2012 Presidential Campaign

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Saw where Rasmussen now has Romney ahead of Newt 23-20, with Paul at 18.

Very surprising, but I don't buy that one quite yet. It's way off from other polls looking at the same period.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Isn't the issue, though, that there are such divergent views/priorities within the party right now that a 3rd party wouldn't be able to gain much traction with a significant number of Republicans, much less the general public?

It is. From an outsider's view, I see three factions.

1. The establishment that would prefer Romney or a "moderate"
2. Libertarian Paulistas
3. Strong Conservatives (fiscal, social, pro-Israel, etc...)

Not saying a third party would capture enough interest to win, but would placate the people that are sick of voting for somebody that doesn't fit into their "faction" of the anti-Obama movement.

At this point, I'm not seeing any scenario with the current crop of GOP candidates where Obama doesn't cruise to an easy victory. The more people that realize this, the better chance we have of the factions splitting off and running their own candidates, if nothing else to see which faction has the most popular support.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Very surprising, but I don't buy that one quite yet. It's way off from other polls looking at the same period.

What's interesting about it - if accurate that is - is the significant change from previous Rasmussen poll of Iowa in mid-November. At that point it was 32 Newt / 19 Mitt / 13 Cain. Paul had 10% then and didn't even make the headline of the release. It's also the fifth straight Ras. poll with a different leader in Iowa.

Newt's sharp decline + Cain's exit means that 25% of voters have switched horses in the past month. With the exception of Paul (who I suppose got his bump from ex-Cain), the rest seem to have scattered pretty evenly. I can buy that happening. If you weren't on already on board with a front-runner, it seems as though you're still shopping so buying a different off-brand seems reasonable to me.

The outlier in this poll (vs the PPP and Ins.Adv. ones also from this week) is very much Romney. Ras. has him much stronger than either, well past the margin of error (In.Adv has him at 12, PPP has him at 16). The variance for every other candidate is within all the margins, so either they're picking up a huge swing or they're missing his mark very badly. Newt's drop on the other hand seems to be real.

Rasmussen
November - December
Newt 32- 20 (-12)
Mitt 19 - 23 (+4)
Cain 13 - 0 (-13)
Paul 10 - 18 (+8)
Perry 6 - 10 (+4)
Bachman 6 - 9 (+3)
Santorum 5 - 6 (+1)
Huntsman 2 - 5 (+3)
Other/Undecided 7 - 9 (+2)
(Margin +/- 5% )

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

Kind of what I figured. Are there any rumblings of something like that emerging or would that be something that would pick up more if Ron Paul started to emerge more. I can see plenty of conservative (R)s still plugging their nose and voting for Gingrich or Romney (while a significant portion like yourself wouldn't). But if Ron Paul were the nominee I think it'd be much easier for traditional conservative wing to setup their own candidate.

I don't see it happening with any significance this time around. How it all plays out might be the catalyst for a distinct split down the road IMO.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What's interesting about it - if accurate that is - is the significant change from previous Rasmussen poll of Iowa in mid-November. At that point it was 32 Newt / 19 Mitt / 13 Cain. Paul had 10% then and didn't even make the headline of the release. It's also the fifth straight Ras. poll with a different leader in Iowa.

Newt's sharp decline + Cain's exit means that 25% of voters have switched horses in the past month. With the exception of Paul (who I suppose got his bump from ex-Cain), the rest seem to have scattered pretty evenly. I can buy that happening. If you weren't on already on board with a front-runner, it seems as though you're still shopping so buying a different off-brand seems reasonable to me.

The outlier in this poll (vs the PPP and Ins.Adv. ones also from this week) is very much Romney. Ras. has him much stronger than either, well past the margin of error (In.Adv has him at 12, PPP has him at 16). The variance for every other candidate is within all the margins, so either they're picking up a huge swing or they're missing his mark very badly. Newt's drop on the other hand seems to be real.

Rasmussen
November - December
Newt 32- 20 (-12)
Mitt 19 - 23 (+4)
Cain 13 - 0 (-13)
Paul 10 - 18 (+8)
Perry 6 - 10 (+4)
Bachman 6 - 9 (+3)
Santorum 5 - 6 (+1)
Huntsman 2 - 5 (+3)
Other/Undecided 7 - 9 (+2)
(Margin +/- 5% )

Paul's campaign has been spending a lot of money on anti-Gingrich advertising in Iowa. Take it for what its worth. I am with you that Paul has about a 0.0001% shot at getting the nomination but this could account for some of the changes with Newt.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Paul's campaign has been spending a lot of money on anti-Gingrich advertising in Iowa. Take it for what its worth. I am with you that Paul has about a 0.0001% shot at getting the nomination but this could account for some of the changes with Newt.

I'd think there's a real chance that a spate of anti-Newt ads could hurt him (Newt) without necessarily helping Paul directly.

There's also another interesting bit of speculation you could do from this poll. Cain supporters were expected to revert to Newt more than anyone else, so if that happened, how big a loss did Newt take from his backers a month ago? Let's say he got even half of Cain's group, that means Newt actually dropped 18% of his own November supporters, and the 6'ish that's still propping him up would likely be pretty soft (since they were someone else's a month ago). If you really wanted to engage in some what-ifs, a surge by Romney (if real) and softer support for Newt could leave him finishing 3rd Iowa when all is said & done. I'm not saying that'll happen, just playing the what-if game a little bit..

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't see it happening with any significance this time around. How it all plays out might be the catalyst for a distinct split down the road IMO.

I think we've been moving down that road for a long, long time, and Paul's performance might very well be the final catalyst for the establishment of a viable 3rd party. There's an ever-increasing split in the GOP, one I don't see being mended...well, ever. If it was ever going to happen, this would be the time. The splits in the Republican Party is arguably as wide at this point as the split between Dems and Reps.

'Course, I see as equally likely one GOP faction continuing to dominate, with the others being silenced and shoved to the side. Which effectively keeps Obama right where he is, and may very well push congress further left. (A scenario which could just as easily occur with the establishment of said 3rd party, depending on how many democrats it can entice).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

The splits in the Republican Party is arguably as wide at this point as the split between Dems and Reps.

I wouldn't disagree with that, at least not too much. The hair I'd probably split is one about the number of disagreements, but not about the depth.

depending on how many democrats it can entice).

There's another possibility to consider I think. Not one that brings D's to R1/R2/R3 but rather one that leads to a D1/D2 split. Something along the lines of "if they can do it, maybe we could too".

[JonInMiddleGA]

FWIW, argue amongst yourselves

My Way News - AP-GfK Poll: Obama re-election odds roughly 50-50

For the first time, the poll found that a majority of adults, 52 percent, said Obama should be voted out of office while 43 percent said he deserves another term. The numbers mark a reversal since last May, when 53 percent said Obama should be re-elected while 43 percent said he didn't deserve four more years.

Obama's overall job approval stands at a new low, with 44 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving. The president's standing among independents is worse: Thirty-eight percent approve while 59 percent disapprove. Among Democrats, the president holds steady with an approval rating of 78 percent while only 12 percent of Republicans approve of the job he's doing.

...

The poll found unpopularity for last year's health care overhaul. About half of the respondents oppose the health care law and support for it dipped to 29 percent from 36 percent in June. Just 15 percent said the federal government should have the power to require all Americans to buy health insurance.

Even among Democrats, the health care law has tepid support. Fifty percent of Democrats supported the health care law, compared with 59 percent of Democrats last June. Only about a quarter of independents back the law.

The same poll shows him beating both Romney and Gingrich btw.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The same poll shows him beating both Romney and Gingrich btw.

That kinda speaks to how bad the public views all of the candidates in this cycle. They don't think Obama should be re-elected, but at the same time they don't think Gingrich or Romney should be elected.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That kinda speaks to how bad the public views all of the candidates in this cycle. They don't think Obama should be re-elected, but at the same time they don't think Gingrich or Romney should be elected.

Granted, I'm not the target audience, but watching the debate last night, I continued to wonder how anyone could find any of the Republican candidates fit for the presidency. Shut down the Ninth Circuit! Attack Iran! These people make Ron Paul sound eminently reasonable.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That kinda speaks to how bad the public views all of the candidates in this cycle. They don't think Obama should be re-elected, but at the same time they don't think Gingrich or Romney should be elected.

I think Obama will get a second term in much the same way that Bush2 got a second term. Failure to put a decent opponent against a very beatable incumbent.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That kinda speaks to how bad the public views all of the candidates in this cycle.

It ain't exactly an impressive group

[Swaggs]

Another gem by the Onion:

Mitt Romney Haunted By Past Of Trying To Help Uninsured Sick People | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[panerd]

After last night’s debate I felt the need to once again discuss foreign policy and the duplicitous world the Republican candidates all seem to live in. What I find most amusing about the war mongers is (to my knowledge) none of the candidates except Paul has actually served in the armed forces. On top of that Gingrich is supposedly very sketchy on whether he actively dodged the draft and definitely was deferred from any combat. Don't get me wrong one is entitled to an opinion and stance on issues without a military background but I find the "actually served in combat" to be something I would take into serious consideration when determining my commander in chief.

Nothing new or particularly groundbreaking I know but I sometimes wonder how I fell asleep and woke up in the world where Kerry purple hearts are questioned by someone whose chose to do their Vietnam service in Texas and where a man like Paul who saw active duty and actually witnessed (as a doctor) the carnage of war is "clueless" to the “real world” according to the other candidates who don’t serve their country but at the drop of a hat want to send other people's children off to war.


Guess we are in store for either Obama/Romney or Obama/Gingrich (even worse) on who is the biggest "badass on terror" while completely avoiding actually doing anything about it when they were younger.

END RANT.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

After last night’s debate I felt the need to once again discuss foreign policy and the duplicitous world the Republican candidates all seem to live in. What I find most amusing about the war mongers is (to my knowledge) none of the candidates except Paul has actually served in the armed forces. On top of that Gingrich is supposedly very sketchy on whether he actively dodged the draft and definitely was deferred from any combat. Don't get me wrong one is entitled to an opinion and stance on issues without a military background but I find the "actually served in combat" to be something I would take into serious consideration when determining my commander in chief.

Nothing new or particularly groundbreaking I know but I sometimes wonder how I fell asleep and woke up in the world where Kerry purple hearts are questioned by someone whose chose to do their Vietnam service in Texas and where a man like Paul who saw active duty and actually witnessed (as a doctor) the carnage of war is "clueless" to the “real world” according to the other candidates who don’t serve their country but at the drop of a hat want to send other people's children off to war.


Guess we are in store for either Obama/Romney or Obama/Gingrich (even worse) on who is the biggest "badass on terror" while completely avoiding actually doing anything about it when they were younger.

END RANT.

When was the last time we had a President that actually did active-duty combat-tours though (as opposed to military service in somewhere like Texas as you point out).

Kennedy?

It's just not that common (unfortunately I agree).

[JediKooter]

Bush - Navy pilot in WW2 I believe.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

When was the last time we had a President that actually did active-duty combat-tours though (as opposed to military service in somewhere like Texas as you point out).

Kennedy?

It's just not that common (unfortunately I agree).

No I agree. Don't get me wrong you can't have a background in everything even for a position as powerful as the United States president. And certainly someone like John McCain has a completely different opinion on the war and I respect it. I just find it amusing that Paul is the "nutjob" of the party on this issue when he is the only one who actually has served in combat and has seen what goes on to even the good guys. (Sorry but I doubt Gingrich, Bachman, etc tours of Iraq actually took them to the heart of what war is all about)

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

No I agree. Don't get me wrong you can't have a background in everything even for a position as powerful as the United States president. And certainly someone like John McCain has a completely different opinion on the war and I respect it. I just find it amusing that Paul is the "nutjob" of the party on this issue when he is the only one who actually has served in combat and has seen what goes on to even the good guys. (Sorry but I doubt Gingrich, Bachman, etc tours of Iraq actually took them to the heart of what war is all about)

I think it should be requirement that any presidential candidate, has to spend a week working in a veterans hospital. Not just with the vets that have been physically hurt, but, that have also suffered mentally. Pipe dream, I know. A years worth of economics classes should be required too.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Bush - Navy pilot in WW2 I believe.

Ya, and he was very active in the Pacific. Just refreshing my memory through wiki now, but he did 58 combat missions - on one of them his plane was hit, he completed the bombing mission, and then bailed out via parachute - the other two pilots in the plane were killed, and Bush was rescued after 4 hours on a raft in the ocean somewhere. He went back to work on pilot rescue duty after that.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Another gem by the Onion:

Mitt Romney Haunted By Past Of Trying To Help Uninsured Sick People | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

I'm a fan of this one.

Even Newt Gingrich A Little Depressed By Prospect Of Him Running For President | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

WASHINGTON—Expressing a reaction similar to millions of other dismayed Americans, Newt Gingrich admitted Monday that he too was feeling "pretty bummed out" about the prospect of a Newt Gingrich presidential campaign.

While confirming his ardent desire to be president, the former Speaker of the House told reporters the mere fact that American voters were seriously considering Newt Gingrich to be a viable Republican candidate in 2012 was a fairly distressing development that made him question the direction the country was moving in.

"Even when I see my name on a list of potential candidates, I think, you gotta be kidding me—Newt Gingrich?" said Gingrich, frowning and shaking his head in disbelief. "People are actually getting excited about the guy who engineered the 1995 government shutdown? I'm sorry, but that's just sad."

"It's 2011, for God's sake," Gingrich added. "Can't we get a fresher name to represent the Republican Party in the 21st century than Newt Gingrich?"

Though he acknowledged a Gingrich candidacy would definitely fire up certain segments of the conservative base, and likely build up a fair amount of momentum on name- recognition alone, Gingrich said that knowing we lived in a world where these kinds of political realities existed at all was a rather grim and sobering thought.

In addition, the retired Georgia representative expressed a sense of deep disappointment that people actually seemed this willing to throw their support behind a past-his-prime reactionary with an anti-everything stance and a history of marital infidelity.

"Hell, look at me: I'm a public relations nightmare," said Gingrich, adding that, for many years in the late '90s and early 2000s, his name was basically a punch line. "Remember that whole thing with me divorcing my wife while she was still in the hospital recovering from cancer? For my campaign's sake, I hope people have forgotten about that. But c'mon, it's a pretty bleak political landscape when the presidential campaign of a known philanderer is actually getting off the ground."

...

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, and he was very active in the Pacific. Just refreshing my memory through wiki now, but he did 58 combat missions - on one of them his plane was hit, he completed the bombing mission, and then bailed out via parachute - the other two pilots in the plane were killed, and Bush was rescued after 4 hours on a raft in the ocean somewhere. He went back to work on pilot rescue duty after that.

Wow. Didn't know he did that many combat missions. I think he may have earned the Navy Cross as well, but, I'm not 100% positive on that. He definitely was no slouch and has my respect for that.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by panerd

After last night’s debate I felt the need to once again discuss foreign policy and the duplicitous world the Republican candidates all seem to live in. What I find most amusing about the war mongers is (to my knowledge) none of the candidates except Paul has actually served in the armed forces. On top of that Gingrich is supposedly very sketchy on whether he actively dodged the draft and definitely was deferred from any combat. Don't get me wrong one is entitled to an opinion and stance on issues without a military background but I find the "actually served in combat" to be something I would take into serious consideration when determining my commander in chief.

Nothing new or particularly groundbreaking I know but I sometimes wonder how I fell asleep and woke up in the world where Kerry purple hearts are questioned by someone whose chose to do their Vietnam service in Texas and where a man like Paul who saw active duty and actually witnessed (as a doctor) the carnage of war is "clueless" to the “real world” according to the other candidates who don’t serve their country but at the drop of a hat want to send other people's children off to war.


Guess we are in store for either Obama/Romney or Obama/Gingrich (even worse) on who is the biggest "badass on terror" while completely avoiding actually doing anything about it when they were younger.

END RANT.

But Newt's a military historian! He taught generals the art of war!!!!!!!!!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, and he was very active in the Pacific. Just refreshing my memory through wiki now, but he did 58 combat missions - on one of them his plane was hit, he completed the bombing mission, and then bailed out via parachute - the other two pilots in the plane were killed, and Bush was rescued after 4 hours on a raft in the ocean somewhere. He went back to work on pilot rescue duty after that.

Amazon.com: Flyboys: A True Story of Courage (9780316105842): James Bradley: Books

Read it to find out how close he really came to not making it out of the war. The island he was bombing when shot down was quite the POW deathcamp.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, and he was very active in the Pacific. Just refreshing my memory through wiki now, but he did 58 combat missions - on one of them his plane was hit, he completed the bombing mission, and then bailed out via parachute - the other two pilots in the plane were killed, and Bush was rescued after 4 hours on a raft in the ocean somewhere. He went back to work on pilot rescue duty after that.

Cool. Didn't realize that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Nothing new or particularly groundbreaking I know but I sometimes wonder how I fell asleep and woke up in the world where Kerry purple hearts are questioned by someone whose chose to do their Vietnam service in Texas and where a man like Paul who saw active duty and actually witnessed (as a doctor) the carnage of war is "clueless" to the “real world” according to the other candidates who don’t serve their country but at the drop of a hat want to send other people's children off to war.

My favorite was all the chickenhawks lecturing McCain on torture.

The irony in their foreign policy too is that it goes completely against their small government, budget cut rhetoric. You can't cut the deficit if you're going to expand Defense (or even maintain its current level) without massive tax increases. It really feels like their economic policy is "fuck it, lets spend a ton of money and let our kids figure out how to pay it off".

[JPhillips]

The military experience of the President has changed with the demographics of the armed services. The WW2 generation had a large scale draft with few deferments, so most of the men of that era had military service. Vietnam had a draft, but deferments allowed a lot of people to stay out of the fight. After Vietnam we didn't have a draft and a much smaller proportion of the populace has military experience. As Gen X and later take the reins of power we'll see fewer and fewer politicians with military service in their background. Look at the young wave of Tea Party folks in 2010 and very few of them have military experience.

[SirFozzie]

Newt DOES understand the seperation between the branches of government, right? RIGHT?

Gingrich: Send U.S. Marshals to arrest uncooperative judges - Election 2012 - The Washington Post

"if Judges don't agree to appear before us so we can yell at them for making decisions we don't agree with for political theater, I'll send US Marshals to arrest them!"

[kcchief19]

That's Newt being Newt ... That is not even one of is top 10 bat-shit craziest ideas. I will give Newt credit for being able to say crazy crap while appearing "normal."

[larrymcg421]

Whoa. New Iowa poll from PPP:

Paul 23, Romney 20, Gingrich 14, Perry 10, Bachmann 10, Santorum 10, Huntsman 4

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Whoa. New Iowa poll from PPP:

Paul 23, Romney 20, Gingrich 14, Perry 10, Bachmann 10, Santorum 10, Huntsman 4

Nothing to see here. If Gingrich or Romney wins Iowa than it's a huge sign that could determine the next Republican presidential candidate but if Paul, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, or Huntsman wins it means nothing and it's on to New Hampshire. Pat Buchanan once won Iowa so its completely meaningless. (Yes strong sarcasm intended)

[SirFozzie]

Looks like the Gingrich wave may have hit the breakwater.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

Nothing to see here. If Gingrich or Romney wins Iowa than it's a huge sign that could determine the next Republican presidential candidate but if Paul, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, or Huntsman wins it means nothing and it's on to New Hampshire. Pat Buchanan once won Iowa so its completely meaningless. (Yes strong sarcasm intended)

IIRC, Buchanan won New Hampshire.

[JPhillips]

If Paul wins Iowa it really won't mean anything, just as it would mean nothing if any other candidate won Iowa. The key is taking an Iowa win and carrying it forward to the next three states, NH, SC and FL. Right now Paul is getting killed in SC and FL where he can't even break double digits. He's better in NH, but still anywhere from eight to thirty points behind Romney based on the last three polls.

Paul winning Iowa would be a big story, but it wouldn't put him in position to win the nomination.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Looks like the Gingrich wave may have hit the breakwater.

Yep. I wonder what's going to happen over the next couple of weeks. Romney has been stuck at around 25% for months. Are enough of the 75% going to choke down a Romney vote or are enough of the notRomneys going to drop out that one becomes the default option for enough conservatives to beat Romney?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

IIRC, Buchanan won New Hampshire.

To Wikipedia! *Batman segue music*

Dole won Iowa in 1996 with 26% of the vote to Buchanan's 23%, and then Buchanan won New Hampshire.

Iowa caucuses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Hampshire primary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[JPhillips]

It's been forever and a day since he posted here, but for those that remember him, Cam Edwards made the front page of DailyKos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...ide&via=blog_1

[JPhillips]

dola

WTF? Craig James is running for the senate seat in Texas?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

WTF? Craig James is running for the senate seat in Texas?

Take it to the College Football thread.

[cartman]

So a few months ago the leader of the College Republicans at the University of Texas stepped down after tweeting that people shouldn't shoot Obama, even if it is tempting. Her replacement is in hot water after tweeting early this morning "My president is black, he snorts a lot crack. Holla. #2012 #Obama". Apparently this was also retweeted by the previous CR leader that stepped down.

[stevew]

I'm sure Yu will have no problem enjoying his life in Texas.

[lungs]

Even more negative points for saying "he snorts a lot of crack"

You don't snort crack, you smoke it!

[larrymcg421]

So we were wondering earlier why Santorum wasn't getting his shot as the not-Romney. Well it looks like that just might happen. A Rasmussen poll has Santorum in 3rd place in Iowa with 16%, behind Paul at 22 and Romney at 23. If he keeps surging, he might peak at the perfect time and pull off a shocker.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If he keeps surging, he might peak at the perfect time and pull off a shocker.

I suspect it's nothing more than a minor blip on the radar but his sudden rise (however brief & inconsequential) does remind me that he finished a surprising first as the closest match to me in one of those quizzes a few months ago.

Took another one while posting this, sure enough, same thing happened again.

Thing is, it's hard for me to completely trust the 98% match score Santorum gets when it gave me a 97% for Newt. Surely blowing the immigration thing should have cost him more than 3%.

[Swaggs]

Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, and, to an extent, Newt are all vying for the same group of voters and keeping one another from leading, in my opinion.

If one or two drop out after Iowa or New Hampshire, I think we'll see the leader of that group of remaining members of that group surge as the non-Mitt candidate.

[RainMaker]

I'm sort of rooting for Santorum or Bachmann for comedy sake. Still think Romney wins the whole thing though with ease.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm sort of rooting for Santorum or Bachmann for comedy sake. Still think Romney wins the whole thing though with ease.

I'd love to see Bachmann stay in ... or better still Palin throw her hat in the ring .... not at all for political reasons, simply because I reckon the comedy shows would be far better if that happened

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I'd love to see Bachmann stay in ... or better still Palin throw her hat in the ring .... not at all for political reasons, simply because I reckon the comedy shows would be far better if that happened

Yes Palin (and candidates like Trump) certainly show that there are a lot of idiot voters out there. They want catchphrases, good looks, and "sassyness". Nevermind that she was completely unqualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I suspect it's nothing more than a minor blip on the radar but his sudden rise (however brief & inconsequential) does remind me that he finished a surprising first as the closest match to me in one of those quizzes a few months ago.

Took another one while posting this, sure enough, same thing happened again.

Thing is, it's hard for me to completely trust the 98% match score Santorum gets when it gave me a 97% for Newt. Surely blowing the immigration thing should have cost him more than 3%.

I'm not trusting selectsmart's 88% it gave me for Obama either. The issues things seems to contradict the percentage I got.

Realistically I'm most likely on the Ron Paul bandwagon. Anti-Patriot Act, anti-death penalty, pro civil liberties and pro marijuana legalization is one of the best combos of high priority issues for me where we match up.

[PilotMan]

Saw this this morning. It's interesting, although it's a bit misleading as Politifact has the ability to pick and choose what they decide to review so it's not even handed as far as that goes. But aside from that, the candidates said what they said, so if they said something stupid it was probably going to get reviewed.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-meter-Iowa11/