Posted on 08/14/2007 9:39:58 AM PDT by George W. Bush
Romney is a very good business man and administrator, on those things he is top notch and he is well spoken and he does get things accomplished, we could do a lot worse then Mitt.
The thing that I like about Ron Paul is the lack of the need for back flips to explain the “why” he does things, his reasons are straight forward and crystal clear.
Fred has “some” of those qualities, being in the Beltway for so long though sort of makes his positions more mixed.
I am just reporting my own observation. I had 3 different campaigns offer me free tickets. I saw stacks of them being passed around.
You did have to show your ID to prove you were an Iowan but did not have to prove that you were a Republican.
Fair enough. When they do, what will the Paulie Girls say then is the only pertinent question.
Will they remain true to their stated ‘principals’ or will they spend countless hours explaining it all away, as they did with his comment about our ‘policies in the last decade’ being the reason we were attacked on 9/11?
“I am just reporting my own observation. I had 3 different campaigns offer me free tickets. I saw stacks of them being passed around.
You did have to show your ID to prove you were an Iowan but did not have to prove that you were a Republican.”
Thanks iowamark, that is helpful.
Ron Paul doesn’t conduct polls, so it is hard to know which or even how many Dems support or even voted for the guy.
So, Romney wouldn’t win unless he had 70%!!! OMG!
Fascinating interp. of data.
I wasn't asked but I'll chime in to as why I think he's a strong candidate:
He's an articulate and telegenic problem solver who has taken on big things like the Salt Lake City Olympics, he managed to get elected as a Republican in a deep blue state, he has been fantastically successful in business, and he'd be running against Hillary Clinton. Ok, the last part would be true for whoever we nominate.
Ron Paul also dusted both Thompsons, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain, against all expectations.
Those two pieces of data were the real news from this poll.
Agreed, except I think Huckabee's second place finish was notable, as well.
This analysis is quite flawed.
First, why would one think that Guilliani supporters would show up and vote “proportionally” for other candidates, much less a much more conservative Romney? It’s more likely that the Gulliani and McCain supporters would simply stay home.
Oh, except that they might see value in hurting the candidate who most threatens their candidate. So they might show up, and vote for a 2nd-tier candidate with no chance, in the hopes they can get ignorant fools to write about how it makes Romney a “loser”.
They might, for example, show up and vote for Mike Huckabee.
See, if they show up and vote for Guiliani, or Thompson, or McCain respectively, their candidate will still lose, and it will look like their candidate TRIED to win and lost.
But if they all show up and vote for Huckabee, it looks like Romney couldn’t out-distance the field.
Or better, many of them probably thought voting for Ron Paul would be funny.
Thanks for the ping. This has been a surprisingly moderate thread, considering the content of the post.
My hometown checking in. Good to see. Alfred and Charlie’s BBQ is about 8 miles from my parents’ house. Know the area well and those numbers are about right for Gaston County. Dallas/Cherryville (upper part of the county) is even a little more so I’d think. If Dr. Paul is getting that much recognition in Gaston, I wouldn’t be suprised if he’s got some more presence over in that part of the state
Thanks.
Romney won the straw poll by the same amount George W. Bush did in 2004. I guess that was a "loss" as well according to the Berkely crowd.
Romney beat the number two by a higher margin than Bush did. He won by 13% over second place to Bush's 10%. Romney's win says a lot no matter how the MSM try to spin it.
First, on the size and scope of government. Romney may cast about with a few platitudes about cutting taxes, but he has no position that differentiates itself from Hillary’s stated views on the role of government. It comes down to status quo. Hillary’s views on the role of government are not all that far outside the current state. Romney is a status quo kind of candidate. That’s why he gets the conservative moniker. From health car to welfare, Romney’s positions are all big government, he just uses different words than Hillary does.
that is a good analysis, thanks for posting it.
I must confess, I was delighted to see “McVain” go down in flames in Ames. Thanks for the input.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.