You know what, I hope he win the nomination. It would result in a landslide win for Obama and hopefully cause some major changes to our current system. At the very least, there would be a major shakeup of the republican party. Why libertarians and religious populists and corporate shills coexist in the same party has long been a mystery.
I think republicans are dissatisfied with the lame field that ran and are hoping for a brokered convention where one of Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, or some other coherent candidate will emerge. This election is reminiscent of 1992, when Democrats ran their loony end of the bench candidates and the obscure Bill Clinton became the nominee and ended up winning. Nobody wanted to run against GHW Bush and his 92% approval rating, which declined well after the time for getting in the primaries was passed. A republican who'd accept a brokered convention nomination would have a daunting task. He'd have to build a national organization in short order and raise enough money to compete with the $1B of negative ads Obama is going to be able to buy. The good news is that guys without huge war chests have been able to win considerable delegates in the primaries, and Obama trails both Romney and Ron Paul in the latest Rasmussen polls of the battleground states.
I agree. The current Presidential candidates are a woeful lot. I think it's going to be 4 more years of Obama. More interesting is how this embarrassment of GOP candidates will effect the congressional elections. If they discredit the GOP badly enough, the democrats may be facing far less damage in the congressional elections than they originally feared.
No. Not unless they repeal women's suffrage. And the way the Santorum wing of the party is going, I would not be terribly astonished if women voting is the next "controversy" they come up with.
Answer: apparently not the last time he ran. But: here's hoping he wins Michigan today! Somebody needs to rein in those snobs who want their kids to go to college.
You wish! That's "good" news? That the only electable candidate, with huge steaming piles of cash, is struggling to win primaries against nutcase losers, while the turnout is down everywhere? Are you a closet Democrat? You really think that means anything? You REALLY think Ron Paul could beat Obama?
Don't you think repealing a women's right to vote a good thing? Rather than voting based on emotion, we'll elect people via thinking it thru and with brains. Ain't I a stinker. tick tick tick...
I'd like Paul to be the nominee. I do think he'd win. And I do think the polls show Obama is weak, no matter who the republicans nominate. Unfortunately, Romney seems competent but not very inspiring. Liberal republicans don't make the best presidents as well. The thought of $12 a gallon gas might motivate people to give anyone else a try.
Fixed. But still, I'd have to say no. I support the right to vote. I mean, even men can learn. Tough, but doable. For example, you don't say "a women's". You say "a woman's" or "women's". Well, some men can learn. Santorum is an exception. I guess despite his 3 college degrees he was immune to learning.
Oh Denny, Denny, Denny. Despite everything HCP & Sly Poker Dog have said to ruin your reputation in my eyes I was just beginning to have faith in you again and now this. [sigh]
Bringing verity to the terms "change," and "change you can believe in." Instead of partisan haters on one side or the other rejecting him as president, we'd see a radically different coalition of both parties supporting him.
I don't know how many Obama supporters would go Ron Paul (and I'm an independent who did not vote for either). I mean, Paul has taken some very hard right stands, e.g., immorality caused the development of birth control, end social security, etc. Sure, he supports legalizing pot, but that's not really a deal maker for most voters. He seems libertarian for straight white males - I just don't see how a so called libertarian can insist on regulating private sex and reproductive matters. Even most libertarians disagree with him on that. Santorum, wow - both he and Romney are their own worst enemies. Romney can't stop reminding everyone how rich he is. Santorum had a sizeable lead in Michigan a week ago. According to pollsters he lost big among women, because Republican women use birth control as much as any other women, and while all 4 remaining Republicans oppose contraception, only Santorum is making it the central issue in his campaign. Also, interestingly, although he's Catholic exit polls showed a majority of Catholics in Michigan voted for Romney; apparently the "Kennedy talking about church and state made me vomit" line lost him a lot of Republican Catholic votes. If Santorum can't win conservative Catholic Republicans, who can he win? The Teabaggers? Or maybe Santorum was just the latest non Romney to rise and fall.
only with those extremely paranoid & stupid voters who think/fantasize the President has much of anything to do with the price of gas. STOMP
Actually he does. His foreign policy with Iran is part of the cause of higher prices. His foreign policy with OPEC nations, too. And the Fed printed $trillions to mask the true size of his spending, so the Arabs are demanding more dollars per barrel to make up for the devalued dollar. If democrats are hopeful the economy is gaining steam, the higher gas prices are going to be a huge drag by election time.
