Survey pits resumes of former New York mayor against those of Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Fred Thompson... The telephone survey, known as a âblind bioâ poll because likely voters are given details of the candidatesâ resumes without their names attached... The blind bio question was also posed to a larger pool of 1,009 likely voters nationwide, including Democrats and independents, and Paul was the big winner among that universe of voters, winning 33%, compared to 19% for Giuliani, 15% for Romney, and 13% for Thompson. http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1391
here's the headline at the site: Zogby Poll: Giuliani Leads Among Republicans in Latest Blind Bio Survey
Read it and weep, sucka. The blind bio question was also posed to a larger pool of 1,009 likely voters nationwide, including Democrats and independents, and Paul was the big winner among that universe of voters, winning 33%, compared to 19% for Giuliani, 15% for Romney, and 13% for Thompson. http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1391 Sampling from "likely Republican voters" usually means Repubs that voted in the last GOP nomination (2004). Only hardcore Bush supporters voted in that one - 6% turnout. Pauls powerbase includes everything but the Bush freaks.
I think it could more correctly be stated that his powerbase includes something other than republicans. And the polls confirm this. And the polls say NOTHING AT ALL about his ability to beat HRC, which you made the title of this thread.
achilles - what are you guys going to do with all these polls and all these fantastic fundraising numbers after the primaries and Ron Paul is going back to Texas without a nomination? It seems as though you guys believe the more internet messages you post about him the more likely he is to win?
Republicans who voted in the 2004 primary, you mean. From a 1000+ sample of ALL eligible voters, Paul is the GOP favorite. You're splitting hairs. Its obvious.
Who cares about a blind bio poll? It's nice to hear, but in reality that isn't how people vote. It's already proven that women are largely swayed by the person's looks. Men are swayed by other factors or simply by party. You could have someone running as a DEM while at the same time preaching all the GOP ideals. If that person won the nomination, most of the DEMs would still vote for that person over an indie candidate preaching liberal ideals. When it comes to election day. People do one of a few things. 1- Vote for a particular party regardless. 2- Vote for the candidate with the greatest name recognition, assuming it isn't negative name recognition. 3- Vote for the candidate who really represents their personal opinions. The VAST majority are in the first two categories, because most aren't willing to compare the candidates. This is especially true during the primaries. The primaries are dominated by people with the best name recognition. There are really only 3 possibilities on either side. GOP: Romney Giuliani Huckabee DEM: Clinton Obama Edwards All others are nice to talk about, but don't have a chance.
Where do you think Paul gets all that money from? 18 MILLION this quarter alone?? The polls are biased towards Repubs that voted in the last GOP nomination (Bush 2004). Voter turn out for that was spectacularly low (6%). Only hardcore Bush whackers voted in that. You think that represents Pauls base? Cause thats where most of the phone sampling is done from. Primaries measure how motivated supporters are to campaign for their candidate. Paul has colossal grassroots support. Not the kind of voters who sit on their ass and type 4 for Mitt everytime INC Polling calls. Paul supporters are ACTIVE - give money, badger media, organize meet ups, door knock, solicit, arrange mass donation days. Highly active. He should do well in the primaries if we get an honest vote.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington released an analysis of the misuse of power by the chairmen and ranking members of all House of Representative committees and subcommittees, as well as top leadership positions, to financially benefit their family members. Among the more laughable on the list? âLibertarianâ patron saint of limited government Ron Paul; I guess it just shows that past or present third-party officials aren't immune from hypocrisy, either. None of his relatives worked for the government, 'tis true; just for his campaign committee. It's still a form of benefiting your own family through running for office. Paul has his daughter on his campaign committee, to the tune of about $49,000 in the 2002 election cycle, and $56,000 in both 2004 and 2006 cycles. A second daughter, and her mother-in-law and father-in-law, got smaller payouts.* *http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2007/06/crew-releases-congressional-dirty-96.html He raised what, 6 million recently? Guess his family gets a raise. Who are the suckas, achille?
so your issue is that he used privately raised money to hire his own family members to help him campaign? what would you have suggested, they quit their jobs and go without income for a few years? ..aren't you a conservative? which tenets of conservatism do you actually believe in... because if you're supporting giuliani, you're definitely not a fiscal conservative, and barely a social one. as i said yesterday, what we've got here are elitists dressed as conservatives giuliani will be another blockbusting spender. another credit inflating nail in the coffin just like bush. just like hillary, just like romney, just like obama, etc.