[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
How do you define popular? Do a bunch of people who don’t really care about their bad choices but vote anyway count as “popular”?
Paul is significantly more popular than all of the rest of the candidates. Delegates = Votes. Just because Romney got Millions of Dollars from a bunch of banks and got a bunch more apathetic voters out, it doesn’t mean he is popular. He is the best of the worst. Note the very low voter turnout even with an extremely unpopular president.
The Romney and Santorum Delegates won’t stand a shot with a majority of Paul supports in the state Caucus votes. Think about it…[/quote]
In this context, I would define popular as people actually voting. You’re attribute importance to Paul votes, but you’re totally dismissive of votes for others. You don’t see that disconnect?
[/quote]
I am not dismissive of the other voters at all. The voters are tricked into the thinking the race is down to Mitt Romney or Obama and the Romney vote is an anti-Obama vote more than a pro-Romney vote. The polling numbers show this on exit surveys and it is in every single state. The low voter turn out shows the same thing.
I would kill to see a Poll that said asked the question: Did you vote for Romney because you don’t think there is another choice to defeat Obama? I bet the number of poeple that vote yes to that very closely resembles Romney’s vote count.
These voters are tricked into thinking it is the “American way” to go out and vote and the whole time they haven’t realized they have been scammed by the system to vote for the same things: more wars, more welfare, more debt.
Your popularity definition is simply wrong.
[/quote]
The very definition of dismissive. You think Paul voters haven’t been tricked, but all the others have been. Everyone voting for the other candidates are too stupid to understand, but you think only the Paul voters really understand. That IS dismissing them.
The fact that Republican voters are dissatisfied with their choices applies just as much to Paul as it does the other candidates. I understand that Paul doesn’t get the coverage that other’s do. At least he hasn’t before. But with all the debates, all the decent showings in the caucus states, that’s started to change, and he still doesn’t get the surge that every single other Republican candidate has experienced. Perry had a surge. Cain had a surge. Bachmann had a surge. Gingrich had a surge. Santorum had a surge. Paul moved up 5%. Somehow the Republican voters shifted (at least temporarily) in large numbers to other candidates, but never towards Paul.
[quote=markmax33]
[quote=SK in CV]
There isn’t a single nationwide poll that indicates Paul’s popularity exceeds the other remaining candidates. In national polls, on average, he’s still around 15%, and in 3rd place.
[/quote]
Again you are completely wrong. Here is a poll from last week showing he is 2nd nationally for a nationallly well respected poll. He has 21% in this poll. [/quote]
That’s exactly what I said. There isn’t a single poll showing him leading. Second place is the very best. You didn’t actually provide a link showing him at 21%, but what I said was “on average” the national polls show him at 15%. So the 21% poll is cherry picking an outlier poll.
[quote=markmax33]
[quote=SK in CV]
And he’s at the highest he’s ever been. I understand national polling isn’t terribly important in either the primaries or the general, but I’m pretty sure that no candidate has ever won either with 15% support.
[/quote]
It seems interesting he gets much less press for how well he is doing and hasn’t campaigned in many states and he’s still at 21%. If the press was fair you would know that though. Imagine what happens when he gets out to all of the States. 0% to 21% in 4 years with no real help from major media is really good. He’s 8% behind Romney nationally and hasn’t hit many states. [/quote]
I won’t quibble with you on the press. I agree, though I think his coverage has improved. But as covered before, Republican voters are still not flocking to him. You’re impressed with Paul going from 0% to 21% in 4 years. Both Gingrich and Santorum had a bigger increases in less than 4 weeks. He’s 8% behind Romney in ONE poll. An outlier. Romney has more than 2 1/2 times more support on average. (about 30% to 12%) Check pollster, where they aggregate the polls, and show the average of the various polls. That Ipsos poll, btw, has him 5% higher than any other poll has ever had him. No other national poll has had him higher than 16%.
[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV]
A lot of time for things to change, but they’re not trending Paul’s direction. He appears to have hit a ceiling.[/quote]
They said he was at a cieling at 5%, 8%, 10%, 15% and probably eveything inbetween. He gained 5% in one week! Have you ever studied marketing and the tipping point concept? Right at about 15% market pentration, in any market with a very popular product, the sales usually double very quickly. Read this:
If he’s reached a tipping point, then the new polls should show it. So far, they haven’t. That 21% poll was a week ago. There have been 5 national polls released since then and they show him with lower support, not higher. If the 6 or 7 national polls that will come out in the next week show him flat, or lower than that 21% then your tipping point theory is dead in the water for now. We’ll see.
