On a related note, I like turtles.
| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Interesting new datapoint in the "electability" of Ron Paul https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7265 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Interesting new datapoint in the "electability" of Ron Paul |
Yahoo Finance reports wrote: LAKE JACKSON, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- In a new Harris Poll, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul beats President Obama 51 percent to 49 percent in a general election race. “This is yet another poll that clearly proves how competitive Ron Paul is against the sitting President,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “Dr. Paul is making strides, affirming that the American people are looking for conviction instead of the typical status quo rhetoric being offered by establishment candidates.” These results come just a few weeks after a Reuters/Ipsos survey showed Ron Paul polling within striking distance of President Obama among registered voters. Furthermore, a late August Rasmussen poll showed him within 1 percent of President Obama in a head-to-head matchup. Another recent Gallup survey, conducted August 17-18, shows Paul only 2 percentage points behind Obama in a general election match-up. In a similar head-to-head survey from last year done by Rasmussen, Dr. Paul drew a statistical dead heat with the President. And earlier this year in a survey by CNN, he did the best out of the other Republicans put up against Obama in a head-to-head poll. And yet, he's "unelectable" and "too big a risk to run in a general election," so the media ignores him. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You and I both now that isn't why the media ignores him =) |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Many of his positions are very radical and anti-establishment. That's probably why he's largely ignored. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just so you know, Kaffis, I'm reported your post for failing to uphold the status quo. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Lex, When the establishment is a **** disaster that needs to be put out of its misery, being "antiestablishment" is a good thing. Anyway, I've said it before, and I'll say it now. If a man like Ron Paul were running in any election I could vote in, he'd have my vote in an instant. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like Ron (I voted for Ron before voting for Ron was cool), but that's awful close to the generic ballot number. Just saying. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rorinthas wrote: I like Ron (I voted for Ron before voting for Ron was cool), but that's awful close to the generic ballot number. Just saying. Not disagreeing. But it's a far cry from the proportion of primary media coverage he gets, which would indicate that he'd poll more like Perot (who got more coverage than Paul gets) than a generic Rep. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I find something (or more) to harp on each of the Republican candidates. Paul, it's foreign policy. What would Ron Paul had done on 9/11 if he's in the chair I know that sounds cliche, but it is relevant. Are we going to tell people it's just going to cause more problems and more money than its willing to fix. You might as well hand control over the Democrats if that's your answer. Also in case you were wondering: Perry, It's immigration. Romney and Newt, it's healthcare and the ability to govern like a Conservative in the wake of loud opposition. I don't think Bauchman can win. I need to take a look at Herman Cain and where he stands on several issues before could vote for him in the primary At the end of the day though, I have ABBOS (Any Body But Obama Syndrome). I think we are going to throw liberalism out on it's ear in 2012. However if we screw this up by 2014 people have no choice but to vote Democrat again and they'll be putting the hammer down again far worse than they did in 2007. Jim Jordan once said (and I'm paraphasing here) that the people didn't say that they loved us in 2010, they just said they were willing to give us another chance. Thus I think we really need a President who is gonna fix the mess, also one who can explain while fixing the mess is gonna hurt but is necessary, or we'll be right back where we started in 2-4 years. Ron Paul can lead us kicking and screaming into needed economic and government reform, but can he explain to the masses why they need to be led kicking and screaming into needed economic and government reform? If not the media is gonna make him out to be tyrant and he'll be replaced by a Democrat in 4 years. |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Obama is Chicago tough. He will have a strategy for the last few weeks of the election for each of those candidates. I haven't seen anyone with the skill or savvy to beat him in a national election yet. When is the last time we've kicked a President out after one term. FDR took 4 Truman filled out FDR's last term and was re-elected. DDE took two full terms. JFK didn't run for a second term thanks to being assassinated. LBJ finished his term, won another and decided not to run for the last one he could have been elected too. Nixon was elected twice, abdicated to Gerald Ford. Gerald Ford was never elected President and wasn't elected when he ran on his own because of the Nixon taint. Jimmy Carter, though he wasn't re-elected is not the answer and he was a political newb compared to his opponents. Of course the Republicans had a great candidate in Ronnie Reagan, two terms easily. His chosen successor - George Herbert Walker Bush won the first, threw the second. He is the answer and a continuing embarrassment for sucking up to the religious right. William Jefferson Clinton was the right con man in the right place at the right time and did a relatively decent two terms. W, stole the election, twice. Now we have Obama. Do you think any of the cowboys on the Red Elephant Range can truly beat him? Sure his numbers are low now, but the election isn't until next year and he has plenty of time to find the right re-election strategy. I still think Ron Paul is not electable on a national level. He has some good points, but they aren't enough to overcome his "my way or the highway" attitude. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
He is the only one besides Newt with a history of non-partisan bills. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Interesting new datapoint in the "electability" of Ron P |
I don't see where George Bush senior threw the election. Jacked it all up maybe, and Jimmy Carter certainly does "count", political newb or not. As for GWB "stealing" the elections, I guess if you repeat something often enough people start beleiving it. |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Some of the comparisons drawn between Obama and Carter are not there (in some, Obama is much worse), but as a comparison for the economic state of the country and the revolt by voters, it is very much relevant. |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've never understood (or even heard, really) the idea that HW Bush "threw the election. I guess I don't pay enough attention to those whose sartorial choices include tin foil. If being in politics for over 15 years, serving as state senator and Governor makes someone a "political newb", I'd hate to see what it takes to be a "political veteran". |
|
| Author: | Nitefox [ Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Micheal wrote: Jimmy Carter, though he wasn't re-elected is not the answer and he was a political newb compared to his opponents. Ummm...in comparison...Obama is the newebest of newbs when it comes to making it to president. I still can't believe this country voted in someone so inexperieced who never had a real job in his life. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Nitefox wrote: who never had a real job in his life. A bit of an exaggeration there, NF. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/15/joe-scarborough/heres-scoop-obama-has-worked-ice-cream-business-am/ Quote: Obama has worked for plenty of private companies, from Baskin-Robbins to Business International Corporation. He worked at law firms. He was a telemarketer. He worked construction. He sold island trinkets in Hawaii. In his diatribe, Scarborough remarked that "if you're going to run the most complex financial sectors in the world, I hope that you have at least received a paycheck for working at a burger stand." We're not sure whether the deli at which Obama worked as a young man in Hawaii sold burgers, but it's entirely possible. The president's full work history is listed at that link. |
|
| Author: | Nitefox [ Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I feel so much better then. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I knew you would. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Aren't you glad you have your wife to point out when you're wrong? |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
On a related note, I like turtles.
|
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
OH goody, ice cream, telemarketing, and souvenirs! That's one qualified dude! |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Hopwin wrote: On a related note, I like turtles. YEAH!! |
|
| Author: | Lonedar [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Save the wee turtles! |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Interesting new datapoint in the "electability" of Ron P |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: And yet, he's "unelectable" and "too big a risk to run in a general election," so the media ignores him. You know what, though? I think his electability is high because the media has ignored him. I suspect that if they stopped ignoring him (i.e. educated the public about his views), his electability numbers would plummet. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|