Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Paul is mostly libertarian, or a classical liberal.

Also, he would never win a presidential election because most people want a little bit of socialism.

The trend under Bush was for Republicans to slow down the socialization of the US economy. Now, it looks like we're going back to the Reagan ideal of actually starting to step back some of the socialization.

Paul wants to completely eliminate the socialist aspects. While this might be a good idea (and would allow reversal of a lot of dubious Constitutional Law), most Americans wouldn't support it.

As much as the liberals love to demean Palin, she would have a better chance of winning than Paul.

Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. These initial straw polls always have ROn Paul way ahead. Then the people besides his 50 voters in the room start to notice there's an election on and his numbers fall into the bucket.

We agree, mother of God. Paul is one of those candidates who tends to motivate a small group of passionate (read: crazy) voters who will artificially inflate his numbers through the primary. Palin is much like this, and so are Michelle Bachman and Young Trump.

The greatest nightmare of GOP strategists is that one of these idiots manages to win the primary, allowing the Democrats to kick the resultant puppy candidate all the way to victory.

Frazzled wrote:
I'm hoping Christie gets "drafted" that would be a fun election. No more amateurs.

I actually quite like Pawlenty. Christie isn't terrible, but I disagree with his abortion position, and his education position.

Apparently there is talk Mitch Daniels (Indiana Governor) may be announcing. Considering he is the Governor of one of the few states in the black and did it without raising taxes he may get some notice. I'm neither endorsing nor refuting, just tossing out what I have been hearing.

Frazzled wrote: He has an excellent one, helped out by an extrmely complacent MSM. I'd give him about 8-12 points just on the MSM part.

And how many points are you giving the 'To be anounced' rival in the GOP from Fox? and talk radio? seriously?

Frazzled wrote:

Manstein wrote:If Paul has no chance then how come both CNN and Fox New's vaunted Rasmussen poll both show him as having the best chance to actually beat him?

Don't play polling games, we both know those are in fact, games.

More to the point, don't argue polling data while citing Rasmussen, which is a pathetic methodological joke.

This poll is relevant.

You are correct, Paul has no chance, nor should he.

dogma wrote:The greatest nightmare of GOP strategists is that one of these idiots manages to win the primary, allowing the Democrats to kick the resultant puppy candidate all the way to victory.

Yeah, I don't think the Republican strategists are up at night worrying they might blow the presidential election, they probably concede they're long shots no matter who runs. What would be keeping them up at night is the thought they might end up with a candidate who will get utterly caned, and the resultant voter turnouts cost them a lot of seats in congress.

I mean, theoretically the right candidate could play a smart enough game to keep the social conservatives and tea partiers happy enough, while still appealing to the mainstream rightwing, and then ride the still mediocre economy to victory, but it'll be a challenge for a candidate with broad appeal to get through the primaries while the Republican base is in such a strange mood.

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote: He has an excellent one, helped out by an extrmely complacent MSM. I'd give him about 8-12 points just on the MSM part.

And how many points are you giving the 'To be anounced' rival in the GOP from Fox? and talk radio? seriously?

-5

Frazzled wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote: He has an excellent one, helped out by an extrmely complacent MSM. I'd give him about 8-12 points just on the MSM part.

And how many points are you giving the 'To be anounced' rival in the GOP from Fox? and talk radio? seriously?

-5

Then you're not being honest.

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote: He has an excellent one, helped out by an extrmely complacent MSM. I'd give him about 8-12 points just on the MSM part.

And how many points are you giving the 'To be anounced' rival in the GOP from Fox? and talk radio? seriously?

-5

Then you're not being honest.

Supposition based on smoke out your ass which pretty much the same as my calculation above