.

If the main discussion of Paul's electability becomes about his age, then that's a win for Paul. I think this election is ultimately about how people think Obama has done. Paul needs to talk about the economy. Even when talking about the wars, talk about it's cost and how it's hurting the economy. Economy, economy, economy.

just turned on FoxNews for the debate, and Bill O'Reily says (disparagingly) "you're wandering into the valley of theory". forgot how silly it was.

Matt Drudge is a good boy.

dont know the guys name but he said roughly "i made a mistake. nobody is perfect. if some here is perfect and running for president please step forward"

i was really hoping RP would step forward. i mean when it comes to voting record (which the guy was talking about) he is perfect(ly consistent)


obv he really wouldnt step forward but im playing the drink everytime they say osama and that first bit killed me

He has made votes he regrets. Authorization of force after 9/11 for one.

good point boro

___


so ive never watched a debate before. i really didnt like how everyone got asked different questions. if you know little about the candidates this is probably the worst way to find out more about them. for example i knew there was another libertarian in there but by the end i still didnt know which it was. granted i was drinking throughout. gary johnson just came off as a principled republican. the point is the format of it makes the viewer more interested in who has the "lucky" answer to the "best" question.

also wtf RP has to go first much more often instead of going down the line in the reverse order. im sure they draw straws or w/e for order but increased variance in politics is pretty awful procedure.


edit: trying to be fully unbiased i think he clearly won. a few ppl (esp the black guy) kept spouting generalities or talking about being able to crush dem incubents (lol whoever that was) instead of actually answering questions. it just seemed really embarrassing for the republicans but yea im prolly a little biased in that

I agree mostly with your overall post, but, just to join the libertarian circle-jerk, Gary Johnson was pro-immigration, anti-drug war, pro-free trade and for the most part pro-abortion. What about him came off as typical Republican?

Also I thought Ron Paul did really well and made a lot of sense in his angry old man sort of way. Not that it changes anything but... gg.

"I'm not perfect but the message of freedom is and I do a decent job delivering it" would have been his move imo.

Those people were pretty lame. This isn't as fun without Giuliani and McCain and the steel chairs.

Give it a little time. Romney and Gingrich are on the way.

FYI the money bomb broke $1M.

principled Republican.


Kind of like Jumbo Shrimp, and Intelligent Woman.

yea and i was probably wrong on him. our internet was lagging terribly so i switched to my aircard and missed a few of his arguments

I like Ron Paul, and I admire the fact that he's able to get so many young people interested in politics, but does anyone actually think he has any shot at winning in a general election? The guy will get crucified in an election against Obama.

If Ron Paul were to get the nomination, it won't be long before some reporter asks him about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that will quickly destroy any chance he has of winning. In a Paul-Obama election, Paul takes maybe 10 states.

I'm pretty sure that Paul, and his supporters, know this. They're doing this to get attention for their philosophy.

NO WE DO NOT ACCEPT DEFEAT NOBODY THOUGHT OBAMA COULD WIN EITHER AT THE START BOOM YES WE CAN

If Obama can win 40 states against any GOP in this economy, the GOP should just close up shop.

As for Paul's chances, I think it comes down to how the economy is doing, and how many people hear and agree with Paul's message. I'm not sure how much these other issues are going to impact people's votes. Unfortunately in last night's debate, Paul didn't get the economy questions.

i agree, unfortunately in today's climate, you have to be a good liar and a sociopath to win...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...op-nomination/

"According to the poll, taken before the announcement of Osama bin Laden's death, President Barack Obama has an edge over all the top GOP candidates in hypothetical match-ups.

Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama.

The poll indicates the president leading Gingrich by 17 points, Palin by 19, and Trump by 22 points."


The worse the economy gets, the better chance he has, IMO. And it'll most likely be considerably worse by the time the primaries roll around.

Even if Paul magically wins the primary these numbers will go down when the Obama campaign starts spending a billion dollars against Paul. There are plenty of gems that can be used against him.

Once people start to learn the subtleties of Ron Paul's views, his poll numbers will plummet. In a H2H race against Obama, he'd get crushed.

Look at what happened to Rand once he entered the general election. He survived and was able to win, but only because Kentucky is an extreme right-wing leading state.

Paul would probably crush harder then most people give him credit for in a general election due to the fact that he does well with independents and he'd still get most of his guaranteed party votes

kentucky is hardly an extreme right-wing leading state.

Ron Paul is the only Republican I would vote for. I really hope he wins the primary.