1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    15 Feb '12 11:55
    Originally posted by dryhump
    It doesn't. Who can you vote for to represent your views? For you, the democratic party isn't nearly crazy enough. For others, like whodey and uther, the republican party isn't crazy enough.
    And for you both parties are just right.

    So tell us Goldylox, do you vote?
  2. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    27626
    15 Feb '12 12:06
    Originally posted by dryhump
    It doesn't. Who can you vote for to represent your views? For you, the democratic party isn't nearly crazy enough. For others, like whodey and uther, the republican party isn't crazy enough.
    A pre-Bill Clinton Democratic Party would be just crazy enough to placate me. But a Democratic Party that is OK with NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall is crazy in a whole other way. I voted for progressivism and I got casino capitalism on steroids. The Democratic Party of today, despite their populist rhetoric, is an agent for the elite agenda. The only difference between them and the Republicans is in the choice of different methods for selling that agenda to the public.
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    15 Feb '12 13:19
    Originally posted by moon1969
    Latest favorability ratings:

    Obama 53%
    Paul 42%
    Romney 34%
    Santorum 32%
    Gingrich 25%


    Even with Romney's favorable ratings dropping, I am still pulling for Santorum or Gingrich to get the Republican nomination. Also hoping that Paul the protest candidate will run 3rd party.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/02/14/rel2c.pdf
    Looks like Ron Paul is now the better choice to beat Obama according to that poll. Remember when the corporate news media kept repeating the electability factor when mentioning Romney? They say nothing now.

    The "Ron Paul can't win" crowd has no basis for their position anymore. They look like idiots now.
  4. Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    15 Feb '12 13:271 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    A pre-Bill Clinton Democratic Party would be just crazy enough to placate me. But a Democratic Party that is OK with NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall is crazy in a whole other way. I voted for progressivism and I got casino capitalism on steroids. The Democratic Party of today, despite their populist rhetoric, is an agent for the elite agenda. The onl ...[text shortened]... and the Republicans is in the choice of different methods for selling that agenda to the public.
    Maybe so, but arguably the choice between the two parties is the choice between the lesser of two evils. Ask a gay person in the military. DADT would have never been repealed if McCain were president instead of Obama. McCain was the leading and most vocal critic of the repeal in the Senate the last couple of years. Ask women who want judges who will overturn forced sonograms, for example. Ask free thinkers and scientists distressed that Republicans are forcing the teaching of creationism on equal footing with evolution in science class in the public schools. Ask the majority of women who want the option to take the morning after pill, which would be outlawed by defining life beginning at conception as all the Republicans candidates including Paul want to do. Etc., etc.
  5. Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    15 Feb '12 13:40
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Looks like Ron Paul is now the better choice to beat Obama according to that poll. Remember when the corporate news media kept repeating the electability factor when mentioning Romney? They say nothing now.

    The "Ron Paul can't win" crowd has no basis for their position anymore. They look like idiots now.
    Yes, but the head-to-head polls still show Romney less behind Obama than Paul is behind Obama.

    Further, what is striking and one of the main reasons Paul will not get the nomination is that the Republicans view Paul as not electable. Likely Republican primary voters were asked "Which Republican candidate do you think has the best chance of beating Barack Obama in the
    general election in November?" Their answer:

    Romney 55%
    Santorum 18%
    Gingrich 14%
    Paul 7%

    The Republicans themselves do not view Paul as electable. And higher Paul favorable rating is not likely impact that perception. Paul can come across a likable guy but not an electable candidate, especially against an increasingly popular President Obama.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/02/14/rel2a.pdf
  6. Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    15 Feb '12 13:401 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Looks like Ron Paul is now the better choice to beat Obama according to that poll. Remember when the corporate news media kept repeating the electability factor when mentioning Romney? They say nothing now.

    The "Ron Paul can't win" crowd has no basis for their position anymore. They look like idiots now.
  7. Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    15 Feb '12 13:401 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Looks like Ron Paul is now the better choice to beat Obama according to that poll. Remember when the corporate news media kept repeating the electability factor when mentioning Romney? They say nothing now.

    The "Ron Paul can't win" crowd has no basis for their position anymore. They look like idiots now.
    Yes, but the head-to-head polls still show Romney less behind Obama than Paul is behind Obama.

    Further, what is striking and one of the main reasons Paul will not get the nomination is that the Republicans view Paul as not electable. Likely Republican primary voters were asked "Which Republican candidate do you think has the best chance of beating Barack Obama in the
    general election in November?" Their answer:

    Romney 55%
    Santorum 18%
    Gingrich 14%
    Paul 7%

    The Republicans themselves do not view Paul as electable. And Paul having a higher favorable rating than the other Republican candidates is not likely to impact that perception. Paul can come across a likable guy but not an electable candidate, especially against an increasingly popular President Obama.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/02/14/rel2a.pdf
  8. Joined
    14 Dec '07
    Moves
    3763
    15 Feb '12 13:50
    Originally posted by whodey
    And for you both parties are just right.

    So tell us Goldylox, do you vote?
    I don't vote. Why would I? If you know the game is rigged, continuing to play expecting a fair outcome is just stupid.
  9. Joined
    14 Dec '07
    Moves
    3763
    15 Feb '12 13:53
    Originally posted by rwingett
    A pre-Bill Clinton Democratic Party would be just crazy enough to placate me. But a Democratic Party that is OK with NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall is crazy in a whole other way. I voted for progressivism and I got casino capitalism on steroids. The Democratic Party of today, despite their populist rhetoric, is an agent for the elite agenda. The onl ...[text shortened]... and the Republicans is in the choice of different methods for selling that agenda to the public.
    There's plenty you write on this forum that I think is totally whack-a-do, but this is very good.
  10. Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    15 Feb '12 14:08
    Originally posted by dryhump
    I don't vote. Why would I? If you know the game is rigged, continuing to play expecting a fair outcome is just stupid.
    There is enough difference between the two parties to vote for the lesser of two evils.
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    15 Feb '12 14:18
    Originally posted by moon1969
    Yes, but the head-to-head polls still show Romney less behind Obama than Paul is behind Obama.

    Further, what is striking and one of the main reasons Paul will not get the nomination is that the Republicans view Paul as not electable. Likely Republican primary voters were asked "Which Republican candidate do you think has the best chance of beating Barac ...[text shortened]... reasingly popular President Obama.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/02/14/rel2a.pdf
    Paul had a very close second place in Maine, and there were voting irregularities that suggest he may have actually won. I don't think the poll numbers you listed are very accurate if Paul can get such a close 2nd place.

    I suppose he may not do as well with republicans only, but that is not what represents the electability argument. Who is electable depends on how they go up against Obama. It does little good to get the republican nomination only to lose against Obama in the general election.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

    Paul voted against the repeal of Glass Steagall, something most voters are unaware of. Paul's chances against Obama are better than the public realizes.
  12. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    15 Feb '12 14:25
    Originally posted by moon1969
    Yes, but the head-to-head polls still show Romney less behind Obama than Paul is behind Obama.

    Further, what is striking and one of the main reasons Paul will not get the nomination is that the Republicans view Paul as not electable. Likely Republican primary voters were asked "Which Republican candidate do you think has the best chance of beating Barac ...[text shortened]... reasingly popular President Obama.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/02/14/rel2a.pdf
    Here are the February numbers from the link you provided.

    Santorum 34%
    Romney 32%
    Paul 16%
    Gingrich 15%
    Someone else (vol.) *
    None/ No one (vol.) 2%
    No opinion 2%

    Why would you list November numbers unless you are deliberately cherry picking numbers to mislead us?
  13. Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    15 Feb '12 14:3732 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Here are the February numbers from the link you provided.

    Santorum 34%
    Romney 32%
    Paul 16%
    Gingrich 15%
    Someone else (vol.) *
    None/ No one (vol.) 2%
    No opinion 2%

    Why would you list November numbers unless you are deliberately cherry picking numbers to mislead us?
    I didn't list November numbers. Instead, I listed February (current) numbers for both favorability and perceived electability. You list numbers for support. Read closely the polls results in the link, and also my previous posts.
  14. Joined
    14 Dec '07
    Moves
    3763
    15 Feb '12 14:41
    Originally posted by moon1969
    There is enough difference between the two parties to vote for the lesser of two evils.
    There is no lesser of two evils in this case. If you believe there is than you are a fool.
  15. Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    15 Feb '12 14:421 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Here are the February numbers from the link you provided.

    Santorum 34%
    Romney 32%
    Paul 16%
    Gingrich 15%
    Someone else (vol.) *
    None/ No one (vol.) 2%
    No opinion 2%

    Why would you list November numbers unless you are deliberately cherry picking numbers to mislead us?
    Again, all of the numbers I have listed in this thread are February (current). I did list in another thread a summary of polls (including the CNN poll) for February (current) support numbers.

    Santorum 31
    Romney 29
    Gingrich 16
    Paul 13

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree