most polls ive seen, on msnbc and fox (shows like hardball, tucker, and oreilly) have hillary losing to ALL the republican candidates AOL, huge media corp, LIBERAL
MSNBC is owned by General Electric, which is one of America's biggest weapons manufacturers. FOX News? Tell me you aren't being serious. You're using two hyper-conservative news agencies for information.
i find chris matthews so be very objective, and i like tucker carlson as well i watch oreilly and i dont agree with everything he says but he makes some good points, plus fox has hannity and colmes
You're an idiot, though. O'Reilly lies. He's not a legitimate source of news. Only stupid people listen to him.
I didn't want to quote the entire article again. 2 questions... 1)Who the hell is USA daily? 2)Did you actually read this? Interesting take? Interesting if you think retards are interesting. That was one of the worst things I've ever tried reading.
Conservatives still undecided on a presidential candidate Posted on December 26, 2007 by Lance The reason is clear why a candidate isn’t the obvious front runner in the Republican primary system: virtually none of the men running for the Republican nomination are conservatives. I, in my own life, see people wondering why Huckabee, as a pastor, has a bad record. I see people wondering if Duncan Hunter is even worth the vote because he at least has the appearance of what a pro-war conservative wants. Mitt Romney seems to be a northeastern liberal who just so happens to be Mormon, while Fred Thompson appears to still be waking up from his mid-morning nap. This leads us to the report of many Iowa conservatives being undecided. I recently returned from a trip to Iowa, where I saw first hand in the Des Moines metro area (all the way north to Ames and Boone) that aside from a few people that are fans of Huckabee, no one really knows who they like, at least from the Republican standpoint. Democrats are solidly behind Obama, Edwards or Hillary and the countryside and towns are dominated by signs everywhere supporting one of the Democratic front runners. I never saw any Biden or Dodd signs, and there were very few Richardson supporters from what I could tell. However, the three Democrat front runners are popular in the state from what I could see. Poll numbers have a different story for the Republicans. Somehow John McCain has an astounding 17% in the latest American Research Group poll. I met no McCain supporters nor saw any signs for the candidate. I ran into more support for Rudy Giuliani, surprisingly enough. Tancredo showed some signs of life despite being only 1% in the polls for the past few months, but after he dropped out I was aware of numerous people calling the Ron Paul headquarters asking for signs to replace their Tancredo advertisements with. The good doctor appeared to be their second choice. Despite Romney being endorsed by Tancredo, I suspect Ron Paul and Fred Thompson will pick up the largest number of Tancredo supporters. They are the only two who appear to be against illegal immigration and amnesty. In the end, I think the Iowa conservatives are stuck trying to decide between Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul. The last month of December has been an eye opener to the conservative (as well as Independent and Democrat) base in Iowa to the Texas congressman. Most people have heard of him and are learning more, and going by the same poll referenced earlier, Paul has jumped from 4% to 10% in less than a week. Given that some Independents will vote for Dr. Paul, I would not be surprised if he even carried first place by the time the caucus rolls around. However, Romney still has the best shot. Before the election, I am expecting some big ads to come out blasting Huckabee in every which way you can imagine. Huckabee has topped out in the polls as the greatest alternative to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, but Romney can still pull it off if he keeps up his appearance as the (at least look-alike) reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney appear to be conservatives. I believe Ron Paul is the best choice for conservatives, as Mitt Romney is not one in the least. As people have found out about Huckabee their sudden love for him is waxing cold and it will start to show in the poll numbers this final week before the caucus. Iowans still have to pick a candidate: they just aren’t sold on one yet.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007 RON PAUL Zogby Predicts Ron Paul Could Get 15 to 18 Percent in New Hampshire On the Sean Hannity radio program, pollster John Zogby said that Texas Congressman Ron Paul could end up surprising the field - and "embarass a lot of the frontrunners" by wildly exceeding expectations taking 15 to 18 percent in the New Hampshire primary. An incredulous Hannity asked, "You don't see any chance he wins this thing, do you?" Zogby said no. A Zogby poll in September found Paul with 3 percent of the vote. Three recent polls - St. Anselm, Marist, and the Globe/University of New Hampshire have put Paul at 7 percent.
Could Ron Paul win Iowa? Posted on November 23, 2007 by Lance Although we see the possibility of Ron Paul winning New Hampshire, there has not been as much talk of Ron Paul in Iowa due to the more traditional beliefs of the Republican caucus attendees there. Strangely enough, though, the Iowa Independent is talking of Ron Paul as a possible spoiler in the race due to the high number of GOP caucus goers who are actually against the Iraq war. I think the analysis here is right: Ron Paul — Paul’s support comes from the least likely corners of Iowa, making it very difficult to measure with “likely voter†polls. Cynics expect his unlikely coalition to stay home on caucus night, and they might; but if the depth of a candidate’s support is one measure of his likely success in the caucuses, Paul has the rest of the field beat. While Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, former Sen. Fred Thompson, and Sen. John McCain appear to swap supporters every few weeks, Paul’s fans remain squarely in his corner. And there is the oft-ignored fact that polls show that a majority of likely GOP caucus-goers favor withdrawal from Iraq within six months, which many analysts are hard-pressed to explain. Could Paul win Iowa? I’m not sure. He’s in fourth place behind Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney. The way independents and Democrats vote is not as “iffyâ€, I guess you’d say, as in New Hampshire. Iowa just doesn’t have the “independent spirit†we are used to associating with the northern state primary. There is a major factor though that might change this race around: It’s Ron Paul! If his campaign and his supporters are working hard in Iowa, it could be possible for Paul to pull off a 3rd place or higher finish. If Ron Paul were to carry New Hampshire and place a decent 3rd or higher in Iowa, the chances of him making the nomination will grow exponentially. The media will have to cover him at that point, and, given that I believe most Americans agree with Paul (they just don’t know about him…bad name recognition thanks to our great friends in the corporate media), he will win with a sizable majority–his largest opposition coming from neocons and their blowhards like Hannity and Limbaugh. <iframe src="http://digg.com/api/diggthis.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigg.com%2F2008_us_elections%2FCould_Ron_Paul_win_Iowa_Rising_poll_numbers_and_more_activity_say_yes%2F" style="padding: 4px 0pt 2px 4px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255) none repeat scroll 0% 50%; float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 5px; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" frameborder="0" height="82" scrolling="no" width="55"></iframe> Time will tell. It is just over a month until the Iowa caucus, the first step in this race to the finish primary season.
If Ron Paul were to carry New Hampshire and place a decent 3rd or higher in Iowa, hell will freeze over.
December 25, 2007 Poll: Obama, Huckabee slipping among Iowa men WASHINGTON (CNN) – Call it an early Christmas gift for Hillary Clinton’s campaign: A new Iowa poll seems to show the New York senator with a stunning double-digit lead over her nearest rival among likely Democratic caucus-goers. Clinton and Obama were neck-and-neck in last week’s American Research Group poll. But in the new survey, conducted December 20-23, she leads the Illinois senator by 15 percentage points, 34 to 19 percent. Obama is now in a statistical tie for second place with former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who has 20 percent of the vote. According to the poll, Obama has lost some ground among male voters in Iowa: Last week, he led the field with 27 percent support, followed by 21 for Clinton and 19 for Edwards. This week, the leaders are Clinton and Edwards, with 28 and 27 percent support among Democratic men. Obama has 16 percent support, and Joe Biden has 11 percent. As Hillary Clinton appears to be breaking away from the pack, the Republican race in Iowa may be tightening up. A week ago, an ARG poll placed Mike Huckabee over Mitt Romney by an 11-point margin among likely Republican caucus-goers, but the latest poll by the group puts the two back in a statistical tie, 23 to 21 percent. John McCain has 17 percent of the vote, Rudy Giuliani has 14 percent — and Ron Paul has 10 percent in the latest poll, up from 4 percent last week. Like Obama, the poll indicates that Huckabee’s support among male voters in Iowa may be slipping. Last week, Huckabee had 31 percent support among Republican men; this week, he and Rudy Giuliani are tied at 20 percent. John McCain and Mitt Romney both have the support of 17 percent of the GOP’s likely male caucus goers. The most recent ARG polls have a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The polls were conducted over the phone, and had a sample size of 600 likely Democratic and 600 Republican caucus-goers living in Iowa, respectively. –CNN's Rebecca Sinderbrand
I can't believe the people who started to like that fake Huckabee piece of shit once he got Chuck Norris' support :: I think the human race is doomed.
Now with a total of nearly 244,000 votes (129,000 Republican votes and 115,000 Democratic votes rounded ) Clinton = 51,335 Paul = 42,020 Obama = 31,395 Giuliani = 20,911 Huckabee = 20,183 Even with a high margin of error and cheating (which can be done for all) I have to give more credit to a poll that has nearly 1/4million open votes , than one that has 1008 chosen calls.
<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IWfIhFhelm8&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IWfIhFhelm8&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>
It's been tried before. Dukakis tried it. Dean tried it. Clinton used it right, by not catering to the generation, but just seeming like he was on their level.
The problem with blogging is that there's literally zero oversight. I mean, newspapers, TV and the radio get away with all sorts of things. The bloggers who support Ron Paul love to gloss over his pro-big-business, abortion-outlawing, anti-Mexican and anti-science stances. No one who wants abortion outlawed is every going to be president. Ron Paul wants abortion outlawed. Therefore, Ron Paul will never be president. I mean, even the libertarians hate Ron Paul. When he ran for president in 1988, you saw more "Andre Morrou for Vice President" bumperstickers than you saw "Ron Paul for President" bumper stickers.
problem with all these polls petre are this: 1) its a hypothetical general between all candidtaes, the real one will only have 2 and paul isnt going to win the repub nom and said he wont run independent or liberatarian 2) people have a tendency to vote with their hearts in these kind of polls but when its comes to the real thing they are more likely switch to the "more experienced" candidate or the one that they feel will be more likely to win the real thing
Does Paul want it outlawed and would he outlaw it or would he let each state decide despite his personal pro life position as an OBGYN and man of faith. Let's set the record straight. =========== [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Federalizing Social Policy[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Ron Paul[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] by Ron Paul[/FONT][/FONT] <!-- Copyright 2001-2002, Clickability, Inc. All rights reserved.--> <script language="javascript1.2" src="http://a449.g.akamai.net/7/449/1776/000/button.clickability.com/10/button_1/button.js"> </script><script language="JavaScript"> window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;} if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href;*</script><nobr></nobr> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] January 31, 2006[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]==========[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So ... here we have a guy that is prolife that actually defends your right not to be ... this issue is not about the pro or con of abortion. It's about reducing government controls to constitutional levels.[/FONT]
No, Ron Paul has repeatedly said that based on his experience as an OB/GYN that abortion SHOULD be outlawed. He constantly explains that killing an unborn child is akin to murder.
Would / Should Would / Should Would / Should Would / Should Hmmmm I'm sure there's a difference between those two words ... now what could that be ?
Is is a naive fool who wants to pull us out of the WTO which would destroy our economy.</P> I am sure that you with your business savvy can see what a boneheaded move pulling out of WTO would be.
You are wrong. Bush is NOT anti-abortion, because he was involved in one, remember? Bush has constantly talked about a "common ground" between pro-life and pro-choice stances - holding a more liberal view of abortion than the GOP platform - while Ron Paul has said that abortion should be illegal and compared it to murder. Are you posting stupid and wrong things because you are stupid and wrong, or because you're trying to get me to flame you?
<center>BUSH on Abortion</center> <center> </center> Q: What is your attitude towards abortion: BUSH: Surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America. This is a very important topic, and it’s a very sensitive topic because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. I think what the next president ought to do is promote a culture of life in America. As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born and unborn, ought to be protected in law and welcomed into life. What I do believe is, we can find good common ground on issues like parental notification or parental consent. And I know we need to ban partial-birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreements. I believe banning partial-birth abortion would be a positive step toward reducing the number of abortions in America. <center> Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000 </center> <center> Aprroval of RU-486 is wrong </center> The FDA approved yesterday the abortion pill RU-486, but leaders on both sides of the abortion issue say debate over the pill will continue. The FDA approved the drug under a regulation that gives the agency more leeway to impose tighter restrictions or even take it off the market.“The FDA’s decision to approve the abortion pill RU-486 is wrong,†Bush said in a statement. “As president, I will work to build a culture that respects life.†<center> Source: Rita Rubin, USA Today, p. 1A Sep 29, 2000 </center> <center> Good people can disagree; but let’s value life </center> I will lead our nation toward a culture that values life -- the life of the elderly and the sick, the life of the young, and the life of the unborn. I know good people disagree on this issue, but surely we can agree on ways to value life by promoting adoption and parental notification, and when Congress sends me a bill against partial-birth abortion, I will sign it into law. <center> Source: Speech to Republican National Convention Aug 3, 2000 </center> <center> Every child born and unborn ought to be protected </center> Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life. He’ll try to seem non-threatening, respecting others’ views without backing off his long-held “pro-life†position. He previously had said he would not demand that his Supreme Court nominees be anti-abortion. It’s even conceivable he’ll choose a running mate who supports abortion rights, Bush said. “I’m going to talk about the culture of life,†he continued. “I’ve set the goal that every child born and unborn ought to be protected. But I recognize [that many] people don’t necessarily agree with the goal. People appreciate somebody who sets a tone, a tone that values life, but recognizes that people disagree.“ He pointed out that those gun-toting killers at Columbine High School did not value life; they â€devalued“ it. -------------------- -------------------- Ron Paul [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves. [/FONT]
