Thread: New polls show Ron Paul more electable than Romney vs. Obama

At least they are consistent these Paul supporters.....Consistently deluded but consistent.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

At least they are consistent these Paul supporters.....Consistently deluded but consistent.

You're one to be talking about deluded. Every post you make on this forum shows you're delusional - not to mention completely unable to actually logically argue about anything. Just call people names, right Thanatos, that's all the little liberal in you has. Call people names, especially those Paulbots you're not smart enough to debate using sound logic and evidence to back up your opinions. Nope, just call names and distract, just like a good liberal.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

You're one to be talking about deluded. Every post you make on this forum shows you're delusional - not to mention completely unable to actually logically argue about anything. Just call people names, right Thanatos, that's all the little liberal in you has. Call people names, especially those Paulbots you're not smart enough to debate using sound logic and evidence to back up your opinions. Nope, just call names and distract, just like a good liberal.

Yes lets logically talk about Pauls chances to winning the nomination shall we????? There is no chance....Happy?

Originally Posted by jviehe

No, Paul cant win ... People simply wont vote for Paul ... election after election ... gets his usual 10% and never progress beyond that.

No, what that shows is Paul will get 10% of the vote even if he decides to spend the rest of the election cycle at home playing mahjong on the electronic medium of his choice. You're confusing his support floor, which one sees when pitted against better funded, comparatively-media-supported opponents, with a ceiling, which one would see in results of him running against a total pariah.

As far as a run against Obama, I'm sure there would be some R voters who would stay home if Paul were the nominee, but given the R dislike for Obama, I doubt they'd outnumber the voters who would stay home (or hopefully vote third party) if Paul were not the nominee.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Yes lets logically talk about Pauls chances to winning the nomination shall we????? There is no chance....Happy?

Not no chance, but admittedly slim. Newt has the intellectual right, Santorum has the religious right, Mitt has the rich right and the sheep that buys. Unfortunately they're all more interested in winning the nomination game and less in actually helping the country, and if what the OP asserts is correct, less in actually winning the election. As far as betting on Paul's 'more than zero' chances, I'd say this is a classic case of 'don't bet more than you're willing to lose'. Unfortunately it seems a Lot of non-Paul people are willing to lose the whole flippin country...

Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

No, what that shows is Paul will get 10% of the vote even if he decides to spend the rest of the election cycle at home playing mahjong on the electronic medium of his choice. You're confusing his support floor, which one sees when pitted against better funded, comparatively-media-supported opponents, with a ceiling, which one would see in results of him running against a total pariah.

As far as a run against Obama, I'm sure there would be some R voters who would stay home if Paul were the nominee, but given the R dislike for Obama, I doubt they'd outnumber the voters who would stay home (or hopefully vote third party) if Paul were not the nominee.

Not no chance, but admittedly slim. Newt has the intellectual right, Santorum has the religious right, Mitt has the rich right and the sheep that buys. Unfortunately they're all more interested in winning the nomination game and less in actually helping the country, and if what the OP asserts is correct, less in actually winning the election. As far as betting on Paul's 'more than zero' chances, I'd say this is a classic case of 'don't bet more than you're willing to lose'. Unfortunately it seems a Lot of non-Paul people are willing to lose the whole flippin country...

No, Im going on history. Paul simply cant attract the majority of americans.

Originally Posted by jviehe

No, Im going on history. Paul simply cant attract the majority of americans.

Paul can't attract the majority of Americans? Based off what analysis? I'm just wondering how you are coming to these conclusions. Paul has a problem with Repubicans, but not the majority of Americans.

Originally Posted by jviehe

No, Im going on history. Paul simply cant attract the majority of americans.

Except Paul absolutely destroys the other candidates in certain demographics (eg. Independents, Democrats, people under 40). In the general election you'll get those groups voting in massive numbers as apposed to only a tiny chunk of those numbers present in open primaries.

But yeah, you're right. Paul can't get the majority of old Republicans.

Just not sure that Ron Paul even has a shot at a brokered convention at this point, let alone winning with enough delegates before. He has what, something like 50 at this point? We can probably craft one of a dozen polls to show Paul would do better against Obama over Romney or others purely based on the type of question(s) offered. But that does not mean it will really happen, especially given how Paul shows his opinion on international affairs, security, and spending by earmarks. Those opinions may resonate with some, but not near enough to sway enough votes to suggest Republicans really think Paul is the best shot to knock Obama out of a 2nd term.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Except Paul absolutely destroys the other candidates in certain demographics (eg. Independents, Democrats, people under 40). In the general election you'll get those groups voting in massive numbers as apposed to only a tiny chunk of those numbers present in open primaries.

But yeah, you're right. Paul can't get the majority of old Republicans.

He cant get VOTES. It doesnt matter what polls say or what people say. What matters is WHO they actually vote for. And thats not paul.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Oh yes it can. Most Republicans (except staunch neo-cons) will suck it up and vote for a Republican no matter who it is, even Paul.

Don't you find it a bit inconsistent for you, a "No One But Paul" voter, to count on other Republicans falling in line behind the nominee when you have stated that you would not do so yourself?

Originally Posted by Haplo

Don't you find it a bit inconsistent for you, a "No One But Paul" voter, to count on other Republicans falling in line behind the nominee when you have stated that you would not do so yourself?

That's the politics of the situation. If there's a contingent of Republicans who want the party to practice what it preaches and shrink the size of government. If they aren't going to get a candidate who isn't willing to shrink the size of government they'll go elsewhere. Meanwhile the majority of Republicans don't care what the candidate stands for and will vote Republican no matter what. They have no real opinion or concerns except the letter behind the name of the candidate.

If the principled Republicans walk out then the party has no chance in 2012. Since there's a contingent of Republicans who aren't going anywhere no matter what it would behoove the Republican party to consider the options if it comes to a brokered convention.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

So couple of new polls show Ron Paul is now more electable than Romney vs. Obama:

Ron Paul More Electable Than Mitt Romney in Latest Poll - MarketWatch

"2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul polls better against President Barack Obama in a head-to-head matchup than establishment-choice moderate Mitt Romney, according to a recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling.

The poll found that Obama defeats Romney by 4 percentage points (48-44) and Newt Gingrich by 8 percent (50-42). While Santorum also joins Paul being within striking distance of the President by 3 points (48-45 and 46-43 respectively), Paul brings Obama a noticeable 2 percentage points further away from the 50 percent a candidate seeks to win on election day. Considering the +/- 3.3-percentage point margin of error, Paul in this poll is statistically tied for the presidency.

Reinforcing the electability case for Paul is that he ties Obama among independent voters, while Romney loses the largest voting segment by 6 percent, Santorum by 8 percent, and Gingrich by 15 percent -- a cause for concern whether Paul’s three rivals would even be competitive come November.

While many polls have shown Paul to be the most competitive Romney alternative, it also shows Paul to be making substantial progress and momentum for a general election bid. The new poll reveals that Paul is narrowing the gap between himself and Obama by 5 percentage points since last month’s PPP poll. "

Economist/YouGov poll
Econ Top Lines

So, now that Paul is moving up as the most electable vs. Obama, especially with the Independent vote, when one also accounts for the No One But Paul vote, how does the GOP win without Paul as the nominee?

Answer: It doesn't. Only Paul can compete with Obama with the Independents.

Ron Paul must have polled his own staff. Give me a break.

Originally Posted by jviehe

He cant get VOTES. It doesnt matter what polls say or what people say. What matters is WHO they actually vote for. And thats not paul.

Dude, I agreed with you. Paul can't get votes from old Republicans. What more do you want from me?