MSNBC poll shows the real winner of the debate. I think Americans are finally disenchanted enough to listen to a fresh voice (who is really a libertarian!) who makes the most sense.

Hopefully, the people will continue to learn about Ron Paul and continue giving him support.

Hopefully, it won’t be like nominations in the past, where the best candidates get pushed into the corner of obscurity.

So who won ?
Tagged on:     

9 thoughts on “So who won ?

  • anWow…very interesting results. I love Ron Paul, but I don’t know, I’m of the opinion you’re being a little optimistic. My hunch is that there were probably a lot of non-Republicans watching this debate as well, and latched onto his anti-Iraq war stance as a great reason to say “he’s the man.”

    Hopefully, though, there were enough Republicans who paid attention to his statement (roughly quoting), “That’s the problem with the Federal Government, we seem to be able only to either prohibit or subsidize.”

    That was a VERY accurate and VERY important statement, which summed up well his views (in and out of this debate) on the flaws of a spendthrift government.

    But as accurate as the “policemen of the world” statements may be, I fear that a lot of these votes on MSN aren’t from those who would vote in a Republican primary. But, hell, I could be way off. It would have been interesting to see what would happen if the votes were split up between R, D, and I.

    Honestly, though, I find it sad that some of the other candidates aren’t given more credit for having very level-headed views and presenting themselves very well. Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee did very well in this debate, and are being almost COMPLETELY ignored by the talking heads.

    As far as Ron Paul, he just doesn’t come across very well on screen, which sadly is very important. Ross Perot proved that the smartest guy making the best points will make a minimal impact on the general election.

    You know, though, now that I think about it…2008 would be a perfect time for Paul to run as a 3rd party or independent. My thoughts are he would pull as many people from the left (anti-war) as he would from the right (spending), which would make him less of a “spoiler” (like Perot on the right and Nader on the left) and more of a tool for change.

    Thoughts?

  • Interesting finding from the drudgereport:

    ACTUAL DEBATE COVERAGE: 8-9:30PM:

    FNC 2,023,000
    MSNBC 1,762,000
    CNN 599,000

    More people watched FOXNEWS TALKING about debate than the actual DEBATE!

  • well, i agree with many of your comments, but i dont see why he should run as a third party guy or independent when his stances were so well-received by the general public, whose composition we dont know, but the poll results were compelling.

    as far as coming across well on tv, i think he did ok. true he does not have the good looks of romney, but if the public punishes ron paul for that pathetic criterion, then the public deserves what they get in the form of a lesser leader.

    i think the choice is clear on the republican side ; professional politicians with similar rhetoric as the bush admin, or the true conservative in the republican ranks, ron paul, whose libertarian roots are in the spotlight right now.

    i think the bush admin did much to anger its conservative base, and i think the support that ron paul received, at least after the first debate, is a backlash from the current republican admin ignoring its conservative base.

    who knows, but if ron paul keeps it up, he can certainly challenge boobs like mccain and guiliani, who are the worst to offer from the republican side, in my opinion.

    i listened to huckabee interviewed by jon stewart (?) , and i thought he had some good things to say.

    but my man is ron paul !

  • I’m with you, Scottie, but I’m trying to think a little more realistically. Ron Paul will never get the nomination, for the aforementioned reasons. As pitiful as they are, they are very real reasons.

    That’s been the reality since Kennedy and Nixon’s first TV debate.

    Nevertheless, I agree that McCain and Giuliani are not the best Republicans have to offer on that stage. I would say that there were three or four (including Ron Paul) that have more to offer, but out of those three or four, the most “electable” (and all the pitiful components that come with that) is not Ron Paul.

    Forget looks on camera, just think likability, just think, communication skills, and name recognition (can’t ignore that). Firebrands do not do well in Republican nominations. Optimists do well, and Paul does not come across as an optimist.

    Changing course and shaking things up effectively takes good policy AND good politics, and if you look at the stage the best balance of that is honestly:

    Hunter and Huckabee.

    Romney, McCain, Giuliani are way too much politics (although McCain hardly looked appealing the other night) and not enough policy.

    Tancredo, Paul, Thompson are way too much policy and not enough politics.

    Brownback and Gilmore are also fairly balanced, meaning they present themselves well and are “true” conservatives, but Brownback is too much of a pretty preacher boy, and Gilmore is just so utterly unknown. I live in Virginia and didn’t recognize the guy right off.

    Based on what I know and the debate the other night, if I had to vote today in a primary (and luckily I don’t) it would be for probably either Huckabee or Hunter.

    Regardless, I believe if either of those were nominated they would probably not stand a chance against an Obama or a Clinton-as it stands right now. My point is SOMEONE (and Ron Paul is good enough for me) should run as a third party or independent, and put a stop to this partisan back and forth bulls***. And given the popularity Paul has that you pointed out and the low odds of his being nominated…

    Maybe Unity08 will snag him. I’m a delegate, and I’d vote for him.

    got a link to the Huckabee interview?

  • Regarding Ron Paul, I think we can all agree that IF he doesn’t get the Republican nomination then he should DEFINITELY jump in as a third candidate.

    Logipundit, you forgot to mention that $$$ will win the Republican primary and, unless something changes drastically, Hunter and Huckabee are long shots at best. But, your point regarding their fate if they matched up against Hillary/Obama is dead on and for that reason the Republicans will probably pick a “star” candidate (McCain or Guiliani), regardless of whether they’re the best guy for the job.

    GO PAUL!!!

  • I’d love to see a libertarian as president (and as every senator and congressman), but they just don’t can’t run for office without (gleefully) falling on their swords. Usually, they are running on legalizing marijuana when it’s not an issue in the election, nor is it something the voters support. In this case, Ron Paul can’t tone down the “mislead us into war” rhetoric in a Republican primary.

    They also don’t do a good job at personalizing issues. You can still be hardcore and personable at the same time.

    And for a disclaimer, I should add that I am not saying that they shouldn’t have the unpopular positions, but they can learn how to redirect their energy away from them (e.g. Paul didn’t need to say that Libby should be in jail for helping to mislead us into war).

  • I still see Paul being a spoiler if he ran third party. Like it or not, both R and D get about 40% loyal base votes, leaving the remaining 20% up for grabs (really, 10% +1 vote). And that’s what the general election is about… 10% of the voters. The base on both sides have to be really disgusted with their party to go their party. Paul would have to collect all 20% undecideds and 7% from each side.

    I suppose it’s not impossible, but still very unlikely. And I know my numbers aren’t exact, but conceptually it’s close enough.

    Believe me, if he showed he could do it, I just might be among the 7%.

  • Last post for the night… perhaps I am reading more into what rip is implying, but if Hunter and Huckabee don’t emerge, it’s not because the party behind closed doors decided to choose someone with money and star quality as to compete with Hillary/Obama. It’s still individuals voting for these candidates. The stars with the money will likely win because they are the ones by virtue of their monetary means and frequent media attention. They are the ones to whom the primary voters will have been most exposed, so these voters will know them best.

  • Jim – agreed that the Republicans won’t be “picking” behind closed doors – it will instead be primary voters choosing the person that has the best chance against Obama/Hillary. I’m almost certain the Republican primary voters will be reactive in the same sense that the Dems were by choosing Kerry in ’04 (choosing him not on his own merits but because of his chances against Bush).

Leave a Reply to scottie Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *