pmoney25;975104 wrote:I am almost to the point where I will only vote for Ron Paul.

I've been there a while. Most of the Paul supporters are the same way. Looks like the rest of the Republicans better get behind him or they might as well vote for Obama.

In a new Public Policy Poll, 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul bests President Obama 48 to 39 percent among independent voters. The poll also showed Paul as the only Republican candidate leading President Obama among independents. "This is yet another poll that clearly shows how competitive Ron Paul is against the sitting President," said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. "Dr. Paul is making strides not just among Republicans, but independent voters as well. This broad base of increasing support proves that the American people are looking for conviction instead of the typical status quo rhetoric being offered by establishment candidates."
These results follow an earlier Bloomberg News poll showing Paul in a statistical first place finish in Iowa, a key early voting state. Furthermore, a late October CNN/Time poll showed him in the top three in the key states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ron-paul-leads-obama-among-independents-new-poll-shows-2011-11-16

Paul crushes Obama with independent voters. He is the only electable Republican candidate.

I would like to see a few "debates" where there is no actual debate. Set aside 3 hours and let each candidate do his own speech. The order should be randomly picked, and each candidate should follow a predetermined outline.

Then the American people who actually give a crud will have the opportunity to rationally select their choice.

Yeah, I too suffer from Ronulanitis. Not at all happy in his playing time at these debates.

If he were permitted to do a half hour speech in front of America, he would in fact soar in the polls, He would need a good speech writer to help him. Yes, he needs to tone down some of his rhetoric a tad. A speech writer would help.

I don't agree with Ron Paul in every detail. And maybe now is not the time for a real change in selecting a pro libertarian candidate, But the American voter needs to be able to listen to a "third side" in addressing how to fix the US impending demise.

What we do know....the last 2 guys elected into power have been lulzfailpwned.

If Dr. Paul would be permitted 3 half hour speeches, and he fails to make his case, then fine. At least the people will be given a fair and balanced look at what he would do.

Just like in 08, he has been muzzled by the power elite that control the media....the same group that would feel the most pain if Paul were elected. And that ain't right.

http://exeter.patch.com/articles/report-ron-paul-second

Ron Paul polling Second in New Hampshire now

I like FootWedges idea about not doing a debate but doing an actual "Here is who I am and what I believe in speech. Even set it up interview style. Ron Paul does great in interviews when he has a chance to explain his ideas.

50% of the American people cannot name 1 Republican running for President.

Hope this helps.

Skyhook79;976243 wrote:50% of the American people cannot name 1 Republican running for President.

Hope this helps.

I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of Americans couldn't name the current President!

Footwedge;975425 wrote:If he were permitted to do a half hour speech in front of America, he would in fact soar in the polls, He would need a good speech writer to help him. Yes, he needs to tone down some of his rhetoric a tad. A speech writer would help.

I don't agree with Ron Paul in every detail. And maybe now is not the time for a real change in selecting a pro libertarian candidate, But the American voter needs to be able to listen to a "third side" in addressing how to fix the US impending demise.

What we do know....the last 2 guys elected into power have been lulzfailpwned.

If Dr. Paul would be permitted 3 half hour speeches, and he fails to make his case, then fine. At least the people will be given a fair and balanced look at what he would do.

Just like in 08, he has been muzzled by the power elite that control the media....the same group that would feel the most pain if Paul were elected. And that ain't right.

I know it's becoming passe, as the internet world is becoming such a large part of our lives, but there's a way for him to do exactly everything you prescribe. It's available in virtually every home in America, in many cases in 1080 High Definition format. Even our "poor" have free access to this magical invention of the 20th century.

"If Dr. Paul would be permitted 3 half hour speeches.." Huh??? He IS PERMITTED...he just needs to purchase some TV time. That's how you do it!! Shocking, I know. Remember how Ross Perot followed this exact route with several chats with the American people on television? He was so good, that he got Clinton elected...TWICE!!

Stop blaming the press for not getting his message out. It's up to HIM to communicate to us and he needs to get control of it, else he'll be left behind, as has happened every other time he's tried to run for POTUS. The question to ask is...why won't Dr. Paul do it?

Edit: I guess he's using old fashioned techniques now. Sex has always sold well in the US of A. - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pin-ups-ron-paul-2012-calendar-released-texas-congressman-bid-white-house-article-1.978543

BGFalcons82;976311 wrote:Edit: I guess he's using old fashioned techniques now. Sex has always sold well in the US of A. - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pin-ups-ron-paul-2012-calendar-released-texas-congressman-bid-white-house-article-1.978543

The campaign didn't put out the calendar, the grassroots did. And sure Paul could just buy a half hour of TV time for millions of dollars. Just fire all of the staff and stop running ads and just spend it all on one half hour spot.

He doesn't have the big banks and big drug companies sending him millions like the others do. He gets his money from $25 and $50 internet donations.

He is not running the calender for one. Second, I think footwedge was saying they should do that for every candidate. Id much rather watch that then debates. Even newt was saying you cant explain difficult topics in 60 seconds.

Skyhook79;976243 wrote:50% of the American people cannot name 1 Republican running for President.

Hope this helps.

About 6 weeks before the 1980 election, this is how people felt:

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9609/15/

For so early in the campaign, a surprisingly low 7% of registered voters claim to be undecided about whom they now favor. (The study was based on a national sample of 1,644 registered voters interviewed between Aug. 26 and 28. The sampling error is thus plus or minus 3% and 4.5% when comparing present trend readings with previous TIME studies.)

Still, the survey discloses just how shaky those current preferences are. Fully 55% say they are not "personally interested or excited about" any of the candidates. Only 11% report genuine enthusiasm for Reagan; a mere 9% feel that way about Carter and 6% about Anderson. In fact, much of the support given their preferred candidates is based on voters' opposition to the others, the choices are essentially anti votes. Thus 43% of the voters who prefer Reagan say they do so because they are "really voting against Carter." Similarly, 34% of Carter's supporters say their choice is based on opposition to Reagan, while a hefty 61% of Anderson's followers admit that they are motivated by being "against Carter and Reagan."

That bolded part sounds a lot like today. And that was 6 weeks before the '80 election. I'm sure the Ron Paul supporters would've threw up their hands and said, "See! That's it -it's over. Should've nominated our guy- the only American living in 1980 who inspired and assisted the writers of the Constitution!"

Iowa: Gingrich 32%, Romney 19%, Cain 13%, Paul 10%

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

majorspark;976638 wrote:Iowa: Gingrich 32%, Romney 19%, Cain 13%, Paul 10%

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

If it is Newt, there is no way Bam will lose.

majorspark;976638 wrote:Iowa: Gingrich 32%, Romney 19%, Cain 13%, Paul 10%

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

Looks like Iowans are fairly polarized when it comes to Ron Paul:

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.

I would be in the 13% anti-Romney/Huntsman crowd.

Abe Vigoda;976730 wrote:If it is Newt, there is no way Bam will, in a debate, sound like he's received an education beyond the 10th grade.

Bam will not only lose, he'll look like a clown doing so.

Abe Vigoda;976730 wrote:If it is Newt, there is no way Bam will lose.

If Bam's approval rating is still at 40%, then Newt's old toe jam will beat him. So would any of the current field. That's what you people still fail to grasp...unless he's running at least 45-46% by next September and drastically improves his standing with indy voters, the Pub nominee is irrelevant.

jhay78;976817 wrote:Looks like Iowans are fairly polarized when it comes to Ron Paul:



I would be in the 13% anti-Romney/Huntsman crowd.

If I'm not mistaken, this is largely due to Ron Paul wanting to end farm subsidies. That can't sit well with a majority of Iowans.

fish82;977113 wrote:If Bam's approval rating is still at 40%, then Newt's old toe jam will beat him. So would any of the current field. That's what you people still fail to grasp...unless he's running at least 45-46% by next September and drastically improves his standing with indy voters, the Pub nominee is irrelevant.

His toe jam must be better than him.

http://www.nationalpolls.com/2012/obama-vs-gingrich.html

jhay78;976821 wrote:Bam will not only lose, he'll look like a clown doing so.

Newt's affairs will be overlooked.....but his financial ties to Freddie and Fanny will not. He consulted and tacitly approved the liberal lending policies for F % F. His claim that his mission there entailed telling them that their business model was inherently flawed won't fly. That is an out and out lie....and he will be pounded unmercifully for it.

sleeper;977782 wrote:If I'm not mistaken, this is largely due to Ron Paul wanting to end farm subsidies. That can't sit well with a majority of Iowans.

That's an excellent point IMO. At the very least, the farm subsidies program does need to be overhauled or at least revamped for fairness and equity for today's America. Just another boondoggle...but worse than other Feredal agencies from what I've read.

All subsidies for everything need to be eliminated. Prices need to be allowed to fall, not propped up.

Cleveland Buck;977975 wrote:All subsidies for everything need to be eliminated. Prices need to be allowed to fall, not propped up.

Can't say I totally disagree but not in our life time.

WTF's with Newt?

The poll of likely Republican primary voters by Magellan Strategies for the online New Hampshire Journal shows Mr. Romney with 29% in the Granite State, within the poll’s 3.6-percentage-point margin of error over Mr. Gingrich’s 27%. Texas Rep. Ron Paul has 16% support, with former pizza company executive Herman Cain at 10%.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/11/18/poll-gingrich-romney-in-dead-heat-in-n-h/

Cleveland Buck;977975 wrote:All subsidies for everything need to be eliminated. Prices need to be allowed to fall, not propped up.

Blah, Blah, Blah. Might as well say real debt burdens need to rise while your at it; including the U.S. national debt.

Footwedge;977959 wrote:Newt's affairs will be overlooked.....but his financial ties to Freddie and Fanny will not. He consulted and tacitly approved the liberal lending policies for F % F. His claim that his mission there entailed telling them that their business model was inherently flawed won't fly. That is an out and out lie....and he will be pounded unmercifully for it.

Completely incorrect. He and his consulting company did consulting work for them as private consultants and charged a slighly below mid-range fee for their work, which was focused on long term strategies. There is absolutely nothing here, so you may as well give it up now; otherwise the spotlight will again become focused on those in the public sector whose corrupt relationships with these GSE's needs to continue to be investigated.