PPP's monthly look ahead to the 2012 Presidential race finds that Ron Paul could play a major role as a third party candidate. He gets 13% in a hypothetical three way contest with Barack Obama getting 42% and Mitt Romney 36%.
Paul would draw his support in such a scenario from conservative leaning voters who are unhappy with the Republican party. 44% who say they would vote for him are Republicans compared to 41% independents and 15% Democrats. 49% are conservatives, 37% are moderates, and 14% are liberals. But only 26% of them think Congressional Republicans are doing a good job to 61% who disapprove
In a direct head to head between Obama and Romney the President leads 45-42 so Paul as a third party candidate could be worth roughly 3 points to Obama's margin of victory.
Poll after poll after poll we conduct about who Republican voters prefer for their party's 2012 nominate finds Paul in single digits. If he really wants to get his issues out there on the national stage a third party bid may be the only way to do it and in a political climate where voters are disgusted with both parties people may be more receptive than they usually would.
Down the line Obama is doing better in this month's 2012 poll, leading every match up after trailing in most of them a month ago. Romney and Mike Huckabee come the closest, both down by three points. It's a 47-44 contest against Huckabee. Obama leads Sarah Palin 49-43, Newt Gingrich 49-42, and Chris Christie 47-31.
Even though Obama has negative approval numbers with independents he leads every potential GOP foe with them.
Finally the gold fringed flag and traffic stops may live to die another day in American society. Voters nationwide aren't any more inclined to let Basil Marceaux do his issues than the ones in Tennessee were last week- Obama leads the youtube sensation 46-21 in a hypothetical contest.
Full results here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
BS!
If Ron Paul ran 3rd party, the public would have no clue Ron Paul was running for anything! The media blackout would be absolute.
Ron Paul crushed Romney in the CPAC 2010 straw poll. And Paul polled dead heat against Obama.
So quit with your foolish non-sense. You ain't fooling no one.
Ron Paul 2012 on the REPUBLICAN ticket!
Other than Missouri where you guys polling next week.
Did you ask the George Bush questions before or after the horse-race questions?
Why wouldn't the Republican Party just nominate Ron Paul for the WIN?
Do they not believe in Less Gov't, Less Taxes, and Less Spending???
Ron Paul can be a little nutty, but I think he's sensible enough to know that Obama is a much bigger threat to Constitutional integrity than Romney (although Romney isnt particularly sterling in this regard, either).
Don't get your hopes up for Ron Paul to split the conservative vote, PPP.
"Ron Paul 2012 on the REPUBLICAN ticket!"
So in what fantasy world does that stand a chance of happening? He can't win the GOP nomination, nor the general as an independent. He can only push the Republicans further to the right in the primary and maybe drive a little Perot wedge into the general.
"Other than Missouri where you guys polling next week."
If you read just a few posts down, you'll notice it's IL and PA.
"Did you ask the George Bush questions before or after the horse-race questions?"
They were the 3rd through 5th questions asked, so before.
The last head to head: Obama vs. Paul by Rasumussen showed obama only up by 1%. Since then Obama has gotten less popular and Dr. Paul more popular.
I'd like to see PPP run that matchup. Dr. Paul is a 11-term republican. Polling him as an independent is worthless as he has made it clear he considers it a waste of time.
Is it possible Dr. Paul is the only republican contender that out polls obama?
if you can come up with someone like Basil i think you should be able to do evaluations on Paul Ryan.
Dustin,
I think asking Bush before the horserace questions would affect the horserace numbers. Do you agree? That puts the thought of Bush into people's heads.
Can it be that the reason Paul does not poll high among republican voters as their preferred 2012 candidate is because they assume he cannot win?
Poll him with the assumption that he can win (Rasmussen showed he can by the way) and you might get different republican preferences.
"Dustin,
I think asking Bush before the horserace questions would affect the horserace numbers. Do you agree? That puts the thought of Bush into people's heads."
Doubtful. Those questions had different question wording, and were buffered by all the favorabilities of the Republican candidates between the Bush questions and the Obama/GOP horse races.
If Ron Paul is the GOP nominee in 2012, Obama will win a second term with no problem. Paul's followers are passionate, enthusiastic, but small in number.
I like Ron Paul. He makes politics interesting. FOX News obviously hates him. His politics are a weird combination of libertarian and christian ideas. Like a lot of supreme court justices, he's an "originalist" except when his personal politics disagree.
Paul will be 77 in 2012. He's a year OLDER than John McCain, whose age was clearly a liability in 2008. Paul supporters often seem to like what they think he stands for rather than knowing his actual positions, especially on social issues. A lot of his supporters are "small government" types, yet Paul is very "nanny state" on almost all social issues.
I'd be shocked to see Ron Paul run as a 3rd party candidate. But maybe he's far enough along in his career.
won't happen. the media hates the pauls (obviously). they prefer the empty suit patrick bateman candidates that have as much soul as the sun.
"He can't win the GOP nomination, nor the general as an independent."
Romney wins CPAC years prior and it makes him a front runner.
Paul wins CPAC 2010,... he has no chance.
Romney win SRLC 2010 and it makes him a front runner.
Paul trailed by 1 vote,... he has no chance.
Come 2012, more of Dr Paul's warnings will come to bear. The rest of the conniving gang of establishment candidates will be running for the hills, not for office.
I believe your New Hampshire polling had Paul in third in double-digits.
The Republican primary process is not one where a nationwide poll is always most indicative of success. Momentum is a big part of that, putting lots of influence on Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, Paul had 10% last time and now has more name recognition, supporters on the party executive committee, and an existing infrastructure in his Campaign For Liberty and the college YAL. I wouldn't write off Dr. Paul in the primary yet, although I agree it is still a long-shot.
"Paul wins CPAC 2010,... he has no chance."
What does CPAC have to do with anything? It has no bearing on the delegates who decide the nominaton. It's just a get-together for College Republicans.
What makes Romney more of a front runner is that he polls better. He gets votes. That's all that matters, not irrelevant straw polls.
You're like the people who emailed us wanting us to poll Alex Snitker in Florida (which we relented and did, but he got almost no support) because Snitker won some random online poll.
People shouldn't be concerned about Ron Paul becoming President since it is not "the plan." Look at the individual Congressional and Senate races, the Ron Paul crowd has already won more this year than they have the past 30 years combined. They are beginning to realize how to string together effective political campaigns and realizing which candidates deserve their money and which don't. In several years, expect them to be a force.
As far as Dr. Paul the man, he isn't the right person for the job, but he is right on the issues. Most people in the mainstream agree with a lot of his positions.
Democrats tend to agree that we shouldn't be all around the globe when we can't afford it. They are also not for their Civil liberties taking hits through REAL ID and the Patriot Act.
Republicans agree with Dr. Paul that our debt is out of control and government needs to be smaller.
Dr. Paul just isn't the right person to turn those positions into a winning campaign, but someone will take up his mantle who is more telegenic and likable.
What does CPAC have to do with anything?
CPAC has nothing to do with anything. Can you tell that to the country? Conservatives keep holding these useless things and idiots like Romney keep showing up and the media keep touting the straw poll results.
But these so called "scientific polls" are so accurate that they had Paul excluded from debates because he "polled" less than 2%. Meanwhile Rudy who was polled as a top tier candidate trailed Paul in EVERY contest up to Florida!
Dr Paul has unequivocally ruled out running 3rd party for anything. Yet you found it necessary to poll him as an independent rather than measuring him against Obama like you afforded the other candidates. Insinuating he's not an acceptable GOP candidate.
Polling can be an art of influence, persuasion and even outright deception. Frank Luntz would be proud.
Daniel Surman:
"The Republican primary process is not one where a nationwide poll is always most indicative of success. Momentum is a big part of that, putting lots of influence on Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, Paul had 10% last time and now has more name recognition, supporters on the party executive committee, and an existing infrastructure in his Campaign For Liberty and the college YAL. I wouldn't write off Dr. Paul in the primary yet, although I agree it is still a long-shot."
It's true that momentum plays a major role in Presidential primary races, but you don't get any momentum by coming in third place or worse in every race, which is how Ron Paul is polling right now.
As for Iowa, the influence of the Iowa caucuses is vastly overrated. I recently pointed out that, in races without a Republican President running for reelection, the winner of the Iowa caucuses has more often than not gone on to lose the GOP Presidential primary. Worse, in only one such case has the winner of the Iowa caucuses gone on to win the White House itself.
Much of this is probably psychological. The processes of the caucuses are simply too obscure for most primary voters to understand or even care about, so they are predisposed to simply disregard caucuses and vote as if Iowa never even had a say.
Anonymous:
"Democrats tend to agree that we shouldn't be all around the globe when we can't afford it. They are also not for their Civil liberties taking hits through REAL ID and the Patriot Act."
Unfortunately for Paul, the majority of Republicans disagree with him on these points. He is unlikely to get their support.
"Republicans agree with Dr. Paul that our debt is out of control and government needs to be smaller."
Almost in mirror image to the above, the majority of Democrats disagree with Paul on these points, so he's unlikely to get their support either.
If Paul ever wants to get elected to something beyond a House seat, then he has the unenviable task of uniting what are essentially two mutually exclusive platforms. Half of Paul's positions are unacceptable to conservatives, while the other half are deal-breakers for liberals.
It's a classic case of trying to have it both ways, and as we all know, you can't.
If by 2011 we are running at over12% unemployment and yes I know the actual number is much higher Paul would have a great shot if the base would get behind him.
All they would have to do is show videos of Paul in the primaries warning about the economy while the others were worrying about bombing Iran. That being said the GOP will put someone the feel is the best Bush jr clone, palin, Romney, etc....
How about to poll Paul on the Republican ticket vs. Obama, since you had no problem doing it for other republicans? Why are you avoiding it?
Anonymous:
"How about to poll Paul on the Republican ticket vs. Obama, since you had no problem doing it for other republicans? Why are you avoiding it?"
They've done that already. Paul does about as good as any of the other Republican candidates.
By 2012 people the dollar will be worthless and our parasitic foreign policy will have spread to Iran and Pakistan.
The public will have realized there is no difference between Obama and the neo-conservatives.
bush bailed out his friends, barry did the same
bush spread terror throughout the middle east, barry did the same
bush installed the "patriot act", barry enhanced its powers
bush opened guantanamo, barry kept it open and created more similar facilities abroad
bush rushed unread bills though congress based on emergency necessity, barry did the same
what happened to obama's promises of transparency? civil liberties?
why doesn't anyone call him out on this?
for some reason I think that Rasmussen is a bit more credible than your blog: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41
I wish the poll had asked whether participants were conservative/moderate/liberal on social policy and separately on fiscal policy.
I feel the Democrats are socially and fiscally liberal while the Republicans are socially and fiscally conservative.
I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I don't feel there's a candidate for me other than Ron Paul.
Post a Comment