[G19G20]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ber-showdowns/

Washington (CNN) – Mitt Romney is all tied up with President Barack Obama in a likely general election matchup, with the president showing signs of weakness on the economy and Romney seen as out of touch with ordinary Americans, according to a new national survey.

And a CNN/ORC International Poll released Monday also indicates that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is also even with Obama in another possible showdown this November. The survey also suggests the Republican advantage on voter enthusiasm is eroding, which could be crucial in a close contest.

More at link

My commentary:
Romney holds a slight edge against Obama but Paul is within the margin of error. The "unelectable" media campaign against Paul is falling apart with every new poll released. Also, the erosion of GOP enthusiasm tells me that the Romney "inevitability" campaign is also hurting the GOP's chances since no one actually likes Romney and therefore is not excited to vote for him. You can witness plenty of that sentiment on this very forum. Paul, on the other hand, brings cross-over voters to his side that Romney can't and this is proven more with each new poll too.

[JBnTX]

There's just not enough Ron Paul supporters to make a difference.
They could all fart in the same room and no one would even notice.

Ron Paul lacks not only enough supporters and money, but he also lacks the
backing of the "leaders" of the republican party. They won't allow the election
of a man who'll destroy everything they've spent the last 30 years building.

He is un-electable!

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

There's just not enough Ron Paul supporters to make a difference.
They could all fart in the same room and no one would even notice.

Ron Paul lacks not only enough supporters and money, but he also lacks the
backing of the "leaders" of the republican party. They won't allow the election
of a man who'll destroy everything they've spent the last 30 years building.

He is un-electable!

Have you been paying any attention to the contests so far and the polling data? He's done better at the polls than the "electable" candidates and gets more money than they do too. You're making stuff up dude.

Now if you're suggesting that the only basis of the unelectable mantra is simply because the GOP elite don't want him then that's a different issue entirely and isn't based on electability but rather acceptability to the elite. The polling data suggests that the People think he is electable.

[barbedwiresmile]

Those who don't want Paul elected: employees of IRS, ATF, EPA, DEA, NEA, NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DofE, DofA, DofE,,, list goes on. I wonder why?

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

Those who don't want Paul elected: employees of IRS, ATF, EPA, DEA, NEA, NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DofE, DofA, DofE,,, list goes on. I wonder why?

You know, this might be a good reason to back Perry. The way he keeps mixing up the agencies he wants to eliminate he might keep the teat suckers off guard long enough for him to get elected then they could post the agencies on the wall and have him throw darts to determine which ones get cut.

[geo57]

Originally Posted by G19G20

Have you been paying any attention to the contests so far and the polling data? He's done better at the polls than the "electable" candidates and gets more money than they do too. You're making stuff up dude.

Now if you're suggesting that the only basis of the unelectable mantra is simply because the GOP elite don't want him then that's a different issue entirely and isn't based on electability but rather acceptability to the elite. The polling data suggests that the People think he is electable.

RealClear still had Paul @ 13% nationally on Monday. Are they making that up too ?

[geo57]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

Those who don't want Paul elected: employees of IRS, ATF, EPA, DEA, NEA, NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DofE, DofA, DofE,,, list goes on. I wonder why?

... and according to RealClear 87% of all GOP voters as of Monday.

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by geo57

... and according to RealClear 87% of all GOP voters as of Monday.

Paul is not a republican, anymore than is Romney, and the republican base knows it.

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by Feanor

Paul is not a republican, anymore than is Romney, and the republican base knows it.

But is there anybody who is as republican as you? You seem to be kind of like the jesus of republicans.

[Stubudd]

Originally Posted by geo57

... and according to RealClear 87% of all GOP voters as of Monday.

You're talking about a different poll. Yours is GOP voters' preference among the nominees. The OP is a national 1 on 1 poll, assuming romney or paul got the nomination. The OP's poll is saying Paul does almost as well as Romney in a hypothetical 1 on 1 vs Obama, nationally- among all voters.

And it doesn't mean 87% don't want Paul elected, it means 87% have another choice they'd rather have as the nominee right now. Paul is the first choice of 13% of GoP voters nationally, according to your poll.

[beforeobamabans]

Originally Posted by Feanor

Paul is not a republican

You know, you are proving that true...

RP wants dramatically smaller government; Republicans want big government.
RP wants constitutional governance; Republicans want crony capitalism.
RP wants defense to mean just that; Republicans want expansionist, imperialistic militarism with unlimited funding.

[Goaltender66]

Interviews with 1,021 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORC International on January 11-12, 2012. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points. The sample also includes 928
interviews among registered voters (plus or minus 3 percentage points).

BASED ON 1,021 ALL AMERICANS -- (SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 3% PTS.); 928 REGISTERED VOTERS -- (SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 3% PTS.); 433 REGISTERED DEMOCRATS -- (SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5% PTS.); 421 REGISTERED REPUBLICANS -- (SAMPLING ERROR: +/-5% PTS.)

Those are your two major problems with the poll. They didn't poll likely voters. The sample is 91% registered voters and 9% who are not even registered. If you aren't sampling likely voters you will be skewing a poll that is supposed to forecast an election result.

Plus the CNN poll is oversampling Democrats, unless the outfit would like to explain how in 2012 with Obama's job approval ratings, and especially in the wake of the 2010 midterms, they believe that Democrat voters will still outnumber an energized Republican base? Their own poll shows a 5 point enthusiasm gap in Extremely or Very, for crying out loud.

Oh, but those unregistereds will register just to vote for Ron Paul? Well....

Next thing...question 22/23, among Registereds Ron Paul is 46% to Obama's 48%. 4% wouldn't vote for either of them. Look at the trends, especially under the "neither" and "other" options. Now look at "all respondents." If you're counting on unregistereds to register just to vote Paul then you'll be disappointed. Obama wins that matchup 50% to 45% (in other words, Paul loses a full point when all adults are counted).

Romney is marginally better in this poll, with a 1 point advantage over Obama (48 - 47) and is 2 points away from Obama with all respondents (47 - 49), which tells me Romney's base is probably more stable than Paul's, even with this shoddy sample.

Takeaway...this poll doesn't make a persuasive case about Paul's "electability."

[barbedwiresmile]

Goalie - holy cow. Where've you been?

[geo57]

Originally Posted by Stubudd

You're talking about a different poll. Yours is GOP voters' preference among the nominees. The OP is a national 1 on 1 poll, assuming romney or paul got the nomination. The OP's poll is saying Paul does almost as well as Romney in a hypothetical 1 on 1 vs Obama, nationally- among all voters.

And it doesn't mean 87% don't want Paul elected, it means 87% have another choice they'd rather have as the nominee right now. Paul is the first choice of 13% of GoP voters nationally, according to your poll.

That post in which you quote me was in response to barbedwiresmile's post that suggested those fed depts. listed were the only people that don't want Paul. I was not responding to the OP there.

As far as the 87 % who do not want him / not right now you are splitting hairs. From what candidate do you honestly see him taking votes away from ? And the poll , RealClear , is not mine.

[fgutie35]

You know, when President Obama was shoving the stimulus package down our throats, all the conservatives were b**ching and whining. Now that the GOP is shoving Rommey down our throat, I don't see an uproar. Why? and why is the Tea Party so silence right now? WAKE UP PEOPLE! Now, I'm not a Paul supporter, but I just did not like the way the media (FOX) set him up to look bad in a deliverate way, and also tried to warn the other candidates from the begining not to touch their "golden boy" Rommney on the Bain issue. I felt sick to my stomach to realize that NO media is looking up for US anymore. Not even O'Reilly. The media is suppose to be the "Fourth" Branch of power that should keep the other "Three" in-check, making sure they are doing their job. Now all that is gone, and we are left without a voice. without true journalism, this country is up for grabs for the highest bitter.

[frank4570]

My memory isn't real good on this. But I read a while back about a program that was started in the 70s by either the FBI or the CIA or both. They started looking for newspaper reporters and editors who could be put on the payroll, just in case. And bear in mind that those people who were corrupted back then have been climbing the ranks since then.
And I am positive the program has been expanded. And I'm sure corporations with REAL money have come to understand the value of being able to shape the news as well. Often corporations work closely with govt and military, with employees moving back and forth from one job to the next higher job.
Just like when Obama assigned to the FDA a former Monsanto lobbyist. That person can now use the .gov to help benefit Monsanto, including the media assets. With money from both sides. For the greater good of course.

Originally Posted by fgutie35

You know, when President Obama was shoving the stimulus package down our throats, all the conservatives were b**ching and whining. Now that the GOP is shoving Rommey down our throat, I don't see an uproar. Why? and why is the Tea Party so silence right now? WAKE UP PEOPLE! Now, I'm not a Paul supporter, but I just did not like the way the media (FOX) set him up to look bad in a deliverate way, and also tried to warn the other candidates from the begining not to touch their "golden boy" Rommney on the Bain issue. I felt sick to my stomach to realize that NO media is looking up for US anymore. Not even O'Reilly. The media is suppose to be the "Fourth" Branch of power that should keep the other "Three" in-check, making sure they are doing their job. Now all that is gone, and we are left without a voice. without true journalism, this country is up for grabs for the highest bitter.

[JBnTX]

Ron Paul destroyed any advances he's made in the polls with his moronic responses in the South Carolina debate.

He sounded like a cranky old kook with an axe to grind against Washington DC.

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

Goalie - holy cow. Where've you been?

I'm on a sabbatical from my sabbatical. How've you been?

[cowboy1964]

Ron Paul equated Bin Laden with a theoretical Chinese dissident. That's not only stupid, it's offensive.

[22rtf2]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

Those who don't want Paul elected: employees of IRS, ATF, EPA, DEA, NEA, NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DofE, DofA, DofE,,, list goes on. I wonder why?

You forgot the 100 pound overweight guys with "Official Terrorist Hunting Permit" sticker on their car. Or more likely crappy pickup truck.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[aspartz]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

Ron Paul lacks not only enough supporters and money, but he also lacks the
backing of the "leaders" of the republican party. They won't allow the election
of a man who'll fix everything they've spent the last 30 years destroying.

He is un-electable!

I fixed it for you.

ARS

[barbedwiresmile]

Originally Posted by Goaltender66

I'm on a sabbatical from my sabbatical. How've you been?

It's been entertaining around here.

[barbedwiresmile]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

He sounded like a cranky old kook with an axe to grind against Washington DC.

Whyever would one have an axe to grind against Washington D.C.?

[G29Reload]

I have tried my damnedest to like this guy and every time I think I'm on the cusp of some epiphany about him,he goes and says something untenable and stupid regarding foreign policy.

The "we deserved 9/11" is straight out of bin Laden's playbook.

The "stop bombing other countries and they'll leave us alone" crap is beyond naive.

The boos in the audience in SC last night were telling. The right thing to do with our enemies is KILL THEM. Enough with apologizing to filthy, degenerate foreigners. Stop your terrorism, searching for nukes to expand your dogmatic hegemony and extermination of anything not radical mooseslime and we'll stop killing you and not before.

If we would stop trying to fight wars in stupid, politically correct ways they wouldnt take nearly as long, and they'd be a lot more effective. After WWII, we had put the fear of God in people into all but a few of our enemies. We need to get back to that.

[22rtf2]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

I have tried my damnedest to like this guy and every time I think I'm on the cusp of some epiphany about him,he goes and says something untenable and stupid regarding foreign policy.

The "we deserved 9/11" is straight out of bin Laden's playbook.

The "stop bombing other countries and they'll leave us alone" crap is beyond naive.

The boos in the audience in SC last night were telling. The right thing to do with our enemies is KILL THEM. Enough with apologizing to filthy, degenerate foreigners. Stop your terrorism, searching for nukes to expand your dogmatic hegemony and extermination of anything not radical mooseslime and we'll stop killing you and not before.

If we would stop trying to fight wars in stupid, politically correct ways they wouldnt take nearly as long, and they'd be a lot more effective. After WWII, we had put the fear of God in people into all but a few of our enemies. We need to get back to that.

So the government comes up with mandated health care and thats overstepping?

Taxes are too high? That's the government.

Draconian gun laws? Yep, government.

Sticking their nose in other country's business half way around the world? The Uss New Jersey bombing residential housing in Beirut?

NO, IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S FAULT PEOPLE HATE US AND TO SAY SO IS TO BE PUT IN THE SAME CAMP AS BIN LADEN. WE CAN KILL WHOEVER THE **** WE WANT AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU'RE ON THE SIDE OF THE TERRORISTS!!

And if they hate us it's because they are on a crusade, or they hate our freedoms.

A little bit of info: you kill my family and they won't be able to identify your body. Well maybe by the knuckle dragging marks.

I blame the public schools.