most relevant

 

[Crashland]

2- if this is true, it worries me, if he's at the top, that means he has one direction he can go.... don't want to peak too early

I disagree. For some candidates (like every GOP candidate in 2012 except for Romney), they are inherently weak candidates and the only way they can win is if they time it perfectly, peaking at the right time. It doesn't have to play out that way though. McCain's win and Romney's win were not so much peaking at the right time as it was a slow and steady progress as the other candidates had their brief moments. I think for Rand it is best for him to continue building and maintaining his status as a strong leader in the GOP. If that means opening up a lead I don't see that as a bad thing. Better to get as much vetting as possible done earlier rather than later.

 

[Vanguard101]

1- this is Zogby, and they are Democrats, and not that accurate...

2- if this is true, it worries me, if he's at the top, that means he has one direction he can go.... don't want to peak too early

If he wasn't polling in double digits, Paul would be in the same shape as his dad. Paul's numbers are consistently improving in places we need. Example-When he polls against Hilary. His numbers only went up because Cruz wasn't in the race. Bush/Christie's numbers would also go up if one wasn't in the race.

 

[Keith and stuff]

No one should let this great news make us complacent - it should have the opposite effect. We should be working to solidify this lead, I see no reason why we can't win both Iowa and NH if we keep up the momentum...Rand has all but declared his candidacy at this point

Yup. He even has staff in New Hampshire now. Sorta like Rick Perry already did.

 

[Superfly]

1- this is Zogby, and they are Democrats, and not that accurate...

2- if this is true, it worries me, if he's at the top, that means he has one direction he can go.... don't want to peak too early

Right, because it's the best strategy in any sport or game or election to be losing...that way...you can....win?

 

[Brett85]

if this is true, it worries me, if he's at the top, that means he has one direction he can go.... don't want to peak too early

So Hillary Clinton is in a bad position since she's ahead by 40-50% in the polls?

 

[dude58677]

So Hillary Clinton is in a bad position since she's ahead by 40-50% in the polls?

Hilliary has no upside. Her best days are behind her as she has full name recognition so more likely she is going to go downwards. Rand Paul has much less name recognition even among GOP opponents and yet still leads in the polls and is in close contention with Hilliary.

 

[Working Poor]

Ted Cruiz was left out of this poll right? Why do you think that is?

 

[LibertyEsq]

The difference between Rand and the 2012 candidates that had huge swings (Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum) is that Rand has an actual base of support, and has been differentiating himself from his rivals. Rand's support isn't going to drop off due to the media pumping up another candidate.

In 2012, Bachmann/Cain/Gingrich/Santorum were the same candidate in different packages, causing voters to jump to whoever the media was telling them could beat Romney that week.

Another interesting point: I don't think both Bush and Christie will run, as they would largely eat up each other's votes (no pun intended). I think Paul will be second choice for a decent amount of Christie voters, for example, although I think Christie is much more likely to run than Jeb. I don't see many would-be Bush voters voting Paul. The good news is Christie probably won't stand a chance in Iowa, and if we beat him in NH as well, Paul gets the nomination.

 

[Matt Collins]

I disagree. For some candidates (like every GOP candidate in 2012 except for Romney), they are inherently weak candidates and the only way they can win is if they time it perfectly, peaking at the right time. It doesn't have to play out that way though. McCain's win and Romney's win were not so much peaking at the right time as it was a slow and steady progress as the other candidates had their brief moments. I think for Rand it is best for him to continue building and maintaining his status as a strong leader in the GOP. If that means opening up a lead I don't see that as a bad thing. Better to get as much vetting as possible done earlier rather than later.

Right, because it's the best strategy in any sport or game or election to be losing...that way...you can....win?

It's called managing the expectations game... if Rand has high expectations, any time he doesn't meet those it will create a narrative that he isn't winning. It's easy not to meet expectations if they are so high.

On the other hand, when Rand exceeds expectations, it creates a narrative that he is winning.

So Hillary Clinton is in a bad position since she's ahead by 40-50% in the polls?

It will depend if there is anyone else serious in the race against her.

 

[Vanguard101]

The difference between Rand and the 2012 candidates that had huge swings (Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum) is that Rand has an actual base of support, and has been differentiating himself from his rivals. Rand's support isn't going to drop off due to the media pumping up another candidate.

In 2012, Bachmann/Cain/Gingrich/Santorum were the same candidate in different packages, causing voters to jump to whoever the media was telling them could beat Romney that week.

Another interesting point: I don't think both Bush and Christie will run, as they would largely eat up each other's votes (no pun intended). I think Paul will be second choice for a decent amount of Christie voters, for example, although I think Christie is much more likely to run than Jeb. I don't see many would-be Bush voters voting Paul. The good news is Christie probably won't stand a chance in Iowa, and if we beat him in NH as well, Paul gets the nomination.

I agree with the Christie part. They might be leaning towards Rand next. That's kinda how it was for Ron and Romney during the primary in NH. As of now, Bush is the establishment choice. I've heard from people in the GOP that are moderates/establishment say that Christie isn't getting big donors until Bush makes his decision. I'm sure only one will run. So, yeah, both won't run sadly.