Forty Seven Percent of Americans 'Definitely' Won't Vote for Ron Paul

National Ledger ^ | 10/22/2007 | Tim Morgan

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

One thing that fuels the debate among the supporters of Ron Paul and those that think the US Congressman from Texas that is running for the Republican nomination for the US Presidency is that most believe he would have no chance of defeating Hillary Clinton. The "Libertarian Leaning" candidate was hit in the face with a bit of that recently when he was included in a poll by Zogby poll that asked "Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?"

I was more than a bit shocked when it was revealed that those polled put Dr. Paul near the top pf the survey. The man that is often referred to by supporters of the head of the Ron Paul revolution grabbed forty-seven percent in that poll. That means that almost half of the country would not vote for Paul under any circumstances.

***

Zogby reports that Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who announced Friday he would end his campaign, was included in the poll. The online article that accompanies the poll numbers notes that, “He might have sensed the nationwide opposition to his campaign, as 47% said they would never vote for him for President. The survey showed he was tied as the third most objectionable candidate, behind Clinton and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (49%). Tied with Brownback was Democrat Michael Gravel, a former Alaska senator, and GOP Congressman Ron Paul.”

Does that mean that Paul should “sense” the same thing? Dr. Paul had a tougher debate performance than usual on Sunday night as he was actually booed during some of his answers by the crowd. I can't imagine the Paul supporters will be to pleased with Zogby.

[jmeagan]

****Yea, right... In a country where 90% of the people have never heard of Ron Paul (yet), 47% say they won’t vote for him.****

Or to put it another way, Ron Paul has the support of 50% of the people who know about him. I imagine that most of the 47% against RP are democrats that would never vote for a republican.

[fish hawk]

Bogus pole. It’s probably more like 65%

[fish hawk]

Pole=poll. Sorry, in a hurry this morning.

[Tall_Texan]

I’d say that, other than Hillary and possibly McCain, the candidates do not have the name recognition to make such a poll relevant. Go up to 20 people on the street or in a mall and ask them if they know who Ron Paul is (or Fred Thompson or Barack Obama or Chris Dodd) and you will get more incorrect/”don’t know” answers than you will correct answers.

[gondramB]

>>Forty Seven Percent of Americans ‘Definitely’ Won’t Vote for Ron Paul<<

I don’t believe it because I don’t believe 47% of Americans know who Ron Paul is.

[x]

Sounds like a good question for a Free Republic Poll.

I wouldn't vote for him. But I can't say I never would.

I can see being so fed up with the other candidates and so eager to make a protest that I'd vote for someone who I'd never really want to see in office.

[LIBERTARIAN JOE]

I sure hope 50% of those that know about him support him, because that "know about him" group should be getting a lot bigger soon. He's starting to spend some of those millions on campaign advertising ($500 came from me!).

Your tag line sums up the reason for my support of Dr. Paul. The rest of the field, democrat & republican, will keep us on the same path to ruin we've been on all my life. We need a fundamental change in direction, and Ron Paul is the only one who'd try to make it happen.

Optimistic about Dr. Paul's chances? I wish I could be. He's got a remote shot at the GOP nomination, and he sure has my hopes and prayers, but I expect hitlery will be facing julie annie, mutt romney or thompson next year - none of whom I could bring my self to vote for.

[lormand]

[Badeye]

Ron Paul doesn’t see polling data anywhere in the Constitution, and as such it does not exist.....