IA-Rasmussen: Bachmann & Romney tied, strong showing by Paul

[All Along The Watchtower]

And how many Independents would have a favorable view of Bachmann in 2012? She's a demagogue.

This goes to show how far to the right the GOP has moved, if Bachmann is doing this well.

[big bad fab]

This is very good for Romney: he'd be higher in January.
And Perry divides the conservatives even more.

Romney just needs not to be crushed in IA and SC, if he's well ahead in NH and NV and first in Michigan.

[Zarn]

This is very good for Romney: he'd be higher in January.
And Perry divides the conservatives even more.

Romney just needs not to be crushed in IA and SC, if he's well ahead in NH and NV and first in Michigan.

Not as easy as it looks. I'm seeing a four way race between Paul, Perry, Bachmann, and Romney with maybe one or two side shows come December.

[TheGlobalizer]

Not as easy as it looks. I'm seeing a four three way race between Paul, Perry, Bachmann, and Romney with maybe one or two side shows come December.

My version.  Still think Huntsman can break out, though, but he needs to get his message sorted out.

[Zarn]

Not as easy as it looks. I'm seeing a four three way race between Paul, Perry, Bachmann, and Romney with maybe one or two side shows come December.

My version.  Still think Huntsman can break out, though, but he needs to get his message sorted out.

I think if it ends up like that, then Paul has it. Perry and Romney would split the moderate vote. Paul owns fi-cons. I seriously think Perry will start out luring some more conservative voters but they will abandon him sooner or later. He will pick up moderate Protestants, in the process.

[Eraserhead]

Paul actually does have a slight chance of winning the nomination, which is hillarious.

No, he doesn't. He might have a slight chance in Iowa if the turnout is dreadful though.

Let's hope for a major snowstorm!

[Zarn]

Paul actually does have a slight chance of winning the nomination, which is hillarious.

No, he doesn't. He might have a slight chance in Iowa if the turnout is dreadful though.

Let's hope for a major snowstorm!

Saying that just makes you look like a kook. Eraserhead will never get nominated.

[TheGlobalizer]

Not as easy as it looks. I'm seeing a four three way race between Paul, Perry, Bachmann, and Romney with maybe one or two side shows come December.

My version.  Still think Huntsman can break out, though, but he needs to get his message sorted out.

I think if it ends up like that, then Paul has it. Perry and Romney would split the moderate vote. Paul owns fi-cons. I seriously think Perry will start out luring some more conservative voters but they will abandon him sooner or later. He will pick up moderate Protestants, in the process.

I'm actually starting to see a distinct path for Paul.  His great risk, oddly, is a Huntsman breakout.  Business elites will support Romney, SoCons will support Perry, but the rest will be in play and I can see people wanting to roll the dice and go with the guy who predicted a lot of this mess we're in.  He has a ridiculously timely narrative.

I just hope he can chill the hell out on the gold standard.  I'd rather have the Fed manipulating our currency than China having another way to do it.  (Newsflash: they're the #1 gold producer in the world.)

[Torie]

Can't win. The entire hawk wing of the GOP will decamp, along with those who have some understanding of economics.  I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat over Paul. Can't win the primary either, for the same reason. The two prongs of the GOP above mentioned represent a majority of GOP voters. And Socons would be suspicious of Paul to boot.

[TheGlobalizer]

Can't win. The entire hawk wing of the GOP will decamp, along with those who have some understanding of economics.  I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat over Paul. Can't win the primary either, for the same reason. The two prongs of the GOP above mentioned represent a majority of GOP voters. And Socons would be suspicious of Paul to boot.

There's a hawk wing in the GOP?  I can see some pissed militarists swinging to Obama but I don't see many realists gravitating.

[Torie]

Can't win. The entire hawk wing of the GOP will decamp, along with those who have some understanding of economics.  I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat over Paul. Can't win the primary either, for the same reason. The two prongs of the GOP above mentioned represent a majority of GOP voters. And Socons would be suspicious of Paul to boot.

There's a hawk wing in the GOP?  I can see some pissed militarists swinging to Obama but I don't see many realists gravitating.

Do you read the Weekly Standard and National Review much?

[TheGlobalizer]

Can't win. The entire hawk wing of the GOP will decamp, along with those who have some understanding of economics.  I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat over Paul. Can't win the primary either, for the same reason. The two prongs of the GOP above mentioned represent a majority of GOP voters. And Socons would be suspicious of Paul to boot.

There's a hawk wing in the GOP?  I can see some pissed militarists swinging to Obama but I don't see many realists gravitating.

Do you read the Weekly Standard and National Review much?

Sure, but they're outside of the mainstream at this point.  I mean, christ, the GOP just agreed to huge default spending cuts to the military.  This isn't a neo-con party anymore.

[AUH2O Libertarian]

Agreed.  Neoconservatism is at best, a distant second to economic issues for most conservatives nowadays.  And Paul has by far the best record on economics.  He's the only one that actually understands and articulates the flaws in Keynesianism.

A few of the hardcore "Bomb, bomb, Iran" types might sit it out, but I don't see a lot defecting to Obama.

[redcommander]

Can't win. The entire hawk wing of the GOP will decamp, along with those who have some understanding of economics.  I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat over Paul. Can't win the primary either, for the same reason. The two prongs of the GOP above mentioned represent a majority of GOP voters. And Socons would be suspicious of Paul to boot.

The GOP isn't going to vote for Obama over Paul. The Neo-Con wing is basically dead as a political force in the party right now, and Paul's isolationism goes over pretty well with the Tea Party.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is a hell of a lot of presumptiveness in this thread regarding the death of so-called "neo-conservativism".

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Can't win. The entire hawk wing of the GOP will decamp, along with those who have some understanding of economics.  I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat over Paul. Can't win the primary either, for the same reason. The two prongs of the GOP above mentioned represent a majority of GOP voters. And Socons would be suspicious of Paul to boot.

The GOP isn't going to vote for Obama over Paul. The Neo-Con wing is basically dead as a political force in the party right now, and Paul's isolationism goes over pretty well with the Tea Party.

Militarism, neocon or otherwise, isn't dead. Plus, even folks like myself in the less militaristic wing of the party think that Paul sometimes goes too far.

[TheGlobalizer]

There is a hell of a lot of presumptiveness in this thread regarding the death of so-called "neo-conservativism".

Libya and Syria are neo-con wet dreams.  Why aren't Republicans saying we should be "spreading democracy" and "projecting American power" in those places?  They're saying the opposite!

[Badger]

There is a hell of a lot of presumptiveness in this thread regarding the death of so-called "neo-conservativism".

Libya and Syria are neo-con wet dreams.  Why aren't Republicans saying we should be "spreading democracy" and "projecting American power" in those places?  They're saying the opposite!

Because Obama's the current Commander in Chief. End of discussion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is a hell of a lot of presumptiveness in this thread regarding the death of so-called "neo-conservativism".

Libya and Syria are neo-con wet dreams.  Why aren't Republicans saying we should be "spreading democracy" and "projecting American power" in those places?  They're saying the opposite!

1. Most of that is political expediency.

2. You are exaggerating so-called "neo-conservatism" and then sighting that lack of complete adherance to the exaggerated form as proof that it is completely dead. Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

There is a hell of a lot of presumptiveness in this thread regarding the death of so-called "neo-conservativism".

Libya and Syria are neo-con wet dreams.  Why aren't Republicans saying we should be "spreading democracy" and "projecting American power" in those places?  They're saying the opposite!

1. Most of that is political expediency.

2. You are exaggerating so-called "neo-conservatism" and then sighting that lack of complete adherance to the exaggerated form as proof that it is completely dead. Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

Neo-conservatism WAS fairly strong when Bush was in charge and IS quite weak now.

Yes, some news outlets still have a lot of chest thumping pro-war neocons, but they happen to be behind the times in terms of the popularity of invasions. Support of faster withdrawal from Afghanistan as per the last Gallup poll is something like 72% of everyone and 60% of Republicans (correct me if I am wrong, those are at least close to the truth though), and Afghanistan is probably the most popular and justified of all of the wars that are either going to happen or are currently occurring.

I laugh a bit when people claim that Ron Paul being anti-war is a disadvantage. I mean, even IF the Republicans were mostly or somewhat strongly pro war (they aren't, at least not by any sizable margin), the fact of the matter is that there are about eight pro-war Republicans and two anti-war Republicans (and Johnson has about as much strength as Roemer or Karger). For those who prioritize defence policy above all else (Those people are few right now, but pretend they exist), that means that there are about four or five viable "pro-war" candidates, the strongest pro-war candidates being Pawlenty and Santorum (who are doing really terribly in polling and don't have many other strong issues), while anti-war voters are basically all funnelled straight to Paul. For Paul's views to hurt him overall, the amount of anti-war Republicans would have to amount to around 16%, which is far lower than any estimates or polls indicate.

[Eraserhead]

Paul actually does have a slight chance of winning the nomination, which is hillarious.

No, he doesn't. He might have a slight chance in Iowa if the turnout is dreadful though.

Let's hope for a major snowstorm!

Saying that just makes you look like a kook. Eraserhead will never get nominated.

Eh? Saying what?

[Simfan34]

There is a hell of a lot of presumptiveness in this thread regarding the death of so-called "neo-conservativism".

Libya and Syria are neo-con wet dreams.  Why aren't Republicans saying we should be "spreading democracy" and "projecting American power" in those places?  They're saying the opposite!

Because Obama's the current Commander in Chief. End of discussion.