Bill Johnson overtakes Rand Paul in the polls - and his base of support is solid as a rock

AIPNews.com ^ | February 6, 2010

[EternalVigilance]

Bill Johnson for US Senate

Feb. 6, 2010

Contact: Jennifer Walker 270-604-1164
Contact: Bill Johnson 270-847-6511
press@kentuckybill.com
 
JOHNSON OVERTAKES PAUL IN THE POLLS

ELKTON — The Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign received the following poll results. Shamrock Polling conducted the statewide poll for an undisclosed client.  Questions regarding the poll can be directed to Persistence Consulting (persistenceconsulting@gmail.com).  The Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign did not pay for or participate in this poll.  The results are consistent with internal polling done by the campaign.

We asked 1,257 likely republican voters the following questions:

“Who are you planning on voting for US Senate in the republican primary on May 18th?”

Trey Grayson        27%
Bill Johnson          23%
Rand Paul            21%
Undecided           29%

We then asked are you strongly, moderately, or leaning towards your candidate?
 
Rand Paul               7%    27%    66%
Bill Johnson           72%    21%      7%
Trey Grayson          52%    14%   34%
            
Margin of Error  4.5%

[Theodore R.]

Remember, there is only one shot in KY — no runoffs. People in KY may never figure it all out.

[skinkinthegrass]

thanks, for the info. on TG's site. RW

A Kentucky Ping.

...for those interested.

Rand Paul: http://www.randpaul2010.com/
Trey Grayson: www.treygraysonforsenate.com
Bill Johnson: http://kentuckybill.com

[Theophilus]

We are owned by whomever owns the Federal Reserve. We are slaves to a Ceasar we don't even know.

it-is-now-mathematically-impossible-to-pay-off-the-u-s-national-debt

Read it and weep for our children and our children's children.

[Theophilus]

Hmm, sounds like a personal shot. No it's nothing personal, you must be proud to a Tennessean. I would not take it personally if you said you wished Rand Paul was running in Tennessee so that you could vote against him :-)

[fieldmarshaldj]

Sure. Of course, I do get a kick out of Paleos lecturing on national security and foreign policy. They have as much credibility on the subject as John Edwards and Bubba Clinton do on marital fidelity. Nothing personal, y'know. :-)

[LibertarianInExile]

“If Paul’s supporters are really conservatives there shouldn’t be any problem. They will go to Johnson, not Grayson. If they’re not conservatives, it’s a different story. An interesting one, but different.”

Again, failing to answer the question: you wouldn’t support Paul if he won the primary, would you?

And you know my problem with what you’re doing isn’t that Paul’s votes will be split between Johnson and Grayson. It’s that what you’re trying to do is push a split of CONSERVATIVE votes between Paul and Johnson, and that will get conservatives nowhere.

Painting Paul as some sort of royalty is just as wrongheaded. When were Ron Paul or Rand Paul ever anointed to anything in Kentucky, or even Texas? We’re not talking about candidates who can do no wrong in the eyes of the party hierarchy or even party faithful, but the stink of Kennedy-style nepotism you’re falsely tossing at both good men (for purely political reasons).

I might not agree with Bill Johnson, but he’d at least get my vote before a Grayson McQueeg type. Disingenuous is the nicest word I can think of to describe your behavior.

[EternalVigilance]

Disingenuous? Hardly. I’ve made it clear that I don’t support pro-choice for states candidates.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Unfortunately, it’s steaming and only good for fertilizing the yard.

ROFL!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

How can we tell which of the conservatives is the real candidate

What it really boils down to is this:

- Name recognition
- Fundraising abilities
- Conservative message that appeals to independents

Rand Paul's a winner in all three. Bill Johnson might be more conservative but if you have all the personality of plywood, you ain't winning jack.

[EternalVigilance]

That’s just plain silly. Bill Johnson connects with the people of KY so much better than the other two candidates it isn’t even close.

[EternalVigilance]

I had a good friend in the room at the McCreary County Lincoln Day dinner tonight. Bill Johnson got a standing ovation while the other two got polite applause.

[dangus]

What a crock! Rasmussen didn’t even poll Johnson.

[dangus]

What a crock! Rasmussen didn’t even poll Johnson.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks EternalVigilance.

[LibertarianInExile]

Speaking of crocks, uh, Rasmussen asked about “other candidates.” Johnson would typically be considered one of those by the rest of us. Of course, to you and EV, Rasmussen could only have polled about Greyson, Paul, and [insert heavenly choir here] The Second Coming of Jesus, Bill Johnson—to make the poll fair and accurate. That would properly put Johnson in His Rightful Perspective, right? I apologize for blaspheming against His Holiness Bill Johnson I! Please don’t beat this tired ol’ body, Marse Dangus!

[dangus]

>> Speaking of crocks, uh, Rasmussen asked about “other candidates. <<

Yeah, that LOOKS really good on paper, but the reality is that “some other candidate” ALWAYS translates into “Under no circumstance would I accept the candidates mentioned.” It is THOROUGHLY deceptive to claim that someone did terribly in a poll when the person was even not named as an option in that poll.

>> and [insert heavenly choir here] The Second Coming of Jesus, Bill Johnson. I apologize for blaspheming against His Holiness Bill Johnson I! <<

What’s funny is that not only do I not worship Bill Johnson I don’t know Bill Johnson from a hole in the ground. I just know that Grayson is a Clinton-loving Democrat and Paul is third-rate crackpot named after someone who fanticized about the deaths of billions of people.

Like apparently so many Kentuckians, I’m simply glad to know there is another choice; I hope he pans out to be a strong candidate. Which is exactly why it is rank dishonesty to cite a poll that doesn’t mention as if it finds Johnson is non-competitive.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Yeah, that LOOKS really good on paper, but the reality is that “some other candidate” ALWAYS translates into “Under no circumstance would I accept the candidates mentioned.” It is THOROUGHLY deceptive to claim that someone did terribly in a poll when the person was even not named as an option in that poll."

I'm sorry--but you just go over the top here. I'm a small l-libertarian. Even I don't think that Libertarians should bitch about not being named in polls or that it's deceptive to not name them in order to say THEY HAVE LOW SUPPORTER NUMBERS.

What’s funny is that not only do I not worship Bill Johnson I don’t know Bill Johnson from a hole in the ground. I just know that Grayson is a Clinton-loving Democrat and Paul is third-rate crackpot named after someone who fanticized about the deaths of billions of people.

Ah, showing your true colors with this canard. Rand Paul addressed this "named after" stuff already. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU

Like apparently so many Kentuckians, I’m simply glad to know there is another choice; I hope he pans out to be a strong candidate. Which is exactly why it is rank dishonesty to cite a poll that doesn’t mention as if it finds Johnson is non-competitive.

Rank dishonesty?!?!?!?! ROFLMAO! That's nuttier than a fruitcake mainlining pecans! Look, I don't care if you support the man, and frankly, I'd love to see Rasmussen poll on ALL candidates' name recognition, without naming any names at all, just to put this slimy poll here to rest. It is simply NOT dishonest or deceptive to leave out low-polling candidates. What you are is desperate for the free press!

[EternalVigilance]

Watching the debate on Saturday between Johnson and Paul and Grayson, it’s apparent that Rand Paul is losing it. He was angry, arrogant, defensive and really, really, unlikable. I have folks on the ground who have reported to me repeatedly that this is exactly how he’s coming across on the stump, too.

Anyone who says that Bill Johnson is not in this race doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

[dangus]

I don’t find it dishonest to omit someone from a poll, especially if that person is polling in the single digits and hasn’t attracted a fundraising base. What I was criticizing was omitting someone from a poll, and then citing the poll as evidence that he’s not polling well.

[longtermmemmory]

I think rand paul is just in it as just another “paul” opportunist.