“He’d probably hurt Hillary as much or more than he’d hurt the Republican candidate”
That is the funniest comment I’ve read in days. You gave me a big laugh. You ARE kidding, right??????
Nope. What Republicans would be tempted to go 3rd-Party for a guy who opposes the Iraq War, and whose foreign policy ideas are basically insane?
Now, whackadoodle leftist Democrats, on the other hand.... those ideas are pretty attractive to them.
A 3rd-party Ron Paul would never get more than 4% anyway (and that's being extremely generous), and a lot of that 4% would be Nader-style Democrats.
That is the funniest comment I’ve read in days. You gave me a big laugh. You ARE kidding, right??????
Over a third of self-identified Republicans oppose the Iraq situation according to a national poll. Over seventy percent of independents do, and 90% of Dems.
And even after a drubbing in 2006, Republicans are still charging forward with a slate of presidential candidates all but one of whom differ only on how soon and how much we should bomb Iran and broaden our military involvement in the Middle East, and maybe some variations on the proper use of torture.
Who's "insane" here? Who has a very poor grasp on reality?