2012 Presidential Campaign

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But I'm not telling anyone to do anything. If you believe marriage is only one women, one man, then fine. That's how y our marriage can be. I'm not forcing you to do anything. The reverse position is preventing people from doing something that does not negatively affect others in any way.

And I don't base my argument here on what I "personally think is good". There are many things I don't think are "good" that I believe should be constitutionally protected. Fred Phelps, for example.

But you think Fred Phelps should be protected everywhere, by any government division. That's not the same thing. And your gay marriage example is also talking about individual beliefs and individual actions. I'm talking about right to govern. What if we had one world government that banned gay marriage for everyone? I'm sure in that instance, you'd suddenly be in favor of smaller, more decentralized units of government having the right to govern for themselves, and recognize gay marriage if they so chose.

Edit: I'm just saying this is the kind of roadblocks you run into when one person is discussing government structure and another is discussing government policy. Very few mainstream politicians can talk about those issues in isolation, but Ron Paul is among them. I have no idea if he's "right" on anything, but I can appreciate that he's at least a little better at not muddying those waters. This is another side effect of the partisan nightmare of the U.S. Everything is tied to perceptions of good/evil and right/wrong and team v. team, and few have any interest in isolating those factors out of more important long-term issues like how our government works (or doesn't work).

[panerd]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Well, those things and the whole legalize drugs thing.

That's a misrepresentation of his stance but as I am a big fan of his I will explain what he says when they aren't trying to nail him on something...

1) He thinks it should be up to the states (and in a perfect world municipalities but we will start with states) and not the federal government to determine what they want to be legal and illegal. So for example in California when the citizens vote for something they shouldn't be overruled by the Feds. He has said repeatedly that there probably isn't a state that would have legal heroin but many might have legal marijuana and legal cancer drugs which brings us to...

2) He thinks that pharmaceutical industry (and the FDA) shouldn't have say over which drugs one can take for illnesses and which ones we can't.

3) He thinks the war on drugs is a colossal failure and just an expansion of a massive police state. Outside of the Baptists and a few others most people see this very clearly with the failed prohibition of alcohol.

4) He says there are already laws on the books for minors so that is a misaimed argument. It is probably easier for a kid to get pot that alcohol right now.

5) Who is going to do heroin or coke just because it is legal? Not me.

Some people may not agree with allowing people freedom to control their own bodies but at least acknowledge it isn't as simple as OMG FREE HEROIN! (Of course Free Heroin! does make for a better soundbite)

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

The more centralization, the less liberty, but obviously there's practical realities too you have to balance with that. But surely - one world government dictating everyone's values would be bad wouldn't it? There's room for reasonable disagreement between those extremes of course. I just don't think it's fair to take a view that would support more decentralization and attack it as being "anti-" the issue we're talking about. it's a strawman. If someone thinks the states should decide something, that doesn't necessarily mean that that person has any particular view on the merits of that "something". It is possible to believe in someone's right to have a view, and govern, in a way different than you would.

I have to disagree with that somewhat. I think the view on the issue certainly has something to do with whether you think states should decide it or not. I think many people who give this generic "states rights" response (both Dems and Republicans) would not agree with a state outlawing interracial marriage. The fact is that some people don't think that same sex couples not having the right to get married is more important than states rights. I find that baffling and that's where I differ with Ron Paul and many others and why his position on this matter doesn't really make him better than a generic Republican.

In fact, the justices he would appoint to the bench would be absolutely devastating to the gay rights cause.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Another 5% of primary votes just went up for grabs, Trump releases statement saying he will not run.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

But you think Fred Phelps should be protected everywhere, by any government division. That's not the same thing.

How is that not the same thing? I think gay marriage should be protected everywhere, by any government division.

And your gay marriage example is also talking about individual beliefs and individual actions. I'm talking about right to govern. What if we had one world government that banned gay marriage for everyone? I'm sure in that instance, you'd suddenly be in favor of smaller, more decentralized units of government having the right to govern for themselves, and recognize gay marriage if they so chose.

I don't care about the level of government being used. I'm saying that whatever level of government we're talking about shouldn't have the right to discriminate against its citizens.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by panerd

You may not agree with allowing people freedom to control their own bodies but at least acknowledge it isn't as simple as OMG FREE HEROIN! (Of course Free Heroin! does make for a better soundbite)

Please don't lump me. I was stating the reason people give, not my reason. I actually don't disagree with him on that position.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Another 5% of primary votes just went up for grabs, Trump releases statement saying he will not run.

Color me not shocked. Publicity stunt from the get-go.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Please don't lump me. I was stating the reason people give, not my reason. I actually don't disagree with him on that position.

Yeah sorry for the implication by quoting you I really meant someone with that argument. I actually knew that when I was typing it too I should have said "some people".

[Coffee Warlord]

To summarize.

The republican party has a festering pile of shit as their candidates this time around. I dig Mitch Daniels, but he has maybe a 5% better chance of making it out of a primary than Ron Paul (which is to say, pretty much zero) Leaving us with the aforementioned pile 'o shit.

They seriously can't do better than Romney and Newt?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

They seriously can't do better than Romney and Newt?

You mean the two moderates (since that's apparently what Newt's new gimmick is going to be)?

If either of those are the eventual nominees then the GOP will lose & deserves to. Happily, I don't think either gets the nomination.

[Coffee Warlord]

Far to either end politicians don't win presidential primaries (or, generally, elections).

You and I are verrrrrrry far apart on what we want out of the Republican party. It's hardly uncommon, but the candidates I flat out despise are very likely far more palatable for you, Jon, and vice-versa.

Which is why the middle of the road wankers usually win.

[larrymcg421]

I just don't see how Romney can get through the primary. His opponents will tie him to Obamacare over and over again. I mean, if he wins the nomination, they won't be able to make Obamacare an issue in the campaign. Thus if unemployment goes below 8.5%, what kind of campaign can the GOP run with Romney?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

You and I are verrrrrrry far apart on what we want out of the Republican party. It's hardly uncommon, but the candidates I flat out despise are very likely far more palatable for you, Jon, and vice-versa.
Which is why the middle of the road wankers usually win.

Who is going to vote a repackaged Newt?

It won't be the people who voted for him back in the day, this one doesn't bear much resemblance to that one & he's working hard to make that obvious.
It won't be those who voted against him (or hated him) back in the day.

What's he got left in a general election, voters under 35 that don't know him? I don't think that's going to carry him to a win.

If you can't energize the base it's going to be nearly impossible to unseat an incumbent. He can't do that, there isn't enough appealing about him left with the exception of increasingly vague recollections of his glory days.

As for Romney, his health care history ends his chance to energize the base.

You might hypothetically sell me on some lukewarm candidate that doesn't have (or isn't desperately seeking) an albatross to hang around their neck, but those two aren't the ones to do it.

[Crapshoot]

Yeah, Newt's as likely to win as I am. I think Mitch Daniels or Tim Pawlenty are the best GOP candidates, and if I were a Dem, those are two I worry about.

[Coffee Warlord]

Oh, if you think I'd have any interest whatsoever in voting/backing Newt or Romney, you're mistaken. And I agree - neither of them would have any shot at all at beating Obama. But frankly, I'm not sure I see anyone else in the field who stands the slightest chance in getting out of a primary.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

But frankly, I'm not sure I see anyone else in the field who stands the slightest chance in getting out of a primary.

Y'know, I'm at least starting to wonder if Herman might have at least a slight chance. He's certainly coming across as more viable than I expected.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Y'know, I'm at least starting to wonder if Herman might have at least a slight chance. He's certainly coming across as more viable than I expected.

Nate Silver thinks that Cain is the most well-positioned to benefit from Huck's decision: Who Benefits If Huckabee Doesn't Run? - NYTimes.com

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by panerd

1) He thinks it should be up to the states (and in a perfect world municipalities but we will start with states) and not the federal government to determine what they want to be legal and illegal. So for example in California when the citizens vote for something they shouldn't be overruled by the Feds. He has said repeatedly that there probably isn't a state that would have legal heroin but many might have legal marijuana and legal cancer drugs which brings us to...

2) He thinks that pharmaceutical industry (and the FDA) shouldn't have say over which drugs one can take for illnesses and which ones we can't.

3) He thinks the war on drugs is a colossal failure and just an expansion of a massive police state. Outside of the Baptists and a few others most people see this very clearly with the failed prohibition of alcohol.

4) He says there are already laws on the books for minors so that is a misaimed argument. It is probably easier for a kid to get pot that alcohol right now.

5) Who is going to do heroin or coke just because it is legal? Not me.

Some people may not agree with allowing people freedom to control their own bodies but at least acknowledge it isn't as simple as OMG FREE HEROIN! (Of course Free Heroin! does make for a better soundbite)

Somehow this list makes me feel like Paul is against minority rights given a "majority" rule. Putting everything to the state seems to open up the problem of factions Hamilton wrote about.

Also, not sure why the legality of alcohol is seen as a success, i think both are epic failures. Three times as many people die from alcohol every year than drugs. And I am sure the cost of alcohol abuse to tax payers is pretty high.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Somehow this list makes me feel like Paul is against minority rights given a "majority" rule. Putting everything to the state seems to open up the problem of factions Hamilton wrote about.

This. This is why libertarianism isn't viable to me. There are a lot of cases (note I said a lot, not all, and not naming anybody here by any means) where I think people espouse libertarianism because they know that it will enable them to essentially discriminate more (see Rand Paul's comments about segregation). I think it's attractive to a number of people on the far-far right for that reason.

Which is a crying shame, because it's not a horrible philosophy in and of itself. But when it's been so coopted that the only outcome I can see for it is that it would add to discrimination then yeah...it's a no go.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I just don't see how Romney can get through the primary. His opponents will tie him to Obamacare over and over again. I mean, if he wins the nomination, they won't be able to make Obamacare an issue in the campaign. Thus if unemployment goes below 8.5%, what kind of campaign can the GOP run with Romney?

But for a lot on the right, the issues don't matter. Reagan and Bush both massively expanded health care in this country. Shit, Reagan's plans put much more stress on businesses than anything we've seen from Obama. But he's the beacon of conservatism or whatever.

The issues don't really matter, it's just the R next to their name.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Y'know, I'm at least starting to wonder if Herman might have at least a slight chance. He's certainly coming across as more viable than I expected.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Nate Silver thinks that Cain is the most well-positioned to benefit from Huck's decision: Who Benefits If Huckabee Doesn***039;t Run? - NYTimes.com

I tend to think that the people posting so far in this thread are underestimating Cain's chances. I'm not sure about his staying power and who might throw a hat into the ring later on, but I suspect that at some point he will be the "#1 contender," for whatever that's worth.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I tend to think that the people posting so far in this thread are underestimating Cain's chances. I'm not sure about his staying power and who might throw a hat into the ring later on, but I suspect that at some point he will be the "#1 contender," for whatever that's worth.

I don't know about number one contender, but I do think he is going to make a lot of noise and draw a lot of attention. He may even pull out a surprise win or two.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

1) He thinks it should be up to the states (and in a perfect world municipalities but we will start with states) and not the federal government to determine what they want to be legal and illegal. So for example in California when the citizens vote for something they shouldn't be overruled by the Feds. He has said repeatedly that there probably isn't a state that would have legal heroin but many might have legal marijuana and legal cancer drugs which brings us to...

It's a cute political stance, but it doesn't work in reality. Maybe in the 1800's when going from one state to another required days of travel. When moving was a life changing event. But nowadays, borders hardly matter. Sure States should have their own laws and such on local issues, but there are too many things that can't be done at the state level. We can't have 50 FAAs, 50 FDAs, 50 CDCs, and so on. It's just unreasonable to do things this way when doing them on a federal level is much more efficient.

Originally Posted by panerd

2) He thinks that pharmaceutical industry (and the FDA) shouldn't have say over which drugs one can take for illnesses and which ones we can't.

Paul's stance on the FDA is just stupid. For a guy who actually is a doctor, it's a tad embarrassing. He falls for the "genetically enhanced foods are bad" or "pesticides will kill us all" rhetoric that has almost no scientific backing. He pushes herbal and alternative medicines that again have little to no scientific support.

I'm sure there are things the FDA can do better. But I also realize that for all the food we consume, for all the drugs we take, we don't have a lot of problems. We aren't dropping dead all the time from bad foods, from dangerous drugs, etc. When you go to the store and pick up food, you feel pretty safe about eating it. When you are prescribed a drug, you have a good feeling that it's gone through years of testing before being put in your body. I'm sorry, but I sort of like living in a country like that.

Originally Posted by panerd

3) He thinks the war on drugs is a colossal failure and just an expansion of a massive police state. Outside of the Baptists and a few others most people see this very clearly with the failed prohibition of alcohol.

I agree with this. It's a rather large waste of money. I'm not a fan of heroin being sold legally or anything, but do find it quite silly that we care if people are smoking joints in their own home. I'm for people doing whatever they want with their bodies. But I do draw the line at drugs that cause someone to not be able to control themselves and become a danger to society.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not a fan of heroin being sold legally or anything,

It already is being sold legally.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

This. This is why libertarianism isn't viable to me. There are a lot of cases (note I said a lot, not all, and not naming anybody here by any means) where I think people espouse libertarianism because they know that it will enable them to essentially discriminate more (see Rand Paul's comments about segregation). I think it's attractive to a number of people on the far-far right for that reason.

Which is a crying shame, because it's not a horrible philosophy in and of itself. But when it's been so coopted that the only outcome I can see for it is that it would add to discrimination then yeah...it's a no go.

What's unfortunate is that somehow the statists (and I agree just like you aren't lumping me with the racists I am not lumping you with the statists. I generally find you and JPhillips both well above the talking points intellectually) have convinced the general public that Libertarians are racist because you can extend their idea of freedom to somehow keep a black person from eating in a private business. While in the meantime both Democrats and Republicans support the drug war which disproportionally imprisons millions of minorities each year and both parties support the endless wars in the Middle East that are once again fought on the ground disproportionally by the poor and minorities. So a theory taken to its extreme makes Libertarians unelectable while racist policy already in place and supported by both parties is just the way things work.

I have often heard this about another area where Ron Paul has a lot of supporters. (the 9-11 truthers) He has gone on record as saying that he doesn't agree with them at all that 9-11 was carried out by our own government but since truthers often vote for him (because he at least thinks we should figure out why someone would hate America) he is somehow a fringe candidate. That's like blaming Obama for Jesse Jackson or Gingrich for the KKK.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's a cute political stance, but it doesn't work in reality. Maybe in the 1800's when going from one state to another required days of travel. When moving was a life changing event. But nowadays, borders hardly matter. Sure States should have their own laws and such on local issues, but there are too many things that can't be done at the state level. We can't have 50 FAAs, 50 FDAs, 50 CDCs, and so on. It's just unreasonable to do things this way when doing them on a federal level is much more efficient.



Paul's stance on the FDA is just stupid. For a guy who actually is a doctor, it's a tad embarrassing. He falls for the "genetically enhanced foods are bad" or "pesticides will kill us all" rhetoric that has almost no scientific backing. He pushes herbal and alternative medicines that again have little to no scientific support.

I'm sure there are things the FDA can do better. But I also realize that for all the food we consume, for all the drugs we take, we don't have a lot of problems. We aren't dropping dead all the time from bad foods, from dangerous drugs, etc. When you go to the store and pick up food, you feel pretty safe about eating it. When you are prescribed a drug, you have a good feeling that it's gone through years of testing before being put in your body. I'm sorry, but I sort of like living in a country like that.


I agree with this. It's a rather large waste of money. I'm not a fan of heroin being sold legally or anything, but do find it quite silly that we care if people are smoking joints in their own home. I'm for people doing whatever they want with their bodies. But I do draw the line at drugs that cause someone to not be able to control themselves and become a danger to society.

Well I personally think #3 (war on drugs doesn't work) and #5 (if drugs were legal I still wouldn't do them) are what makes him right in my mind but it’s hard to argue against the Constitution. (Want to talk about obsolete laws look at how much shit gets shot down due to the way out of date interstate commerce clause). And as far as the FDA and what medicines are legal and aren't... I am not a big believer in tarot cards or physics or chiropractors either but if someone wants to try something outside of the mainstream good luck to them. I will probably stick with my doctor's advice but if my wife had terminal cancer and there seemed to be a practice that the FDA just hasn't received enough bribe money to allow I guess I would be pretty pissed if they told me we could go to jail for trying it. It's funny that taking Xanex because someone is stressed at work is perfectly fine but smoking a joint could lead to jail and/or a loss of their job.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

What's unfortunate is that somehow the statists (and I agree just like you aren't lumping me with the racists I am not lumping you with the statists. I generally find you and JPhillips both well above the talking points intellectually) have convinced the general public that Libertarians are racist because you can extend their idea of freedom to somehow keep a black person from eating in a private business. While in the meantime both Democrats and Republicans support the drug war which disproportionally imprisons millions of minorities each year and both parties support the endless wars in the Middle East that are once again fought on the ground disproportionally by the poor and minorities. So a theory taken to its extreme makes Libertarians unelectable while racist policy already in place and supported by both parties is just the way things work.

I have often heard this about another area where Ron Paul has a lot of supporters. (the 9-11 truthers) He has gone on record as saying that he doesn't agree with them at all that 9-11 was carried out by our own government but since truthers often vote for him (because he at least thinks we should figure out why someone would hate America) he is somehow a fringe candidate. That's like blaming Obama for Jesse Jackson or Gingrich for the KKK.

I'm not a fan of the war on drugs either - although not for the racial reasons.

But don't you think there's a problem with any political system/society that enables people to discriminate against their fellow human beings? Because the variety in human beings is what makes for great communities. If everybody self-segregated to avoid the discrimination you'd have very isolated and one-note communities.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Well I personally think #3 (war on drugs doesn't work) and #5 (if drugs were legal I still wouldn't do them) are what makes him right in my mind but it***8217;s hard to argue against the Constitution. (Want to talk about obsolete laws look at how much shit gets shot down due to the way out of date interstate commerce clause). And as far as the FDA and what medicines are legal and aren't... I am not a big believer in tarot cards or physics or chiropractors either but if someone wants to try something outside of the mainstream good luck to them. I will probably stick with my doctor's advice but if my wife had terminal cancer and there seemed to be a practice that the FDA just hasn't received enough bribe money to allow I guess I would be pretty pissed if they told me we could go to jail for trying it. It's funny that taking Xanex because someone is stressed at work is perfectly fine but smoking a joint could lead to jail and/or a loss of their job.

Outside of marijuana and some other drugs, what things are really banned from the public? I agree that letting people do what they want is fine, but I guess I don't see how I'm being held back from all these life saving treatments he claims are out there. Most of the herbal stuff being sold is legal and can be bought just about everywhere. I don't see the FDA hampering the sale of alternative medicine. His stance on this doesn't make much sense nor provide examples of how the FDA is putting people's life at risk.

[JediKooter]

Right now, unless some unknown comes out of the wood works, Obama has my vote. None of the Republican candidates (so far) even come close to getting my vote.

So basically, it boils down to (once again) taking home the least ugly fat chick when the bar closes.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Nate Silver thinks that Cain is the most well-positioned to benefit from Huck's decision: Who Benefits If Huckabee Doesn't Run? - NYTimes.com

Hard to disagree with Silver, and I think he's definitely correct. Cain is in a better position to pick up Huckabee voters in the south than just about anyone. The catch is that Huckabee didn't really play outside the south too well, and I'm not sure Cain will either.

Cain is a masterful public speaker. He will mesmerize you at a podium. But my gut tells me that from a political standpoint, he's a snake oil salesman. He's gone from being a president of the KC Federal Reserve Bank and a guy portrayed as being too moderate for the GOP Georgia Senate primary to a Tea Party, gold-standard conservative. They guy backed the 2008 bailout and TARP, and is now trying to convince the Tea Party he's with them.

That said, I agree with Ben and JiMGA ... I think Cain will see a serious bump in the next few months, maybe even crack into the top tier. But I think as people get to know more about him, the less they will like. The businessman-politician will start to look like a real politician.

As for me, I've eaten at Godfather's Pizza and no way would I vote for anybody in charge of those rat holes. They are the Ramada Inn of pizza joints.

[fantom1979]

I know its never going to happen and the country is probably still Bushed out, but I think someone needs to go get Jeb. I liked his dad and I have heard that he is more like Bush Sr than W.

[JPhillips]

I'm going to throw some cold water on Cain's chances.

His problem, and the problem of all first time, outsider candidates, is that he has no infrastructure. No amount of money or publicity can overcome that in the early primaries. Between IA, NH and SC it will only take somewhere between 250k - 300k votes to win all three with each state roughly doubling the number of votes needed to win. Without a win in at least one of those there's basically no hope.

The relatively few votes needed to win those early contests makes the ground game essential. The winning candidates need people in each county that can be counted on to get voters to the polls on election day. There's a limited number of folks that can do that and they get scooped up early. At this point there's no evidence that Cain has established a ground game and time is running very short. I don't think he can given his lack of a political network and his lack of experience.

I think it's crazy that so few voters have an almost definitive say on the GOP candidate, but it is what it is. Getting that small group out on election day is a person to person job and Cain isn't likely to have the infrastructure to get the job done.

[DaddyTorgo]

Not that this match-up would ever happen, but Public Policy Polling wanted to see just how weak the potential Republican candidates are.

If you want to get an idea of how bad Donald Trump's political standing was by the end of his abortive run for President consider this- a national poll we conducted last week found that he would trail Dennis Kucinich 40-36 in a hypothetical contest.
But as bad as that is for Donald Trump, it's even worse for Sarah Palin.

Kucinich's lead over Sarah Palin if they were to face off would be 43-36. In that scenario Kucinich gets 16% of Republicans to Palin's 12% of Democrats and leads her by 10 points with independents at 42-32

Just going to let this speak for itself.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Just going to let this speak for itself.

Consider the source (and I don't mean you).

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

I know its never going to happen and the country is probably still Bushed out, but I think someone needs to go get Jeb. I liked his dad and I have heard that he is more like Bush Sr than W.

I thought Jeb did a wonderful job as FL governor. Especially during the hurricanes in 2004, he handled that whole thing really well. However, I think his brother fucked any chance he had at running for President.

[SackAttack]

Dennis Kucinich would never win a Presidential election in this country. If you think the 'ZOMG SOCIALIST' drumbeat was loud in 2008, it'd go up to 11 if Kucinich were ever the candidate.

Well, unless 'SOCIALIST' was actually a code phrase for a more socially unacceptable opinion, that is.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Consider the source (and I don't mean you).

What, you mean an actual pollster? As opposed to say Rasmussen who just makes shit up?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Dennis Kucinich would never win a Presidential election in this country. If you think the 'ZOMG SOCIALIST' drumbeat was loud in 2008, it'd go up to 11 if Kucinich were ever the candidate.

Well, unless 'SOCIALIST' was actually a code phrase for a more socially unacceptable opinion, that is.

Oh of course not. I just found it amusing.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I thought Jeb did a wonderful job as FL governor. Especially during the hurricanes in 2004, he handled that whole thing really well. However, I think his brother fucked any chance he had at running for President.

Yeah, he's got to be royally pissed that his screwup brother took the presidency away from him. It's like the prodigal son except the dutiful son also gets punched in the neck and called a sissy by the prodigal.

[RainMaker]

PPP has been pretty accurate in their polls if I'm correct.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

PPP has been pretty accurate in their polls if I'm correct.

Yep. 527 ranks them very highly for polling accuracy if i'm not mistaken.

Honestly I haven't looked at the actual poll itself, so I don't know about the sample size or the questions used, or any of the questions one should ask. I just saw the result and thought it was amusing and worthy of being shared in this thread (although Trump is out and I think 99% of us can agree that Palin is out too, so it's maybe not the most relevent).

[JediKooter]

All this looking at polls makes me wonder about you guys...

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Oh of course not. I just found it amusing.

I figure it's an outlier. As in, they found all of the "oh FUCK no" people on Bachmann/Palin/Trump.

[flounder]

Stay classy, Santorum.

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum on Tuesday accused Sen. John McCain of not understanding "how enhanced interrogation works," despite the fact that McCain, a former war prisoner in North Vietnam, was repeatedly subjected to torture during his 5 ½ years in captivity.

[RainMaker]

Wow.

[fantom1979]

Oh Rick Santorum, you are the gift that just keeps on giving.

[JPhillips]

It looks like whatever small chance Newt might have had was pissed away with a couple of rash comments on Meet the Press. That's got to be some sort of record for shortest time from announcement to implosion.

[RainMaker]

His comments weren't bad either. The voucher system is by far the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

[JPhillips]

His big problem was calling the Ryan budget radical social engineering. That line is going to appear in commercials all across the country in 2012. He really fucked a lot of swing district GOP reps.

[RainMaker]

It is though. He spoke the truth. People may not like Newt, but he's a smart guy. He knows how horrible that voucher idea was and what it really meant.