Poll: Ron Paul best GOP candidate against Obama in Iowa in November 2012.

[Hart2008]

Almost in rebuttal to Trump's contemptuous insult that Ron Paul is "a joke" as a candidate, a recent NBC/Marist poll suggests Paul could be Obama's toughest opponent:

With less than a month before the Iowa caucus, GOP presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has surged into the lead, but Texas Rep. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who could best President Obama, a new Iowa poll says.

According to the latest NBC/Marist poll, Gingrich is the first choice among 26 percent of Republican caucus-goers, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 18 percent and Paul with 17 percent.

...

However, the poll also says Paul is the candidate best suited to face Obama in an election.

Against Paul, 42 percent of registered voters in Iowa support Obama and the same number — 43 percent — support Paul. Paul’s popularity among independents could be a crucial advantage. Paul leads Obama 42 percent to 35 percent among independent voters, according to the poll, and he also attracts 15% of Iowa’s Democrats. Not to mention that 16 percent of voters were undecided.

Against the rest of the field, Obama wins a hypothetical race handily.

http://news.yahoo.com/gingrich-leads-paul-most-likely-beat-obama-latest-181751047.html

I would like to see similar polling for other key states, but in Iowa anyhow, this poll tells me that voters want real change. That is they want an end to the endless military occupations, bank bailouts and free trade deals. They don't want to return to another Bush type Repuke, but they aren't really happy with what Mr. Obama has delivered.

Those who disagree with my assessment need to explain why 15% of Iowa Democrats now favor Mr. Paul, and why he is leading there among the independents who will decide this election.

[LAGC]

1. Say what you will about Ron Paul, but he has some very attractive positions.

I know several Democrats (who voted for Obama in 2008) who are seriously considering crossing over and voting for Ron Paul if he is the Republican nominee, based on his anti-war/end-the-drug-wars/pro-gun positions alone.

With that very effective attack ad against Mitt Romney the Democratic Party is airing in early primary states, they may inadvertently help Ron Paul win the nomination, which could be bad news for Obama.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. At least with Paul, they'd discuss actual issues.

He does bring that to the table, as opposed to the others who prefer distracting wedge issues, like whether they take the Bible literally or where the president was born... :eyes:

[Hart2008]

3. You mean with 8.6% unemployment and two military occupations this nation has issues to discuss?

Are these really bigger issues than Newt's marriages, Romney's flip-flop's, Bachmann's delusions, and Cain's girlfriends?

[Rhiannon12866]

6. Nah, you're right, those issues are much more pressing...

:eyes: :crazy: :grr:

[Hart2008]

90. The M$M does its best to trivialize our national politics. NT

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. He's a fucking bigot who has absolutely ZERO chance of beating Obama!!!

[apnu]

20. While this is true, Paul's conservative bona-fides are better than Newt or Mittens. (nt)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. I'm not disputing that point. But I am amazed and disgusted by the so-called liberals

who love this man. Any woman, minority or working class American who would support Ron Paul or his crazy-ass racist son, does not have this country's best interest at heart. That's my view.

[apnu]

26. I think that is because Libertarians, for the most part, are very socially liberal.

And that's attractive to liberals who often put social issues a head of fiscal issues on the ordered list of importance. Now, if he is a real Libertarian, then he's pro-choice, but he's trying to appeal to staunchly conservative Iowa 'pugs who are deeply anti-choice. Watching him twist in the wind on this and other subjects is funny as hell. How can he be for smaller, less intrusive government but support a system that intrudes on a woman's uterus? Comedy gold.

[jberryhill]

72. Many libertarians think they are liberals

And liberals frequently misjudge their numbers by mistaking libertarians for liberals.

[Hart2008]

74. In the classical sense of the term they are: Liberals opposed government regulation.

That changed in the US when FDR embraced the term "liberal" to refer to his policies because he preferred it to being called a socialist.

Classical liberalism opposed government intervention in the market and it is still used that way in Europe. Those who don't understand that can get very confused reading a British paper.

[Magoo48]

4. He'd be ok if no one ever got old or sick or hungry or injured or.......

I do love his views on war and troop deployment tho.

[LAGC]

5. Yeah, he is still a Republican after all.

His economic policies are pretty bad, but nothing that couldn't be reversed by a future Democratic administration.

Ending the unfunded wars is something the President has unitary control over though, and I think he's serious about bringing the troops home -- all of them.

That would solve half our Federal deficit problem alone.

[joshcryer]

7. He would veto every social spending thing out there.

He would submit budgets that end medicare and everything, unless we had a veto-proof majority then it would be nasty, he'd obstruct any progress for years. Meanwhile we'll be out of Iraq in 2-3 weeks and Afghanistan in 2-3 years (ack, on that last one there).

[mikekohr]

9. Any Democrat, Independant or Republican that thinks Social Security is a good thing better

think twice about even considering voting for the loopy Rep. Paul. In all his years in Congress he has got three bills out of committee and only one passed into law. Not exactly a record of accomplishment.

Remember he named his son after Ann Rand.
see: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/2011/06/ayn-rand-gop-and-jesus.html

Anybody that admires that bitter, serial killer admiring, survival of the fittest, troll is certifiably nuts.

Remember even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just because he gets one or two issues right do not ignore the 99% he is dead wrong on. He would be a nightmare of ginormous porportions for the nation.

[joshcryer]

10. Yep.

[tcaudilllg]

16. He'd be Castro about it. The American equivalent.

[joshcryer]

35. He'd make Castro look like a moderate.

If we're using that analogy. Ron Paul comes from the fringe, free market, "anarcho"-capitalist stint. Everything, and I mean everything, should be privatized under his ideology.

[Enthusiast]

134. Exactly.

No matter how much we agree with Paul on his peace position there is all that "other stuff".

[karynnj]

13. How easy was it to pass the healthcare bill when we briefly had 60 Senators and a nice majority

in the House? If he is able to convert Medicare to vouchers, which is not a reach if he has the House and Senate, do you seriously think that we would ever get back to the far better single payer Medicare system? If you worry about Obama not protecting social security, which he believes in, imagine Paul who thinks it unconstitutional.

Picture something like the current House and Ron Paul. The balance of power shift from now to then would be drastic. The ONLY thing the Democrats would have is the power to filibuster in the Senate. If we control the Senate, we still will have NO chance to pass anything. If they control it, the question is how unified in filibustering bad things do you think the Democrats will be? Consider 2000 through 2006.

The fact is Obama IS ending Iraq and there are signals that he is pulling back in Afghanistan.

[Lord Magus]

154. His economic policies wouln't leave anything for future Democratic administrations to fix.

Because the United States wouldn't survive as a nation.

[karynnj]

12. Do they know he considers SS and edicare unconstitutional?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/15/166363/paul-ss-medicare-slavery/

Consider that he might have both Houses in Republican control.

[Hart2008]

24. Do the young people who can't repay their student loans believe SS will be there for them?

Really, if these people can't get jobs, and can't repay their student loans, then whatever SS benefits they might accrue will be garnished to repay their loans. For these people, I doubt it is an issue, since they have no expectation now of collecting anything.

However, some may respect Paul for his consistency.

[karynnj]

27. Paul would also be the last person to deal with a solution to

making it easier for the to deal with their debt. Not to mention, the same was said that when I was young - and now at 61, I could get it next year.

I do know from my daughters that he does have support fro college kids.

[Hart2008]

28. Paul thinks the US Dept of Education is unconstitutional. Ergo, its loans must be as well.

I can understand his support among college students.

Unlike others, he is consistent.

His most salient point is if we end the wars and reduce the military budget, then we have money to address other problems.

The man does have a message.

[karynnj]

32. That eans there will be no Pell grants or subsidized loans or any ability

to have parts of the loan waived for things like Americorps.

What he would do with any money not spent on war - or education, the EPA, affordable housing, SS, Medicare etc if it were up to hi - is to lower taxes.

[Hart2008]

34. He will pay down the national debt, althoug he may also raise tariffs. NT

[joshcryer]

36. So you'll give up Pell Grants, Medicare, Social Security?

[Hart2008]

38. When did this thread become about me? I cited a poll of what others had replied.

The nation's youth know they are getting screwed by the present system.

It isn't working for them.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Shooting the messenger never works.

[joshcryer]

44. So you think the nations youth would want that?

Are you serious?

[Hart2008]

47. The nation's youth want jobs and relief from student loan debt.

It seems to me that they are open to trading a broken social security system, into which they have paid, for relief from student loan debts which are all but impossible for them to repay. Retirement is too far into the future, while loan repayment is a pressing problem at present for them.

Now if Dems hadn't voted to support making student loan debt last forever over the past 20 years or so, this dynamic would not be present, but they did and it is.

Indentured servitude is not at all progressive.

[ProSense]

60. So

"The nation's youth want jobs and relief from student loan debt."

...it's your impression that the nation's youth want to deregulate Wall Street and blow up the government to get a job?

[Hart2008]

63. The point is that student loan debt is so oppresive, they are open to Paul's solutions.

The financial crisis came because Wall Street had been already deregulated.

[ProSense]

67. Wait

The point is that student loan debt is so oppresive, they are open to Paul's solutions.
The financial crisis came because Wall Street had been already deregulated.

...did you miss something, like the last three decades? Students want debt relief, but they're not stupid.

Also, is it your understanding that Paul is against deregulation?

[Hart2008]

71. Sorry, the train has left the station.

In the past three decades I have witnessed the death of the American dream.

Changing the student loan laws is just one part of that issue.

Mr. Paul does not favor much government regulation. His popularity comes from his opposition to the bank bailouts, which resulted from the bipartisan deregulation. He opposed the resulting bipartisan bank bailouts.

This is unusual because it was traditionally the Democratic Party, as the party of Jefferson and Jackson, which opposed power grabs by the banks. So the traditional roles get reversed here.

[ProSense]

79. Well

Sorry, the train has left the station.
In the past three decades I have witnessed the death of the American dream.

Changing the student loan laws is just one part of that issue.

Mr. Paul does not favor much government regulation. His popularity comes from his opposition to the bank bailouts, which resulted from the bipartisan deregulation. He opposed the resulting bipartisan bank bailouts.

...it's clear why you're attracted to "Mr. Paul," making even less sense than he does.

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

82. Actually, I am attacted to tall blondes...I am simply discussing the candidate's popularity here.

For some reason you need to personalize things.

:eyes:

I do know good Dems who won't vote for Obama, but you don't want to discuss why.

[ProSense]

107. Well,

Actually, I am attacted to tall blondes...I am simply discussing the candidate's popularity here.
For some reason you need to personalize things.


I do know good Dems who won't vote for Obama, but you don't want to discuss why.

...in the 49 other states, another GOP clown is more popular than Paul, but you're focused on Paul in one state, according to one poll.

Seems personal to me.

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

69. A rather cynical and invalid view, imo.

[Hart2008]

78. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone has one.

It doesn't make them invalid.

A difference of opinion is what makes a horse race.

As I have grown older, I have become more cynical.

When you have matured, then you will have noticed that your opinions and point of view have changed.

[joshcryer]

94. OWS invalidates it on the face. You think the youth would give up social safety net...

...for a shot at a privatized gamble.

That's preposterous.

[Hart2008]

98. The nation's youth have no social safety net. They are indentured servants.

Under the present scheme, if Social Security remains solvent for them, their benefits can be garnished to repay their debt if they default. I remember when kids who lost their fathers got grants from SSI to pay their college tuition, but that has been gone since the Reagan years.

And much of those changes to student loan laws occurred because of support from Dems. As for the social safety net, that Dem President named Clinton enacted Welfare reform, remember?

Ron Paul claims those student loans are unconstitutional. That would mean that Sallie Mae needs to repay the government for all of those defaults. Ending the Dept. of Education means no federal garnishment of defaulted student loans.

You don't see the attraction of Ron Paul to those who can't pay their student loans?

:dunce:

[Mass]

169. I have two teens. Both are too smart to fall for this,

[Enthusiast]

135. Every effort should be made to preserve

social security and medicare for now and for the future, for everyone. There are no viable alternatives. We should accept nothing less.

No social security and medicare would result in crushing poverty for millions of elderly poor and disabled. We should not accept "It won't be there for me." type thinking. Instead we should insist that it will be there and we will see that it is there.

Unless, of course, one has bought into the extreme libertarianism as espoused by Ron Paul.

[ProSense]

37. Are you campaigning for Ron Paul? n/t

[Hart2008]

39. No, are you? Obama may need him to run as a Libertarian to win in November 2012.

Look at that 51% disapproval rating Obama has today:
http://pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm

[ProSense]

40. Well,

No, are you? Obama may need him to run as a Libertarian to win in November 2012. Look at that 51% disapproval rating Obama has today:

...I hate to burst your bubble, but polls vary.

[Hart2008]

86. Reagan used that "Well" all the time too. Rich Little used it in his impersonation.

When asked why he looked down so much before speaking, Reagan/Little replied, "Weeyll, if you were raised on a farm, you would look down a lot too."

[ProSense]

108. Well,

Reagan used that "Well" all the time too. Rich Little used it in his impersonation.

When asked why he looked down so much before speaking, Reagan/Little replied, "Weeyll, if you were raised on a farm, you would look down a lot too."

...deep!

[Lord Magus]

147. Funny you should mention Reagan.

His approval ratings were significantly worse in 1983 than Obama's are now.

[Hart2008]

155. Uh, after 1044 days in office Reagan had a 54% approval rating to Obama's 42%

You could look it up:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Nice try mixing the apples and oranges up...

[Hart2008]

146. No, are you? NT

[Blue_Tires]

163. We're not supposed to mention that

or his anti-choice stance or any of his thousand other batshit insane ideas that only make sense to a minority of Iowans during a Paul pseudo-lovefest...Just keep continually repeating "But Paul is against the wars and bailouts!! And He'll legalize reefer!!"

:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

18. Ron Paul

"based on his anti-war/end-the-drug-wars/pro-gun positions alone"

...is not anti war. He is a hypocrite on civil liberties and war and his position is basically anti government. Hypocrisy[/b>:

<...>

In May, the Texas congressman supported the killing of Osama bin Laden by a team of Navy SEALs in Pakistan, writing at the time: “Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such deliberate killing of innocent lives deserved retaliation. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served.” He also said bin Laden’s death was one more reason the U.S. should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan.

<...>

Revisionist: Ron Paul: I wouldn't have killed bin Laden

Here was Ron Paul's response to 9/11: September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (PDF)

<...>

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

<...>

He reintroduced that bill in 2007. Why?

Ron Paul isn't anti-war, he's anti government. He's against the military in favor of mercenaries and vigilantes. His was would be run by a private army.

His supporters like to boast that Paul is consistent. Yes, he's consistently anti government, but one could create a list of inconsistent statements and votes he's made over the years, especially as they relate to his support of Republican positions.

[Hart2008]

95. "There Never Was a Good War or a Bad Peace" Ben Franklin

Paul advocated lesser alternatives to invading a foreign nation to in effect, capture and disrupt criminal elements there. Paul and Dennis Kucinich have had similar positions on foreign military adventurism.

The preferred route in Pakistan was for the Pakistani government to arrest Bin Laden. Obviously, the didn't happen despite all of our foreign aid to Pakistan. (Which leads into another of Paul's isolationist policies of ending foreign aid.) When that didn't happen, then the snatch and grab mission was justified, in my opinion. Perhaps he has some further qualifications on this point, but yes there is some inconsistency there. I don't know that it rises to hypocrisy.

Really there has been far too much militarism in recent years. I agree with Kucinich and Paul on that point. I would have preferred that there was a trial, if that were possible.

[greiner3]

43. At first glance I thought your post was a bit of irony;

However, I reread your material and I found it very funny. Paul seems to play to a certain isolationist, bigoted, xenophobic and under/uninformed group of people. However, his mass appeal is very narrow. The Republican powers that be will NEVER allow Paul to get the nomination. They have too much money tied up what with fighting the drug wars-shares in the prison system that incarcerates casual users, keeping cops employed, keeping corporations such as beer companies and major pharmaceuticals, happy. Pot makes you not want to drink beer and is pretty good for what ails you. Too many pot smokers would lower a lot of the aforementioned companies' profit margins and we can't have that now, can we?-Pulling all/most of the US military to within our borders. That's a trillion dollars of lost business for so many defense companies. Republicans thrive off of war profiteers. The NRA would love him but they love most Republican politicians anyway.

I don't get your point as to why Paul's nomination would be bad for Obama. I believe that Mitt would be the far greater threat next year. However, if the unthinkable does happen and Paul is the next president, maybe the pseudo science crap that is calling for the end of the world to happen next year could just happen, figuratively anyway.

As for the green lizard, he'll implode and I still see Sarah making waves within the next month as her handlers maybe gear her up for a possible dark horse run.

[Mass]

168. They are not democrats if they plan to vote for Paul

While I understand the attraction for some of his policies, his economical policies as well as his women's rights positions are atrocious. May be they are more libertarian than democrats, because nobody who cares about the middle class or the poor should be attracted by Ron Paul. He is Paul Ryan on steroids.

[joshcryer]

8. In another poll Paul is tied with Romney in the Iowa caucus.

Interesting times ahead.

(I don't think Paul could beat Obama.)

[Hart2008]

29. Paul has solid support from his base. He is in this until the convention.

The race is now between Next, Paul and Mitt the Twitt.

When the other dwarves drop out, who gets their support? When Bachmann drops out when she doesn't win Iowa, I think those people go to Paul. Polls that show him as the one Repuke with support from
Dems and Independents can only help his campaign convince undecided Repuke voters.

[Enthusiast]

136. You seem to know so much about Ron Paul.

Almost to the point of obsession.

[Hart2008]

141. He's been around forever. Perhaps his time has finally come?

Even his critics respect him because he is consistent in his views and his votes.

We can disagree with his more extreme positions, i.e., Social Security is unconstitutional, but respect that it is his honestly held belief.

Forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, voters may prefer the candidate who is consistent, and whom they feel they can trust on those issues which they agree with that candidate.

Please support your assertion that I am obsessed with Ron Paul because of this one thread in which I am discussing his candidacy in light of the polls cited in which he is out polling President Obama in a swing state in the general election.

[karynnj]

11. I wonder how much this is independents and Democrats who know

Paul's position on some issues, but don't have a clue how out in right field he is on basic things like the role of government. There were many people here who were Ron Paul fans because he was more against the wars than anyone other than Kuchinich. Yet, when exposed to what he would cut in government, most backed off. By definition anyone here is more interested than any of the non-aligned people.

I doubt many of that 15% stick with Paul when ALL his positions are known. (ie most would not like that he would eliminate healthcare reform, SCHIP, and Medicare - if he could. He has called Medicare and Social Security unconstitutional ( http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/15/166363/paul-ss-medicare-slavery/ ) In reality, a campaign that exposes his positions - which to his credit he does not hide - Obama might win the small segment of sane Republicans.

[Hart2008]

42. Ron Paul has been around a long time. People know his positions.

Especially in Iowa where he has run for president before.

In fairness, in saying that Social Security is unconstitutional, Paul does advocate some equitable dissolution of the system:

Q: Is Social Security a Ponzi scheme?

PAUL: Well, I agree that Social Security is broke. We spent all the money and it's on its last legs unless we do something. One bill that I had in Congress --never got passed--was to prevent the Congress from spending any of that money on the wars and all the nonsense that we do around the world. Now the other thing that I would like to see done is a transition. I think it's terrible that the Social Security system has the problems it has, but if people wouldn't have spent the money we would be OK. Now, what I would like to do is to allow all the young people to get out of Social Security and go on their own. Now, the big question is, is how would the funding occur?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Social_Security.htm

His point is that rather than running Social Security as a trust fund, the politicians have been raiding it for military adventurism. On that point he is correct.

How anyone could actually dissolve that system is where things get interesting. The devil is in the details, and I don't think it is actually possible.

[JoePhilly]

15. Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where's Gary??

[Hart2008]

31. Obama's approval to disapproval ratiing is back to 41% approval to 51% disapproval.

http://pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm

How funny is that?

:eyes:

[mikekohr]

48. The President is beating EVERY Republican candidate

in most if not all polls.

[Hart2008]

51. But not Ron Paul in Iowa. NT

[mikekohr]

53. That's it then. We're doomed. The President is going to lose to a man that is not going to be on the

ballot., All that based on a single poll in the electoral vote rich state of Iowa, 12 months before the election.
Wait till people learn about Representative Paul and his love affair with Ayn Rand:

YIKES!!!!

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/2011/06/ayn-rand-gop-and-jesus.html

AYN RAND, THE GOP AND JESUS
Who Is Ayn Rand?
-Watch these two video links and learn the disturbing truth-


http://youtu.be/0TxCWbTqz9s
http://youtu.be/s7zwO88nRH8

She was against religion and God. She embraced selfishness. She was fasinated with serial killer William Hickman, and wrote that the serial killer was an ideal man as he did what he pleased not worrying what others thought.
Oh, and she is a darling and phrophet of today's Republican party. Go figure.

[Hart2008]

55. With Obama's 51% disapproval rating within a year of election day we may well be doomed.

The Repukes could nominate someone who is unelectable, but they have a track record of not doing that.

Repuke voters might actually consider which of their candidates gets the most crossover support.

Ultimately, reelection campaigns are a referendum on the incumbent. Unless Obama's numbers improve, the odds aren't good for his reelection regardless of whomever they nominate.

[Lord Magus]

148. ALL of the Repig candidates are unelectable.

Even Romney, the guy who touts electability as his strength.

[Hart2008]

160. The same was said about Reagan, and look what happened in 1980.

Remember all of those great Democratic Senators who lost in 1980?

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

137. We are so thankful the entire nation doesn't think like Iowa.

[Lord Magus]

149. Who cares?

Iowa is a small state, and Ron Paul won't be on the ballot.

[Hart2008]

159. Anyone who wants the Democratic Party's nominee to win the swing states in the GE. NT

[JoePhilly]

65. Nothing is funnier than the idiotic notion that Ron Paul is going to win the GOP primary ...

... and then beat Obama in the general, in part, by carrying Iowa!!!

Now again ... where's Gary? I miss discussing his candidacy.

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

68. How about your Eagles making the playoffs?

:rofl:

[JoePhilly]

106. Oh no .... not an attack on the Eagles!!!!

Which high school do you go to??

:rofl:

[Enthusiast]

138. Pffft

[Lord Magus]

150. Interesting how you gravitate to the lowest poll numbers.

Reminds me of the Repigs who want us to believe that all of America hates Obama.

[Hart2008]

158. It isn't my poll numbers which are gravitating well below 50% approval. NT

[Lord Magus]

161. Yes, it is.

You cherry-pick whichever poll has the lowest numbers.

[Hart2008]

167. Actually, CNN has him lower. 54% say Obama does not deserve reelection.

You could look that up too:
http://pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm

In fact, I have consistently referred to Gallup's tracking poll on Obama's approval vs. disapproval number for a standard point of reference.

:hi:

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. it is not possible for Mr. Paul to become the Republican nominee . he challenges fundamental

orthodoxy on foreign policy - not only Republican Party orthodoxy - but also the bipartisan consensus. I happen to agree more with Mr. Paul on foreign policy issues than I do with the Democratic Party leadership - but all that aside - it is not possible for him to become the Republican Party nominee or launch a credible third party effort. If it were, it might be worth one's time to contemplate the whole matter - but it is simply not possible for him to become a major candidate for President either as the GOP nominee or as a third party contender - right or wrong - good or bad - for better or for worse. It is not possible.

[Hart2008]

33. Maybe and Maybe not. He did run as a Libertarian in '88, so that is possible again.

If Obama's approval rating remain negative on election day, (he is presently at 41% approval to 51% disapproval with today's Gallup tracking poll), he may need a credible third party/independent candidate to win.

Paul can threaten the Repukes with bolting the party, and that needs to be considered. They probably can't win if he runs for the Libertarians. According to this poll, he is their best candidate.

[ProSense]

19. Must see:

New Ron Paul Ad - BIG DOG

[Hart2008]

61. Paul has the war chest to go negative and is now attacking Newt for flip-flopping.

See ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jzi3HBCS2M&feature=player_embedded

and related discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x827926

Got to love it when the repukes attack each other!

:popcorn:

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Where's Darcy? Oh, and we're so glad you decided to rejoin us.

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

30. Mr. Richardson is campaigning in NH and elsewhere for "no fourth term for George W. Bush."

William S. Saturn: If you had been elected president in 2008, what would you have done differently than Barack Obama?

Darcy Richardson: The fact that President Obama initially appointed Larry Summers as chairman of his White House Economic Council shortly after taking office, should have given everybody pause. Summers is probably more responsible for the country’s current economic mess than any other individual.
As President Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury from 1999 to January 2001, Summers shaped and pushed the financial deregulation that unleashed the near-collapse of Wall Street in the autumn of 2008, particularly when he pushed through the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 during the final years of the Clinton Administration — legislation, as you know, that had prohibited banks from doing both commercial and investment banking.
An architect-turned-enabler of this never-ending economic crisis, Summers later supported the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that, unbelievably as it might seem, mandated that financial derivatives — including the reckless credit default swaps at the heart of the financial crisis — could be traded between financial institutions without any government oversight whatsoever.
It’s little wonder that Rolling Stone writer William Greider, in a marvelously detailed article in late 2008, pointed out that Obama’s choice of Summers and other key economic advisers, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, seemed designed to sustain the failed economic policies of the Bush presidency — an administration that never saw the financial crisis coming in the first place.
The Summers appointment told me that the President had no earthly clue how this devastating financial crisis happened or how to reverse it.
Things only got worse after that. President Obama failed to resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. He failed to include a public option in health care. He failed to assert his constitutional responsibility during the recent debt limit crisis. Unbelievably, he's failed to protect Social Security and Medicare. He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. He failed to push for cap-and-trade. And he failed to close Gitmo. I could go on, but I think you get the point. If anybody deserves a serious intraparty challenge, it's the current occupant of the White House.
In retrospect, it's really incredible that a Democrat of national stature and credibility hasn't entered this race — at least as of now.

William S. Saturn: Do you believe Obama has done any good things as president?

Richardson: Nothing I could write a book about, unless it's a work of fiction. He's generally been disappointing, allowing the GOP to frame the debate on issue after issue. Who in their right mind wants the Republicans to dictate fiscal or economic policy in this country? The folks in the Occupy Wall Street movement have already figured that out. It's just a matter of the rest of the country coming to the same conclusion...

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_Darcy_Richardson,_Democratic_Party_presidential_challenger_to_Barack_Obama

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. This guy is everything OWS despises. I don't fancy his chances, but you run with it, mmmkay?

:rofl:

A financial services turd is still just a turd. :hi:

[Hart2008]

64. The occupy protesters need to organize politically and not just camp out in public.

If they want change, they need to work inside the system.

Oh, BTW, Estate planning and actuarial work are not related to the derivative traders who crashed the financial system and then demanded a government bailout.

Nice try though.

:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. I'll let you explain the nuances. The mood of OWS doesn't seem inclined to differentiate...

between one "financial" asshole and another. But "nice try though". :rofl:

[Hart2008]

77. OWS also doesn't seem inclined to differentiate Dems and Repukes.

Ultimately, that hurts Obama because he is the president.

That is more of Obama letting the Repukes define the issues, like Mr. Richardson has stated.

It is an incredible missed opportunity by President Obama.

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. "Ultimately, that hurts Obama". Good luck with that.

:spray:

Obama now at 84% approval among liberal Democrats

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=821042&mesg_id=821042

You and Darcy better get to work, especially after that barn burner in KS today. :patriot:


:rofl:

[Hart2008]

84. As the President, the buck stops with Obama. It explains why 26% of Dems now want a new nominee.

CNN/ORC Poll. Nov. 18-20, 2011. N=504 Democrats and independents who lean Democratic nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.5.


"Do you think the Democratic Party should renominate Barack Obama as the party's candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the Democratic Party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?"

11/18-20/11

Renominate Obama 72%
Nominate a different candidate 26%
Unsure 1%

http://pollingreport.com/wh12dem.htm

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. Then best of luck to you & the 26%. But he's in full on campaign mode now.

Good luck trying to stop that tsunami. No one better than Obama on the stump. As Steven Colbert might call them, "the backwash" can have at it. It'll be interesting to see if the "26%" have been waiting on Darcy. :rofl: If so, they're even more hopeless than I thought.

Perhaps you guys should team up with Jane Hamsher-Norquist and her teabagger friends? :hi: This thread is a wreck, but then you knew that, right? :rofl:

[Hart2008]

89. If Obama loses 26% of the Dem base in November, this election is likely unwinnable.

If Obama was so great on the stump, then how did he lose the House in the midterms?

This election will be a referendum on Obama.

The time for selling rainbows and ponies is over.

IMHO, bailing out mega banks is not what the Democratic Party should be about. I will support that Dem candidate who speaks for me on that issue.

You can spend time with the teabaggers if you like.

:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

91. Newsflash: Obama wasn't on the ballot in 2010.

:rofl:

Next?

You've gotta do better. If his name had been on the ballot, turnout (as it will in 2012) would have been humungous. And expect that 26% to be cut in half by next November. Bank on it! The money's rolling in, and the new donors are racking up. We passed a million, ya know? ;)

You've made me laugh enough for one day, and I'm sure you'd like to keep the POS thread going, but I'm gonna let it drop now, mmmmkay? I always have fun when you grace us with one of these. :rofl:

Best of Luck to you, Darcy and/or Ron Paul, or whoever the hell you're pimping this week. :patriot:

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

92. Newsflash! FDR wasn't on the ballot in 1934, but the Dems won seats in both Houses of Congress.

Of course FDR wasn't dependent on the big banks to finance his campaign.

Perhaps there is a correlation there?

:think:

[Blue_Tires]

164. Cool...If that's your boy you go vote for him

[WI_DEM]

22. Ron Paul is right on some issues, but on the majority of issues he is as far right as his son, Rand

and once his extreme positions are made clear to the electorate he would fade. It doesn't matter anyhow, because Paul won't be the GOP nominee.

[opihimoimoi]

25. Them Pauls are nuts....way too far right....Solutions inadequate

[Hart2008]

41. Not for 15% of Dems in Iowa, and that says something which must be addressed. NT

[joshcryer]

45. You're putting your comments on DLCers / blue dogs?

There's no evidence that progressive democrats have an inkling of political support for Paul. Yes he might be right on war and the drugs, but outside of that he's nothing we'd aspire to be.

[Hart2008]

49. You need to see the poll to determine the demographics of that 15%

But the fact that Paul is leading Obama among independents as well should cause us concern.

However, if progressive Dem's who are dissatisfied with Obama aren't able to oppose the policies of a fourth term for Bush in the Dem primaries, it is possible that some may consider voting for Paul where they can on the big issues of military occupations and interventionism, bank bailouts, etc.

The war on drugs and civil liberties/human rights is also one about which people do feel passionate.

[joshcryer]

70. I don't need to see the demographics to know that it's not liberals.

[Hart2008]

73. Sorry, but what is you definition of a liberal?

That term can mean different things to different people.

What does it mean to you?

[joshcryer]

93. What does it mean to you and do you think that they would vote for Ron Paul?

[Hart2008]

96. I asked you first, and yes, given the lack of other options. NT

[joshcryer]

97. So Obama is not an option to your definition of liberal?

[Hart2008]

99. By what definition is giving public money to bail out banks from their own greed liberal?

FDR let them fail and then nationalized the insolvent banks. That enabled the government to step in and renegotiate the mortgages, since the government then owned the assets. FDR's critics calle that socialism, but he called it liberalism.

Classical liberalism would have let the banks fail and then done nothing.

You, apparently, wish to redefine liberalism as saving banks from their own greed with taxpayer assistance. In other words, private profits with public guarantees against bad risks. Herbert Hoover had a similar plan. He just gave public money to corporations with the hope that prosperity would then trickle down to the masses.

It didn't work then, and it hasn't worked now.

[joshcryer]

100. I didn't vote for Obama to bail out the banks.

FDR enjoyed a largely isolationist America with very little globalization at the time.

So, Ron Paul, who would most likely end all forms of nationalization, is a better choice to liberals, because FDR nationalized banks.

:rofl:

Your logic is priceless.

[Hart2008]

101. I didn't either, but he did it. It explains why his negatives are so

On the one hand the New Deal liberals wanted Obama to let the banks fail, and then nationalize the insolvent assets, i.e., the mortgages.

The Ron Paul classical liberals wanted the banks to simply fail.

Obama choose the Herbert Hoover option of government handouts- the bailouts, earning the disdain of both groups. So now you are surprised at the polling results that Paul is getting support from traditional Dem's in a match up with Obama?

Globalization isn't really relevant to this discussion about bailouts.

[joshcryer]

103. Wait, Obama didn't pass TARP, Bush did.

Obama doesn't get the blame for "not nationalizing the banks."

[Hart2008]

104. Uh, Senator Obama voted for TARP and President Obama continued it...

Yes, Obama is responsible for extending Bush's failed economic policies which he supported as U.S. Senator. Only in your mind is he absolved from blame for being Bush's third term:

It’s little wonder that Rolling Stone writer William Greider, in a marvelously detailed article in late 2008, pointed out that Obama’s choice of Summers and other key economic advisers, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, seemed designed to sustain the failed economic policies of the Bush presidency — an administration that never saw the financial crisis coming in the first place.
The Summers appointment told me that the President had no earthly clue how this devastating financial crisis happened or how to reverse it.

Things only got worse after that. President Obama failed to resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. He failed to include a public option in health care. He failed to assert his constitutional responsibility during the recent debt limit crisis. Unbelievably, he's failed to protect Social Security and Medicare. He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. He failed to push for cap-and-trade. And he failed to close Gitmo. I could go on, but I think you get the point. If anybody deserves a serious intraparty challenge, it's the current occupant of the White House.
In retrospect, it's really incredible that a Democrat of national stature and credibility hasn't entered this race — at least as of now.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_Darcy_Richardson,_Democratic_Party_presidential_challenger_to_Barack_Obama

[Lord Magus]

151. "Classical liberals" aren't liberals.

They're conservatives who use the term in an attempt to claim that modern liberals don't really favor liberty.

Also, TARP was Bush's program, no Obama's.

[Hart2008]

157. And neoliberals aren't progressives.

After voting for TARP, and continuing that program without legislative amendment deespite having a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate, Obama owns TARP now.

There was no New Deal type legislation from this administration, and they didn't push for any either.

Obama simply extended Bush's neoliberal policies.

Richardson is correct to call this Bush's third term.

[NorthCarolina]

110. There is more than simply the "War on Drugs" that Paul has right

He is against the wars and wants the troops (ALL troops)home,
He is against the bulk of US military bases on foreign soil and wants to close them down,
He considers the Federal Reserve an unconstitutional authority (which it is) and wants to dismantle it, returning the power of coinage to the Congress;

all very attractive positions for any real populist.

With that said, make no mistake I am not a Ron Paul supporter or activist in any way, shape, or form, as I cannot abide by his views on the Social Safety net, and health care, BUT to think his "public attraction" is limited to solely his position on the war on drugs is simply incorrect. He has several positions, as indicated above, that are not only worthy of public discussion, but that I also suspect would make Obama very uncomfortable to defend his position whilst maintaining a progressive veil.

[Hart2008]

112. Exactly, Thank you!

In addition to being to extreme on the social safety net, he is also hostile to the union movement.

So, at his core, Ron Paul is a paleo-conservative isolationist in the Charles Lindberg mold. He is attractive to his supporters because he does, in fact, have a core. He is consistent in the things that he believes. With all of the problems with the economy and unemployment his simplistic view of the world is attractive to some people.

Explaining his attraction is not the same as endorsing his candidacy.

[ProSense]

116. First,

"He is against the wars and wants the troops (ALL troops)home"

...Ron Paul is not anti-war, he's an anti-government demagogue.


"He considers the Federal Reserve an unconstitutional authority (which it is) and wants to dismantle it, returning the power of coinage to the Congress;"

You really believe that's an attractive position?

By all means, let's hand over the reins to morons like Boehner and Cantor. Paul's position on everything is to wipe out every insitution and regulation established in the last century.

[Enthusiast]

139. More cheerleading for Ron Paul.

[Hart2008]

143. It is hardly cheerleeding to discuss that poll. Losing 15% Dems in the GE is a problem. NT

[Lord Magus]

152. It's also not happening.

And Iowa is far from representative of the nation as a whole.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hart2008]

170. Shooting the messenger won't change Paul out polling Obama in this poll. NT

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

46. They're each getting their turn, I guess, except Santorum

No wants to embrace Santorum.

[Hart2008]

76. Clearly they are discarding those who can't win. They want a winner.

Santorum is clearly damaged goods.

Cain, Perry, and Bachmann are over.

Huntsman and Santorum never were.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hart2008]

52. I'll let you have that name since its your idea.

So when did addressing the strengths of the Repuke field become advocating for them?

Obviously, there is some attraction to Mr. Paul which needs to be addressed.

There is a discussion here that we need to have, unless we all go into denial.

[AtomicKitten]

54. Ron Paul has zero chance of getting the GOP nomination.

He has a solid following that has a ceiling. The polling consistently reflects he isn't anywhere in the ballpark of even having a shot at the nomination. Plan B: If he elects to run as an independent, that will split the Republican party and that's nothing but a win for the Democrats.

[Hart2008]

56. Paul is in the top three for the nomination and Repuke primaries usually are winner take all

Paul could win that nomination, especially if it remains a three way race between him, Newt, and Mitt the Twitt.

Remember in 1980 how no one thought Reagan could win, and how he wasn't electable?

Look at what happened then!

[AtomicKitten]

57. He's doing well in Iowa, less so in NH, and he eats shit in So. Carolina.

It's not a 3-way race. Paul has virtually zero traction in the south.

[Hart2008]

58. He will get a bounce elsewhere for doing well in Iowa.

The question is who gets the remaining support when the other also-rans drop out after Iowa and then New Hampshire?

Perry may not make it to South Carolina, and Paul is also a Texan. Mitt the Twitt won't play well in the bible belt since they don't like Mormons.

[AtomicKitten]

62. No bounce. Next is NH and Romney has it in his back pocket.

Next up, Newt is killing in So Carolina. When the music stops and the crazy settles, my guess is that teabagger support will go to Newt and Ron Paul's support will go to Romney. And that's when the fun really begins. It will be a delightful grudge match between the teabaggers and the establishment GOP.

[Hart2008]

66. So if Romney gets his pocket picked in NH, he is finished.

I see Paul attacking Newt as a flip-flopping politician and within striking distance in Iowa.

I see Paul doing very well in the Midwest and West.

Paul's surge will result in enormous pressure on either Newt or Mitt to drop out and endorse the other.

That is when things will get interesting.

[court jester]

127. nice work on this thread

I've bookmarked it and surely you have and hopefully many others have

It's astounding how this thing called "politics" can make seemingly otherwise rational people twist themselves into pretzel logic trying to justify what they said they never could...Fascinating

no one will be able to say you didn't try

"That is when things will get interesting."

It may prove to be a *very* interesting year for politics. Like a hundred year flood.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[totodeinhere]

85. That was the conventional wisdom but Romney has been losing ground in New Hampshire

lately. He still has a lead but it has been cut in half. If Newt can get momentum out of Iowa then I think he has a chance to get close in New Hampshire. A narrow Romney win there might be spun as a loss.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/124-nbc-newsmarist-poll-romney-lead-narrows-in-new-hampshire-primary/

I consider this good news since Obama might have an easier time with Newt.

[Hart2008]

88. Romney is and always was an empty suit. He could well disappoint. NT

[AtomicKitten]

102. Even with the collapse, Romney is still 16 pts up.

Is there enough time for an upset? Jeez with the way this nomination process has been doing, there's probably enough time for Newt to take the lead and then make a spectacular nosedive into obscurity like most the rest of the pack. LOL.

I don't know which would be better for the president to run against ... I'm distracted watching the GOP set up mechanisms to suppress the vote and cheat.

[court jester]

128. "Ron Paul's support will go to Romney." no not a chance

a few might but the ones i know and the ones i observe on the most popular forum would never even ever begin to consider that.

That is what makes his "supporters" different. They support the message, not the f*cking party. The core of the party hates them and treats them like shit. No Real Paul supporter would ever even think about casting a vote for that lying sack of shit empty suit professional sell out flip flopper Romney. If there are 2 choices on the final ballot, both of which continue on the same imperialist path, the RP supporters I know will either write in 3rd party or stay home. And if the Democrats ran Kucinich in a primary, many would support him. BECAUSE WE NEED TO END THE FUCKING WARS NOW NOT 4 YEARS FROM NOW FOR GODS SAKE. It is exactly that simple.

Take it to the bank.

[AtomicKitten]

132. Okay then. Stay home. Works for me.

[BklnDem75]

80. First Hart, then Darcy, now Ron?

I'm actually encouraged with your track record. It's somewhere between 'LOL' and 'not a chance in hell.'

[Hart2008]

83. I am supporting Mr. Richardson now not Ron Paul, thank you very much.

It is worth noting that the lack of a better known challenger in the Dem primaries could cause Dems to vote for Mr. Paul in the Repuke primaries.

The high negatives of all of the present candidates suggests that there may well be a viable third candidate in November 2012. If his disapproval rating continues to remain over 50%, Obama will likely need that third candidate to win in November.

[karynnj]

109. Richardson? Do you mean Johnson another former NM governor?

Actually, just as it always happens, some of the disapproval is on the party's extreme side. Just as non-interventionist libertarians were not going to vote for the liberal, social justice inspired Kerry, the people angry that Obama did not get a public option (or single payer) are NOT going to vote for a conservative Republican. I think 2000 is far too recent for people to be go the protest vote route.

[Hart2008]

113. I mean Darcy Richardson, the aid to Eugene McCarthy who is challenging Obama in the Dem primaries.

Obama is the President, and not a king.

He has no divine right to renomination in the Democratic Party, contrary to what some here believe.

The disapproval to Obama comes from the New Deal type Dems who oppose Hooveresque bank bailouts from the Neoliberal wing of the party. We are 26% of the party an not extremists.

[karynnj]

118. No one here thinks Obama has a divine right to the election

What people have said is that he is popular enough with Democrats that no credible, viable Democrat would run against him - as it is political suicide.

[Hart2008]

121. Please speak for yourself. Other here clearly believe that he does with his 51% disapproval rating.

No one thought Eugene McCarthy was viable before he won more delegates than LBJ in New Hampshire in 1968. Undoubtedly, McCarthy's principled challenge was morally and politically correct.

[karynnj]

129. So, is there a wellspring of support for Richardson?

In 1968, by this point you had college students across the country excited by Gene McCarthy's run - even though it was harder to translate college support to votes then as most college kids could not vote yet. On the left, the anger at LBJ far exceeded the anger against Obama now.

[Hart2008]

131. Where else do the 26% of Dems who want another nominee have to go? To what other candidate?

When Eugene McCarthy announced his challenge to LBJ on November 30. 1968 he was a sitting U.S. Senator and a well known national political figure. Darcy Richardosn is an author and a blogger who attempted to get more prominent Democrats to challenge Obama. When they declined, he announced his candidacy:

I had originally hoped that somebody like Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio or Florida firebrand Alan Grayson would carry the progressive banner against the Obama Administration. I have personally encouraged several of them to run, without success.

I simply didn’t anticipate the kind of paralysis that seems to have immobilized the party’s progressives when it comes to challenging a sitting President of their own party.

Sadly, there’s no Gene McCarthy on the horizon.

Yet we need, perhaps now more than ever, someone with the courage to stand up and fight for the progressive values and causes that President Obama paid so much lip service to in 2008.

The recipient of a staggering $37.6 million in Wall Street money between 1998 and his election in 2008, the President has been about as effective in turning this recession-ravaged economy around as Herbert Hoover in 1932. That was, of course, the year when the beleaguered Republican President tried to rescue the ailing U.S. economy with the passage of the relatively modest Emergency Relief and Construction Act and the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, neither of which came close to ending the Great Depression.

Instead of modeling his economic policy agenda after Herbert Hoover, President Obama and his advisers should have instead studied FDR and the New Deal.

http://www.battlegroundblog.com/2011/10/26/darcy-richardson-why-im-running-for-president/

The OWS protesters nationwide are not simply angry at Obama. They are angry at the Washington political establishment, Democrats and Republicans alike. I was waiting for someone to walk into OWS and tell them, much as McCarthy told the hippies in 1968 to "tune in, clean up, and drop in", that if they want to reduce the power of the big banks in Congress then they have to organize themselves politically. It didn't happen.

Darcy Richardson is the best chance the remaining New Deal type Dems have to send a message in these primaries.

[BklnDem75]

111. Could've fooled me

You're selling the hell out of Paul throughout this thread. Pretty much on the same level as Gary. As bad as you think Obama's numbers are, all of his conservative opponents are much worse and their best chance, Mitt, is dropping like a stone. Paul is a joke even in his own party. He makes sense on one or two issues, but a nightmare on everything else. His only hope is name recognition, because anyone really looking at him will flee in a heartbeat.

[Hart2008]

114. Sorry, explaining Ron Paul's attraction to voters is not "selling" his candidacy.

Please see the above thread for more explanation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x827547#828307

I come from too strong of a union family to support Mr. Paul, but that doesn't mean that I can't understand his attraction to his supporters, or attempt to have an intelligent discussion of his candidacy.

[BklnDem75]

119. He has the same level of support he did in 2008

He's the repuke Kooch. He's a huge force only in the minds of the few.

[Hart2008]

122. In 2008 Paul wasn't attracting the support of 15% of Dems in Iowa.

It is a fair comment that Obama is unlikely to win Iowa in the GE in 2012 with these numbers.

[BklnDem75]

123. More like wishful thinking

Anything can be fair to say, but you haven't been right, yet.

[Hart2008]

124. 26% of Dems nationwide want a new nominee, and 15% of Iowa Dems prefer Paul over Obama.

Deal with it.

[BklnDem75]

126. LOL! It ain't happening

Live with that.

[tomm2thumbs]

105. The Poll certainly makes Trump's 'Newt & Santorum Debate' seem stupid

Although that goes without saying as Trump's name is attached to it -- if plans for it don't fall flat on their face by the weekend.

[Hart2008]

115. Sounds like Trump will be hosting a talk show and not a debate. NT

[Proud Liberal Dem]

117. Dream On

He may have one or two "right" positions on things but that doesn't mean he'd be an acceptable candidate to most Democrats and/or independents, at least not once they look at the whole package. Isn't Ron Paul the guy talking about ending/eliminating the Federal Reserve? :shrug:

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hart2008]

125. With a 51% disapproval rating, Obama needs a third candidate to win in November 2012.

And even then, it is no guarantee of success.

[karynnj]

130. No he doesn't

Not to mention that a 3rd party on his left hurts him.

Daily Kos polled something last summer that I had always wanted to see. They asked the standard approval questions and then asked those who disapproved of . Obama, if they were certain to vote for him, likely to vote for him, unlikely, or definitely not. What they found was that another 3 or 4% of those polled were pretty certain to vote for him.

I had really wanted that question asked in 2004, because I had heard the strong negative comments on Bush by the libertarian, isolationist Republicans (think either Buchanan or Paul). These people likely were included in the "disapproval" numbers, but there is no way they would have voted for any Democrat. (Both Dean and Kerry saw government as having a social justice responsibility and both were internationalists. This group likely voted third party or held their noses and voted for Bush) It may not have been polled because Bush had approval ratings near 60 in late 2003 and in 2004, head to head polls of various Democrats then just Kerry made more sense.

[Hart2008]

142. Which president won reelection with a disapproval rating over 50% < 1 year of the election?

You are whistling past the graveyard here.

This is a serious problem.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hart2008]

156. How about engaging in debate rather than just calling people names? NT

[coalition_unwilling]

140. By 'best' I assume the OP means the candidate with the strongest

likelihood of defeating Obama.

I actually think Ron Paul would be the 'best' candidate, though, for another reason, as we would probably have the purest 'campaign of ideas' that I've seen since the first presidential election I voted in (1980 Carter v. Reagan).

A match-up between least government possible (Paul) vs. robust federal government (Obama) would make for a stimulating civic exercise.

[Hart2008]

144. What is more disturbing is who has benefited that "robost" government intervention.

Unlike under FDR's New Deal, Obama has clearly favored the banks, and not ordinary Americans. (See the continuing foreclosure crisis.)

He has been more Hoover than Roosevelt, and it shows in his poll numbers.

[coalition_unwilling]

145. I'm no fan of Obama, having written him off largely after the

unemployment rate rose following passage of ARRA and my feeling that Obama simply didn't care.

I think it would make for a fascinating clash of ideas to have Obama debate Paul - as loony as many of Paul's positions are, the fact remains that he would have had us out of Iraq far sooner than Obama who got us out no sooner than W proposed in the last SOFA agreed to during W's tenure.

[ProSense]

166. Found it

the electoral map:




:rofl:

[Hart2008]

171. No, you made that map. Why can't you engage in honest debate here?

Sure looks like part of a larger pattern of making things up, and denying whatever you don't want to believe.

In 1980 you would have been telling everyone how unelectable Ronald Reagan was...
:eyes:

[ProSense]

172. Hmmm?

"No, you made that map."

You think?

:rofl: