Paul Beats Nader

that really is good news, he's moving up and as more hear about him and take him seriously more will most likely vote for him.
 
The point is that I would expect that the far left is better represented by Nader than Hillary. Maybe, they are better represented by Paul than either since he seems to pull from Hillary.
 
RStringfield said:
This is why I think some on the left are so pissed. Ron Paul is demonstrating that libertarian ideas, advanced by a candidate with some name recognition, are preferred over far left ideas.

Further, Paul's name recognition is up due solely to his ideas, rather than being a media darling like Nader.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ection_2008_clinton_42_giuliani_39_ron_paul_8
Click to expand...

Just a couple of truths you've ignored ..

If Nader is only 2-4 % behind Paul when Paul has been actively campaigning and fundraising for a year .. how in the hell do you consider this as "good news" and something "the left" should be worried about?

Shouldn't you be worried?

I'm betting Hitler has greater name recognition than Paul .. is that supposed to be some benchmark for who would be considered for president?

Libertarian ideas?

Let's review some history ..

1996 Presidential Election Results

Nader / Green -- 685,297
Browne / Libertarian -- 485,798

2000 Presidential Election Results

Nader / Green -- 2,833,105
Browne / Libertarian -- 384,516

2004 Presidential Election

Nader / Independent -- 463,655
Badnank / Libertarian -- 397,265

Nader should be worried about libertarians?

And let us not forget, even Ron Paul recognized the label of death that "Libertarian" carries .. so he became a republican.

He's a republican.

Didn't you get the memo?
 
yeah I don't understand all this libertarians running as Republicans and voting with the repubs most of the time on bills...butt somehow he is very left leaning ;)
 
uscitizen said:
yeah I don't understand all this libertarians running as Republicans and voting with the repubs most of the time on bills...butt somehow he is very left leaning ;)
Click to expand...

Paul is an act of desperation for some on the left who are fed up with the Democratic Party. Some close their eyes and pretend that Paul is "progressive" when in fact everything about him, except some of his foreign policy stances, are regressive.

Ron Paul is to the right of George Bush .. in fact, on many issues, he's to the right of every other Member of Congress .. which is why he's the ONLY one to get a 100% approval from the John Birch Society.
 
Right Regressive as I stated in another post. the Libertarians want to go bakc to the founding fathers days of our country.
It Ain't going to happen.
just idealism running amok.
 
blackascoal said:
Just a couple of truths you've ignored ..

If Nader is only 2-4 % behind Paul when Paul has been actively campaigning and fundraising for a year .. how in the hell do you consider this as "good news" and something "the left" should be worried about?

Shouldn't you be worried?
Click to expand...

Nader is a well known person. It is not as if he needs to get his name out to the people. Most know who he is and even with lower name recognition Paul beats him.

I'm betting Hitler has greater name recognition than Paul .. is that supposed to be some benchmark for who would be considered for president?
Click to expand...

WTF RU Talking about? How does this make any sense to you? Settle down, wipe the foam from your mouth and make a coherent argument.

Libertarian ideas?

Let's review some history ..

1996 Presidential Election Results

Nader / Green -- 685,297
Browne / Libertarian -- 485,798

2000 Presidential Election Results

Nader / Green -- 2,833,105
Browne / Libertarian -- 384,516

2004 Presidential Election

Nader / Independent -- 463,655
Badnank / Libertarian -- 397,265

Nader should be worried about libertarians?

And let us not forget, even Ron Paul recognized the label of death that "Libertarian" carries .. so he became a republican.

He's a republican.

Didn't you get the memo?
Click to expand...

:sigh:, the poll asked if he ran as a Libertarian. As I pointed out, Paul has gained name recognition, Browne and Badnarik had none at all.

Paul recognized the problems of running as a third party candidate, that's all.
 
blackascoal said:
Paul is an act of desperation for some on the left who are fed up with the Democratic Party. Some close their eyes and pretend that Paul is "progressive" when in fact everything about him, except some of his foreign policy stances, are regressive.
Click to expand...

Depends on your view of what is regressive and progressive. It's all relative. If you view the government involvement as a detriment more than a positive entity, he has progressive ideas. If you view government as an entity to supply services, you view Paul's ideas as regressive.

Some people view progress as citizens taking more control over their welfare rather than the government.

Ron Paul is to the right of George Bush .. in fact, on many issues, he's to the right of every other Member of Congress .. which is why he's the ONLY one to get a 100% approval from the John Birch Society.
Click to expand...

He's the boogey man in every childs closet.
 
RStringfield said:
Nader is a well known person. It is not as if he needs to get his name out to the people. Most know who he is and even with lower name recognition Paul beats him.



WTF RU Talking about? How does this make any sense to you? Settle down, wipe the foam from your mouth and make a coherent argument.



:sigh:, the poll asked if he ran as a Libertarian. As I pointed out, Paul has gained name recognition, Browne and Badnarik had none at all.

Paul recognized the problems of running as a third party candidate, that's all.
Click to expand...

So did Dano, that's all I've been saying for fricking 3 years now! :wall:

Hopefully a lot more Libertarians will run as Repubs and we will have more in power and actually voting. :)
 
Dano, I have never had a problem with Libs running as Repub or Dem. I think it is a viable option. But supporting the GOP beyond those candidates is not.
 
Holy fuck - almost 10%? Without any serious general campaigning? He's doing pretty good. I wouldn't have expected this.

It'll probably wind down by the time of the generals, though. A third party candidate usually has a lot of support at first, but if it never becomes likely that they'll win more than 20% the support winds down a lot.
 
Watermark said:
Holy fuck - almost 10%? Without any serious general campaigning? He's doing pretty good. I wouldn't have expected this.

It'll probably wind down by the time of the generals, though. A third party candidate usually has a lot of support at first, but if it never becomes likely that they'll win more than 20% the support winds down a lot.
Click to expand...


Keep in mind that in a three way race Bloomberg pulls in 11%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top