Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton

Over at the USA Election Polls site, analyzing what they say is raw Rasmussen data from a 1,200 voter poll conducted in mid-October, they find that what some Ron Paul supporters have crowed seems to be true: Ron Paul can beat Hillary where Fred Thompson, at least, can't. Or at least "beat" in terms of "not get trounced quite as badly."

Sure, overall she is seen beating Ron Paul 48-38--but beating Thompson even more, by 52-37. And in both the 30-39 and 40-49 year old age groups, this poll shows Paul getting higher vote percentages in a one-on-one against Hillary than even Rudy Giuliani.

Comments

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 10:23am | #

Funny how Rasmussen Reports is too biased to actually report this kind of finding. Instead, they report things like this:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/comedian_colbert_reaches_double_digits_as_third_party_candidate

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 10:24am | #

Hmm, let's try that again:
Instead, they report things like this

Episiarch | October 25, 2007, 10:25am | #

So this means the Republican leadership is going to throw its support behind Paul because he can actually win, right? Right?

HAHAHAHAHA, I crack myself up. What am I thinking? They don't want to win. They want things to be 2003.

joe | October 25, 2007, 10:36am | #

I don't find this suprising at all. The war is killing the Republicans. Also killing the Republicans in recent elections are corruption, the expansion of executive power, irresponsible fiscal policies, and a generally thuggish stance on political dissent.

Ron Paul has clean hands on all of these issues, and has actually either fought back against them, or has been victimized by his fellow Republicans (remember when Rudy Guiliani was being crowned the King of Foxsylvania for going after Paul at the first debate?)

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 10:37am | #

Additionally, can somebody (Warren?) explain to me how the money meter on Paul's web site just jumped $500,000 since yesterday? Was there a drive I was unaware of?

Jay D | October 25, 2007, 10:39am | #

Plus Paul has lots of room to grow. Everyone knows Hillary and pretty much knows if they would vote for her.

ed | October 25, 2007, 10:39am | #

I think it's important once in a while to step back and take a breather. Ask not whether America is ready to elect Hillary, but whether America is ready for a woman president. Contemporary polls be damned; when it comes time to pull the lever or punch the hole or touch the screen, America will not elect Hillary. We'll chicken out, thankfully. Not that her vanquisher will necessarily be any better. But after the election we'll all wonder how we possibly could have thought that the ex-president's wife could have been president.

x,y | October 25, 2007, 10:42am | #

I firmly believe, like joe, that the war has absolutely devastated the Republicans and that, of the R candidates, only Paul has clean hands. The rest I'm less sure people care about. If you polled 1,000+ people or likely voters and asked them to name the 2-3 things they dislike about Bush and the Republicans, the war would almost certainly be the top answer. Other issues would probably pop-up here and there, but not with the same consistency.

joe | October 25, 2007, 10:42am | #

One further point - contrary to all early indications, Ron Paul has proven to be a very effective campaigner, and not at all the sort of person who would spent 3 hours talking about UN/Gold Standard/Feminist conspiracies, to, I don't know, kill babies and make us all spead Esperanto.

He doesn't come across as a kook - at all. If anything, his bearing and thoughtfulness serve to round off the rough edges of some of his more marginal positions.

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 10:45am | #

He doesn't come across as a kook - at all. If anything, his bearing and thoughtfulness serve to round off the rough edges of some of his more marginal positions.

In more recent TV interviews I've noticed that he's calmed down a bit, which I think will help people to take him more seriously. He's not afraid to focus on his message, and hopefully, before long, the general public will notice that he's the only rep candidate who actually has a message.

joe | October 25, 2007, 10:48am | #

x,y,

I agree that few people would answer "the expansion of executive power" but there are a whole lotta people who might refer to torture, Gitmo, rendition, the USA PATRIOT ACT, or some other specific issues that go to the expansion of executive power.

Tom W | October 25, 2007, 10:50am | #

In contrast, Thompson has not been an effective campaigner so far. At the Presidency IV this weekend, he was one of the four who paid 100K to the state GOP to get rally time and a card table. Fred spoke for about two minutes and left the stage to shake hands, whereas Ghouliani, McCain and Flip used all the twenty minutes a hundred grand could buy.

I am still hoping Sex Pistol Johnny Rotten will endorse Ron Paul on the Tonight Show on the 30th, although Jesse Benton was saying that might not help with the blue-haired granny vote.

joe | October 25, 2007, 10:51am | #

He's definitely gotten steadily better as the campaign has worn on, Reinmoose.

In a sense, the lack of early media coverage helped him, as few voters formed their impression of him during those early, painfully frantic, Gravel-esque weeks.

DangerMan | October 25, 2007, 10:52am | #

hopefully, before long, the general public will notice that he's the only rep candidate who actually has a message.

...who has a message that isn't "HealthCare! 9/11! HealthCare! 9/11! The Children! 9/11!"

Warren | October 25, 2007, 10:52am | #

Additionally, can somebody (Warren?) explain to me how the money meter on Paul's web site just jumped $500,000 since yesterday? Was there a drive I was unaware of?

No, they just added the offline donations to the total. Kind of a cheesy move, but not really scummy. They just want to improve their numbers.

Edward | October 25, 2007, 10:53am | #

Libertarian definition

WIN

INTRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To not get trounced as badly as one might. 2. To achieve failure, but not overwhelming, crushing failure, at least not in your own mind: Ron Paul struggled to overcome the handicap and finally lost, but felt pretty good about it.

Warren | October 25, 2007, 10:54am | #

Re Hillary vs Paul, this is just a name recognition thing. When more people get to know Paul and his antiwar position, the numbers are going to swing his way.

The next POTUS will be the one who is most opposed to the war. That's Paul hands down. If Paul isn't on the ballot, Hillary will be able to sell herself as being more antiwar than the Republican.

Jay D | October 25, 2007, 10:56am | #

Reinmoose
Additionally, can somebody (Warren?) explain to me how the money meter on Paul's web site just jumped $500,000 since yesterday? Was there a drive I was unaware of?

Check here.

Randolph Carter | October 25, 2007, 10:58am | #

Reinmoose,
They entered all the offline donations last night.

Minion of URKOBOLD | October 25, 2007, 10:59am | #

URKOBOLD's DEFINITION:

WIN

ANY PART OF SPEECH DESIRED. 1. FEASTING ON THE BEER-BATTERED TAINT OF THE VANQUISHED 2. SAYING "YES DEAR" (THE LAST WORDS) IN A DISPUTE WITH THE WEIBSKOBOLD. 3. A TYPE OF HORSE

"THE WIN WAS AT THE FINISH LINE"
"I WIN: YES DEAR"
"THAT CERTAINLY WAS A WIN SITUATION"
"LOOK AT EDDIE. A WIN."

T'Mershi Duween | October 25, 2007, 11:01am | #

From RonPaulGraphs.com's blog:

I was contacted by the campaign and told this was going to happen. They have added in all the "off-line" donations ($432,000) into the online counter. Awesome! This is yet another ground breaking event.. This campaign is 90% of the way to complete, real-time campaign finance transparency. Other than the obvious spikes in all the graphs, everything around here should continue as usual... all the calculations will do their thing... Obviously, these are donations that were collected over time and not all on a single day like the spike seems to indicate.. there is not much that can be done about this.. I am not going to attempt to uniformly fold these numbers back into the historic data or anything... unless the campaign wants to supply me with more accurate historic data, of course ;)

joe | October 25, 2007, 11:01am | #

The next POTUS will be the one who is most opposed to the war

joe | October 25, 2007, 11:04am | #

Whoa, what happened there?

Warren, I disagree. People want to be able to check the "out of Iraq" box, not measure the purity of their anti-war politics to the sixth decimal place.

It's about clearing the bar, not setting the record. Look at Nixon in '68. Or welfare-reformin' Bill Clinton in '92.

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 11:08am | #

OK, thanks guys. I got it.

Fluffy | October 25, 2007, 11:09am | #

Joe, just because you want Hillary to be your girlfriend doesn't mean that the election will be about "clearing the bar".

joe | October 25, 2007, 11:11am | #

Pathetic, Fluffy. You don't have an argument, so you use the word "girlfriend."

For the record, I don't every write this horseshit about some of the fanboi comments on Ron Paul threads. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. It's just an attempt to shut down thought and discussion.

I mean, who wants to stick their neck out and be accused of sittin' in a tree with Hillary Clinton?

Adam | October 25, 2007, 11:12am | #

Reinmoose: "Additionally, can somebody (Warren?) explain to me how the money meter on Paul's web site just jumped $500,000 since yesterday? Was there a drive I was unaware of?"

They just input all of the offline donations at once.

VM | October 25, 2007, 11:15am | #

I mean, who wants to stick their neck out and be accused of sittin' in a tree with Hillary Clinton?

joe - him

David E. Gallaher | October 25, 2007, 11:16am | #

All US citizens who want the US out of Iraq should have a war on all the citizens who want to stay and "win."

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 11:16am | #

Warren, I disagree. People want to be able to check the "out of Iraq" box, not measure the purity of their anti-war politics to the sixth decimal place.

Quite possibly. I mean, I know the difference between Ron Paul's out of Iraq and HRC's out of Iraq, but it's unreasonable to assume that most people do. Ron's going to need at least a couple more boxes for people to check in his favor that are popular among republican and independent voters. His strong Christian faith is one of them, and quite possibly his continuing to assure people that we don't want to "put people out on the street," in ending entitlement programs - in otherwords, it won't happen overnight.

Episiarch | October 25, 2007, 11:17am | #

joe, I think Fluffy was goading you. It worked.

ChrisO | October 25, 2007, 11:22am | #

I don't find this suprising at all. The war is killing the Republicans. Also killing the Republicans in recent elections are corruption, the expansion of executive power, irresponsible fiscal policies, and a generally thuggish stance on political dissent.

Joe, you and I don't agree on a whole lot, but this is a very nice, concise summary of what is ailing the GOP right now.

My sense, however, is that among Republicans, the war is lower down the list of morale killers than the administration's spendthrift ways and domestic thuggishness. Among independents, I would guess that the war is a much bigger issue, and obviously they will decide the election.

Since Hillary seems unwilling to go very far in committing to bring the troops home, I wonder how a Hillary vs. Rudy contest would play out among the independents. It would probably come down to domestic issues and "personality."

As to Ron Paul, I'd like to believe he's gaining ground (and he clearly has done a bit of that), but he's going to need a "shock" win or 2nd place in an early primary state in order to have even a remote chance.

Fluffy | October 25, 2007, 11:26am | #

Yeah Joe, I was just teasing you.

It's obvious from your defensiveness about Hillary's antiwar credentials in other threads that you're thinking about supporting her. The way you made sure to dot the i in this thread with your "clearing the bar" statement made it look like you're concerned that Hillary may be criticized for not being antiwar enough, and you want people to think that there's a threshold of opposition which is good enough.

I just don't think it's 1968. It can't be 1968 again, because "I have a secret plan to end the war" can only work once. Talking about withdrawal one day and talking about keeping "necessary" troops in place the next day won't work because she's got to keep those balls in the air for another year, and in the internet age that's gonna be hard to do.

joe | October 25, 2007, 11:26am | #

For the love of all that is decent, how about a "naked guy" warning, VM?

Reinmoose,

Something like 70% of the public now opposes the Iraq War. I seriously doubt that all 70%, even if they were completely knowledgeable about the nuances of the candidates' positions, would favor the Paul-Kucinich-Gravel variety of Out-of-Iraq politics over something in the Clinton-Obama-Edwards zone.

Not to mention, "entitlement programs" means "Social Security and Medicaire." I hardly think a more thorough understanding of Paul's stance on those programs would help him among independent voters in a race vs. HRC.

Episiarch, I know he was goading me. I was just waiting for the opportunity to smack down the lazy "You love Hillary" smear, since it seems to constitute the majority of "rebuttals" to points I make about the presidential race. And I'm not even voting for her!

Fluffy | October 25, 2007, 11:29am | #

Joe, you're awfully sensitive about criticism of her position for someone who isn't going to vote for her.

VM | October 25, 2007, 11:29am | #

hay, joe. it's "the Todd". (sorry)

but it's a good call...

are you a Richardson supporter? As you can guess, the Obama/HRC battle hier in Illinois is gonna be interesting.

And that was one helluva smackdown last night. Four smackdown games in a row. Clearly the best team in beizbol is peaking at the right time!

Warren | October 25, 2007, 11:30am | #

People want to be able to check the "out of Iraq" box, not measure the purity of their anti-war politics to the sixth decimal place.

OK, but Paul is the only major party candidate who can check that box. If it comes down to Hillary and some other Republican, Hillary will be able to market herself as "Staying in Iraq not quite as long"

joe | October 25, 2007, 11:33am | #

Fluffy,

I rate Hillary dead last among candidates I might vote for in the primaries. Maybe you should concentrate on reading my arguments instead of my mind.

Right now, the hawks' strategy to stave of electoral disaster is to try to blur their own positions with those of their opponents, and they are concentrating on Hillary Clinton as the target of their efforts.

One bit of advice as you try to suss out candidates' real positions on the war: follow the money. If they want to keep an army in Iraq, then expect them to support spending money on the construction of permanent bases to house them. If they oppose keeping an army in Iraq, then they'll be opposing the money for those bases.

joe | October 25, 2007, 11:38am | #

VM,

Right now, I'm torn between Dodd and Richardson, with Obama a close second. Or third. I never understood how that worked.

Warren,

I think you're viewing the mainstream of American political discourse from such a great distance that your perspective is lost. If you seriously can't tell the difference between John McCain's position on Iraq and Bill Richardson's, I don't know what to tell you.

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 11:41am | #

joe -
I see a lot of "independents" as statists who are dissatisfied with the shockingly low amount of statism offered by both parties. This is why I hate the concept of a "Unity '08" ticket, and all that blabbering about "working with people the other side of the aisle" and "bi-partisan cooperation." It essentially means that both parties get what they want: socially conservative, government havey, military central, economically statist laws.

This being said, I agree that *most* independents can't be counted on to vote for anyone as liberal as Dr. Paul as things currently stand. However - for those who are anti-war (a lot of independents) a lot of the feeding of Social Security and Medicare are done out of guilt and sense of duty to our "aging Americans." I think that, if they can get out of a system that is portrayed as doomed to fail, it would help Paul for more independents to know about Paul's guilt-free get out of Iraq-Social Security-Medicare policies in a race against HRC.

Fluffy | October 25, 2007, 11:41am | #

OK, I see:

Your reading of the claims out there that Hillary is objectively pro-war is that this meme is being backed by hawks who want to blur the distinction between, say, Lieberman and Clinton.

I have to tell you: that's nuts.

The claim that Hillary can't be trusted to end the war is coming from people who are truly anti-war. These people are almost certainly correct in their criticism. Hillary's hedging on the war and attempt to finesse a position is designed to allow her wiggle room to not end the war once she is in office. You may think I'm trying to read her mind, but I think it's just too easy to foresee Inauguration Day Plus One: "We want to give our new diplomatic approach time to work...we want to try to engage the UN, which had been unnecessarily antagonizes by the last administration...we want my husband's comprehensive Mideast peace talks to have time to work...wait, we need six months to devise our withdrawal plan...oh wait, we need six more months for unforeseen circumstance X..."

Admit it, you know that's how it would be.

J sub D | October 25, 2007, 11:42am | #

For the love of all that is decent, how about a "naked guy" warning, VM?

Yeah! I aws expecting, would even have bet on, a humorous pic of Bill.

Link review - I laughed, I criec, I lost my lunch.

VM | October 25, 2007, 11:42am | #

as long as they all get trophies for participation :)

BTW: EDWARD (Comment by him, above) has been getting around. hier are details.

Jsub - hay. it's THE TODD!!!!!

R C Dean | October 25, 2007, 11:44am | #

I don't find this suprising at all. The war is killing the Republicans. Also killing the Republicans in recent elections are corruption, the expansion of executive power, irresponsible fiscal policies, and a generally thuggish stance on political dissent.

I think its much more the corruption, irresponsibility, and abandonment of principle than anything else.

I have no idea what peopel are talking about when they speak of a "thuggish stance on political dissent." From where I sit, the place where you are most likely to be abused for your political views is a college campus, and the "thuggish stance" there is decidedly not from the right-wing.

Really, what have Republicans done to thug up their political opponents that is outside the realm of political discourse? I'm mystified here.

Edward | October 25, 2007, 11:47am | #

This must be the only place on the planet outside neo-nazi circles where Ron Paul is taken seriously. I've never thought of wishful thinking as an actual mental disease, but maybe it is.

Max | October 25, 2007, 11:48am | #

Why do polls matter? Are polls really news worthy. I understand why they are a good tool fo the pundits but people that have no understanding of polling, statistics, or uncertainty have no need to know the numbers -- it just confuses their weak minds to the possibilities.

joe | October 25, 2007, 11:50am | #

Reinmoose,

I see a lot of "independents" as statists who are dissatisfied with the shockingly low amount of statism offered by both parties.

You're making the same mistake as the people who proclaimed Barry Goldwater a racist and a segregationist when he opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Your opponents' political beliefs are NOT defined as the polar inversion of your own. I know, to you, "statism" and the size of government is the overwhelming, defining, fundamental principle driving your political beliefs. For most people - as in, 90+% of the electorate - it is not.

Other people's political beliefs have their own logic, principles, conerns, and interests, that are defined in their own terms, not in opposition to yours. If you want to genuinely understand politics, you have to make the effort understand where other people are coming from, and not just define everyone who disagrees with you as Reinmoose-with-a-Spock-goatee.

VM | October 25, 2007, 11:51am | #

But Edward - you state that quite eloquently over at URKOBOLD!

That was well spake, I would dare say!

"as Reinmoose-with-a-Spock-goatee"
super awesome reference! and image.

joe | October 25, 2007, 11:53am | #

For example, Reinmoose, "economically statist laws" is a completely meaningless phrase. It tells us nothing at all about the programs and positions you're talking about - except that they aren't libertarian.

MATTDAMON | October 25, 2007, 11:56am | #

IT TELLS US DEMAND KURV!!!!!!!!!! NOT MEANINGLESS. NO. HAS MEANING. DEMAND. KURV.

Warren | October 25, 2007, 11:59am | #

I think you're viewing the mainstream of American political discourse from such a great distance that your perspective is lost. If you seriously can't tell the difference between John McCain's position on Iraq and Bill Richardson's, I don't know what to tell you.

Bill Richardwho? I've been telling you for the past four years. There is no power in heaven or on earth that can prevent HRC from being the Democrat candidate for president in 2008.

So the next POTUS will be HRC or ???. If RON PAUL is on the ballot he wins, if not she wins.

joe | October 25, 2007, 11:59am | #

Fluffy,

I've seen plenty of genuinely anti-war - not just anti-Iraq War, but principled anti-war activists - who say that Clinton is not one of them.

However, those people don't pretend there's no difference between her and John McCain. Theirs is a distinctly different take on things than that offered by ass-covering hawks from the Republican Party. I've read quite a bit of that viewpoint on lefty sits, and the prevailing opinion is that Hillary Clinton is impure, not really one of them, and will only do a half-assed job getting us out of Iraq.

As with most of the spin put out by profession political operatives, this one draws on a core of truth - Hillary Clinton is not Dennis Kucinich. No, she's not. She's also not Dick Cheney.

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 11:59am | #

joe -
I'm glad you felt the need to provide an example of what you were talking about.
"economically statist laws" is not completely meaningless because you apparently found meaning in it as describing them as "they aren't libertarian."

I'm sorry that you think that there is no meaning in qualifying statements like "I see a lot of" and "most." I'm very careful to use words like these to soften my positions and allow for levels of exception. Would it have made any difference if I'd written "that I've met" somewhere in there, or that I am a registered "independent?"

Smappy | October 25, 2007, 12:00pm | #

No, they just added the offline donations to the total. Kind of a cheesy move, but not really scummy.

I'm not sure how cheesy it is. Their announced goal is $12 million for the quarter, period, not $12 million raised online for the quarter. Granted, though, it would look better if they lumped in the offline contributions at the end of each month, or the end of the quarter.

joe | October 25, 2007, 12:01pm | #

RC Dean,

Seriously, you don't believe the war has hurt the Republicans' in the political arena?

Seriously, you're going with that?

Tom W | October 25, 2007, 12:05pm | #

Michael Medved Still Beating Wife

Look at the end.

joe | October 25, 2007, 12:05pm | #

Seriously, RC, you look back over the political landscape since the Iraq War was conceived, and you don't see its proponents acting in a thuggish manner?

I don't know, maybe we longtime defenders and supporters of Saddam Hussein, who are so racist that we don't want Arabs to have democracy, and who are so un-American that we want to see mushroom clouds over our cities, and who are so effeminate and cowardly that we don't realize force is sometimes necessary, and who celebrate when American troops die, and who want to surrender to terrorists, and who give aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime with our words, are just terribly over-sensitive.

joe | October 25, 2007, 12:09pm | #

Reinmoose,

Neither your political affiliation, nor the use of softening language, changes that fact that you are dividing the world into the meaningless categories "libertarian" and "everyone else."

General Zod | October 25, 2007, 12:09pm | #

The next POTUS will be the one who is most opposed to the war.

Zod, hears you, Warren. And he promises this: When Zod becomes president, he will do that fly-around-the-earth-to-make-it-spin-backwards trick, go back in time, and prevent the Iraq war from ever happening. No candidate can offer more.

jj | October 25, 2007, 12:15pm | #

joe,
When "libertarian" means respect for individual freedom, and "everyone else" is for varying degrees of slavery, how is that dichotomy meaningless?

Smappy | October 25, 2007, 12:16pm | #

No, they just added the offline donations to the total. Kind of a cheesy move, but not really scummy.

Hey, if anyone from the Ron Paul campaign is reading this thread, here's an idea. Post two separate icons tracking donations for the month: one for online donations (i.e., the Statue of Liberty that you've got now) and one for offline donations, maybe the Liberty Bell. That way you're keeping us all informed on funding while allowing us to see the break-down between online and offline fund-raising. That would prevent folks agreeing with Warren that the current method of lumping them together is cheesy.

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 12:18pm | #

joe -
Neither your political affiliation, nor the use of softening language, changes that fact that you are dividing the world into the meaningless categories "libertarian" and "everyone else."
I'm afraid I still don't see what you're talking about.

Was I not talking about independents?
quoting myself:
I see a lot of "independents" as statists who are dissatisfied with the shockingly low amount of statism offered by both parties

I'm pretty sure that right there I at least differentiated between "independents" and "both parties," which includes the groups "The Democratic Party" and "The Republican Party." See? Right there you have 3 different

Randolph Carter | October 25, 2007, 12:18pm | #

Reinmoose,
I get what joe's saying - libertarians tend to look at politics through the libertarian lens. Whether it's an increased budget to prosecute drug offenders or an increased budget to subsidize low-income housing, we see both as bad. People who think subsidized housing is good will see one as good and one as bad. People who like the war on drugs will see one as good and one as bad.

Libertarianism is awesome because it cuts through a lot of bullshit and questions the motivations of any power/money grab by the government. However, most people don't see the world this way.

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 12:20pm | #

classifications

Smappy | October 25, 2007, 12:23pm | #

I have no idea what peopel are talking about when they speak of a "thuggish stance on political dissent."

Exhibit A:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VpY9KD8RfQs

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 12:27pm | #

And, like many others, I don't see "libertarian" and "everyone else" as a false dichotomy.

Like Randolph Carter said, it's a difference in how you look at things. For one, means aren't justified by their potential and intended ends, and for the others, they are. There's little getting around that.

Jerry | October 25, 2007, 12:28pm | #

Ron Paul is polling higher now than Thompson and Huckabee in NH.

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 12:28pm | #

but, that's not what I said. We were talking political strategy and then suddenly "BOOM!," personal attack.

robc | October 25, 2007, 12:34pm | #

Jerry,

link please?

JBinMO | October 25, 2007, 12:40pm | #

This would be so funny. The anti-war candidate would be a republican, and the pro-war would be a democrat.

Israel | October 25, 2007, 12:41pm | #

Clinton has been censoring Ron Paul. See this awesome YouTube video. Very funny!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcgbStBJzJ4

sage | October 25, 2007, 12:43pm | #

Yeah Jerry, over at Realclearpolitics Paul's name isn't showing up.

Jerry | October 25, 2007, 12:44pm | #

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=529c2929-cfc6-408a-987c-3e7978f6acc9

Karol | October 25, 2007, 12:52pm | #

Just as soon as we starting having national elections, these polls will actually matter.

joe | October 25, 2007, 12:59pm | #

jj,

When "libertarian" means respect for individual freedom, and "everyone else" is for varying degrees of slavery...then you should wake me up, because I'd like to see that. Careful, dude, you can tear a rotator cuff patting yourself on the back that long. Then again, maybe I should be more respectful towards the only person in the world who isn't a slaver. *rolls eyes*

Reinmoose,

You acknowledged the existence of self-defined, distincted political groups - and then, as the gist of your post, explained that they're all really the same. They're all just "statists" who want things like "statist economic policy."

The problem is not noting that there are libertarians and non-libertarians. The problem is thinking that "non-libertarian" or "statist" provides a meaningful description of someone's political philosophy, which can be helpful in understanding political events that involve a population that is 90+% "non-libertarian."

We were talking political strategy and then suddenly "BOOM!," personal attack.

What personal attack? Where? Could you quote it? I criticized your ideas.

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 1:07pm | #

Are you sure that you're not just assuming that I think they're all really the same?

Oh, I see where we're getting mixed up (I think).
Let me rephrase this: It essentially means that both parties get what they want: socially conservative, government havey, military central, economically statist laws.

What I meant to say is that a UNITY ticket, or bipartisan cooperation would result in socially conservative, government heavy, military central, economically statist (aka. regulated by the state) laws. I'm guessing you read it to mean that I thought that all 3 distinct political groups wanted all 4 of those things.

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 1:09pm | #

I'd classify this as a personal attack:
Other people's political beliefs have their own logic, principles, conerns, and interests, that are defined in their own terms, not in opposition to yours. If you want to genuinely understand politics, you have to make the effort understand where other people are coming from, and not just define everyone who disagrees with you as Reinmoose-with-a-Spock-goatee.

It's horribly condescending and ends with an assumptive statement about how I view others.

R C Dean | October 25, 2007, 1:32pm | #

Seriously, RC, you look back over the political landscape since the Iraq War was conceived, and you don't see its proponents acting in a thuggish manner?

Compared to who? Seriously, what do you mean by thuggish, and how are the tactics of the pro-war folks any worse than the usual political discourse in this country? I honestly don't get it.

If by thuggish, you mean violent, I think you are completely out to lunch, and invite links to stories of war supporters going medieval on anti-war types.

If you mean uncivil, well, don't use words like "thuggish", and explain to me how the conversation over the war is any worse than the conversation over smoking, education, health care "for the children", or any of the other topics where the libertarian is likely to be condemned as greedy, hateful, or just stupid.

R C Dean | October 25, 2007, 1:37pm | #

Seriously, you don't believe the war has hurt the Republicans' in the political arena?

There's always lots of moving parts in trying to assess a given political situation, but so far, I would say that the politics around the war don't really help either party all that much. If the anti-war side was such a stone cold winner, then why can't the Dems do anything real in Congress, and why is the one institution controlled by the nominally anti-war Dems the only one with a lower rating than the one controlled by the pro-war Republicans.

I think voters are sick of a whole lot of things, and the Republicans are providing the worst examples of what voters are sick of right now. The war may be a marginal drag on Republicans overall, but the Dems anti-war rhetoric sure doesn't seem to be helping them.

highnumber | October 25, 2007, 1:40pm | #

This must be the only place on the planet outside neo-nazi circles where Ron Paul is taken seriously.

For now, Paul is a blip on New Hampshire's radar; in a recent poll, he stood at 5 percent among independents. But that could change. He's banked more than $5 million, recently raised more in the state than most other candidates, has a huge Web presence and just bought $1.1 million in New Hampshire TV ads.

Newsweek

T'Mershi Duween | October 25, 2007, 1:51pm | #

Not to look past the primaries, but I think this meme alone would result in Hill taking a run at Walter Mondale's standing record for election night futility:

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush...
Clinton? Say "no more"
Ron Paul 2008

R C Dean | October 25, 2007, 2:00pm | #

In looking around for thuggish behavior, I think this may qualify:

Then there is the Fairness Doctrine that liberal activists have been demanding be restored ever since Reagan ended it in 1987. There followed the flowering of talk radio’s Rush Limbaugh and other popular conservative bloviators. Now, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., is reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine legislation he says is needed “to ensure fairness and accuracy in journalism.” Hinchey also wants a return of government controls on media ownership. But Democrat PR operative and political appointee Bill Ruder put the lie to that argument long ago when he admitted that the Democrats’ pre-Reagan strategy was “to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”

Using the regulatory state to harass and drive out political opponents I think qualifies as thuggish. Granted, the Fairness Doctrine hasn't been revived yet, but the desire to be genuinely thuggish is certainly there.

Craig | October 25, 2007, 2:04pm | #

Okay, here's the Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton scorecard for next November, when they are roughly equal in name recognition (instead of one candidate having a 3:1 advantage):

The Iraq war:
Paul: against from the beginning, get out
Clinton: against, sort of, except for the 50,000 troops she would leave there
Voters: want out

Taxes:
Paul: cut significantly
Clinton: raise a little (or more), for some
Voters: don't raise MY taxes

Spending:
Paul: cut significantly
Clinton: increase a little (or a lot)
Voters: don't cut MY programs

Immigration:
Paul: no amnesty, no welfare inducements
Clinton: secure the border, sort of
Voters: keep them out of MY neighborhood

Executive power:
Paul: restore the Constitutional balance
Clinton: yeah, baby
Voters: want a strong leader

Civil liberties:
Paul: respect the Bill of Rights
Clinton: trust me
Voters: what are civil liberties?

Honesty, Integrity, and Consistency
Paul: unquestioned honesty, integrity, and consistency
Clinton: trust me
Voters: Is Ron Paul really a politician?

Craig | October 25, 2007, 2:09pm | #

A few reasons to take Ron Paul seriously:

1. He's rising in the polls, hitting 7% in New Hampshire for the first time, and up to 4% in California (from 1% the month before.)

2. He's raising money. $5 million in the third quarter, and another $2 million already in October.

3. He's on the majority side of the biggest issues -- Iraq, spending, taxes, immigration -- in a way no other candidate is.

4. His integrity and consistency are unmatched, and almost unheard of in a politician.

5. His grassroots support dwarfs that of the other candidates -- 60,000 volunteers and counting in over 1,000 Meetup groups nationwide.

Dan | October 25, 2007, 2:15pm | #

Edward is such a tool.

Keep your eyes glued to your propaganda machine buddy and your wishes may just come true ;)

Jamie Kelly | October 25, 2007, 2:16pm | #

I see edward is keeping good with his threat to not post here anymore.
Gosh, I was going to miss his pedantic pukery, too.

iowan | October 25, 2007, 2:32pm | #

I have never voted for a democrat or repbulican presidential candidate. I have voted libertarian every election from 1980 on. My own way of saying "none of the above".

I have never registered as a democrat or a republican before, but here in my sweaty little hands is an Iowa Voter Registration form. Soon, it will have my personal information and little check mark for 'republican' so I can go to the caucus and vote for Ron Paul.

I'm sure there will be a life-time of junk mail that I will have to deal with, but it seems worth the cost.

prolefeed | October 25, 2007, 2:52pm | #

Quite possibly. I mean, I know the difference between Ron Paul's out of Iraq and HRC's out of Iraq

Perhaps your take on this is different than mine, Reinmoose:

Ron Paul's out of Iraq = Get all troops out of Iraq, and most other foreign countries, too.

HRC's out of Iraq = Pull some brigades out of Iraq and send them to get shot at in a civil war in some autocratic African hellhole so she can pander to the African-American vote

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 2:56pm | #

prolefeed:
no, that's pretty much about it. I wasn't near that specific in my own mind about what Hilary would do with the troops, but it sure as hell isn't "coming home."

Fluffy | October 25, 2007, 2:58pm | #

I have to agree with Reinmoose.

And I also agree with Joe.

It is precisely because of the fact that - as Joe says - the average Independent doesn't see politics as a series of choices between statism and liberty that a Unity candidate who appealed to those voters would be a statist.

When you don't have a rigid framework in which to analyze policy choices, the bias in your choices will invariably tend to statist tinkering, because "do something" sounds like a policy worth trying, and "do nothing" only makes sense in the context of a broader ideology.

It's the same reason that so-called objective reporting tends to trend the left as well. If you're only examining a single issue, and have no wider world view to fit a particular policy choice into, the narrative will be biased in favor of, "Well, we have identified a problem. Shouldn't we do something about this problem? Mr. Government Official, please describe your policy to fix this problem right away." It's a statist framing and statist narrative right off the bat.

Warren | October 25, 2007, 3:03pm | #

From the Newsweek article Highnumber linked to at 1:40
the primary is more mysterious now because a record 44 percent of voters have registered "undeclared."

There can be only one reason for that. Paul isn't just going to win NH, he's going to DOMINATE it.

Alex | October 25, 2007, 3:19pm | #

On November 5th there will be a Money bomb on the official Ron Paul website ( www.ronpaul2008.com ). They're trying to get 100,000 people to pledge $100 on 11/05/07. The official Ron Paul Money Bomb Pledge site is http://www.thisnovember5th.com/ if your interested sign the pledge and bomb away on 11/05/07. Theyre is also another website which is for those who cant afford to donate $100 and that site is http://d212389.dn24.directnichosting.com/ Lastly, here is a link to an article for the money bomb http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=50673 OH yeah almost forgot, Ron Paul will be a guest on Jay Leno's Tonight Show on October 30, 2007 check it out! Pass this on to your friends! Go President Paul!!!!

Westmiller | October 25, 2007, 3:55pm | #

An interesting footnote in the Rasmussen survey: "Paul is viewed favorably by just 26% of all voters, unfavorably by 32%. In April, only 14% had a favorable opinion of him."

In other words, 42% of voters have no opinion, but when they "discover" Paul, his favorability rating nearly doubles, but the unfavorable only goes up a few points.
That indicates that Paul's "favorables" have nowhere to go but up and Hillary's unfavorable ratings have been static for more than a year.

Rattlesnake Jake | October 25, 2007, 4:00pm | #

"This would be so funny. The anti-war candidate would be a republican, and the pro-war would be a democrat."

Like in the old days.

Rattlesnake Jake | October 25, 2007, 4:03pm | #

"In other words, 42% of voters have no opinion, but when they "discover" Paul, his favorability rating nearly doubles, but the unfavorable only goes up a few points.
That indicates that Paul's "favorables" have nowhere to go but up and Hillary's unfavorable ratings have been static for more than a year."

A new Zogby poll shows that 47% of likely voters will not vote for Paul under any circumstances, but 50% would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

joe | October 25, 2007, 4:53pm | #

RC,

Seriously, what do you mean by thuggish, and how are the tactics of the pro-war folks any worse than the usual political discourse in this country? I honestly don't get it. Try reading some 19-year-old kid's obituary in the local paper, than having some asshole tell you you're happy he's dead. Then multiply that by 1000X and five years.

But, hey, wanting the media to provide forums for more than one point of view - that's pretty much the same as telling people that they want Uday Hussein to rape young girls.

It's no surprise you're so defensive about this - you've been one of the worse offenders on this site for as long as I can remember. Want me to start posting your old comments, or are you ready to drop it?

If the anti-war side was such a stone cold winner, then why can't the Dems do anything real in Congress Because the Senate has the fillibuster, and the President has the veto.

joe | October 25, 2007, 5:01pm | #

Craig pulled the 50,000 number out of his ass.

Follow the money. Hillary Clinton has not only voted for, but sponsored, legislation forbidding the construction of permanent military bases in Iraq for American troops.

Here's a question for the Ron Paul supporters: has he pledged that the Marines will not guard the embassy in Baghdad, as they guard every other embassy on the planet?

Why, no he has not. Ergo, he wants to "keep troops in Iraq." If you think this disqualifies him from being described as "getting our of Iraq," I don't know what to tell you.

There is daylight between Clinton and Paul on our future policy in Iraq. There's a plausible debate about who's plan is better. I don't like either one's, and am probably closer to Paul.

Nonetheless, they are both plainly on the same side of the big issue - whether we're going to stay the course, or leave.

joe | October 25, 2007, 5:05pm | #

Nice catch at 3:03, Warren.

If Give Peace a Chance Democrats and left-leaning independents in New Hampshire vote in the GOP primary instead of the Democratic primary, what will that mean for the Democrats?

Patrick | October 25, 2007, 5:05pm | #

I was planning to leave the country next year to have children overseas away from this government. Guess I'll buy a house and stay if Ron Paul wins, maybe that will help the economy also. I think Ron Paul is the Savior of America, his message is the greatest message in the history of America. It is the same message since the beggining of our independence and we have strayed so far, time for a realignment.
RON PAUL REVOLUTION 2008!!!

NH | October 25, 2007, 5:28pm | #

Well this is only among GOP don't forget. He beats Fred in NH on that too.

When you factor in all the L's I's and D's, well whooeee. We can beat Hillary

PS - if you think 'overseas' is better than here, you're nuts.

Tannim | October 25, 2007, 5:35pm | #

Joe said:
"Here's a question for the Ron Paul supporters: has he pledged that the Marines will not guard the embassy in Baghdad, as they guard every other embassy on the planet?

"Why, no he has not. Ergo, he wants to "keep troops in Iraq." If you think this disqualifies him from being described as "getting our of Iraq," I don't know what to tell you."

Nice try, but that doesn't work. US Embassies are US soil by both treaty and custom, not foreign soil, and keeping Marines at US Embassies to guard them is not keeping troops in a foreign country.

Joe also said:
"Nonetheless, they are both plainly on the same side of the big issue - whether we're going to stay the course, or leave."

Not even close. Dr. Paul wants to bring them home ASAP. Hillary has said that she wouldn't even consider it until 2013. That's "Stay the course".

The elephant in the room on this one is actually Korea, of all things. If North and South Koreas actually hammer out a peace treaty 55 years after the cease-fire, then all of a sudden we have 38,000 troops that can be redeployed somewhere else (like maybe the Iraq/Iran border!). Amazing nobody has picked up on that little detail yet.

Phoebe | October 25, 2007, 6:51pm | #

I'm that person - I'd vote for him over her, but otherwise either stay home or vote for her if it's, say, her vs. Guiliani. And I'd probably vote for the dem if it were anyone else but her, even against RP.

joe | October 25, 2007, 6:56pm | #

Tannim,

Most of the argument I read about why every-but-Ron-Paul won't "really" get out of Iraq rely on that level of hairsplitting. Well, technically...whatever.

Hillary has said that she wouldn't even consider it until 2013. No, she has not. She has stated that she can't guarantee that the withdrawal will be complete by 2013. She has said that it would begin as soon as she takes office.

joe | October 25, 2007, 7:22pm | #

Let's do a little game theory.

Imagine you're Rudy McRomneyson, or a writer at one of the neo-con magazines. The central theme of your foreign policy vision is to keep an American army in Iraq to prop up the client-state government, even at the cost of putting down a decades-long insurgency, so that Iraq can act as the launching pad for your "On to Damascus!" and "On to Tehran!" strategy.

The polling shows a candidate with your position getting 41-45% of the vote and losing to an anti-Iraq War candidate.

You look at the anti-war majority, and see that there are some different kinds of folks there. Some of them are basically on board with a Clintonite, Forward Engagement foreign and military policy. The want to get out of Iraq, but not to completely reorient our foreign policy towards a Homeland Defense Non-Interventionism. This group makes up about 40% of the electorate.

There is also a combination of pacifist lefties and isolationist righties (I know, gross simplifications, but I'm just building a model here) who do want such a radical change in foreign policy. They are about 15-20% of the electorate, and are expected to hold their nose and vote for the Democrat.

You have no chance of winning by running with your Iraq stance, but you need to win in order to get into office and carry out your glorious vision of continuing and expanding Operaton Iraqi Freedom into four more countries and 50 more years. And there is no chance of converting any of the war opponents, either group, to your side.

Oh, btw, eight years ago, George Bush was able to take office after coming in second place, when Ralph Nader's campaign drew off enough Gore votes to tip a few states to Bush.

What do you do? What is your strategy to win the presidential election?

You try to keep as many of the hard-core anti-war voters from voting from the Democrat as you possibly can, and get them to either stay home or vote for a third party, that's what. You try to blur the differences between your position and the Democrats' as much as you can, by fudging your own position (we all want our troops home, it's just a question of under what circumstances) as well as theirs, to make them look closer together than they really are.

Sound familiar?

I know there are substantive differences in the foreign policy views of Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton. I know that they would handle the withdrawal from Iraq differently.

I also know that Republican political strategists aren't idiots, and are just as capable of figuring out where they stand and reasoning their way through the scenario I just described as you and me.

ken 20852 | October 25, 2007, 7:33pm | #

I noticed recently that at least one self-styled "conservative" site, RedState.com, has declared an outright ban on even MENTIONING Ron Paul on its site among newbie posters, and has called for Dr. Paul to be removed from future GOP candidate debates, claiming that he doesn't represent Republican values. It looks like the self-appointed standardbearers of the right are running scared of one of the own. I'd laugh if it weren't so tragic.

It's not that Ron Paul doesn't represent traditional conservative Republican values. He does. Small government, lower taxes, non-interventionism where vital American interests aren't at stake, a balanced budget, secure borders, no amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc., are as Republican as you can get. No, the problem is that the current crop of so-called Republicans have themselves abandoned GOP core values in favor of military adventurism, a quasi-monarchical executive, wholesale infringements of Constitutional rights, sops to religious zealots who care more for expanding their influence than protecting universal liberty and freedom... To paraphrase a quote whose author I can't recall, it's not that Paul has moved away from the GOP, it's that the GOP has moved away from him.

After watching the recent Fox-sponsored debate in Florida, I fully expect to see even more calls for Paul's withdrawal from the race and a ban on his inclusion in future forums. The reason is not Paul himself, but rather the unhinged negative reactions he elicits from the "mainstream" GOP audiences at these debates. When Paul courageously voiced his opposition to the war and stated (correctly) that 70% of Americans also oppose it, the catcalls and jeers from the audience were a jarring note. That kind of derisive reaction is an open invitation for non-affiliated voters watching at home to recall the presumed equation that Republican = Pro-war. It may not be that big a deal among the party faithful, but to that aforementioned 70%, many of them independents, who want us out of Iraq ASAP, that kind of vivid reinforcement is damning. Seeing the rank and file of the GOP continue to actively cheerlead for this war could easily be a deciding factor among independent voters come next November. Being associated with the pro-war meme will be one hell of a hurdle for the Republicans to overcome as it is, regardless of which candidate winds up running against the Dem. And so, whenever Paul starts voicing the mainstream line, speaking out against the war and riling GOP audiences into trying to shout him down on live TV, that's a very harmful image to the party.

Can Paul win? His chances are frankly nonexistent IMO. He does hew more closely to traditional conservative Republicanism than any other GOP candidate today, to be sure. But ironically, the longer he stays in the race, the more damage he inflicts on this gang of neocons/theocrats who shamelessly try to pass themselves off as the modern-day heirs of Reagan and Goldwater. In their eyes, for the sake of the party, he has to be silenced and marginalized. Now.

ChrisO | October 25, 2007, 7:55pm | #

I noticed recently that at least one self-styled "conservative" site, RedState.com, has declared an outright ban on even MENTIONING Ron Paul on its site among newbie posters, and has called for Dr. Paul to be removed from future GOP candidate debates, claiming that he doesn't represent Republican values. It looks like the self-appointed standardbearers of the right are running scared of one of the own. I'd laugh if it weren't so tragic.

He's obviously getting some traction, then. Frankly, he's got enough money and supporters now that it would be considerably more difficult for the debate sponsors to keep him off the podium than it would have six months ago. He's much more than a curiosity now, even if his chances are still slim.

Of course, I think the GOP is overdoing it with the number of debates, anyway. It speaks to how badly the perceived frontrunners are doing that they still feel the need to expose themselves to potshots and potential gaffes.

Ebeneezer Scrooge | October 25, 2007, 9:29pm | #

Paul isn't just going to win NH, he's going to DOMINATE it.

Would like to see it.

Will believe it when I see it.

But ironically, the longer he stays in the race, the more damage he inflicts on this gang of neocons/theocrats who shamelessly try to pass themselves off as the modern-day heirs of Reagan and Goldwater. In their eyes, for the sake of the party, he has to be silenced and marginalized. Now.

Only the thundering masses can protect him now, with Urkabold running his own candidate for president.


And for those who haven't heard yet, my position is simple. I will vote for Ron Paul as far as he gets. If he doesn't get the nomination then I'm voting for VM's Noam Chomsky blow up doll and that's all there is to it. Dammit.

prolefeed | October 25, 2007, 10:21pm | #

For the love of all that is decent, how about a "naked guy" warning, VM?

Any link posted by VM by definition carries a flashing, bright neon "naked guy / chick / coprophilia" warning -- RTFM!

Joe Naborz | October 26, 2007, 2:58pm | #

ChrisO:
"My sense, however, is that among Republicans, the war is lower down the list of morale killers than the administration's spendthrift ways and domestic thuggishness."

I believe you're right. Domestic thuggishness is what has destroyed the RP. I was a Republican voter from Goldwater to Dubya. I sat it out in 2006.
I will not vote for any Republican other than Ron Paul in 2008.

The big issues with me?
The Occupation, Patriot Act, Medical Marijuana and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act. The Theocon thugs who are now running the party are a greater threat to my liberty than the terrorists...IMHO

Nicholas | October 26, 2007, 5:44pm | #

Joe:

Hillary has admittedly softened her previous hawkishness ever-so-slightly and even now supports legislation to "de-authorize" (f you Bush, pose for the camera) the war. Let the flip-flop name-calling begin. But at least she's learning, if only because its easy to learn when you're looking at a poll that shows 70% of people are against the war now. Nonetheless, her rhetoric regarding sanctions against Iran (I'm really looking forward to $4/gallon gas by next year), labeling their military a terrorist group, and her maniacal allegiance to Israel is cause for concern:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428

These are a few of the reasons I support Ron Paul's foreign policy and think Hillary Clinton's is essentially "more of the same" (i.e. permanent military bases, war-posturing against middle-eastern regimes, unflinching support for Israel, etc.)

David M. Brown | October 26, 2007, 9:49pm | #

Per Reinmoose, Rasmussen Reports is "too biased to actually report" on its recent survey of Ron Paul's match-ups with Democrats. Perhaps he should have checked the site? It's here:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_paul_vs_clinton_and_obama

Stories on Fred Thompson match-ups are also posted to the site.

joe | October 27, 2007, 4:01pm | #

Nicholas,

For the most part, I agree with you, but there is one very important correction I need to make:

Hillary Clinton not only voted against funding the construction of permanent bases in Iraq, but sponsored legislation herself that would forbid the use of tax dollars on their construction.

It is that fact, far more than her campaign speeches, that makes me optimistic about her intentions. Funding bases is really where the rubber meets the road in terms of whether a politician wants to maintain a permanent presence there, or is opposed to one.