Posted by Matt Hawes on 12/22/09 12:24 PM Last updated 12/22/09 12:11 PM   [Newer: Time for a sensible foreign policy] [Older: Health Care Fight Not Over]

According to Public Policy Polling, Dr. Rand Paul has a substantial lead over establishment candidate Trey Grayson 44-25 in their latest poll.

Paul is up 44-25 on Grayson. 39% of likely primary voters have a favorable opinion of him to 13% unfavorable while 22% view Grayson positively to 15% unfavorable.

Paul is winning the votes of conservatives by a 47-20 margin, while Grayson holds a 36-34 lead with moderates. Paul is having a particularly good amount of success with folks who think that the Republican Party in Washington has become too liberal- his lead with them is 54-18. Paul's support is universal across demographic lines, as he is up with men, women, voters in every region of the state, and every group of the GOP electorate
broken down by age....

Check out the full results here.

Our message is spreading!!

Posted 12/22/09 12:53 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA

Rand Paul is a person of excellent character and he is a scholar of classical liberalism. He is very much like his father in these qualities.

Posted 12/22/09 2:21 PM barney Minneapolis, MN

this article made my morning!

Posted 12/22/09 2:22 PM MikeKlamecki Elkhart Lake, WI

I think the numbers are probably a little low for Paul. If you look at who took part in the polls;18 to 29 year olds=9%. I think this will be a large part of Paul's support, but this age group doesn't bother with land-line phones, so hardly any polling numbers for them.

Posted 12/22/09 3:25 PM m00nmaster Scotch Plains, NJ

This only makes me want to donate more. We need another voice of reason in the Senate!

Posted 12/22/09 4:13 PM bradwjensen Cedar Rapids, IA

"Paul is having a particularly good amount of success with folks who think that the Republican Party in Washington has become too liberal" Excuse my ignorance with some name labeling, but what is it to be "liberal," and why do so many see it as a bad thing? The word Liberalism sounds like Liberty to me, and Wikipedia says, "Liberalism is the belief in the importance of individual freedom." What is wrong with that? Why is it "bad" to be labeled a "Liberal?" It sounds like Liberalism is what the Campaign For Liberty is all about.

Posted 12/22/09 4:39 PM Ken from CT Milford, CT

SSSSShhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Posted 12/22/09 7:34 PM Glenn Cumming, GA

Has Rand Paul come out in favor of preemptive war recently? Heard some rumblings today on AntiWar.com Radio that he and Shiff are tossing a foreign policy of peace under the bus in order to get more votes. This is one of the reasons I've hesitated to give to their campaigns. It's great that these two understand economics and the role of the Fed in our problems and would be a big help in ending the system. However, if they support preemptive war, well, its not a trade I'm willing to make. Anybody?

Posted 12/22/09 8:16 PM RMMHS4RP Champaign, IL

Glenn: What I've noticed about Rand Paul is that he just doesn't talk much about foreign policy. When he does, he often says that he is against undeclared wars, and that he would have voted for a declaration of war against Afghanistan, but not against Iraq. His campaign has a YouTube channel, as does one of his supporters (RandPaulSupporter), and there you can find many videos of his speeches. Unfortunately, these still don't tell the whole story. If I could ask him one question, it would be about his position on Iran. As for Peter Schiff, I don't follow his campaign as closely, but the LRC blog had a link within the past week or so to a YouTube video in which Schiff expressed his opposition to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, but also said that he didn't believe having hundreds of overseas bases was necessary for our security. It was a little disappointing, as it gave me the impression that Schiff was something of a modern Barry Goldwater, though maybe not quite as hawkish. I would love to hear him elaborate on his position, same as Rand. If you find out anything different from this, please let me know. Peace, brother.

Posted 12/22/09 8:41 PM chiefsmurph Moraga, CA

I think my refrigerator has a place for these poll numbers. I can't wait for the day Rand beats out Trey Grayson. What a tool.

Posted 12/23/09 01:47 AM Taika Bardstown, KY

Rand has never supported preventative war, nor would he... but for you folks wanting him to make statements on some of these issues... Please realize that Ron did not get elected in TX crusading against the War on Drugs and Interventionism? A smart campaign will focus on the issues we can agree on - overspending, the need for government reform etc. Ron didn't intend to win the presidential election, he was there to spread a message. It's different from winning. I have friends in KY that came around to Ron's beliefs - in a couple years. We have 6 months to win the election, and Rand is doing a perfect job presenting our message to the average voter. Ron & Carol have already said you don't need to worry about Rand. He's a strict constitutionalist, and will be every bit the champion of liberty Ron is... except with greater power, as a Senator. His election will help us inestimably in future presidential races, send the message that we're electable, and in spreading the message of liberty.

Posted 12/23/09 09:12 AM Glenn Cumming, GA

Thanks, RMMHS4RP. Will do. Eyes and ears open.

Posted 12/23/09 12:15 PM Ike Hall Clarkston, GA

Er, isn't C4L supposed to be non-partisan? Why is it plumping for a candidate at its highest level? Can we do the same for other races? Why not?

Posted 12/23/09 1:02 PM mlang52 Robinson, IL

Ike From what I have seen on here, the Libertarians get as much support as the old style, liberty loving, republicans. (not neocons) I had no idea we were non-partisan, though! Most are against the plank that the Democratic party espouses. So I would see that as very partisan.

Posted 12/27/09 10:26 PM exclntman El Cajon, CA

Ron Paul is the only one who is not a member of the council of Foreign Relations. Every presiden since John F. Kennedy has been a member. Bush was also a member of the Bilderberg group, and Schull and Bones. Read up on these two groups. They are satanic groups. I would vote for Ron Paul if he runs for president again. If he don't I will cast my vote for Sarah Palin.

Posted 12/29/09 02:32 AM beagletwo Coudersport, PA

Hi, Ike. My thoughts about your question of being non-partisan: I discovered several years ago that I agreed with some things the Democrat-party 'says' they support. For example, I agree with several of Senator Joe Lieberman's guiding principles; some I don't agree with. I thought I was a "Republican" for years. While living in Arkansas, there was a person running on the Democrat ticket who was more Conservative than the Republican candidate. I voted for that Democrat, and began questioning what I thought I had understood about the party system. In the last decade or so we've seen Republican majorities in Washington run roughshod over common-sense and the Constitution in many areas: the Federal budget, and the Patriot Act's constitutional violations... just to touch on two issues. Generally, both parties seek greater Federal control over aspects of life in America. But, the parties want control over different aspects of how we live and what choices 'they' think we peasants should be able to make. We are allowed to pick which 'flavor' of socialism we want. The framers wrote our Constitution as a 'document of limitations' to prevent federal encroachment on individual (and state) rights to choose for ourselves. Study the 10th Amendment when you get time. I no longer support someone based on party affiliation, but I seek candidates who most closely hold to the concept of constitutional government. Generally that type of person will be of a Libertarian mindset, but such aren't always available. Here in Pennsylvania most people seeking political office are starch-stenched in one of the 'major' parties, with an occasional Independent or Libertarian. It usually takes looking at voting records and paying attention to what an individual says (AND sometimes what they DON'T say) to determine who I'll vote for. I consider my approach to be non-partisan. I do my best to look at both 'sides of the aisle.' I strongly feel this is -similar- to the C4L leadership's approach. These 'comment' pages and the C4L forums are great places for exchange of ideas and information. I'm certain that I can learn something from everyone here. I would like to think that any insights on future candidates would always be welcome (tastefully submitted, of course.) Regards.