Would the Republicans be Doing Better in the Polls if they had Gone with Ron Paul?

Ron's Problem was he didn't get the Bush Nod. But we are going to see the Bush Nod means nothing. Nice socks HW.

The polls are of a very little, if any significance. Especially it's true about the polls presented by MSNBC and similar channels. They make a strategic mistake by assuming that by distorting reality in a way that shows the things favorable for Obama they help Obama in the upcoming election. In reality, they accomplish exactly the opposite. Fortunately though, they are too stupid to realize that.
Mitt Romney WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

(hee hee)

I would have voted for him, but then I'm a Democrat, so not sure.

Ron Paul would have had MY support. Now I support Obama.

Well, I dont think republicans have much standing to complain about that. They are practically voting for Obama. He has a different style but the same agenda.

I think the only major difference is that Romney isnt bound by a peace prize (Obama's violated it, but only with humanitarian excuses, and pretending war isnt a war), and will be more free to wage war without pissing off his neocon base.

Romney has trouble breaking 1000 people at a rally. Paul regularly has rallies of several thousand. The only problem with Paul is that he tried to work within a corrupt and rigged system set up against grassroots candidates like him. He simply bit off more than he could chew from the rampant vote fraud from the GOP. That and crooks like Jesse Benton were working from within the Paul campaign to destroy it.

P.S. Dont tell me they dont Cheat. This is only a small fraction of the fraud.

No. His base support would be weaker and I think overall his support among independents would be overstated.

Part of his support came from "independents" who liked him better than the rest of the GOP but are still going to vote Obama. Thats sort of like Gary Johnson. I heard a lot of Dems say the only GOP candidate they liked was Johnson or Paul - but they are still voting Obama.

So his support is fictional when it comes to the general election.

the GOP I hate to say, but they got rid of a couple of their better ones early in the primaries.

Who, Rick ( oops ) Perry

Gawd no - the only person the democrats wanted more than Paul was Santorum.

RP is another McCain.

Ron Paul is too "sheepish"...

He has very poor foreign policies. We've tried neutrality and keeping out of the foreign arena. Twice. So what happened? Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Japan hit us even when we did nothing in foreign politics, and that's what got us into fighting back. Then we got complacent and ignored foreign matters, only to end up with the Twin Towers attack. A good candidate need to have both a strong domestic policy and a strong foreign policy for the protection of our citizen and our allies.

That isnt true. The US was involved in foreign policy for both events. One of the key reasons Japan attacked us, was because FDR initiated an oil embargo on them, and the only other viable source was the Philippines, under our control. So they attacked us to hopefully destroy our navy, then take the Philippines.

9/11, The US created Al Qaeda. Our troops were in Saudi Arabia, and this was cited as a reason for the attacks, and activities in the Muslim word, like embargoes and air strikes killing at least half a million children in Iraq under Clinton would have certainly pissed many people off. I know Albright claiming killing half a million people "worth it" pissed me off.

We have not been non-interventionist for a long time.

Who the Republican candidate for president is would not affect the polls. Almost every poll that I have studied is so out of balance and skewed towards Obama as to make these polls inconsequential. For instance one poll that I was able to break down showed that Obama had a 7 point lead. The pollsters interviewed 52% democrats, 32% republicans, 15% independents and 1% other. If we assume for the sake of argument that each group voted 100% for the candidate that represents that group. Using 100 total votes as a test group that would mean 52 votes for Obama, 32 votes for Romney, and if we split the independents and others equally Obama would get 8 votes and Romney 8 votes. The final total would be Obama 60 Votes or 60%, and Romney 40 votes or 40%. Then why is Obama's lead so small? Because independents and democrats are also voting for Mitt. The same thing happened when Reagan defeated Carter. Carter had a 9 point lead and Reagan won in a landslide. Romney will win by a landslide.

I absolutely agree with your conclusion. What I'm curious about is the poll that you have mentioned. Who conducted that poll? When was it? How did you find out about the percentages of those polled?

Obama would be ahead by double digits.

They would do better in the polls if Romney would go on the attack. If clown boy gets another 4 years it won't be so bad, get used to more expensive vacations, more golf, and more of his lard ass wife.

By a large margin, but the powers that be know they couldn't control Ron Paul like they can Mittens !

Not a chance. RP is a lunatic living in the 60's and doesn't have a clue about what the 21st century is all about or why the ME is a powder keg.

America has rejected him three times now -- time to go away.

Ron Paul is a man of high intelligence and substance. I wouldn't have voted for him, but he is a much more worthy President than Romney.

This is exactly why Paul wouldn't be better.

Part of his support is made up of poeple who like him but wouldn't vote for him in the general election. Meanwhile, Paul would turn off base support from the GOP shrinking his actual general election support.

But I think he is more likely to win over potential Democrat voters.

That's why the UK Conservative Party elected Cameron - he was more likely to win over Labour voters than David Davis.

Thats not going to happen with an Obama. For Democrats its an emotional connection to what Obama "could be". He doesn't get his fair share of real world criticism. So even if some Democrats may nod at Ron Paul, they aren't going to vote for him.

All of the MSM polls are fake, created in the DNC, Inc basement boiler room.

They would have my vote if they did.

Does Obama have your vote though?

Then it really doesn't matter if Romney does or not compared to Paul. Romneys nomination hasn't pushed you to Obama so Obamas number doesn't change. The question is, how much base support would Paul alienate?

Mine as well, but every action by the RNC just pushes me farther and farther away from the party. The DNC isnt any better (they fudged delegate numbers for their golden boy in 2008). So at this point, I'm done with both parties. The only thing worth debating to me is whether to vote 3rd party or not vote at all.

I feel as if voting at the federal level is pointless. The only hope is to vote at the state level and below, and push for state nullification of unconstitutional federal law.

Oh, I'm casting a vote for Gary Johnson.

Two reasons, I think he would make a fine President and I want the Republicans to see that a vote was cast against them.

It seems like voting for 3rd party or not voting are the only ways to go. Either go against both parties, or flat out reject this corrupt system.
My greatest fear is a machine or some punk counting the votes thinking to himself "Oh this poor fool voted 3rd party, let me fix that for him and flip it to Obamney".

I urge you to vote. If you don't cast a vote you stand with the lazy and apathetic.

If you're not happy with the system, at least do a write in for "None of the above".

It goes back to how Jefferson and the founding fathers stated that a government is only just as long as it has the consent of the people. Not voting, refusing to pay income taxes, and so on are all ways to withdraw that consent. But its hard to do so, because we are conditioned to voluntarily give consent to all government laws, regulations and policies regardless of legitimacy.

Its something I have to think long and hard about.

Although, yes I do support candidates like Johnson, because they rock the boat. Its just that voting is something I need to time to think about.

I understand, it is not a decision that should ever be taken lightly.

Take your time, you still have 6 weeks.

6 weeks? Time flies doesn't it?

And you are right, none of these decisions should be taken lightly, especially with how close the US is to destruction and how close the world is to another world war.