Nationally Televised Rebublican Debate Tonight(ABC @ 9EST)

[Rainsford]

I thought Ron Paul won this debate, his answer about being true to your oath of office is one of the most important things and that we need people that we can trust was the best answer of the night. He's also the only one who's offered any hard plans to cut spending / government.

He comes off as the most sincere and doesn't need to hide from or explain his record like Newt Romney. Both Perry and Romney acknowledged the wisdom of Ron Paul on the last answer as well as the passion of his supporters.

Romney had that 10k bet thing that will hurt him and I thought Gingrich looked pretty weak last night, though he usually does well at these things.

I predict Gingrich will win Iowa and then close second place Ron Paul or vice versa .With Romney in third.

--

If Ron was the nominee he would easily beat Obama because of the independent vote, in all polls they show they favor him strongly over Obama.

I predict Romney would win against Obama but it would be a tough race.

I predict Newt would lose against Obama.

I don't know what polls you're reading, but everything I've seen suggests Obama would beat Ron Paul quite easily, and for good reason. Every time I've seen Ron Paul debate or otherwise appear on TV, I get the impression that he's a smart guy with some interesting ideas he'll stick to no matter what (which is more than I can say for the rest of the Republican field).

But you know what I don't see? A guy who I can picture actually LEADING the country instead of lecturing it. And I suspect I'm not alone in that either, which is why Ron Paul has never been a realistic choice in a Presidential election. Ideas matter and integrity matters, and Ron Paul does well on those fronts. But I just don't think he has the Presidential voice or aura that makes people picture him in the Oval Office.

Right now Ron Paul looks like an alternative to politics that a lot of people are sick of (on both sides of the aisle), which is probably why he's polling as well as he is. But the longer this election cycle goes on, the more people are going to ask themselves if they like the idea of Ron Paul as a President and not just Ron Paul's ideas.

 

[matt0611]

I don't know what polls you're reading, but everything I've seen suggests Obama would beat Ron Paul quite easily, and for good reason. Every time I've seen Ron Paul debate or otherwise appear on TV, I get the impression that he's a smart guy with some interesting ideas he'll stick to no matter what (which is more than I can say for the rest of the Republican field).

But you know what I don't see? A guy who I can picture actually LEADING the country instead of lecturing it. And I suspect I'm not alone in that either, which is why Ron Paul has never been a realistic choice in a Presidential election. Ideas matter and integrity matters, and Ron Paul does well on those fronts. But I just don't think he has the Presidential voice or aura that makes people picture him in the Oval Office.

Right now Ron Paul looks like an alternative to politics that a lot of people are sick of (on both sides of the aisle), which is probably why he's polling as well as he is. But the longer this election cycle goes on, the more people are going to ask themselves if they like the idea of Ron Paul as a President and not just Ron Paul's ideas.

I've seen polls are that show he beats Obama on Independents 48 v 39. And this is before the general election. I've also seen plenty of polls where RP leads among the republican pack against Obama. So yeah, Obama would be crushed in the general election vs Ron Paul I think. Especially with this economy. Obama has proven he can't lead and will take a lot of the blame for the terrible shape that this country is in. Time will tell if RP will get the chance, its a long shot for sure, but you never know.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

With all due respect, Ron Paul supporters who think he could possibly capture the nomination, much less the Presidency, are nuts. His foreign policy views are enough to ensure he will never get more than 10% support in his own party, much less in a general election.

 

[Rainsford]

I've seen polls are that show he beats Obama on Independents 48 v 39. And this is before the general election. I've also seen plenty of polls where RP leads among the republican pack against Obama. So yeah, Obama would be crushed in the general election vs Ron Paul I think. Especially with this economy. Obama has proven he can't lead and will take a lot of the blame for the terrible shape that this country is in. Time will tell if RP will get the chance, its a long shot for sure, but you never know.

I'd be interested in seeing those polls. The polls linked off Ron Paul's own site have him consistently down several points against Obama, I can't imagine there are rosier ones his campaign is ignoring for some reason. Unless you're talking about non-scientific internet polls, but those aren't a good basis for anything. On what basis are you saying Ron Paul would crush Obama?

Obama will undoubtedly take some blame for the current state of our country, but that doesn't mean the Republican candidate doesn't have to seem like a better alternative.

 

[frostedflakes]

He's talking about this I think.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111116006079/en/Ron-Paul-Leads-Obama-Independents-Poll-Shows

Of course it's one poll among many, so take it with a grain of salt. I don't know if this poll is the norm or an outlier, haven't been paying super close attention to the polling.

 

[matt0611]

I'd be interested in seeing those polls. The polls linked off Ron Paul's own site have him consistently down several points against Obama, I can't imagine there are rosier ones his campaign is ignoring for some reason. Unless you're talking about non-scientific internet polls, but those aren't a good basis for anything. On what basis are you saying Ron Paul would crush Obama?

Obama will undoubtedly take some blame for the current state of our country, but that doesn't mean the Republican candidate doesn't have to seem like a better alternative.

I'm only talking about independents. Base wise Obama is usually up. But even so Ron is usually leading the OTHER republicans against Obama. If I get a chance I'll dig up some of the polls I'm referring to.

In my estimate Ron and Mitt have the best chance against Obama, the others I think are seen as too dividing / partisan.

 

[Rainsford]

He's talking about this I think.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111116006079/en/Ron-Paul-Leads-Obama-Independents-Poll-Shows

Of course it's one poll among many, so take it with a grain of salt. I don't know if this poll is the norm or an outlier, haven't been paying super close attention to the polling.

I'm sorry, but who gets "Ron Paul would crush Obama" from a poll saying Ron Paul wins among independents but loses by a reasonably large margin among all voters? Yes, Ron Paul is apparently more popular among independents (in one poll at least). So clearly he'd win, as long as you ignore everyone who's not an independent, because when you count them, he'd lose.

The fact that Ron Paul is popular among independents is interesting. Extrapolating that to say he'd win when the very same polls says he'd lose is just silly.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm only talking about independents. Base wise Obama is usually up. But even so Ron is usually leading the OTHER republicans against Obama. If I get a chance I'll dig up some of the polls I'm referring to.

In my estimate Ron and Mitt have the best chance against Obama, the others I think are seen as too dividing / partisan.

You said Ron Paul would "easily beat" Obama based on his popularity among independents, which doesn't seem to be enough according to the polls. Since Ron Paul is more popular among independents, that would suggest to me that he draws much less of the Republican base than Obama draws of the Democratic base...which doesn't sound good for Paul.

 

[chris9641]

With all due respect, Ron Paul supporters who think he could possibly capture the nomination, much less the Presidency, are nuts. His foreign policy views are enough to ensure he will never get more than 10% support in his own party, much less in a general election.

Which is ridiculous since his views on foreign policy are more in line with conservative thinking then the rest of the republican candidates.

 

[matt0611]

You said Ron Paul would "easily beat" Obama based on his popularity among independents, which doesn't seem to be enough according to the polls. Since Ron Paul is more popular among independents, that would suggest to me that he draws much less of the Republican base than Obama draws of the Democratic base...which doesn't sound good for Paul.

That's my prediction, but I admit don't have polls to directly support it, but these polls can be misleading this far from the general election. I was using his popularity with independents (which I have support for) as one of the key advantages that I could see leading to him winning.

 

[frostedflakes]

I'm sorry, but who gets "Ron Paul would crush Obama" from a poll saying Ron Paul wins among independents but loses by a reasonably large margin among all voters? Yes, Ron Paul is apparently more popular among independents (in one poll at least). So clearly he'd win, as long as you ignore everyone who's not an independent, because when you count them, he'd lose.

The fact that Ron Paul is popular among independents is interesting. Extrapolating that to say he'd win when the very same polls says he'd lose is just silly.

Just to be clear I never claimed there would be any crushing of Obama going on, was just linking to one of the polls you asked for that showed Paul doing well among independents.

If Paul got the nomination (long shot, I know), he'd probably secure like 40%+ of the national vote pretty easily merely by virtue of the "R" next to his name. That's how partisan our country has become unfortunately. Republicans may not agree with him on some issues like foreign policy, but who else are they going to vote for? Obama? Republicans are pretty much in Anyone But Obama mode at this point.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/obama-close-race-against-romney-perry-bachmann-paul.aspx

Gallup and some others I've seen show him within a couple percent of Obama in the general election. This is a pretty old one, though, haven't really been paying close attention to the polls lately.

 

[chris9641]

That's my prediction, but I admit don't have polls to directly support it, but these polls can be misleading this far from the general election. I was using his popularity with independents (which I have support for) as one of the key advantages that I could see leading to him winning.

Forget about polls and just ask yourself by what you see in the media, the people you see attending the debates, the general people you come in contact with, your general consensus of the American population as a whole... do you really think he can become POTUS?

I don't see it at all, but as the internet becomes the main source of information where more and more of all this corruption and bs from politicians is exposed, the collective consciousness of this country(and world) will grow and become more aware, and then I think someone like a Ron Paul can win say 8 years from now.

I think Ron Paul would represent some radical change and direction in this country and if I was a lobbyist or just another narcissistic, status quo politician he would scare the shit out of me, and until we can pass that hurdle I don't think someone like him can win right now.

 

[matt0611]

Forget about polls and just ask yourself by what you see in the media, the people you see attending the debates, the general people you come in contact with, your general consensus of the American population as a whole... do you really think he can become POTUS?

I don't see it at all, but as the internet becomes the main source of information where more and more of all this corruption and bs from politicians is exposed, the collective consciousness of this country(and world) will grow and become more aware, and then I think someone like a Ron Paul can win say 8 years from now.

I think Ron Paul would represent some radical change and direction in this country and if I was a lobbyist or just another narcissistic, status quo politician he would scare the shit out of me, and until we can pass that hurdle I don't think someone like him can win right now.

If this was 2008, I would say no, but due do to other factors, the bad economy, Obama's dissaproval rating, the independent vote, the change in state representatives (red states have more EC votes than last time), and a host of other factors including the rise of the tea party, I do believe he would have a chance of winning.

I could be wrong but who knows if I'll ever get a chance to be proven one way or another.

 

[chris9641]

If this was 2008, I would say no, but due do to other factors, the bad economy, Obama's dissaproval rating, the independent vote, the change in state representatives (red states have more EC votes than last time), and a host of other factors including the rise of the tea party, I do believe he would have a chance of winning.

I could be wrong but who knows if I'll ever get a chance to be proven one way or another.

Well we'll see in the next couple of months as the primaries play out.. hope you're right.

 

[Lemon law]

Face the facts, Ron Paul does not have a snow balls chance in hell of being elected POTUS.

But point granted, certain parts of the Ron Paul agenda package can universally appeal to democrats, Republicans, and independents. But then problem number one happens for Ron Paul, the very positions that makes Ron Paul popular among Republicans makes him a rat fink for democrats, and the very positions that make Ron Paul popular among democrats makes him a rat fink for republicans. Leaving independents equally conflicted.

Then there is Ron Paul number two, as he is an unabashed advocate for a Libertarian style of government that may have some utopian appeal, but its still totally impractical pie in the sky stupidity that can't possibly work in a modern world.

Its no accident folks, that the world has never tried a libertarian style of government in the history of the world and moreover never will.

A libertarian style of government can never achieve the political consensus to build any infrastructure that is the foundation of any industrialized Nations.

Yet the Ron Paul appeal is mainly among those that already enjoy that infrastructure, as they blindly assume a Libertarian government will maintain that infrastructure perpetually as everything else will be bigger and better. A fantasy and contraction in terms, but even many grown up still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. As that latter observation best describes Ron Paul.

At least communism is a more viable utopian scheme, but still its just another utopian scheme best left in the scrap bin of history. As for an even more epic fail, Paul bots want us to try the Fibertarian utopian paradise. When anyone with an ounce of brains knows Libertarian style governance cannot possibly work.

But given the large numbers of Paulbots, Ron Paul is not the only one that believes in the tooth fairy.

 

[matt0611]

Ron Paul type libertarians == classical liberal, which was EXACTLY what this country was built on, until 1913, 1933 and even more so gradually over the last 50 years have strayed away from it.

The Ron Paul version of Libertarian government HAS been tried, not perfectly, you'll never have perfection but it has been implemented.

I'm sick of this bullshit talking point "there's never been a libertarian government before blah blah". Its just old, tired, and false.

Its not like we would elect him in and have him change over to this sytem in 4 years anyway, it would be gradual change toward that DIRECTION, which this country could use as far as I'm concerned.

We'll probably never know if he can get elected though because republicans are too obsessed with fighting wars, policing the world, fighting muslims, setting up a police state to trample our liberties etc

I'm not gonna sit here and go back and forth on this issue and waste my time though, because progressives will believe what they want to believe.

 

[Lemon law]

As matt0611 says, " Ron Paul type libertarians == classical liberal, which was EXACTLY what this country was built on, until 1913, 1933 and even more so gradually over the last 50 years have strayed away from it. "

Gee willikers, Matt, the last idea of a US libertarian government died with the Shays rebellion and its never come back. As high US terrifs, the Louisiana purchase, the Federal Bank ideas of Jackson, and all the rest, leaves you nothing but pie in the sky revisionist history in action.

Maybe you need to unplug your computer and go to a public library and check out some books on US history. You were supposed to learn all that stuff in elementary school, but who knows why you never learned a damn thing by now. But if you slept through all your classes, it could go a long way in explaining why you know nothing now,

 

[matt0611]

Again, did I say perfect? Nope, we had high tariffs (for SOME of that time, not all), at some points we had a central bank (but they were a disaster and short lived), other than that federal spending in terms of GDP was in the very low single digits percentage wise and for the most part followed the Constitution compared to what they do today.

So I don't know what the hell you are arguing against.

Relative to today, yes, we more or less had a libertarian style governance in the US.

This really doesn't matter anyway as to if the ideas of Ron Paul would be good for the country or not, I much rather take the ideas on one by one, this whole "libertarian government never existed or did exist" discussion is rather meaningless.

I much rather discuss ideas like:

Should we lower federal taxes / spending to spur economic growth
or
Should we protect our civil liberties by amending the patriot act
or
Should we do less policing of the world and cut our military budget
or
Should we get rid of the department of education and let states handle it
...

Trying to change the topic to a history debate of the 1800s to find answers to these questions is rather useless and a waste of time.

 

[airdata]

Ron Paul crushed, as he has in many other debates.


Seriously... How can anybody pretend Gingrich is a front runner? He's such a slimy fraud and everybody knows it.

-cheats on wife
-profits from bailouts
-flip flops
-etc, etc.

So, when people say the media is liberal... what is their goal? Are they trying to highlight the worst republican candidates in order to give Obama an edge?

 

[soundforbjt]

So, when people say the media is liberal... what is their goal? Are they trying to highlight the worst republican candidates in order to give Obama an edge?

Well, the most conservative "news" channel Fox is highlighting and pushing Gingrich, so are they trying to give Obama an edge?

Why aren't they giving the most conservative candidate (RP) any support?

Could it be that they (Fox) aren't really the conservative network they are supposed to be?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Maybe, just maybe it's due to the fact most see Ron Paul as a Libertarian rather than a Conservative.

 

[Ausm]

LOL just got this tweet and it's so true too.

Mitt Romney apologizes for his $10,000 bet. "I usually only gamble with the lives of the people in the companies I buy and take apart."

 

[frostedflakes]

Ron Paul crushed, as he has in many other debates.


Seriously... How can anybody pretend Gingrich is a front runner? He's such a slimy fraud and everybody knows it.

-cheats on wife
-profits from bailouts
-flip flops
-etc, etc.

So, when people say the media is liberal... what is their goal? Are they trying to highlight the worst republican candidates in order to give Obama an edge?

People are probably willing to overlook his past because they see him as the best chance the party has against Obama (what does that say about Republicans confidence in the other candidates? lol). Even if you don't agree with Gingrich's record or political views, I don't think there's any denying that he's a very well-read and intelligent guy, he's witty, charismatic (when he isn't being super egotistical and narcissistic at least), a great public speaker, etc. He's the kind of guy that comes off sounding good in debates and public speeches and that can woo Republican voters.

That's my $0.02 at least.