You don't have to do it. A Paul/Hillary match-up was done over a month a ago by a major pollster and showed him getting over 30 percent (despite his very low name recognition).
Okay, I agreed to it (other polls cited above show differently). Good change of subject from the argument I made, however.
Polls are consistently showing that 45% of the voters would never consider Hillary. These results suggest that 1/3 of the people who had decided to vote for anyone but Hillary reconsidered when the anyone was Ron Paul and decided to vote FOR Hillary.
I think the Republicans can find a little stronger candidate than Ron Paul.
Despite his very low name recognition? Heck Hillary's negatives are in the high 40s. Would you not expect an unnamed generic Republican to do just as well against her?
Please don’t take this negatively, I don’t mean it that way. Ron Paul has low name recognition amongst a lot of the population, hence low negative numbers because people don’t know much about him.
Hillary has the highest negative numbers of anyone I’ve ever known about. So the 30% numbers might fit in a matchup between Paul and Clinton, might be accurate in that circumstance.
The downside of that is that if people knew Paul better, his negatives would climb.