Romney Moving Ahead in South Carolina Too?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But the broad Libertarian themes Ron Paul advocates are simply unacceptable to the population at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, cause most people have serious issues with the concept of "don't initiate force".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they do. Child predators, anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like an uncharacteristically sloppy post from you. Care to elaborate so it's clear where you're going with this?

[ConstantineX]

I'm not going anywhere with it. I'm just suggesting that the significant amount of preemptory legislation suggests that the general public has "serious issues with the concept 'don't initiate force', at least in some cases. Libertarian thinking isn't instinctual.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the broad Libertarian themes Ron Paul advocates are simply unacceptable to the population at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think as people get the chance to actually listen to what Ron Paul has to say, and think it over, his themes increasingly resonate with many people. <font color="red"> Depends on how you define "many". The real issue is whether there will be any snowball effect resulting from his more reasonable ideas. People see through rhetoric like eliminating agencies M-Z and it taints his overall message.</font>

<font color="blue">Yes, that is the question, and whether or not his ideas create a snowball effect as they gain exposure might even become a pivotal issue. As for voters "seeing through rhetoric", methinks Ron Paul ought to be be in considerably less danger from that than any of the other candidates.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
Americans tend to want change that comes from the middle; in a way a divided government with little difference between Democrats and Republicans suits us just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's the way it's been, and will be - until we more fully wake up. People are starting to wake up and realize we can't forever keep on the path we've been on (for one thing, it's the road to eventual genuine economic ruin. lso, I think most Americans are getting the deep down sense that something is very basically wrong economically in America and that bad things are looming; gas prices, high "real" inflation, the mortgage debacle and falling dollar are symptoms most are aware of). <font color="red"> They may "sense" those things, but there is nothing in RPs message that he has any real answers to the problem that differ from any other Republican. </font>

<font color="blue">Getting our troops out of Iraq will save huge money; that's something Ron Paul, but not the other Republican candidates, will do. He also would attempt to REALLY cut the very bloated federal budget: again, no other candidate would even come close to his effort or goals on that front. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul represents radical change. He has no chance no matter how effective his Internet fund raising campaign becomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree his chances are considerably less than the frontrunners, but his appeal is also widely based and cuts across all demographic groups. <font color="red">I havent looked at the polls that closely, I tend to doubt that he has much appeal in the 35-54 group. </font>

<font color="blue"> Anyone want to search this one out? I recollect reading a chart somewhere (yup, somehwhere;-) , and while all age groups weren't equal in support, that group wasn't the lowest, I think. </font>

Let things get a heck of a lot worse over the next 5 or 10 years, and let his message get out more fully, and Americans might actually then be ready for Ron Paul's prescriptions for America. <font color="red">Elect Shrillary and thats a given, the country will be ready for "anything but". </font>

<font color="blue">Very likely true. </font>


P.S. IMO the Demopublicans are actually ruining America; the economic rot goes very deep. SS is just one symptom, <font color="red"> rofl, youve been spending too much time here apparently </font> and most of our late prosperity is due to borrowing rather than to increased production. <font color="red"> uhhhh, no it isnt. </font> <font color="blue"> Well, I did read that somewhere over the last couple of months and the source seemed believable. Anyone (besides me;-) ) care to search this one down? Could be interesting but clearly more detailed info. would be required to actually discuss the effect and extent.</font> The current system is on path to economic disaster. Couple that with an insane foreign policy in Iraq, which includes the pillar of unquestioned faith that Iraqis will get along with each other just fine if only the U.S. tells them to and stays for an indeterminate amount of time playing peacekeeper, and the spending in Iraq funded by megabucks borrowed from the Chinese - well, the phrase "coming recession" might easily be seen in hindsight as am enormous understatement. <font color="red">I think your crystal ball is cloudy. </font>

<font color="blue"> I certainly hope it's cloudy, but fear it isn't. I'm convinced that America can't effectively engineer lasting Middle Eastern peace deals, though. Also, our soldiers are intended and trained to fight and kill, not to play policeman in the desert forever. IMO this is turning into a severe misuse of the U.S. military, not to mention ghastly perpetual expense.</font>

All of the mainstream candidates will continue to bankrupt America's future. The young folks where Paul has been speaking in colleges and town halls are taking this terrible mortgaging of America's future especially to heart, because after all it's their future. <font color="red">That varies widely from campus to campus. At my son's school the general opinion is that he's a clown. </font>

<font color="blue"> Very well, so be it. </font>

As people see and feel what's happening, and worry more (and realistically so), Paul's message will attract increasing attention. <font color="red">So would his running around the Senate floor naked. </font>

<font color="blue"> If that's what it would really take to restore America to the Constitution, then I'd guess he'd probably do it. Go, Ron, go! </font>

Also, Ron Paul's positions on illegal immigration and the Iraq War are very important; most Americans want out of Iraq <font color="red"> By the primaries that statistic will likely have changed </font>

<font color="blue"> Why do you think so? </font> and to vastly restrict illegal immigration. <font color="red">but by admitting that deporting the current illegals RPs positions arent noticeably different from the mainstream Republicans. When you get to some of his specifics (eg no need for a border fence, and that you can solve the immigration problem by cutting back on Welfare, he just isnt credible </font>

<font color="blue">Ron pointed out the extreme irony that border patrol guards had been shipped off for duty in Iraq rather than doing what they were supposed to be doing here at home. Giuliani is pro-immigration in his heart and even pro-illegal immigration, though he is retreating from his preferences a bit due to perceived strong voter preferences in the opposite direction. Most of the candidates represent a sham on immigration; Ron Paul thinks we should not have illegal immigration, and I think he is wisely against unlimited and unfettered legal immigration, too. In that he shares the views of most Americans, which is more than can be said for most of the candidates. As for concete proposals (other than eliminating welfare inducements), I haven't read enough to know what he may or may not have proposed. By the way, the notion that "Americans won't do those jobs" is absurd; they'll do them if the price is right, just as Americans drive garbage trucks.</font> Those are two major issues of concern for most Americans, and only Paul shares the average American's sentiments on both issues. He's actually on the right side of major mainstream public opinion on these two, while the other candidates are out of sync with the voters on at least one of these two key issues.

Finally, look at how the major candidates evade, flipflop, and typically BS their way through routinely. Hillary recently caught injcreasing flak for some of that. Paul will refresh voters who actually take the time to hear him, because here you have that immense rarity, a truly honest and principled politician who says exactly what he thinks. And he was elected and re-elected in Texas for how many terms?

So, while I agree that his chances are not high, I think his chances are be higher than you think they are, and that he is certainly not an "impossible" horse to win. <font color="red"> Again, even if he won the majority of states, he will not win the nomination. The Republicans will NOT nominate someone who is perceived as unable to beat Hillary. You can take that to the Fed. </font>

<font color="blue">That perception might well change given time. Hillary might even later be perceived as the more unelectable of the two. Her persona doesn't come across well as it seems to disturb a great many people somehow; she appears to be a great power-seeker; she waffles; she is strident; and my guess to boot is that many men and many Southerners and Midwesterners simply won't vote for her in the clutch no matter what, regardless of party affiliation. </font>

Finally, I'll add that far from throwing away one's vote by voting for Ron Paul, I think a vote for any of the mainstream Demopublicans is a thrown away vote, because, as you point out, their differences are relatively minor in the larger scale of things. So if you vote for Rudy or Hillary, you're voting to spend a bundle, keep the Iraq War going, etc. etc. etc. Same for Romney et al, although Obama might get us out of Iraq. He'd still spend fortunes, though. <font color="red"> Wrong, vote for Shrillary and the only thing your assured of getting is higher taxes. </font>

<font color="blue"> And all of the above are assured of continuing to spend incredible amounts of money and to keep the U.S. tax rate (overall, all taxes) over 50% of the average American's income. The founders were upset at taxes of only a few percent; the country has become far more efficient today than then; there is no reason Americans should fulfill the role of indentured servants to the government for over 50% of their working lifetime hours. It's simply insane, and it is so far from what this country was intended to be that it's like a really bad joke in a really bad nightmare. You are, effectively, for over 50% of your working hours, A SERF. Consider that for a moment, please. We might almost as well be sharecroppers working for an English Lord, I suppose.</font>

It's time for a real change (IMO) and the main question is how much of America will think so by election time. My guess is rather low (just not as low as yours) but give it 5 or 10 years and we'll see. And who really knows what the Internet, debate exposure, etc. might achieve. <font color="red">If it achieves anything it will be incrementally and wont look anything like Ron Paul. </font>

<font color="blue"> My guess too is that it will be incremental, but I'm hoping for more. I want to see America free like it was in the 1700s+. By the way, most of the century predating the Federal Reserve and federal income tax was a period of great growth and significant prosperity. With today's technological wonders and knowledge, if America were ever to get free again, the growth and prosperity created would far eclipse today's.</font>

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
but if Giuliani is polling at 24% and Paul is polling at 16%, Paul is going to win pretty much every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Polling is hardly ever quite this bad, especially in a Presidential election or primary where tens of millions of dollars are poured into polling. Maybe in a local school board election, mayoral race, or some other small local election, you'll see pollsters completely miss the mark, but if a reputable pollster with a standard moe says Guiliani is polling at 24% and Paul is polling at 16%, I'd happily give 50 to 1 on a "Paul will win" bet. "Paul will win every time" in that scenario is beyond laughable.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but if Giuliani is polling at 24% and Paul is polling at 16%, Paul is going to win pretty much every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Polling is hardly ever quite this bad, especially in a Presidential election or primary where tens of millions of dollars are poured into polling. Maybe in a local school board election, mayoral race, or some other small local election, you'll see pollsters completely miss the mark, but if a reputable pollster with a standard moe says Guiliani is polling at 24% and Paul is polling at 16%, I'd happily give 50 to 1 on a "Paul will win" bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intrade.com you can sell $10,000's of pon paul for much better than 50-1 odds and he's polling way less than 16% from a bunch of reputable posters.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But the broad Libertarian themes Ron Paul advocates are simply unacceptable to the population at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, cause most people have serious issues with the concept of "don't initiate force".

[/ QUOTE ]

October 2002 says hello:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5051/most..._feinstein.html

"A solid majority (62%) of Americans say they support military action to 'end Saddam Hussein’s rule' ".

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but if Giuliani is polling at 24% and Paul is polling at 16%, Paul is going to win pretty much every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Polling is hardly ever quite this bad, especially in a Presidential election or primary where tens of millions of dollars are poured into polling. Maybe in a local school board election, mayoral race, or some other small local election, you'll see pollsters completely miss the mark, but if a reputable pollster with a standard moe says Guiliani is polling at 24% and Paul is polling at 16%, I'd happily give 50 to 1 on a "Paul will win" bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intrade.com you can sell $10,000's of pon paul for much better than 50-1 odds and he's polling way less than 16% from a bunch of reputable posters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, maybe I misunderstood scary tiger, but I thought he meant something like "if it's Giuliani vs Paul and the night before an election and Giuliani is polling at 24% and Paul is at 16%, Paul is going to win everytime because of the huge swath of voters out there all the pollsters will miss and will turnout for Paul", then that's ludicrous and I'd happily spread big odds Guiliani would win in that scenario.

If scary tiger means something like "Candidate X is at 24%, Candidate Y is at 16%, and it's November and the first primary election is in March" or something -- ie., what the Intrade market trading on, then that's entirely different -- and yes I understand that. See John Kerry &amp; Howard Dean.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But the broad Libertarian themes Ron Paul advocates are simply unacceptable to the population at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, cause most people have serious issues with the concept of "don't initiate force".

[/ QUOTE ]

October 2002 says hello:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5051/most..._feinstein.html

"A solid majority (62%) of Americans say they support military action to 'end Saddam Hussein’s rule' ".

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they were convinved that it was self defence or a retaliation for sadams "involvement" in 911. The warmongers still had to lie and cloak their [censored] in false morality and stories which is great news. The day they no longer have to lie to us all hope is lost.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
if a reputable pollster with a standard moe says Guiliani is polling at 24% and Paul is polling at 16%, I'd happily give 50 to 1 on a "Paul will win" bet. "Paul will win every time" in that scenario is beyond laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Srsly.

I just noticed that Real Clear Politics which compiles poll data has recently added Paul to the candidates they track. It shows him as 6th Nationally and in Iowa and 5th in New Hampshire. I share DVaut's faith in polling, so I'm offering $100 bets if you can do Stars transfers:

1. Paul's NH vote count will be less than 12%
2. Paul's NH vote count will be within 4% of wherever the RCP NH average has him on election day (with data from immediately before the election).

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But the broad Libertarian themes Ron Paul advocates are simply unacceptable to the population at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, cause most people have serious issues with the concept of "don't initiate force".

[/ QUOTE ]

October 2002 says hello:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5051/most..._feinstein.html

"A solid majority (62%) of Americans say they support military action to 'end Saddam Hussein’s rule' ".

[/ QUOTE ]

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
most seem to believe the worst about possible links between the Iraqi leader and the Al Qaeda terrorists

[/ QUOTE ]


Misled much says hello?