Ron Paul Polling at 5% in New Hampshire (Highest Yet in New Hampshire)

USA Election Polls ^ | September 12, 2007

[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.

[pianomikey]

This is academic anyway. The prominent, overarching reason that all terrorists give for every attack on America is that we are “INFIDELS”. Our best foreign policy decision, then, is to become NOT infidels and convert, then, right? Otherwise, it wasn’t USA’s fault for 9-11, it was... the terrorists’ fault.

[cyborg]

GROUP HUG TIME!!!!

[Col Sanders]

LOL...

You said more about yourself with this question than anything you've written anywhere else on this page.

LOL

Col Sanders

[elizabetty]

Live under sharia and die.

That pretty much sums up Ron Paul foreign policy initiative.

[elizabetty]

Looking at the trend graph on the source page you provide it is clear Ron Paul will have 9% of the vote in the New Hampshire Primary IF his trend continues.

Will you all just go ahead and storm the White House and install Ronaldo if he gets 10% of the primary vote?

[ejonesie22]

Jim, Jim, Jim...

Don’t you know better than to taunt the mighty Paulinati.

You may suffer the curse of a thousand posts for your insubordination...

[ejonesie22]

Yeah, and Romney was Governor in Massachusetts, did that make it a conservative state? Republicans up in that neck of the woods doesn't inspire me with Conservative confidence.

[ejonesie22]

If by hyperventilating you mean laughing so hard we can’t breath, well then you are right.

[ejonesie22]

He can, he is a High Councilman of the...

MIGHTY PAULINATI!

[ejonesie22]

Opposing, no, laughing at because it is way to much fun, yes.

And I think early on it was established than very few of us took a negative view of Paul in general, but his stance on this war and it’s prosecution was so out of line it overshadowed all else. We can get the strong republican stances else where.

Between that and the continual Paulinati posts, you guys have turned the thing into a comedy. We just really enjoy the entertainment now. Debate wise it is way over...

[ejonesie22]

Amen.

Brings a smile to me heart every time...

[ejonesie22]

Jim posts on Paul threads, and not in a supportive way. You referred to the "Anti Paul" posters as clowns. Therefore you called Jim a clown.

[ejonesie22]

It goes past that. There is a mutual benefit. With operating bases in these countries we can respond to threats against our nations interest is a quick fashion and also have eyes and ears near places that may as some point attack us directly.

The way Paul folks paint it we are just using our troops to protect other countries. It goes much deeper. But then understanding 21st Century realities is not something that Paul and he’s folks are good at, despite their declarations of superior knowledge on all aspects of human existence...

[ejonesie22]

You left off the pirates...

[Oberon]

And I think early on it was established than very few of us took a negative view of Paul in general, but his stance on this war and it’s prosecution was so out of line it overshadowed all else.

So that's the Republican shibboleth, is it?

For Democrats, it's abortion. For Republicans, apparently for the moment, it's the war.

I consider the present war only the most recent of the Crusades, and I mean that in a good way. We will fight Islam, either sooner or later, and either on our soil or theirs. Sooner, and on theirs, is better.

That's not enough, however, to make me toss out Paul. Differences on the prosecution of the war are debatable, and resolvable.

[Oberon]

Jim posts on Paul threads, and not in a supportive way. You referred to the "Anti Paul" posters as clowns. Therefore you called Jim a clown.

You're reachin', jonesie. If someone really intended to insult Jim Robinson, they wouldn't do it in such a theoretical way.

[ejonesie22]

Come on Obi, you guys are the “logical” ones, Trip Es statement follows a logical path.

[Fabozz]

"And yet we're discussing him. Funny, isn't it?"

Bunch of threads on OJ Simpson right now. Does that make him politically relevant?

[Oberon]

Keep talking, ‘boz. There’s no bad press...there’s only press.

[lormand]

"Therefore you called Jim a clown."

That's what I heard too.