U.S. Rep. Ron Paul has moved into third place in South Carolina’s “First in the South” presidential primary, and is now within striking distance of “Republican” frontrunners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
Meanwhile, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum has seen his support take a precipitous nose dive.
According to a new American Research Group (ARG) survey, Romney – who won the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary earlier this month – is currently supported by 29 percent of likely SCGOP primary voters. That puts the former Massachusetts governor four percentage points ahead of Gingrich (25 percent) and nine percentage points ahead of Paul (20 percent).
A week ago, the same survey had Romney at 31 percent, Gingrich at 24 percent and Paul at 9 percent.
“Paul has gained the most and Rick Santorum has lost the most since the last American Research Group survey,” the ARG pollsters note, pointing to the fact that Santorum’s support has plunged from 24 percent to just 7 percent in the space of only one week’s time.
Romney continues to struggle with social conservatives in South Carolina – earning the support of only 13 percent of likely primary voters who describe themselves as evangelical Christians. Gingrich is the runaway leader among these voters, drawing 40 percent of their support.
Guess being a serial adulterer is still preferable to being a Mormon in South Carolina …
The American Research Group survey polled 600 likely voters on January 11-12. The margin of error of its latest survey is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
By vicupstate January 13, 2012 at 11:26 am
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters in South Carolina finds Romney ahead with 28% support, but now former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is in second place with 21% of the vote. Support for former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum who was in second a week ago has fallen back to 16%, putting him dead even with Texas Congressman Ron Paul who also earns 16%.
By Robin January 13, 2012 at 11:29 am
Telephone ? Really ? They may be missing a few people.
By Ken E. January 13, 2012 at 11:50 am
Uh, how else are legitimate surveys conducted? Certainly not an online poll. It those were accurate, then Ron Paul would be getting 40% of the vote per the poll FITS posted yesterday.
By CorAutMors January 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Indeed, though Rasmussen is a neocon outfit. ( and oft appears on the neocon propaganda station.. FOX ).
By k2000k January 13, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Rasmussen isn’t a neocon organization. Their methedology is different. They simply poll *likely* voters, rather than the general populace. Ordinarilly this gives a better indication of who will win, but when extraordinary candidates run it tends to be less accurate. Ron Paul is extraordinary in that many people who are voting for him in the primaries are people who have never participated before, and because of that are missed in Rasmussens model. I bet that after this election Rasmussen will change their polling methedology a bit.
By vicupstate January 13, 2012 at 4:52 pm
PPP, the most accurate pollster of the 2010 cycle has this out today:
Romney: 29
Gingrich: 24
Paul: 15
Santorum: 14
Perry: 6
Huntsman: 5
Roemer: 1
Since there last SC poll a week ago, Santorum has dropped 5 points, Gingrich is up 1, Romney down 1. Paul up 6.
Romney: 29 (30)
Gingrich: 24 (23)
Paul: 15 (9)
Santorum: 14 (19)
Perry: 6 (5)
Huntsman: 5 (4)
Roemer: 1 (1)
By Celeste January 13, 2012 at 11:28 am
Come on South Carolina make America proud !! Vote for the only person who can turn this country around. Ron Paul for peace, prosperity and liberty !!!
By Gerald January 13, 2012 at 11:32 am
With Huntsman and Perry likely to drop out, who will get their votes?
By ? January 13, 2012 at 11:41 am
Many of the Huntsman votes will go to Paul. Perry’s votes will be scattered around to the various “ABR’s”(anyone but Romney) until they all drop out except Paul and then they’ll fall in line behind Romney cause that’s what “good” Republicans do.
By Rcs January 13, 2012 at 11:43 am
Perry and Huntsman votes? Who cares. This is between Paul and Romney, between WallStreet and MainStreet, between corporatism and capitalism, beween war and slavery and peace and prosperity. Once things become clear, RonPaul will be POTUS and finally end the era of BigGovernment.
By Ken E. January 13, 2012 at 11:51 am
Rcs, you forgot to say “LIBERTY!”.
By SCBlues January 13, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Rcs – You mean he will end the era of BigGovernment except on the issue of abortion.
How many other exceptions does he have?
Pingback: Ron Paul Within Striking Distance In South Carolina – FITSNews | PAULitics.US – Wake Up America
Pingback: Ron Paul in south Carolina!! - Page 2 - Grasscity.com Forums
By uaw January 13, 2012 at 11:36 am
Can’t wait to overturn Roe v Wade–the most immoral court decision ever.
By NOBODY January 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Immoral? Sure.
Gonna be overturned? No.
By Matthew January 13, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Immoral? Depends on your moral standard, if any.
Unconstitutional, because Article I Section 8 does not give the federal government the authority to decide the issue? Absolutely.
By Bogart January 13, 2012 at 2:29 pm
I can’t wait for the Supreme Court to come up with a ruling that says if a man rapes a woman,his penis will be removed,also if a man has sex without the intent of procreation his penis will be removed…..Oh wait…That has to do with men,so the Supreme should stay out of that..Right.
By AJ Hansen January 13, 2012 at 4:16 pm
I don’t give a rat’s butt about Roe v. Wade. I’m hoping to see the “Patriot Act” and indefinite detention repealed. Those are the important issues.
By Ed January 14, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Everyone knows that Republican politicians don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned. It is what motivates a large portion of their base and they need them to come out and vote, not stay at home because they got what they wanted.
By Devin January 13, 2012 at 11:39 am
Congratulations to US citizens for the Dr. Paul move…
By George H January 13, 2012 at 11:40 am
Well, second place if you count all the young people who do not have land line phones for polling – that is one big reason the polls were so far off in New Hampshire.
By Chuck L January 13, 2012 at 11:44 am
Paul and Perry are the only two Evangelical Christians in the race, and Perry is likely to get out soon. This may also become a factor in some parts of the South.
IF someone wants an Evangelical Christian in the office, there would be only one choice for that – Ron Paul, the anti-abortion candidate who has also delivered over 4,000 babies. It may actually matter to some.
By ceilidh10 January 13, 2012 at 11:44 am
I will be voting for Romney.
By stop the status quo January 13, 2012 at 11:51 am
“I will be voting for Romney” – is like saying I will be voting to bury my children and their children in deeper debt, before they’re even born — great idea indeed!
Once you go Paul, you won’t ever Barrack!
Ron Paul 2012!
By ? January 13, 2012 at 12:51 pm
She claimed to be a “libertarian” on another post…lol
By Louder January 13, 2012 at 1:03 pm
It’s a horrible thing when Americans can’t see the light and are ready to vote for the “lesser of two evils” when there is a perfectly GOOD candidate right in front of them. Please do your research and see why Ron Paul is America’s ONLY hope. There’s a reason why he has been continually ignored and bashed by the media and is STILL on top. He is not wanted by the banksters who own America. Ron Paul will destroy their empire and return power to the PEOPLE! JOIN US!!
By Joe Mama January 13, 2012 at 1:33 pm
What?? My feathers are so ruffled by that comment! Rabble, rabble, rabble! LOL.
By LibertyLover January 13, 2012 at 11:44 am
Watch as Santorum gleefully states that America has a program where Iranian, Russian, Chinese nuclear scientists wind up dead and it’s perfectly acceptable to assassinate them because we’ve assassinated American citizens.
Youtube this:
Santorum says there’s a US program to kill Iranian scientists and dead ones are a wonderful thinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n2FUOlplh0&feature=socblog_th
For those of you who are unaware Obama assassinated Anwar al-Alwaki’s seventeen year old brother, and his sixteen year old son while he attended a barbecue as well.
Youtube this:
BBQ Airstrike Kills Son of Anwar al-Awlaki
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu1fmT9j_5c
Any evidence America may have against them has been sealed. With held from the American public. We the People who own our government have been told that we have no right to information on our own government’s killing of American citizens without charge, trial, or jury.
By PD77 January 13, 2012 at 11:53 am
Obama and Romney are both backed by Wall Street. In fact, much of their funding comes from exactly the same contributors:
Obama:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
Romney:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
Obama’s administration is packed full of multi-millionaire Wall Street insiders and lobbyists… The ones outlined in the link below are just the tip of the iceberg:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13208
Given that they are funded by exactly the same groups, and that even the Wall Street Journal says that Romney’s foreign policies are almost identical to Obama’s… why should we believe that Romney will be any different than Obama?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread794840/pg1
Ron Paul 2012
By VET4PAUL January 13, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Thank you for posting FACTS!
Im Mexican, a combat veteran from California and ALL my family is voting for Ron Paul !
By Mike at the Beach January 13, 2012 at 6:53 pm
“Abovetopsecret.com” and “Global Research?!!” Really?!! Are tin foil hats cold this time of year?
By PD77 January 14, 2012 at 7:50 am
So what exactly are you implying, Mike? That Obama’s cabinet is not chock full of Wall Street insiders? That Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms aren’t the biggest contributors for both Obama and Romney? The video posted on Abovetopsecret is from Fox Business Network, so I guess they’re kooky too right?
Why don’t you spell out what your objections to the material are? I think we know why. These allusions of kookiness that you make are what people who have no intellectual arguments usually end up resorting to.
I’d rather walk through life wearing a tin foil than blinders and ear plugs.
By Mike at the Beach January 14, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Whoa bro!!! Deep breaths…
You guys are so excitable. I looked back over my post and sure enough, no mention of anything other than the absolute silly nature of the sourcing. Trust me, using sites like that as cites could kill any position, regardless of how sound they may actually be.
If you want to talk about the “backing” Wall Street provides, you better broaden your conversation well beyond BHO and Romney. Big/smart money backs almost anyone (as long as they think there’s a chance they’ll be elected). That’s how that game is played at every level from county council all the way to POTUS. Sucks, but life’s not always fair.
Thankfully, this will all be over fairly soon and the RP folks can take a couple of years off again.
By snodgrass January 13, 2012 at 11:54 am
It’s important to remember that this polling is typically limited to land lines and people with an active voting record. Ron Paul does very well with the youth vote, and the younger demographic is more likely “not” to use a land line and more likely “not” to be listed as an active voter. That means there could be a few percentage points of support for Ron Paul that is not included in these reports.
I’m optimistic that Ron Paul’s appeal is growing in SC. We’ll know soon enough.
By John January 13, 2012 at 11:56 am
Ron Paul is the only answer, I wish they would stop pushing all the rigged polling numbers and the media needs to get out of the way and let the truth come out. Romney puts companies out of business after he acquires them, he doesn’t create jobs, he destroys the middle class.
Ron Paul 2012!
By ? January 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Please don’t bash Romney for free market activities and then in the same write up cheer for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul denounced the anti free market rhetoric against Romney and was right to do so.
Romney is bad for a bunch of other reasons, but not for being a successful capitalist.
By Pork Drink January 13, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Free market activities – anyone with access to the Fed in the aggregate amounts Bain had is not a friend to capitalism, unless it is crony capitalism.
Mitt Romney is not a capitalist – the first rule in capitalism is the use of sound money – nowhere in the history of Mitt Romney has he ever endorsed sound money.
Before we go off on implementing a gold standard and whatever the historicals or rhetoric there is to it, one must understand and define what is the role of money in an economy.
Before we go off and say implementing a hard-gold standard would be ruinous, the question that must be answered is – to what price level does a 100% reserve requirement (in effect, a gold-backed currency) start?
Anything else brought forward is empty rhetoric by empty minds, drones as I call them, all in the effort to dispute what is considered proven economic fact.
By ? January 13, 2012 at 12:23 pm
I don’t disagree with you viewpoint that Romney is most likely a crony capitalist, although I’ve yet to see direct evidence of it aside from the all the TBTF banks that donate to him(and Obama).
But what I speak of is the condemnation of him for free market activities, like corporate restructuring or even liquidation…which is all part of a normal & healthy economy.
You can’t say “Go Ron Paul” but I don’t like some free market activities….it simply is inconsistent.
Crony capitalism is not “free markets”.
By Pork Drink January 13, 2012 at 12:34 pm
TY for the clarification – I’m glad you did that – see, we can have conversation here without being crazy knuckleheads.
By The Colonel January 13, 2012 at 11:57 am
What are you smoking? The only thing Paul is within striking distance of is “out”.
As of this morning, Gingrich, Santorum and Romney were all wearing him out by at least double digits.
By Pork Drink January 13, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Huh… Really, I guess the momentum factor and the latest polling results don’t apply. Sounds like The Colonel needs some remedial classes in “How To Read”
By James January 13, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Troll.
By Ethan January 13, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Not so fast..
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/exclusive-top-sc-tea-party-senator-to-endorse-p
By ThomasTX January 13, 2012 at 11:58 am
Those wild shifts in the polls are not normal. I don’t know what those polling agencies are playing at, but I would disregard all polls except those taken immediately before a primary.
By misstate January 13, 2012 at 12:03 pm
striking distance? um ok there partner
By Norminha January 13, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Do not trust too much the polls. Look what happened in the “conservative” Iowa. Look at the liberal NH, in both Romney won. Look at the contradiction -is Romney a “conservative” or is he a “liberal?”
We have come to a point, we cannot even elect our leader. We just don’t know how!
Why the candidate’s voting records are public, for any responsible citizen in need of the truth, to look at?
Dr Paul is the only candidate who “guarantees” Americans jobs because he will use the money WASTED as of to-date in chosen wars around the world. America is a BULLY under the status quo!!
By ? January 13, 2012 at 12:12 pm
True dat, we’ve become the very thing we fought against in WWII.
By Banished Jester January 13, 2012 at 12:04 pm
When the research is conducted by the individual the argument stands alone. Evidence supporting the benefits throughout history of cannabis is prolific. The evidence is everywhere. The benefits outweigh the dangers by far and yet it is still against the law. Reviewing the evidence suggests only one position to be on. Legalize.
Reviewing the evidence of our American disposition suggests only one side to be on. That is the side against big government, socialism and war. It is the side against fiat currencies, the printing of money to fund political ends and re-establishing American values inscribed in the constitution. Ron Paul is the only side to be on when the evidence is reviewed. If you can objectively look at things for what they are there is only one rational side to be on. So for god’s sake people put aside pride, ignorance, injustice, and all of the bad aspects of our society today and choose Ron Paul for president so that we can get back to normal and de-fund these corrupt bankers and politicians.
By Pork Drink January 13, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Agreed – but heck, why even bother now, I mean us Paulites and Individualists are on target for arrest prior to the election once Obama starts his re-election bid with the Iran War and WWIII.
Six months – that’s the time frame in NDAA – no question about it.
Six months puts him one month before the Republican National Convention – about the time assumptions can be made who will be the nominee – it might not even matter now.
No sitting US President running for re-election has ever lost in the midst of armed conflict, war et al.
Not one…
By Mike at the Beach January 14, 2012 at 1:00 am
Pork Drink- Do you really think W would have been able to win reelection if that had been an option in 2008?
By Ken E. January 13, 2012 at 12:06 pm
What surprises me is that with all of Gingrich’s baggage, he is still in second place. Never mind. I live here. It doesn’t surprise me at all.
Here is the RCP Poll Tracker for the SC Primary for those interested:
RealClearPolitics – SC Republican Pres. Primary
By ? January 13, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Yea,I agree. I’ve lived here 10 years but am still dumbfounded by Newt’s performance here in SC.
Frankly I thought him and Santorum would be moving in opposite directions.
I have no idea what the driving dynamics are behind Newt.
The serial cheating, ethically reprimanded by Congress, former collaborator of Clinton is bringing something to the table to woo so much of SC’s GOP base.(according to polls that is….)
Maybe it’s solely based on intellect?
By Little T January 13, 2012 at 12:15 pm
A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama. Wake up white people!!!
By Pork Drink January 13, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Well, if Ron Paul can call Newt Gingrich a chickenhawk, Im calling you chicken little.
You aren’t even close – check your numbers and get back to me – if he’s generating momentum now, a grassroots movement a la Obama in 2008, why in the world would you think that a grassroots movement can’t do well – in an age where the real impact of money is so marginal that one must raise millions and millions and yet only pull 25 and 39 – 39 in a neighboring state mind you.
Pretty sad – dollar/vote, Ron Paul wins by a landslide – I’ve been involved in politics on the campaign side to know that this level of retail politics is sustainable enough – and he has the money to wage enough of a battle to get to the RNC Convention.
By fntsmk January 13, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Folks, please help Dr. Paul get his message(s) out by visiting and passing along: kookyronpaul daht cahm. This not-for-profit pro-paul site has some great videos, articles, and info beneficial to all, regardless of political affiliation. Peace and Ron Paul in 2012! Please feel free to copy and paste this post if you agree.
By Matthew January 13, 2012 at 1:07 pm
You should wake up and stop backing people who have ZERO moral integrity. RON PAUL 2012
By Prof January 13, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Oh please South Carolina conservatives, tea partiers and sons and daughters of the confederacy :
Vote for Ron Paul –
This way we get 4 mor years of Barak- and he can finish what he started – a move towards a more equitable European- style democracy. Yihaaaa
By John Williams January 13, 2012 at 2:20 pm
This poll:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/09/cbs-poll-independents-prefer-ron-paul-vs-obama/
Indicates Paul has a very good chance of beating Obama.
By Mike at the Beach January 14, 2012 at 1:03 am
My favorite line from your “Paul has a very good chance” poll article:
“Romney is the only GOP candidate seen beating Obama in November by a two point margin, according to the poll. Paul is in second.”
Well said.
By Joe January 13, 2012 at 12:21 pm
http://austrianrationalist.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/why-every-republican-should-vote-for-ron-paul/ All Republicans benefit from a Paul presidency.
By snodgrass January 13, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Exceptional thesis.
By fntsmk January 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm
I love this 2012 race for POTUS. Normally, I HATE politics and politicians, because of how corrupt they are. I’m sure some of them go to D.C. with the intent of doing good, but when they get there, they are pulled aside by “bought and paid for pols” and told “how things work around here.”
Not Dr. Paul though. He’s one of the few who aren’t bought and paid for; a true American Hero.
I love seeing the Paul-haters scramble. The Paul-haters know two things are certain in this election:
1. No GOP candidate can win without Ron Paul supporters and,
2. Ron Paul supporters will NOT vote for any GOP candidate other thand Ron Paul.
Here’s what will happen if Ron Paul is NOT the nominee.
He runs 3rd party and OhBugger likely wins re-election.
He drops out of the race and his supporters write his name in or vote 3rd party with Gary Johnson and OhBugger likely wins re-election. So either way GOP LOSES.
So it really comes down to this choice GOP: You can win with certainty against OhBugger with Ron Paul or… You can lose to OhBugger with certainty, without Ron Paul. Your choice GOP.
By Tim January 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Agreed. However, the GOP would rather lose to protect the FED and the wars. Obama and Romney march to the same orders from the same people. The GOP motto is “Anyone but Paul” and that includes Obama.
By ? January 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Yep, most of the GOP would let Obama back in before Paul, no question.
The only question remaining is whether enough Independents and cross over Dems can change any of that.
By Joe Mama January 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Yeah I agree with ? and Tim. The “powers that be” don’t give a hoot if it’s Romney or Obama. They both have Goldman Sachs decals on their hoods. So if it comes down to Paul v. Obama, the entire establishment will be behind Obama, rather than being split between Obama and Romney along lobbyist lines.
This whole thing that is happening… they thought it was a small movement and after 2008 the tea party was invented to try and recast the original liberty movement as a group of hardcore scary right wing nuts. But much to the establishment’s dismay, Ron Paul has come right out, refused to take part in the MSM’s “tea party” and brought the actual liberty movement right back into focus. AND, most shockingly, a very large slice of the American populace is showing that this movement is much bigger than originally thought.
Game on!
By mcook January 13, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Considering whos funding Romney I think the Obama Campaign knows this. Obama and his media and ilk are all supporting Romney and trying to make him win the nomination because they know its in the bag for them if he does.
By Tony F January 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Wow! Guys, I am starting to get really excited! Woo Hooo! Just imagine…
By Fox Mulder January 13, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Ron Paul is going to take Romney in SC !
By Muskrat70 January 13, 2012 at 1:15 pm
There’s only one candidate worthy of anyone’s vote – Steven Colbert!
By ? January 13, 2012 at 1:21 pm
If ever there was an indictment on SC’s electorate, it might be that Colbert polled higher than Huntsman.
By Mike333 January 13, 2012 at 1:22 pm
And for those of you who STILL have doubts about Ron Paul, WATCH THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meFjza6BpEA
By BigT January 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm
I think the American Research Group (ARG) is the poll known as the poll of ’5-year-olds’ (who pick up the phone and hit the buttons)….
LMAO…to see FITS pleading to turn public opinion for the hapless Ron Paul…This is the most Disgusting of media…trying to Force public opinion w/ LIES…It’s the lowest of ethics…(imagine FITS doing that)….
PS: The ARG poll (if I recall correctly) had Peeler up 20 points over Sanford in the June 2002 GOP Gubernatorial Primary. We all know how reliable that was…
By DonDDP January 13, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Now is the time to be part of the Ron Paul revolution, we need to reduce debt now and in the future, we are all tired of the status quo of spending all our money with nothing to show but thousands of lives changed for the worse do to the wars and continuing to police the world, Go Ron Paul !, DonDDP
By Fox watch January 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm
BuzzFeed is reporting that Tom Davis is backing Ron Paul. I am not familiar with the source or its credibility. Its probably a who cares anyway.
By ? January 13, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Big T’s hero seems to care:
“To get an endorsement from someone like Tom Davis is a big deal,” said former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who announced a White House bid in June. “It would speak volumes to folks and make them take notice and give us a look.”
By Sal2011 January 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm
With the right TV ads, highlighting the strengths of his foreign policy (less aggravation against US citizens worldwide, less chances of men and women from SC families stuck in the boonies fighting crappy wars) and economic policy (more dough in people’s pockets, and less in those of WS bankster, DC’s favourite pets), Ron Paul should cruise past Romney.
By Sal2011 January 13, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Nice link from Mike333. This foreign aid business is a real scandal: taking money from the taxpayer and dishing it out to DC’s foreign pets without any transparency. It doesn’t do any good to the citizens on either side, but just to the foreign aid racketeers in DC and their counterparts on the other side. Even sadder, the men and women in the military are then made to fight wars and face hostilities to create situations for this foreign aid business. In a world of seven billion people, and at a time when the US is facing severe economic pressure, through both internal mismanagement and the rise of China, these silly games should be stopped. If the US taxpayer wants to give aid abroad, he or she should be allowed to do so at his own discretion, to whom he pleases, in the manner he pleases, and for the cause he pleases.
By jonathan January 13, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Obama vs Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ4Pe48aLqo&feature=related
By eggaday January 13, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Thank the Lord above Sanfraud is on the sidelines.
By cash January 13, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Ron Paul 2012. He doesn’t want to abolish government…he wants to abolish givernment.
By Ken E. January 13, 2012 at 4:37 pm
BTW, FITS, American Research Group is one of the lowest rated pollsters with regards to accuracy, according to Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight dot com. They are third from last, ahead of only Zogby Interactive (which does online polling) and InsiderAdvantage. They are the only ones showing Paul this high in the polls.
By Thomas January 13, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Mitt? I do not care about what your religion teaches. I do care about your behavior. In the last 4 years, since you last ran for POTUS, our nation has had some of the most important debates regarding financial calamity since the Great Depression. Where were you? The GOP took over the House of Representatives and challenged the President on a number of issues regarding the direction of our nation. Where were you? What have you contributed to the debate regarding a run away Federal Reserve? Where were you when Speaker Boehnor demanded and received a 1.2 trillion tax cut? Where were you whan the so-called Super Committee failed to live up to expectations? I will tell you where you were, you passed the buck; you played it safe; stayed on the sidelines. We do NOT need a President that follows. We NEED Newton Gingrich to lead. You, sir, must get out of the way. We do not need a President that will go along to get along, whom does not submit plausible ideas and workable solutions. What our nation needs is a President that can confront Wall Street bankers, balance our budget, have the stones to investigate the rascals that have spent nearly 5 TRILLION dollars of our tax payer money to bailout themselves leaving the tab on our children’s children. We need a President that knows how laws are made, how Congress works. After the Clinton and Edwards infidelity scandals, Newt looks like a saint. I am ALL IN for a Gingrich Administration. For Solutions, For Results, For America: Gingrich in 2012!
By Ethan January 13, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Ah yes, Gingrich “(who) explained his serial adultery by saying that it was because he loved his country so much, ”
.. really?
By Ken E. January 13, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Thomas said:
…to investigate the rascals that have spent nearly 5 TRILLION dollars of our tax payer money to bailout themselves…
Hey Thomas, guess who lobbied congress behind the scenes to get TARP passed? If you guessed Newton Leroy Gingrich, you win the prize…which just happens to be Mitt as your candidate.
By Debbie January 14, 2012 at 12:32 pm
I care about what his religion teaches. I care about the oaths of vengeance against the Untied States his family took, I care about Romney’s belief anything thing he does is right, not matter how he lies and cheats.
By SCBlues January 13, 2012 at 9:39 pm
If Ron Paul is all about liberty and personal freedom and small government why does he support the new law in Texas that mandates that any woman considering an abortion must undergo a sonogram?
By Ken E. January 13, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Because he doesn’t care if a state limits an individual’s rights, only the Federal government.
By ? January 13, 2012 at 10:04 pm
The issue of abortion is very difficult issue for those concerned with both life and liberty. There could be a case made that you are protecting the liberty of the unborn child from its mothers desire to kill it aside from the protection of its life.
If taken solely from that perspective and that we hold your liberty stops where it infringes on the liberty & life of another we see why the discussion of when life “begins” would be so important on Constitution/legal basis.
There can be a case made for abortion prevention from a Libertarian standpoint on the argument above. Going a step further, maybe the compromise of “why not look at it first before killing it?” is better than simply saying you can’t kill another human.
By ? January 13, 2012 at 10:08 pm
BS Ken E.
You know Paul is a Constitutionalist and the 14th amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states.
You’re just flat out wrong on that issue and close to demagoguery.
He’s also on record in talking about “voting with your feet”, etc. et al
To say he doesn’t care is simply wrong.
By SCBlues January 13, 2012 at 11:13 pm
So does Paul care about a woman’s personal freedom or not?
Does he want to end big government or not?
Does he want to get the government out of our personal lives or not?
You cannot have it both ways. Especially if the having it both ways enables you to pander to the evangelicals.
By ? January 13, 2012 at 11:20 pm
It’s very simple SCBlues, he wants the Constitution. So read it and understand “what he wants” based on that.
If that doesn’t answer your question nothing will.
By SCBlues January 13, 2012 at 11:31 pm
?
Total cop out. And you know it. Same pat answer you get from the Paulies on any number criticisms of Dr. Paul.
If he is so busy with the Constitution how does he have time to weigh in on the Texas law? And why is he weighing in on it?
What happened to freedom and liberty and getting the government out of our personal lives?
By SCBlues January 13, 2012 at 11:38 pm
? -
I’m looking over the Constitution – cannot seem to find that section on requiring women to have sonograms – can you point me to that section?
By ? January 14, 2012 at 12:22 am
Actually, just to put it into correct context how the issue came about, he was asked about a FEDERAL RULING ON THE TEXAS LAW.
Go check for yourself.
Even further, he didn’t “support the law” as you state. If you look at his direct response he simply said the Federal government had no authority to rule on it.
That was the Constitutional question on it. He is a Texas rep., so is it not obvious what interest he would have at both a state and federal level?
“Getting gov’t out of our personal lives” doesn’t extend to letting you kill people…so while I’m not sure whether he supports mandatory sonograms based on his response I do know that he’s against abortion.
To answer what should be your follow up question; Murder is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution, but the States seem for the most part to have codeified properly as illegal and it is within their purview per the Constitution. Abortion is more difficult for the reasons I stated above.
If the thought of mandatory sonograms prior to an abortion is more abhorrent to you than the abortion itself then you can move to many other states not requiring it. That’s the beauty of the Constitution.
If your looking to find loop holes in Paul’s philosophy or the Constitution to justify larger or more intrusive gov’t feel free….but it’s obviously not the intent of either.
They are honest in their intentions though.
By CoolAireHeights January 14, 2012 at 5:24 am
Uh, SCBlues, what part of LIFE, Liberty, & and the Pursuit of Happiness do you not understand? Sure, I’m not referring to the Constitution; yet, this separatist/founding document, the DOI, was clearly a moral/guiding force for that eventual legal document, the Constitution. Noting this, I guess you are just comfortable with cozying up to the last two of Mr. Jefferson’s directives… LIFE be darned! Well here’s the thing, abortion is murder, it is taking a life. So now, in addition to violating God’s law – the 5th commandment – I suspect that you are also comfortable with violating the ideals of Mr. Jefferson that were expressed within the DOI. Of course, as noted, the DOI was a spiritual force behind the Constitution.
By SCBlues January 14, 2012 at 1:57 pm
?
Ron Paul was asked for his reaction to the Texas STATE Law requring the pre-abortion, not medically necessary sonogram. He stated that the decision should alwys be decided in state court. In other words, he approves of the measure – just as he would approve of multitudes of other state laws that are just as invasive. Ken E’s comment was correct – he only wants small FEDERAL government – does not care how large or invasive the state governments are. And ?, it is absolutely not the “beauty of the Constitution” to force women to move from state to state to keep the government from being involved in personal medical procedures or passing laws that women must undergo medically unnecessary medical procedures. And I almost forgot, abortion is not murder – not legally in the United States – abortion is legal.
CoolAire – what part of life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness do you not understand? Does all that just apply to males? Why is the government at any level involved in this personal medical decision? What other medical procedures are we going to allow the government to mandate? Your rant about God’s law does not matter one bit. That is your personal religious belief – in other words, it has no bearing on the rule of law in the United States. Want a Theocracy? There are many out there – America is not one. You seem to be very confused about the First Amendment and the limits of your religious beliefs.
By ? January 14, 2012 at 7:50 pm
“it is absolutely not the “beauty of the Constitution” to force women to move from state to state to keep the government from being involved in personal medical procedures or passing laws that women must undergo medically unnecessary medical procedures. And I almost forgot, abortion is not murder – not legally in the United States – abortion is legal.”
First, there is no way abortion will ever “illegal” in certain states, like NY or CA just to name two. This picture you paint of women moving from state to state to avoid a sonogram seems unrealistic.
Second, I wouldn’t confuse “legality” with morality or even reality. If a gov’t passes a law that says “gravity does not work on earth anymore” you can rest assured the law doesn’t change the facts. Just like passing a law saying “abortion isn’t murder” is the reality that half the country believes in.
The idea of pushing authority towards more local gov’t is so that certain communities can legislate according to their local culture, beliefs, etc. It gives people a better opportunity to pick and choose communities based on what is personally important to them. It’s a “free market” of gov’ts so to speak that compete for people they would like to have part of their community.(theoretically that is, when DC controls everything not so much)
What’s the problem with people who find forced sonograms abhorrent but abortions ok coalescing together for the society they want to build? You can draw that example out over all sorts of areas.
It’s the variety in America and the ability for people to move around that makes it interesting.
It’s cool if you don’t like Ron Paul, but the fact remains that there are plenty of his ideas that appeal to Democrats like you,(even though not all his ideas), Independents, and Republicans. The exit polling in Iowa and NH show his strength in crossover of all the above and NEW voters…like you I’m sure many of them find certain aspects of his platform not appealing.
But one thing that is pretty unanimous is his character and honesty. Even if you don’t agree with him on everything. You really can’t say that about ANY of the other pols on either side of the aisle.
By Ken E. January 14, 2012 at 8:11 pm
? said:
But one thing that is pretty unanimous is his character and honesty.
The problem I have with the above statement is that I don’t think he is telling the whole truth about the newsletters. I’m pretty sure he didn’t write them, but I’m equally as sure that he knows who did. However, he refuses to say anything about it, as does Rand. Come clean, Ron Paul. I guarantee you’re not going to lose any of your faithful followers.
By ? January 14, 2012 at 9:09 pm
I can’t fault you for feeling that way Ken E.
We all have to make our decisions based on the information at hand. He’s obviously protecting someone.
If that makes him of less character in your eyes I can understand it, for me it doesn’t-but I can understand your viewpoint.
By SCBlues January 14, 2012 at 11:20 pm
?
Abortion is not murder in the United States. You can bring up laws about “gravity does not work on earth anymore” that have nothing to do with anythng – the FACT remains that abortion is legal in the United States – all 50 of them – and abortion is not murder in the United States – and those are the FACTS.
Do you understand the origin of “states rights”?
Our country cannot survive with 50 sets of laws.
Unless things have changed dramatically recently, it is my understanding from numerous polls that the majority of Americans do NOT want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
I appreciate your comments – you are very level headed and have just a great demeanor on-line – I can tell from your posts that you are a thoughtful and caring person.
I agree with and respect some of Dr. Paul’s positions – then there are some that I can just no get on board with. I can understand why he sparks enthusiasm and garners such a supportive following.
By ? January 15, 2012 at 1:27 pm
“Our country cannot survive with 50 sets of laws.”
I’d have to disagree with you on that. The US thrived under that system for quite some time and though we’ve undergone massive power centralization under DC we still are quite “homogeneous” yet.
The more variety the better as far as I’m concerend, especially with the idea of being able to choose from it.
Then, we reduce how much “infighting” occurs between those than want to force their viewpoints on others.
By Bogart January 13, 2012 at 9:47 pm
If they gave Gingrich an enema he would fit in a shoebox….he is one nasty man and that helmet haired mistress wife of his will never see the White House except as a tourist.
By Little Joe... January 13, 2012 at 10:29 pm
We must recapture what it means to be free. By this I do not mean that we should all become policy wonks or waste our time studying the details of this or that political initiative or sector of life. We need to form a new approach to thinking about society and government, one that imagines that we can get along without such central management…
We need to become more tolerant of the imperfections that come with freedom, and we need to give up the illusion that somehow putting government in charge of anything is going to improve its workings, much less bring on utopia…
To embrace the idea of liberty is not a natural condition of mankind. In fact, we are disposed to tolerate far more impositions on liberty than we should. To love liberty requires an act of the intellect, I believe. It involves coming to understand how all the things we love in this world were given to us under conditions of liberty…
We need to come to see government as it is, not as we wish it to be and not as the civics books describe it. And we need to surrender our attachments to government in every aspect of life. This goes for the right
and the left. We need to give up our dependencies on the state, materially and spiritually. We should not look to the state to provide for us financially or psychologically…
Let us give up our longing for welfare, our love of war, and our desire to see the government control and shape our fellow citizens. Let us understand that it is far better to live in an imperfect world than it is to live in a despotic world ruled by people who lord it over us through force and intimidation…
We need a new understanding of what it means to be a great nation; it should mean, as George Washington said, that our nation is a beacon unto the world, not that we conquer the world militarily, impose our will on everyone, or even remain number one in the GDP rankings…
Our sense of what it means to be great must be defined first by morality…
We must come to imagine Liberty again, and believe that it can be a reality. In order to do this, we do not need songs, slogans, rallies, programs, or even a political party. All we need is access to good ideas, some degree of idealism, and the courage to embrace the liberty that so many great people of the past have embraced…
Liberty built civilization. It can rebuild civilization. And when the tides turn and the culture again celebrates what it means to be free, our battle will be won. It could happen in our time. It might happen after we are gone from this earth. But it will happen…
Our job in this generation is to prepare the way…
By Ken E. January 14, 2012 at 12:09 am
Paul Fanatic Check
Uses of the word liberty: 7 (Nice!!)
Uses of the words free or freedom: 3 (Not too bad.)
Uses of the word Constitution: 0 (Real disappointment here.)
Work in the Constitution somehow, throw in a few “Dr. Paul”s and you’ll be good to go next time. Thanks for playing!
By Debbie January 14, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Although, I agree with Dr. Paul on warfare and other issues, I have problem with no public assistance. Our nation is no longer a nation of tight communities and families which help out each other. We have become of nation of Ayn’s “Fountain Head”, where people are disposable, there is no loyalty to assist family where greed and self-interest run supreme.
Baby boomer lived the better life as children for the most part, and don’t remember the families that helped out each other, found jobs gave even distant family a place to live until they got on their feet again. The me and the greed is what does trouble me.
Romney is not the answer for sure, people would suffer horribly under him. Mitt has all the torture people in place in his staff and has the support of those individuals. Given Romney’s long history of arrogance, control freak, abusive behaviors, lack of conscience, greed, and lying Romney would be a most dangerous man in the White House.
By dianna January 13, 2012 at 11:04 pm
IF OUR COUNTRY GOES TO WAR WITH IRAN, I WANT MITT ROMNEY TO SEND AT LEAST ONE OF HIS SONS (HE HAS 5) TO THE FRONT LINES TO FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY!! WE ARE ALREADY SENDING TROOPS TO ISRAEL AS I WRITE THIS COMMENT!! NOW AMERICANS, DO YOU REALLY THINK A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE IS GOING TO DO THAT! MAYBE IT’S AGAINST HIS RELIGION!!
By Debbie January 14, 2012 at 12:29 pm
I want Mitt to send ALL of his sons. But he won’t the Romney ‘s have never fought in any war, including WWI or WWII. They are an arrogant group of SOB’s that let other peoples children suffer and die.
By Wasted Time January 14, 2012 at 8:21 am
I am voting Ron Paul.
Romney will never beat Obama.
By Wasted Vote January 14, 2012 at 8:36 am
Ron Paul has less of a chance.
By Debbie January 14, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Who are the people voting for Romney? I am going to be doing targeted phone calls next week and other contacts in S.C. and would like to understand where best make the contacts. Evangelical are not going for Romney, are Baptist? I will call a slew of their pastors this week and appraise people of Romney’s entanglements they public isn’t aware.
Personal calls did well in Iowa, wish more could have been made.
By Jubul Foster January 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I, for one, like to watch the cranky old fart…he’s a hoot.
I have a buddy who is a die hard TeaBagger. I asked him, why don’t you and your your people back Ron Paul?
He snapped, “That guy is dangerous! Do you know what he would do to the military if he were President? And exactly how many REAL Americans want pot legalized?”
Just then I realized that Paul has ZERO chance. As in ZERO.
Z-E-R-O.
By Debbie January 14, 2012 at 2:16 pm
He has a chance because of Romney running first, ( a close first and still getting close to votes he go last go around as well as keeping at his 25% approval rating in the GOP) there has not been another strong contender against Mitt – who many people puke over.
It is obvious Romney is an neo-con annointed, but many Americans are not ready for a replay of the early and mid 2000s. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney are not people many want back in Washington.
By Jubul Foster January 14, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld…traitors all.
They should be in orange jumpsuits.
Pingback: Ron Paul Within Striking Distance In South Carolina « curvvd libertarian
By Mike at the Beach January 14, 2012 at 6:00 pm
It’s funny how different camps interpret the same polls differently, but there’s just no way in hell anyone can make the case (based on these polls, anyway) that somehow RP has a better shot at beating BHO than Romney. Not a single legitimate poll shows that; in fact they mostly show BHO beating everyone other than Romney by anywhere from 5-15 points. Several respectable polls, however, show Romney beating BHO in November. Last time I checked, for most Republicans, conservatives, and many independents (myself included) that’s what this election is about.
By snodgrass January 14, 2012 at 6:42 pm
It’s interesting how Ron Paul’s “ceiling” was once believed to be five percent. That was before they changed it to seven percent. And that was before they conceded it might be nine percent.
I think the current establishment mantra is that his “ceiling” is firmly stuck at twenty-five percent.
Every single prediction about Ron Paul’s potential in this race has been successfully challenged to the point of reassessment. I invite you to present an example to the contrary.
Hold on to your dream. It’s all you have.
By Mike at the Beach January 14, 2012 at 7:26 pm
What in the world are you taling about? I didn’t realize we were talking about ceilings, dreams, or whatever you are discussing. Facts are facts.
The polls are what they are, which reflects that elections are what they are; popularity contests in aggregate numbers. The absolute fervor with which RP folks support their guy doesn’t change the basic one-person-one-vote nature of elections.
I have nothing against RP, I just get that he won’t get elected. That being said, if some seismic shift in the voting populace occurs and he starts winning primaries, then that’s no longer true. A shift that monumental just doesn’t appear to be happening. That’s no dream, that’s a political reality. RP as POTUS in 2012 is much more akin to unicorn ranch than a fact.
As for reassessment- no kidding! That’s what elections are for. Think back to all of the “frontrunners” the machine has already chewed up and spit out- Bachman, Cain, Perry…they’ve all been reassessed, too (just in the other direction).
By snodgrass January 14, 2012 at 8:38 pm
“Think back to all of the “frontrunners” the machine has already chewed up and spit out- Bachman, Cain, Perry…they’ve all been reassessed, too (just in the other direction).”
But that’s just the point. You forgot to add Pawlenty, Cain and Johnson. And the soon to be former candidates, Huntsman, Gingrich and Santorum.
It’s only Ron Paul that is assumed to be “unelectable.” Yet, as one candidate after another is proven unelectable, Ron Paul continues to prove his staying power. You would have us ignore all this and just accept your contention that Ron Paul’s campaign is futile.
Ron Paul supporters have been hearing this tripe for years. We’ve listened to all of Ron Paul’s critics make all sorts of predictions about his lack of viability. I can accept the fact that some people don’t want Ron Paul to be President, but this narrative about us wasting our time is an insult to the legions of individuals who have repeatedly defied the odds with a grassroots effort that has achieved remarkable success.
I don’t think you can make a substantive case for exactly “why” Ron Paul is unelectable.
By Ken E. January 14, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Well, I’ll give it a shot. Only a small portion of the electorate believes in his policies as a whole. You have liberals and conservatives who would see eye to eye with him on certain issues, but not the whole Ron Paul package. That’s it in a nutshell.
By snodgrass January 14, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Ken E., thank you for reinforcing my belief that a “substantive” argument simply doesn’t exist.
By Ken E. January 14, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Sorry it wasn’t a long, drawn out, “substantive” argument. Sometimes the truth is that simple.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. He’s not winning SC (he’s not even campaigning here today), and he’s not winning FL. So, whether or not he is theoretically electable makes not one bit of difference. He’s not getting the nomination (barring the revelation that Romney eats children for breakfast, or something similarly horrific).
Now if he were running for the president of Aynrandistan, he’d have a pretty good shot.
By Mike at the Beach January 15, 2012 at 1:27 am
That sounded like a substantive argument to me as well. You can take it personally (which I have noticed in my direct discussions with RP folks is very often the case), but it’s not personal; just party politics. Joust at windmills all you like, but the simple fact is that some of Paul’s more unconventional (some say wacky, but I don’t want to get all of you breathing hard again) ideas are such that he is very unlikely to ever win a nationwide (or even statewide) race. That fact doesn’t somehow make your support for him and his platform dishonorable, but neither does the fact that a large majority of voters have apparently decided to support some different candidate who, in their view, is either superior or more electable somehow render us stupid dreamers. Wishing RP was more popular with the voting public does not make it so, nor does it make you right…
By snodgrass January 15, 2012 at 9:51 am
Ron Paul’s support has grown significantly since 2007, though his message today is identical to the one he was offering then. His “unconventional” ideas are finding more and more appeal to the same electorate who didn’t find his ideas so appealing four years ago.
How do you account for the millions of people who are gravitating to his message? Do you view them all as being too stupid to see the error in their judgement? I would submit that they have listened to his message, reasoned it in their own minds, looked at the reality around them and concluded his message to be more credible than its detractors would suggest.
I’ll tell you what’s “wacky.” NOT wanting to reign in the Fed is wacky. Our monetary policy has been a total disaster and the Fed won’t even allow transparency, much less consider abandoning the Keynesian lunacy that fuels their strategy. No candidate is addressing this issue seriously, other than Ron Paul. No other candidate understands it like Ron Paul. He wouldn’t end the Fed immediately, but he would at least allow for competing currencies to help stabilize the global financial system.
It’s wacky to want to continue the war on drugs, the war on poverty and the war on terror. These utopian efforts to use the wisdom of government as a force for good in the world have only succeeded in draining our treasury and spreading the misery. There is more drug use, more poverty and more terror in the world than ever before. Ron Paul is the only one suggesting that we admit our deficiencies, learn from these mistakes, and consider new approaches. The other candidates are willing to perpetuate these failures in exchange for the wealth and power afforded by the political gluttony this bureaucracy allows.
It’s wacky to believe that you can spend your way out of debt. Ron Paul would cut real spending by over a trillion dollars, beginning with the first year. All the other candidates (the ones you consider viable) are only calling for cuts in proposed “increases” in spending. In other words, every candidate but Ron Paul is promising to spend even more despite the fact that our current debt of almost sixteen trillions dollars is the single greatest threat to our national security. It’s estimated that we are spending upwards of a billion dollars a day to protect ourselves from foreign enemies while your ideal presidential candidate is vowing to defend policies which will destroy us just as effectively without ever firing a shot.
I could go on, but any rational person doesn’t need further evidence to see that Ron Paul isn’t nearly as “wacky” or “unconventional” as those who oppose him.
By Debbie January 15, 2012 at 10:44 am
Mitt does eat children for breakfast, and spits out families. Romney is a tied to deep Detroit Corruption, which ties going back to his heavy hit insiders and long time family members of the Romneys and S.C. is ignoring this. What’s wrong?!
At least the social conservatives and evanglicals get the picture Romney is a dangerous man. I understand some of the ‘politicians” going along with mitt, often deep research leads back to these ‘politican’s’ having investments with Bain or other Romney investments firms – which mean these bought off folks should be out of politics. Bribery, pay n’ play and calling in favors is how Romney works and are Mitts religious beliefs.
By Mike at the Beach January 15, 2012 at 11:55 am
We veer off topic once again, so let’s swing on back…
No one here (not that I saw) called anyone else “stupid.” By your logic, any supporter of any candidate must view the other candidate’s base as stupid. This isn’t a zero sum game, friend. We can support one candidate, even as we acknowledge that other candidates may be OK too. Lighten the f#@k up brother! This is not a personal judgment thing.
As I’ve said on numerous occasions, many of us in the “non RP” camp really groove on some of Paul’s positions. We just don’t think he’s the guy who can beat BHO next fall. Guess what, though? Unlike many of the Ronbots, we’re not Kool-Aid drinking zealots. As for me, I am an independent voter and view myself as a pragmatist (translation: I try to operate in the real world). Let’s say that RP somehow pulls off his Quixotic miracle and gets the nomination; thathappens and I’ll be out there swinging for him just as hard as I can…
By Ken E. January 15, 2012 at 11:57 am
Snodgrass, I agree with nearly everything you said above. However, what you don’t address is the reality that he in no way is going to win the Republican nomination. Yes, his support has grown since 2007, but not enough! We’re not calling his supporters stupid, we’re just saying that in no way he wins this year.
By snodgrass January 15, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Ron Paul is only “unelectable” if people choose not to support him.
If you prefer to get behind another candidate, that’s your privilege. Just remember that we’re all going to suffer together if changing policies doesn’t become more important than just changing faces.
By Ken E. January 14, 2012 at 7:29 pm
No legitimate poll for SC has him above 16% right now. I’d say barring any major shakeups over the next week, he slightly outperforms that and cracks 20%. I don’t think he’s going to get 25%.
By SCBlues January 14, 2012 at 7:38 pm
I agree.
And he will not win a single RepubliCON primary election – has absolutely no chance of being the RepubliCON nominee. (And no matter how many of you Paul supporters attack me for stating the truth it will not change the outcome . . .)
By womanforpaul January 14, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Ron Paul, a patriot, who has honorably served his country, defends both the constitution and civil liberties, and is for peace and prosperity. Dr. Paul has the wisdom, foresight, honesty and integrity to be president.
Dr. Paul believes spending and deficits are destroying this country. Dr. Paul’s budget plan would save $1 trillion in the first year. Besides the spending cuts, there are other issues of importance to voters. For conservatives, Dr. Paul scores an A+ on all of them: Second Amendment protection, pro-life record, right-to-work, pro-business, anti-tax, states’ rights, you name it.
Dr. Paul also believes America should have the strongest national defense on earth — which he believes begins with not trying to constantly police the earth. Right now, our government puts our best and bravest in harm’s way on a regular basis for questionable reasons and with no discernible notion of victory. This is not supporting the troops. It’s abusing them. Dr. Paul wants an end to this absurd, costly policy.
The voters have declared Dr. Paul the alternative to the liberal, flip flopping Mitt Romney. The other candidates are simply irrelevant. In the New Hampshire Primary, Dr. Paul received more votes than all the supposed Anti-Romney (Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry) candidates combined.
The question for Republican voters is not whether they can afford to vote for Dr. Paul – it’s whether they can afford not to.
America Needs Ron Paul.
By Ken E. January 14, 2012 at 11:11 pm
On a hunch, I just Googled this exact text from your post above:
“Ron Paul, a patriot, who has honorably served his country, defends both the constitution and civil liberties, and is for peace and prosperity. Dr. Paul has the wisdom, foresight, honesty and integrity to be president.”
It returned 73 results, all within the last 4 days. Copy and paste. Very original. You fanatics need a new damn hobby. He’s not going to be elected president. Sorry.
By Debbie January 15, 2012 at 10:48 am
At least Ron Paul doesn’t owe his families wealth to high level SOVIETS like the Romney’s do… is it any wonder why the Romney’s don’t serve in the military? There shouldn’t be.
Read: The Real Mitt Romney the Weather-vane candidate.
By Jo January 15, 2012 at 12:11 am
Really, don’t pay much attention to the polls. Especially ARG polls. Many don’t meet accepted scientific standards and are just thrown out there to fuel the propaganda machine. Most use landlines only as opposed to cell phones and others use only registered voters that have voted before. This ARG poll included almost 50% Democrats. It’s all a mindgame. Ignore it.
By john January 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
The electability polls showing Romney Ahead are WRONG!
Disclosure:I am not a Ron Paul fan but I am starting to think he does have the best chance at winning. As well as the best polices for the country for a short period of time.
Think about how many young,independent, and Democrat voters want to vote for Ron Paul. We all know how bad the republican base wants to win including myself. Ron Paul would destroy Obama in a general, because he would have the Republican vote plus the extra 15% he has been getting in the primary that would not vote for any one else but Obama. Look at the polls with some common sense and not assumptions. Ron Paul will get voters no other Republican can pick up, that is overlooked and undervalued.
Ron Paul’s ideas can be extreme at first but think about it he is a constitutionalists right. He will not do anything big without approval of the people or other branches. He wants to shrink and save and we need that for the next four years we need all of that for 4 years. So my question is why are you so afraid of Ron Paul if you know he won’t do anything without the other branches and he couldn’t hurt the military more than Obama could in 4 years. He is the only one that will bring about the movement to change that we the people need to see and feel so we can trust the government again.
A Herman, Newt, Rick supporter
P.S. we need real change
By Alabaster II January 15, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Dear hearts and gentle people of SC, please be careful who you vote for. Study all the candidates and their platforms; especially Romney. IMO, he is a very wealthy man who is interested in himself, his rich friends and corporations.
By SCModerate January 15, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Huntsman voters will not vote for Ron Paul. Although many Huntsman supporters probably respect Paul for also being straight forward and non-pandering, I think it stops there. And in fact, even though Huntman is more conservative than Many of the Republican candidate, at least half of his supporters will vote for Obama if he is not the nominee. These supporters are willing to take a chance with Huntsman because of his intellectual honesty and moderate tone (not to be confused with moderate ideology).
If Huntsman is smart, he will stay in no matter what. Because when it comes down to Romney vs Huntsman, and people are forced to take a close look at each- I think Huntsman will be the clear choice of the Republican Party. (Just look at their jobs record (Huntsman #1 in the country, Romney #46). And with the proportional delates, the race is far from over. Also Huntsmans home turf is the West, which will likely decide the General election this year.
Picking Romney will lead to the same results as McCain. The perceived most electible this far out is almost always wrong. Obama was certainly not considered the most electible at this point in the primaries. Reagan was not considered most electable. If a candidate gets the nominee based on being most electable- that inherently says, the party is not crazy about him… and the result will be a loss in the general election due to lack of intensity.
Just because Romney has held every stance on an issue, does not mean he will attractive moderates (in fact its the opposite). Also such a candidate will lack the intensity from supporters that is needed to win. I still don’t understand why the Romney opponents aren’t just running ads with him saying opposite sides of every position in his own voice from debates- now and in Mass. The clip alone of “I am pro-choice” or some of the “Healthcare Mandate” statements alone, would erode much of his support. And he couldn’t claim they were wrong- because it would be a clip of him speaking in a debate?
By lulz January 16, 2012 at 12:09 am
How stupid do you feel now after all that? lol…your boy wants you to vote for Romney now too…will you obey like a good lap dog?