Rasmussen: Romney wins a 3-way race with Obama, Paul

posted at 2:01 pm on May 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier in this cycle, Republican fretted that Ron Paul could go rogue and run as an independent in the general election, which conventional wisdom held would be a disaster for the GOP.  Paul has (mostly) insisted that he has no intention to make an independent general-election run, but maybe Republicans were too quick to worry.  A new poll from Rasmussen among likely voters show that Romney would win in a three-way match, and Obama would have difficulty hitting 40% of the popular vote (via PJ Tatler):

Texas Congressman Ron Paul appears more interested in influencing the direction of the Republican Party than in running as an independent presidential candidate. But perhaps Democrats should be careful what they wish for: Even if Mitt Romney’s remaining GOP challenger should run as a third party candidate, new Rasmussen Reports surveying finds Romney the winner of a three-way race.

The latest national telephone survey shows that 25% of Likely U.S. Voters think Paul should run as a third party candidate. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree, but 13% more are not sure. …

Yet despite apparent Democratic hopes that a Paul candidacy might cut into Romney’s total, the likely Republican nominee is the winner of a three-way race if the election were held right now. Given that matchup, Romney earns 44% support to President Obama’s 39%. Paul runs a distant third with 13% of the vote. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate, and another two percent (2%) are undecided.

I doubt that Paul wants to launch an independent bid, too.  He has almost no chance of victory, and such a decision would almost certainly damage the influence of his son Rand in the Republican Party.  The motivations behind this Paul bid are likely to influence the future direction of the GOP, especially on fiscal matters, and to build the Paul organization so that Rand can take over and ride it to a presidential bid of his own.

Still, the Rasmussen results are intriguing.  They tend to corroborate the notion that a third-party run of any significance damages the incumbent rather than the challenger, which is exactly what happened in 1968 (the incumbent party, anyway), 1980, and 1992.  It worked out differently with Ross Perot’s second bid in 1996 for a number of reasons, probably more due to the resurgent economy and the weakness of the Republican ticket.

This poll did oversample Republicans over Democrats, however, with a D/R/I of 36/33/31.  That’s in the ballpark of the 2010 turnout model (35/35/30), but a GOP advantage would be a little surprising (not impossible, though) in 2012.  However, that doesn’t actually come too much into play in the internals.  Paul would get 23% of independents in a 3-way race, but only 5% of Democrats and 11% of Republicans.  More interesting is the fact that Romney gets 10% of Democrats in this poll, while Obama only gets 5% of Republicans.  And while a gender gap does appear between Romney and Obama in this poll, Romney has a 22-point advantage among men in the three-way split over Obama (51/29) while Obama only has a nine-point advantage among women over Romney (47/38).  That gender gap will be something to watch as more polls of likely voters follow.

More than a third of Democrats (34%) want Paul to run as an independent.  They may want to carefully consider the Chinese proverb that warns to be careful when wishing for something, lest one get it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

You have no idea what you’re talking about. AngusMc and AngryEd are very, veeerrrry different commenters. AM hates Palin, AE likes Palin. AM tends to the establishment, AE tends to the anarchic. You are the one who seems to have difficulty with more than binary options.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 2:43 PM

If I have trouble with binary options, at least I don’t have problems with reading comprehension.

I said their opinions on this topic (their Rasmussen smears) are similar and they are either the same person or get their info from the same source. One OR the other, get it?

Stupid posts like yours are the reason I quickly lost enthusiasm for posting here once registration was opened up, so thanks for that.

DRayRaven on May 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM

You have no idea what you’re talking about. AngusMc and AngryEd are very, veeerrrry different commenters. AM hates Palin, AE likes Palin. AM tends to the establishment, AE tends to the anarchic. You are the one who seems to have difficulty with more than binary options.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Indeed, I am a old school, establishment Republican and admittedly so. The establishment is the path to long term political success. Anti-establishment movements are fleeting unless they succeed in becoming the establishment themselves.

I’m skeptical of almost all pollsters individually as they all have axes to grind. Some pollsters have a better track record than others, Rasmussen lately (past few years) has been running pretty low was the main point I was trying to make.

AngusMc on May 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Geez. Stop. Just stop. You think most of us are HAPPY with Romney being the candidate? Seriously?

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I think people who vote for authoritarian statists, regardless of how they feel about it, enable authoritarian statism. But for enablers such as yourself, authoritarian statists and their cronies would not be in control of our country, turning it into a nanny police-state, briskly accelerating toward totalitarianism.

FloatingRock on May 8, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Enabler? You go P-off. I have yet to hear a better solution from you fist wavers.

All you are doing is enabling another four years of Obama. Where were you when the opportunity to get a “real” conservative in happened? Off sucking your thumb? Or babbling about “electability”?

Or were you reading the racist crap published by some weird old man who has no clue on foreign policy?

Pffffft.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

They absolutely do not care about principles anymore. It is all about Team “R” and a hatred of Obama. I hate Obama too. But what the hell was the tea party for if the GOP is going to force a nominee down our throats that is against everything that the tea party stood for?

The level of cognitive dissonance here as it relates to Romney’s complete lack of a conservative record is simply amazing.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Man, some of you people are just plain idiots. How exactly did the GOP force Romney down our throats? Was there secret GOP agents that showed up to everyone’s house and held a gun to them while they voted for Romney?

I am no fan of Romney but that doesn’t mean I think he was forced down my throat. Free people voted for him.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

You have no idea what you’re talking about. AngusMc and AngryEd are very, veeerrrry different commenters. AM hates Palin, AE likes Palin. AM tends to the establishment, AE tends to the anarchic. You are the one who seems to have difficulty with more than binary options.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 2:43 PM

In the world of Rush/Sean life is binary. Dem/bad. GOP/good. No in between, no critical thinking needed.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 2:49 PM

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Unfortunately, the Hannity/Rush listeners consider themselves to be uber-informed with respect to the rest of the population, and there is actually some truth to that given how little is told to us by the MSM. However, with respect to the inter-party disputes, they always seem to wind up supporting the RINO’s and will do nothing to rock the boat in the GOP. I don’t begrudge Limbaugh/Hannity for doing this as they are entertainers and are being careful not to alienate a good chunk of their audience, but it does bother me that they have been so dismissive of the only candidate that is actually serious about doing those things that they TALK about all the time (cutting spending, lowering taxes, cutting regulations, eliminating entire departments). Somehow, foreign policy trumps everything else. I don’t mind if someone disagrees with Ron Paul’s foreign policy, but even if you did, he is still about 80% right on CONSERVATIVE issues compared to Mitt Romney who has ZERO record of conservatism. He doesn’t even talk the talk, much less walk the walk. And we wonder why we can’t have nice things.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Man, some of you people are just plain idiots. How exactly did the GOP force Romney down our throats? Was there secret GOP agents that showed up to everyone’s house and held a gun to them while they voted for Romney?

I am no fan of Romney but that doesn’t mean I think he was forced down my throat. Free people voted for him.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Every “conservative” media outlet was pimping for Romney. NR, RomneyAir, Drudge, Fox News, etc. From the get go, the race was declared over and Romney declared the winner a year before a ballot had been cast.

You are either a naive gullible fool or have your head in the sand if you don’t think Romney was forced down our throats.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Or were you reading the racist crap published by some weird old man who has no clue on foreign policy?

Pffffft.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Did you know that Mitt Romney is a member of an organization that did not allow blacks to be full members until 1978? Since racism is so important to you, I figured you’d want to know that.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

All you are doing is enabling another four years of Obama. Where were you when the opportunity to get a “real” conservative in happened? Off sucking your thumb? Or babbling about “electability”?

Or were you reading the racist crap published by some weird old man who has no clue on foreign policy?

Pffffft.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

It’s the like you cut and pasted Rush/Sean talking points.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I said their opinions on this topic (their Rasmussen smears) are similar and they are either the same person or get their info from the same source. One OR the other, get it?

DRayRaven on May 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I have no idea if angryed uses RCP or not. You’d have to ask him.

AngusMc on May 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Something tells me a third party candidate will gain more than 13% of the vote. More like 25-27% sounds more plausible. Hey, Romney’s still deciding on immigration flip-flop!

jjnco73 on May 8, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I love how Angryed, and Floating and I wasbornwitit all like to blame Hannity/Levin//Limbaugh…that’s called “Making excuses”…and how anyone not supporting Ron Paul/Gary Johnson is a “zombie” or Stoopit…to sum up your critique is, we’re stoopit and it’s all someone else’s fault. How about putting the blame where it belongs…RON PAUL. He’s an inexperienced, kook, who verges on trooferism, and consorts with troofers, and anti-Semites, whilst profiting from racist newsletters. You Talk about libertarianism, but you don’t live it. Face it, your “product” was bad, and the consumers didn’t want it. You sound like Lutz, GM and the Obama Administration blaming everyone else for the Volt’s failure. Grow up, your desired candidate was a loser…it’s not OUR fault you backed a LOSER.

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 2:56 PM

So, what does Mitt Romney have to do to sweeten the deal? What move to the libertarian right would Mitt have to perform for you to see things his way?

JohnGalt23 on May 8, 2012 at 2:44 PM

My issues with Romney are mainly based on what I see as his insincerity. I do not believe he will do the things he says he will do in his campaign. I need him to talk straight, to tell the truth. It would be nice if he’d reject MassCare, it’d be nice if he’d admit that the Ryan plan doesn’t go nearly as far as it has to if we are to get on solid fiscal footing again, and it’d be nice if he’d pick a straight-shooter VP. But none of these really hit at the heart of Mitt’s weakness, which is his changeability. I’d always be wondering if he really meant it or if he just did it to get votes.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 2:57 PM

So, what does Mitt Romney have to do to sweeten the deal? What move to the libertarian right would Mitt have to perform for you to see things his way?

JohnGalt23 on May 8, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Libertarianism is closer to the center than statism is. The bigger and more powerful the state is, the further to the fringe.

Most libertarians aren’t going to believe a statist like Romney if he pretends like he’s more libertarian.

FloatingRock on May 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Did you know that Mitt Romney is a member of an organization that did not allow blacks to be full members until 1978? Since racism is so important to you, I figured you’d want to know that.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

How many black senators in DC ?

Jabberwock on May 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM

You are either a naive gullible fool or have your head in the sand if you don’t think Romney was forced down our throats.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Ed, the only thing being forced down your throat is a family-sized bucket of KFC as you lie on your parent’s couch typing the exact same thing month after month.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Rush/Sean zombies would tell you how wonderful Obama is tomorrow if he switched parties. They have been brainwashed into believing anything with “R” next to it is good.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM

You have no idea WTF you’re talking about.

Right Mover on May 8, 2012 at 2:59 PM

This poll did oversample Republicans over Democrats, however, with a D/R/I of 36/33/31.

I’m not sure I get the “however” in this sentence. If Republicans were worried about Paul stealing GOP votes, wouldn’t the effect be magnified in an oversampling of Republicans? Maybe the “however” refers to the above paragraph on incumbency, but the assumption still has been Paul’s candidacy would play to Obama’s advantage. But maybe the “however” simply indicates the poll is too generous to the GOP.

My guess is that Obama and Paul would be fighting for the 18- to 24-year-olds, which is why having Paul in the race would ultimately hurt Obama.

bobs1196 on May 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Why does everyone have to threaten harm to Rand Paul’s political career with every mention of his father?

It’s like political blackmail and screams establishment.

“Your son has a wonderful political career ahead of him, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it.”

How many people looked at HW Bush when talking about W Bush beyond just the fact that they were related?

The attempts to discredit Ron by threatening his son’s political career belongs in a Godfather style gangster movie and not in the GOP.

If this is what the GOP is coming to, we are all in trouble.

weaselyone on May 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Indeed, I am a old school, establishment Republican

AngusMc on May 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Yep, I knew I recognized ya. That’s what’s nice about reconizable nics, you have a POV track record.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Something tells me a third party candidate will gain more than 13% of the vote. More like 25-27% sounds more plausible. Hey, Romney’s still deciding on immigration flip-flop!

The best so far was Ross Perot (19%-1992)…and Johnson, much less Ron Paul are not Ross Perot. But if a Third Party candidate wins, you can say hello to four more years of Obama. But you may be one of the “We must lose to win” sorts. News Flash: Barry Goldwater did NOT give us Ronald Reagan….Barry Goldwater gave us the Great Society and Vietnam, indirectly. Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman and Jimmy Carter gave us Ronald Reagan.

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Ed, the only thing being forced down your throat is a family-sized bucket of KFC as you lie on your parent’s couch typing the exact same thing month after month.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Oh wow, that’s funny. Now how about addressing the core issue of the GOP going far left with Romney at the helm. Can’t debate that on merit so you have to go down the 4th grade route with ad hominem attacks. Mittbots are Obamabots, two peas in a pod.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM

A bonus of such a scenario (Romney winning a three-way race with 0bama and RP) is that it would render the anti-semitic conspiracy-mongering blame-America-first isolationist Paulbots completely irrelevant.

In ten years Ron Paul’s name will have every bit as much relevancy as that of the Reform Party and the Green Party do today.

/realizes someone else probably already said this, but did not read all comments

MidniteRambler on May 8, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Oh wow, that’s funny. Now how about addressing the core issue of the GOP going far left with Romney at the helm. Can’t debate that on merit so you have to go down the 4th grade route with ad hominem attacks. Mittbots are Obamabots, two peas in a pod.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Why would I debate you? You’re an absolute idiot.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 3:03 PM

The attempts to discredit Ron by threatening his son’s political career belongs in a Godfather style gangster movie and not in the GOP.

If this is what the GOP is coming to, we are all in trouble.

weaselyone on May 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM

It’s all they have. They can’t run on their record so they resort to gangster tactics. Look at Romney. You will never hear a RINO here on RomneyAir say vote for Romney because he will do XYZ. All you see is vote for Romney, if you don’t you’re a communist. Or vote for Romney, if you don’t the world will end. It’s nothing but intimidation and threats.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Or were you reading the racist crap published by some weird old man who has no clue on foreign policy?

Pffffft.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Did you know that Mitt Romney is a member of an organization that did not allow blacks to be full members until 1978? Since racism is so important to you, I figured you’d want to know that.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Oh fer f-sakes. That the best you can do? RP’s crap was in the 80-90s. The media’s babbling about Romney’s idiot dog in the 80s, you don’t think they would have oodles of fun with RP’s newsletters in the 1990s???

Since some people are so worried about the media and what they think, of course.

Stretch any further and you’ll need a ride home.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Can’t debate that on merit so you have to go down the 4th grade route with ad hominem attacks

This from a man/womyn who tells his/her critics “you’re not very intelligent’ and insults anyone living in fly-over country? Please spare me your outrage….You like Obama, you like how Obama’s economy is treating you and you are voting for Obama, I would hardly call you a Republican or Conservative.

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Why would I debate you? You’re an absolute idiot.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 3:03 PM

The Mittbot standard reply. Well done sir.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM

The best so far was Ross Perot (19%-1992)…and Johnson, much less Ron Paul are not Ross Perot. But if a Third Party candidate wins, you can say hello to four more years of Obama. But you may be one of the “We must lose to win” sorts. News Flash: Barry Goldwater did NOT give us Ronald Reagan….Barry Goldwater gave us the Great Society and Vietnam, indirectly. Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman and Jimmy Carter gave us Ronald Reagan.

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM

If Romney wins, 2016 we have another Obama. Remember amnesty and H. Myers. We can play games all day!

jjnco73 on May 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Indeed, I am a old school, establishment Republican and admittedly so. The establishment is the path to long term political success. Anti-establishment movements are fleeting unless they succeed in becoming the establishment themselves.

I’m skeptical of almost all pollsters individually as they all have axes to grind. Some pollsters have a better track record than others, Rasmussen lately (past few years) has been running pretty low was the main point I was trying to make.

AngusMc on May 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM

You may be right in that the Estalishment is the key to political success, but it’s not the key to our success as a nation. We’re on the brink of disaster due to the BS of both parties. Mainly b/c of the Establishment GOP, from their go along to get along crap which have increased spending and regulations to unimaginable levels.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 3:07 PM

.You like Obama, you like how Obama’s economy is treating you and you are voting for Obama, I would hardly call you a Republican or Conservative.

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM

When have I said that? I’d like a direct quote please.

You people are so pathetic. I don’t love Romney, therefore I love Obama.

Another Rush/Sean zombie.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:07 PM

You have no idea what you’re talking about. AngusMc and AngryEd are very, veeerrrry different commenters. AM hates Palin, AE likes Palin. AM tends to the establishment, AE tends to the anarchic. You are the one who seems to have difficulty with more than binary options.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Angryed likes Palin? Since when? He was calling her an idiot the other day.

Kataklysmic on May 8, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Oh wow, that’s funny. Now how about addressing the core issue of the GOP going far left with Romney at the helm. Can’t debate that on merit so you have to go down the 4th grade route with ad hominem attacks. Mittbots are Obamabots, two peas in a pod.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Why would I debate you? You’re an absolute idiot.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Don’t bother. I asked him numerous times in the past what his plan was with not voting for Romney if he was the candidate and the only response besides crickets was

BWAAAAAK OBAMA = ROMNEY
BWAAAAAK OBAMA = ROMNEY
BWAAAAAK OBAMA = ROMNEY
BWAAAAAK OBAMA = ROMNEY
BWAAAAAK OBAMA = ROMNEY

So save your time and pass on trying to get an actual response.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM

In the world of Rush/Sean life is binary. Dem/bad. GOP/good. No in between, no critical thinking needed.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Projection, dude.
Eschewing “critical thinking” is exactly what you’re doing when you brand 25,000,000 people as thinking exactly the same way because of who they listen to.
You have no idea what you’re talking about–because you obviously have never listened to either program. You outed yourself when you commented in another thread that Rush never criticizes anybody with an (R) next to his name. That’s beyond ludicrous.
In fact, the mere idea that Limbaugh listeners and Hannity listeners/viewers are precisely the same subset is just as erroneous. They are nothing alike, their shows are nothing alike, and their respective levels of insight are quite divergent (Limbaugh provides tons of insight and is miles ahead of the curve with his read on liberals and the media; Hannity interviews politicians and authors and spouts repetitive talking points).

But, look at me. I’m arguing with a self-professed Obama voter who should really go back to Daily Kos or HuffPo where he belongs.

Right Mover on May 8, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Washington Times exposes media treatment of Ron Paul:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/may/8/media-just-wont-let-ron-paul/

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Angryed likes Palin? Since when? He was calling her an idiot the other day.

Kataklysmic on May 8, 2012 at 3:07 PM

According to Mittbots, I love Palin. I love Obama. I love Ron Paul, I am a communist and a libertarian and a socialist. I hate dogs, I love dogs.

LOL.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Oh wow, that’s funny. Now how about addressing the core issue of the GOP going far left with Romney at the helm. Can’t debate that on merit so you have to go down the 4th grade route with ad hominem attacks. Mittbots are Obamabots, two peas in a pod.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I don’t know about this.
Just like Obama in ’08, a lot of what Romney does, if elected, will depend quite a bit on down ticket results. If down ticket is more conservative then him, and gains seats, he’ll be forced to the right.
Congressional elections will dictate left/right direction.

Jabberwock on May 8, 2012 at 3:11 PM

But, look at me. I’m arguing with a self-professed Obama voter who should really go back to Daily Kos or HuffPo where he belongs.

Right Mover on May 8, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Of course. Sean/Rush say that therefore it must be true. Anyone who isn’t part of the RINO Romney circle jerk belongs at Kos.

PS: You’re a great American!!!!!

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Angryed likes Palin? Since when? He was calling her an idiot the other day.

Kataklysmic on May 8, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I thought he partook of the Long Ago Palin Spats (LAPS(c)) on the Pro-Palin side. Perhaps he’s soured on her.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 3:12 PM

I’m more worried about Gary Johnson running as a Libertarian. Romney doesn’t need to win New Mexico necessarily, but every bit will help. With Johnson on the ticket, though, I doubt Romney can.

I’ll also mention something funny about the Libertarian Party. During the 90′s, I was a due-paying member of the Party. I’ve not given them money or time since then. Nevertheless, for a party that so greatly values privacy, they’ve been able to track me down through two address changes in twelve years to hit me up for more money. I won’t give money to the GOP for that reason. If the elephants would promise never to call me or send me mail, I’d probably give them money every year.

EricW on May 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 2:56 PM

angryed is a left-wing troll who at times passes himself/herself off as Rick Santorum/Newt Gingrich-supporting Tea Party conservative who will never support Romney. angryed does this when he/she thinks it will suppress GOP support for Romney, thereby helping 0bama. That is this thread’s version of angyed.

At other times, angryed poses as a Clintonian centrist Democrat and successful small business owner who supports pragmatic moderation. Or, angyred is sometimes an anti-military OWS radical who claims 0bama is no better than Romney. I suspect this last persona is the “real” angyred, so far as any of them are.

When you call angryed out on his/her schizophrenic trolling, he/she trots out the line about getting outside the “Rush-Hannity bubble”, and suggests he/she is just too complex for us to understand.

MidniteRambler on May 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM

When have I said that? I’d like a direct quote please.
You people are so pathetic. I don’t love Romney, therefore I love Obama

I can’t because I don’t have the Google search skills, HOWEVER you have repeatedly said YOUR real estate investments and YOUR stock portfolio is doing well…that Obama has seen a 300% in REIT (???) That in Tennessee and other red-fly-over states people may have ideas but in Urban America things are doing well and you have the better vision of Obama’s America…Now that is my meory of Angryed discussing his take on Obama’s Economy, care to deny it? Or have I confused with another Angryed?

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM

When have I said that? I’d like a direct quote please.

You people are so pathetic. I don’t love Romney, therefore I love Obama.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Here ya go pumpkin.

I’ve said repeatedly I want Obama to win. Not in any type of closet.

angryed on April 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Trafalgar on May 8, 2012 at 3:14 PM

I thought he partook of the Long Ago Palin Spats (LAPS(c)) on the Pro-Palin side. Perhaps he’s soured on her.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Who knows. Everything I thought I new about Ed went out the window a couple weeks ago.

Kataklysmic on May 8, 2012 at 3:16 PM

*knew

Kataklysmic on May 8, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Meanwhile North Carolina is going to the polls today over a gay marriage amendment. So keep shaking your head.

Exactly, and in my own state, Arizona they just passed a bill stopping the state from contracting with groups that assist in abortions. And while I agree completely with it, it continues to feed this notion that rather than deal with “bigger issues” (jobs, health care costs, gas prices, etc) the Republicans only care about pushing social issues.

My friend (a Dem) went off on why are we spending all this money on random government programs that do nothing, then the next breath disgust at why the Republican super majority in our state is focusing on anti-abortion stuff. If Republicans are not going to truly tackle financial issues and bring in the cost of government, then why would he ever switch from a D to a R?

nextgen_repub on May 8, 2012 at 3:16 PM

The Mittbot standard reply. Well done sir.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM

No “Rush/Sean” insult?

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 3:16 PM

All you are doing is enabling another four years of Obama. Where were you when the opportunity to get a “real” conservative in happened? Off sucking your thumb? Or babbling about “electability”?

Or were you reading the racist crap published by some weird old man who has no clue on foreign policy?

Pffffft.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Ron Paul is the real conservative. Did you vote for him?

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 3:19 PM

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I would be ecstatic if we could stick to debating the issues on the merits. However, you decided to bring up the tired old racist charge, which meant that it is relevant to you. I simply pointed out that Mitt Romney was a member of an organization that was actually racist.

The Mormon Church did not allow blacks to become “full members” until 1978:

“Under the racial restrictions that lasted from the presidency of Brigham Young until 1978, persons with any black African ancestry could not hold the priesthood in the LDS Church and could not participate in some temple ordinances, such as the Endowment and celestial marriage. Black people were permitted to be members of the church, and participate in other temple ordinances, such as baptism for the dead.[23]
The racial restriction policy was applied to black Africans, persons of black African descent, and any one with mixed race that included any black African ancestry. The policy was not applied to Native Americans, Hispanics, Melanesians or Polynesians.”

Apostle George F. Richards in a talk at General Conference similarly taught: “[t]he Negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom.”[29]

Mitt Romney was apparently okay with this until the church changed its policy in 1978. We have no record of him speaking out against this policy or resigning as a member of the church to protest this abhorrent racist belief. I don’t know that you can get any more racist than you cannot achieve the full glory of God because of the color of your skin. I am NOT saying that Mitt Romney was personally racist against black people. However, his membership in this organization at the very least shows that he has a significant moral blindspot when it comes to racial equality.

Anyway, I am happy to compare and contrast their respective records. You brought up the BS racism charge and I responded in kind.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 3:20 PM

I don’t know about this.
Just like Obama in ’08, a lot of what Romney does, if elected, will depend quite a bit on down ticket results. If down ticket is more conservative then him, and gains seats, he’ll be forced to the right.
Congressional elections will dictate left/right direction.

Jabberwock on May 8, 2012 at 3:11 PM

We must all support Eric Cantor’s Young Guns PAC so we can throw out all Tea Party Conservative therefore gaining Romney’s leftward traction. Come on guy’s, you know the President sets the agenda.

jjnco73 on May 8, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Of course. Sean/Rush say that therefore it must be true. Anyone who isn’t part of the RINO Romney circle jerk belongs at Kos.

PS: You’re a great American!!!!!

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Buttons pushed. Heehee.

Mission accomplished.

Like candy from a baby.

Right Mover on May 8, 2012 at 3:21 PM

getting back to the poll…what a bizarre poll.

I’m not taking it seriously. The math doesn’t add up. Which isn’t to say that Paul shouldn’t have a speaking spot at the convention. But let’s just hope he abides by the rules and doesn’t go into Cindy Shehan/Code pink territory…or start raving against Israel.

Some criticism of the current Fed insanity would be welcome however

(btw, I’m glad we can all ID AngryEd as an Obama.bot now)

r keller on May 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Kataklysmic on May 8, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I stand corrected, as my memory is apparently faulty. There was only one candidate he liked less than Palin, and that was Huck. So…yeah.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Ron Paul is the real conservative. Did you vote for him?

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 3:19 PM

How do you know?

Show us the birth certificate!

cozmo on May 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM

And while I agree completely with it, it continues to feed this notion that rather than deal with “bigger issues” (jobs, health care costs, gas prices, etc) the Republicans only care about pushing social issues

.

I’m a Fusion Conservative (Socon AND Fiscon), look you are fooling yourself on this. Look at Romney, he sews up the nomination, suddenly he’s the most conservative GOP’er since Goldwater. It’s what they do. It’s like Blacks who worry about discussing Black social pathology because racists will seize upon it…guess what racists already talk badly about them! It’s what they do…ANY Republican will be anti-gay, anti-womon, a sexist racist homophobic bigot, no matter who they are… if you worry about ‘their perceptions” of Republicans, you’ve lost.

You don’t see liberals telling THEIR interest groups, “Oh please don’t talk Gay rights, it makes it seem like that’s all we care about.”, do you? Democrats can walk (economics) and chew gum (social issues) at the same time, why not Republicans?

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Ron Paul is the real conservative. Did you vote for him?

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I don’t think he is. His foreign policy stances scare the bejeebers out of me. Sorry. And to your question, no.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Ron Paul is the real conservative. Did you vote for him?

No Ron Paul is the LIBERTARIAN/Lew Rockwell candidate…and your support for him, Mr. verging on Anarchy says that….

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:26 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/11/confirmed-obama-in-real-trouble-in-florida/comment-page-2/#comment-4470612

By the way, last year you were insisting that you’d vote for whichever Republican could beat Obama, which was why you were withholding support from some less-likely candidates.

Why the change?

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Anyway, I am happy to compare and contrast their respective records. You brought up the BS racism charge and I responded in kind.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Again, how many African Americans in US Senate ?

Jabberwock on May 8, 2012 at 3:28 PM

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Ugh, quote fail again… mb

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Again, how many African Americans in US Senate ?

Jabberwock on May 8, 2012 at 3:28 PM

None, to my knowledge. There are only a handful of women there, too. What does that prove?

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 3:29 PM

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Probably a bit closer to that other Rockwell.

coldwarrior on May 8, 2012 at 3:32 PM

The media’s babbling about Romney’s idiot dog in the 80s, you don’t think they would have oodles of fun with RP’s newsletters in the 1990s???

Since some people are so worried about the media and what they think, of course.

Stretch any further and you’ll need a ride home.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:04 PM

And the media will use this against Romney. They have already started: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-02-01/mormon-romney-black/52920394/1

Apparently Romney refused to condemn the church’s past treatment of blacks:

In a 2007 Meet the Press interview, Tim Russert noted that Romney was 31 when the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978. “Didn’t you think, ‘What am I doing part of an organization that is viewed by many as a racist organization?’” Russert asked.

“I’m very proud of my faith, and it’s the faith of my fathers,” Romney answered. “And I’m not going to distance myself from my faith in any way.”

But Romney also said that he had been “anxious to see a change in my church” and recalled weeping when he heard that the ban had been lifted.

“Even at this day it’s emotional, and so it’s very deep and fundamental in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God,” Romney said.

Pressed by Russert, Romney refused to say his church was wrong to restrict blacks from full participation.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 3:32 PM

I can’t because I don’t have the Google search skills, HOWEVER you have repeatedly said YOUR real estate investments and YOUR stock portfolio is doing well…that Obama has seen a 300% in REIT (???)

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Well yes, sorry. My real estate investments are doing well as is my stock portfolio. And yes REIT is up 300% since early 2009. Would you prefer REIT was down 50% instead? I don’t see what your point is.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Mitt Romney was apparently okay with this until the church changed its policy in 1978. We have no record of him speaking out against this policy or resigning as a member of the church to protest this abhorrent racist belief. I don’t know that you can get any more racist than you cannot achieve the full glory of God because of the color of your skin. I am NOT saying that Mitt Romney was personally racist against black people. However, his membership in this organization at the very least shows that he has a significant moral blindspot when it comes to racial equality.

Anyway, I am happy to compare and contrast their respective records. You brought up the BS racism charge and I responded in kind.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 3:20 PM

You really just killed your argument with the above paragraph. “Apparently okay” – you have no idea, but are making suppositions.

“No record of him speaking out” – not everything is on record, right? You well could be right, but we don’t have proof.

“I am NOT saying that MR was personally racist…” – so what are you saying? Why bring it up then? Are you saying that if I belong to the Catholic Church and a few priests are pedophiles and the Church (as we know) covered up and lied, does that mean that I am a pedophile who covers up crimes? Guilt by association?

RP had his name on those newsletters and printed them. Direct contact.

Romney is guilty by association.

I guess all Catholics are pedophiles and crime cover uppers.

I really do like “significant moral blindspot”. That really does fit for both the Catholics and the Mormons if that’s your assessment.

Hey, is RP Catholic? We could also call him a pedophile and a coverer up of crimes because he belongs to a Church with a dubious background. We have no proof that he actually is one or whether he believes in it, but we have no record that he spoke up and he is a member.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Just like Obama in ’08, a lot of what Romney does, if elected, will depend quite a bit on down ticket results. If down ticket is more conservative then him, and gains seats, he’ll be forced to the right.
Congressional elections will dictate left/right direction.

Jabberwock on May 8, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Then what difference does it make is it’s Obama or Romney? I agree with you btw. The makeup of the senate (moreso than the house since senate confirms appointments) will dictate what happens 2013-2014. Whether it’s Obama or Romney is almost beside the point.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Hey, is RP Catholic? We could also call him a pedophile and a coverer up of crimes because he belongs to a Church with a dubious background. We have no proof that he actually is one or whether he believes in it, but we have no record that he spoke up and he is a member.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:34 PM

I think he’s mainline protestant, but yes, the Left would use that line of attack had we nominated a catholic.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 3:36 PM

LOL. Got kicked around. Sure. I posted how completely inaccurate Rasmussen polls are. Then you “kicked me around” by covering your eyes and repeating I see no evil, I see no evil, I see no evil.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 2:20 PM

No, you cut and pasted for the 637th time in 4 weeks the same single “analysis” done by a Left-Wing blogger named Nate Silver, who works for a “newspaper” that endorsed O’bama in 2008 and will do so again this year. His conclusions about Ras as I recall were for a non-Presidential election, 2010.

And yet when another poster rebutted your claim showing that Rasmussen was one of the two most accurate pollsters in the 2008 Presidential election, you stuck your fingers in your ears and went “tra-la-la, I can’t hear you!”.

Go eat some more oats, Wilbur. You’re Out to Pasture now.

Del Dolemonte on May 8, 2012 at 3:36 PM

No, you cut and pasted for the 637th time in 4 weeks the same single “analysis” done by a Left-Wing blogger named Nate Silver, who works for a “newspaper” that endorsed O’bama in 2008 and will do so again this year. His conclusions about Ras as I recall were for a non-Presidential election, 2010.
Del Dolemonte on May 8, 2012 at 3:36 PM

LOL. So now statistical analysis of polls is a left/right thing? Got it. You’re beyond pathetic.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Well yes, sorry. My real estate investments are doing well as is my stock portfolio. And yes REIT is up 300% since early 2009. Would you prefer REIT was down 50% instead? I don’t see what your point is.

That you are an Obama supporter, not just some lost waif in the GOP…..as others with Google-Fu seem to be demonstrating…but continue on with the “I’m just an angry Republican” if it makes you feel good today…when just last week you were a proud member of Obama’s America, dismissing the rubes in fly-over country.

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:38 PM

If down ticket is more conservative then him, and gains seats, he’ll be forced to the right.

Jabberwock on May 8, 2012 at 3:11 PM

“Down ticket” varies depending on the state, whether its more liberal or more conservative. Depend on Romney fighting a conservative caucus in congress tooth and nail, with all the old guard on his side. It’s like electing Lindsey Graham.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Rasmussen had the highest error rate of any pollster in 2010 AND was the most biased pollster in 2010. His polls were off by an average of 5.8% and on average were biased in favor of Republicans by 3.9%.

And yet RomneyAirians continue to take anything coming out of this Republican soothsayer as gospel.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Why would I debate you? You’re an absolute idiot.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Yeah, why would you, you’re candidate has all the crony money on his side, he’s above debate. He’s the anointed one.

FloatingRock on May 8, 2012 at 3:40 PM

None, to my knowledge. There are only a handful of women there, too. What does that prove?

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 3:29 PM

You have tried to smear Romney by his association with an “organization” that didn’t integrate intil 1978.
So what ! Not his organization. And I doubt he could influence it.
Has NOTHING to do with his beliefs.
Aside from Ill. no state has sent an AA to the senate in modern times. Should we be so smeared ? What state are you from ?

Jabberwock on May 8, 2012 at 3:40 PM

That you are an Obama supporter, not just some lost waif in the GOP…..as others with Google-Fu seem to be demonstrating…but continue on with the “I’m just an angry Republican” if it makes you feel good today…when just last week you were a proud member of Obama’s America, dismissing the rubes in fly-over country.

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:38 PM

What are you babbling on about? I want Romney to lose. That means Obama will win. If I could have a Romney loss and an Obama loss I’d take that option.

And again, please show me where I was a proud member of Obama’s America? Oh you mean living in a city instead of a backwater? OK. Guilty as charged. I didn’t realize I need to be a toothless hick in order to be a Republican.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Let’s try this again…

Last year you said you’d support anyone who could beat Obama. This year you say no, you will not support Romney on ideological grounds. Why the change?

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 3:42 PM

So Obama beats Romney 53% to 44% in a three-way race? Man, Mittens sucks even more than I thought; I figured he’d lose by only 8%.

Buckshot Bill on May 8, 2012 at 3:43 PM

And yet RomneyAirians continue to take anything coming out of this Republican soothsayer as gospel.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM

5 is more than 3.9, you dumbass.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 3:43 PM

How do you know?

Show us the birth certificate!

cozmo on May 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM

I’ll say this very slowly for the Rush/Sean/Hannity listeners that emptyhed seems to be right about for once in his pathetic life:

Obama. Has. Gotten. Away. With. It. There is nobody with the legal power and the will to take him on over his BC. Deal with that fact and move the hell on.

And as for RP, there’s no question of his citizenship.

MelonCollie on May 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

And yes JFKY, they are rubes because they are so easily duped by Rush/Sean, Fox News into thinking Romney is something he’s not. If Sean/Rush say Romney’s severely conservative, by golly he must be. If Fox News says he is conservative, well he must be, after all St. Rush would never lie to us, right?

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

ALTERNATE TITLE: Ron Paul Independent Run Hurts Obama More Than Romney.

I’ve been saying that was the potential for the longest time. This is an interesting bit of propaganda. I say, propaganda, because I don’t buy Rasmussen’s polls. I just saw a poll which said in a hypothetical Ron Paul/Obama match up that it’d be a tie. Now THIS poll gives you the impression that a minority want Paul to run? There was also the PPP poll in Montana which showed that Paul leads Romney against Obama because he DOMINATED with independents.

In the states in which Paul got well known in, he’s popular.

In the big states in which he couldn’t afford to get well known in, he struggles.

That’s always been the case with his message – the MORE people HEAR and UNDERSTAND it the better he does. That, more than anything, is what’s been hurting him.

If only he had Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan fat cats to bankroll his campaign like Obama/Romney 2012.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

You might want to note what other folks have pointed out by quoting you Angry…about your support for Obama (trafalgar) amongst others…..

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Romney increased spending by 26% as governor.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I just did a Google search using your words above.

The only results that came back all linked to you claiming this here on Hot Air.

Can you please prove with credible cites your 26% claim?

Del Dolemonte on May 8, 2012 at 3:46 PM

5 is more than 3.9, you dumbass.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 3:43 PM

You don’t understand what average means I take it. Isn’t the great American (high school dropout) on the radio right now? Why don’t you call him up and ask him to explain it to you.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I wonder who is your flavor of the month?

idesign on April 11, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Whomeever can beat Obama. It isn’t Palin. That much I know.

angryed on April 11, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Admit it ed. You just want attention.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 3:46 PM

And yes JFKY, they are rubes because they are so easily duped by Rush/Sean, Fox News into thinking Romney is something he’s not. If Sean/Rush say Romney’s severely conservative, by golly he must be. If Fox News says he is conservative, well he must be, after all St. Rush would never lie to us, right

We’re not easily duped, you schizophrenic egotist…We, most of us, know that Romney is not the candidate WE’D have chosen, but he’s the candidate…..and as to YOU, you are a troll, switching your persona about to meet the needs of the thread or the voices in your head.

JFKY on May 8, 2012 at 3:48 PM

I think he’s mainline protestant, but yes, the Left would use that line of attack had we nominated a catholic.

alwaysfiredup on May 8, 2012 at 3:36 PM

We should change our views and actions because the press might do something with it? Is that what you are saying now?

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:50 PM

And yet when another poster rebutted your claim showing that Rasmussen was one of the two most accurate pollsters in the 2008 Presidential election, you stuck your fingers in your ears and went “tra-la-la, I can’t hear you!”.

Del Dolemonte on May 8, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Last I saw was that Rasmussen finished as tied for 9th place in terms of accuracy in 2008. People like to cite that Costas Panagopolous “preliminary” finding, but that was done before the final vote totals were in. The final vote totals showed a different picture, and Panagopolous’s final published paper in Political Science Quarterly showed that Rasmussen’s final 2008 poll was tied with Pew for 9th best in accuracy.

AngusMc on May 8, 2012 at 3:50 PM

If I could have a Romney loss and an Obama loss I’d take that option.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Sorry chump.

I’ve said repeatedly I want Obama to win. Not in any type of closet.

angryed on April 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Trafalgar on May 8, 2012 at 3:51 PM

How exactly did the GOP force Romney down our throats? Was there secret GOP agents that showed up to everyone’s house and held a gun to them while they voted for Romney?

I am no fan of Romney but that doesn’t mean I think he was forced down my throat. Free people voted for him.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Shhh. Actually, it wasn’t free people. The protocols of the elders of the Republican party include a secret plan to create a Stepford race of Republican primary voters just to get Mitt Romney elected. They created enough to get through Pennsylvania and then stopped the plan when Santorum dropped out. I don’t know why they’re worried about November, they should just continue the Stepford replacement. I haven’t been able to figure out why they don’t do this for all elections.

talkingpoints on May 8, 2012 at 3:52 PM

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Rush hasn’t said Romney is conservative in the ’12 cycle. He propped him up a little in 2008 because McCain was a worse choice. That’s it as far as I know.

You don’t like Rush, Beck, Palin, Or Hannity. I’m guessing you weren’t a fan of Breitbart either since he was staunch ABO. Are there any conservative pundits that you respect?

Kataklysmic on May 8, 2012 at 3:52 PM

You don’t see liberals telling THEIR interest groups, “Oh please don’t talk Gay rights, it makes it seem like that’s all we care about.”, do you? Democrats can walk (economics) and chew gum (social issues) at the same time, why not Republicans?

Republicans can and do. I’m just stating what I’ve heard from countless Independent/Democrat friends that I have. Republicans seem to have this stigma that the social issues they touch limit someone else from doing something and therefore it’s restricting and “evil”. My point is, why when you have issues like the economy, gas and pending debt crisis high on people’s minds do you give evidence for Dems to push those fears onto potential Romney voters.

nextgen_repub on May 8, 2012 at 3:53 PM

You don’t understand what average means I take it. Isn’t the great American (high school dropout) on the radio right now? Why don’t you call him up and ask him to explain it to you.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Was that supposed to mean something?

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 3:53 PM

No, you cut and pasted for the 637th time in 4 weeks the same single “analysis” done by a Left-Wing blogger named Nate Silver, who works for a “newspaper” that endorsed O’bama in 2008 and will do so again this year. His conclusions about Ras as I recall were for a non-Presidential election, 2010.

Del Dolemonte on May 8, 2012 at 3:36 PM

LOL. So now statistical analysis of polls is a left/right thing? Got it. You’re beyond pathetic.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Translated: “The Nate Silver ‘analysis’ is all I have, so I will try and change the subject and call Del Pathetic!”

F-

I’m willing to give you another chance to make a fool out of yourself. Please supply us with several other cites of Rasmussen’s polling inaccuracy. No links to Nate Silver, either.

Del Dolemonte on May 8, 2012 at 3:53 PM

I think people who vote for authoritarian statists, regardless of how they feel about it, enable authoritarian statism. But for enablers such as yourself, authoritarian statists and their cronies would not be in control of our country, turning it into a nanny police-state, briskly accelerating toward totalitarianism.

FloatingRock on May 8, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I cannot disagree.

MadisonConservative on May 8, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I wonder who is your flavor of the month?

idesign on April 11, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Whomeever can beat Obama. It isn’t Palin. That much I know.

angryed on April 11, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Admit it ed. You just want attention.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Told ya he won’t give you a useful answer.

So don’t give him any attention. He’s a troll and Obama voter, as proven earlier by another poster.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:54 PM

According to my single cherry-picked piece of evidence from the NY Times’ Nate Silver, Rasmussen had the highest error rate of any pollster in 2010 AND was the most biased pollster in 2010. His polls were off by an average of 5.8% and on average were biased in favor of Republicans by 3.9%.

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Fixed it, Wilbur.

Now please back up Silver’s claim, Sparky, with several other credible and multi-sourced cites. None of which can mention or link to Nate Silver.

Del Dolemonte on May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I wonder who is your flavor of the month?

idesign on April 11, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Whomeever can beat Obama. It isn’t Palin. That much I know.

angryed on April 11, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Link

This is very interesting, ed.

Being that you have absolutely no problem voting for “whommever (sic) can beat Obama”, why not a big fat liberal like Romney? Clearly you have zero core values.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Admit it ed. You just want attention.

Chuck Schick on May 8, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Hammer, meet nail head ed.

SauerKraut537 on May 8, 2012 at 3:57 PM

I think people who vote for authoritarian statists, regardless of how they feel about it, enable authoritarian statism. But for enablers such as yourself, authoritarian statists and their cronies would not be in control of our country, turning it into a nanny police-state, briskly accelerating toward totalitarianism.

FloatingRock on May 8, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I cannot disagree.

MadisonConservative on May 8, 2012 at 3:54 PM

It’s just words. I have yet to see a workable plan from any of these people.

I’ve been asking this question for months now: Does anyone have a better plan, one that actually has a chance of working? Love to hear it.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4