How would an Obama vs. Ron Paul election go?

[Coito ergo sum]

Ian,

It's certainly possible. The problem with the polls, though, is that at this time Republicans are still all split among different camps, Romney, Newt, Cain, Paul, Bachmann, and Perry, mostly. What that means is that some Republicans won't say they'll vote for Romney because they are committed to some other candidate, etc. We really can't get a good feel until not only does the poll limit the choices, but also the choices are in actual fact limited.

However, the fact that Obama's approval rating is low, and the economy sucks so bad, plus the closeness of the polls, is not a good indicator for Obama.

If Bachmann gets the nomination, I'll vote for Obama or a third party candidate. If Paul gets the nomination, I'll vote for Paul and watch him lose. If Perry gets the nomination, I'll vote for Obama or a third party candidate. If Newt gets the nod, I'll vote for Newt. I'm on the fence about Romney, but I'd probably vote for Romney. I would vote for Huntsman, but he has no chance. Huntsman is my preferred 'publican at this point.

[Ian]

I disagree about Obama's approval rating (mid-40s ain't so bad 11 months prior to an election!) and the economy. Otherwise, good points about the mood of the GOP.

IMO, Huntsman is only running to get name recognition for 2016.

[Coito ergo sum]

I disagree about Obama's approval rating (mid-40s ain't so bad 11 months prior to an election!) and the economy. Otherwise, good points about the mood of the GOP.

IMO, Huntsman is only running to get name recognition for 2016.

If he wasn't from Utah, I would think he'd be on the short list for VP nomination. I think the Veep candidate should be Romney if he's not the top of the ticket. I mean, a Newt for Prez, with Romney Veep? That gives the 'publicans with a fighting chance for Massachusetts. If Massachusetts voted Republican, I think the Earth's polarity would shift....

[Ian]

Huntsman could be tagged as a VP candidate by the nominee anyway. Being from Utah doesn't help, but did the Democrats need Joe Biden to get them Delaware of all places?

[Coito ergo sum]

Huntsman could be tagged as a VP candidate by the nominee anyway. Being from Utah doesn't help, but did the Democrats need Joe Biden to get them Delaware of all places?

My theory on Biden was that they picked him because he always portrays himself as that tough-talking, no-nonsense sort of "conservative democrat." He was the "see, I'm not a socialist" addition to the ticket.

Huntsman was really popular in Utah, but Utah would vote Republican if Obama ran as a Republican.

It just occurred to me that Romney could win the nomination, and pick Huntsman as his running mate, and it would be Romney who was the Mormon, not the guy from Utah. I find that weird.

[Ian]

Which is why Huntsman could be on the GOP ticket, at least if the nominee is Gingrich. He'll be the "see, I'm not a lunatic" addition.


(As for Utah - If the GOP nominated an illiterate pimp who suffers from Tourette's Syndrome, that's who Utah will be voting for next November. As long as the R is next to his name on election day.)

Romney's not the only Mormon; Huntsman is too. That's why if the nominee is Romney, his running mate will never be Huntsman. Obama won't have to say a word about that batshit religion - he can remain aloof while all the talking heads will do that for him.

[Coito ergo sum]

Which is why Huntsman could be on the GOP ticket, at least if the nominee is Gingrich. He'll be the "see, I'm not a lunatic" addition.

Newt seems to be main straight talker of the major publican candidates. I like how on the immigration issue he's like "look - this is the kind of thing we're going to have to do...." and his position is very practical.

(As for Utah - If the GOP nominated an illiterate pimp who suffers from Tourette's Syndrome, that's who Utah will be voting for next November. As long as the R is next to his name on election day.)

Romney's not the only Mormon; Huntsman is too. That's why if the nominee is Romney, his running mate will never be Huntsman. Obama won't have to say a word about that batshit religion - he can remain aloof while all the talking heads will do that for him.

I thought Huntsman wasn't Mormon, but, I see after googling it that he was a Mormon.

But, this is what I really like about him:

Moreover, he told Newsweek in December 2010 that the LDS Church doesn't have a monopoly on his spiritual life.[105] In an interview with Time magazine, he stated that he is more spiritual than religious and that his membership in the LDS Church is "tough to define".[106][107] Although still Mormon, Huntsman has said that he and his wife draw from an array of sources for inspiration, stating:

I was raised a Mormon, Mary Kaye was raised Episcopalian, our kids have gone to Catholic school, I went to a Lutheran school growing up in Los Angeles. I have an adopted daughter from India who has a very distinct Hindu tradition, one that we would celebrate during Diwali. So you kind of bind all this together.[105]

Huntsman professes a firm belief in science, rejecting the notion that faith and evolution are mutually exclusive. In response to Rick Perry's creationist world view,[108] Huntsman warned that the Republicans should not become the "anti-science" party, and stated: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsm ... ious_views

[Ian]

Another reason why I like him.
Much like how JFK did a decent job settling fears that he wasn't going to let the Catholic Church dictate how he ran shop.

Still, Mormonism ain't the Catholic church. There won't be two of them on one ticket, that I know.

[Coito ergo sum]

Another reason why I like him.
Much like how JFK did a decent job settling fears that he wasn't going to let the Catholic Church dictate how he ran shop.

Still, Mormonism ain't the Catholic church. There won't be two of them on one ticket, that I know.

That's for sure.

[tattuchu]

Dunno but if it were between Obama and Paul, I'd very seriously consider voting for Paul. And I've never voted for a Republican in my life.

[apophenia]

For better or worse, U.S. elections are a lot like job interviews, they are less about putting a good candidate in office than keeping a bad one out. I can't remember an election in which I actually voted "for" a candidate. And while Libertarianism has seen a surge in popularity in recent years, mainline conservatives and liberals still view them with suspicion. If Paul were to face even a non-starter president like Obama, I suspect he would get slaughtered.

[Warren Dew]

Don't kid yourself too much. You may like Paul, but in a general election Obama would win all fifty states. Maybe Canada and Mexico too.

Who'd vote for Obama?

Everyone who watches television. Obama would blanket the air waves with his ads, thanks to his fat cat banker pals who would be desperate to avoid a Ron Paul presidency. Ron Paul's supporters, no matter how dedicated, simply would not be able to compete, and Paul would find himself defined by Obama rather than getting his own message out.

[Tyrannical]

Wait until Ralph Nader endorses Paul over Obama. The intellectual left will either not vote or vote Paul.

I think you're smoking something funny.

Speaking of which, one demographic that won't be voting Obama. He could even lose California in the general election over that.

Moot point anyway - Ron Paul will pull in tons of cash and have a powerful campaign with his core of devoted supporters, and in the end he'll (yet again) come away with results in the single digits. Those single digits are only a factor is he decides to keep going until November; in which case he'll certainly pull more votes from the GOP nominee than from Obama.

We'll see after Iowa.

With a caucus vote, you need strong grass roots support to motivate and deliver people to their precinct to vote.
Newt is totally lacking in Iowa, and the enthusiasm isn't there for Mittens. So once Ron Paul wins Iowa with around 30% and a strong second in NH, things will get interesting.

[Ian]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -surprise/



And btw - Obama's approval numbers are back up to around 50%, and he isn't even campaigning yet. Right now, I put the odds of an Obama re-election at 2-1 in favor. At a minimum, 3-2 in favor. I'll be accepting friendly wagers on voting outcomes soon...

[Coito ergo sum]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -surprise/



And btw - Obama's approval numbers are back up to around 50%, and he isn't even campaigning yet. Right now, I put the odds of an Obama re-election at 2-1 in favor. At a minimum, 3-2 in favor. I'll be accepting friendly wagers on voting outcomes soon...

Wish I could. I'm not sure I am in enough disagreement with you.