Bush, Paul, and “Other” Lead Presidential Preference Question.

After two days of survey taking, Jeb Bush garnered 13% of survey takers votes for the Presidency in 2016, Rand Paul 12%, Other 11% and Scott Walker 10%. Among Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton was preferred by 8% of survey takers and Elizabeth Warren by 4%. My preferred candidate Bobby Jindal also received 4% support.

If you haven’t taken the survey, feel free to do so by clicking on this link. The poll closes tomorrow at noon and I’ll post the full results shortly thereafter.

presidential preference day 2

94 comments

    • It’s an interesting result. Bush, for better or worse, is considered the “establishment” candidate, while Paul represents perhaps the most anti-establishment. It’s a small sample size but fascinating nonetheless that those two rose to the top.

      • Baker says:

        I mean no real insult to Jeb by that fwiw. But I just have absolutely no confidence that he wouldn’t get trounced in a general election by anyone, including an old, shrill white lady who spent her whole life sliming around politics with her skeezy husband. The country as a whole, and I would think Repub primary voters, isn’t going to be down with Bush III. Sorry Jeb.

            • John Konop says:

              Curious why you think that, because I do respect your opinion? Romney did well in the south, and Kasich I think would come across better than him in the south.

              • gcp says:

                The usual stuff… Kasich took medicaid expansion, pro common core, “evolving” position on immigration.

                  • gcp says:

                    The Rick Perry approach is gonna be the standard for Republicans. Secure the border first then we talk about everything else.

                    • ArtfulDodger says:

                      And how do you reconcile that position when Republicans want to cut spending and to “secure” the border would take billions? That is a non-starter. The only approach is to go after those that employ illegals except in certain industries like farming. No jobs, no reason to come here.

                    • gcp says:

                      Billions to secure the border? How many military bases in the southwest? Let’s see, Hood, Lackland, Sill, Bliss just to name a few plus reservists and NG (which we already use in border security).

                      We got a military; use it to secure the border. They are already trained just move them into position.

                      But I do agree. Its takes enforcement of employers but this administration gave up on that and border security years ago.

                    • Will Durant says:

                      There is the small matter of the Posse Comitatus Act. One I’m still in favor of keeping in place. Imagine a General Alexander Haig announcing “I am in control here” with an army backing his play.

                    • benevolus says:

                      Ft. Hood is what, 250 miles from the border? How do you propose getting significant military presence from there to work the border?

                      Also, the Mexican border is much more closely watched than the Canadian border. I am much more worried about terrorists coming in through there than I am about poor Mexicans coming here to work.

                    • gcp says:

                      Posse can be changed via legislation; btw both Ga. And Texas Guardsmen have recently been used in border security.

                    • gcp says:

                      Ben

                      They convoy down there just like they convoy around Hood or by copter. Also last I looked Bliss is pretty close and Pendleton is right up the from the border and don’t forget Huachuca in Az.

                    • Will Durant says:

                      The Guard is considered “Militia” and calling them in to act as police hasn’t always worked out so well either. The regular US military has been misused for decades now, lets not compound their mission further.

                    • gcp says:

                      The Ga. Guardsmen I saw interviewed think they did a pretty good job when deployed to the border. You would have to check with Perry in reference to the effectiveness of Texas Guard.

                      But I do agree Bush and Obama have badly misused our military in overseas deployments but thats a whole different discussion.

                    • Baker says:

                      Securing the border is actually one of the things government is supposed to do. Republicans aren’t against, or shouldn’t be at least, spending if it’s one of those few things the Federal government is required to do. Thus the DoD budget (which could use plenty of thinning without impacting our armed forces at all but that’s another discussion).

            • TheEiger says:

              What are you considering the south? Alabama and Mississippi? Or Florida and North Carolina. Have you seen Kasich speak about his faith and the role it plays in his decision making? It will play well in places like Alabama and Mississippi. Kasich would also play well in the general in places like Florida and North Carolina. All are very important.

                • John Konop says:

                  I do agree Huckabee has that crowd…..if he does well in Iowa it will be hard to break that part of the party from him….I do not think he will win….the longer he stays it does change who can win….

                • TheEiger says:

                  Huckabee and Santorum will be splitting the main body of hard right Christian Conservatives. They will dilute their base and harm each other if they both run. I think they both will. Kasich will float on his accomplishments as Governor and will be the Christian conservatives second choice when Santorum and or Huckabee drop out. It will come down to timing. Just my crystal ball projection.

                  • John Konop says:

                    I agree, that is why Iowa is key if Huckabee or Santorum score a knock out against each other they will force the other one out quick…..And they will have the CC money, time, support……which will make one of them a real power broker at the convention….If neither land a blow the longer it goes with both in, the less cards they have at the end.

                  • gcp says:

                    Huck wins over Santorum. Huck is likable, Santorum has a hard edge to his personality, not very likable.

                • TheEiger says:

                  Everybody has something in their background that can be used against them . It’s just how they handle it when it’s brought up. Lehman Brothers was brought up when he ran for governor. Seemed to work out fine for him. What about Pence?

                  • gcp says:

                    Kasich was at Lehman when the economy collapsed. Gonna be hard to explain his bonuses and salary. Pence is a better choice.

                  • John Konop says:

                    Like Mike Pence….but he puts people to sleep when he talks…..he will not make it out of the GOP debates…Kasich has the charm….as gcp pointed has some baggage as well…..not sure if GOP primary voters will put in a non hardliner on immigration….

                    • TheEiger says:

                      Unfortunately, personality is extremely important. No one is perfect. Just trying to think of the best person to get through the primaries, then the general. But also will be the president that we need to turn the country around. It’s pretty difficult.

                  • Dave Bearse says:

                    I don’t know any details about Kasich and Lehman Brothers.

                    Perdue did just fine with his Larry O’Neal surreptitiously providing friend and client Perdue a personalized $100,000 tax break. Stuff that’s unimportant in state races can quickly wither a candidate in the national spotlight, the foregoing being one of the reason why the talk of Perdue for VP was hilarious.

                • TheEiger says:

                  Not everyone is an atheist. Kasich’s faith actually helped him in the very important state of Ohio. Last I checked, Ohio was not in the South.

                  • gcp says:

                    The population in Ga and Texas is growing. Is the population growing in New York? I don’t think so.

                    • gcp says:

                      Yeah but number of electors is based on population and Ga gained last time around, don’t think NY gained any.

                    • MattMD says:

                      If you had bothered to do even 10s worth of research you would find that New York’s population is growing, the rate just isn’t as high as Georgia or Texas.

                    • MattMD says:

                      I get that the electors are based on population/Congressional reps plus 2. My point is, NY has 29 to Georgia’s 16. Georgia isn’t even close to doubling it’s population anytime soon.

                    • gcp says:

                      And my point is NY ranks 50th in domestic migration (per NY Post) NY gains population via immigration from other countries, not domestically. You just don’t have a lot of Georgians and Texans moving to NY because they like NY taxes , NY gun laws or anything about NY.

            • Will Durant says:

              Winning the South in the primaries hasn’t yielded too many good candidates for the general in recent years.

    • FranInAtlanta says:

      Am going to work through it when I finish this note. Ignoring elect-ability, my choices are 1) Romney, 2) Pence, 3) Bush.

    • TheEiger says:

      Yep, I voted for Pence. I’m not 100% sold on anyone, but would like Pence to run because I think he brings a lot to the debate. And I think he would make a good president.

    • Will Durant says:

      Another thank you for Q5 here. Constructive criticism; the question is awkwardly worded. Perhaps Mr. Rountree could extend a professional courtesy on the wordsmithing next time? This is coming from a guy who has his own challenges in this same area unless structured in COBOL.

      I really think the Republicans should get reforms in place now while in total control to do the right thing in our selection of government. I realize that it is the nature of short-term partisan politics to do whatever keeps their own party at the top forsaking all else. But lets try to do the right thing so that when the inevitable cycles occur we are at least attempting to elect the best people for the job. It will serve the party and the state better in the long term.

      • Dave Bearse says:

        It’s wishful thinking. Look at Georgia. All state offices, two-thirds the General Assembly and three-quarters of Congressional representation isn’t enough.

  1. northside101 says:

    John Konop is 1,000 percent right on Ohio—no Republican has been elected president in decades (if ever) without winning that state–in fact, since the end of World War 2, Ohio has voted for the presidential winner every time save for 1960, when it backed Nixon over JFK. The sobering math for the GOP is that the road to an Electoral College victory is very narrow—in the last 6 presidential elections, win or lose, Democratic presidential candidates have topped 250 electoral votes every time (only 270 are needed to win). Several of the big states basically are “off limits” for Republican GOP presidential candidates—California (55 electoral votes—Obama won by 3 million votes last time), New York (29 electoral votes—Obama +2 million votes last time) and Illinois (20 electoral votes—Obama +900,000 last time). Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes) often is close but has not backed a GOP presidential candidate since 1988—and the increasingly liberal, vote-rich Philadelphia area makes it harder than ever for a GOP presidential candidate to win that state. For a GOP candidate to win the presidency, he or she basically must sweep all of Dixie (including the increasingly marginal states of Florida, North Carolina and Virginia), Ohio and perhaps two other swing states, such as Colorado and Nevada. No wonder, then, the early focus on Bush, coming from Florida which has 29 electoral votes and certainly is key to a GOP win next year.

    • John Konop says:

      …….No wonder, then, the early focus on Bush, coming from Florida which has 29 electoral votes and certainly is key to a GOP win next year……

      Very good point!

    • Bobloblaw says:

      It is actually a myth that the road to 270 EVs is narrow for the GOP. The reason it looks that was is the GOP has gotten 50% of the vote in only one election since 1992. The states you mention were no more GOP relative the the rest of the country in 1988 than they are today. The GOP has a popualr vote problem, not a EV problem. In fact WI and MN are MORE GOP relative to the national popular today than in 1988. If the GOP candidate were ot ever get 52% of the national popular vote, they would carry everything Bush carried in 2004 plus MI, PA, NH, WI. MN, OR and WA would be too close to call.

      PA is no less GOP today than 1988, but the counties have changed. PHL surburbs went for GHW Bush in 1988, and more of rural especially SW and W PA went Dukakis. Today it is flipped.

  2. Andrew C. Pope says:

    The question on the state RFRA (#3 IIRC) is horrendously worded. The question reads as if we aren’t already protected from discrimination based on religious belief.

    Other than that, I’m curious if Jeb’s support would be as high had he not staked out the front runner position with the Dec. announcement. For example, if Mitt said he’s “thinking about thinking about running” would he be at the top of this chart?

    • Baker says:

      The Blue Wall is scary but with the right candidate (a guy with personality would help…) I definitely don’t think the bombshell that is New Hampshire is unwinnable, nor Pennsylvania really. If a certain guy from Wisconsin is either on the ticket or campaigns like the dickens, I don’t think it’s out (the guy got elected there three times and is no lilly-livered conservative). That’s 34 electoral votes and gets the Blue Wall down to 223.

      • Jared says:

        Good point about the Blue Wall. Also, Walker is the only guy in the field of potentials who ran on conservative policies, implemented those policies once elected, withstood a national firestorm of liberal criticism aimed at tearing down those policies, and then won statewide elections…twice.

          • benevolus says:

            I think “noise” is probably the criteria we are talking about. I mean, what percentage of the electorate are the Koch brothers, or Hobby Lobby, or Citizens United?

      • Bobloblaw says:

        There is NO Blue Wall. It is a myth. There is popular vote wall for the GOP, but not a Blue Wall..

        Blue Wall implies that the GOP candidate would get 51-52% of the national popular vote and somewhow lose MI, PA, WI and NH. That wouldnt happen. WI is in fact MORE GOP today than in 1988 and both MI and PA are the same D+ in 1988 as today. MN is MORE GOP today than in 1988, IA is much more GOP today than in 1988. Only NH is less.

        • Baker says:

          Blue Wall implies that a Republican candidate starts out with a huge deficit of electoral votes because of California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and some other small guys.

  3. JeffHaffley says:

    Did else anyone notice that less than 40% of Democratic PP readers want Hillary?

    Clinton 14 39%
    Warren 8 22%
    Webb 8 22%
    Sanders 5 14%
    Cuomo 1 3%
    O’Malley 0 0%

    Hillary numbers would doubtless drop to 30-35% if other/undecided PP Democrats readers could be separated out.

    PP readers are far more familiar than the average voter with AL L the candidates and this makes their lack of support for Hillary all the more telling.

  4. Rick Day says:

    I took the challenge and researched the candidates before I made a choice.

    As an independent who rags mostly on the Religious aspects of the GOP, I’m not ready for Hill in any way shape or form, other than sexist (I’m tired of men frikkin things up for everyone else but other men). Mostly because I have no idea where she stands on any position; pretty much like Ms. Nunn or whats-his-name that got the senate seat.

    I went for Randy Paul. Most people tell which way my smoke blows. If Paul will reschedule cannabis on a federal level, or even better, remove it from the CSA altogether I could care less if he brought public hangings for abortion back, I’m outta politics forever.

    To be honest, it feels good that my long time ‘fringe’ issue is rapidly becoming THE issue for 2016.

    Don’t blow it by sticking with Team Jesus. Time to go Green. It’s time for Georgia to wake up and accept the new dawn.

    And Buzz, we need a decrim bill this session; the obvious compromise until the Feds get their act together. Forget creams and helping 100 citizens when 7 million need the same relief.

  5. northside101 says:

    Baker, some good points on New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, but….Republicans could not win the Senate race in NH this past November, and with the continuing influx from liberal Massachusetts, and the state’s general revulsion (like the rest of the Northeast) at socially conservative Republicans, odds would favor a Democrat winning there. As for Wisconsin, it has voted Democratic for president 7 times in a row—and Walker only got 52% or so this time, hardly the stuff of landslides. Republicans have learned how different presidential year turnouts can be from midterm cycles. As for Pennsylvania, to the extent there is any growth in that aging state, it is in the Philadelphia area, which is very liberal. Even Ronald Reagan only got 53% in the state in his 1984 49-state landslide. One guarantee—Pennsylvania will not vote GOP for president unless Ohio does also—never been a situation (not at least in last 50 years) where Ohio has voted D for president and Pennsylvania R. If the GOP nominee is a Ted Cruz/Rick Perry/Rick Santorum candidate, you can write off all 3 of those states.

    As for the Georgia primary electorate, though outsiders view it as a very conservative bunch, that usually is not the case. Georgians did not trip over each other back in 1988 to vote for Pat Robertson (then VP Bush easily won the Georgia pres primary that year). In 1992, they rejected the fiery Pat Buchanan—and ditto in 1996. Yes, Huckabee won the state in 2008 pres primary, but in a close 3-way race with Romney and McCain. In last spring’s US Senate primary, the two most conservative candidates, Broun and Gingrey, fared poorly.

    • David C says:

      It’s worth noting vis a vis Wisconsin that in 2012, even after he won the runoff and with a Wisconsinite on the ticket, the GOP still lost the state by 7 points, and lost the open Senate race by a similar margin despite running a four-term governor who’d never lost a state-wide race before. Presidential Wisconsin and midterm Wisconsin are very different things.

      • John Konop says:

        A good point but it was not a statewide office…..statewide winners have a stronger support network across the state….congressmen in gerrymandered districts tend to play to the base more….statewide in general you to be more of a statesmen…

        • David C says:

          True on the potential lack of Congressional coattails. Jack Kemp didn’t have much of an impact on New York as a ‘favorite son’ either, though obviously representing 1/30 of New York isn’t the same as representing 1/8 of Wisconsin. That’s one reason I included the Senate race. In 2010 Wisconsin Rs were able to defeat an incumbent Senator with a very conservative, political neophyte. In 2012, with an open seat and running a moderate, previously popular Governor who’d won four straight gubernatorial elections by huge margins and never lost a statewide race against a liberal Congresswoman, Republicans lost by pretty much the same as the wide Presidential margin.

    • Baker says:

      Totally agree about Pennsylvania and Ohio. If you win one, you’ll likely win both. I wonder how many times in the past 30 years the two states have voted for different guys. My hunch would be not many.

      One piece of this equation that we’re not talking about is that the cool, black guy won’t be on the ticket. Does voting for a woman have the same sense of “history” and “righting the wrongs” that voting for Obama did? And if that woman is Hillary, does that make up for whatever baggage she has?

      Perhaps Republicans might put another woman on the ticket this time. And one that won’t go off the rails or be able to answer what newspapers she reads. Perhaps someone that speaks Spanish. Perhaps one that is a popular governor of a Blue State.

  6. northside101 says:

    Baker, Ohio and Pennsylvania voted differently in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. In 2004, for instance, Ohio favored Bush over Kerry by a 51-49 percent margin (Bush winning the state by about 119,000 votes), while Kerry won Pennsylvania by a 51-48 percent margin (winning by about 144,000 votes). They both backed Obama in 2008 and 2012, but Ohio is less Democratic than Pennsylvania—Ohio gave Obama 51% in 2008, Pennsylvania 54%.

    The University of Virginia’s Center for Politics website (Larry Sabato) made an interesting point when it comes to Ohio v. Pennsylvania, critical of Romney’s last-minute push to win Pennsylvania when it seemed likely Obama was going to win Ohio: “For the 16th election in a row, Ohio gave a smaller percentage of its votes to the Democratic (presidential) candidate than Pennsylvania. That’s something to keep in mind if a future Republican presidential candidate decides to make a late play for the Keystone stat, because if the Buckeye State is going Democratic, Pennsylvania very probably is going Democratic too.” (From their Nov 2012 analysis).

    Ohio and Pennsylvania also voted differently in the 1960 and 1968 presidential elections (Ohio for Nixon both times, PA for JFK and Humphrey respectively).

    Basically safe to say if Ohio is voting Democratic (for president), so is Pennsylvania; however, a GOP win in Ohio does not mean the same (for president) in Pennsylvania. It would probably have to be a very bad Democratic year for Pennsylvania to go R for president, much as it had to be a very bad Republican year for traditionally GOP Indiana to vote D for president in 2008 (as it did—barely—for Obama).

  7. Will Durant says:

    “The poll closes tomorrow [Jan 9] at noon and I’ll post the full results shortly thereafter.”

    Hanging chads?

    Just poking fun Buzz. I know you’ve probably been preoccupied the last couple of days.

Comments are closed.