[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
So, SK, are you voting for Romney, Obama, your own “write-in” candidate, or have you decided to “sit out” this election year??

Just wondering if you intend to vote …..[/quote]

Obama. If there was a liberal running, I’d change my vote. There isn’t, so the best I can do is vote for a moderate.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
Auditing the Fed is a waste? Sorry SK, there’s only one waste of pixels in this thread. We all know who it is![/quote]

We’ve talked about this numerous times. The Fed already gets audited every single year. If he had wanted the scope of the audit expanded, addressing specific issues, then he should have written the law that way. He didn’t. The bill simply says an audit will be done and the Comptroller of the Currency will issue a report on the findings. No scope identified. Without any expanded scope, there’s no necessity for this new audit to be any different than the old. This bill is either a publicity stunt on the part of Paul, or he really is a moron. I suspect the former. Though given some of his ridiculous claims lately, I’m not really sure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
Winning 10 states, taking over the GOP in several states and being 2nd or greater in the Republican primary still makes you a punching bag? Funny logic there. Paul is changing politics. His Audit the Federal Reserve Legislation just passed 51% in the house of representatives today.

America needs to wake up. They can steam roll CISPA through the house in a day or 2 without anyone reading yet they can’t bring a bill to vote that more than 50% of the membership has endorsed?

http://www.dailypaul.com/155726/update-hr-459-55-co-sponsors

You still seem to miss the fact he could run 3rd party and won’t be a joke in the 10 states he won in the Caucuses. He is and always has been the only real difference in Washington.[/quote]

I read the bill. It’s ridiculous. Won’t do a thing. Doesn’t actually say anything. Waste of the pixels it takes up.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
I’m sorry but polls don’t agree with you. Ron Paul beats Obama and Romney doesn’t. That gets rid of your unelectability comment. Narrow band? Paul wins 10 states and that’s a narrow band? Paul has taken over state GOP chairs about 10 states and that’s a narrow band? I’m sorry your reality doesn’t match with facts. The most important thing Paul does win or lose is get traction in all of these states and helps Ron Paul people get elected to local offices and it sets the ground work for the future, even if he doesn’t win the general election.[/quote]

He remains unelectable because he can’t get nominated. Winning 10 caucus states (as debatable as that argument is) won’t do it.

Check the polls again. I can find a single poll in the last three months that showed Paul ahead of Obama. RCP has 40 polls listing Paul v. Obama since the first of the year, with Paul ahead in 2 of them, with the recent average of Obama +7.4. That would mean Obama is ahead in 38 of 40. Does that sound like an upbeat set of facts for Ron Paul? Have it in the bag, does he?

Obama v. Romney on the other hand, has the recent average of Obama +3.3. Add in all the Rasumussen polls and its much closer.

You can’t look at a single poll and believe it to be determinitive. Some pollsters have built in biases by design (think Rasmussen).

Six months before the election and Ron Paul is still a punchline. He wasn’t a formidable candidate when the campaign began, he still isn’t. He isn’t gong anywhere.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
You make no sense. Romney does not energize the core of the republican party and he can’t win without them. I don’t know how many ways I need to say it.[/quote]

You don’t need to say it again. It may be true that Romney is not terribly exciting. But Paul has no chance of winning the nomination, and no chance of winning the general. Romney will win the nomination, and will get something close to 50% of the votes in the general. He may even win. He’ll do that in the general because the vast majority of republican voters will vote for him. Paul won’t do that, because he will never get there. Because he is unelectable. Not becaause the MSM doesn’t like him. They don’t like Gingrich. Nobody does. Yet he screamed to the top of the republican polls for a few minutes. As did Santorum and Bachmann and Perry and Cain.

Whose name never made that list? Ron Paul. You are among his very vocal, very dedicated, and very motivated supporters. But you are not now, nor have you ever been supporting a candidate who appeals to more than a very narrow band of the electorate. Except among your group, he just isn’t popular.

[SK in CV]

Just to clarify. What he won was the Louisiana caucus. Which guarantees him at least roughly 40% of Louisiana’s 46 delegates. Most of the rest are uncommitted, and based on his monsterous 6% of the vote in the Louisian primary vote held about a month ago, he may get more than 1/2 of the total delegates. He’s developed a pretty good plan for the caucuses. But when it’s a more standard voting election, he can’t stand up against other candidates. Which is why he remains unelectable.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
Projected Republican Voters! Bush 2 won because he energized the republican base and got them out to vote, he didn’t get votes from the middle. The polls only include projected voters. Santorum had the religous/old school base energized that Romney can’t energize. Your numbers only include projected voters. Republicans will stay at home if Romney wins and he will lose easily.[/quote]

I’m sorry, I don’t know how i missed that. Of course, it’s the NON voters that determine who wins elections.[/quote]

Exactly! The Republican base doesn’t care about Romney. The other 10 people energized a different demographic than Romeny is energizing. They might wither away and go to sleep this election but they were the sole reason Santorum won any states. They wanted the Anti-Romney.[/quote]

Every reader here is now dumber for having read that.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
Projected Republican Voters! Bush 2 won because he energized the republican base and got them out to vote, he didn’t get votes from the middle. The polls only include projected voters. Santorum had the religous/old school base energized that Romney can’t energize. Your numbers only include projected voters. Republicans will stay at home if Romney wins and he will lose easily.[/quote]

I’m sorry, I don’t know how i missed that. Of course, it’s the NON voters that determine who wins elections.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]The Republian base certainly isn’t rallying around Romney as they have rallied around 10 other people so far. I didn’t say it was likely, but it’s not out of the question either like you all post.[/quote]

I merely said the republican base still has a time to rally around another person as they have 10 times in this election. They are supporting Romney not because they like him, it’s because the rest disqualified themselves for one reason or another. Paul hasn’t done that. I’m not saying it’s likely but to say Texas could decide to say screw Romney is ridiculous.

The BASE is not rallied around Romney, the BASE is not going out and voting.[/quote]

I think the bolded parts above pretty much prove you said what you said. And then didn’t say what you said you said.

Romney’s support among republican voters is now at around 56%. The other 44% is the base?

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]The Republian base certainly isn’t rallying around Romney as they have rallied around 10 other people so far. I didn’t say it was likely, but it’s not out of the question either like you all post.[/quote]

This is based on facts? Romney has won more delegates. He’s had more weeks in front on the national polls than any other candidate. Garnered 50% more actual votes than his closest competitor and 4 times the number of votes as Ron Paul.

So which of the 10 others did they rally around to a level greater than Romney? The facts say none.

He’ll be the least popular Republican nominee of the last 50 years. But he’s also the most popular Republican candidate THIS year. A pretty low bar, but he is the one that will be on the ballot in November.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
I don’t know what your source is but Paul is beating Obama and Romney is not:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/221163-rasmussen-obama-and-romney-tied-nationally%5B/quote%5D

I’m reasonably sure that Obama is not running in the Texas republican primary. Romney is. It may be over by then, but if it’s not, Paul will be lucky to get 20% of the votes. As I said, Texans are not terribly fond of Ron Paul.

That Rasmussen poll is an outlier. Daily tracking polls are highly volatile. And Obama will not be running against Paul, he’ll be running against Romney.

[SK in CV]

Don’t take amature advice. Much of it is wrong, stupid, worthless, costly or dangerous.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
I’ll go ahead and predict the RNC delegate count today for everyone. Mitt Romney wins 1450 delegates and Ron Paul wins 700ish. If Paul can carry Texas it’s going to be much closer.

[/quote]

What on earth makes you think that Paul has a chance to win in Texas? He’s not terribly popular there. I’ve only seen one poll since Santorum dropped out and Paul still barely gets into double digit support. His approval/disapproval is still negative (compared to both Romney and Gingrich being positive). I know it’s still 6 weeks away, and things could change. And he may pick up a few delegates. But win Texas? He doesn’t have a chance.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
Anyway, for the rest of the folks… Any takers on Romney versus Obama.

I was saying Obama is going to win for the past few months with the precondition that the economy holds up they that is was…Well guess what? My prediction now is that if the stock market continues to tank the way it is up to the election, he ain’t going to make a second term.

[/quote]

I agree. But I doubt the market will continue to tank. Spain was an issue today. Futures are up right now. A correction is still due, unless earnings are way beyond expectations.

But, if the market is relatively stable, and job creation continues, it should be a lock for an Obama 2nd term. It’s a bit like ’88, dems just weren’t excited about Michael Dukakis. Though republicans today hate Obama a whole lot more than anyone hated Bush I. But they’re still not going to be all that excited about Meh Romney. And women will elect Obama to a 2nd term. And if republicans aren’t pretty damn careful with women’s issues between now and the election, they may also elect a Democratic house. Senate should be safe too.

If the recovery stalls, market correction lasts and doesn’t recover most of its losses by October, Romney could win. But it will still be close. Obama has a shit load of money.

Bonus prediction: Nikki Haley will be the running mate. Palin only smarter. Southern Baptist heads will explode with no Christians on the Republican ticket.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal][quote=markmax33]If Paul were able to capture Texas and/or California which aren’t very Romney friendly, Paul would be able to catch him. I’m not saying it’s likely, but it certainly isn’t a done deal.
[/quote]

CA is a winner take all state – so there’s a big chunk of delegates.

But after an informal poll of my coworkers (all GOP types)… I’d say he’ll get about 10% of the vote.

I predict Romney will take CA.[/quote]

I’m not sure when max said that about California and Texas not being Romney friendly. It is true in Texas. California not so much. His polling has been on a steady rise for months. With Santorum out, he has California locked. Paul on the other hand, polls worse in Texas and California than he does on the national level.

[Author]

Posts