Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%

[HappyWarrior]

Paul cannot win. He has absolutely no charisma, comes off as a bit crazy, wants to abolish the federal reserve, is VERY socially conservative at the state level, and has questionable associations with racists and even more so with conspiracy theorists. He can't win more than 15% of the GOP primary electorate.

Sorry, Paul is pretty popular among real independents anarcho-capitalists.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Paul cannot win. He has absolutely no charisma, comes off as a bit crazy, wants to abolish the federal reserve, is VERY socially conservative at the state level, and has questionable associations with racists and even more so with conspiracy theorists. He can't win more than 15% of the GOP primary electorate.

Sorry, Paul is pretty popular among real independents anarcho-capitalists.

They like him too.

Basically anyone who is not a Republocrat hack likes Ron Paul.

[CatoMinor]

This is the Ron Paul who couldn't break 10% in the GOP primary states until he was like the only non-McCain guy left. 

Shows how useless polling is 2.5 years before election day. 

all before he and McCain were the only ones left. those numbers are not huge but it shows he has a larger base then people give him credit for.

Iowa 10%
Nevada 14%*
Maine 18%
Alaska 17%
Minnesota 16%
Montana 25%*
North Dakota 21%
Kansas 11%
Washington 22%

*states he placed second in early on.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is the Ron Paul who couldn't break 10% in the GOP primary states until he was like the only non-McCain guy left.  

Shows how useless polling is 2.5 years before election day.  

all before he and McCain were the only ones left. those numbers are not huge but it shows he has a larger base then people give him credit for.

Iowa 10%
Nevada 14%*
Maine 18%
Alaska 17%
Minnesota 16%
Montana 25%*
North Dakota 21%
Kansas 11%
Washington 22%

*states he placed second in early on.

I'd like to note, that, upon checking, every single one of those is a caucus, which relies on devoted activists, not broad general population support. There's actually a good way to show this by looking at Washington.

Washington results you cited, the caucus, Paul got 22%

Washington also holds a separate primary, in addition to their caucuses, in this, Paul's support drops two thirds down to 7.4%.

Just sayin'.

[Phony Moderate]

Paul cannot win. He has absolutely no charisma, comes off as a bit crazy, wants to abolish the federal reserve, is VERY socially conservative at the state level, and has questionable associations with racists and even more so with conspiracy theorists. He can't win more than 15% of the GOP primary electorate.

Sorry, Paul is pretty popular among real independents anarcho-capitalists.

They like him too.

Basically anyone who is not a Republocrat hack likes Ron Paul.

So Ron Paul doesn't like Ron Paul?

[Oakvale]

FiveThirtyEight.com posits that, without Rasmussen's house effect, Obama vs. Paul is more like Obama +10, which is probably closer to the truth.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/romney-not-paul-fares-best-in-12.html

Apparently, it is, for better or worse, Mittens who fares best in 2012 matchups.

EDIT: Haha, the first comment on that article could be written about this forum:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, I'll trust Rasmussen over a hack site.

Come on, 538's pretty well respected. We're not talking about Daily Kos here.

Obama +10 is ridiculous. Obama's popularity is sinking by the hour.

The election's two years away. Reagan was less popular at this point, for example.

More to the point, (IMO) Paul's philosophy isn't "electable". I know we disagree on that, obviously...

Uh, Paul's philosophy is the only one left untried and untarnished after 12 years of BushBama.

Not to be crass, but they haven't tried, say, fascism, yet but it doesn't mean people want it. It's simple, really.

If you ask someone about "big government", their knee jerk reaction will be that of opposition, but start asking that hypothetical person about highways and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act(s) and their opinion may just change.

Of course we tried fascism. That's what is in power right now.

You cannot be serious. *facepalm*

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

FiveThirtyEight.com posits that, without Rasmussen's house effect, Obama vs. Paul is more like Obama +10, which is probably closer to the truth.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/romney-not-paul-fares-best-in-12.html

Apparently, it is, for better or worse, Mittens who fares best in 2012 matchups.

EDIT: Haha, the first comment on that article could be written about this forum:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, I'll trust Rasmussen over a hack site.

Come on, 538's pretty well respected. We're not talking about Daily Kos here.

Obama +10 is ridiculous. Obama's popularity is sinking by the hour.

The election's two years away. Reagan was less popular at this point, for example.

More to the point, (IMO) Paul's philosophy isn't "electable". I know we disagree on that, obviously...

Uh, Paul's philosophy is the only one left untried and untarnished after 12 years of BushBama.

Not to be crass, but they haven't tried, say, fascism, yet but it doesn't mean people want it. It's simple, really.

If you ask someone about "big government", their knee jerk reaction will be that of opposition, but start asking that hypothetical person about highways and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act(s) and their opinion may just change.

Of course we tried fascism. That's what is in power right now.

You cannot be serious. *facepalm*

Sorry, can you respectfully state what your objection is to my post?

[Oakvale]

FiveThirtyEight.com posits that, without Rasmussen's house effect, Obama vs. Paul is more like Obama +10, which is probably closer to the truth.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/romney-not-paul-fares-best-in-12.html

Apparently, it is, for better or worse, Mittens who fares best in 2012 matchups.

EDIT: Haha, the first comment on that article could be written about this forum:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, I'll trust Rasmussen over a hack site.

Come on, 538's pretty well respected. We're not talking about Daily Kos here.

Obama +10 is ridiculous. Obama's popularity is sinking by the hour.

The election's two years away. Reagan was less popular at this point, for example.

More to the point, (IMO) Paul's philosophy isn't "electable". I know we disagree on that, obviously...

Uh, Paul's philosophy is the only one left untried and untarnished after 12 years of BushBama.

Not to be crass, but they haven't tried, say, fascism, yet but it doesn't mean people want it. It's simple, really.

If you ask someone about "big government", their knee jerk reaction will be that of opposition, but start asking that hypothetical person about highways and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act(s) and their opinion may just change.

Of course we tried fascism. That's what is in power right now.

You cannot be serious. *facepalm*

Sorry, can you respectfully state what your objection is to my post?

Sure.

The idea the United States is currently under fascist rule is, I've gotta say, downright offensive to people who've lived under, y'know, actual fascist rule.

[pbrower2a]

(internal argument excised)

The idea the United States is currently under fascist rule is, I've gotta say, downright offensive to people who've lived under, y'know, actual fascist rule.

As well as the contention that the previous Administration, pathological as it was, was fascist. Most of us are aware of Lawrence Britt's essay in which he compared the Bush Administration to a fascist clique. All of those traits were pathologies; I could associate almost all of those pathologies with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, contemporary Iran, Uganda under Idi Amin, Apartheid-era South Africa, or a Commie regime so nasty as Romania under Ceausescu.   The more pathological a government is, the more it will seem to have traits in common with a pathological regime of any kind -- right?

So the Bush Administration and the Congressional GOP appropriated military style and symbolism, deferred to anti-rational causes for political advantage, exploited religious fundamentalism, favored Big Business over workers every time, enhanced the repressive tendencies of law enforcement, manipulated the media, used political shenanigans to maintain its hold on power, initiated a war of aggression and fostered military overkill, scapegoated liberals, squeezed anyone not already rich, and became corrupt and callous. Something was missing from honest-to-Mussolini fascism: street thugs enforcing the will of the Leader, a secret police, mass persecutions of dissidents, media censorship, and the attempt to politicize every aspect of life, and a purge first of opponents then of those of "wobbly" support for the Leadership.   

Liberals (I among them) were able to get our points across in independent media  -- including the Web. Many of us could see the warning signs... and unlike the case in a fascist dictatorship, we could expose the rot. The 2006 and 2008 elections show that enough people could tire of a pathological government and that we could challenge it in the safest manner possible -- the vote.   

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Rasmussen has officially lost it.

Yeah, I don't buy this.

However, I think Paul would do better then with Republicans than he would now, because by 2012, the Iraq War will be much less relevant.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

FiveThirtyEight.com posits that, without Rasmussen's house effect, Obama vs. Paul is more like Obama +10, which is probably closer to the truth.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/romney-not-paul-fares-best-in-12.html

Apparently, it is, for better or worse, Mittens who fares best in 2012 matchups.

EDIT: Haha, the first comment on that article could be written about this forum:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, I'll trust Rasmussen over a hack site.

Come on, 538's pretty well respected. We're not talking about Daily Kos here.

Obama +10 is ridiculous. Obama's popularity is sinking by the hour.

The election's two years away. Reagan was less popular at this point, for example.

More to the point, (IMO) Paul's philosophy isn't "electable". I know we disagree on that, obviously...

Uh, Paul's philosophy is the only one left untried and untarnished after 12 years of BushBama.

Not to be crass, but they haven't tried, say, fascism, yet but it doesn't mean people want it. It's simple, really.

If you ask someone about "big government", their knee jerk reaction will be that of opposition, but start asking that hypothetical person about highways and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act(s) and their opinion may just change.

Of course we tried fascism. That's what is in power right now.

You cannot be serious. *facepalm*

Sorry, can you respectfully state what your objection is to my post?

Sure.

The idea the United States is currently under fascist rule is, I've gotta say, downright offensive to people who've lived under, y'know, actual fascist rule.

Offensive to Americans? Barack Obama is a fascist. That's a fact.

[TheGreatOne]

Rasmussen has officially lost it.

Yeah, I don't buy this.

However, I think Paul would do better then with Republicans than he would now, because by 2012, the Iraq War will be much less relevant.

The Republican Party will weed him out based on his non-interventionist foreign policy.  It sounds great in theory, but its very scary.  Most Americans will not vote for a person who looks softer on terrorism than Obama.

[TheGreatOne]

FiveThirtyEight.com posits that, without Rasmussen's house effect, Obama vs. Paul is more like Obama +10, which is probably closer to the truth.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/romney-not-paul-fares-best-in-12.html

Apparently, it is, for better or worse, Mittens who fares best in 2012 matchups.

EDIT: Haha, the first comment on that article could be written about this forum:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, I'll trust Rasmussen over a hack site.

Come on, 538's pretty well respected. We're not talking about Daily Kos here.

Obama +10 is ridiculous. Obama's popularity is sinking by the hour.

The election's two years away. Reagan was less popular at this point, for example.

More to the point, (IMO) Paul's philosophy isn't "electable". I know we disagree on that, obviously...

Uh, Paul's philosophy is the only one left untried and untarnished after 12 years of BushBama.

Not to be crass, but they haven't tried, say, fascism, yet but it doesn't mean people want it. It's simple, really.

If you ask someone about "big government", their knee jerk reaction will be that of opposition, but start asking that hypothetical person about highways and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act(s) and their opinion may just change.

Of course we tried fascism. That's what is in power right now.

You cannot be serious. *facepalm*

Sorry, can you respectfully state what your objection is to my post?

Sure.

The idea the United States is currently under fascist rule is, I've gotta say, downright offensive to people who've lived under, y'know, actual fascist rule.

Offensive to Americans? Barack Obama is a fascist. That's a fact.

I guess we should just take your word for it.

[Oakvale]

FiveThirtyEight.com posits that, without Rasmussen's house effect, Obama vs. Paul is more like Obama +10, which is probably closer to the truth.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/romney-not-paul-fares-best-in-12.html

Apparently, it is, for better or worse, Mittens who fares best in 2012 matchups.

EDIT: Haha, the first comment on that article could be written about this forum:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, I'll trust Rasmussen over a hack site.

Come on, 538's pretty well respected. We're not talking about Daily Kos here.

Obama +10 is ridiculous. Obama's popularity is sinking by the hour.

The election's two years away. Reagan was less popular at this point, for example.

More to the point, (IMO) Paul's philosophy isn't "electable". I know we disagree on that, obviously...

Uh, Paul's philosophy is the only one left untried and untarnished after 12 years of BushBama.

Not to be crass, but they haven't tried, say, fascism, yet but it doesn't mean people want it. It's simple, really.

If you ask someone about "big government", their knee jerk reaction will be that of opposition, but start asking that hypothetical person about highways and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act(s) and their opinion may just change.

Of course we tried fascism. That's what is in power right now.

You cannot be serious. *facepalm*

Sorry, can you respectfully state what your objection is to my post?

Sure.

The idea the United States is currently under fascist rule is, I've gotta say, downright offensive to people who've lived under, y'know, actual fascist rule.

Offensive to Americans? Barack Obama is a fascist. That's a fact.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascist

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note how none of those definitions bear any similarity whatsoever to the current government in the United States, and that trying to claim such similarity exists is intellectually dishonest at best.


Suggestion: maybe you should learn what fascism is before throwing around buzzwords that are liable to offend victims of genuine fascist regimes. Like, oh, I don't know, the Nazis. They were fascists.

It's one thing to lambast Obama or Bush or whoever, it's another entirely to call them fascists.



EDIT: I don't think Godwin's Law applies in this context, since Nazism is actually somewhat relevant.

[Phony Moderate]

FiveThirtyEight.com posits that, without Rasmussen's house effect, Obama vs. Paul is more like Obama +10, which is probably closer to the truth.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/romney-not-paul-fares-best-in-12.html

Apparently, it is, for better or worse, Mittens who fares best in 2012 matchups.

EDIT: Haha, the first comment on that article could be written about this forum:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, I'll trust Rasmussen over a hack site.

Come on, 538's pretty well respected. We're not talking about Daily Kos here.

Obama +10 is ridiculous. Obama's popularity is sinking by the hour.

The election's two years away. Reagan was less popular at this point, for example.

More to the point, (IMO) Paul's philosophy isn't "electable". I know we disagree on that, obviously...

Uh, Paul's philosophy is the only one left untried and untarnished after 12 years of BushBama.

Not to be crass, but they haven't tried, say, fascism, yet but it doesn't mean people want it. It's simple, really.

If you ask someone about "big government", their knee jerk reaction will be that of opposition, but start asking that hypothetical person about highways and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act(s) and their opinion may just change.

Of course we tried fascism. That's what is in power right now.

You cannot be serious. *facepalm*

Sorry, can you respectfully state what your objection is to my post?

Sure.

The idea the United States is currently under fascist rule is, I've gotta say, downright offensive to people who've lived under, y'know, actual fascist rule.

Offensive to Americans? Barack Obama is a fascist. That's a fact my opinion.

Fixed.

[fezzyfestoon]

Offensive to Americans? Barack Obama is a fascist. That's a fact my ill-conceived opinion.

Fixed.

Better.

[pbrower2a]

As Eric Hoffer put it in The True Believer, the opposite of a raging fascist is a sober liberal. President Obama is very sober, and he is a decided liberal.

Liberals believe in the rule of law, due process, democratic government,  competitive elections, caution in international relationships, non-violence, personal freedom, social equity, and the rejection of violence. Every one of those traits is a rejection of fascism. Take the Bill of Rights, add the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th Amendments to the Constitution and you have a clear statement of liberalism -- and what fascism isn't. That's not to say that Constitutional prohibitions of ex post facto laws and a narrow definition of treason aren't essential to liberalism.

Fascism implies that the government can prohibit any expression or assembly that offends the leadership, mandate the dissolution of or prevent the formation of independent organizations that lack the specific approval of the leadership, do domestic spying at will and without warning, seize property at will, arrest without warrant or other due cause, detain without trial or even perform extrajudicial killings, deny the possibility of a spirited defense, torture witnesses and defendants, discriminate at will, restrict the vote to those that it wants to vote or deny the possibility of competition in elections, establish and enforce slave labor, and subject women to men (fascism as a rule is very much a male habit -- all fascist regimes have been 100% male).

When George W. Bush was President, Tom DeLay was the Boss of the House, Rick Santorum was Boss of the Senate. and Dick Cheney took on powers that the President had no right to assume himself or delegate to the Vice-President, and Karl Rove was the Party Boss and exercise powers not defined in the Constitution, America took some "baby steps" toward fascism. We had the baby alligator -- not the full-blown giant reptile. We have since disposed of the alligator before it could get troublesome the right way -- by an electoral process that leaders of questionable ethics could not arrange to assure continuing power. .

  

[LBJ Revivalist]

Run Paul against Obama and we'll get a replay of Goldwater v. Johnson.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Run Paul against Obama and we'll get a replay of Goldwater v. Johnson.

No, we wouldn't.

We'd get a replay of Reagan vs. Carter.

[LBJ Revivalist]

Run Paul against Obama and we'll get a replay of Goldwater v. Johnson.

No, we wouldn't.

We'd get a replay of Reagan vs. Carter.

Even most mainstream Republicans think Paul's a loon, similar to how the mainstream Republicans thought Goldwater was a loon and left him pissing in the wind.
Sarah Palin (the female, much less bright or eloquent Richard Nixon) will campaign for Paul, as Nixon did for Goldwater, and like Nixon her tarnished reputation restored and she'll probably end up being President in 2016.
I'd say the climate is a lot closer (domestic politics) to '64 than '80 imo.

[Хahar 🤔]

Why are you people even wasting your time with such a ridiculous idea?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Why are you people even wasting your time with such a ridiculous idea?

Some of us have principles and are willing to work for their advancement, as opposed to accepting whatever we are given by corporate puppet candidates.

[Хahar 🤔]

Why are you people even wasting your time with such a ridiculous idea?

Some of us have principles and are willing to work for their advancement, as opposed to accepting whatever we are given by corporate puppet candidates.

Yes, and some of us have more important things to do.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is the Ron Paul who couldn't break 10% in the GOP primary states until he was like the only non-McCain guy left.  

Shows how useless polling is 2.5 years before election day.  

all before he and McCain were the only ones left. those numbers are not huge but it shows he has a larger base then people give him credit for.

Iowa 10%
Nevada 14%*
Maine 18%
Alaska 17%
Minnesota 16%
Montana 25%*
North Dakota 21%
Kansas 11%
Washington 22%

*states he placed second in early on.

I'd like to note, that, upon checking, every single one of those is a caucus, which relies on devoted activists, not broad general population support. There's actually a good way to show this by looking at Washington.

Washington results you cited, the caucus, Paul got 22%

Washington also holds a separate primary, in addition to their caucuses, in this, Paul's support drops two thirds down to 7.4%.

Just sayin'.

Aw, cmon Jbrase.

[CatoMinor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.