Stoners Stand With Rand.
Posted on 04/09/2015 12:42:59 AM PDT by Plummz
The latest poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) fares the best among the presumed 2016 Republican presidential candidates against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with independent voters, and is one of the top three contenders overall against her.
The poll was conducted from March 26th through March 31st of 989 registered voters, 80 percent by telephone, and 20 percent over the internet to reach respondents without landline phones. The margin of error was +/- 3.1 percent.
Clinton still leads the entire Republican field by 3 to 9 points, but has dropped from the 7 to 10 point advantage she had in PPP’s February poll.
Paul, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) were the strongest matchups against Clinton out of all potential Republican contenders, and had statistically identical results. Clinton leads Paul 46 percent to 42 percent, Walker by the same margin, and Rubio 46 percent to 43 percent.
Paul performed the best out of all Republicans with independent voters, beating Clinton by 14 points, 47 percent to 33 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Curious. Not a single mention of Ted Cruz. Do they think ignoring him will make him go away?
Stoners Stand With Rand.
Absolutely meaningless factoid.
Stoners stand with Rand.
well, they (hopefully!) won’t have the current Stoner-in-Chief to stand with anymore....
so Rand picks up the Stoner vote from Obama!
an interesting campaign strategy, that...
I swear we need to put that statement out as a bumper sticker.
Would make LEO’s job easier.
Isn’t PPP a Democrat leaning organization?
Hillary! Is simply leading due to name recognition and her association with Bill. The more people see Hillary!, the more they dislike her.
The Breitbart article goes on to mention that the poll is slightly overweighted with Democrats. But we can only excerpt Breitbart articles here on FR and not post the whole thing.
I don’t know why Breitbart didn’t mention Cruz. PPP polled Cruz and had him losing to Hillary 49-43% overall, but beating Hillary 46-41% among independents.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_40715.pdf
People have short memories. In 2008 the Democrats ran the most under-qualified and extreme candidate in their history.
Republicans responded by running the most experienced, and arguably the most respected candidate in their history (certainly of those alive). In fact, John McCain WAS LOVED by “independents”, just like Senator Paul.
Then it was time to campaign. McCain, famous for never having a bad thing to say about Democrats (or a good thing to say about Republicans) found himself simply UNABLE TO ATTACK Mr. Obama’s weaknesses - and Obama sailed right into the White House. In fact, I remember a number of examples where McCain was telling the base to SHUT UP when they were pointing out issues with Obama. I also remember the debates, where McCain stood there reading talking points like it was some kind of medical journal conference or something.
Senator Paul has done similar, essentially calling Republicans RACISTS, for example, for supporting Voter ID (something that a slight majority of blacks support, or at least supported, in the past). He’s also right up there with shutting down our jails, letting felons vote, and opening our borders (as I remember, his main problem with the Senate 2013 Amnesty bill was that it was too slow to open the floodgates).
We ran McCain once, we don’t need a younger version of him to run again.
That said:
DO NOT TRUST RAND PAUL!™
Regardless of what you think about Rand Paul on other issues, your argument about being “unable to attack” does not hold water. He has no problem attacking the opposition. He came out swinging against Hillary when no one else would, during the Benghazi hearings.
I also think you are mischaracterizing his stance on his attempt to reform the penal system. I give him credit for starting the conversation.
On amnesty, I’m not as sure about his stance. I do believe he may have some problems on that one.
Whistling past the graveyard I’d expect.
As far as this “independent” thing goes, if they’re talking about a non-declared political preference with respect to primary elections, that’s okay because I often am so mad at the GOP I can’t see straight.
If they are talking about “independent” as an undecided, moderate or other political bent, then I pretty much chalk that up to certain types of people who either like to be pandered to, or just are contrarian.
This whole independents/moderates as a bloc myth is what got us Rove and his ilk - what got us McCain and Romney. To me, it’s a case of US against evil (being the Democrat Party). The last thing I want is to see this thought process do is to keep a real conservative from flourishing just to nudge along an “independent” candidate with a really weird support base.
Romney won the independents. It doesn’t matter if you can’t get the base out. Rand Paul isn’t going to be the nominee.
You are correct. Hillary polls well because her name is easily recognizable. It’s right up there with “yeast infection”.
All nonsense, none of that is true.
Correct, Mitt Romney did win Independents.
Romney was the first nominee in history to win hugely among the independents, yet lose the race, and he did it in an election that couldn’t lose.
—”Romney first to win independents big, lose election”
—”Whoever wins independent voters in Ohio, wins Ohio,” Beeson said on “Fox News Sunday,” two days before the election.
He was, of course, wrong. Romney won self-identified Independents in Ohio by a overwhelming 10 points, according to exit polls, but lost the state to President Barack Obama by 2 points.
A similar trend was seen across much of the country — Romney won among Independents by 5 points, 50-45, but lost to Obama, 51-48.
—INFOGRAPHIC: Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State
The president only won the independent vote in one battleground state: North Carolina.
Things looked very different for Obama in 2008, when independent voters came out in huge numbers to support him.
Just before Election Day, the Wall Street Journal reported those polling numbers had hardly changed, with Romney overwhelmingly leading among independent voters across the country. Republican pollster Bill McInteruff told the Journal the Democrats were “really flirting with trouble if you’re losing independents by this margin.”
So what is the connection to post 17?
Obama beat McCain among independent voters 52-44%. McCain’s “bomb bomb bomb Iran”, bomb everything, every war everywhere now, campaign was a loser.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.