It's not a question of whether they'd switch to Obama so much as whether they'd feel so disgusted by what happened at the convention that they wouldn't turn out to vote at all. If 5% of the people who didn't vote Paul in the primaries (which is almost all of the core support) decide not to vote it could cost a couple of key states, and that's not counting the effect a Paul candidacy might have on the swing voters.

Here's where Ron Paul got his strategy from. Ron Paul was one of a few Republican congressmen at the time who went against the Establishment's candidate that year. We all know the establishment candidate won that year, but look where that got you.

I love the accompanying article about the imminent legalisation of marijuana. Seems like that journalist was wrong on both counts...

What are you talking about? The authors made no predictions on either account. They reported on them. No wonder you don't get it.

I know...

They did report speculation as likely fact in both cases though, and in both cases it turned out to be wide of the mark.

It's over, Jeff.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... unt-votes/

DF - I see plenty of scope in that article for Guapo and the other Paulistas to find glimmers of false hope. They'll say he doesn't need to market himself, as he's self-evidently right anyway. They'll say that the primaries in those states are already set up for the libertarian insurgents to hack the process.

It was cute in 2008.

Doctor Fate wrote:It's over, Jeff.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... unt-votes/

Why don't you read the actual press release?

“Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future.

By the way, AZ may have gone for Paul. It's interesting, because before the convention started the leader of the RP camp said that he made an offer to the Romney camp to avoid a wild convention. The deal was 50%+1 for Romney, with Paul getting the rest. The Romney camp counter-offered with 1 delegate. So, the Ron Paul camp did as planned. They got 11 of the 18 CD delegates, but the at-large delegates have not been tabulated.

But, yes. It's over. It's been "over", hasn't it? So then don't worry about the delegates he's picking up.

Very hard to care. Stockpiling food and antibiotics.

I found the following to be an interesting article focusing on how some veterans are viewing the race:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 15735.html

freeman2 wrote:I found the following to be an interesting article focusing on how some veterans are viewing the race:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 15735.html

That's okay, I'm happy with the NYT poll showing Romney leads women by 3 points. Yes, women! If that happens, Obama loses the general election by 10 to 12 points.

Recent nbc/wall street poll: http://www.cnbc.com/id/47524980

I thought it was interesting that Obama's polling numbers are similar to those of Bush II in 2004.

The high approval of Romney (59%) is also noteworthy. I saw another NBC/Wall Street Poll where 9% approved of Bain, 19% disapproved, and the rest were not sure. It would be interesting to see whether Romney's approval over handling the economy will stay high when people get better informed regarding Bain.

I saw an estimate that the Romney plan would cause an additional 5 trillion in deficits over ten years.

freeman2 wrote:Recent nbc/wall street poll: http://www.cnbc.com/id/47524980

I thought it was interesting that Obama's polling numbers are similar to those of Bush II in 2004.

The high approval of Romney (59%) is also noteworthy. I saw another NBC/Wall Street Poll where 9% approved of Bain, 19% disapproved, and the rest were not sure. It would be interesting to see whether Romney's approval over handling the economy will stay high when people get better informed regarding Bain.

I saw an estimate that the Romney plan would cause an additional 5 trillion in deficits over ten years.

From your source:

The biggest factor weighing down Obama's re-election chances is the struggling economy. Some 43 percent approve the president's handling of the economy, while 52 percent disapprove.

I would note that Bush narrowly won in 2004. The issue was not the economy, but Bush's first term, including the war in Iraq. Also, Kerry's personal history was an issue. Maybe they can beat down Romney the way Kerry was beaten down, but Romney didn't marry into money, didn't throw his medals over the White House fence, didn't testify against other veterans, etc. I think Kerry's own history was his worst enemy.

So far, the President's hit teams, er, committee to reelect, has not identified the right attack strategy--if one exists.

For this President to win, he'll have to get the economy off the table, as "Just 32 percent say Obama has the right goals and policies to improve the economy, compared with 26 percent who are "only somewhat confident" and 41 percent who are "not at all confident."" Yes, I know people are less confident in Romney, but reelection is about the incumbent.

A look at the internals:

Gotta blog it since it’s the big national poll of the day, but the results are mainly uninteresting and subject to a sample skew. Last month’s WSJ poll had it 43D/39R/14I if you included leaners. The new poll: 44D/36R/16I. The spread between Democrats and Republicans has increased by four points since April — and yet O’s lead over Romney has shrunk by two points. Hmmmm.

A new Quinipiac poll has Romney up 8 in Florida.

As for Bain, more and more Democrats are coming out in support of it.

Pressed on whether he thought Obama’s campaign had operated within those guidelines, Coons paused.

“I’m not going to comment on President Obama’s ad,” he said, shaking his head vigorously.

Coons and Feinstein are not alone. Other Democrats who are less than enthusiastic to Obama’s Bain ad include former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, ex-Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (Tenn.) and Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker. Rendell called negative ads “disappointing,” while Booker called the specific ad “nauseating.”

There are more, including Tim Kaine.

Plus, I wonder how long it will take before Super Pacs start running ads showing all of the connections between President Obama and Bain and other venture capital firms? How about the bundlers, like Mr. Corzine?

If you think Bain is going to win the election for Obama, lots of luck.

If the WaPo editors think the reelection effort is being disingenuous, what are the odds the "attack Bain" campaign is going to work with a more centrist electorate (than the WaPo editors)?

Yet the minute Mr. Obama conceded those complications — admitted, in effect, that the private equity business, like most endeavors, involves tradeoffs, and that its benefits might be shared among more than a handful of fat cats — he undercut his distinction between “maximizing profit” and the common good. He also undercut his case against Mr. Romney, since Bain had its share of success stories on the former Massachusetts governor’s watch.

At the end of the day, no matter what, the President is going to have to convince voters 4 more years of him is a good thing. Scaring them about Romney is not going to work, no matter how much Axelrod wishes it would.

Yeah, and the Civil War was not about slavery, too...