geojanes wrote:1 Gingrich
2 Romney
3 Paul
4 who knows?

I predict that Gingrich and Romney will effectively tie, Paul will come in a distant third and everyone else will be in the single digits.

Just out of curouisty Geo, have you seen any recent polling? Reason I ask is Gingrinch is dropping and fast in Iowa. Latest RCP average has Gingrinch down around 15% in Iowa

I don't think he will win either...I said I agreed with you on everything except the word "voters".

Archduke Russell John wrote:Just out of curouisty Geo, have you seen any recent polling?

I did. This is what I saw:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

geojanes wrote:I did. This is what I saw:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

I see the problem. That link is is for the national polls and not Iowa specific. Look at this one. It shows three polls. Rasmussen from 12/13 has him at 20%, PPP from 12/16-12/18 has him at 14% while Insider Advantage from 12/18 has him at 13%

ARJ is correct to predict that Perry will perform better than expected. In fact, he's my pick for the media's "comeback kid" after Iowa. I've already predicted a Paul win, but here's my top 4.

1. Paul
2. Romney
3. Perry
4. Gingrich

I could see NG dropping out of 4th for Santorum. However, I think that Paul will win with 25% or so, with Romney and Perry fighting it out for second. Romney's struggle to keep second after 5 years of campaigning will kill him if he doesn't win NH as handily as it appears he will now.

Ya unless we're just talking about Iowa, nobody thinks he can win.

So the articles about Ron Paul's racist, anti-semetic newsletters are starting to come out. Surprised it took this long actually.

Yes, Ron Paul is a racist, anti-semite. You can tell that from his policies.

1. He anti-semitically believes that Israel can defend herself, and

2. He racistly, protests against the judicial system which imprisons minorities at an alarmingly disproportionate rate.

We established this 4 years ago

Edit/Post script: I saw an article in the atlantic (I think) that made a good point. Back in the 80s, some Libertarians thought it prudent to allow the JBS types and worse into an alliance. Allegedly, it was the brainchild of Lew Rockwell and Murrary Rothbard. Rothbard thought that the hi;pies might be an alliance in the 1970s. He failed there. But the Ron Paul Revolution has nothing to do with either of those two groups.

Ron Paul has just been what he believes--constitutionalist. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: 2012 is about trust. People want drastic change, but an incumbent must be beaten. I disagree with Dr. Paul that "any" Republican can beat him. Only Dr. Paul can. Obama's fascism is worse than Bush. The people see that. But the Republicans (the "please not Paul" Republicans, that is), can't find a candidate to satisfy their own base, let alone the mainstream.

But if you're looking for someone who can be trusted, it's Ron Paul. The President of the NAACP in 2008 came out and defended Dr. Paul. It's illibertarian to be racist

I'm starting to become a Monarchist. :)

Guapo I wonder if you could explain something. I havn't seen what I consider a complete answer to this story in the media and I don't understand how Paul, who I don't think is racist, could have newsletters written under his name going out with racism in them. And yet he apparently did nothing to try and stop them.
As the principled policitician he seems to be I can't quite conceive of how he would let the newsletters continue once he was aware of them. And its hard to imagine that he wasn't somehow aware of them.

Wasn't it his former campaign manager Lew Rockwell who published these letters? Its hard to conceive that Lew didn't mail copies to Pauls office... I don't think Paul should be held responsible for the lunacy of Rockwell, but how did he react upon learning that his name was being used in this manner? So far it appears he did nothing for years... Is that factual?

His reaction to this issue today also seems odd. He seems to disavow anything, but isn't willing to explain how everything happened or what he did about it? Is that just the reporting or is he not really dealing with the issue completely? It seems oddly out of step with most of his principled stands...


On a related note: Gingrich and Perry failed to qualify for the Virginia primary. In fact only Paul and Romney did. Not much to be said for the organizational skills of the field is there?
And Rasmussen, a republican leaning pollster, has every republican candidate losing to Obama in a straight up election. (Romney does best losing by three. (Three points usually transfers to a win on electoral votes..)
It sems that the Republican primary process is not doing much to bolster the chances of anyone beating Obama. Compared to the vicious race between Obama, Clinton and the Hair cut ...where the candidates seemed to gain as the campaign went on... this campaign has so far, not helped in the run up to November. early days yet though....

rickyp wrote:And Rasmussen, a republican leaning pollster, has every republican candidate losing to Obama in a straight up election. (Romney does best losing by three. (Three points usually transfers to a win on electoral votes..)

You are amazing in your ability to refuse to acknowledge reality. Is Romney within the margin of error? Historically, how far back was Reagan at this point?

Here's another poll for you:

A majority of adults say President Barack Obama does not deserve a second term but are evenly divided on whether he will win re-election next year, says a new Associated Press-GfK poll that highlights some of the campaign obstacles he faces.

Although the public would prefer Obama be voted out of office, he fares relatively well in potential matchups with Republicans Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Another bit of good news for the Democrat: For the first time since spring, more adults said the economy got better in the past month than said it got worse.

The president's approval rating on unemployment shifted upward - from 40 percent in October to 45 percent in the latest poll - as the jobless rate fell to 8.6 percent last month, its lowest level since March 2009.

But Obama's approval rating on his handling of the economy overall remains stagnant: 39 percent approve and 60 percent disapprove.
. . .

Despite the soft level of support, many are uncertain whether a Republican president would be a better choice. Asked whom they would support next November, 47 percent of adults favored Obama compared with 46 percent for Romney, a former Massachusetts governor. Against Gingrich, the president holds a solid advantage, receiving 51 percent compared with 42 percent for the former House speaker.

The potential matchups paint a better picture for the president among independents. Obama receives 45 percent of non-aligned adults compared with 41 percent for Romney.

That's +/- 4% and shows Obama up 1. It says he's up 4 among independents. This is an "adults" poll, which very much means it leans toward the Democrat.

Again, any time you feel froggy about Obama's chances, feel free to jump. Cash talks. All your nonsense is just that.

Merry Christmas!

rickyp wrote:Guapo I wonder if you could explain something. I havn't seen what I consider a complete answer to this story in the media and I don't understand how Paul, who I don't think is racist, could have newsletters written under his name going out with racism in them. And yet he apparently did nothing to try and stop them.
As the principled policitician he seems to be I can't quite conceive of how he would let the newsletters continue once he was aware of them. And its hard to imagine that he wasn't somehow aware of them.

It's worse then this Ricky. In the late 80's/early 90's Ron Paul tried to defend the racist portions of his newsletter by saying it had been taken out of context. It wasn't until 2000's that he started didn't write them and didn't even know about them.

Further, there are video clips of Ron Paul talking to Truther groups where he implies he believes in their schtick. However, when he gets in front of the mainstream media, he says he does not believe or support the Truthers.

So much for consistancy. Ron Paul is just like any other politician. He tells the group of supporters he is in front of what they want to hear. The only problem is a lot of these groups for him are fringe nutjobs.

What was that term Jeff uses for Jon Huntsman.....

oh yeah what an Eddie Haskell

steve

Historically, how far back was Reagan at this point?

Okay I'll bite. Why is romney's position comparable to reagans?

Archduke Russell John wrote:It's worse then this Ricky. In the late 80's/early 90's Ron Paul tried to defend the racist portions of his newsletter by saying it had been taken out of context. It wasn't until 2000's that he started didn't write them and didn't even know about them.

Further, there are video clips of Ron Paul talking to Truther groups where he implies he believes in their schtick. However, when he gets in front of the mainstream media, he says he does not believe or support the Truthers.

So much for consistancy. Ron Paul is just like any other politician. He tells the group of supporters he is in front of what they want to hear. The only problem is a lot of these groups for him are fringe nutjobs.

What was that term Jeff uses for Jon Huntsman.....

oh yeah what an Eddie Haskell

Ha! Eddie Haskells, all.

1. Paul--as far as we know--didn't write them OR read them. Maybe he did and thought they weren't as bad as you do. I don't. I mean, most of the "racist" comments are hacked up to bits. Where are the actual newsletters in context? It's my opinion that Paul still believes that they were taken out of context. So what?

Truthers? I'd like you to show me the evidence. I know that Dr. Paul 1. predicted the blowback that occurred on 9-11, and 2. believes the government has responsibility for its defense failures. He quotes the 9-11 commission.

Yes, Ron Paul tells audiences what they want to hear. That's why he's put up with being booed over his positions. lol

The problem for Paul is that he's the only one not wanting to use the government to force his personal values on others,. He's not terribly concerned about private racism as he is about government sponsored racism.

For instance Paul wouldn't be to worked up about a private person disliking Muslims, but he would oppose someone like Rep King using the government and it's agents to conduct a witch hunt against Muslims.

This nuance is lost on statist GOP and Dems who can't separate their personal views from what they intend to do with the reigns of power. In the same way the media tends to misunderstand Paul.

rickyp wrote:steve

Historically, how far back was Reagan at this point?

Okay I'll bite. Why is romney's position comparable to reagans?

Why isn't it?

The point is that a head-to-head poll at this point is not exactly telling. Now, I'll grant you that it's better for Obama not to be down substantially, but what does it say that he's statistically tied with Romney? Whatever it says, Obama is probably not as confident of his election as you are.

Then again, he'd probably have the nerve to post a sawbuck on it.