Ron Paul at 9% in New Hampshire Poll
 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/...tes/index.html

The survey was conducted by the University of New Hampshire. Clinton and Obama each grabbed the support of 33 percent of New Hampshire voters who said they plan to vote in the state's Democratic primary.

Twenty percent said they would vote for Edwards. Four percent chose Richardson, and 2 percent chose Kucinich.

On the Republican side, 33 percent of likely Republican primary-goes in New Hampshire said McCain was their top pick. Coming in second was Romney with 27 percent.
advertisement

Giuliani had 14 percent, followed by Huckabee with 11 percent, Paul with 9 percent and Duncan Hunter and Thompson with 1 percent each.

The poll, released just hours before the debate, has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

http://malicious.biz/share/pauldenburg.jpg

at least he wasn't last :1orglaugh

Ron Paul has no chance of actually winning the nomination. Oh well. :(

That's good enough for 4th or 5th and either of those places for Ron Paul is equiv to 2nd or 3rd at least!

5th = 1st

Like him or not, at the very least this poll continues to defy the logic used by Fox News as to why it allowed Fred Thompson in the debate, but didn't let Ron Paul in. :2 cents:

Unfortunately the ignore option will not block thread topics. So I find myself in another of your moronic threads.

Rasmussen polled the evening of January 5th and Paul is getting 14%, 3% ahead of huckleberry and in 3rd place. And thanks to Fox, he has gotten tons of publicity since then. He will not win NH, but he is getting harder to ignore. Especially for people like you:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Rasmussen Poll link (pdf)

You really need to let go of your obsession with Ron Paul.

Every election now has to have a Ron Paul character in it. Why oh why?

You suck at ignoring me:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Didn't Fox say Paul was excluded because of his national numbers? His average right now nationwide is 3.6%.

Paul COULD do moderately maybe even surprisingly well in New Hampshire because of the large number of independents in the state. A recent New Hampshire poll shows he is 10% among Republicans but 22% among independents. About 42% of voters in New Hampshire are independent. This is a very high number. Mid to upper teens is possible in this state (15% + a little). I'm not saying it is likely or will happen. Only that it is possible. No one knows how it will play out which is why we actually have the primary. It's about voter turnout from those subgroups.

BUT ... look down the road. Look at that 3.6% nationwide right now. New Hampshire is an anomaly because independents can vote in either primary. This is not true in many states. In many states only a registered Republican can vote in the Republican primary. There are big states where Paul has less than 2% in the polls.

It's like saying Giuliani is done because he performed poorly in two early states that he expected to perform poorly in. Nationwide though, he is the leader (Real Clear Politics Average)

Nationwide:
Giuliani 20.8%
McCain 17.6%
Huckabee 17.6%
Romney 14.4%
Thompson 11.4%
Paul 3.6%

Problem for Paul is NH is probably the best he can expect to do. Giuliani does much better in the upcoming and large states and in all likelihood starts taking 5th.

Paul's current numbers in upcoming primaries.

Michigan 4.3% (6th place) (Huckabee and Romney lead the independent voters there)
Nevada 5.0% (6th place) (Must be a registered Republican to vote)
South Carolina 6.4% (6th place) (Paul at 1% of independents)
Florida 3.3% (6th place) (Must be a registered Republican to vote)

California, PA, FL all have closed primaries. Some big states.

Overall nationwide average: 3.7%

He'd do better than that as an independent in the general election.

jag vet inte ja

Are you casting a spell to help Paul? I thought I saw someone in World of Warcraft do that.

Ron Paul got the "freedom" genie out of the bottle - no matter, if he wins or not :2 cents:

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You paultards spew more insane nonsensical rhetoric than George Bush hopped up on a massive dose of Methamphetamine. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

all i read was the words, Hunter and Thomspon.

he wouldve made better president.

RIP Doc

http://www.capitolabookcafe.com/images/BearHunt.jpg

arguing about politics is for people who didnt get laid last night and for men who sleep alone,...

Just passing by.......

Clinton in 08! hooo hooo

Hey Collin. I am not delusional about Paul winning the nomination. But the national numbers are low for a variety of reasons. Most people don't even know who Ron Paul is because of the lack of press this guy has gotten. The longer he stays in and the more ads he can get up in the Super Tuesday states the better he will do. He has surprised in Iowa and he will surprise in New Hampshire and recent polling has him gaining in South Carolina.

After February 5th he might decide he needs to run as an independent. At least he will have that option, whereas the other Republicans don't.

Yeah, I think I remember you saying Paul wouldn't win the Republican nomination.

A candidate and his campaign have to generate press. It's part of running a winning campaign. I don't think making a statement that FOX didn't included him in the debate because "they are scared" qualifies as generating good press. It just sounds bizarre and conspiratorial. It appeals to the conspiracy theorist minded supporters over at the Ron Paul forums. It doesn't appeal to most of America though. How is criticizing FOX, the one network he probably needs on his side more than any other, a good idea?

But OK, look at Huckabee. Here is a guy that really has gained ground. Huckabee was as low as Paul 6 months ago. This morning's RCP average has Huckabee at 18.7% and Paul has faded to 3.3%. That says something.

More people would look and see him 6th nationally, hear the FOX comment and just think "sour grapes".

I don't know how much of a surprise Iowa was. He was at 9% in the des Moines register poll and finished at 10% I think. he finished in 5th place. He could do better than he is polling in New Hampshire because of the demographics. Maybe he could eben finish 3rd depending on what the indepenents do, But then what? His numbers are awful in states without many independents.

Sure he could do decent as an independent in the general election but he will just play the spoiler. He could win the election for someone else.

The Huckabee comparison is a bad one. He pandered to a large block of voters who only vote for the bible. The first candidate that made an effort for the christian right was going to get a huge bump as they were looking for someone to represent their views. Fox News got on his wagon and his name recognition skyrocketed.

As for the Iowa numbers, Paul was polling 2-3% a couple of months ago and even right before most polls had his support around 5-6%. The register just happened to be the one that was more accurate. Without splitting hairs, he was close enough to the pack in Iowa and he is polling close enough in NH for him to be included in the debate. Fox was wrong to censor his views.

I am not sure he is getting all bad press from Fox's snub. He is getting a shot on Leno again tonight and I have read many articles the last few days that I would consider good press arising from Fox's decision. Maybe some will write him off as the kook's candidate, but some may go to his website to find out more. Either way, he is getting an opportunity to be heard even tho Fox has dubbed him immaterial to the election.

And according to Fox news, there is no room for true conservatives in the party. If he does eventually run as an independent the consequences may not be immaterial as you suggest. Many people are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and have decided that evil is just plain evil. In my opinion, there is NO distinguishable difference in the other candidates and it does not matter which of them win. But if the losing party adopts some of the issues important to his supporters then his candidacy will mean something as the platform changes.

Who cares what you think? :1orglaugh

You cared enough to dignify what I had to say with a response.:thumbsup

Nah - I was reading the conversation between charlie g and ADL Colin... your input is just noise, so please sit down and shut up while the grownups are talking :disgust

So when do you add anything even remotely adult to the equation? or are you just going to throw around childish insults like every other two bit troll on this board?

None of this addresses the question of what Paul has done to generate press.
So, what has Paul done to DESERVE more press? The best press he got was the money bomb which I believe was the result of grassroots support and didn't even come from Paul himself.

What evidence at all is there that FOX didn't include Paul in the debate "because of his views". The only person who said that was Paul himself. He's a bit biased about it. Don't ya think? 3.3% nationwide! Duncan Hunter is not in the debate either. Was he excluded because of his views? Duncan Hunter wasn't in the ABC debate either but Paul was. So does that mean Hunter and Paul were excluded for their views? Which views of Hunter's got him banned from the FOX and ABC debates?

Paul's average poll result was 7.3% before Iowa. He finished at 10%. I just don't see that as really surprising or even worthy of discussion. Who really cares that the 5th place candidate beat the average of the pre-election polls by 2.5% but still finished in 5th? The average Ron paul supporter seemed to think he was going to finish 3rd in Iowa.

The point about Huckabee is that he is a candidate who really HAS gained ground and generated momentum. He "really has gained ground." Paul is at less than 4% nationwide. He hasn't. He is the 5th or 6th candidate with no evidence that he will do better in the long run.

Well, I'm not suggesting that paul's candidacy would be immaterial in the general election. He would do well enough to effect the outcome but enough to win.

Ok. He is the only Candidate to support smaller government. He is the only republican candidate to purpose a withdrawal from Iraq. He is the only candidate talking about eliminating the tax code and IRS. He is the only candidate talking about closing military bases oversees and really changing our foreign policy. He is the only candidate that stated he will veto all spending bills congress submitted with unconstitutional spending.

I know this isn't sexy, but contrary to popular opinion, he is not a clown out to make headlines. The overriding theme this election cycle is change, yet I rarely hear his name. In fact, I did not know his positions until November after the previous televised debate. I had heard of him before, but I didn't know he was running for POTUS. I have always considered myself politically astute, but since my main source of news was FNC, I was not getting his message. I do believe the US media have a responsibility to allow the public an unfettered presentation of all views concerning US elections.

This was a debate in New Hampshire- sponsored by the NHGOP, for the votors of New Hampshire. Paul will get more votes than Thompson and Giuliani probably combined there. Financial strength of the campaigns is a better indicator of public support than polling. Thompson is dead and so is Hunter. Ron Paul has the financial backing to carry the campaign throughout the general election. And take note that his warchest is not filled by corporations but by individual donations that average less than $100 per. So I am just guessing here that public support wasn't the real reason behind the snub. Oh, thats right- the studio wasn't big enough for RP. OK.

BTW, there are many, many other people that do not support Paul who feel he was unfairly left out of the NH debates. I will be glad to get a list together for you along with links if you want to see.

I was HOPING he would finish third, and he was within 3% of finishing third. Not bad for a guy whose only free media coverage was dwarfed by the rest of the field(except hunter).



I don't disagree about huckabee. He will win the bible belt for sure. He has not done anything miraculous like changing the course of government as Paul is trying to do. Huckabee is filling the void that any "man of God" could have. He has not made any real inroads anywhere else, and he won't because he is more of the same of what we've got.

While Huckabee's momentum is stronger at the moment, I don't see it growing past the the support he has now. He has had his 15 minutes and those that don't vote from the pew will have a hard time voting for him. And my point was that RP has much more upside potential than Huckabee because he is not as well known.


I take exception to the last part. There is evidence that Paul is not a 5th or 6th place candidate. I expect guiliani, thompson, hunter to be gone feb. 6th.
So how does 4th place sound?:upsidedow

Sorry Colin, I wasn't trying to imply that either. I was agreeing with you and saying the republicans(FOX) should take him seriously or he will damage them as a third party spoiler. They need to move Ron Paul's way fiscally, on the war, on immigration and the attempts to socialize healthcare. Ignoring him will not make these issues go away and these are issues that can win with a smarmy used car salesman pitching them (read Mitt Romney).

Wow, its seriously scary to think anyone who makes a living from porn wouldn't be supporting Ron Paul.

Its just a fact that no one else has the platform and proven record of keeping government out of our business. You dumbfucks are somehow so gullable you arnt supporting the clear choice to protect your OWN INCOME.

I disagree with Ron Paul on a LOT of shit, but none of that matters if i'm fucking BROKE because of more and more government regulations over my business.

You people are sad.

No, he said: I'm not that certain, in swedish :)

If a candidate wants people to think of CHANGE when they think of them they need to tell the people that. Watch any Obama appearance and you will see dozens of people with "CHANGE" in huge letters on cards that people were given to hold up. In the background will be a huge banner that says "CHANGE". On the podium is a sign that says "CHANGE". On his website the first words you see are "Our time for CHANGE has come". Obama has done a great job of associating himself with CHANGE.

This is the reason people associate Obama with change. He's TELLING people he's the candidate for change.

http://linkification.com/linked/obama1.jpg

Oh, I thought those were panhandlers.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh would that be pocket change?

Paul should get a spot in the debate because of how much money he has raised and Duncan Hunter should be eliminated from the debate based on money raised?

Why not just let the candidates buy their spots?

ANTI-RON PAUL PEOPLE - Get in this thread http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=797869

because they have allready been paid for. :2 cents:

I'd be very surprised by that. Giuliani currently polls #1 in some of the most populous states: California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Texas, New York and Ohio.

Real estate agents.

Oh, wait. Same thing.

Charlie, you'll find this interesting.

"During Saturday night's debates ? the top 10 candidates in the two parties mentioned "change" a total of 91 times. The Democrats had a two-to-one margin on the "change" scoreboard ? 61-to-30.

Leading the way was Hillary Clinton, who mentioned "change" 25 times, once saying, "I embody change."

John Edwards and Barack Obama came in with 14 "changes" apiece. Bill Richardson mentioned it eight times.

For the Republicans, Mitt Romney led with 10; Rudy Giuliani had nine; Mike Huckabee five; John McCain three; Fred Thompson two, and Ron Paul one."

Like Mitt Romney and Hilary Clinton?

Paul has not raised Hilary Clinton Corporate money. These are individual donations from supporters. Paul is not selling nights in the Lincoln bedroom or other favors. So I do believe the sheer number of people putting their money where their mouths are should be considered by those deciding who is heard. It's better than looking at polling data for states where the majority of the electorate have never heard of the man.

I do find that interesting. The person that represents the status quo is using her focus group words and the guy that represents the most change doesn't have a focus group.

Exactly! That's what all that money is for ;-)

Someone leaked video of an internal Ruppert Murdoch Fox meeting about Ron Paul.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zC-qLjmohe4

I can't believe a Ron Paul supporter is essentially advocating not one vote per person but one vote per dollar.