New PPP Poll Shows Ron Paul Polling Slightly Better Than Romney vs Obama in North Carolina
|
|
|||||
|
50 votes
|
|
94% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
2% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
4% | |||
Public Policy Polling may have buried the lede in its latest news release.
The
pollster, which mainly works for Democratic candidates, starts by
talking about Mitt Romney facing a tough road here, despite effectively
wrapping up the nomination when former Sen. Rick Santorum suspended his campaign earlier this week. The
release goes on to say PPP's latest poll shows Obama with a 49 percent
approval rating in the state, one percentage point shy of the magical 50
percent mark and one percentage point ahead of his "negative" number.
But what caught our attention was this paragraph, deep in the release:
"Ron
Paul matches Romney's general election viability in North Carolina,
also trailing Obama by a 5 point margin at 48-43. Newt Gingrich would be
far weaker, trailing Obama by 10 points at 51-41. His favorability
spread is 26/64. It's irrelevant now but we found Rick Santorum trailing
Obama 50-44 on this poll."
Really? Paul hasn't come close to
winning a single state in the primary but he'd be just as good as Romney
against Obama this fall? And he's doing better in that regard than
Gingrich, who is actually spending some time here?
So if you break down the numbers:
Obama vs Romney 49-44
Obama vs Paul 48-43
That means Paul actually pulls Obama away 1% point farther away from the magical 50% point.
Of course,
unless something quite unusual happens -- like Gingrich catching fire
all of a sudden -- those are purely academic questions.
Read More: http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/blogpost/...
"that the truth will never be known"
http://webstation19.8k.com/jo...
Can not wait to see him in person!
I heard a GNU poll that reported that 133.8% of the people polled did not beleive in polls and that 87 teen % of the people thought polls were just made up numbers by news casters too lazy to actually go out and actually poll real people with real question.
most people beleive pollsters just call mom or a relative to ask one or two stupid questions.
everytime the gnu people start talking about a poll I go walk the dog, my dog knows more about things than the polls do.
At the same time, liberals like me – constitutional liberals at least – who never in their lives would support a Republican for anything, have said in various polls that they would cross over from Obama and support Ron Paul if he gets the Republican nomination (I understand this number is in excess of 15% of registered Democrats, and is much, much higher among liberal-minded independents). We're going to make the difference this election and swing it for Paul, if he's on the ballot. (That would also g...
At the same time, liberals like me – constitutional liberals at least – who never in their lives would support a Republican for anything, have said in various polls that they would cross over from Obama and support Ron Paul if he gets the Republican nomination (I understand this number is in excess of 15% of registered Democrats, and is much, much higher among liberal-minded independents). We're going to make the difference this election and swing it for Paul, if he's on the ballot. (That would also give Paul a mandate, once elected – something that's been much hyped in politics in recent decades but never actually seen.)
My point is (and this is anecdotal, sure, but it's struck me as a definite trend), if this is the attitude – that a fair percentage of conservatives will not even be motivated to turn out for Romney, and a large percentage of Democrats and liberal independents will simply vote for Obama if Paul ends up not being in it, then I don't see any possible hope the Republicans have of beating Obama, especially when contrasted with someone who nobody but nobody from any voting block (except of course the 1% Goldman Sachs bloc) is excited about.
It brings up the other angle to this equation, too: the lack of contrast between Romney and Obama, which is certainly driving so much of this conservative apathy. It's right on the money to point out not only that Romney enacted the same health care model while he was governor, but also that he said he'd have signed the NDAA (that's one of the main outrages I've voiced with respect to Obama, and so have many liberals). Obviously, on monetary policy, even down to the bailouts, there is no discernible difference between them.
Romney just won't have any credibility when he's forced to debate Obama head on, on any of these issues, and people forget, Obama is a competent debater and an incredible orator in general. It'll be easy work for him to make Romney look foolish, but Paul is running on his record, which is unimpeachable and chock-full of conviction. That alone commands tons of respect in my opinion for Paul - even when I don't agree with Paul on a few of the issues, I can say to myself, "While I disagree with his stance there, I agree (or can see constitutionally) how he arrives at it." There's no wishy-washiness at all, and there's no ducking any issue, ever.