Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From PPP tweet: "Paul is relying on young voters, independents, and those who haven't caucused before. Sound familiar?"
NH (Rasmussen):
Romney 33%
Gingrich 22%
Paul 18%
Huntsman 10%
This race is starting to get very, very interesting. There is NO WAY IN HELL the GOP establishment is going to allow Ron Paul to be their nominee. No way the party of social/religious conservatives, neocons, and big-business are going to allow their nominee to be someone who favors drug legalization, is anti-interventionist, takes a reltatively anti-Israel stance, and is anti-corporatist.
I just saw the Gingrich 22%, Paul 21% and Romney something lower % on another site.
Hurray!
Of course, the media will spin it: "Gingrich still leads over Romney in Iowa, more at the top of the hour...."
Doubtful. Paul's base is very liberal college aged people. He was pull pretty much all of Obama's liberal vote. Also historically 3rd parties have taken dem votes. The GOP establishment will make sure there is no way in hell Paul is their nomination.
The thing is most GOP supporters aren't smart, if they were they would have Paul or Huntsman as their nomination. They would rather have some ultra-right moonbat that trash talks Obama that has no chance in hell of beating him, over a rational candidate that could. Not that I'm complaining
I know plenty of Republicans who are voting for Ron Paul. I'm one of them, too.
Doubtful. Paul's base is very liberal college aged people. He was pull pretty much all of Obama's liberal vote. Also historically 3rd parties have taken dem votes. The GOP establishment will make sure there is no way in hell Paul is their nomination.
The thing is most GOP supporters aren't smart, if they were they would have Paul or Huntsman as their nomination. They would rather have some ultra-right moonbat that trash talks Obama that has no chance in hell of beating him, over a rational candidate that could. Not that I'm complaining
I am a Conservative who will be voting for Ron Paul.. So is my boyfriend.
Somewhere recently I read that 62% of Republicans consider Ron Paul as an 'unacceptable candidate.' That's getting close to 2/3rds, and it's going to be impossible for him to overcome that hurdle, I think. His foreign policy is just a deal breaker.
It almost is for me too, although I agree with him on so many points that I'd be willing to roll the dice and vote for him despite his FP views. Especially given the rest of this field. If nothing else it would be great to see Paul win Iowa, even if he does not win the nomination. It would be very good for the GOP to shift in the direction of Ron Paul and away from the Nixon-Ford-Dole-Bush-McCain point on the politcal spectrum.
Somewhere recently I read that 62% of Republicans consider Ron Paul as an 'unacceptable candidate.' That's getting close to 2/3rds, and it's going to be impossible for him to overcome that hurdle, I think. His foreign policy is just a deal breaker.
It almost is for me too, although I agree with him on so many points that I'd be willing to roll the dice and vote for him despite his FP views. Especially given the rest of this field. If nothing else it would be great to see Paul win Iowa, even if he does not win the nomination. It would be very good for the GOP to shift in the direction of Ron Paul and away from the Nixon-Ford-Dole-Bush-McCain point on the politcal spectrum.
How has everyone else with the same foreign policy worked so far?
Haven't we learned that what we have now and have had for years IS NOT working anymore?!
There are too many people who are freaked out or put off by Ron Paul for the incredibly vocal minority who support him to pull through. It'll be interesting to see what the Paulites do after this is made clear. They could easily bury the Republicans if their boy goes independent.
What specifically about a humble, non-interventionist, foreign policy is a deal breaker? Especially when we're broke and have a military that is 5x the size of the rest of the world's military put together.
What specifically about a humble, non-interventionist, foreign policy is a deal breaker? Especially when we're broke and have a military that is 5x the size of the rest of the world's military put together.
Neoconservatives and paleocons obviously dislike his foreign policy, but his domestic policies are what make him problematic for the rest of people. The extirpation of the government and rampant privatization is not palatable to most people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
