United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Perry’s Star Begins To Fade With Voters [Ron Paul still most competitive in new polls]
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/perrys-star-begins-to-fade-with-voters/
Published: Sep 16, 2011
Author: Steve Watson
Post Date: 2011-09-16 16:44:40 by Capitalist Eric
Keywords: None
Views: 7304
Comments: 22
Rick Perry’s status as front runner in the race for the GOP nomination is beginning to falter it seems, if the latest national poll released by Rasmussen is anything to go by. Just two weeks ago, Perry held a three point lead over Obama in a hypothetical match up, since his performance in the debates, he has slipped and trails Obama 46% to 39%. Perry trails Obama by 15 percentage points among women and barely leads among men. Even mainstream media pundits agreed Perry’s performances, particularly his exchanges with Ron Paul, in the debates were distinctly average. In addition, much coverage over the past fortnight has focused on Perry’s Democratic past and his flip flopping over the Gardasil mandate he oversaw in Texas. Meanwhile in a new Reuters/Ipsos survey, Ron Paul emerges as one of the most competitive Republican candidates with registered voters when pitted directly against Obama. Paul attracts 42% of voters to 49% for Obama, while other candidates such as Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman all fail to draw the president below 50%. “Our campaign has been gaining momentum for some time now, and this is yet another poll that clearly proves how competitive we are versus the President” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “Dr. Paul is gaining ground in poll after poll, affirming that people are looking for real change instead of the status quo they are being offered from the establishment.” The findings dovetail with other recent surveys that have placed Paul within striking distance of Obama. Three weeks ago Rasmussen reported that Ron Paul earned 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in a national phone poll of 1000 likely voters. Another significant finding from the poll indicated that voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties preferred the congressman to Obama by 10 points – 43% to 33%. The survey also found that voters under 30 prefer the president, while Paul edges the incumbent in all other age groups. A Gallup poll released in the same week found that Ron Paul trailed President Obama by just 2 percentage points at 47 to 45%. Paul vs Obama would represent the establishment’s worst nightmare on every front. As previous polls have shown, out of the Republican candidates, only Ron Paul has a realistic hope of success in a hypothetical run off against Obama – the other candidates are equally unpopular as the President. A CNN poll from May 2011 showed that Paul has the best chance among Republicans of defeating Obama in a head-to-head election: Paul even faired significantly better in the poll than Mitt Romney. The poll found that Romney would lose by 11 points if he got the nomination and went head to head with Obama, whereas Paul only trailed the President by 7 points. This is telling given the fact that Obama aides have openly admitted they would prefer not to run against Romney. Of course, in line with their corporate media mouthpieces, the White House is still pretending Ron Paul doesn’t exist. Other recent polls have also placed Paul on a par with Obama. These surveys yet again demonstrate that Ron Paul is a competitive candidate, despite what the mainstream media would have us believe. Even without the corporate media-promotion and general name recognition, Ron Paul is matched against President Obama (within the margin of error). The ‘Ron Paul can’t win hoax’ is yet again dispelled by statistical numbers.
Poster Comment: Paul vs Obama would represent the establishment’s worst nightmare on every front. That's why goober56, loonymom/ming, gobsheit and dumbshiit-DwarF will push for someone like Perry or Romney- if the debate becomes one of reality, oBUMa is TOAST.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
#2. To: Capitalist Eric (#0)
(Edited)
The reality is that Paul won't win a single GOP primary or caucus. He might come in second in New Hampshire behind Romney. Economic conservatives love Paul and neo-cons absolutely despise him. Social conservatives generally like him because of his pro-life stand, but most of them don't understand Paul's position on the drug war. Drug legalization hasn't come at all in the debate. If it does, Paul will plummet in the polls because most reasonable and rational people turn into emotional, raving idiots at the mere mention of drug legalization. Romney is going to get the GOP nomination. He came in second in 2008, so its his turn. That's the way the GOP works. Time to look for a third party candidate.
I think you are correct about Romney, but its not because its 'his turn' its because he has the best nationwide organization. He's also far more polished in his debate performances. Perry is tailor made for Owe-bama and the Dems scare tactics, which is all they can do this time around. They damn sure can't run on Owe-bama's record, given its been one failure after another. Nailing bin Laden is the only thing he can say he got right. As for Ron Paul, did you notice what I did in the debates so far?
Insofar as Romney's turn in concerned -- look at the GOP record of the last four decades: It is Romney's turn. Unlike the GOP, the Democrats jettison their losing candidates: It's really interesting how the parties differ in this respect.
I think it details the tremendous advantage an existing national structure provides a 2nd place finisher, not a 'its their turn' conspiracy. Just where is this 'meeting' held, and who attends, under your theory of 'their turn conspiracy' JW? See what I mean here?
Don't second place finishers have tremendous advantage in the Democrat Party as well? It has nothing to do a conspiracy, bozo. It has everything to do with the GOP's brain dead follow the leader culture.
Not so much, primarily due to the fragmented coalition that makes up the Democratic Party.
There are no replies to Comment # 22. End Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: jwpegler (#2)
#10. To: Badeye (#5)
(Edited)
Year Nominee 2nd Place 1976 Ford Reagan 1980 Reagan Bush 1988 Bush Dole 1996 Dole Buchanan (who did not run in 2000) 2000 Bush Jr. McCain 2008 McCain Romney Year Nominee 2nd Place 1976 Carter Brown 1984 Mondale Hart 1988 Dukakis Jackson 1992 Clinton Tsongas 2000 Gore Bradley 2004 Kerry Edwards
#14. To: jwpegler (#10)
#20. To: Badeye (#14)
(Edited)
I think it details the tremendous advantage an existing national structure provides a 2nd place finisher, not a 'its their turn' conspiracy.
#22. To: jwpegler (#20)
Don't second place finishers have tremendous advantage in the Democrat Party as well?
Replies to Comment # 22.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]