Drudge Poll: Is it An Accurate Portrayal? (1 Viewer)

[tecoyah]

What is one or two of Rand's worse positions in your opinion?

•Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
•Unelected EPA should not regulate greenhouse emissions. (Oct 2010)

Two of way too many.

 

[Lord of Planar]

•Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
•Unelected EPA should not regulate greenhouse emissions. (Oct 2010)

Two of way too many.

LOL...

That's it? Wow...

Did he give reason for the first one? Do you realize how many men are jailed each year because under such laws, the presumption is the man is guilty before proven innocent.

The greenhouse gas one is weak also. The EPA shouldn't be regulating CO2 unless they are going to force nature to regulate H2O also.

 

[tecoyah]

LOL...

That's it? Wow...

Did he give reason for the first one? Do you realize how many men are jailed each year because under such laws, the presumption is the man is guilty before proven innocent.

The greenhouse gas one is weak also. The EPA shouldn't be regulating CO2 unless they are going to force nature to regulate H2O also.

I am not here to sway your beliefs, as they are your own.....you asked me a question, and I answered it.

I have no interest in hijacking someone's thread.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am not here to sway your beliefs, as they are your own.....you asked me a question, and I answered it.

I have no interest in hijacking someone's thread.

OK, but you did pick the two things I am very aware of. My ex wife abused such laws, lying and I ended up in jail overnight, and it really affected my life many years ago. I am against all laws that become special rights laws. I have studied global warming aspects years ago.

If you are going to like or dislike a candidate for a particular law, I suggest you know the full extent of the law. The domestic violence law has many things good in it. However, it has too many "domestic violence" loopholes that women can use to their advantage. With a simple lie. I know this from first hand experience.

You should never support a law that has bad aspects in it, no matter what the good aspects are. People like Paul see this.

 

[Perotista]

and see, if hillary doesn't run who does the dems have? they're all tarnished...

No, not really. Of those I know looking into running, a couple have announced they will run regardless of whether Hillary does or not and the rest said they will if Hillary doesn't. We both know Biden wants to run, but like you said he is tarnished and I do not give him a chance. Then there is Martin O'Malley of MD and Brian Schweitzer of MT, both governors and both have the itch to run regardless of what Hillary does. Then there are those who has expressed interests in running but have stated at sometime or the other that they won't run if Hillary does. These include, Warren of MA, Warner of VA, Cuomo and Gillibrand of NY, and possible of a Howard Dean Candidacy.

The list above include only those who have expressed interest, one to keep an eye on who has kept in the background is Jay Nixon, the governor of MO. But so far out all of this is really peeing into the wind. We should be concentrating on the November 2014 midterm as that result will probably eliminate some of the above and add new names to the list.

 

[Perotista]

Of course it is, but everyone has a favorite, I just like to watch who and when people drop their favs and follow the herd...

Yeah, now the herd as you put it on the Republican side is away from Christie and his previous bridgegate supporters haven't decided on anyone yet. On the Democratic side it is all Clinton who has around 60 point lead over any and all comers at the moment. We will know more and have a lot better idea after the midterm elections. In my mind, Clinton if she does run and win the nomination, she would probably be the easiest candidate for the Republicans to beat. It is as you said, her baggage is tremendous. Independent voters do not have a warm and fuzzy feeling for her as her favorable/unfavorable ratings among them is always on the unfavorable side. But when it comes down to two people, that may change.

 

[ChezC3]

Drudge readers are likely more conservative than anyone. However, the reason I wouldn't put any stock in it is because there's literally nothing to stop people from voting multiple times. Just like Chicago for Democrats!!!!

lol that was a joke

Like I had said, I didn't check but other polls I took blocked you at the IP once you've already voted.

and a allot of truth is said in jest...:lol:

 

[ChezC3]

No, not really. Of those I know looking into running, a couple have announced they will run regardless of whether Hillary does or not and the rest said they will if Hillary doesn't. We both know Biden wants to run, but like you said he is tarnished and I do not give him a chance. Then there is Martin O'Malley of MD and Brian Schweitzer of MT, both governors and both have the itch to run regardless of what Hillary does. Then there are those who has expressed interests in running but have stated at sometime or the other that they won't run if Hillary does. These include, Warren of MA, Warner of VA, Cuomo and Gillibrand of NY, and possible of a Howard Dean Candidacy.

The list above include only those who have expressed interest, one to keep an eye on who has kept in the background is Jay Nixon, the governor of MO. But so far out all of this is really peeing into the wind. We should be concentrating on the November 2014 midterm as that result will probably eliminate some of the above and add new names to the list.

You might as well had said Dukakis, Mondale, or Kerry... The Dems have no one but Punchy Palooka after HRC, the half rate fighter called last minute to fill the ticket because the contender backed out of the fight.

 

[ChezC3]

Yeah, now the herd as you put it on the Republican side is away from Christie and his previous bridgegate supporters haven't decided on anyone yet. On the Democratic side it is all Clinton who has around 60 point lead over any and all comers at the moment. We will know more and have a lot better idea after the midterm elections. In my mind, Clinton if she does run and win the nomination, she would probably be the easiest candidate for the Republicans to beat. It is as you said, her baggage is tremendous. Independent voters do not have a warm and fuzzy feeling for her as her favorable/unfavorable ratings among them is always on the unfavorable side. But when it comes down to two people, that may change.

And thank God for that, I believe all that Christie support was manufactured consent (to steal a slogan,if I may...). The man as far as I could tell was another RINO, McCain type with an Uncle Vito type flavor...

On the GOP side it really is a mixed bag as far as independent voters go, I mean you've got what the media is trying their damnedest to label fringe, radical extremists in Paul and Cruz, you've got establishment/RINO candidates in Perry, Bush, Jindal, Ryan, Christie, you've got social conservatives in Santorum and Huckabee, and you've got side show circus Sarah Palin and Donald Trump.

Talk about diversity!?! LOL

Now, Paul and Cruz in my mind are really as far as seeing get done what I want to see get done the only two viable candidates. Paul the more savvy of the two politically and obvious current front runner. Now, when he first came on the scene I couldn't stand the guy. I thought he was a pure Koch backed catastrophe. His coal industry pandering, his riling up the voters to go against their own interest, but he's changed tune over the years and has shown some character, much more than the rest.

 

[Perotista]

You might as well had said Dukakis, Mondale, or Kerry... The Dems have no one but Punchy Palooka after HRC, the half rate fighter called last minute to fill the ticket because the contender backed out of the fight.

Well, that is one way to look at it. Obama probably would have counted as a half rate fighter back in early 2008. Even Bill Clinton was given much of a chance in 1992 and was considered a light weight as the heavies dropped out after the gulf war when G.H.W. Bush approval rate skyrocketed. But it like I said, it is way too far out to really start throwing names around in a serious manner. But I must admit, it is fun and helps pass the day.

Of those I mentioned, Nixon and Warner I think should be feared more by the GOP than Hillary. Both bring to the table an electoral advantage that none of the others do. Pre bridgegate Christie did that for the GOP, bring an electoral advantage I mean. Ryan might although he still lost his home state of Wisconsin in 2012. A Christie/Susanna Martinez ticket intrigued me prior to bridgegate, A Ryan/Martinez ticket might also bring the electoral college into a better balance. But this takes no ideological views into consideration.

 

[Hatuey]

Got a citation for your generous figure?

Well, let's start with debunking the silly belief that anywhere near 60% of Americans would vote for Tea Party cooks:

Just 30 percent of Americans view the tea party favorably in a new Gallup poll released Wednesday, the movement’s lowest point since Gallup began polling about it during its rise in 2010.

Read more: Poll: Tea party favorability hits record low - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com

Independents see the tea party unfavorably, 48 percent to 29 percent.

Read more: Poll: Tea party favorability hits record low - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com

So, now that we established that the Tea Party doesn't have anywhere near 60% of the country's support:

Ted Cruz leads the Republican primary field in the state with 16% to 14% for Rand Paul, 12% for Chris Christie, 11% each for Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush, 8% each for Paul Ryan and Scott Walker, 4% for Marco Rubio, and 2% for Bobby Jindal. This is the best poll showing we've found for Cruz in a long time- he leads based on his strength with 'very conservative' voters, among whom he gets 22%.

Ted Cruz doesn't even hold 30% in the Republican primaries!

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

View attachment 67163162

The only poll which gives Cruz anywhere near 30% of the vote was Public Policy about a month ago. The number discrepancies between Drudge and every other pollster (both Liberal and Conservative) show that the Drudge numbers are inflated to reflect its audience, a small but visible majority that would have us believe that Cruz has anywhere near 30% of the US vote. He really doesn't. He doesn't even have 30% of Republican support.

 

[Perotista]

And thank God for that, I believe all that Christie support was manufactured consent (to steal a slogan,if I may...). The man as far as I could tell was another RINO, McCain type with an Uncle Vito type flavor...

On the GOP side it really is a mixed bag as far as independent voters go, I mean you've got what the media is trying their damnedest to label fringe, radical extremists in Paul and Cruz, you've got establishment/RINO candidates in Perry, Bush, Jindal, Ryan, Christie, you've got social conservatives in Santorum and Huckabee, and you've got side show circus Sarah Palin and Donald Trump.

Talk about diversity!?! LOL

Now, Paul and Cruz in my mind are really as far as seeing get done what I want to see get done the only two viable candidates. Paul the more savvy of the two politically and obvious current front runner. Now, when he first came on the scene I couldn't stand the guy. I thought he was a pure Koch backed catastrophe. His coal industry pandering, his riling up the voters to go against their own interest, but he's changed tune over the years and has shown some character, much more than the rest.

Paul I think is a lot more savvy than Cruz although Cruz knows how to rally his base. A name mentioned quite a lot recently is Ryan. He may be one candidate that would concentrate on getting our fiscal house in order. But I really do not have any favorites on either side, I just enjoy playing with my simulations of each candidate for the upcoming election, over 2 and a half years away.

 

[US Conservative]

Well, let's start with debunking the silly belief that anywhere near 60% of Americans would vote for Tea Party cooks:





So, now that we established that the Tea Party doesn't have anywhere near 60% of the country's support:



Ted Cruz doesn't even hold 30% in the Republican primaries!

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

View attachment 67163162

The only poll which gives Cruz anywhere near 30% of the vote was Public Policy about a month ago. The number discrepancies between Drudge and every other pollster (both Liberal and Conservative) show that the Drudge numbers are inflated to reflect its audience, a small but visible majority that would have us believe that Cruz has anywhere near 30% of the US vote. He really doesn't. He doesn't even have 30% of Republican support.

Hold up Turbo. You said " 5% tops and that's putting it generously. " As in 5% of the republican vote was actually conservative. Your charts and links have nothing to do with that figure.

Where did you get the 5% figure?

 

[Hatuey]

Hold up Turbo. You said " 5% tops and that's putting it generously. " As in 5% of the republican vote was actually conservative. Your charts and links have nothing to do with that figure.

Where did you get the 5% figure?

This is where reading is key:

The Tea Party faithful don't hold anywhere near 60% of the Republican vote. 5% tops and that's putting it generously.

They don't. The polls show they don't. The only poll going against that? Drudge - populated by mostly tea party faithful. :shrug: I'm not sure which part you have trouble with though: the fact that the Tea Party doesn't make up 60% of the Republican vote or even close to that or the fact that polls (except for Drudge) don't show the Tea Party getting anywhere near 60% of the vote in the primaries? If they did: Where was the Tea Party approved candidate in the 2012 primaries? Oh that's right with Ron Paul's 2%.

 

[US Conservative]

This is where reading is key:



They don't. The polls show they don't. The only poll going against that? Drudge - populated by mostly tea party faithful. :shrug: I'm not sure which part you have trouble with though: the fact that the Tea Party doesn't make up 60% of the Republican vote or even close to that or the fact that polls (except for Drudge) don't show the Tea Party getting anywhere near 60% of the vote in the primaries? If they did: Where was the Tea Party approved candidate in the 2012 primaries? Oh that's right with Ron Paul's 2%.

So kindly show where the Tea Party is 5%.

 

[fmw]

I don't think Cruz can run. He was born in Canada. You must be born either in the U.S. or in Kenya to be President.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't think Cruz can run. He was born in Canada. You must be born either in the U.S. or in Kenya to be President.

LOL...

The left will have a hayday...

He does however qualify as a "natural born" citizen, as I understand the meaning to be.

 

[fmw]

LOL...

The left will have a hayday...

He does however qualify as a "natural born" citizen, as I understand the meaning to be.

No kidding? I thought natural born in the U.S. was a pretty straightforward thing to say. Why is it subject to interpretation? Canada is not part of the U.S.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No kidding? I thought natural born in the U.S. was a pretty straightforward thing to say. Why is it subject to interpretation? Canada is not part of the U.S.

No but he was granted US citizenship at birth. That is what makes him a natural born citizen.

 

[US Conservative]

No but he was granted US citizenship at birth. That is what makes him a natural born citizen.

This is true.

 

[rjay]

((( DRUDGE POLL )))

WHO IS YOUR CURRENT REPUBLICAN PICK FOR '16?
JEB BUSH 6.21% (4,446 votes)

CHRIS CHRISTIE 4.99% (3,571 votes)

TED CRUZ 29.46% (21,077 votes)

MIKE HUCKABEE 3.6% (2,578 votes)

BOBBY JINDAL 2.91% (2,081 votes)

SARAH PALIN 5% (3,581 votes)

RAND PAUL 29.95% (21,429 votes)

RICK PERRY 4.83% (3,457 votes)

PAUL RYAN 3.62% (2,589 votes)

RICK SANTORUM 0.85% (609 votes)

DONALD TRUMP 1.84% (1,315 votes)

OTHER 6.73% (4,819 votes)


Total Votes: 71,552


The above is a poll taken of The Drudge Report's main page as of 3/8/14 @ 4:31pm

It clearly shows Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz with huge leads over the rest of the field while running neck and neck against one another.

Is this an accurate portrayal of the direction the GOP is heading?

Who would you like to see elected the Party nom? Ted? Rand? Someone else?

Please share your thoughts...

I can't help but wonder who Other could be, whoever it is, they are in 3rd place.

 

[ChezC3]

I can't help but wonder who Other could be, whoever it is, they are in 3rd place.

Ron Paul, Huntsman, Romney, Daniels, Carson, et al

Probably a mix of the first two as they both have almost cult like followings...

 

[ChezC3]

Paul I think is a lot more savvy than Cruz although Cruz knows how to rally his base. A name mentioned quite a lot recently is Ryan. He may be one candidate that would concentrate on getting our fiscal house in order. But I really do not have any favorites on either side, I just enjoy playing with my simulations of each candidate for the upcoming election, over 2 and a half years away.

While keeping it private, the RNC better have the list narrowed down to 2 by mid-terms. They can let the Press have its fun, the people their circus, but no matter who is up to bat they need to get their asses in gear and set up a proper campaign with a clear and well articulated platform. The last two campaigns they ran were atrocious...

 

[ChezC3]

I don't think Cruz can run. He was born in Canada. You must be born either in the U.S. or in Kenya to be President.

Now worries, the Dems won't mind, we'll call it amnesty...

 

[Perotista]

While keeping it private, the RNC better have the list narrowed down to 2 by mid-terms. They can let the Press have its fun, the people their circus, but no matter who is up to bat they need to get their asses in gear and set up a proper campaign with a clear and well articulated platform. The last two campaigns they ran were atrocious...

I agree, the last two were very inept. But it is Romney's campaign I think was the most inept since Bush the first back in 1992. McCain had the excuse of being outspent 750 million to 328 million by Obama. More than 2-1. Not that his campaign was all that great. At least Romney and Obama spent just about a billion dollars a piece.