Huffington Post: Ron Paul can win.

[CatoMinor]

An interesting article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-paul-can-win_b_939993.html

[Rowan]

No.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

why does one side think they can predict the results on the other side?!

unless you are a member of the GOP base, you have very little clue as to what is possible and what is not.  (same thing for a rep trying to predict a dem nomination, it's a waste of time)

[Bacon King]

why does one side think they can predict the results on the other side?!

unless you are a member of the GOP base, you have very little clue as to what is possible and what is not.  (same thing for a rep trying to predict a dem nomination, it's a waste of time)

One could easily make the opposite case- a knowledgeable outside observer that doesn't support one candidate over another can make a more accurate analysis without innate bias.

However, I agree that this article is a bit silly. Sure, Paul could win, however unlikely that possibility may be, but saying, "Unexpected things can happen! Ron Paul can win by surprise just like British Labour did in 1945!" isn't really much of an argument at all.   

[stegosaurus]

It's things like this that make it hard for me to take HuffPo seriously.

[Badger]

Just one columnist, not necessarily HuffPo as a whole.

I read the article 30 minutes ago and wondered "how long before this is on the Forum?". Answer, of course, long beforehand.

The article is horrible regardless how one feels about Paul. It spends more than the first half engaging in meandering pointless philosophical drivel before even attempting to actually analyze the political terrain of Paul's candidacy--spending a whopping one paragraph in the entire article doing so. And even that single paragraph:

First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.

Combines unadulterated bs (bolded) with pure (italicized)


Hell, I could make a better argument for Paul's chances than this tripe, and this author even had the advantage of believing it could happen.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

imo, here is how paul can win...obama's approval ratings drops to around 25 by iowa, indicating america is desperate and willing to go with something radical

[Sam Spade]

Ron Paul can certainly win 10%-15% in Iowa, which is about 10-15 times more than Huntsman can win in any GOP primary, but win the nomination?  lol

[BigSkyBob]

Ron Paul has the twin blessings of having neo-con critics in the GOP whom what to defeat him on intervention, and a Democratic party that  wants to confront him on liberal grounds. Neither side takes the absurdities of so-called "libertarianism" sufficiently seriously to find the real devastating arguments against him.
 

[anvi]

Well, that article does represent a pile of something, but sand isn't it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm still waiting for the Gravelaunch.