Sassenach wrote:You'd assume that his much greater level of name recognition this time round would see Ron Paul in good stead, although I guess that may be offset by not having so many fanatical fans helping his organisation.

Actually, the latter may help him. If he's doing better without as much fanfare and grassroots signs, he'll be considered a more serious candidate, and already is by many standards.

But you're right that comparing 2007 with 2011 is not very accurate, with regard to Ron. Another example of this is the list of candidates/potentials that are attributed to his movement (Bachmann, Gary Johnson). Ron Paul will pick up more of their supporters (when they drop out) than anyone else.

The thing about Romney is that he's not a closer. He always polls well, but he's terrible at debating, and sometimes the answers likability don't pan out to anything once.

This is what I'm talking about. Compare the news articles to searches.

it cuts off the names, but Romney is Red and Paul is Blue

Here is more information from New Hampshire.

Romney 32%
Paul 9%
Gingrich 6%
Giuliani 6%
Palin 5%
Bachmann 4%
Cain 4%
Daniels # 4%
Huntsman 4%
Pawlenty 4%
Santorum 2%
Johnson *
Someone else 3%
No opinion 17%

* Less than 1%
# Daniels announced that he would not run on last day of interviewing.
NOTE: No respondents chose Karger, Martin or Roemer.

FIRST SECOND THIRD
CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE
(Question 3) (Question 4) (Question 5)
Romney 32% 20% 9%
Paul 9% 4% 2%
Gingrich 6% 5% 4%
Giuliani 6% 6% 3%
Palin 5% 10% 6%
Bachmann 4% 7% 5%
Cain 4% 3% 2%
Daniels # 4% 2% 2%
Huntsman 4% 2% 1%
Pawlenty 4% 8% 5%
Santorum 2% 2% 3%
Johnson * 1% 0%
Someone else 3% 3% 1%
No opinion 17% 5% 4%
No Second/Third Choice -- 21% 52%

* Less than 1%
# Daniels announced that he would not run on last day of interviewing.

Another factor to consider is the open primary states. There are 17 of those, and rarely factored into account when gauging the candidates. Since there is no one challenging Obama right now, who would those democrats and independents vote for?

Actually, New Hampshire is a partially open primary. That means Republicans must vote for Republicans, Democrats must vote for Democrats but registered Independents can choose which ballot to vote on.

When you count open primaries/caucus (can vote for any party candidate) and semi-open primaries/caucuses, there are 26.

Guapo wrote:Since there is no one challenging Obama right now, who would those democrats and independents vote for?

This has been my point the entire time. They sure has hell ain't gonna vote for Ron Paul. They are going to vote for a more centrist candidate such as Romney, Pawlenty, or Huntsman.

Now you can reference the linked poll to show Huntsman is only getting 4%. The problem is he just finished a week long tour of New Hampshire. Your poll was started the day before he started his tour and finished the same day the tour ended. Therefore, the numbers do not reflect the effect of the Huntsman's initial introduction to the voters.

Guapo wrote:Russ, Ron is polling at 15-16% in the questions that are relevant to the current situation (19/21). He doesn't need to pick up all the undecideds, or even most of them. 30% wins you Iowa. 20% gets you 2nd or 3rd. Your arithmetic is way off.

My math isn't off because the percentage of undecideds in both questions is the difference between Paul and Romney ( 10% in Q19 & 12% in Q21). Therefore, Paul would have to pick up all of the undecideds and not lose any of his own to other candidates just to tie Romney's current numbers. Because you know damn well the Huckabee voters aren't going to move to Paul. They will spread themselves between Bachman, Santorum and Pawlenty with Pawlenty getting the most of them.

[quote="Guapo"]Also, I'm not guaranteeing that Ron will win Iowa, though I think he could. I'm saying that he's going to be in one of the top 3, and that he will beat Huntsman. He might lose to Romney, but I don't think Romney will do as well as the prognosticators say because of Romneycare. Did you notice the question about that? That question was specifically designed for Romney. [/quote

Well that seems a back pedal from your predictions. I don't think he is even going to finish in the top 4. He will end up in the exact same place he did in 2008, i.e. 9-10%

Based on what I think the final field is going to be, I think Iowa will look like Pawlenty, Romney, Huntsman as the top three with Bachman and Paul in a dog race for 4th and 5th.

Sassenach wrote:You'd assume that his much greater level of name recognition this time round would see Ron Paul in good stead, although I guess that may be offset by not having so many fanatical fans helping his organisation.

I'm not sure. Last time there were questions about what Paul did with all the money he raised. Remember Jeff and Vince crowing about all the one day money bombs Ron Paul was doing and raising a huge amount of money. Yet his Presidential campaign looked like something run for a local Town Council race. If I remember correctly he only spent 1/2 of what he raised and there were a lot of questions about what he did with the rest of the money.

I am wondering if a lot of the less fanatical supporters will be as supportive this time around. Especially if he runs for reelection to his Congressional seat at the same time he runs for President (like he did the last time).

It seems to me that there are 3 main pulls to the Republican Party: God, country, and capitalism. Although Paul appeals to the capitalist crowd, I don't think he pulls the more traditional God and country Republicans. I think that Quapo will win the bet, but I'd be very surprised if Paul wins the nomination.

So, Republicans aren't a monolith, but a tri-lith? ;)

What I think some of you guys fail to understand is that Ron Paul supporters aren't monolithic, either. Trust me, we're not the weird ones. In fact, some of his most rabid supporters are in the birther crowd. You see that in the Iowa poll. It's not only libertarians that Ron Paul appeals to (and even the opposite is true--some libertarians despise him). A large portion of his more devoted followers are in those 'God' and 'country' crowds.

One only has to look at Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, and Michelle Bachmann to realize the impact he's made on the GoOP. I don't buy for a minute that Rand's election was independent of his father. I believe that it was a passive way of accepting Ron's philosophy, and even Ron himself. Someone very close to me, for example, is a complete Foxtard. She couldn't stand Ron Paul in 2007. He was angry, contrarian, and squirly sounding. Plus, he was attacking the great George Bush! But, over time this person started warming up to him. His interviews revealed a different, more likeable side than the 2007 debates. Others started coming out of the closet or converting to his ideas (i.e. Napolitano and Beck).

Then Rand ran, and this person became a fan. lol. sorry. Now, she's talking about the Fed. Now this is anecdotal, but I hear a lot of similar anecdotes and it makes me think that there's more to this than my own circle.

That said, I still don't expect him to win the nomination--unless the rest think that Obama is so strong that it's not worth the time/effort. In fact, I really hope he doesn't. I have a financial interest against him winning. Plus, I'm not voting for anyone, so I don't give a crap.

But that's why I brought up Gary Johnson in the other thread. And I think it proves that the so called "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" Republicans among us are just plain statists--masquerading as "centrists" (Russ, Tom, and the ilk). That's why they hate libertarians. We show them for what they really are. You would think that they would appreciate libertarians, but in fact, they're the inverse.

I see no reason why someone who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal would prefer Daniels or Huntsman over Johnson. Name recognition? That'll be a push. Experience? Johnson wins. Record? Johnson wins. Trustworthiness? Johnson did it before the tea party. But any label of "libertarian" makes someone a "no way" candidate. And he's been vocal about legalizing pot, so, ohmygodallmychildrenwillendupinthesewerswithtrackmarksontheirarmsfromheroinandcrackifhegetselectedsoletstrytoignorehim.

it takes something special to get those folks in New Hampshire excited about a candidate. Being campaigned to so much desensitizes you a bit

I am wondering if a lot of the less fanatical supporters will be as supportive this time around. Especially if he runs for reelection to his Congressional seat at the same time he runs for President (like he did the last time).

I think that Ron Paul will have much wider support this time around because of the financial disaster he predicted, and because of Obama disillusionment. I think that people are seeing that the differences between Obama and Bush are getting smaller and smaller.

It won't win him the nomination, but I think if anything he'll have stronger support this time around. Who knows...might even win him a state. I'm with Ray in thinking that Guapo is going to win this bet though.

Guapo wrote: And I think it proves that the so called "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" Republicans among us are just plain statists--masquerading as "centrists" (Russ, Tom, and the ilk). That's why they hate libertarians. We show them for what they really are. You would think that they would appreciate libertarians, but in fact, they're the inverse.

Well, you have a warped sense of what statist means. I don't mind Libertarians. I like them. Hell I have even voted for the LP candidate from time to time. The problem is I am not going to waste my time on a candidate that I don't think has a shot of winning. I have read a little about Johnson, I like what he stands for. If he was a serious candidate, I would vote for him. However, he isn't. Therefore, why waste the effort.

I

Guapo wrote: Experience? Johnson wins. Record? Johnson wins.

I am curious as to why you think Johnson wins in the experience category over someone like Huntsman. Shall we compare.

Johnson ran a local construction company of 1,000 employees for 24 years, and had 2 terms as Governor of New Mexico that ended 8 years ago. Since then he has been on the Board of Director of a two non-profit organizations (one of which only for the last month).

Huntsman has been the CEO and President of one multi-national corporation and a senior executive in another. He has been Deputy Secretary of Commerce for Trade, Ambassador to Singapore, U.S. Trade Delegate, a 2 term Governor, Ambassador to China, as well as a senior executive for a non-profit cancer foundation. In addition to this, he is fluent in Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese Hokkien.

You want to say Gary Johnson has more and better experience then Jon Huntsman.

As for record.

While Johnson did a good job in New Mexico, in not having any tax increases for 6 of his 8 years and reducing the size of the state payroll by 1,000+ employees.

Huntsman has a similar record. Large tax cuts in the state of Utah. Kept the state government from increasing in size and bureaucracy. Increasing the state's profile for a place to do business in. Proposed a state reform of healthcare using private business incentives. The Cato Institute, a pretty Libertarian organization, has Huntsman in the top 5 Governors on fiscal policy.

I don't see how Johnson wins on his record either.

When has a

Deputy Secretary of Commerce for Trade, Ambassador to Singapore, U.S. Trade Delegate, a 2 term Governor, Ambassador to China, as well as a senior executive for a non-profit cancer foundation.

OR someone who

In addition to this, he is fluent in Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese Hokkien.

ever won the presidency?

How do these make him more qualified? I know, because as a statist, you think these positions mean something. C'mon, Russ, admit it. What's wrong with being a statist? It's in your very thought process. Positions like these mean nothing to the anti-statist--and there is no middle. You're either a statist or an anti-statist. An anti-statist is not an anarchist, although modern anarchists (ancaps, as they are called here) are anti-statists.

But the very fact that you look at these positions as qualifications is evidence of your statist worldview. What did he accomplish in those positions? The statist (who has a very military style view of things) sees these positions as "time served," when they're really nothing more than political maneuvers, deals, and bs.

To a statist, inheriting daddy's business is admirable. To an anti-statist, starting a business door to door and growing it to over 1,000 employees is admirable. It's a matter of mindset, and you've got statism down to a 't'. It's just that for some reason, you hate that word.

Gary Johnson vetoed 750 bills (more than all other contemporary governors combined) to accomplish his mission. He left the state with a $1 Billion dollar surplus. Huntsman, on the other hand, became a staffer after college. He inherited a business, then bounced back and forth between positions, while actually doing nothing. That man is a puke, through and through. But oooh...he's got him some badges and medals, yo!

And Huntsman was only a 1 term governor. Winning an election (as a Mormon Republican in Utah) and acting as governor for 4.5 months doesn't count as a term.

Guapo, what is your definition of a statist? Is it someone who is not a libertarian? Is it someone who believes that people should belong to states?

What I think some of you guys fail to understand is that Ron Paul supporters aren't monolithic, either. Trust me, we're not the weird ones. In fact, some of his most rabid supporters are in the birther crowd. You see that in the Iowa poll. It's not only libertarians that Ron Paul appeals to (and even the opposite is true--some libertarians despise him). A large portion of his more devoted followers are in those 'God' and 'country' crowds.

I don't mean this as a criticism, but just as an observation. I The question is whether you view the world idealistically or through your own experience (realistically). I can tell that Guapo and some others are very idealistic about Ron Paul. I think that's great, and I wish I haven't been around so much that I could feel idealistic too.

For people who lean left, Obama represented hope and change. Most of those people have grown up a bit in the last couple of years and realize that Obama is (1) limited by our institutions (other government, press, military and other Agencies, and (2) limited by his options, and (3) limited by his personal limitations. These Obama supporters now have more experience and less idealism. They may still prefer him to the other guy, but they don't think he is the messiah.

Hypothetically, If Paul was elected, a similar process would evolve for those who are Libertarians.