gut;982697 wrote:Well, technically the dot com boom balanced the budget. Won't prevent Newt from taking credit....just saying.

Footwedge;982649 wrote:I think Newt will be the nominee when it's all said and done

2kool4skool;982799 wrote:Zero chance.

Footwedge;982832 wrote:According to Pinnaclesports.com, an offshore bookie joint, romney is now a 9-5 favorite against the GOP field. But.....2 weeks ago, he was a 13 to 5 favorite...so the odds are dropping. Also, the latest odds are that Obama is a 6-5 favorite over any GOP candidate that emerges.

http://www.pinnaclesports.com/ContestCategory/Politics/300~2A~+U~2E~S~2E~+2012+Presidential+Election/Lines.aspx

2kool4skool;982842 wrote:Don't worry, I have a significant amount of money placed on Romney from when he was a 4-1 underdog back in 2009(Palin, Huckabee, and Jindal were all ahead of him LOL.)

Anyone that has paid attention to how voters respond historically, and how the 2012 primaries were shaping up, have known Romney was going to be the nominee for some time. That's why it's so hilarious watching people talk about the never-ending string of "challengers" exiting the clown car.

Footwedge;982902 wrote:Ahah!!. I knew that you had an agenda. The man with the Magic Underpants is still favored.

2kool4skool;982910 wrote:Oh well, we'll find out soon enough I guess. Then on to the general where I imagine Obama will win(though I'm not nearly as confident in that.)

O-Trap;983086 wrote:At that point, would it really matter? They're pretty much the same politician with different letters next to their names.

majorspark;981751 wrote:Come the general election this issue will fade away. The last thing the democrats want is attention focused on Freddie and Fannie. A lot of people took a lot of money. A hell of a lot more than Newt.



Unless the adultery was recent or during the campaign, I don't think past adultery issues matter so much anymore. Bill Clinton pretty much put that issue to bed (pun intended).



Obama was against the individual mandate before he was for it. So this will not matter in a general election either.

[video=youtube;7AOJBiklP1Q][/video]



I believe all were dismissed except one. I doubt this gets any real traction either.

Like I said before I am not a big fan of Newt. I share his fondness of history. However he not only knows his history but also his politics. During the debates he says things that hit the nail right on the head. He knows when and where to throw a political bone and to whom. He has thrown them all over the place in times past. I am not sure he can be trusted.

stlouiedipalma;983202 wrote:These issues are the ones which will kill his chances for the nomination, not the general election. He won't be able to pass scrutiny in his own party and at the end of the day

2kool4skool;983130 wrote:I agree. Honestly, most Americans' lives won't change one bit regardless of which candidate from either side becomes President in a given year. There's a few exceptions to that, Paul being one of them. But the guys who would truly change things rarely have a real shot.

2kool4skool;983130 wrote:I agree. Honestly, most Americans' lives won't change one bit regardless of which candidate from either side becomes President in a given year. There's a few exceptions to that, Paul being one of them. But the guys who would truly change things rarely have a real shot.

Congressman Ron Paul is leading by a significant margin in Iowa, according to preliminary results of a new TeleResearch poll.

Revolution PAC, the Super PAC formed to support presidential candidate Ron Paul, has received early data from the commissioned Iowa poll. The TeleResearch survey is the first to incorporate disaffected Democrats and Independents who will not vote to reelect Obama and will instead crossover to participate in the Iowa Republican Caucus, as well as likely Republican caucus-goers.


Survey sample size is approximately 2,900, with almost 700 likely Republican caucus-goers. Indiana’s TeleResearch Corp., which has been polling voters for more than 18 years, reports that the margin of error is less than 3%.


Factoring in both Republican caucus-goers and disaffected Democrats and Independents who’ve indicated that they will participate in the Iowa Republican Caucus, Ron Paul leads at 25%, with an approximate 4-point advantage over Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain.


Factoring in only Republicans voters, Ron Paul is in a three-way dead heat for the lead, with Paul and Cain tied and Gingrich trailing by 1 point.


The poll also reveals that more than 25% of all respondents – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – stated that an interventionist foreign policy is the greatest threat to long-term peace and national security.


Full analysis of the results will be posted tomorrow at http://RevolutionPAC.com.

Cleveland Buck;983974 wrote:http://www.revolutionpac.com/2011/11/new-iowa-poll-places-ron-paul-firmly-in-first-with-25/

O-Trap;983993 wrote:This would actually be the advantage to the Rerepublicans nominating Paul, as he seems to be the Republican with the best chance to garner votes from disgruntled Democrats and a lot of Independents.

Ron Paul, while placing fourth overall, is also the candidate Iowa voters least want to see win the nomination. Eighteen percent (18%) hold name Paul as the least favorite candidate followed closely by Bachmann at 15%. Thirteen percent (13%) don't want to see Romney or Huntsman grab the nomination, while 11% would like to see Cain miss the nod. Only eight percent (8%) name Gingrich as the candidate they least want to see win.

jhay78;984232 wrote:He also appears to be the best chance to scare the crap out of people, at least so far in Iowa:



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/2012_iowa_republican_caucus

O-Trap;984434 wrote:Not particularly surprising, as a ton of Republicans seem to like big government

gut;984448 wrote:Poor people can be bible-thumpers and homo-phobes, too.

gut;984448 wrote:Poor people can be bible-thumpers and homo-phobes, too.

pmoney25;984498 wrote:Amazing how Romney is now Captain Conservativ or at least plays so on tv

I Wear Pants;984516 wrote:Anyone against the Patriot Act will at least have me long enough to listen to what they say. Anyone for it is a moron (yes conservatards, that includes Obama).