Poll: Ron Paul in third with 14% nationally

The latest NH primary poll released on Wednesday ,Aug 17th.

Romney 36%
Perry 18%
Paul 14%
Bachmann 10%
Cain 3%
Huntsman 3%
Gingrich 2%

This poll was conducted during the media blackout on Paul. It'll be interesting to see what effect the change in coverage will have on the next one.

 

So you are saying it's the "anyone but XYZ" syndrome, no more.
In that case, "anyone" need not be Romney.

btw - there is no big "L" liberal party, rather Libertarians, or liberals.

 

I think there will be a lot Of Dems sitting out this time around, especially the minorities. That be the case they would be better off running Clinton and cause some excitement....Right now AND later the Dem platform will be dead, nobody wants to hear Obama re-run speeches....
He is only effective as a sizzle speaker, his sizzle is long gone. Even the youth vote is leaving him...
If you have heard one Obama speech,,,you have heard them all......

 

If a lot of Democrats sit out this election, and if the Republicans nominate someone that the independents at least don't consider nutty, then we'll likely see a Republican POTUS in '12. What then? Will anything other than the letter after the president's name actually change?

 

On that subject, the poll I cited a few posts back has 18% of independents voting for Paul. Specifically:

Republican primary candidates, registered independents
Romney 30.4%
Paul 18.2%
Perry 13.0%
Bachmann 11.6%
Huntsman 6.1%
Cain 2.2%
Gingrich 2.1%

The media has claimed repeatedly that the independents think Paul is "nutty", but the data doesn't bear that out. They actually like Paul more than the Republicans in the same poll. In fact, Paul and Huntsman are the only 2 candidates that poll better among independents than they do among Republicans.
/stop letting the media tell you what to think.

 

Another data set reinforcing the point:

In the same poll cited above, Paul gets 13.1% among conservatives, 15.7% among moderates, and 23.7% among liberals; the only candidate that is more popular among liberals than he is among conservatives.

 

An assertion void of any evidence or argument!! Yet again, the actual evidence says that is nonsense. Our federal government was quite small for a very long time, and yet our economic well-being was very poor. China has a large and and authoritarian central government, and yet their economic well-being has improved exponentially. In fact, I have seen no evidence to support that assertion in my entire life.

Simplistic gibberish. The reality is there is bad government and there is good government. Just like there is bad business and good business. Just like there is good and bad in almost everything in the world. It is absurdly simplistic and silly to assert that government is the source of all the problems in the world(especially when there is mountains of evidence to show that is false), just as it is absurdly silly to assert that evil big business is the source of all the problems in the world. The reality is, the world is very complicated, and problems arise from a diverse set of sources. Sometimes they come from government, sometimes from business, sometimes from drug dealers, sometimes from warlords, sometimes from individuals, sometimes from the collective, and so on and so forth.

 

That is entirely misleading, because the category independent includes a large number of libertarians. A group who would favor Paul overwhelmingly. That group has almost nothing in common with the group of moderate independents who make up the largest share of the voting base. Those people are largely ambivalent towards Paul now(because many either don't know who he is, or know little about him), and if they did get to know him, would not like him. His opinions are incredibly unpopular with that group of people, even if libertarians love him.

 

That's your evidence? I'm not impressed.

Our Federal government was relatively small, yes, but it was still big in absolute terms and undeniably authoritarian. If you don't believe me, you can ask the slaves and the native Americans. I'm sure they'll attest to the authoritarian nature of our central government. Or you could ask the private unions that were quelled by Federal troops when they disrupted the operations of the politically connected railroad industry. There are too many instances to list, really.

I find it very hard to believe that someone could deny the obvious fact that our central government is and always has been quite oppressive and authoritarian. The statist myth that the early parts of our history was some libertarian model of governance is absurd in the extreme. Libertarians do not endorse slavery, genocide, corporatism, or the many other abuses of our central government. That is the legacy of centralized authority, not libertarianism.

It's absolutely true. Throughout human history, the most prolific human rights abuses have occurred under the auspices of authoritarian central governments. Just because it undermines your fealty to the state does not mean it is "simplistic gibberish." It is a demonstrable fact of history.

Yes, there is good and bad in the world. No one denies that, so you can spare me the platitudinous lecture. The point you seem intent on ignoring is that "good governance" has only corresponded with radical decentralization of power to the individual. Your earlier reference to China is laughable because it proves my point and not yours. It's only since the Chinese have moved towards a more market-oriented model has their standard of living has begun to rise, and it is their authoritarian central government that keeps them from realizing their full potential. I find it sickening that you could refer to the dictatorial and murderous Chinese regime as an example of the successes of powerful central government. They are by no means a success. They are a brutal dictatorship.

 

Yup,,,ObamaCARE will be gone,,that's a win, and I truly believe the Corporations will start to crank...unemployment will go down and just like with Reagan prosperity will follow...
And you will be able to get a brand new fly Rod.....

Bamboo....Classy...*

 

Frodly,

Take a moment to review what you just said here; it's complete self-conflicted gibberish. How could his opinions possibly be "incredibly unpopular" if they don't know what they are?

Perhaps what you *meant* to say is that his opinions themselves are unpopular with the mainstream electorate? If that's the case, then I'd love to see the data on which you've based such an absurd conclusion. I'm usually not one for proving negatives, but I certainly could in this case.

 

First of all, is that a statist myth?? Every libertarian and tea party member at this forum quotes the founding fathers constantly. They talk about how we need to go back to the principles of the founders, blah, blah. Yet now they were horrible statists? Do you differ radically from your very monolithic brethren who have a serious case of hive mind? Or are you simply spinning in order to support your argument?


On top of that, I know that we have never had your ideal. That is because it is a Utopian fairy tale. It can never exist. However, things more resembling your fairy tale HAVE existed, and the results were NOT positive. I have pointed my signature out to you before, but it really is relevant. So I will post it here.

"The essence of any utopianism is: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go."


That is EXACTLY what you do. I know that libertarianism is a Utopian fairy tale, you don't have to explain that to me. So all I have is evidence of a system more closely resembling your utopian, and as I said, the results were disastrous. Why would I assume, that if we just went a little further down that path, it would turn into the Utopia you describe? That is absurd. Especially when I have evidence of how wonderfully well the center left works, and I can look at the highest standard of living in human history, the period of greatest stability, the period of the greatest amount of freedom, etc created by the center left. I have no need for Utopias, when I have seen the reality that the center-left can bring about, and it is quite nice!!

That is irrelevant. You are again, incapable of distinguishing between good government and bad government. It would be like me pointing to Enron, and the recent oil spill as my only examples of business. Then claiming that all other businesses would eventually lead to that point if we allowed them to. Of course that is nonsense, and there is no evidence to support that assertion. I do not deny that fascist and communist dictatorships are terrible, but they are NOT relevant to any discussion of our liberal democratic state. You are simply alluding to a slippery slope fallacy, and that is just silly.

I think you need to do a quick dictionary search of what a platitude is. What I said was admittedly a bit trite, but trite does NOT mean inaccurate. Also, your boring, "government is evil" routine is FAR more trite than that!! In fact, a nuanced and moderate view of anything is quite rare these days. Which makes my nuanced and moderate view far less trite, and your anti-government hyperbole, almost the current definition of triteness!!

No, what it proves is that market economies are vastly superior to planned economies. When the Chinese made the shift, their economy grew exponentially. However that is not really up for debate. All serious people accept that market economies are vastly superior to planned economies. What China does NOT show is that authoritarian government is the enemy of economic growth. China has transformed into a market economy, but their government is STILL authoritarian. However, just to be clear, I DON'T see them as a model. Just proof that your assertion is false.

 

I am sorry, but I am confused. I said his "his opinions are incredibly unpopular." Yet that was "self-conflicted gibberish." However, what I meant to say according to you was "his opinions themselves." I am sorry, but what is the difference between his "opinions" and his "opinions themselves," because I personally cannot see one!!

 

Speaking as a neutral observer, and having one watched the debate:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom#p/a/f/0/sdGsPioLLvQ

Ron Paul is the only one that talked any sense. The rest just talked about pure meaningless issues, and sounded all too similar to America's worthless mainstream media.

One would almost get the impression that America's politicians and media think the masses are stupid and ignorant, to be easily manipulated with such distracting issues as foreign "conflicts". Listen here you Americans: YOU DO NOT REALLY HAVE ANY FOREIGN CONFLICTS GOING ON! Likely your government is just needlessly starting fights to have little wars to distract you from REAL politics. This is a common tactic used by dictators of oppressed countries, and a great way to funnel public money into the hands of military industrialist allies.

The most important things that matter are MONEY and EMPLOYMENT. Your politicians do not want to deal with the real issues, and your media is all to complicit in avoiding talk about the true problems. Then both main parties use immigration as a distracting issue, while at the same time each party has already proved time after time, through their inaction when they held power, that they are perfectly satisfied with the status quo.

 

We can't "return" to their principles because they were never fully realized.

They were men of their time who failed to live up to high-minded ideals they espoused so eloquently. I simply want to realize their dream of a free and prosperous society.

Defenders of the status quo have always made excuses for why alternative systems of government couldn't be implemented. You are no different.

And there is nothing "utopian" about libertarian federalism. A central government with limited and narrowly construed powers (military, space exploration, courts, law enforcement, land tax, etc.) with the rest left up to states and localities. It's a perfectly reasonable, perfectly achievable form of government. That's why the most brilliant political philosophers in history tried to model their new government after such an ideal.

Really? What countries are these? I'd be interested to see a single country in history that satisfied the following criteria:

• A free market of competiting currencies
• No drug prohibition
• A national land tax
• A strong military
• No government enforced bigotry
• A central government with narrowly construed powers
• Local control over social welfare

Please, show me one country in human history that was even remotely similar to this.

Self-serving bullcrap masquerading as an objective analysis. Your specialty.

Your analogy would make sense if virtually every private business in history had acted like that, but they haven't. I can't say the same for central governments. They have been, almost without exception, authoritarian and oppressive in one way or another. The good governments have been few and far between.

Yes, yes. You're eminently reasonable and full of nuance. We're all very impressed.

China has not transformed into a "market economy" by any stretch of the imagination. They are still an oppressive dictatorship. They have merely decentralized power - i.e., shifted towards markets - in some limited circumstances; of course, this instantly lead to increases in the general well-being and happiness of their citizenry, but they are still a long, long way from realizing their full potential. You'll see that the more they decentralize power over the years, the more their standard of living will rise, and the more liberty and happiness its people will enjoy.

 

Don't sweat it. I was just clarifying your position, and your response seems to confirm my suspicion.
So... On what basis do you make the statement that "his opinions are unpopular"? If you're talking about the vast majority of his opinions, the charge is demonstrably false. If you're talking about how any individual can find something to take issue with, that much is true... but it's equally true for any candidate.