-
-
Poll: Ron Paul, Mitt Romney stack up well against Obama
The State Column | | Monday, January 30, 2012
Republican presidential candidates Ron Paul and Mitt Romney stack up well against President Barack Obama, according to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll. Although neither candidate was able to defeat Mr. Obama in a hypothetical general election, both Mr. Paul and Mr. Romney represent the Republican Party’s best shot at taking back the White House in 2012.
Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts Governor, tied Mr. Obama in a hypothetical general election with 48 percent of the votes each. Mr. Paul, a Texas congressman, was bested by Mr. Obama in a hypothetical election by 3 percentage points.
Mr. Obama clobbered the other Republican presidential candidates in the hypothetical general election. Mr. Obama defeated former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum by 8 percentage points and trounced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich by 12 percentage points.
During last Thursday’s Republican presidential debate in Florida, Mr. Paul argued that he is candidate with the best shot of beating Mr. Obama in the general election.
“We have some pretty good evidence that I’ll do quite well and have a better chance than the rest to beat him, because if you do a national poll, I do very, very well against Obama,” Mr. Paul posited.
“The freedom message in the Constitution is very appealing to everybody in all political beliefs because it includes free markets, which conservatives endorse, but it also protects civil liberties, the way people run their lives,” Mr. Paul added.
Mr. Romney has always billed himself as the Republican Party’s most electable candidate in the November election.
“I will be able to convince the American people that someone with my experience is very different than Barack Obama,” Mr. Romney professed at CNN’s Republican presidential debate.
Despite their vastly different positions in the polls, Mr. Romney and Mr. Paul have the best chance of chalking up a victory for the Republican Party in November.Comment
-
Will Ron Paul win more delegates this week than Gingrich, Santorum?
Ron Paul is likely to win more delegates to the 2012 GOP convention than either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum this week. Wait. What? That's why he campaigned in Maine this weekend.
By Peter Grier, Staff writer / January 30, 2012
This week, Ron Paul is likely to win more delegates to the 2012 GOP convention than either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. In fact, he’s likely to win more delegates than Gingrich and Santorum combined.
“Hold it”, you’re saying, “How can that be? Rep. Paul’s polling in single digits in Florida. He’s going to finish behind Gingrich and Santorum, as well as Mitt Romney, in Tuesday’s Florida primary. How can that translate into beating any of his rivals at all?”
We’ll tell you how – because he’s not winning those delegates in Florida. He’s winning, or will probably win, at least a few delegates in Maine.
RECOMMENDED: The roar of Ron Paul: Five of his unorthodox views on the economy
Paul took a quick two-day swing through Maine over the weekend, in case you didn’t notice. He met with GOP Gov. Paul LePage. He spoke to big crowds throughout the state – in Lewiston, apparently, event organizers had to expand his conference room to handle the people who showed up.
He even landed the coveted L.L. Bean endorsement – that's Linda Lorraine Bean, heiress of the L.L. Bean empire and a lobster roll entrepreneur in her own right. She endorsed Paul on Saturday from her restaurant in the retail outlet mecca of Freeport.
Asked why she wasn’t supporting fellow New Englander Mitt Romney, Ms. Bean said “I’ve always been for Ron Paul”, according to a statement posted on Paul’s campaign web site.
As we’ve previously reported, unnoticed by most of the DC-based political establishment, the Maine caucuses actually began this weekend. So Paul wasn’t in Maine just because he likes riding around in salt-crusted Suburus.
Most Maine towns will hold their caucuses during the state GOP’s preferred window of February 4-11. But “most” doesn’t mean “all”. Lincoln, Lowell, Burlington, Chester, Enfield, Winn, and Howland held their joint caucus on Saturday. Millinocket’s was on Sunday. And so forth.
Each Maine caucus is holding a presidential preference straw poll, the state-wide results of which will be announced February 11. This poll is non-binding. But each caucus is also starting the process of selecting delegates to the state and national GOP conventions. The Paul campaign is making a big push to get its people involved in politics at this level. It is highly likely that some Paul supporters won delegate slots over the weekend – news reports indicated that the Paul crowd was making a big pitch at some caucus sites.
“After spending two days plus up in Maine, I was very encouraged,” Paul himself said Sunday during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union with Candy Crowley”.
Asked whether he was going to win Maine’s caucuses, Paul told Crowley, “We did pretty well three years ago [in Maine] and we weren’t nearly as well organized. And Romney’s been popular up there, but less so right now. So I would say that we have a very good chance.”
Now Maine has only 24 delegates total, so it’s not like the Pine Tree State strategy is a springboard that will somersault Paul into the White House. Florida has 50 delegates, almost twice as many, despite the fact that it’s been penalized by the national GOP for advancing its primary.
But Florida is winner-take-all. That means, if Gingrich and Santorum finish behind Romney, as polls currently indicate they will, neither of them will win any delegates. Nada. Zip.
So Paul only had to score one more delegate in Maine this weekend to outperform them, convention-wise.Given that Maine Republicans tend to be more libertarian than socially conservative, and given that Paul actually campaigned there, we think that's a likely occurrence.
Of course, the comparison is not entirely fair. At this stage in the race, the higher priority for both Gingrich and Santorum is maintaining a sense of momentum and a flow of donation dollars. Both could accomplish that by performing well in Florida, whether they win any delegates or not.
Paul, in contrast, already has a core of committed supporters and enough money to keep going to the convention in Tampa. He’s not trying to win the presidency as much as he is trying to maximize his ability to spread his libertarian message.Comment
-
That's reaching, Doc!
Another way to put it is......Paul and Mitt won't lose as badly as Newt and Santorum
Originally posted by vandeleurE- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first place
Comment
-
The roar of Ron Paul: Five of his unorthodox views on the economy
1. Federal budget deficits
From a statement released by Ron Paul on April 25, 2011:
"Last week the financial markets were roiled by Standard & Poor’s announcement that they will change their outlook on the fiscal health of the United States over the next two years from 'stable' to 'negative'....
"Even the most conservative budget that has been proposed by Republican leadership requires raising the debt ceiling by an additional $9 trillion by 2021. This demonstrates absolutely that no one in power right now has any real intention of addressing our spending problems or paying down the debt. They simply expect to continue to borrow and run up more debt forever, without limit.
"Yet they always imagine our dollar will have value no matter how many we print. This expectation is foolish and naïve. I guarantee that those buying our debt are not foolish and naïve enough to go along with this charade forever."
2. Taxes and the size government
From an interview with Cenk Uygur on MSNBC, March 2, 2011:
Uygur: What do you think should be the proper income tax rate?
Paul: Well, the best would be zero. I mean, we lived most of our history with zero income tax. But you would have to have the proper sized government. You would have to have the proper role for government.
You can't be the policeman of the world and not have an income tax. So I would not have all my troops around the world. I would be bringing the troops home.
And I wouldn't have a military industrial complex that demands so much, but I wouldn't have a welfare state either.
And under those conditions, you don't need an income tax. And I think that's the way it should be....
I think when people take money from you and give it to somebody else, that's the equivalent of stealing from you. I don't want to take any of your money. I want
you to invest it and create jobs.
3. The gold standard
From a congressional hearing, Sept. 17, 2000:
"A characteristic of paper money, of fiat money, is that some benefit and others lose. And a good example of this of how Wall Street benefits, certainly Wall Street is doing very well, but just the other day I had one of my shrimpers in my district call me. He says he's tying up his boat. His oil prices have more than doubled, and he can't afford it, so for now he will have to close down shop.
"So he suffers more than a person on Wall Street. So it is an unfair system. And this is not unusual; this is a characteristic well-known, that when you destroy and debase a currency, some people will suffer more than others....
"If you increase the supply of money, you have inflation."
4. Federal Reserve
From a congressional hearing, July 16, 2008:
"Our government tells us, well, there is no recession so things must be all right. A lot of people are very angry....
"From my viewpoint, what we need is a world-class dollar, you know, a dollar that is sound, not a dollar that continues to depreciate and not a system where we perpetually just resort to inflation and deficit-financing to bail out everybody. And this is what we've been doing.... The handwriting on the wall is, there's a limit to how many times we can bail the dollar out, because conditions are so much worse today than they have ever been.
"You know, we talk a lot about predatory lending, but I see the predatory lending coming from the Federal Reserve – interest at 1 percent, overnight rates, loaning to the banks, encouraging the banks and investors to do the wrong things, causing all the malinvestment."
5. Free markets
From a congressional hearing, March 24, 2009:
Paul: The question really comes out, who should allocate capital? Is it the free market, or should it be government? And I think that we had a system where the free market wasn't working, and we didn't have capitalism. The allocation of capital came from the direction of the Federal Reserve and a lot of rules and regulations by the Congress.
We had essentially no savings, and capital's supposed to come from savings; and we had artificially low interest rates. So look at all that, and this means we'd have to look differently at what our solutions should be. Everybody loves the boom. That was great. Nobody questions all this. But when the bust comes, everybody hates it.....
So where do you put the blame, on the market or on crony capitalism that we've been living with probably for three decades?
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: Congressman, I certainly do not reject capitalism. I don't think this was a failure of capitalism per se.... It is nevertheless the case that we've seen over the decades and the centuries that financial systems can be prone to panics, runs, booms, busts. And for better or worse, we have developed mechanisms like deposit insurance and lender of last resort to try to avert those things. Those protections, in turn, require some oversight to avoid the build-up of risk....
Paul: Isn't that what creates the moral hazard, though? Isn't that the problem, rather than the solution?Comment
-
I give up already
I'll vote for him FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll vote for him in 3rd place
Originally posted by vandeleurE- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first placeComment
-
According to wikipedia, here are the current delegate totals:
Romney: 33
Gingrich: 28
Paul: 10
Santorum: 8
Total necessary is nearly 1,200. Every delegate is another voice at the convention. We'll see how it goes.Comment
-
So Grandpa Paul is only 2 delegates ahead of Santorum
What day will be the Paul and Santorum day at the convention......don't want to miss that!
Hell, they give Paul what....10% talk time in the debates but he'll take over the convention?
Beg him to run as an Independent....it's the only chance he's got.Originally posted by vandeleurE- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first placeComment
-
Ron Paul is a cranky old charisma-less curmudgeon, and probably still a racist to boot.
He will never see the inside of the White House as anything other than a visitor.Twistin' by the pool.Comment
-
Love the idea, in theory and I agree........a small but effective government, been preaching that for years, the particulars leave me scratching my head.Uygur: What do you think should be the proper income tax rate?
Paul: Well, the best would be zero. I mean, we lived most of our history with zero income tax. But you would have to have the proper sized government. You would have to have the proper role for government.
You can't be the policeman of the world and not have an income tax. So I would not have all my troops around the world. I would be bringing the troops home.
And I wouldn't have a military industrial complex that demands so much, but I wouldn't have a welfare state either.
And under those conditions, you don't need an income tax. And I think that's the way it should be....
I think when people take money from you and give it to somebody else, that's the equivalent of stealing from you. I don't want to take any of your money. I want
you to invest it and create jobs.
How will this work?
No National Highway System......privatize it or let us fend for ourselves?
No National Park System.....privatize it or let it go to the highest bidder?
No FDA(the FDA sucks and it should cleaned up from the top down)
No Endowments for The Arts?
Arlington National Cemetery.....plots starting at $1,900.00?
Yes, the Military Industrial Complex alone would inject what? 60% of our GDP back into the economy but his approach is fine in theory but how will he do it and who decides what gets axed?Originally posted by vandeleurE- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first placeComment
-
Maybe he could pre-emptively give away all his negotiating points and then let the Congress screw it to the point that what we wind up benefits the corporations and lobbyists more than the people.
Wait, that sounds all-too familiar... I can't quite put my finger on it, but I'm pretty sure it didn't work the last time we tried it.Comment
-
Yes, and deregulating everything sent us into the last Depression and the current Depression.
Look... going to the extreme on both sides is killing us. A nice center of the road path is what will get us there....not a extreme right turn.
I want government regulations on the things that effect my welfare and safety, period.
When I call 9/11 I want a cop or firetruck there now! I gladly pay for those services in taxes and if I ever need them I don't want a bill I want the service I paid for.
I want clean air and fresh water....I don't trust that businesses will police themselves and not pollute those things.
See where I'm going with this, bro?Originally posted by vandeleurE- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first placeComment
-
Seriously.... what's his plan on doing all the things he says?
OK, he shuts down everything on day one of his Presidency.....what happens on day two to the world's economy when he shuts down the Federal Reserve.[One of the true BCE type FORD theories, BTW]
It'll all be puppy dogs and violets the next day?
That's it...poof! It's all good!
It would take 10 years to transition government and the markets and that's if congress could get along perfectly.
He'd be 86 by then
Originally posted by vandeleurE- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first placeComment
-
I know where you're going with it. I'll quote what I said a few pages ago, again, in response:
I don't give a lot of worry to the idea that he's going to deregulate everything because of a few reasons:
1.) It's not his mission right now. He's said as much. He thinks it would be better for the nation, but it's not where his priorities are.
2.) He's pretty much said that he would try to safe guard a lot of our social systems and focus on changing our foreign policy and focus on rebuilding the nation
3.) The power to regulate is a power of the Congress, not the President, and they won't pass a bill deregulating everything. Just won't happen.
4.) Paul is true to his word more than any other candidate running. When he says he isn't going to focus on deregulation, I believe him.
So again ... I'm not worried about a deregulation doomsday that you guys throw around. It's not what Paul is running on, and it's not what he'd try to accomplish. I dunno if you've watched the debates, but he's been pretty vocal about it.Comment
-
He's already said that's not how he would try to go about doing it. He's said he'd do it like they did before when they moved from a fiat currency back to gold/silver the last time.Seriously.... what's his plan on doing all the things he says?
OK, he shuts down everything on day one of his Presidency.....what happens on day two to the world's economy when he shuts down the Federal Reserve.[One of the true BCE type FORD theories, BTW]
It'll all be puppy dogs and violets the next day?
That's it...poof! It's all good!
It would take 10 years to transition government and the markets and that's if congress could get along perfectly.
He'd be 86 by thenComment
Tweet
Comment