Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

[Demon of Light]

Mitt Romney (17%) and Sarah Palin (15%) now lead a smaller field of potential Republican presidential candidates in rank-and-file Republicans' preferences for the party's 2012 nominee. Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain essentially tie for third, with Cain registering 8% support in his initial inclusion in Gallup "trial heat" polling. Notably, 22% of Republicans do not have a preference at this point.

Source: Gallup

Ron Paul actually came in at third with 10%. So, given that this is the second national phone poll to show him with 10% and a few percentage points away from the lead, where is all the national press coverage about how Paul is nipping at Romney's heels and is a potential frontrunner in this race? Why does the media have numerous articles not mentioning his name once when talking up the top-tier but giving people like Pawlenty and Huntsman, who are well below him, entire articles devoted to the potential threat they pose to Romney?

It looks like even double digit national support is not enough to unravel the media blackout on Ron Paul.

 

[ecofarm]

I think Jeb could come in at number one or two easily. Deep down inside, people cherish the idea of poking at Bush-haters.

Just the possibility that there could actually be another President Bush is enough to make some extremists lose grip on reality.

 

[donsutherland1]

Source: Gallup

Ron Paul actually came in at third with 10%. So, given that this is the second national phone poll to show him with 10% and a few percentage points away from the lead, where is all the national press coverage about how Paul is nipping at Romney's heels and is a potential frontrunner in this race? Why does the media have numerous articles not mentioning his name once when talking up the top-tier but giving people like Pawlenty and Huntsman, who are well below him, entire articles devoted to the potential threat they pose to Romney?

It looks like even double digit national support is not enough to unravel the media blackout on Ron Paul.

The GOP field is fragmented with no clear front-runner. Additional candidates may yet enter the field. There is a lot of uncertainty. That degree of uncertainty is illustrated by the fact that 'no preference' was cited by the largest share of those surveyed. Once the race proceeds and greater clarity evolves, those close to the lead will very likely receive far more coverage. For now, who is in/is not in/may be entering the field will likely gain greater coverage than actual polling numbers that have little meaning given the present uncertainty. At this time, it is up to the candidates to distinguish themelves from the rest of the field. They cannot or should not expect the media to do it for them.

 

[disneydude]

Run Sarah Run......I've been saying for months that Palin is the only shot that the GOP has. The GOP would be foolish NOT to convince Palin to run and then to nominate her.

 

[PeteEU]

It looks like even double digit national support is not enough to unravel the media blackout on Ron Paul.

His own fault the media ignores him... he has zero charisma and a chequered past with some radical (right wing) views on many topics. He is and never will be a serious candidate for the top office.

 

[Demon of Light]

The GOP field is fragmented with no clear front-runner. Additional candidates may yet enter the field. There is a lot of uncertainty. That degree of uncertainty is illustrated by the fact that 'no preference' was cited by the largest share of those surveyed. Once the race proceeds and greater clarity evolves, those close to the lead will very likely receive far more coverage. For now, who is in/is not in/may be entering the field will likely gain greater coverage than actual polling numbers that have little meaning given the present uncertainty. At this time, it is up to the candidates to distinguish themelves from the rest of the field. They cannot or should not expect the media to do it for them.

While Ron Paul certainly can raise his profile without the media that is not really the issue here. If he were a candidate with more views consistent with the establishment the corporate media would be all over him like flies on ****. That they are acting like he does not even exist or is a non-factor is evidence of an agenda on their part against Ron Paul. No rational human being could look at these sorts of figures and declare him a non-factor, especially given how his support looked at this same point in the previous campaign.

Were the media truly interested in providing people with a full and accurate picture of the election and not looking to rig the outcome, it would treat Ron Paul like the top-tier candidate he is as indicated by his level of support.

 

[donsutherland1]

That they are acting like he does not even exist or is a non-factor is evidence of an agenda on their part against Ron Paul. No rational human being could look at these sorts of figures and declare him a non-factor, especially given how his support looked at this same point in the previous campaign.

I don't know if one should term him a "non-factor" at this point in time, but IMO, he is a decided underdog and will have a steep uphill climb if he is to pose a serious threat of winning the GOP nomination. The base of support for his overall ideology is relatively narrow, even if he packages his ideas under the banner of liberty, the constitution, etc., concepts that have broad appeal.

Were the media truly interested in providing people with a full and accurate picture of the election and not looking to rig the outcome, it would treat Ron Paul like the top-tier candidate he is as indicated by his level of support.

IMO, rather than focusing on the horse race when, in fact, the candidates are not yet in the starting gate so to speak, I believe the media should provide more extensive coverage on the candidates' positions, ideas, etc. In the past, among other things, transcripts of candidates' speeches, background information on key issues, etc., were regularly and widely published and broadcast. As a result, the public was better informed.

To be sure, candidates can provide far more information on their own via the Internet, distribute video through e-mail, alert people to upcoming events via the Social Media, etc. But the shortcoming of the new reality, rise of infotainment, pervasiveness soundbite orientation, is that people can self-select the information they receive in a way that was not possible when the major political news, discussions of key issues/events, were widely published and broadcast. Hence, today's media is, in part, responsible for nurturing a narrower perspective among the public. Only those who make a regular and active effort to be fully engaged and informed have a real chance to gain and maintain a big picture view of issues/events, political and otherwise.

 

[Tucker Case]

Paul has a near-fanatical base of people who would love to see him as president, but I don't see him ever getting the nomination because his positions do not appeal to the social conservatives very much.

Also, I personally think that some of his most vocal supporters do more harm than good for him. Too much conspiracy theory stuff. Right or wrong, people often judge a candidate based on who supports them. When a significant portion of Ron Paul's supporters come across as being crazier than ****house rats, it has a detrimental effect on his overall popularity.

It's a pity because I like Ron Paul.

 

[Councilman]

Source: Gallup

Ron Paul actually came in at third with 10%. So, given that this is the second national phone poll to show him with 10% and a few percentage points away from the lead, where is all the national press coverage about how Paul is nipping at Romney's heels and is a potential frontrunner in this race? Why does the media have numerous articles not mentioning his name once when talking up the top-tier but giving people like Pawlenty and Huntsman, who are well below him, entire articles devoted to the potential threat they pose to Romney?

It looks like even double digit national support is not enough to unravel the media blackout on Ron Paul.

Knowing a little bit about politics, the media, and human nature I think there might be some blow back to all the negative media reports about Sarah Palin.


Anyone who has done the research will find that she has been very affective in all her political positions and it does go against all we here constantly about how dumb she is. People are beginning to see that she really is a pretty intelligent woman.


The stereo type that attractive women are air heads seems to be fading away when you look at the facts and ignore the rhetoric that comes from the media and Liberals in general.


Truth is Ron Paul is a good man and has some good ideas and his head is in the right place, but he lacks the overall charisma needed to win. He is without a doubt smarter than Biden but truth is that;s not saying much. I have rocks in my yard that are smarter than Biden.


I think it should be pointed out over and over that Obama has Biden as a running mate and he isn't as intelligent as a paper bag. How smart does that make Obama, really.

 

[Kandahar]

Source: Gallup

Ron Paul actually came in at third with 10%. So, given that this is the second national phone poll to show him with 10% and a few percentage points away from the lead, where is all the national press coverage about how Paul is nipping at Romney's heels and is a potential frontrunner in this race? Why does the media have numerous articles not mentioning his name once when talking up the top-tier but giving people like Pawlenty and Huntsman, who are well below him, entire articles devoted to the potential threat they pose to Romney?

It looks like even double digit national support is not enough to unravel the media blackout on Ron Paul.

Because even though there are plenty of undecideds who might break for Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty or Jon Huntsman or (if she runs) Sarah Palin, they sure as hell aren't going to break for Ron Paul. That 10% support for Ron Paul is pretty close to his ceiling. Most Republican primary voters just flat-out disagree with him on the issues.

 

[Demon of Light]

Because even though there are plenty of undecideds who might break for Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty or Jon Huntsman or (if she runs) Sarah Palin, they sure as hell aren't going to break for Ron Paul. That 10% support for Ron Paul is pretty close to his ceiling. Most Republican primary voters just flat-out disagree with him on the issues.

That is bull****. His approval rating is consistently much higher than his current poll numbers. In other words, a lot of people are willing to back him. Rand Paul won a Senate seat after winning the Republican nomination despite sharing basically the exact same views so obviously his views are not an impediment. Ron Paul is more than capable of winning the nomination and the Presidency. However, he has to overcome the fact that all the organs of the American establishment in defiance of the mythical left-right paradigm are arrayed against him. That all major media, irrespective of their leanings, universally treat him as a non-starter (planting the seed that somehow no one should vote for him because it would be a waste) despite him doing well in the poll numbers is evidence enough of that.

 

[j-mac]

way too early to speculate anything at this point....


j-mac

 

[Kandahar]

That is bull****. His approval rating is consistently much higher than his current poll numbers. In other words, a lot of people are willing to back him.

Not nearly enough. And it's not like this is an untested assumption, as he just ran for president in 2008. He generated a lot of excitement on the internet, had some extremely dedicated supporters...and fell flat on his face at the ballot box.

Rand Paul won a Senate seat after winning the Republican nomination despite sharing basically the exact same views so obviously his views are not an impediment. Ron Paul is more than capable of winning the nomination and the Presidency.

Rand Paul won an election in an extremely Republican year, in an extremely Republican state, against an extremely slimy Democrat, was running for Senate rather than President, hedged on some of his libertarian views more than Ron Paul does, and had a bit more charisma than Ron Paul...and even then he only got 55% of the vote. Ron Paul will need to win many states and will probably not be as lucky as his son was in terms of the political environment.

Anyway, we've heard this argument all before. In 2007, Ron Paul's diehard supporters on this board were absolutely convinced he was going to be the Republican nominee and the next president. How did that work out?

However, he has to overcome the fact that all the organs of the American establishment in defiance of the mythical left-right paradigm are arrayed against him. That all major media, irrespective of their leanings, universally treat him as a non-starter (planting the seed that somehow no one should vote for him because it would be a waste) despite him doing well in the poll numbers is evidence enough of that.

Regardless of whether you think it's fair or not, he DOES have to overcome the fact that the establishment doesn't like him. And whining about it doesn't change the reality that it is a major problem for him.

 

[j-mac]

Not nearly enough. And it's not like this is an untested assumption, as he just ran for president in 2008. He generated a lot of excitement on the internet, had some extremely dedicated supporters...and fell flat on his face at the ballot box.



Rand Paul won an election in an extremely Republican year, in an extremely Republican state, against an extremely slimy Democrat, was running for Senate rather than President, hedged on some of his libertarian views more than Ron Paul does, and had a bit more charisma than Ron Paul...and even then he only got 55% of the vote. Ron Paul will need to win many states and will probably not be as lucky as his son was in terms of the political environment.

Anyway, we've heard this argument all before. In 2007, Ron Paul's diehard supporters on this board were absolutely convinced he was going to be the Republican nominee and the next president. How did that work out?



Regardless of whether you think it's fair or not, he DOES have to overcome the fact that the establishment doesn't like him. And whining about it doesn't change the reality that it is a major problem for him.

The so called "establishment" who ever they are, might not dislike him for President if he didn't have such a penchant for kookdom. Keep in mind that Dr. Paul has given the most interviews to people like Alex Jones....Alex Jones for God's sake.





j-mac

 

[DaveFagan]

The GOP field is fragmented with no clear front-runner. Additional candidates may yet enter the field. There is a lot of uncertainty. That degree of uncertainty is illustrated by the fact that 'no preference' was cited by the largest share of those surveyed. Once the race proceeds and greater clarity evolves, those close to the lead will very likely receive far more coverage. For now, who is in/is not in/may be entering the field will likely gain greater coverage than actual polling numbers that have little meaning given the present uncertainty. At this time, it is up to the candidates to distinguish themelves from the rest of the field. They cannot or should not expect the media to do it for them.

Why wouldn't they expect the media to do it for them. It's a whore media, so they must be shortchanging the media. For god's sake, it's a commercial enterprise. I think commercial is the key word.

 

[j-mac]

Why wouldn't they expect the media to do it for them. It's a whore media, so they must be shortchanging the media. For god's sake, it's a commercial enterprise. I think commercial is the key word.

If only Amy Goodman was on everywhere.....lol.....


j-mac

 

[Demon of Light]

Not nearly enough. And it's not like this is an untested assumption, as he just ran for president in 2008. He generated a lot of excitement on the internet, had some extremely dedicated supporters...and fell flat on his face at the ballot box.

He started out with less than one percent in many of the polls around this time last election. Starting out from ten percent suggests his chances are much better.

Rand Paul won an election in an extremely Republican year, in an extremely Republican state, against an extremely slimy Democrat, was running for Senate rather than President, hedged on some of his libertarian views more than Ron Paul does, and had a bit more charisma than Ron Paul...and even then he only got 55% of the vote. Ron Paul will need to win many states and will probably not be as lucky as his son was in terms of the political environment.

Even when his predecessor Jim Bunning was an incumbent running in 2004 when the Republican Party even unseated the Minority Leader of the Senate and he was not able to get anywhere near 55%. Mitch McConnell has only surpassed Rand's vote percentage once.

Anyway, we've heard this argument all before. In 2007, Ron Paul's diehard supporters on this board were absolutely convinced he was going to be the Republican nominee and the next president. How did that work out?

I was not "absolutely convinced" he would be, but even then I saw it as a distinct possibility because he was even then polling well in Iowa and New Hampshire. He stood a very good chance of getting third in Iowa (where a number of past nominees placed), which may have allowed him to basically knock McCain and Thompson out of the race. At the time it was also a big fist fight with a lot of uncertainty that some thought might go all the way to the convention.

Regardless of whether you think it's fair or not, he DOES have to overcome the fact that the establishment doesn't like him. And whining about it doesn't change the reality that it is a major problem for him.

Objecting to the media deliberately manipulating the outcome of elections is "whining" to you? Not much for freedom of thought, huh? I would think a self-proclaimed liberal would actually be quite opposed to the idea of the corporate media determining who is or isn't someone for whom people should be voting.

 

[LizardofOz]

Not nearly enough. And it's not like this is an untested assumption, as he just ran for president in 2008. He generated a lot of excitement on the internet, had some extremely dedicated supporters...and fell flat on his face at the ballot box.



Rand Paul won an election in an extremely Republican year, in an extremely Republican state, against an extremely slimy Democrat, was running for Senate rather than President, hedged on some of his libertarian views more than Ron Paul does, and had a bit more charisma than Ron Paul...and even then he only got 55% of the vote. Ron Paul will need to win many states and will probably not be as lucky as his son was in terms of the political environment.

Anyway, we've heard this argument all before. In 2007, Ron Paul's diehard supporters on this board were absolutely convinced he was going to be the Republican nominee and the next president. How did that work out?



Regardless of whether you think it's fair or not, he DOES have to overcome the fact that the establishment doesn't like him. And whining about it doesn't change the reality that it is a major problem for him.

Rand Paul won large in part due to his father's notoriety. I happen to have met both him and his opponent Jack Conway. The differences in either men was funding, clear voice, and the national conversation. Kentucky is actually largely a democratic state going by 2011 registered voters, 1.6 million are Democrat, 1.1 million are Republican, and 200k are other. I am not completely dissatisfied with Paul despite I voted for Conway. He has already said he (along with his father) is against the Paul Ryan plan, and he also voted against extending the USA Patriot act extensions. Paul also won because Kentuckians are dissatisfied with Mitch McConnell and the GOP establishment. Paul probably agrees with you more than any other Republican, to quote Rand:

Paul goes on to say stuff like "any self-described conservative who 'misses' the last president and his version of the Republican Party should probably quit subscribing to that label," and "if judgment is based on spending and the budget, then Bill Clinton should be considered preferable to Bush."

I think discrediting Ron Paul is bad and shows that our media truly tries to dictate the conversation, including Fox News. If Ron Paul were to become president and he actually would bargain with Democrats rather than being a dick about everything like his fellow constituents I might actually vote for him over Obama.

Also let me say I like Ron Paul for the same reasons I like Obama, he is the genuine article and he has no real skeletons in the closet or allegiances to any other company or outside source. I don't care if he seems a bit eccentric he is a better man than most of the GOP.

 

[Barbbtx]

That is bull****. His approval rating is consistently much higher than his current poll numbers. In other words, a lot of people are willing to back him. Rand Paul won a Senate seat after winning the Republican nomination despite sharing basically the exact same views so obviously his views are not an impediment. Ron Paul is more than capable of winning the nomination and the Presidency. However, he has to overcome the fact that all the organs of the American establishment in defiance of the mythical left-right paradigm are arrayed against him. That all major media, irrespective of their leanings, universally treat him as a non-starter (planting the seed that somehow no one should vote for him because it would be a waste) despite him doing well in the poll numbers is evidence enough of that.

Rand Paul would have run if his dad wasn't going to. Sorry but Rand is the only one of the two who stood at chance at winning. That's the only way we'll ever have a President Paul. As was mentioned, Ron Pauls ceiling is at around 10% or maybe a bit higher. It's just not enough to win.

 

[Deuce]

Rand Paul would have run if his dad wasn't going to. Sorry but Rand is the only one of the two who stood at chance at winning. That's the only way we'll ever have a President Paul. As was mentioned, Ron Pauls ceiling is at around 10% or maybe a bit higher. It's just not enough to win.

He also went ahead and proved he was a fake candidate by debating a fake President Obama. That's just something you don't do if you want to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Fox News went ahead and let him do this, probably because they know he's too far out of the mainstream right and would never win the support of the current GOP power bloc.

Rand Paul I agree might have a better shot but he still has some wonky stuff on his record like supporting a business' "right" to racial discrimination and suggesting that the free market would have just handled the "NO BLACKS CAN EAT HERE" thing on its own.

 

[finebead]

I hope Palin wins the nomination, I think the dems would like to run against her. If I had to have a repub pres., Romney or Pawlenty may not be too bad. Depending on what they say in the next 18 months, I might even vote for one of them. Obama has to begin talking about fiscal responsibility in a reasonable way, and doing reasonable things to move in that direction. Obama also needs to say when we are going to get out of Afghanistan.

The main reason I would consider NOT voting for a repub president is that the tea partiers have so many religious fundamentalists and I do not believe the bible should be substituted for the constitution. If that's the way you want to run your church, fine. Don't try to run our govt. that way.

 

[upsideguy]

Knowing a little bit about politics, the media, and human nature I think there might be some blow back to all the negative media reports about Sarah Palin.


Anyone who has done the research will find that she has been very affective in all her political positions and it does go against all we here constantly about how dumb she is. People are beginning to see that she really is a pretty intelligent woman.

Effective in her two minutes as a governor of a state with the population equivalent of Memphis? That said, I do agree that she is an intelligent woman. OTH, she is incredibly ignorant and obviously intellectually lazy. What is particularly scary is that some actually think she is a credible presidential candidate. Let me help you: she is not! Whether a presidential candidate is stupid or ignorant is a rather moot point. Neither should be anywhere near the oval office unless they are serving afternoon tea.

The stereo type that attractive women are air heads seems to be fading away when you look at the facts and ignore the rhetoric that comes from the media and Liberals in general.

Leave it to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman to perpetuate this stereotype and keep it alive for another generation.

Frankly, running Sarah is a great move for Republicans. Given she has ZERO shot of winning (versus very, very little shot for most of the other Regressive candidates) you at least accomplish the task of moving her completely off the stage and out of sight.

 

[xpiher]

Source: Gallup

Ron Paul actually came in at third with 10%. So, given that this is the second national phone poll to show him with 10% and a few percentage points away from the lead, where is all the national press coverage about how Paul is nipping at Romney's heels and is a potential frontrunner in this race? Why does the media have numerous articles not mentioning his name once when talking up the top-tier but giving people like Pawlenty and Huntsman, who are well below him, entire articles devoted to the potential threat they pose to Romney?

It looks like even double digit national support is not enough to unravel the media blackout on Ron Paul.

Because he can't win the primary. Thinking otherwise is delusional.

 

[Demon of Light]

Rand Paul would have run if his dad wasn't going to. Sorry but Rand is the only one of the two who stood at chance at winning. That's the only way we'll ever have a President Paul. As was mentioned, Ron Pauls ceiling is at around 10% or maybe a bit higher. It's just not enough to win.

That is nonsense. As I said Ron Paul's approval ratings are far higher than his current share of the votes in these polls. In other words, he has plenty of room to grow.

Because he can't win the primary. Thinking otherwise is delusional.

I know the corporate propaganda complex we call the media is telling you it is absolutely impossible, but the very things they claim to look to in order to determine that are telling the exact opposite. The data is saying he is fully capable of winning the nomination and ultimately the Presidency.

 

[Kandahar]

I know the corporate propaganda complex we call the media is telling you it is absolutely impossible, but the very things they claim to look to in order to determine that are telling the exact opposite. The data is saying he is fully capable of winning the nomination and ultimately the Presidency.

The data says that no sitting member of the House of Representatives has won the Presidency since...James Garfield in 1880. And if a sitting member of the House WAS going to win, there are about 400 more mainstream choices than Ron Paul. :roll:

But I'll tell you what. If you're convinced, you should head over to InTrade. Contracts on Ron Paul winning the presidency are currently trading at 1.0%. If you bet on him, you'll make a fortune when you prove us all wrong.