2012 Presidential Election

[pr26]

Even though me and Ron Paul disagree on everything besides Foreign policy, I like the guy. He's bright, honest, and fun to watch.

That being said, he's not electable. At all. Sorry. His views are not mainstream enough....and he's not the type of candidate to water down their platform for the nomination (oh hai John McCain).

[Richard Dawkins]

Even though me and Ron Paul disagree on everything besides Foreign policy, I like the guy. He's bright, honest, and fun to watch.

That being said, he's not electable. At all. Sorry. His views are not mainstream enough....and he's not the type of candidate to water down their platform for the nomination (oh hai John McCain).

Paul polling 16% in Iowa. 18% in the Midwest. Third nationally. He fares best of all Republicans against Obama (down 1% compared to Romney's 8% down) and has the second highest favorability rating next to Perry.

Yeah, snowball's chance in hell.

[pr26]

Paul polling 16% in Iowa. 18% in the Midwest. Third nationally. He fares best of all Republicans against Obama (down 1% compared to Romney's 8% down) and has the second highest favorability rating next to Perry.

Yeah, snowball's chance in hell.

Yes....in late August of 2011. Polling right now doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. This is the time where candidates will poll well and after a few primaries come down the pipe will be pulling in single digits.

Paul will never have the financial backing or the type of platform to win the nomination in the U.S. two party system... and it's a shame! He's not a serious contender for the Republican nomination.

[The Voice]

Here is what Rasmussen put out yesterday and today.

Barack Obama 46%, Mitt Romney 38% - Obama +8
Barack Obama 43%, Michelle Bachmann 39% - Obama +4
Barack Obama 43%, Rick Perry 40% - Obama +3
Barack Obama 39%, Ron Paul 38% - Obama +1

Most of Ron Paul's undecideds are Republicans, so would they really vote for Obama over him? I'm sure some would, but it looks to me like Paul might be the Republican's best chance of beating Obama. Paul leads Obama by 10 points with Independents. All other Republicans trail Obama with Independents. Dr. Paul would humiliate Obama in debates too, I would love to see that actually.

Rasmussen has already been proven to favor Republicans.

It's a little early to even be saying who is going to win. Remember Howard Dean (Democrat)?


Can we stop this nonsense? Ron Paul won't be elected. The issue of his age will come up and it will sway voters away. Just watch...

[Richard Dawkins]

Yes....in late August of 2011. Polling right now doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. This is the time where candidates will poll well and after a few primaries come down the pipe will be pulling in single digits.

Ron Paul polls well, therefore: he's un-electable.

Brilliant logic.

Rasmussen has already been proven to favor Republicans.

Rasmussen polling is biased towards Republicans, therefore Ron Paul (a Republican) polls better than other Republicans (who are not Republicans). What are you smoking? This is the nomination season where candidates within a party are compared.

The issue of his age will come up and it will sway voters away. Just watch...

Of course you could be right, I'm not sure why you're so certain.

Ron Paul won't be elected.

Indeed you keep saying that.

My point is simply that Bachmann has started to slide and Paul has surged ahead. Somehow a net trend in polling statistics is "nonsense." From a Keynesian, no less!

[The Voice]

Rasmussen polling is biased towards Republicans, therefore Ron Paul (a Republican) polls better than other Republicans (who are not Republicans). What are you smoking? This is the nomination season where candidates within a party are compared.

The post also compared him to Obama. That's what I was pointing out.

Of course you could be right, I'm not sure why you're so certain.

It's just my opinion and I'd bet a sum of money on it.

My point is simply that Bachmann has started to slide and Paul has surged ahead. Somehow a net trend in polling statistics is "nonsense." From a Keynesian, no less!

Yes and it's still way too early to be proclaiming these polls as for sure.

[Richard Dawkins]

The post also compared him to Obama. That's what I was pointing out.

Yeah, polls who compare Paul to Obama also compare Romney, Perry, and Bachmann to Obama head-to-head. Among Republicans, Paul fared best. How is there any room for alleged "republican polling bias" when it doesn't really matter whether they beat Obama, but which one performs better? Do you understand the point of that poll question now? You're criticism doesn't make sense.

It's just my opinion and I'd bet a sum of money on it.

The "it's just my opinion, man!" defense.

Yes and it's still way too early to be proclaiming these polls as for sure.

So why the rush to discredit Paul? If the way of measuring electability (polling) doesn't matter, then where is the evidence that shows he's unpopular, unelectable, and poison? He's old and doesn't fall perfectly within the GOP platform. I've heard this for McCain, Dole, and Reagan. 2/3 didn't get elected, but I don't think it's reasonable to say they're uniformly unelectable and entertaining the idea of their nomination or presidential run is nonsense. Neither Romney nor Perry are hardliners and have skeletons of their own, so I'm missing the disparity in "electability" going solely by conventional wisdom. I definitely don't see it going by the current polling trends.

[The Voice]

The "it's just my opinion, man!" defense.

So why the rush to discredit Paul?

If you're willing to put a healthy wager on it, I'll bet you and put my money where my mouth is.

[DougHeil]

Rasmussen polls registered voters who "most likely" are going to vote. How does this favor Republicans anyway? I thought Democrats came out with more voters last election.

If you want to compare polls, it doesn't matter which poll you look at, Obama's favorable ratings are in the 30's now. Even the heavily swayed Liberal news sites say the same thing.

But yes; these polls right now are focusing on the Republicans and how they fare against each other and against Obama. The same type of polls were out there when Clinton and Obama were fighting each other as well. It's interesting to note that the same things Clinton warned all Democrats about and warned the country about, are now coming true. LOL

[Richard Dawkins]

If you're willing to put a healthy wager on it, I'll bet you and put my money where my mouth is.

How do you bet on whether someone is electable? You can bet on whether a certain candidate will win, but even calling Romney or Perry out ahead at this point would be risky.

I'm not sure why you're emotionally involved in this. I have no stake in Ron Paul's candidacy. I've said repeatedly I will not vote for him. I've said I don't think he will win. But I still think he's a viable candidate and worth listening to.

I'm still not sure why that's controversial given what's happened in the past week.

[pr26]

Ron Paul polls well, therefore: he's un-electable.

Brilliant logic.


Rasmussen polling is biased towards Republicans, therefore Ron Paul (a Republican) polls better than other Republicans (who are not Republicans). What are you smoking? This is the nomination season where candidates within a party are compared.




Of course you could be right, I'm not sure why you're so certain.


Indeed you keep saying that.

My point is simply that Bachmann has started to slide and Paul has surged ahead. Somehow a net trend in polling statistics is "nonsense." From a Keynesian, no less!

You missed my point or avoided it, not sure. Neither Bachmann or Paul are viable candidates for the nomination and will both be polling single digits by the time polls actually matter.

I'll stop now. I'm breaking my personal rules of debating politics or the internet lol.

[DougHeil]

I'm waiting for that person to come out from somewhere that will ignite and unite and excite us. I don't see them yet and not sure if I will see them.

That said, whoever wins the nomination is going to beat Obama. That I'm sure of. All indications and indicators show that the economy is not going to get better in 2012 and probably is going to be worse. I don't think it's going to matter at all who the nominee is.

I also believe someone could step in real late in the game. I'm wondering what the latest month has been when a candidate declared his/her intentions? I think someone like Christie or Ryan or Rubio, or gasp, even Jeb Bush might get in real late. Bush would be very long shot though.

I don't think we are done yet and a few surprises are on the way.

[JiggleIt]

I also believe someone could step in real late in the game. I'm wondering what the latest month has been when a candidate declared his/her intentions? I think someone like Christie or Ryan or Rubio

[Richard Dawkins]

(CNN) – Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin announced Monday that he will not run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.

Ryan said he appreciates the support of those who encouraged him to launch a bid for the White House, but that he will continue to serve in Congress.

"While humbled by the encouragement, I have not changed my mind, and therefore I am not seeking our party's nomination for President," Ryan said in a statement. "I remain hopeful that our party will nominate a candidate committed to a pro-growth agenda of reform that restores the promise and prosperity of our exceptional nation. I remain grateful to those I serve in Southern Wisconsin for the unique opportunity to advance this effort in Congress."

– CNN's Steve Brusk contributed to this report.

He was a liberal anyway.

[JiggleIt]

He was a liberal anyway.

I like Christie the most out of the bunch and Ryan the least. I'm looking forward to seeing how and when Christie involves himself in the Presidential discussion. Guessing it will be after Obama's next term.