Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Given that Ron Paul Got 23% in the 2012 NH Primary, is 20% for Rand All That Good?

That's the question David Weigel asks on the heels of the latest report from Public Policy Polling:
PPP's newest look ahead to the 2016 Presidential race in New Hampshire finds no clear leader. Rand Paul's at 20% to 19% for Chris Christie, 14% for Jeb Bush, 12% for Kelly Ayotte, 10% for Ted Cruz, 7% for Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, 3% for Bobby Jindal, and 2% for Rick Santorum.

The field we used for this poll is not exactly the same as April- Ayotte and Cruz replaced Susana Martinez and Rick Perry, who had received little support. But at any rate it's clear Marco Rubio has fallen precipitously, from 25% then to his current 7% standing. Paul's dropped by 8 points as well, perhaps because the kind of voters who are attracted to him might also be attracted to Cruz. The potential candidates on the rise are Christie (from 14% to 19%) and Bush (from 7% to 14%).

Paul has a pretty big lead with conservatives, getting 24% to 15% for Bush, 13% for Cruz, 11% for Christie, and 10% for Ayotte. Christie keeps it close overall though because he's dominant with moderates, getting 37% to 16% for Paul and 15% for Ayotte. That goes further in New Hampshire than it would in a lot of other Republican primaries since the open nature of the primary means that more than 40% of voters are independents.

There are two other demographic splits in the poll- Paul leads Christie 25/17 with men, while Christie gets 21% of women to 15% each for Paul and Bush. And Christie leads with seniors at 19% to 17% for Bush and 16% for Paul, while Paul has the advantage with younger voters at 21% to 17% for Christie.

On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton remains an overwhelming favorite with 57% to 12% for Joe Biden, 11% for Elizabeth Warren, 4% for Cory Booker, 2% for Andrew Cuomo, 1% each for Kirsten Gillibrand and Mark Warner, and less than 1% each for Martin O'Malley and Brian Schweitzer. Although Clinton is certainly still in control if she wants the nomination, she's down 11 points from a 68% standing in April. Much of that movement is because Warren has more than doubled her support from 5% then to 11% now.

In a field without Clinton, Biden leads with 36% to 20% for Warren, 9% for Booker, 7% for Cuomo, and 1% each for Gillibrand, Schweitzer, O'Malley, and Warner. Biden's lead over Warren has been chopped in half from 32 points on our April poll- at that time he led 44/12 in a Hillary free field.

Full results here


  1. Out of all this only one thing keeps coming to my mind. Who keeps voting for Santorum?

  2. Wenzel...its 2013. What was Ron's numbers at this point in the game?

    Cut it with the anti-Rand bias. LOL, Rand is in first place but you still have to twist it to suit your bias.

  3. Actually, Bob, Ron Paul was nowhere near 23% 3 years before the 2012 primary. Rand Paul is in good shape. Those Northerners just like Christie. But Christie will never get nominated by the GOP and Rand Paul is a top 2 candidate on the GOP side.

    Rand Paul is indeed Ron Paul light.. and that is why he is more "nominate-able" than his father. I prefer the old man, but I will take Ron Paul light over the rest.

  4. For those arguing for Rand I remind you that the lesser of two evils historically always produces more evil. The lesson doesn't change simply because it is one of "our" guys. It does not change simply because it is Ron's son.

    Those waiting for a man to ride in on a white horse and save us our going to be very disappointed. Liberty after all requires personal responsibility and self-government.

    Rothbard warned us about Rand in 1981 only he was speaking of the results of the first year of the Reagan presidency. A Rand presidency would turn out exactly the same as a Reagan presidency did and for the same reasons. We cannot afford another misguided conservative posing as a libertarian. Rand Paul is more destructive to liberty than even Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney. We know who and what they are. We know to fight them. Do we know who and what Rand is? I will tell you what he is. He is one of the few capable of stopping the liberty movement. Think of it, he argues for 1% spending reductions. He argues to keep Gitmo open. He argues to put sanctions on Iran. He waffles on non-interventionism. He argues for a 17% personal flat income tax. He argues for the drug war. Own yourself? Nope. Own the fruit of your labor? Nope. End the Fed? Nope, he's a monetarist Friedmanite. We know how successful Friedman's monetarism was in the 80s.

    Rand Paul is a larger threat to us than most realize and that is precisely why Bob Wenzel, whether he realizes it or not, rails on him daily. Rand was the only one with the standing required to derail the liberty movement. He has already, wittingly or unwittingly, divided the policy wonks from the conspiracy theorists. These two factions now hate each other when they use to work together and tolerate each other.

    Remember Rothbard's analysis of Reagan. Ask yourself if you do not see the exact same history repeating itself today with Rand.

  5. 20% is excellent since Rand is in first place and he is 6% ahead of Bush. He is even ahead of Christie who is from a border state.