In the latest Quinnipiac poll regarding the Republican race in Florida, Ron Paul tied in distant third, polling at 11% which beats the 7% undecided.
Romney 43%
Newt 29%
Paul 11%
Santorum 11%
Undecided 7%.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=1697
A summary of the recent polls has Paul in a distant fourth in Florida.
Romney 41.8%
Newt 29.1
Santorum 12.8
Paul 10.1
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_republican_presidential_primary-1597.html
I am still pulling for Newt. I was kind of surprised to see Fred Thompson's vocal support of Newt and mild attack on Romney. For some reason, I thought Fred was more of moderate Republican establishment guy. Some Republicans were becoming scared that Newt may could actually get the nomination, but are now feeling a little more relieved.
While it appears it may be very likely that Romney secures the nomination, vote Newt for Republican nominee.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 29174
Originally posted by moon1969Right on! I was planning to vote for Rick Perry because he was the candidate who most embodied the Republican Party (stupid, vaguely racist, completely sold-out to moneyed interests) but the true facts about him got out. Now it is clear that Newt was really the guy all along. He is the clown who will get my vote when the circus comes to town. Of course, this will only be a protest vote because 'conservatism' is dead in America and can no longer control the nomination of the Republican Party. Now the money completely controls that Party. Tri-corner hats and Obama-Hitler posters are just a needless distraction from their righteous crusade to end all regulations and expose the sharpened talons of capitalism so wages can be driven lower and the downtrodden can be finally trod under.
In the latest Quinnipiac poll regarding the Republican race in Florida, Ron Paul tied in distant third, polling at 11% which beats the 7% undecided.
Romney 43%
Newt 29%
Paul 11%
Santorum 11%
Undecided 7%.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=1697
A summary of the recent polls h ...[text shortened]... ars it may be very likely that Romney secures the nomination, vote Newt for Republican nominee.
Originally posted by moon1969That is not bad polling for Ron Paul since he didn't even try to win FL.
In the latest Quinnipiac poll regarding the Republican race in Florida, Ron Paul tied in distant third, polling at 11% which beats the 7% undecided.
Romney 43%
Newt 29%
Paul 11%
Santorum 11%
Undecided 7%.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=1697
A summary of the recent polls h ...[text shortened]... ars it may be very likely that Romney secures the nomination, vote Newt for Republican nominee.
It will be interesting to see how he does in Maine.
Originally posted by sh76You know I think it is unlikely he will win the nomination. I do root for the underdog.
Do you still harbor some fantasy about Ron Paul actually winning the nomination?
Even Karl Rove says Paul will do better in the caucus states, so you might see him come in second in Nevada. He did it 4 years ago. It was a distant 2nd, but still 2nd. Since he took 2nd in NH it is not a fantasy to think he might get at least 2nd in Nevada this time. Who knows, he might even get 1st and that would get him the news coverage he desperately needs.
I support his mission of spreading his message of ending foreign occupations. Occupying the world is not helping fiscal responsibility. Going to war with Iran will only shoot ourselves in the foot with the resulting debt load. My children will be in economic slavery.
I also get a kick out of people not being able to ignore him. Go Ron Paul. Spread the message and stick it to the man!
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt's not a lack of news coverage that is Paul's problem. It's his positions. Most people, certainly the people who tend to turn up at primaries, know who he is.
You know I think it is unlikely he will win the nomination. I do root for the underdog.
Even Karl Rove says Paul will do better in the caucus states, so you might see him come in second in Nevada. He did it 4 years ago. It was a distant 2nd, but still 2nd. Since he took 2nd in NH it is not a fantasy to think he might get at least 2nd in Nevada this tim ...[text shortened]... of people not being able to ignore him. Go Ron Paul. Spread the message and stick it to the man!
Originally posted by Metal BrainAside from foreign policy, do you really want to undo a century of social improvements that have narrowed the lifestyle gap and improved the lives of tens (or hundreds) or millions of people?
You know I think it is unlikely he will win the nomination. I do root for the underdog.
Even Karl Rove says Paul will do better in the caucus states, so you might see him come in second in Nevada. He did it 4 years ago. It was a distant 2nd, but still 2nd. Since he took 2nd in NH it is not a fantasy to think he might get at least 2nd in Nevada this tim ...[text shortened]... of people not being able to ignore him. Go Ron Paul. Spread the message and stick it to the man!
Why? Why are you so viscerally against the government spending to improve the lives of the people?
Originally posted by sh76It's much easier to blame your shortcomings and failings on the government than on yourself.
Aside from foreign policy, do you really want to undo a century of social improvements that have narrowed the lifestyle gap and improved the lives of tens (or hundreds) or millions of people?
Why? Why are you so viscerally against the government spending to improve the lives of the people?
Originally posted by sh76Not all government spending improves the lives of the people. Spending too much actually has the opposite effect. Somebody has to pay for the interest on the debt. I don't want it to be my children.
Aside from foreign policy, do you really want to undo a century of social improvements that have narrowed the lifestyle gap and improved the lives of tens (or hundreds) or millions of people?
Why? Why are you so viscerally against the government spending to improve the lives of the people?
You talk as if Ron Paul would be dictator of the USA. Do you really think he is capable of undoing a century of social programs? He can only sign a bill into law when congress presents him with one. It would never happen.
I want him to be president for his veto power and executive policy. The social programs might get cut just enough to get our debt down to reasonable levels. Anything harsher than that would be extremely difficult for him to do.
I am confident he is the best man for the job at this time.
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat government spending specifically improves the lives of people, and what empirical evidence supports this? And what is the optimal way to collect tax revenue to pay for these "good" government expenses? And why? All you answered with is a circular argument.
Not all government spending improves the lives of the people. Spending too much actually has the opposite effect. Somebody has to pay for the interest on the debt. I don't want it to be my children.
You talk as if Ron Paul would be dictator of the USA. Do you really think he is capable of undoing a century of social programs? He can only sign a bill i ...[text shortened]... remely difficult for him to do.
I am confident he is the best man for the job at this time.
If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, I'd seriously consider voting for him (I won't vote for a Republican). His economic domestic policy is a joke and his social libertarianism is tainted by his anti-choice position but he'd have little actual power to accomplish his rather bizarre objectives in either of those areas. BUT:
Given the power that has been ceded to the President to "make war at his pleasure" and Paul's extreme aversion to military adventurism there is little doubt that the difference between a Ron Paul Presidency and a Romney/Obama Presidency would be measured in thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of lives saved. I do not weigh that as lightly and cavalierly as many so-called "liberals" here do. IF it appeared that his third party candidacy would make a strong statement against the endless wars we are currently engaged in worldwide which no other major party candidate is interested in ending and which they are all ideologically committed to carrying to other areas to fight "terror", I may have to swallow my intense dislike for his economic foolishness and vote for Paul.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo if he were to win the GOP nomination you would not vote for him over Obama, even though you think he may save tens of thousands of lives, because you won't vote for a Republican.
If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, I'd seriously consider voting for him (I won't vote for a Republican). His economic domestic policy is a joke and his social libertarianism is tainted by his anti-choice position but he'd have little actual power to accomplish his rather bizarre objectives in either of those areas. BUT:
Given the may have to swallow my intense dislike for his economic foolishness and vote for Paul.
That's not cavalier at all 😉
Originally posted by SleepyguyIf he actually wins the Republican nomination and the Presidency with Republican support in Congress, he actually could accomplish his insane economic and anti-choice agenda. That would probably lead to more deaths in the medium and long run.
So if he were to win the GOP nomination you would not vote for him over Obama, even though you think he may save tens of thousands of lives, because you won't vote for a Republican.
That's not cavalier at all 😉