Huntsman may have to go pro-choice as well. Basically, he hopes to be the last man standing to the right of center when the WASP rump party patched together of racists, religious people, corporate money, and stupidity falls apart because no one outside of their 20% trusts them even if Obama leads us into a Great Depression and Shariah Courts. Its a longshot, but thats his gamble, because to play now you have to embrace every stupid corner of the Republican Party.

I think he falls back on something similar to Romney's " I wont eat Obamas dog food"

Yes, but not only that he manages to instantly separate himself from the pack and does so backing something which is immensely popular.

He can keep his hand down, then the host would ask him for clarification and he can say that he is generally opposed to tax increases, but cannot in good conscience rule them out depending on details due to the problems the country faces with its deficit and debt, especially if it would mean getting big cuts across the party divide as indicated by the 10:1 ratio.

He may not get clapped by that crowd, maybe he would, but its a damn strong message to send and where he is in the race (and assuming he wants to actually be president in his life and plans another run in 4 years) he cant sit back and take the easy answer like the rest of the herd.

Didnt realise he was 64. Before i wikied him i just assumed he was early to mid 50s. In this case Huntsman would set himself up as a slightly right of center moderate part of the party more or less unopposed in 4 years if you take into account name recognition and experience. All the up and coming names are at least as right as Lawlplenty and verging into Bachmann and Perry territory.

He can be pro life, but just take the position he would safeguard the laws and constitution of America which right now mean abortion is a legal choice for the individual. Given it will never be possible to overturn Roe v Wade via a constitutional amendment its a waste of time to discuss it and there are pressing matters that can be set right and decided right now.

The funny thing is the "moderate" in the field doesnt even need to be particularly centrist in the normal definition.

What motivation would he have to run again after losing twice? What motivation will Republican donors have to give to a candidate that got so close to winning twice and never sealed the deal?

I expect Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio to get in the race. No way Romney beats those guys.

What's funny to me is how people stick with memes they have little to no understanding of. I'm not a moderate, nor have I claimed to be for almost 4 years now. But hey, Phil and Jules are gonna do what they do.

From looking at Magellan's Crosstabs on New Hampshire.

Republicans
Romney - 38.9%
Perry - 20.5%
Paul - 12.6%
Bachmann - 9.8%
Gingrich - 2.3%
Santourum - 1.9%
Huntsman - 1.2%
Other - 1.2%
Undecided - 8.2%

Independents
Romney - 30.4%
Paul - 18.5%
Perry - 13%
Bachmann - 11.4%
Huntsman - 6%
Gingrich - 2.2%
Santourum - 0%
Other - 8.2%
Undecided - 8.2%

Paul needs to try and appeal better to Republicans and GOTV with Independents in New Hampshire.

His favorability numbers are not so good. I'll post those in the morning.

I'm starting to think he can win this whole thing. Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin getting in the race can only further help him.

Paul has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination, but he could possibly win New Hampshire if everything fell just right.

By making him seem like a taller midget that will inevitably get knocked down when people start paying attention to him?

I remember you saying that a candidate who wins IA + NH will get the nomination 99% of the time. For Paul, though, that wouldn't even make him the frontrunner. Paul could win IA + NH with small pluralities and the combination of caucus + libertarian friendly state, respectively.

But at that point, the media narrative won't be "inevitable frontrunner!" It will be to declare him a "contender", and once he's a "contender" as opposed to the crazy old guy that no-one pays attention to, other candidates will start to see him as a threat and start attacking him. And once that happens, any "momentum" buzz he'll get will be vanquished. He wouldn't sputter and die, but he wouldn't be able to just cruise in and take 50%+ of the vote in all remaining contests as what usually happens when a candidate wins a bunch of early primaries. He'll have to face off against "Not Paul", and Paul loses to "Not Paul" over 99% of the time.

If Paul won Iowa and NH, there'd be massive pressure on all the mainstream Republicans to unite behind whoever looked best poised to beat him. There's no way he keeps winning primaries by small pluralities once people start dropping out.

Even if they didn't, proportional representation of delegates stop plurality wins from mattering as much.

LOL at anyone who think Huntsman has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination in 2012, 2016 or whenever with the current anti-government environment present.

The media loves pushing these lightweight moderates in the Republican Party because they know they are easy game. These gutless wonders get cut down in general elections every time (Ford, Dole, McCain), while those who campaign as conservatives win big (Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2). Unfortuantly, when they get into the White House, their actions aren't conservative and thats how the GOP always f's themselves with the we end up with clueless socialist jackasses like Carter and Obama.

Obama's reelection odds at an all time low on in trade today, at 48%

He might be over priced after seeing this:

http://articles.mcall.com/2011-08-19...proval-numbers

Kinda hard to win the Presidency with a 35% approval in PA. Enormous tanking from previous Mulhenburg polling numbers.

It is actually much worse than that on a state to state basis according to a Gallup poll out 10 days ago showing Obama > 50% approval in only 16 states +DC. This poll was on the basis of ~ 90,000 surveys taken from January thru June when Obama's composite approval was 47%. With it now down to the 40% neighborhood over the past several weeks, the current reality must be much worse:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148874/Ob...?version=print

Dwight Eisenhower says hi.

Barry Goldwater says hi.

Are you saying many voters are dumb? No! Say it ain't so!! They can be swayed by ads?!!!

"READ MY LIPS !!! NO NEW TAXES !!!!"
"I WILL BE THE EDUCATION PRESIDENT OF THIS CENTURY"
"I KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT CAN ACCOMPLISH! I JUST SPENT 8 YRS AS VICE PRESIDENT!!"

Read em' & weep! The River just gave us another "full of the same ol' crap" politician

Fox would fall in line, just like the GOP media machine did for McCain.

If by some miracle Paul wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he wins the nomination.

Why? Because he will have proven that he is a contender to the voters and can win tough elections. The voters are who decide the nominee, not the party elite.

Ron Paul is proving he is a contender right now. 14% in New Hampshire is nothing to sneeze at. The momentum from winning those two states would give him a boost that no one could match. Primary voters like winners and they go with the momentum.

I really really doubt it.

that's just wrong t13a

13th, if Paul actually does win the nomination people in this forum will deny that it ever happened.

again, they remind me of my friend who gave me 4-1 odds against Rand Paul winning the nomination in Kentucky - I think they're grossly misjudging the pulse of the American voter.