The Pavlina 2012 Republican Presidential Primary Election

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Gabo

The reason Newt has catapulted to front-runner status is the same reason Bachman, Perry, and Cain were catapulted to front-runner status.

1) The corporate media decided they wanted the candidate to be a front runner.
2) The media told everyone we should keep an eye out for that candidate surging.
3) The media followed and showed everything possible about the candidate, capitalizing upon and screaming about every victory, small or big.

This is precisely why you've seen FOUR candidates now shoot rapidly to the top. It is also the same reason why the previous three fell to the wayside after their month in the spotlight, and the same reason why Newt will be history in a month.

The media is throwing every candidate they can after Ron Paul, one at a time, to see if any of them will stick. Who knows, maybe Newt somehow will, but I find that hard to believe with his insane ethics problems, infidelity, insider position, corruption, and taking bribes from Fannie/Freddie.

In the end, the race will be between Romney, whose support has been unenthusiastic and waning over the course of the campaign, and Ron Paul, whose support has steadily increased despite continual lack of media coverage, and outright media blackout.

I disagree, this is very different from those three. They were all relatively new announcements for their candidacy that gave them a bump and they all had some event that helped garner them some media attention that caused the rise as well. By the way I don't think any of them actually lead except perhaps Perry. Newt Gingrich announced his candidacy months ago and as far as I can tell there was no caucus victory or some other event that corresponded with this rise. The only event is the aformentioned Herman Cane dropping out of the race.

Newt has been wallowing in single digit numbers for months and I don't understand how all the conservatives decided he was their guy considering months before most of them were eyeing him dubiously because he denounced Paul Ryan's Medicare reform as 'right-wing social engineering.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

I disagree, this is very different from those three. They were all relatively new announcements for their candidacy that gave them a bump and they all had some event that helped garner them some media attention that caused the rise as well. By the way I don't think any of them actually lead except perhaps Perry. Newt Gingrich announced his candidacy months ago and as far as I can tell there was no caucus victory or some other event that corresponded with this rise. The only event is the aformentioned Herman Cane dropping out of the race.

Newt has been wallowing in single digit numbers for months and I don't understand how all the conservatives decided he was their guy considering months before most of them were eyeing him dubiously because he denounced Paul Ryan's Medicare reform as 'right-wing social engineering.

Well, we'll have to see. As far as poll numbers go, Gingrich is already falling off. His 9 percentage point lead in Iowa has decreased to 1 percent in the newest Public Policy poll. He's now in a statistical dead-heat for first place with Ron Paul, at 22% compared to Paul's 21%.

My guess is that as other candidates continue to air ads revealing Newt's glaring inconsistencies and failures as a conservative, that his support will only continue to decline. If you look at the polls, it is only the older voters that support Gingrich, and my guess is it's because they don't hear all the bad stuff about him going around on the internet. But once there's enough TV coverage of his ethical wrongdoings and inconsistent positions, many of those older supporters will jump ship.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by garentee

While I do not agree with Newt, I would add to Snerps points by saying he is by far the smartest of the candidates. Like him or hate him, he knows his stuff..

Paul's also no Bachmann or Perry. And what Paul doesn't do is constantly argue ethos or do what amounts to a Chewbacca defense in debate (obfuscate the issue in an attempt to confuse his audience and slip in fallacious arguments). Nor does he constantly flip-flop. Or sell access.

Gringrich is smart: he's just smart in some of the most blatantly despicable, borderline corrupt, exclusively self-serving ways possible, and he needs to stay out of office. His brand is smart, competent, establishment. He's what people are looking for when half the Republican party is going off the fundamentalist deep-end. And he also deserves zero public trust, none.

Frankly, I disagree with Paul, strongly, on over half the issues. But he's nothing if not principled. He would make changes that most politicians on the left or right are too cowardly to make: like ending the wars, including the war on drugs. Changes that a majority of people in this country want, and that would be hell to undo after he left office. Obama's not going to do that, even if he would be "safer", but frankly, as someone who's mostly "left" by this country's political dualism, I'm not very impressed with what the current administration has done, overall. Hit and miss, in my view--and miss in some very big ways. I think a Ron Paul administration would be a very interesting, very strategic win.

Paul is also neck-and-neck with Gringrich in Iowa. I don't think it's likely he's going to win anything. But if he did win the primary, I could definitely see myself voting Republican--though I'll likely end up voting against Gringrich or for a third party--though I don't see either having an effect, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

[garentee]

I agree with what you are saying here, I think that some of the bad Paul ideas are to be avoided though and am loathe to vote for any of the bunch.. but if I HAD to, I would vote for Dr Paul.. but I do not have to so I won't.. NONE of the others are getting my vote..

[Mariana Trench]

Ha! Just ran across this and it seems rather relevant: If Ron Paul Wins Iowa It Doesn't Count - says Fox News - YouTube

[Mariana Trench]

Looks like Ron Paul has a 3 point lead in Iowa: Paul leads in Iowa - Public Policy Polling

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Looks like Ron Paul has a 3 point lead in Iowa: Paul leads in Iowa - Public Policy Polling

But if you listen to Snerp, it's all pretty meaningless--

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Those voting in the primaries disagree. He's already lost.

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Fact is, conservatives want nothing to do with Ron Paul. Liberals and foreigners pretending to be conservatives on the internet love him. Big difference.

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

You mean, when he loses decisively just like the polls tell us he will?

It's amazing how delusional internet Ron Paul supporters are.

[garentee]

It is meaningless..he will get the same smear that Pat Buchanan did after winning NH in 1996

GOP will take off the gloves if Ron Paul wins Iowa | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by garentee

It is meaningless..he will get the same smear that Pat Buchanan did after winning NH in 1996

I wouldn't be surprised, actually. The Establishment no doubt has the power and the money to effectively eliminate any candidate who is primarily anti-establishment.

But it's still an assumption. A lot of people are fed up with the Establishment, and if that grows, this could be the beginnings of a velvet revolution.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Beingist

But if you listen to Snerp, it's all pretty meaningless--

I can't tell if that's sarcastic or not.

I don't think he's going to win necessarily, but he does have a fighting chance.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by Beingist

But it's still an assumption. A lot of people are fed up with the Establishment, and if that grows, this could be the beginnings of a velvet revolution.

True enough. I still think RP adds a terrific voice to the national discourse, but that most of his ideas are not really beneficial to all of us, nor are they likely to be embraced by the vast majority, because there are many who believe a totally different version of reality then what Dr. Paul does.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by garentee

It is meaningless..he will get the same smear that Pat Buchanan did after winning NH in 1996

GOP will take off the gloves if Ron Paul wins Iowa | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

As if the corporate media aren't already trying to discredit and black out Ron Paul?

The attacks will increase, but the big difference this time around is that the corporate media have lost their power. People pay attention to the internet and other news sources. If the media big-wigs had the power to destroy Ron Paul, they would have done so by now.

What I see is that they've tried to rid themselves of Dr. Paul, and they've failed. They'll keep trying, and they'll keep pushing, but in the end they don't have enough control to silence his message, not anymore.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Gabo

As if the corporate media aren't already trying to discredit and black out Ron Paul?

The attacks will increase, but the big difference this time around is that the corporate media have lost their power. People pay attention to the internet and other news sources. If the media big-wigs had the power to destroy Ron Paul, they would have done so by now.

What I see is that they've tried to rid themselves of Dr. Paul, and they've failed. They'll keep trying, and they'll keep pushing, but in the end they don't have enough control to silence his message, not anymore.

I sure hope so. Someone like Dr. Paul has been a long time coming.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by garentee

It is meaningless..he will get the same smear that Pat Buchanan did after winning NH in 1996

GOP will take off the gloves if Ron Paul wins Iowa | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

They're not even waiting for New Hampshire.

Will Ron Paul kill the caucuses? - Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com

I find it interesting how time and time again, everyone simply assumes he won't get the nomination. He certainly can't get win anything when the whole country assumes that he won't. I expect that's what will ultimately kill his prospects.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Beingist

They're not even waiting for New Hampshire.

Will Ron Paul kill the caucuses? - Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com

I find it interesting how time and time again, everyone simply assumes he won't get the nomination. He certainly can't get win anything when the whole country assumes that he won't. I expect that's what will ultimately kill his prospects.

Kinda like assuming you can't win the presidency because America isn't "ready" for a black president yet?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

Kinda like assuming you can't win the presidency because America isn't "ready" for a black president yet?

Interesting point.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

Kinda like assuming you can't win the presidency because America isn't "ready" for a black president yet?

Difference here is that Obama pandered to the populist ideals and capitalized on looking like not Bush...in 2008. He clearly sold out.. or I actually think that he was told to do what he has done by the powers that be in this country.. He is a puppet... which is precisely why Paul will not get anywhere near the Presidency.. cause elections are not free anymore.. Think Bush 2000...

[Cado]

Originally Posted by garentee

Difference here is that Obama pandered to the populist ideals and capitalized on looking like not Bush...in 2008. He clearly sold out.. or I actually think that he was told to do what he has done by the powers that be in this country.. He is a puppet... which is precisely why Paul will not get anywhere near the Presidency.. cause elections are not free anymore.. Think Bush 2000...

Then there will be an uprising.

People always talk about "the powers that be" as if they're untouchable. They're not, and if they do too much at once they'll cause a spontaneous movement which will overwhelm them. That's exactly what they stand to do if they succeed in passing internet censorship alongside the NDAA this soon, that goes double if Ron Paul is cheated out of the nomination and/or presidency.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by Cado

Then there will be an uprising.

People always talk about "the powers that be" as if they're untouchable. They're not, and if they do too much at once they'll cause a spontaneous movement which will overwhelm them. That's exactly what they stand to do if they succeed in passing internet censorship alongside the NDAA this soon, that goes double if Ron Paul is cheated out of the nomination and/or presidency.

I doubt that an uprising will get very far.. How far did the occupy movement get? ( And I think there was a lot of good stuff going on there, but in the grand scheme of things, it is but a foot note until they can be taken more seriously)Moreover look back to the 2000 presidential election... they can and will get their president of choice in to office... I do not usually like to sound conspiratorial but it seems entirely possible that such a scenario could happen again.. Plus too.. Ron Paul is not as popular as a lot of his supporters make him out to be. It does not make a lot of sense to take tracking polls as gospel... not this far out..