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

[Oakvale]

If the actual results in such a matchup were such I'd eat my hat. I mean it, I'd literally eat a hat.

Paul is pretty much the Mike Gravel of the Republican Party, albeit with a gaggle of fanatical supporters.

[Oakvale]

This would generate a very wierd map considering how badly Paul does amoung Republicans, yet how well he does amoung Independants.

I think there's a logically fallacy amongst libertarians that-

a) Fiscal conservativism appealing to the 'right'.

+

b) Social liberalism appealing to the 'left'.

??

PROFIT!!!


Whereas, really,


a) Fiscal conservatism turns off people who like social security and possibly roads.

b) Social liberalism turns off the religious right.

...meaning a libertarian campaign leaves virtually no-one happy but the small and vocal libertarian minority.

[Oakvale]

This would generate a very wierd map considering how badly Paul does amoung Republicans, yet how well he does amoung Independants.

I think there's a logically fallacy amongst libertarians that-

a) Fiscal conservativism appealing to the 'right'.

+

b) Social liberalism appealing to the 'left'.

??

PROFIT!!!


Whereas, really,


a) Fiscal conservatism turns off people who like social security and possibly roads.

b) Social liberalism turns off the religious right.

...meaning a libertarian campaign leaves virtually no-one happy but the small and vocal libertarian minority.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch, to imagine that a sizable percentage of Americans are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.  What one has to realize is that around half of American non-voters feel disenfranchised by the two-party system and the candidates they nominate.

Maybe, but there's fiscally conservative and then there's Ron Paul, y'know? He's probably too much of a fringe candidate for this poll to be anythng but silly. People might disapprove of pork and so on, but that doesn't mean they think social security is a communist plot...

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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*

[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.

[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.