[HereInTheHeartland]

Well I think your analysis is wrong. He has all kinds of people supporting him unfortunately. The segment I am talking about; would be on our side if we had a Palin/Reagan conservative.
But we don't; and they are throwing in the towel. These are people that won't take any time to work in the system to help fix things; they are lazy in a way.
They are willing however to stand back and lob the Ron Paul Molotov cocktail in the middle of the process.
They see no benefit to any of the current candidates.

Again this is my opinion; based on observing a few folks I have heard speak.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

My opinion is also based on observations and knowledge.

I believe you are incorrect in your analysis.

[JediJones]

What makes Palin/Reagan more of an ideal conservative than Bachmann, Santorum, Newt or Perry? I would say all of them have a better command of the issues than Palin. And if we’re looking for conservative “purism,” Reagan violated it many times both in his history and as president (when he raised taxes and did amnesty). Palin in her brief tenure as governor extended domestic partner benefits to government employees and pushed to get more money out of the oil companies for the government.

People need to realize there is no ideal, pure conservative in a high government position. They can exist on paper or in the pundit world, but reality’s far too messy for that to happen.

I can see an argument for any of the 4 mentioned above as a good, conservative choice. I put Bachmann last and Newt first, but that’s just me. I also think the REAL story here is how all those good, conservative choices are SPLITTING the vote, allowing the “RomPaul” oddballs to seem like they’re polling higher. Add those 4 up and you get 43% in Iowa, double what Paul or Romney is getting.