RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
Online Poll: Who won Wednesday’s GOP debate at the Reagan Library?
Did you watch Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate hosted by Politico and NBC News at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif.? If you did, let us know who you think won in our unscientific online poll.
Also, in the comments section below, let us know your thoughts on the debate and the candidates.
Topic: Campaign 2012, News Desk
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top117 Comments to “Online Poll: Who won Wednesday’s GOP debate at the Reagan Library?”
It was a draw for me between Romney & Perry. As well as a challenge to each other and an asset in the larger debate against Obama, the scheduling of Obama’s joint session extravaganza speech tomorrow night was a definite benefit in this election of 2012 ABO.
Report comment to moderator
For those who didn’t see it, here’s a replay if you’d like to see it first. I know, too late, you already voted huh?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/watch-chat-live-gop-presidential-hopefuls-square-off-in-reagan-library-debate/
Report comment to moderator
I just looked at the poll results. Really people? REALLY? C’mon. This is why I don’t take Paul supporters seriously. 82% Really? It’s either 2 or 3 of you voting multiple times, or the Paulbots are hitting online polls en masse. Ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
Ditto Louise.
Report comment to moderator
4 minutes and he’s now at 84%? Good grief.
Frank, is that you?
Report comment to moderator
first of all “the real aj” you are an idiot because you can only vote once on this poll meaning that over 80 percent of people who voted here like ron paul. second paulbots? each one of these people voted because they are enthusiastic about ron paul not because they are trying to manipulate the polls which doesn’t makes any sense at all because polls r public to see what the public thinks. if more people were enthusiastic about the other candidates then those people would find this poll and vote for their choice plain and simple. Just becuase our candidate gets the majority of the vote dosnt mean it was planed or manipulated
Report comment to moderator
RP has become a caricature of himself.
And Moneymike604, calling fellow posters names is a flagrant violation of the rules here. Come here often, or do you just troll places that have polls for RP?
Report comment to moderator
@The Real RJ Interesting. You don’t take Ron Paul supporters seriously because he has too many supporters? Good grief.
Report comment to moderator
Caught some of it. Hoping to watch the rest of it soon.
From the parts that I saw, near the end, Perry seemed hesitant, with too many pauses, as if he was. unsure. of. himself. He rambled too much. Others on the Web say he was good early, but poor towards the end.
He took some serious shots from the others, apparently. That’s what happens when you’re leading in the polls.
I’m not sure if doubling down on his “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme” will help him or hurt him in the primaries, but it will hurt for sure against Obama in the general election. He just lost Florida. And the thing is, such language is entirely unnecessary. Conservatives are not, or should not be, doctrinaire libertarians, looking to get rid of SS altogether and have no safety net. Ronald Reagan noted, years ago, that conservatives have accepted some type of social safety net. Conservatives are libertarians that have been “mugged by reality.” Social Security needs reformed, absolutely, but it is not the driver of our debt so much as Medicare and Medicaid. Social Security can be fixed very quickly with two actions: (1) Raise the retirement age for workers under 55 by one month for every two years that they have left until retirement, and ultimately, probably cap the retirement age at 67 or 68, and (2) End the cost of living adjustment for higher earners. Boom. Done. There is no need for Perry’s rhetoric, which needlessly ticks off essential voting constituencies on something that is not as big a problem as Medicare and Medicaid.
I’m also not enthused about Perry’s answer on the death penalty. Having overseen over 200 executions, he is telling us that he has never doubted or worried even once that one of those accused might be innocent? Never struggled with it, ever? I support capital punishment for the most heinous crimes, but a more serious, thoughtful response would’ve been good. George W. Bush or Mike Huckabee could’ve – would’ve – talked compassionately about the struggle that goes into signing death warrants.
I don’t think Perry won. From what I’ve heard others say, Bachmann didn’t win either. She was ignored for long stretches of the debate and was pretty much irrelevant. Perry’s entrance into the race has clearly pushed her off to the side. I don’t know if any Ames Straw Poll winner has fallen more quickly than she has. Too bad, because I prefer her over Perry.
And Paul? I heard the immigration portion of the debate, where he said, “I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us to keep us in.” What the heck? Yeah, we’re gonna be wanting to illegally migrate to Mexico soon. LOL!
I’ve seen good reviews for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Huntsman on the Web. I’ll have to finish watching to make up my mind on a winner.
Report comment to moderator
@Brotherdan I understand your accusation. A caricature is a portrait that exaggerates or distorts the essence of a person or thing to create an easily identifiable visual likeness. This likeness is Liberty. It is easily identifiable. Maybe if you really understood the merits of a free society and the advantages that liberty actually affords us, you would understand the motivations of Ron Paul Supporters.
Do you have any actual differences with Ron Paul on policy or principal?
Report comment to moderator
#8: He has a sizable chunk of very committed supporters, who are very active in straw polls as well as online. They dominate every unscientific poll that they can find on the Web, whether or not they actually watched the debate, and whether or not they are regular readers of the blog that posted the poll. Other candidates like Romney and Perry have more supporters (just look at any scientific poll for the GOP presidential nomination), but they aren’t as active or organized on the Internet.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is the only candidate with a consistently conservative track record.
Perry tried to tax and borrow the money to build bullet trains across Texas and FORCE young girls to receive an STD vaccine. He raised taxes twice and worked as Al Gore’s campaign manager. How could anyone defend a record like that?
Romney = Romneycare
Huntsman endorsed Cap & Trade.
Bachmann is not smart. She said, “I thought we are on a gold standard” after a house committee meeting in 2008. She has supported all of the Bush/Obama wars.
Cain is a nice guy, but used to work at the Federal Reserve bank and has always been a Keynesian.
Newt was for invading Libya, then supported Obama’s choice to bomb Libya, then decided we should stay out of Libya. This all happened in the span of one week.
Santorum makes Dick Cheney and Barack Obama look like peace-loving hippies. Santorum would bomb Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, and Canada if he were president.
Report comment to moderator
@Matt Y. Your solution may well be what must happen, but what about a contract. The people that have been paying into Social Security as a retirement plan signed up to retire at a certain age. It has been done, but you can’t ethically or even legally just change the contract, near the end of the payments. I certainly like Ron Paul’s argument that we bring the troops home, shut down the useless, unconstitutional departments(Education, Agriculture, etc), and cut other spending so that we don’t have to break our contract with our elderly and throw them under the bus.
Report comment to moderator
#11 And what constitutes scientific?
Is there any kind of science to a debate? Here’s a dictionary definition: A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
Why were the moderators afraid to let Ron Paul and others put their arguments forward? Shouldn’t the same question be asked of each candidate on a particular topic so that there can be actual debate of an issue.
This debate was by far, more of a farce than any poll.
Report comment to moderator
FLDave: Paul belongs nowhere near foreign policy. Removing all of the troops from foreign nations, pulling out of NATO and the UN, and pulling the Navy back, as Paul advocates, would be a disaster. It would leave a power vacuum that could only be filled by Russia or China, and perhaps Iran or other Arab states that would arise and wreak havoc in the Middle East. The Navy protects shipping routes around the world, and pulling it back would leave those routes unprotected from terrorists and rogue states, which would damage trade. The world is not like it used to be. Things that happen on the other side of the globe can affect us, and the U.S. needs to be able to respond swiftly.
I support eliminating the Department of Education and downsizing and consolidating other Cabinet posts, but that’s pretty standard among Republicans. Paul goes much further than that, since he is a hard-core libertarian looking for a pure capitalist/Ayn Rand economic-style state. But conservatism is suspicious of ideology that advocates a Utopia, whether it is a libertarian/Ayn Rand capitalist Utopia or a socialist Utopia.
BTW, what other spending should we cut? Even if we eliminated our entire defense budget (which would be suicidal and even Paul wouldn’t go that far), the budget would still not be balanced and entitlements would balloon the deficit to unmanageable levels. See the graph here. Social Security and Medicare must be reformed. Also, notice I called only for raising the retirement age for those under 55 by one month for every two years left until retirement. The current retirement age is 65. Seniors are not affected, nor those who are close (-10 years) to retirement.
Report comment to moderator
FLDave: I was talking about unscientific polls that let anybody vote. Scientific polls, such as those taken by Gallup, Rasmussen, or Public Policy Polling, make sure to poll a sample of people that represents the overall makeup of voters. For example, if blacks make up 11% of the voters, and Catholics make up 30%, the sample used by a scientific poll (usually 300-1,000 people) will be 11% black and 30% percent Catholic, so the results most accurately reflect the opinions of the populace at large. But with an online unscientific poll where anyone can vote, only 2% of the voters might be black and 15% might be Catholic, so the results aren’t an accurate representation of the opinion of the voters at large.
Report comment to moderator
“Doubt it would change the results much”?
I dunno. Mayhaps the Paul-phobes like being able to handily dismiss “poll” results like these as the work of nefarious “PaulBots.”
On the other hand, here’s a poll that I GUARANTEE you nobody is frinkling with:
Ron Paul’s campaign receives more donations from US military personnel than Barack Obama; and more than all the other GOP wannabes put together. Here are the numbers.
So, Christian interventionistas — whose foreign policy do you think THE TROOPS like best?
Last week, I heard the odious Michael Ledeen (declarer of the odious “Ledeen Doctrine”) on Bill Bennett’s radio show. Both claimed that you can’t say you support the troops if you don’t support their “mission.” (You know, the wars they are ORDERED to fight under pain of prosecution and social stigma.)
Well, I call Bravo Sierra on Ledeen and Bennett.
I don’t know about you, but I support the candidate the troops support.
Report comment to moderator
I can only assume that that jackwagon never wore this nation’s uniform.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, am I the only one scratching my head in all this about one thing: Aren’t we more than a year from the next presidential election? And how many debates have been held already? Don’t we usually wait till the election year has started?
How long have we been doing debates among the primary contenders at all, let alone multiple debates when we’re still more than a year away?
I don’t mind hearing about the 2012 election in 2012, or even hearing suggestions in 2011 about who might run. But are we really into all-out campaign season yet? Do we really care that much? And if so, why?! (Yeah, replace the current White House, and while we’re at it, most of the Senate, House, judgeships, governors, etc. But how much would we really change if we somehow managed that?)
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y (9): I don’t agree that Bachmann was irrelevant – I actually think she did quite well. In fact most of them did quite well (considering the format), though I think Huntsman should drop and the remaining seven push ahead.
The worst aspect of the ‘debate’ was the ‘gotcha’ set-up questions that the moderators posed in a deliberate effort to get the candidates to squabble with each other.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t watch and didn’t vote.
But the results reminds me of a telephone poll WMAL in Washington once took about a Redskins/Steelers game. The Steelere won.
WMAL traced the calls and interviewed the culprit.
Very funny interview.
Turns out, he had a speed dial and would call often. In addition, he posted notes around the office saying (something like) “If you want to hear interesting sex talk, call 555-5555.”
A real scientific poll
Report comment to moderator
*21 See #6
Report comment to moderator
We’re only 5 months away from the first Primary Elections in February. That’s what these debates are about, not the General Election in November. The General Election for POTUS will only include one of these candidates as the GOP nominee.
I think there have been 4 debates and one “forum” so far, and at least 6 more scheduled for this year before states begin voting in February. An important factor to keep in mind is how the Tea Party movement continues to influence elections.
It’s easy to complain and ignore the debates, but why limit them for those who are interested? It’s a good process to winnow out the less popular candidates and nominate the last man standing. Pres. Obama, as the incumbent, has a 24/7 platform while debates are a good platform to get some publicity in order to get their message out.
Report comment to moderator
As for the Ron Paul crowd, I totally dismiss the unreal %. It doesn’t count for anything. It’s just a game for them – meaningless for the rest of us. And boring.
Report comment to moderator
Heart says Herman Cain. Gut says Perry. Head says Romney. Dandruff flakes say Paul or Huntsman.
Report comment to moderator
#15 “Paul belongs nowhere near foreign policy.”
Whose decision is that to make? They didn’t even allow the argument in the debate and it sounds like you are OK with a manipulated debate.
Ron Paul has been involved with foreign policy for a long time. He has always advocated for much better decisions that were made. For instance, he voted against the war with Iraq. Can you seriously argue that the Iraq war made anybody safer? Iraq and Iran were constantly fighting. So much so I doubt either of them would have had the time and resources to develop a nuclear weapon, nor would they be able to bother us or Israel, who has 300+ nukes. Al-qaeda was afraid of Saddam (unfortunately so were the people of Iraq). They were virtually non-existent there until we stepped in. Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong but I read somewhere that the US supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war as late as 1992. Did we help Saddam Hussein by helping him with Iran? We supported the Shah, who in turn caused the people to rebel and now is much less secular than before. This is at least partially due to our interference and while we were supporting the Shah with plenty of foreign welfare (by the way how is that a Constitutional authority of our federal government), we were also supplying them with help to develop nuclear power, hmm. My point is that we cause problems that we have to solve (blow back) and we have done so much of that that our own economy is about to collapse.
“Removing all of the troops from foreign nations, pulling out of NATO and the UN, and pulling the Navy back, as Paul advocates, would be a disaster. It would leave a power vacuum that could only be filled by Russia or China, and perhaps Iran or other Arab states that would arise and wreak havoc in the Middle East.”
Are you willing to pay 100% of you income and then take out an additional loan to fund a federal government that wastes trillions of dollars? Would it leave a power vacuum that could only be filled by Russia or China? This and the rest of this comment is pure supposition and even if it is true, wouldn’t that be the real time for other countries to intervene, if there is any such time. Speaking of wreaking havoc in the Middle East, what has been accomplished? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead along with almost 7000 or our young men and woman. They are destitute and we are quickly becoming that way. Russia went broke through bad economic policies and bad foreign policies like trying to conquer Afghanistan. Are you sure that they are ready to spend all their resources trying that again? I think the Russian government would have to get past the Russian people to do that, as our government should have to get past our people before they waste our resources on foreign conquests and welfare. Our voters deserve to know all the facts and if they did, I’m sure they would make the decision to scale back on a huge scale not only the warfare state, but the welfare state as well. If not, they would have nothing to complain about while they are out living in the woods trying to find food to eat.
“The Navy protects shipping routes around the world, and pulling it back would leave those routes unprotected from terrorists and rogue states, which would damage trade.”
Do you know how much money American Corporations make? Do you think, with all that money, that they are incapable of defending themselves or at least paying for that defense. Why should I pay 50% of my income to support military bases to protect corporations that make billions and pay their executives millions?
“he is a hard-core libertarian looking for a pure capitalist/Ayn Rand economic-style state”
Just because he reads, doesn’t mean that he fully advocates everything the authors promote. At least he studies economics, history, foreign policy, and most importantly, The Constitution. The other candidates don’t cause me to believe that they do any of this.
“BTW, what other spending should we cut? Even if we eliminated our entire defense budget”
How about the Congressional pension plan which, by the way, Ron Paul does not accept? How about the useless war on drugs. We went down to South American and drove them right up to our doorsteps. It hasn’t helped. We are simply spending billions more on prisons. If you do advocate the war on drugs how about a war on one of the most used drugs, alcohol. How did that work out? How about the department of agriculture which funds another drug, tobacco, and pays farmers not to grow food? How about the new health care plan that will cost us hundreds of billions? How about tens of thousands of useless bureaucrats? I have to leave the rest of this up to the experts. All I can do, is watch what they do, read what they write, and listen to what they say. I know that Ron Paul is not owned by lobbyists and corporations. He owes nothing to them as he collects his contributions mostly from regular middle class people like myself and even those in the military. He is the only one that doesn’t owe the favors that will cost us billions.
Report comment to moderator
“Paul belongs nowhere near foreign policy.”
Paul is realistic enough to know he can’t pull completely out of foreign policy, and even if that were his goal, which I don’t think it is, in reality he wouldn’t get close.
What you will get is no more stupid wars, no excess bases over seas, esp if the option is to close one here instead.
Perry is a HACK. He’s a bloody RINO. The fact the media showers him with attention should be enough to stay away from him.
Romney isn’t much better.
Both of those guys are just retreads of poor leadership. They are Obama lites.
Paul provides the most clarity, and principle. And I’d gladly exchange less military ventures for a time in return for sound fiscal responsibility. The fact the media wishes to ignore him, is also another good reason to pay attention to what he says and not what they say he says.
He still probably won’t win, as I’ve said before, he looks like a cooky old man, and overcoming that image will be difficult. Plus, most voters don’t seem to care about actions, just empty words…
If they actually looked at track records, Perry wouldn’t even be allowed on stage, and Romney would be the next to go.
Perry swapped to Republican just so he could win in Texas…he’s a HACK. Stay away from the political clones people. It’s charades.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn wrote, “Paul is realistic enough to know he can’t pull completely out of foreign policy, and even if that were his goal, which I don’t think it is, in reality he wouldn’t get close.”
That’s very comforting. You are saying that we are safe if we elect Ron Paul President, because the system and the bureaucracy will keep him from fulfilling his philosophy. Even safer, let’s NOT elect him President!
Report comment to moderator
“That’s very comforting. You are saying that we are safe if we elect Ron Paul President, because the system and the bureaucracy will keep him from fulfilling his philosophy. Even safer, let’s NOT elect him President!”
No I said, EVEN IF IT WERE….thus implying it is not.
It’s a poor characterization against Paul’s stance. Less military action over seas, does not equate to ZERO interaction overseas with foreign policy.
Even if it was, you can’t achieve it. It’s impossible realistically, even without the US system and bureaucracy. (Which i never stated was the reason.)
Your gut is telling you Perry?? Your head, Romney? Seriously?
Haven’t you had enough of the Obama mentalities?
You don’t have to vote for Paul, but your gut should at least be steering you waaaay clear of a Perry. He’s political chaff.
I’m tired of chaff, we all should be by now.
Report comment to moderator
What exactly did Michele say? Anyone care to critique that? She has my vote. I’d love to see the Hermanator as her veep.
Romney strikes me as too much a Johnny-come-lately to conservatism: the Wendell Willkie or Nelson Rockefeller of our time.
Newt and Mitt are bright guys but is there any there, there? With either man?
#18 Frank in Spokane, an excellent point. Calls to mind the time when RFK was addressing students. One young man stood up and spoke quite critically of the Viet Nam war which by that time Bobby had realized was a bad thing even though he’d been a big time hawk cheerleader only a year or so before. When the young man finished his remark RFK said “You know, it’s not too late to enlist!”
I bet Ledeen hasnt been in uniform. I bet he has no son or son-inlaw who has ever served.
It’s always interesting to get the take of Sen Webb or McCain whenever there’s talk of putting boots on the ground.
Report comment to moderator
A funny Paul story.
In one of his elections he ran against an Austin trial lawyer named Charles “Lefty” Morris.
Morris wanted to hurt Paul. In Austin. Sooo… what did Lefty do?
He ran an ad featuring Paul discussing the illegal drug problem.
Paul the Libertarian was saying “So you want to solve the illegal drug problem? Fine! Well let’s just GET RID OF ALL THE DRUG LAWS!!”
And Morris’ ad repeatedly ran the clip of Paul saying “GET RID OF ALL THE DRUG LAWS!”
I suspect a legion of pot heads went to vote for Paul despite Lefty running what Lefty’s campaign thought was a negative ad!!
Report comment to moderator
If Perry and Romney are the options, we are sunk this next election.
Which is why the media and liberals want them to be considered the only options. They trash Bachmann, ignore Paul, and I haven’t hardly heard a word about Cain either.
I’ll vote for a cooky old man who sticks to his principles, long before I’ll vote for another chaff to be blown about by the political wind.
Paul should select Cain for his VP. Obama would have a very tough hill to climb if it was a Paul/Cain ticket.
Perry, Romney, Bachmann don’t stand a chance at winning. Obama is still prettier.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s face it. Paul does make sense. As do most of the Libertarian arguments in REASON magazine.
But our leviathan state is like a big old sow hog and we have far too many piglets suckling at it (some favored by conservatives, some by unionists, some by liberals, some by agribusiness subsidy-addicts).
Neither of our “mainstream parties” would ever stand by while Paul or anyone slaughtered mama hog.
Report comment to moderator
MoneyMike,
You should come around more. You amuse me. You call me an idiot, and say you can only vote once, so I must be stupid. Yet I voted last night, and again just now. So if I’m an idiot, what does that make you? And I also notice you didn’t address the Paulbots en masse thing. Even if I was wrong on multiple votes, it’s obvious I was correct on this. So do you all just add cities or states to your names in Paulbot land? Hey that’s cool, you can be part of the Paul Borg collective, but still maintain some individualism. As I said before, you folks amuse me.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn 29 – Fair enough. The whole issue ends up being how far can we go to get back to the right road in one election. I’m counting on large Senate and House majorities to make the President’s leadership less important. And I could be very wrong about that.
Report comment to moderator
This likeness is Liberty.
Liberty, by itself, is a caricature. Without companion qualities, liberty is grotesque. Just as a Christian cannot have faith without also possessing hope and love, a libertarian cannot enjoy liberty without adhering to fraternity and equality.
Rep. Paul was at his most cartoonish when he expressed the fear that a secure fence on the Mexican border would likely be used to entrap and imprison us in our own country.
I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in.
Paul didn’t name our future wardens, but he says they will be the people who are putting up the fence. Paul seems to be accusing Teavangelicals of wanting to put us all in a gulag!
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul can not win.
The left wants Rommey, Huntsman or Ron Paul to win, because Mr. Obama can defeat them.
Report comment to moderator
I felt Herman Cain and Rick Perry were the winners
Newt again showed he is very informed person but he has to much personal issues to win.
Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum can just not break out.
Report comment to moderator
@Frank: I don’t know about you, but I support the candidate the troops support.
$36,000? That seems way too small an amount to “call” this for Paul, unless I’m just overestimating what the eventual amount of donations will be from active military personnel. It’s like calling an election after counting 1% of the vote.
Besides, if you’re going to support the candidate the troops support (based on donations) then that may end up being Obama. Seems like a poor way to choose a candidate.
Blog consensus seems to be that Perry didn’t fail horribly, but didn’t do that well either. Romney supposedly looked good.
@Thorn: If Perry and Romney are the options, we are sunk this next election.
Do you think any of the Republican hopefuls (e.g. Paul) would do better against Obama in the general election?
Honestly, Romney seems like he has the best shot. Especially when you look at how he polls vs. Obama (compared to Perry vs. Obama) in the six states that really matter: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree Thorn. The race is the Republican’s to lose. Even Obama’s teleprompter doesn’t like him any more–that’s the reason he’s currently campaigning so hard on the public dime right now. It’s been a bit sad and embarrassing to watch our President wandering aimlessly through the Mid West in that big black bus reeking of political death, cluelessly(or desperately) scheduling a major speech to preempt the Republican debate, and defiantly delivering a Labor Day speech with the thuggish leader of a would-be terrorist movement. It almost makes one want to avert their eyes…almost.
Though I’m looking at the MSM less and less every day, from the little I’ve seen lately, they definitely prefer Romney to Perry, and Perry to Bachmann. And they’re never going to let Paul in. Media is big business, and Paul is bad news for big business, and he’s bad news for big unions too [which are really the same thing anyway, since big unions are just another big, tax-exempt corporation]. So he’s got no establishment friends. And I think nobody gets elected without paying at least lip service to the old guard.
Report comment to moderator
The race is the Republican’s to lose.
Looking at the electoral math, Obama would seem to have the edge.
Which states that went to Obama in 2008 do you expect the Republican candidate to win in 2012?
I’ll give you Indiana and North Carolina, which were the two in which Obama had the narrowest margin of victory in 2008. The next six, along with their electoral votes and Obama’s 2008 margin of victory, are:
Florida, 29, 2.81%
Ohio, 18, 4.58%
Virginia, 13, 6.30%
Colorado, 9, 8.95%
Iowa, 6, 9.54%
New Hampshire, 4, 9.61%
Those six states have 79 total electoral votes. The Republican needs 64 of them to win. There are basically two ways that can happen:
Florida, Ohio, Virginia + at least one of Colorado / Iowa / N.H.
-or-
Florida, Ohio and all three of Colorado, Iowa and N.H.
Obama’s much less popular in N.H. this time around, but a Perry nomination could make that race close again. Perry doesn’t play well in N.H. Obama is polling decently well in Florida / Ohio / Virginia.
Report comment to moderator
I am a paulbot and I want to vote multiple times. The Real AJ said I could. But I can’t figure out how to do it. The poll won’t let me.
The Real AJ, could you please give me instructions how I can vote multiple times? I want to join the 2 or 3 paulbots that made the 84% in this poll.
I know paulbots always vote multiple times in those polls. I wonder why romneybots and perrybots never thought of that. Makes me really wonder. After all, if that is the easy way to win a poll online – even one that doesn’t allow multiple voting like this one – romneybots and perrybots, being in the majority, could just drown the paulbots. But I digress.
Anyway, this poll is obviously unscientific; Ron Paul won it. We know that a poll is scientific when Ron Paul doesn’t win it. Simple.
Report comment to moderator
I am a paulbot and I want to vote multiple times. The Real AJ said I could. But I can’t figure out how to do it. The poll won’t let me.
Let me help you out. First, get multiple email accounts. Second, create multiple accounts on this blog. Log in to each account, in succession, and vote in this poll. Voila.
Alternately, go to an online forum that’s populated primarily by Paul supporters. Post something there that says, “Hey, those guys over at World Magazine have a poll up and Ron Paul is in it. We should all go create accounts and vote for Paul to ensure he wins their informal poll.”
Problem solved.
Or are you actually suggesting that 85% of frequent readers of this blog think Paul won the debate?
Really?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Buddy and Bo,
The way I did it is actually easier than Buddy’s way. I voted last night. When I shut down, my computer deletes the browsing history. Then this morning I came back, clicked this post, and viola! I vote again. Just went back to World’s home page, deleted the browsing history, came back, and viola again! This isn’t rocket science people. I’m a little surprised that people so obviously smarter than me couldn’t figure this out.
Oh, and you’re welcome. Yes, I know I just made it easier for the Paulbots, and gave them a new tool to use for spamming online polls. But it really is that easy.
And this is just fantastic. “We know that a poll is scientific when Ron Paul doesn’t win it. Simple.”
Simple? Yes indeed.
Report comment to moderator
The left wants Rommey, Huntsman or Ron Paul to win, because Mr. Obama can defeat them.
I doubt Obama wastes any mental effort hoping for Ron Paul to win anything besides a WorldMag online poll.
From the reporting I’ve seen, Obama’s political advisors fear that Romney or Huntsman would be his most dangerous opponents.
Teavangelicals don’t like Romney (as liberals don’t like Obama) but they won’t boycott a Republican who promises to sign 50 state waivers from Obamacare on the day of his inauguration and who endorses the cherished right-wing scheme of replacing the defined SS benefit with personal accounts. Yes, you would vote for a Mormon who believes that he will become a God/god.
But you aren’t going to nominate him. The Republican process gets locked down early, and Gov. Perry won the heart of the South last night.
Report comment to moderator
The WSJ online version had a great piece the other day. It dealt with which states you can safely tally up under the D column and which under the R column.
BLUF* here is this: you have maybe 5 or 6 toss up states. Those are the ones the big money and campaigning will go to.
It is really sorta sad.
How to “fix” the problem of “safe states” or “safe districts”??
Well of course term limits but I still say we should demand that the states have quadrennial rotation for who gets to hold their primaries earliest.
NH is as big as some counties in Texas.
NH (and for that matter Iowa) are largely white. Iowa is mainly rural.
And yet campaigns view either place as “make or break” in terms of whether the candidate keeps going?
Puh-leeze.
Report comment to moderator
BLUF = Bottom Line Up Front
Report comment to moderator
Check out meetrickperry dotcom.
Report comment to moderator
“Let me help you out. First, get multiple email accounts. Second, create multiple accounts on this blog. Log in to each account, in succession, and vote in this poll. Voila.”
“The way I did it is actually easier than Buddy’s way. I voted last night. When I shut down, my computer deletes the browsing history. Then this morning I came back, clicked this post, and viola! I vote again.”
Hmmm. I did know about this, and I tried it even before I asked my question. It didn’t work. I suppose I am really smarter than you, as AJ says. It is not based on email accounts and it is not based on browsing history. It is based on IP address. Shutting your computer down doesn’t change your IP address, and signing in with multiple accounts doesn’t change it either. Or, depending on the provider, restarting your computer may indeed re-assign a new IP, but how did 2 or 3 paulbots restart their computers thousands of times within a few minutes?
“Or are you actually suggesting that 85% of frequent readers of this blog think Paul won the debate?”
No, thinking about it, of course not. They can’t think so. I mean, the data of the poll – the only objective tool that we have – says otherwise. But you are right: objective data must be judged by our subjective bias before we decide if they are true or not. We shouldn’t let facts get in the way of our preferred interpretation of reality.
“Oh, and you’re welcome. Yes, I know I just made it easier for the Paulbots, and gave them a new tool to use for spamming online polls. But it really is that easy.”
You confuse me now. I thought paulbots already had that tool and that’s what made the numbers in this poll. Are you saying now it is a “new tool” for them? What did they use BEFORE you gave it to them?
“Alternately, go to an online forum that’s populated primarily by Paul supporters.”
We know that won’t work. It is a myth that Ron Paul has many supporters. We all know that there are only 2 or 3 paulbots out there; the whole story of his growing popularity is a myth. (I am the 3rd or the 4th, I just joined the little group.) The online forums are populated by these 2 or 3 paulbots. That’s it. You aren’t telling that there is a solid large base of Ron Paul supporters out there, are you?
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how we could compel Iowa not to go first. We could threaten tourism, of course, but we’d also have to go after the corn, and how do you tell which corn to boycott, when it crosses state lines?
It’s time for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Report comment to moderator
You know you’re crackin’ me up right?
Report comment to moderator
“You know you’re crackin’ me up right?
”
I am only returning the favor.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the link, Scroop. I didn’t realize this travesty of a piece of legislation was pending in my state. I’ll do my best to fix that. ;–)
Report comment to moderator
No, thinking about it, of course not. They can’t think so.
I’m glad you agree.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t see the debates, but did read the AP FactCheck article. It said that Perry said that as SS stands (with no changes) would be a ponzi scheme for current payees. His statement is inflammatory and probably not politically good for him, but technically true in the sense that the money will run out. Possibly not true in the fact that in Ponzi schemes the perpetrator gives to the first investors to give the impression that the investment is sound and siphons off the rest of the money collected. Wait that is happening with SS also. Maybe it is a true ponzi scheme.
FLDave,
There is no contract in SS or medicare. People just think they are entitled to certain benefits because of political promises.
Report comment to moderator
Ponzi schemes are voluntary. I think Social Security is mandatory. Which is worse?
Report comment to moderator
“No, thinking about it, of course not. They can’t think so.
I’m glad you agree.”
Yes. That only shows how stupid I am, to agree with any absurdity you can come up with.
Report comment to moderator
I just love watching Republicans eat their own.
Report comment to moderator
Um, I think people expect benefits from SS and Medicare because when you fill out your tax form, we’re told specifically that’s what you’re being taxed for—that’s a distinct contrast to other programs like welfare, defense, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Yes. That only shows how stupid I am, to agree with any absurdity you can come up with.
Okay, good. We can drop the sarcasm and have a real discussion.
You claim that Paul’s 85% performance in this poll is legitimate. I say it’s not legitimate given the intent of the poll, which was to gauge the opinion of frequent readers and participants of this blog. I’ve been reading/posting here for a while and I find it inconceivable that 85% of active participants are Paul supporters.
Outside of those who read the blog mostly out of morbid fascination (Me, Scroop, Arcadia, JJF, HRW, Evan) the majority of those posting here are conservative Christian Republicans, not libertarians.
Report comment to moderator
“I say it’s not legitimate given the intent of the poll, which was to gauge the opinion of frequent readers and participants of this blog. I’ve been reading/posting here for a while and I find it inconceivable that 85% of active participants are Paul supporters.”
That’s sound logic. If we need to know what the “frequent readers” are, we need to look at you personally, and ask you. If you find it “inconceivable” that 85% of the readers do not think like you, then they do not think like you. Simple. That’s called “picking a sample.” You are the sample, and whatever is not like you, is not real. Especially since you’ve been reading/posting here for a while, you have earned the right to be the sample. The idea that frequent readers who participate in polls are not necessarily the same readers who write comments is ludicrous, and must be discarded. We all know that ALL true readers write comments. Period.
“the majority of those posting here are conservative Christian Republicans, not libertarians.”
“Posting.” Which is the same as “voting in polls.” It must be, there is no other option. A person deserves to cast a vote only if they “post frequently.” That’s how you gain that privilege. If you vote but you don’t post, this is fraud.
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t presenting my assessment of the WMB community as “proof”. Just the informed opinion of someone who reads this blog a lot and has a decent feel for the folks who post here, and in general for the class of person who subscribes to World Magazine and/or would patronize its blog.
Let’s get Occam’s Razor here. Which seems more likely to you:
A. 85% of “regular readers”, i.e. not folks who stopped by just to vote in this poll, consider Paul to have “won” this debate, or
B. A bunch of Paul supporters stopped by just to vote in the poll.
When answering try to divorce yourself from the fact that you personally support Paul. Which option strikes you as the more likely explanation?
Report comment to moderator
“I’m counting on large Senate and House majorities to make the President’s leadership less important. And I could be very wrong about that.”
Ah yes, 500 king and queens instead of just 1.
Report comment to moderator
Umm, Buddy, don’t both of those just have one assumption? Regular readers vs. non regular readers…
Occam’s isn’t about which is more likely, but which has the fewest assumptions (or simplest).
Your options A and B both tie in that regard…
Report comment to moderator
“Oh, and you’re welcome. Yes, I know I just made it easier for the Paulbots, and gave them a new tool to use for spamming online polls. But it really is that easy.”
What is to stop supporters of other politicians from doing the same then?
Seems to me, rabid Bachmann supporters or Perry Persons can slant a pole just as easily.
Report comment to moderator
“Do you think any of the Republican hopefuls (e.g. Paul) would do better against Obama in the general election?”
With a good VP selection, Paul could. Once again, the media will ignore him, and he has to overcome his cookiness, especially against a younger Obama. But Obama will get trounced by Paul in any debates, much less policy. There isn’t a lack of experience here or anything radically new.
I think that’s the best shot, although it’s a long shot still.
Your best shot would have been Christie with maybe Paul or Rubio.
“Honestly, Romney seems like he has the best shot. Especially when you look at how he polls vs. Obama (compared to Perry vs. Obama) in the six states that really matter: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire.”
Of course he polls good vs. Obama…he’s the same, just a lite version. It’s like Coke lite.
He’ll still lose though, because the policies are the same, but Obama is prettier and has the media.
Too many conservatives, don’t like Romney even if it’s liberal or religious based, and them not going to vote, is practically a vote for Obama.
The lesser of two didn’t work with McCain, why would it with Romney?
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Huntsman said “we can’t run from mainstream conservative philosophy” in regards to the science of climate change and evolution. Just where is he getting his definition of “mainstream conservative philosophy”?
There seem to be some who believe that Huntsman is one of President Obama’s most “dangerous opponents”. Really?
The Republicans tried running a “moderate” candidate last time.
Report comment to moderator
Occam’s isn’t about which is more likely, but which has the fewest assumptions (or simplest). Your options A and B both tie in that regard…
Can’t really agree. Option A rests on two assumptions: first, there is a large mass of blog readers who are not also blog posters, and second that support for Ron Paul among this group is drastically different than the level of support he enjoys from the set of posters.
Option B is free to assume that the set of posters is roughly representative of the set of readers. Its explanation for Paul’s 85%, i.e. drive by votes from Paul supporters, also has a well established precedent. They do it all the time.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
You and I agree on most things, but not this one. This especially I feel I should address.
“What is to stop supporters of other politicians from doing the same then?”
Ummmm, gee, let me think……I know! It’s called honesty. Maybe I’m wrong here, but I kinda expect that here, at least from those declaring themselves christians. It would be dishonest for them to do it, just like it is for Paul supporters. And Paul supporters have used this many times in past polls all over the internet. It’s their MO. I’ve seen no other candidates supporters engage in this type of silliness. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
“I disagree Thorn. The race is the Republican’s to lose. Even Obama’s teleprompter doesn’t like him any more.”
Of course it is, but the Republicans are just tossing clones up there. It won’t matter if Obama’s approval rating is in the dumps, if he’s going up against someone who is just a RINO.
It is a VERY weak group of candidates.
“Media is big business, and Paul is bad news for big business, and he’s bad news for big unions too [which are really the same thing anyway, since big unions are just another big, tax-exempt corporation]. So he’s got no establishment friends. And I think nobody gets elected without paying at least lip service to the old guard.”
All the more reason to vote for Paul then right? You know you’d be voting for someone who isn’t bought by others. If he makes the nomination, he’ll trounce Obama policy wise.
You won’t get change by voting for a Romney or Perry. It’s just more men, bought off by the establishment.
Report comment to moderator
“Ummmm, gee, let me think……I know! It’s called honesty. Maybe I’m wrong here, but I kinda expect that here, at least from those declaring themselves christians. It would be dishonest for them to do it, just like it is for Paul supporters. And Paul supporters have used this many times in past polls all over the internet. It’s their MO. I’ve seen no other candidates supporters engage in this type of silliness. Sorry.”
Possibly, my point though really is that nothing inhibits others from ignoring their honesty either for their candidate.
For all you know, it’s a liberal bot, spamming Ron Paul, just to skew the polls.
Wait, didn’t you say you voted twice?
Report comment to moderator
“Can’t really agree. Option A rests on two assumptions: first, there is a large mass of blog readers who are not also blog posters, and second that support for Ron Paul among this group is drastically different than the level of support he enjoys from the set of posters.”
Well that’s not what your Option A was. You clearly distinguish that it’s regulars, not browsers or people just looking for a poll.
So it is one assumption. 85% of regulars thought he won the debate.
Simply because one thinks that Paul did well in the debate, doesn’t mean that they necessarily support him or will vote for him, etc. So it is quite possible for a larger percentage to recognize who won. We are being honest after all aren’t we and not just voting for a our fan favorite?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, I will vote for Ron Paul if he gets the nomination; we could do much worse. And I do hope that we are able to nominate someone who is not just a clone. As Xion pointed out on another thread–both parties are moving left—Republicans walk and Democrats run. I’m just not convinced that we’re better off running—which would be the result of a third party vote at this time. At some point (perhaps soon) that may not always be the case. But until I’m convinced that the time is NOW, I guess I’ll chose to walk.
Report comment to moderator
#59 PolishBear, I wouldn’t get too excited about the finger food; most of us are saving our appetites for the main dish in 2012: a fully tenderized and pounded to perfection Democrat president— best served with TEA on the side.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I’m up to 3 votes ‘cuz I tried again in order to test if I could. But in the interest of full disclosure, I picked a different candidate each time so as not to skew it toward my personal choice. First was my choice, second was Romney, third was Paul.
And yes, it could be a liberal Bot or plot. But that would be more believable if it ever happened for anyone but Paul. That certainly doesn’t seem to have happened though, has it?
Report comment to moderator
Debra,
I agree with #74. Anybody, and I mean anybody, but BHO. If it’s Paul, so be it, he’ll have my vote too. Anybody but BO in 2012.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s an excerpt from an article about a Republican candidate NOT invited to the debate. He is a former Southern R governor.
…is putting his money where his mouth is, accepting no more than $100 from each donor, for a grand total of $95,000 so far in a multimillion-dollar game (of course, as a friend recently scoffed, it’s easy to swear off large donations when nobody’s clamoring to give you any).
Here’s how he made his case to Republican activists gathered in New Orleans for the Southern Republican Leadership Conference:
“We are threatened by the tyranny of the special interests and their checkbooks: lobbyist money, PAC money, bundled money, corporate money, association money, all special interest money. They buy what they want of our freedoms,” he declared.
Thanks to undue influence of special interests, >>>> argued, the country has an unreadable tax code riddled with loopholes for the rich and breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas. Contributions from the financial sector, he said, led to the “bank reform bill which allowed too big to fail to remain policy.”
Insurance companies, tort lawyers and pharmaceutical companies, he argued, kept systemic improvements out of the health care reform law.
“Follow the money,” he said. “DC is rigged.”
There’s plenty of evidence that a large portion of the general public shares his outlook. When CBS News asked 1,020 adults nationwide in May whether special interests have too much, too little or about the right amount of influence in American politics, 71 percent said too much…
Who is this mystery candidate?
Report comment to moderator
Who cares.
Report comment to moderator
“the majority of those posting here are conservative Christian Republicans, not libertarians.”
I am a conservative Christian Republican who whole-heartedly supports the only candidate that I consider a conservative Christian Republican. Do the libertarians have the patent on the Constitution? Doesn’t conservatism have anything to do with conserving our economy or even our rights (smaller government)? How does the murder of hundreds of thousands of people and the theft of US taxpayers dollars that are spent overseas for special interests equate to any kind of Christian values? Ron Paul proves through his actions over and over to fit the bill of a conservative Christian Republican.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia: Buddy Roemer?
Report comment to moderator
….okay. I do agree with him on the tariffs issue.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is the only real hope for an economically sound future in this country. Rick Perry has an economic and legislative big government streak as big as his state.
Report comment to moderator
@Arcadia: Who is this mystery candidate?
My guess was wrong. Before googling I was going to say Gary Johnson. To be fair, Roemer was elected as a Democrat before switching parties. But then…so was Perry.
@Fldave: I am a conservative Christian Republican who whole-heartedly supports the only candidate that I consider a conservative Christian Republican. Do the libertarians have the patent on the Constitution?
There are differences between the standard libertarian platform and the standard “social conservative Republican” platform. Most World Mag subscribers fall into the latter category.
Report comment to moderator
You guys are just trying to throw blood in the water. But things are too serious now to fall out over a preliminary fight.
ABO 2012
Report comment to moderator
“There are differences between the standard libertarian platform and the standard “social conservative Republican” platform. Most World Mag subscribers fall into the latter category.”
I have to say that this poll says different, unless there are only a few subscribers. And for the record, I only voted once. Why would I support the candidate with the most integrity and cheat to do it?
Ron Paul has embraced the best of more than one party. That’s why he would clean up in the general election. That’s why he needs to win the primary.
Report comment to moderator
Face it. Ron Paul doesn’t really expect or want to win a primary. That’s the way he campaigns as though he could magically change everything. Reminds me of a dog chasing a car. Then what?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, my response in #79 (to your #78) was too snarky. I apologize.
Be well.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, 23, hasn’t the whole idea of primary debates been a new one? In my memory, presidential candidates who had won their party’s nomination had one to three debates. Now we have a dozen in preparation for the primaries? I do think they’re a good idea, and if there were only one or two I might be inclined to watch them. But politics just isn’t important enough to me to have me watching multiple hours more than a year before the election. I’d rather see NO official campaigning till 2012, and move the primaries later and have them on the same day. Or, better, go back to letting the delegates vote. I don’t like the way the game is being played today, and it bores me. They get too big a sense of their importance.
Report comment to moderator
I do find it interesting that Roemer has been excluded from the debates while several kooks were included.
And yes, Ron Paul’s kookiness and mean-spritedness in the name of his constipated view of the Constitution was on full view for all to see in the debate. His acolytes notwithstanding, he will now disappear from view.
Cheryl: You are right about the excedingly long campaign trail. The problem seems to be, among others, that the states are all clamoring for attention and influence by holding ever earlier primaries, caucuses, etc. More importantly this long and winding road fosters corruption by demanding ever more funding.
Report comment to moderator
#87, not true. It shows that you’re not doing your research, which makes it harder to take what you say seriously in this conversation. Ron Paul chose not to seek reelection for his congressional seat for the very reason that he IS serious. And you can hear him for yourself say he’s in it to try and win. Go to his website and listen to a couple of the headliner videos.
Report comment to moderator
“That’s the way he campaigns as though he could magically change everything. Reminds me of a dog chasing a car. Then what?”
As opposed to the run of the mill dogs that just lie on the back porch taking up space?
If you want the same ole same ole, then Perry or Romney are great choices…they aren’t any different than Obama. You’ll be giving not only the presidency back to Dems in 4 years, but the house and senate as well.
Report comment to moderator
The advantage to not winning this election in 2012, is that Obama gets to make a fool of himself and his party over another 4 years, which means Republicans would gain in the house and senate all the more, and a better candidate would be available to run against the Dems in 2016.
This is why, anybody but Obama doesn’t really work if you just put another clone in the Presidency. Their ineptitude is just going to cost more conservative seats in the long run.
So if you want to make a difference now, you need a candidate that you know will be starkly opposed to liberal ideology and isn’t just some moderate chaff.
My ideal candidate is someone with Paul fiscal policy/responsibility but also can’t be branded as an isolationist. Someone who isn’t party to the elites and doesn’t cater to whims, but acts on sound wisdom and integrity.
Report comment to moderator
Couple questions for the Paul supporters:
1. Why Paul and not Bachmann?
2. Why Paul and not Johnson?
Johnson is arguably the more ideologically consistent Libertarian of the two.
Report comment to moderator
I ignore whatever bores me Cheryl………..
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, that’s a tantalizing scenario this time around, too. But I don’t agree that it’s all Paul or nothing. But Obama is so different from every GOP wannabe that I shudder to think of what sad shape he might keep putting us in. I’d vote for Ron Paul if he was our nominee. The car has more horsepower than the dog, so I wouldn’t overly expect any more change to sanity than with anyone else.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy,
1. Inexperience mostly. I don’t have anything against Bachmann, I just don’t consider her as strong.
2. I probably wouldn’t have a problem with Johnson either. His record is solid. The problem for him is even worse than Ron Paul though, at least Paul is getting in to the debates for now.
He would be harder to portray as an isolationist.
You couple either of those guys as a VP at least, and you’ll have a solid chance of winning in 2012. Even if you are just a moderate chaff.
Report comment to moderator
“But I don’t agree that it’s all Paul or nothing.”
You need a strong conservative that’ll stick to his values over everything else. Doesn’t have to be Paul, just someone who differs greatly from the Pres and we know isn’t wishy washy, a turncoat, or a moderate.
That’s what we want in a president. Someone who leads responsibly with wisdom. He doesn’t need to pander to Dems or Rep just for party sake, nor does a president need to pander to the big business for lobbyist and lawyers.
“But Obama is so different from every GOP wannabe that I shudder to think of what sad shape he might keep putting us in.”
But he’s largely not that different when campaigning from the records of a Perry or a Romney, or if you remember, McCain. The issues will be spun and blurred together because they all will present themselves as moderates.
Obama is the prettier moderate. He’s better at the moderate game, and he has the media on his side.
You can’t send someone out there who is wishy washy or blurs that line, cause your just left with who is prettier.
You have to have a stark contrast, that backs it up.
You put Paul one on one with Obama over and over in several debates, he’s going to destroy Obama. He will force attention to the actual issues. And there can’t be the fall back cry of “Bush”.
With a Paul type, you know you get the fiscal responsibility you want, because he won’t sign a bad budget. You get your troops out of stupid wars. He’s not going to hamper religion/christianity. He’s going to run things by the Constitution. Your talking a Coolidge type or Reagan without the overspending.
Can you trust that with Perry, Romney? Nope. I don’t anyway. I didn’t trust it with McCain. They are just moderate chaff.
Report comment to moderator
Inexperience mostly. I don’t have anything against Bachmann, I just don’t consider her as strong.
Bachmann is a 4 year congressional rep, former state senator, has a degree specializing in tax law.
Paul is a 21 year congressional rep (three non-consecutive stints) and has a medical degree.
Obviously Paul has been in Washington longer, but is that the only reason you consider Paul to be the stronger candidate? Does being a rep really prepare one for the presidency?
If you look at past presidents the only ones whose highest office prior to the presidency was “Congressional Rep” are Lincoln and Garfield. All the others served as either the vice president, a U.S. senator, state governor, secretary of state, or were military generals. There’s no reason past should be prologue, but it seems significant that all but two of our past presidents have had a more impressive political (or military) record than both Bachmann and Paul.
I probably wouldn’t have a problem with Johnson either. His record is solid.
I tend to think there’s a reason many libertarians and pseudo-libertarians, especially those whose libertarianism ends when it comes to social issues, flock to Paul and shun Johnson. Namely because Johnson is pro-choice, supports same-sex civil unions, open borders and an end to federal drug prohibition.
You couple either of those guys as a VP at least, and you’ll have a solid chance of winning in 2012.
Here’s where I think you allow your desire to see Paul succeed cloud your objective judgement of how he would actually fare in a general election. Not least of which because he’d be working against a drastic money disadvantage.
Report comment to moderator
You need a strong conservative that’ll stick to his values over everything else.
Thing is: lots of voters are, in fact, moderates, and are turned off by a candidate who is a “strong conservative” (depending on your definition of “strong conservative”).
There’s also the issue of it not just being “voter appeal” that wins elections. It takes gobs of money. Meaning a candidate has to appeal not only to the voting public but also the “donating public”.
Report comment to moderator
“Obviously Paul has been in Washington longer, but is that the only reason you consider Paul to be the stronger candidate? Does being a rep really prepare one for the presidency?”
No, which is why I wasn’t super specific. I see Bachmann not getting taken seriously in a debate against Obama. He’ll trounce her.
When your options are Pujols or Ryan Howard to anchor your team…Howard is fine, but Pujols is just that much better.
“flock to Paul and shun Johnson. Namely because Johnson is pro-choice, supports same-sex civil unions, open borders and an end to federal drug prohibition.”
Oopsie, cart before the horse. Im not super familiar with Johnson, except for his economic side of things. I haven’t looked heavily into how he treats social issues much. If they are liberal views, he will definitely have a problem in the R party. I would put Paul before him easily then anyway.
“Here’s where I think you allow your desire to see Paul succeed cloud your objective judgement of how he would actually fare in a general election. Not least of which because he’d be working against a drastic money disadvantage.”
Money, honestly, isn’t everything. And further, whoever is nominated, won’t be at too much at a disadvantage considering the “anybody but obama” principle will still be fairly active.
It’s not my desire to see Paul specifically succeed, but someone for once, who knows how to be a president according to the Constitution. Who isn’t run of the mill political chaff would be great.
“Thing is: lots of voters are, in fact, moderates, and are turned off by a candidate who is a “strong conservative” (depending on your definition of “strong conservative”).”
I disagree. Politicians are mostly moderates in practice because they are chaff. Voters however can be swayed by even just image. Moderate McCain had no chance. Nothing stands out any different with moderates. So one can win that way, provided he’s the better image. Obama has the image and plays to the moderate campaign crowd…BUT, he can’t do that if you throw up a stark contrast.
Which is why the media, ignores Paul. Paul is the hardest guy to run against because he is consistent in practice what he preaches. They want a moderate moron running against Obama. Even if Obama loses, they aren’t really losing in that case, because it’s just another political chaff.
Bush and Reagan were strong conservatives. What I want, is a strong conservative, who will also be fiscally responsible.
Paul’s only repeating the same thing many American’s are fed up with and thats the fiscal lack of responsibility, and the tiresome wars. These are things that both liberals, moderates, and conservative voters can like, quite easily. It’s the elites who don’t like him…
Perry is just copying Paul half the time, he’s just prettier. Reminds me of a used-car salesman.
Report comment to moderator
No, which is why I wasn’t super specific. I see Bachmann not getting taken seriously in a debate against Obama. He’ll trounce her.
How is this not also a criticism of Paul? He comes across as shrill and whiney in debates. I see no reason to believe Bachmann would do any worse.
I haven’t looked heavily into how he treats social issues much. If they are liberal views, he will definitely have a problem in the R party.
Johnson would argue they’re not “liberal” views unless you mean “classically liberal”. He takes a federalist position on abortion, so far as I can tell- let states decide. He wants to let states decide their own drug policy rather than the federal government. Open borders is a typically libertarian position; one that Paul deviates from in favor of the conservative view.
Money, honestly, isn’t everything. And further, whoever is nominated, won’t be at too much at a disadvantage considering the “anybody but obama” principle will still be fairly active.
You seem to be arguing that “anybody but Obama” means that every Republican candidate would do about as well as every other Republican candidate. I don’t see any evidence for that. Sarah Palin, for instance, would be absolutely destroyed by Obama in a general election in a way Mitt Romney would not.
I disagree. Politicians are mostly moderates in practice because they are chaff. Voters however can be swayed by even just image.
There are basically five groups of people:
1. People who will always vote and who will always vote Republican, no matter who the candidate is.
2. People who are strongly Republican but will not bother to vote if they don’t like the particular candidate.
3. People who will legitimately vote either Republican or Democrat depending on who the candidate is.
4. People who are strongly Democrat bu will not bother to vote if they don’t like the particular candidate.
5. People who will always vote and who will always vote Democrat.
We can effectively ignore groups #1 and #5 since their behavior is set in stone. The groups that matter are #2, #3 and #4. An extreme candidate (e.g. Bachmann) is going to suffer with group #3 compared to a moderate like Huntsman or Romney. In order for the former type of candidate to fare better overall he or she would need to make up the lost ground (and then some) with group #2. Only I’m not sure that’s what happens. There are some Republicans who will come out to vote for Bachmann who would stay home if the nominee were Romney. But there also some folks who’ll come out to vote for Romney who would stay home if the nominee were Bachmann. My feeling is that with this group it’s mostly a wash.
Moderate McCain had no chance.
How about moderate Bush Sr.? Or moderate Bush Jr.? Bush Jr. did not run on the “strong conservative” platform you advocate. Remember he was supposed to be “a uniter, not a divider”.
Paul is the hardest guy to run against because he is consistent in practice what he preaches.
Practicing what you preach can turn into a detriment when someone considers what you preach to be completely insane. Many folks see Paul as a nut job. An consistent and honest nut job, but a nut job nonetheless. Here are some polls that pit Obama vs. various Republican contenders. In the Aug. 17-18 Gallup poll Paul does marginally better than Bachmann but worse than both Perry and Romney. In the Farleigh-Dickinson poll from early June Paul does worse than Romney. (Perry wasn’t listed in that one since he hadn’t entered the race yet.)
Your “Paul would do better than Romney vs. Obama” just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, especially given Paul (with his lack of support from the “elites”) would not have the war chest at his disposal that Romney would.
Report comment to moderator
“How is this not also a criticism of Paul? He comes across as shrill and whiney in debates.”
I said he’s got the old kooky image to overcome. I just think he has a much better shot of that than Bachmann getting formidable in the coming weeks. He grasps the situations and how to respond to issues much better, mainly because he’s been involved for 20 plus years.
“He takes a federalist position on abortion, so far as I can tell- let states decide. He wants to let states decide their own drug policy rather than the federal government. Open borders is a typically libertarian position; one that Paul deviates from in favor of the conservative view.”
I can go for letting the states decide. I’ve said in other posts I don’t have a problem with “open borders” provided the system is simple and streamlined upfront. You don’t want the cartel to walk in here any easier, but you do want good working immigrants to come in legally. I think that’s feasible if you get past political rhetoric anyway.
As far as abortion, I could deal with that, because many states would illegalize it. But to me it would be like leaving whether or not to criminalize murder up to the states. Life and general welfare is something granted to the feds in the constitution, so it’s not as simple here.
That position is at least better than just allowing it hands down though. But its’ a position he’d still lose out on against Paul or other Rs as theyll just bring it up.
“An extreme candidate (e.g. Bachmann) is going to suffer with group #3 compared to a moderate like Huntsman or Romney.”
Isn’t Iowa practically a #3…yet they voted heavily for Paul and Bachmann after the debate? Further, Obama grabbed all the moderate independents on a promise of what…CHANGE. Right? Obama didn’t have to say change to what, he just said it would be change. He implied a stark contrast, while spouting middle ground policies slightly to the left of McCain, who is slightly to the left of Bush. In reality, Obama is far left and his spending habits weren’t change at all.
That’s why a moderate RINO can’t win. You need a stark strong conservative to break the perception vs. reality. Force the actual issues and where people will pay attention.
“Bush Jr. did not run on the “strong conservative” platform you advocate. Remember he was supposed to be “a uniter, not a divider”.”
Eh? He ran in 2000 on tax breaks, social conservatism, less intervention in foreign affairs (criticizing Clinton’s involvements). He ran 2004 on 9/11 and the war practically.
Which part of that isn’t something a liberal would claim is strong conservatism?
His actual record at the end became very liberal in spending, and his dominionism in foreign affairs isn’t traditional conservatism. These were what liberals criticized, and Obama, yet that’s all people voted for, was more of it…why? Because they believed the presentation/perception rather than the reality.
“Many folks see Paul as a nut job.”
Because that’s how he’s presented usually by the media
But what is nutty? Is fiscal responsibility nutty? Nope. Is allowing more freedom and more differal to the states nutty? Nope.
These are core values of conservatism. Which of course seem nutty to the frat/sorority party going on in Washington, because it calls them to account. Nobody wants the guy coming in that won’t cater to them for money. The nerve, a president, that doesn’t cater to the 500 kings and queens…
I’ve got a new PS3 game, that calls the government in the game the “corrupterment”. Pretty fitting view of reality.
“Here are some polls that pit Obama vs. various Republican contenders. In the Aug. 17-18 Gallup poll Paul does marginally better than Bachmann but worse than both Perry and Romney.”
Interestingly, Obama is declining. All Rs going up, perhaps that means the “anybody but O” is quite important. Also the 52% that want a new guy verses 42% for reelection.
Also, 1-2% is really really low, esp if you were just saying Paul doesn’t have the money. Paul’s major face time has been Jon Stewart and Rick Perry stupidly waiving his finger in his Paul’s face this week. That’s a really great position for Paul to be in considering the absolute lack of coverage he’s had. Stupid move Perry, you just gave Paul free press.
The fact that he’s even close is an indication that many don’t find him nutty…or just as nutty as the rest of them, either way you want to look at it
The fact he ticks off Perry, the political chaff, is all the more telling of the kind of loser Perry is.
“Your “Paul would do better than Romney vs. Obama” just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny,”
Holds up very well under your data. Every R has gone up over the polling dates while Obama goes down.
Remember the difference is when those two go head to head (Obama vs. R nomination), and we aren’t there yet.
You watch if Romney wins the nomination. The first thing thatll resurface from the media is his Mormon roots. That’ll remind all the evangelicals, who’ll just decide to wait for 2016. They’ll note how he passed state healthcare…why? Just to make him look the same as Obama. That’s all you have to do if your Obama.
Now you only have those #1’s voting, and a handful that will ignore his Mormon roots. Obama is too good elsewhere when it comes to campaigning and avoiding his record.
Paul on the other hand, just has to deal with the “nut” appearance he’ll continue to be branded with. But if he’s won the nomination, most #1 and #2s won’t find him that way. He can easily handle the debates and that’s where he’ll start gaining those #3s that have not been very happy with Obama’s idea of “change”… He’s not a religious extremist. His record is solid as far as consistency. He’s a guy that if you elect, you know won’t pass an increase in spending bill over the debt/deficit.
The most Perry could come up with is Paul’s criticism of Reagan’s OVERSPENDING. That’s a liberal complaint, Paul agrees with. He voted against the war in the first place, which Obama didn’t. You can’t trash his experience or his record. I mean the only challenge Obama can make is that he’s a kooky looking old man, because Obama can’t go toe to toe with him on direct issues. You bring those up, Obama is dead in the water, he’s been clueless since the start.
Romney and Perry won’t force those issues, they’ll pull McCain’s and think they have to be moderate to win the independents. Bachmann may fall pressure to that as well, just as Palin did.
That was such a stupid move by McCain. Bring up a talented rookie, and then your own campaign crushes her. He played moderate and lost. Sure, Palin isn’t president material, but the base she energized, could have won him the election. Instead, he benched her. Just stupid.
You can’t play moderate against Obama. You will not win.
You can play moderate in the R primaries so long as everyone else is. But Paul is there. Moderate policy isn’t going to fly.
Remember, McCain was 12% in Iowa…37% in N.H. Not even N.H. wanted to give it to Romney then. You think a guy that lost to McCain, really has a better shot against Obama, when the last guy he lost too…got destroyed?
Moderate McCain took the liberal leaning states and snowballed his way in despite being waaay behind early. Soon as he saw the light of day the media jumped on it. Practically declaring him the winner in Feb…and who he’ll pick as a VP…
Why? Because the moderate McCain would get destroyed by either Obama or Clinton really. And they know they can destroy a Romney or Perry. You can pick a part a moderate politician all day, they are just political chaff.
They’ll give Bachmann the Palin treatment.
You don’t send in your mediocre reliever to close down the 9th inning. You send in the Closer. Your most dominate reliever if you want to win.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if this poll is scientific enough.
http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK%20Poll%20Aug%202011%20Topline_2012_Republican_Presidential_nomination.pdf
Ron Paul in a close second to Romney, although he is the only candidate to have more favorable than unfavorable votes.
Report comment to moderator
I was just selected for an online political survey asking me if I’d vote for Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, also did I approve of Pres. Obama, was Pres. Bush responsible for getting bin Laden.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Why are you painting Perry as a moderate? And what makes you think that he will become even more moderate “to win the independents”? He’s already shown for example on the S.S. issue that he’s not one to back down simply b/c of political expediency.
Report comment to moderator
The definition of “stuffed shirt” is “Rick Perry”.
Report comment to moderator
Rick Perry is political chaff. The guy used to be head Al Gore’s campaign. He’s entirely image associated.
Maybe the polite way to say it is “political opportunist”.
He’s no different than the last two presidents. If you want more of the same, go right ahead.
Report comment to moderator
Be careful what you hear – a Democratic party opponent dumped that “headed Gore’s campaign” charge on Perry in 1998 (referring back to 1988), but it wasn’t true. And when Perry found out what Gore was really about, that was actually instrumental to him becoming a Republican in 1989. Which is quite a long time ago in political terms, and very similar to how Ronald Reagan switched parties as well. People change – even politicians. What you’re sharing as a character fault is weak sauce.
Report comment to moderator
How about TX Ag Commissioner Rick Perry’s praising of HillaryCare in 1993?
Rick Perry’s camp defends 1993 HillaryCare praise (Includes photocopy of Perry’s letter to Hillary.)
1988 was “a long time ago in political terms”? Perhaps. But check out Ron Paul’s record going back to the mid-1970s.
The rest are big-gummint compromisers and wetted-fingers-in-the-wind types.
Report comment to moderator
HillaryCare Rick …
AlGore Rick …
Gardasil Rick …
Big-gummint compromising, wetted-finger-in-the-wind moderate.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, that comes across to me as just so silly and annoying. A definite turn-off. Just another one of the interminable defenses of Paul not to read. I don’t bore easily – really – yet, nothing numbs like the same-old, same-old, still not enough steam to go anywhere.
Report comment to moderator
A Perry nomination is akin to another 4 years for Obama.
Romney’s Achilles heel is “Romneycare”, which he continually refuses to disavow, even in the face of dire Massachusetts health care statistics and the remarkable similarity to obamacare. Paul is a great congressman, but will be absolutely crucified by the liberal media as a POTUS candidate.
I’ve heard it said that Cain is the next Reagan.
One thing is for sure, we cannot afford another 4 years of Obama. A second term for him will be the final term for what was once a free and prosperous nation.
Report comment to moderator
A Perry nomination is akin to another 4 years for Obama.
Woodharvester: Please explain yourself.
Report comment to moderator
Can’t answer for Woodharvester, but I can for myself:
YET ANOTHER BALD-FACED LIAR IN THE WHITE HOUSE:
Rick Perry Denies Ever Having Supported the TARP Bailouts
… even though he most certainly did.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure that I trust Perry either…in fact, I’m pretty sure I don’t much trust any politician. But it’s not that clear-cut, Frank. I posted this elsewhere today, but at the risk of being boringly repetitious I’ll do again:
Perry is not in my top three picks, but we should at least be fair regarding his record. He co-authored identical letters to Boehner and Pelosi stating:
On the same day he released this short clarifying statement from his press office:
Then in December 2008, Perry and Mark Sanford co-authored an anti-TARP piece in the WSJ found at the official TX website
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/11678/
And remember, our Republican president and Secy of Treasury and Fed Chairman were all singing in unison: ‘the sky is falling, the sky is falling!”
Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum or Ron Paul would make a better president than Perry, I think. But ABO in 2012,
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!