Colbert polling higher than Ron Paul

godpt3

Comedian Colbert Reaches Double Digits As Third-Party Candidate
Wednesday, October 24, 2007


Comedian Stephen Colbert is not a threat to win the presidency, but the odds are that that his satire will win plenty of laughs and maybe even some votes.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that Colbert is preferred by 13% of voters as an independent candidate challenging Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani. The survey was conducted shortly after Colbert’s surprise announcement that he is lusting for the Oval Office.

The result is similar when Fred Thompson is the Republican in the three-way race. With Thompson as the GOP candidate, Colbert earns 12% of the vote.

Last week Colbert used his Comedy Central show "The Colbert Report" to announce that he is running for President as both a Republican and a Democrat, but only in the state of South Carolina. He first informed fellow jokester Jon Stewart on Stewart's program that so far he had only "decided to officially consider whether or not I will announce"—a habitual formulation of both politicians and comedians pretending to be politicians. Fifteen minutes later, however, Colbert was telling viewers of his own show: "After nearly 15 minutes of soul-searching, I have heard the call."

Colbert does particularly well with the younger voters most likely to be watching his show and therefore most aware of his myriad presidential-like qualities. In the match-up with Giuliani and Clinton, Colbert draws 28% of likely voters aged 18-29. He draws 31% of that cohort when his foes are Thompson and Clinton. In both match-ups, Colbert has more support with young voters than the GOP candidate.

"These are my people," Colbert didn't say when he wasn't asked about the high support from young voters discovered by Rasmussen Reports. "They know who I am and what I'm about, and so forth. Is this thing working, are we on the air? Oh, it's the Internet? Well why didn't you say the Internet?"

An earlier survey found that only 8% of Americans say they would definitely vote for comedian Jon Stewart if he was on the ballot in 2008. Just 38% say they would definitely vote against Stewart. It may be worth noting that the comedian outperformed Katie Couric on this point—62% of American voters would definitely vote against the CBS news anchor.

For what it’s worth, the overall numbers show Hillary Clinton at 45%, Rudy Giuliani at 35%, and Colbert at 13%.

The other match-up shows Clinton at 46%, Thompson at 34% and Colbert at 12%.

Rasmussen Reports releases a daily Presidential Tracking Poll along with weekly analysis on the races for the Democratic and Republican Presidential nominations. General election match-ups and other key stats are also available for all Republican and Democratic candidates.

Crosstabs available for Premium Members only.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

Rasmussen Reports’ Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, “One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com." And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, “In election campaigns, I’ve learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.”

Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.

During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

Delaware Vol

The sad and depressing thing about this article is that most 18-20 year olds probably DO believe that this clown is a legitimate candidate....

gue_barium

Delaware Vol wrote:

The sad and depressing thing about this article is that most 18-20 year olds probably DO believe that this clown is a legitimate candidate....

It pays to be cynical.

Ask Condoleeza Rice. She's been fascisMonized.

fragileblake

Yeah, anyone who would really vote for him is an idiot in my book. I really think Rudy and Hillary are under qualified for the job, let alone someone with no policy experience whatsoever.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

i think its fine. Most of the people that vote for him probably wouldnt vote at all. Voting for him is a vote for "none of the above". Throwing a little chaos into the mix can be healthy i think. Plus he could probably do a better job than most of the others, sadly.

Kind of a weird social experiment to see how close we are to electing celebrities.

gue_barium

MrSmith wrote:

i think its fine. Most of the people that vote for him probably wouldnt vote at all. Voting for him is a vote for "none of the above". Throwing a little chaos into the mix can be healthy i think. Plus he could probably do a better job than most of the others, sadly.

Kind of a weird social experiment to see how close we are to electing celebrities.

200,000 votes for comedian Pat Paulsen in '68.

boxwine_in_hell

gue_barium wrote:

It pays to be cynical.

Ask Condoleeza Rice. She's been fascisMonized.

She's been what?

mca47

fragileblake wrote:

Yeah, anyone who would really vote for him is an idiot in my book. I really think Rudy and Hillary are under qualified for the job, let alone someone with no policy experience whatsoever.

I generally think that anyone who would really vote for the majority of the current candidates is an idiot. Sorry, but it's slim pickings.

bruce

I love how so many of the hip youngens love Ron Paul cause he's anti war... or whatever... but you'd love to know that he support the legalization of assault weapons (which are made only for killing other people) and the production of congressional mail which referred to black people as "fleet footed". And there is lot more where that came from.

gabers

Being a Ron Paul supporter is kind of like preaching from the Bible. If you pick and choose what you like it sounds like the most wonderful collection of beliefs and morality. You've just got to overlook about half of it.

mookie blaylock 10

that is absolutely hilarious! thanks for posting that godpt3. i needed a good laugh this morning.

colbert....great president?...or greatest president?

eventually he's going to hold some kind of guinness record for these gags and all the things he's had named after him. some of the stuff that he and his staff come up with is pure comedic genius.

boxwine_in_hell

bruce wrote:

I love how so many of the hip youngens love Ron Paul cause he's anti war... or whatever... but you'd love to know that he support the legalization of assault weapons (which are made only for killing other people) and the production of congressional mail which referred to black people as "fleet footed". And there is lot more where that came from.

Black people are fleet footed...just watch the NFL.

jlew24asu

bruce wrote:

I love how so many of the hip youngens love Ron Paul cause he's anti war... or whatever... but you'd love to know that he support the legalization of assault weapons (which are made only for killing other people) and the production of congressional mail which referred to black people as "fleet footed". And there is lot more where that came from.

no no. I think most people, including myself, like ron paul not because of his war stance, but of his stance of less government and liberty principles.

jlew24asu

gabers wrote:

Being a Ron Paul supporter is kind of like preaching from the Bible. If you pick and choose what you like it sounds like the most wonderful collection of beliefs and morality. You've just got to overlook about half of it.

doesnt that hold true for about every candidate? unless you blindly support one party no matter what the stance.

chopitdown

bruce wrote:

I love how so many of the hip youngens love Ron Paul cause he's anti war... or whatever... but you'd love to know that he support the legalization of assault weapons (which are made only for killing other people) and the production of congressional mail which referred to black people as "fleet footed". And there is lot more where that came from.

guns are supported by constitution...pretty simple for him.

He actually didn't say those things about blacks. A staffer wrote those things in his newsletter and heres a little more to that story

Michael Krekel, a spokesperson for Congressman Paul’s campaign, has now responded to the allegations of racism in the Congressman’s writings. Krekel called the writings “unfortunate,” but said that the writings referenced above were “not written by the congressman personally.”

“It was composed by a ghostwriter, and then sent out with Dr. Paul’s name attached to it, Krekel told The Daily Background. He also said that at the time, Paul was not directly involved in politics and that he had a staffer write the column in his place. Paul “has apologized repeatedly for his error, and he has been dealing with the incident for 15 years,” Krekel added.

“While the views expressed on African Americans do not reflect Congressman Paul’s views, he understands that he is responsible for anything that goes out in his weekly column.”

Pacomc79

bruce wrote:

I love how so many of the hip youngens love Ron Paul cause he's anti war... or whatever... but you'd love to know that he support the legalization of assault weapons (which are made only for killing other people) and the production of congressional mail which referred to black people as "fleet footed". And there is lot more where that came from.

being against the so called assault weapons ban dosen make you pro little jimmy owning a gulf 240.

the majority of people in favor of that wouldn't know which way to hold a weapon much less know what an assault weapon is not to mention there are thousands of people who do own fully automatic assault weapons with permits that never kill anyone. The logic behind making guns illegal is the same logic behind making drugs illegal. You aren't getting rid of either, and people are going to make bad choices, Prohibition is the worst way to try and end a behavior.

Paul might be too much of an isolationist for some people but a politician in favor of liberty and an actual proponent of the free market economy I can get behind. I doubt I'll vote for him though but we'll see.

No canidate ever is going to be perfect. I'm impressed a few young people are even paying attention for whatever reason.

godpt3

MrSmith wrote:

Kind of a weird social experiment to see how close we are to electing celebrities.

Not that unusual, really. "celebs" get elected to offices all the time. John Glenn, Tom Osborne, Sonny Bono, Ahnold, etc... It's because they have high name recognition.

gabers

jlew24asu wrote:

doesnt that hold true for about every candidate? unless you blindly support one party no matter what the stance.

True, every candidate has their flaws, but it seems like the more you dig into his beliefs the more scary he sounds. At least to me. I still like him better than the rest of the Republican candidates, but that doesn't mean I'd want him as president. I appreciate how he's making the other candidates talk about big issues like the war in Iraq though, and our overall involvement in foreign affairs.

Cosmo

Well... for those of us 'idiots' out here who are tired of given only the choice between a shit and jelly sandwich or a turd omlette... we think we might actually choose mockery cake this time. And what really seperates this 'clown' from the rest of the clowns in the field... they are politicians? That make them the better choice? If you believe the campaign lies of politicians... you are the clown, not them. The only one telling us the truth... that the whole campaign process is a fucking joke... Stephen Colbert.
So, bon appitite, assholes. Let me know is adding tobasco sauce to your turd omlette makes it go down any easier... I'm going to be having some delicious protest cake with thick layer of 'Sick of the mockery that American Politics have become' icing. Mmmmmmm... mockery.

floyd1975

jlew24asu wrote:

no no. I think most people, including myself, like ron paul not because of his war stance, but of his stance of less government and liberty principles.

This is why I like him.

Yoyoyo

gabers wrote:

True, every candidate has their flaws, but it seems like the more you dig into his beliefs the more scary he sounds. At least to me. I still like him better than the rest of the Republican candidates, but that doesn't mean I'd want him as president. I appreciate how he's making the other candidates talk about big issues like the war in Iraq though, and our overall involvement in foreign affairs.

You talk as if there are piles and piles of things to dislike about Ron Paul, but you articulate none of them.


P.S. Most of the "polls" you read about do not even mention Ron Paul when they ask about the nominees. Also, Ron Paul is not mentioned ONCE in this article....I am now wondering why the OP posted about this at all.

Also, Colbert might not even go the full distance and throw this support behind another candidate...and we all know who that will be on the Republican side.

godpt3

Mestophar wrote:

You talk as if there are piles and piles of things to dislike about Ron Paul, but you articulate none of them.

my biggest objection is his plan to eliminate the IRS, taxes, etc., without explaining how he's going to pay for vital national needs. That's just stupid, short-sighted and irresponsible.

baraka

godpt3 wrote:

my biggest objection is his plan to eliminate the IRS, taxes, etc., without explaining how he's going to pay for vital national needs. That's just stupid, short-sighted and irresponsible.

Yes and another problem I have with Libertarianism in general is the deregulation aspect, that it ignores the plain fact that private institutions, like corporations can be just as tyrannical as governments. At least our government in the U.S. is, at least in principle, is constrained by the constitution and the voters. It seems to me that corporations in the absence of government regulation could have the potential to be unbounded authoritarian structures. Corporations can be more oppressive to our citizens. Citizens will be constrained to participate in an economy that is essentially shaped by corporate interests that are consolidating their power in fewer and fewer hands. Without regulation to limit private power, we end up with effective slavery: sweat-shops, company towns, no collective bargaining, etc.

I like Ron Paul's war stance, though

Yoyoyo

godpt3 wrote:

my biggest objection is his plan to eliminate the IRS, taxes, etc., without explaining how he's going to pay for vital national needs. That's just stupid, short-sighted and irresponsible.

Actually paying 2 billion dollars a week in Iraq and the foreign policy of the US is stupid, short-sighted and irresponsible. If you listened to Paul then you would know that the money saved from pulling out of Iraq and other military bases around the world would be more than enough to pay for the services needed at home. Also if you listened to him you would know that he doesn't plan on eliminating taxes, just the harmful income tax.

Yoyoyo

baraka wrote:

Yes and another problem I have with Libertarianism in general is the deregulation aspect, that it ignores the plain fact that private institutions, like corporations can be just as tyrannical as governments. At least our government in the U.S. is, at least in principle, is constrained by the constitution and the voters. It seems to me that corporations in the absence of government regulation could have the potential to be unbounded authoritarian structures. Corporations can be more oppressive to our citizens. Citizens will be constrained to participate in an economy that is essentially shaped by corporate interests that are consolidating their power in fewer and fewer hands. Without regulation to limit private power, we end up with effective slavery: sweat-shops, company towns, no collective bargaining, etc.

I like Ron Paul's war stance, though

People are naturally against forces of authoritarian control and in the US corporations are generally kept in check and are unable, through public pressure and opinion, to exert their control.

The problem with American corporatism come mostly from their operations abroad, where they are able to exert control over populations with the help of governments and armies. The coalition of governments AND corporations acting together is where you find authoritarian control. Ron Paul wants to separate government from corporate power and money. Let the markets take care of the negligant corporations, in a free market only the strongest survive and making mistakes are costly.

Boston MA

And yet he is the only one to go after the biggest illegal corporation of all time. THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!!

GOVT. REGULATION?

How about the fake liberals and fake conservative wake up and see the FEDERAL RESERVE owns you. Like Cattle. They write the regulations. And Ron Paul is the only one calling them out. You can't have it both ways. Who are you supporting that has a goal of ending the illegal monopoly of the biggest corporation in America?

baraka wrote:

Yes and another problem I have with Libertarianism in general is the deregulation aspect, that it ignores the plain fact that private institutions, like corporations can be just as tyrannical as governments. At least our government in the U.S. is, at least in principle, is constrained by the constitution and the voters. It seems to me that corporations in the absence of government regulation could have the potential to be unbounded authoritarian structures. Corporations can be more oppressive to our citizens. Citizens will be constrained to participate in an economy that is essentially shaped by corporate interests that are consolidating their power in fewer and fewer hands. Without regulation to limit private power, we end up with effective slavery: sweat-shops, company towns, no collective bargaining, etc.

I like Ron Paul's war stance, though

Yoyoyo

baraka wrote:

Without regulation to limit private power, we end up with effective slavery: sweat-shops, company towns, no collective bargaining, etc.

I like Ron Paul's war stance, though

Ron Paul supports Unionization! Paraphrasing him "all volutary associations, whether economic or social should be protected by the law."

Boston MA

I bet he polls higher now!
Better than Colbert!

Ron Paul Presidential Matchups

These polls are not necessarily sorted by date. Browse for the latest polls.

Title: Rasmussen Reports
Date: 7/20/07-7/22/07
Rasmussen Reports National Polls
Ron Paul: 34.0
Hillary Clinton: 49.0
Source

Title: Rasmussen Reports
Date: 7/20/07-7/22/07
Rasmussen Reports National Polls
Ron Paul: 30.0
Barack Obama: 50.0
Source

kenny olav

In all seriousness, one of the best things to happen in politics in recent years was Stephen Colbert's hilariously savage assault on not only the Bush Administration, but also the political media... the whole political establishment really... I'm referring to his stand-up act/manifesto at the White House Press Corp Dinner last year.

The likely candidates for both the Democratic and Republican parties are vile... I would happily vote for Stephen Colbert over one of them, and I wish he was running a more serious campaign, although I do appreciate it for the joke it is.

mookie blaylock 10

Kenny Olav wrote:

In all seriousness, one of the best things to happen in politics in recent years was Stephen Colbert's hilariously savage assault on not only the Bush Administration, but also the political media... the whole political establishment really... I'm referring to his stand-up act/manifesto at the White House Press Corp Dinner last year.

The likely candidates for both the Democratic and Republican parties are vile... I would happily vote for Stephen Colbert over one of them, and I wish he was running a more serious campaign, although I do appreciate it for the joke it is.

indeed, kenny o. that press dinner is something i'll never forget. how he managed to wriggle his way into that one, i'll never know. then again, how he's managed to get ice cream named after him, get honourary degrees, commendations from foreign ambassadors, and so on is just beyond, but still absolutely hilarious.

some people seem confused thinking that he's running a serious campaign, and not appreciating the joke it is, as you said.

baraka

Mestophar wrote:

People are naturally against forces of authoritarian control and in the US corporations are generally kept in check and are unable, through public pressure and opinion, to exert their control.

The problem with American corporatism come mostly from their operations abroad, where they are able to exert control over populations with the help of governments and armies. The coalition of governments AND corporations acting together is where you find authoritarian control. Ron Paul wants to separate government from corporate power and money. Let the markets take care of the negligant corporations, in a free market only the strongest survive and making mistakes are costly.

It seems to me that an unchecked 'free' market tends to becomes dominated by a few corporations, that results in oligopolistic competition and higher profits for the companies in question. This occurs because only established corporations can afford the large capital investments needed to compete, thus reducing the number of competitors who can enter or survive in a given the market. In other words, an unchecked capitalist market evolves toward oligopolistic concentration, imo.