Posted on 09/12/2007 9:00:07 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
New Hampshire is the state we expect Ron Paul to shine, not Iowa. They are largely anti-war -- the last Iraq war poll had approval ratings as low as 14% suggesting a large majority of Republicans are disenfranchised with the war. Indpendents can vote for candidates in either party at the New Hampshire primary. So no pollster is going to be able to correctly quantify which candidate will get a boost but if the Independents are anti-war, I think it is safe to say that Ron Paul would be the candidate to benefit.
(Excerpt) Read more at usaelectionpolls.com ...
>> True enough that in 2006, Republicans took a drubbing in NH (losing both congressional seats and both houses of the state legislature) but Republicans nationwide took a drubbing and NH Republicanism is the old fashioned, more libertarian type of Republicanism.
Thn how do you explain John McCain’s victory in the 2000 New Hampshire Primary? He’s certainly not and “old-fashioned more libertarian type” Republican.
New Hampshire is no different than any other northeastern State ... a New England Republican would be a liberal Democrat in a truly conservative state (like Texas, for instance).
H
H
(It's like saying "Denny Crane," except it really works...)
The surge has failed. It is time for Paul to withdraw the troops.
1) There is no previous LA Times/Bloomberg poll for New Hampshire, so no trends can be noted.
2) "New Hampshire: 1,312 registered (+/-3), 618 Democratic primary voters (+/-4), and 412 Republican primary voters (+/-5)" -- yes, you're reading that correctly, the margin of error at a 95% confidence level is +/-5. That's practically worthless.
In short, this poll really tells us nothing. A series of follow-up polls showing trends may help, though the high MOE would make them suspect unless the trends were very strong.
Nope. It has a 5% margin of error.
How about the elimination of the CIA and FBI?
Or is that a sane and reasonable position?
The Paulnuts are over the top.
Mind you...I despise McCain...for his stance on immigration...for his McCain-Feingold...and, personally, I think he was wrong on Iraq...but, believe it or not, McCain always ranks as one of the most fiscally conservative members of the Senate. And remember, in February 2000, not many people viewed GWB as a real fiscal conservative (boy how that view has proven to be correct)
Calling the founder a clown is gonna leave a nasty mark if he finds out.
Just think someone is even suggesting that the USA should have a non-interventionist, constitutional foreign policy, a strong national defense and stay out of other countries' internal affairs and nation building.
Sounds like Paul doesn't want the USA to follow England's descent from 'the Sun never sets on the British Empire' to 'God save the Queen'. An increasing number of Americans will agree. Other candidates please note.
LOL.
Yeah, it's hilarious that an entire body of Freepers has devoted their lives, in the short term, to opposing a can't-win, no-prospects, fringe candidate.
I have a sneaking suspicion that these people lie awake at night trembling at the thought of a Goldwater-style Republican put in charge of the big-government trough...
I thought the Republican party was the big-tent party. Now it appears the "big tent" isn't big enough to contain the people who believe in classic Republican values like limited government and secure borders. Do these issue no longer even deserve their own lonely little neglected corner? I believe Jim Robinson is fair enough to make that call.
You mean repeat it fives times so his support swells to a lofty 25% support instead?
/sarc
>> the more I read these anti-Paul posts, the more unimpressed with I am with those posting them...a lot of name-calling...admittedly some funny barbs at Paul...but not a lot of deep-thinking criticism of his positions from what I’ve seen.
Ron Paul is a political irrelevancy at this point - and, his foreign policy positions are so infantile as to not require any intellectual response. We’ve been arguing with liberals and Democrats, each of whom hold foreign policy positions IDENTICAL to that of Ron Paul, for the better part of 5 or 6 years ... we all know the arguments by now, and we’ve already picked sides.
At this point - you’re either a hawk or a dove ... and nobody convincing anyone of anything ... so - we take shots at Paul for our own amusement, and to yank the chain of his dozen or so supporters.
Come November 2008, the candidacy of Ron Paul will be but a distant memory ...
H
************
And not a third-party candidate.
You shouldn't suppose that asking for deep-thinking criticism will cause it to be offered. Believe me, I've tried. The Ron Paul hate threads are "battle of the bumper stickers" pretty much from beginning to end.
Always keep this in mind when you see Freepers attack Ron Paul.
We disagree with his "blame america" views.
It isn't much more complicated than that.
It is a fatal mistake that he made, and most of us will devote most of our activism destroying the Ron Paul 08' suicide train.
And yet we're discussing him. Funny, isn't it?
Bull Shiite
You just try the diversionary "but he is for limited gubment" arguement, which nobody disagrees with.
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.