Ron Paul polls most favorably against Obama...

[CID1990]

The reason Ron Paul is running most favorably against Obama is because the ham sandwich and Pee Wee Herman aren't running.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

ahhh the internet - the only place where Ron Paul has any support.

Spoken like an arrogant two party duopolist.

1. Paultard is a REPUBLICAN. He's free to switch parties to one of the non-entities if he'd like...
2. third parties who cannot get their shit together often complain about the system - but the fact is, they aren't winning in the marketplace of ideas... any decent idea can get donors (the Libertarians have donors) what they don't have... is competent campaign managers
3

[kalm]

Spoken like an arrogant two party duopolist.

1. Paultard is a REPUBLICAN. He's free to switch parties to one of the non-entities if he'd like...
2. third parties who cannot get their shit together often complain about the system - but the fact is, they aren't winning in the marketplace of ideas... any decent idea can get donors (the Libertarians have donors) what they don't have... is competent campaign managers
3

Apology accepted.

[T-Dog]

Against most any other Republican, I'd vote for Obama. However against Obama, I'd vote for Ron Paul.

[EWURanger]

Against most any other Republican, I'd vote for Obama. However against Obama, I'd vote for Ron Paul.

That's pretty much where I'm at as well. Yeah, Paul is technically a Republican, but anyone who watched the first debate could see that he diverges from party line on a lot of issues. I'd probably end up voting for Obama if anyone other than Paul got the Republican nomination. In my mind, he's the only logical choice for real change.

[AZGrizFan]

Against most any other Republican, I'd vote for Obama. However against Obama, I'd vote for Ron Paul.

That's pretty much where I'm at as well. Yeah, Paul is technically a Republican, but anyone who watched the first debate could see that he diverges from party line on a lot of issues. I'd probably end up voting for Obama if anyone other than Paul got the Republican nomination. In my mind, he's the only logical choice for real change.

A vacant white house would be better than 4 more years towards bankruptcy at this point.

[Skjellyfetti]

So. This board seems like it's 50+% Paul supporters. But, yet again... Paul will get 1-2% of the vote.

This board represents a very strange demographic.

[AZGrizFan]

So. This board seems like it's 50+% Paul supporters. But, yet again... Paul will get 1-2% of the vote.

This board represents a very strange demographic.

Ron Paul will never get the Republican party nomination because he doesn't suck off the religious right.

[kalm]

So. This board seems like it's 50+% Paul supporters. But, yet again... Paul will get 1-2% of the vote.

This board represents a very strange demographic.

True, and I be willing to wager that it's about two party power structure, voter apathy, and how uninformed the general electorate really is.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

So. This board seems like it's 50+% Paul supporters. But, yet again... Paul will get 1-2% of the vote.

This board represents a very strange demographic.

True, and I be willing to wager that it's about two party power structure, voter apathy, and how uninformed the general electorate really is.

the classic lament of minor parties from the founding of the republic. if the ideas presented by the Libertarians were any good they'd have either a) been co-opted by a major party or b) enabled them to rise above one of the major parties.

the problem for Libertarians is that most Americans simply don't agree with their vision for the country.

[kalm]

True, and I be willing to wager that it's about two party power structure, voter apathy, and how uninformed the general electorate really is.

the classic lament of minor parties from the founding of the republic. if the ideas presented by the Libertarians were any good they'd have either a) been co-opted by a major party or b) enabled them to rise above one of the major parties.

the problem for Libertarians is that most Americans simply don't agree with their vision for the country.

Um, you do realize I'm not a libertarian?

2nd, it's not just about shutting down 3rd parties - as you pointed out, RP is a Republican. It's also about shutting down ideas that don't fit a certain corporatist agenda. Ever wonder why these days, certain groups benefit no matter who gets elected? People like RP, Bernie Sanders, Little Denny Kucinich have to scare the be-jesus belts out the elite.

[kalm]

Case in point, btw, was Ross Perot being absolutely correct about free trade.

[CID1990]

True, and I be willing to wager that it's about two party power structure, voter apathy, and how uninformed the general electorate really is.

the classic lament of minor parties from the founding of the republic. if the ideas presented by the Libertarians were any good they'd have either a) been co-opted by a major party or b) enabled them to rise above one of the major parties.

the problem for Libertarians is that most Americans simply don't agree with their vision for the country.

I am not so sure about that. In the scrum for votes neither party will risk losing definite voters for gambling on a fringe issue. Plus, most elections boil down to two or three major platfom issues, which means that lesser (but equally legitimate platforms) get drowned out. (And you know as well as I do that the major parties do A LOT to manipulate and shape the direction of elections.... in order to avoid confronting unpopular but sometimes necessary issues)

[BlueHen86]

I'd vote for Paul.

I'll vote for Obama if the GOP nominates Palin or Trump. I will also vote for Obama if it looks like the GOP will control both the house and senate. I've always felt that the country runs better when both parties have some power.

I'm undecided at this point regarding other possible GOP nominees.

[AZGrizFan]

I'd vote for Paul.

I'll vote for Obama if the GOP nominates Palin or Trump. I will also vote for Obama if it looks like the GOP will control both the house and senate. I've always felt that the country runs better when both parties have some power.

I'm undecided at this point regarding other possible GOP nominees.

"I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas." – Ron Paul

[Skjellyfetti]

the classic lament of minor parties from the founding of the republic. if the ideas presented by the Libertarians were any good they'd have either a) been co-opted by a major party or b) enabled them to rise above one of the major parties.

the problem for Libertarians is that most Americans simply don't agree with their vision for the country.

Um, you do realize I'm not a libertarian?

2nd, it's not just about shutting down 3rd parties - as you pointed out, RP is a Republican. It's also about shutting down ideas that don't fit a certain corporatist agenda. Ever wonder why these days, certain groups benefit no matter who gets elected? People like RP, Bernie Sanders, Little Denny Kucinich have to scare the be-jesus belts out the elite.

I wouldn't vote for Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich either... because they're TOO radical... even though I'm considered one of the more liberal people on the board. They're wayyyy too far left for me.

It's not about shutting down 3rd parties. I'd have no problem voting for someone that ran as a 3rd party... from the middle. If someone like Michael Bloomberg ran on his own... I could vote for him. It's that the "other guys" like Sanders, Nader, Kucinich, Ron Paul, etc. are far too "out there" on either end of the spectrum and are unelectable because of it.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

the classic lament of minor parties from the founding of the republic. if the ideas presented by the Libertarians were any good they'd have either a) been co-opted by a major party or b) enabled them to rise above one of the major parties.

the problem for Libertarians is that most Americans simply don't agree with their vision for the country.

Um, you do realize I'm not a libertarian?

2nd, it's not just about shutting down 3rd parties - as you pointed out, RP is a Republican. It's also about shutting down ideas that don't fit a certain corporatist agenda. Ever wonder why these days, certain groups benefit no matter who gets elected? People like RP, Bernie Sanders, Little Denny Kucinich have to scare the be-jesus belts out the elite.

I know you aren't - but that exact argument is the lament of minor parties... always has been.

as for "shutting down ideas that don't fit the corporatist agenda" I would point out to you that it's not necessarily the "system" doing the shutting down... but rather the MILLIONS of individual Americans who do quite well under said system who don't want to change it. Moreover, the framework of our entire country is built on a foundation of stability, slow, gradual change... very little in the way of lurching too far in any one direction - that's how we were built to be.

this notion though that radicals "scare the bejesus out of the elite" (a term by the way i'm still trying to understand, because it always seems to mean "people who don't see the world like me") - is inaccurate. Denny K and Bernie Sanders don't scare the mainstream... they annoy them.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

the classic lament of minor parties from the founding of the republic. if the ideas presented by the Libertarians were any good they'd have either a) been co-opted by a major party or b) enabled them to rise above one of the major parties.

the problem for Libertarians is that most Americans simply don't agree with their vision for the country.

I am not so sure about that. In the scrum for votes neither party will risk losing definite voters for gambling on a fringe issue. Plus, most elections boil down to two or three major platfom issues, which means that lesser (but equally legitimate platforms) get drowned out. (And you know as well as I do that the major parties do A LOT to manipulate and shape the direction of elections.... in order to avoid confronting unpopular but sometimes necessary issues)

My point is this - when a third party seizes on an issue, if they start getting any traction with it, one of the major parties WILL co-opt it (in some form or another) if it can be demonstrated that it moves the needle with enough voters to make a difference. The major parties don't go out looking for these things, but they do react to conditions on the ground. It's a savvy thing to do, especially when there are winner-take-all elections, you can't risk allowing a third place for votes to go.

[GSUhooligan]

So. This board seems like it's 50+% Paul supporters. But, yet again... Paul will get 1-2% of the vote.

This board represents a very strange demographic.

Ron Paul supporters are primarily well educated white males. I wonder what the demographic breakdown would be of a college football board that discusses schools with primarily alumni-only fan bases?

[biobengal]

When are people going to realize looks have nothing to do with a presidency?

Ron Paul wants to make pretty much everything legal- including well, everything, while eliminating most of the bureaucracy that cost so much tax money-

Also, wants to make all drugs, prostitution, pretty much everything consentual legal. Imagine- we would actually be living in a free country. It would be weird.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian of convenience....... Paul bows low to the Christian Conservatives on abortion, embryonic stem cells, gay marriage, church-state separation and a host of other social issues. In fact, Paul envisions a system where the church is very strong and government very weak. Paul is Libertarian Lite and Christian authority "heavy". NO F'N THANKS!!

Want a real Libertarian with real consistency... see this man:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/ ... -he-anyway" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;