Do you think there's still a chance that someone other than Romney or Gingrich will emerge and become the Republican nominee. Both Romney and Gingrich both have good, but not spectacular levels of support, and there is a sense that neither one of them quite fits the bill, in terms of what the party is looking for.
Neither is a good candidate, Gingrich is intelligent but has a bad reputation from his previous run in politics. Romney is so fake that he'll say anything and everything to get the nomination.
I like Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul, but it will take a massive change in events to bring them to the fore. Huntsman has the better shot because he doesn't have any stigma attached to him (plus he was US Ambassador to China in the Obama Administration). He could end up pulling support from both parties.
@Whoisbid - There hasn't been a truly viable woman candidate. Palin and Bachmann are clinically insane, and Hillary Clinton is probably unelectable. It will come, but expect it within 12 years.
I bet it's because he can say it and nobody calls him on it. It's become quite politically-correct to label conservatives with the "insane" label. Just not right at all.
You do realize that I am a conservative, right? One who projects strength but consistently fails in backing it up is insane for trying to make that into their label. This is Palin. This is Bachmann. I don't want someone in office who fakes their entire image, plain and simple. Palin has the better political record of the two, but her image was shattered during the '08 election.
The best liberal female in recent years would have to be Hillary. While she got a bad rap during Bill's presidency, she does present some thoughtful arguments that even conservatives have to consider from time to time.
The best conservative female in the last 20 years was Condi Rice, far and away. She proved that she had serious political clout, but the political scene just wasn't something her heart was in on. It's understandable, especially given the poisonous political times.
Maybe you're conservative on some things, but I can't imagine any conservative saying Bachmann is insane, because she stands firm on Republican conservative principles (and doesn't avoid any of the subjects).
I like both Palin and Bachmann. I think the Republican party let an inept McCain campaign wreck a rising star in Palin. She also made the bad decision of signing on though unready for prime time. I think that lesson has not been lost on other rising stars like Chris Christy or Marco Rubio.
Palin/Bachmann GIRL POWER 2016 would make heads explode - which would be hillary-ous.
Romney looks and sounds presidential but his instincts are liberal. If he had Bachmann's instincts he would be a much better candidate. Newt is a phony and an ego maniac. I would face the exact same problem voting for him that I had with McCain.
You're right, she doesn't avoid them. She just has no idea what they really mean. Ask her to give a basic speech on a number of key issues and one of two things will happen. It has before, so you'll see.
a) Get the facts wrong (shameful)
b) Use gimmicks to sidestep the complicated response.
I want straight talk...which by the way did not occur during that one Rick Perry commercial. He's reaching for my "insane" label to slap on his forehead, probably upside down as well since he has fumbled all through this campaign.
"I can't imagine any conservative saying Bachmann is insane, because she stands firm on Republican conservative principles"
Well, see, that's assuming that all conservatives are idiots (like Bachmann) and that they value things like willful ignorance, demonization of science and education, and making up a bunch of unsupported carp to frighten the gullible, ignorant, and/or stupid.
Luckily, the vast majority of conservatives aren't idiots, and won't buy the carp she's selling.
Bachmann makes Palin seem reasonable and almost smart.
I don't know about that. I think the reasonable/rational conservatives are kind of a dwindling minority among the GOP these days, if the rhetoric through their propaganda channels and opinion polls are any indication.
Never underestimate the public's love of tender, juicy, succulent carp.
I assume no such thing, and neither should you.
BTW, Bachmann not only diminished Ron Paul in last night's Republican debate, but she stood good ground against ALL nonsense that came, even from some of her fellow Party members.
She didn't even have her facts right in most of the debates. Her gay husband is still trying to "pray away the gay." This is reality, and the conservative right has gone so nuts, now they don't even have a viable candidtate. Romney is a liberal, and has to pretend his successful health plan (which is very similar to Obama's) failed, because you crazies care more about interfering in women's rights and praying than deciding which candidate has the actual experience and skill to run the country. And morals. Newt and Romney have none. The way Newt went after Bill Clinton like a rabid dog after the Lewinsky debacle made me sick, as Newt was such a hypocrite he was also cheat ing on his 2nd wife with the lady who is Wife 3. These people who call theselves conservatives are without morals and hypocrites. Hillary should have won the primary in 2008.
Agree with most of what you say here.
Palin's image wasn't shattered until well after the '08 election. She shattered it herself. Where'd she go, anyway?
Bachmann has a huge liability in her husband.
I like Condi and wish she had not been associated with Cheney/Bush. No wonder she soured from politics.
Hillary and Bill both have high approval ratings. She's proven herself on the international scene as SOS. He's brilliant. No doubt about it.
If I had to bet now, I'd say Hillary will join Obama on the ticket as VEEP and swap jobs with Joe Biden, who is getting more airplay these days on foreign issues.
Adding Hillary bumps Obama's strength bigtime and gives her an insider track for 2016.
Unfortunately, not being part of the 1%, I have no actual money to put where my mouth is on this!
We're going to see Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, Cain, and Santorum get "less than hoped for" vote totals in Iowa. Most likely Cain, Huntsman and Santorum will drop off right there.
The media will act shocked that Ron Paul got 2nd place, and then proceed to ignore him.
Then, in the next primary, Gingrich's numbers will be lower than he expected, and Perry and Bachmann will drop out.
Ron Paul will get second place again, and this will be easily dismissed after a few "wow! Ron Paul doesn't suck completely" headlines.
We'll be left with a slowly floundering Gingrich, the steadily growing Ron Paul and the consistent (consistent in poll numbers, not policies) Romney left over.
Then in the third primary, Gingrich's numbers will plummet more, and Romney will be in a race against only Ron Paul. However, the media will continue to ignore Ron Paul.
No party involved in politics wants Ron Paul to get below a third place in the first few primaries, nor do they want him to win. If Paul gets below third, he'll drop out of the R and move to the Libertarian Party - none of his supporters will care - and he'll get the L's the 3% necessary to get federal funding AND Obama will be re-elected.
If this happens, the media will blame Ron Paul for re-electing Obama even though the real reason he will be elected is because Romney and the rest of 'em are completely the same as Obama.
Do you ever read newspapers or watch news shows? They are all playing up Paul's chances in Iowa, yet you continue to parrot the Ron Paul whine of "no one's paying attention to me."
Ron Paul consistently polls in single digits nationally and doesn't stand a snowball's chance in your shack of becoming president. He will however, continue to help Obama by muddling the Republican primaries and if he does in fact decide to run as a third party candidate, Obama will win by an even greater margin.
Purple Unicorn 2012.
I think the details of your analysis are correct with the exception of a steadily growing support for Ron Paul. He will top off soon, probably after New Hampshire. His position on Iran's nuclear program(and foreign policy in general) and his conspiratorial tone on banking will turn off the sane. Ron Paul is consistent, consistently provocative and consistently flawed.
I wouldn't say Bachmann is insane... just a few fries short of a Happy Meal is all. Same goes with Palin. I agree that Condi Rice has probably been the only potential female candidate seen that had both brains and could represent the party well.
Now back to the actual topic... I think it's pretty much down to Newt and Romney. I would love to see Ron Paul a little higher, but he's just a little too Libertarian for some folks. I don't believe Perry will gain any momentum. He's just not a strong enough candidate to represent the party.
It is rude and libelous to call the female candidate insane. They may not be electable right now and I truly hope Palin doesn't enter the race (not because she is a bad person, just not electable). You do not get elected Governor or to serve in Congress if you are nuts. The only nutty people getting elected go to the oval office.
The ONLY candidate with a shred of integrity and an ounce of decency - and Dr. Ron Paul has those things in doses that an American POTUS has probably never had before!
Of all the Republican candidates, I would have to back Ron Paul. I watched him on Leno and I liked what he said about cutting off foreign aid. This has been going for generations and I believe that charity begins at home. With the billions we send to the middle east to buy friendships (Pakistan uses the money we send them to fund the terroists), that money can be used to straighten out our health care and education situation. My problem with Romney is that he can't keep his BS stories straight and I don't care for this country to be ran by the Mormon church if elected. Gingrich is another BS artist with a lot of baggage and Bachmann is a serious nut case.
Don't forget Gingrich is one of those papists, just like JFK. I know you don't want the pope to run the country either. It is fun when liberalism's religious bigotry rears its too common but hidden head.
I have always considered Romney as a Trix rabbit. The cereal being the president's job... everyone else got a taste of it, but he was always left out. Now it looks like he has a fighting chance, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
There is a reason Romney hovers around 25%. There have been multiple anti-Romneys pop up this cycle. Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingirch are all the none Romney. Romney is palatable to the old GOP structure - you know, the ones who gave us such great candidates as John McCain, Bob Dole and Gerald Ford.
Reagan was unacceptable to the same kind of party apparatchiks who love Romney. There is a purging of Republican light weights that began with the 2010 elections and will continue this time. It isn't the phony "occupy" revolution that will make the political difference but it will be the quiet, seething disgust with the federal government that fueled TEA party candidates and motivates a 10th Amendment movement among the states.
Romney isn't fit for the fight and the 75% who are not supporting him now know it. Romney-care is an albatross that he refuses to remove from around his own neck. It is his commitment to Romney-care rather than his abandonment of it that will sink, is sinking, his candidacy. Romeny's instincts will end his campaign.
I think Romney is more electable in the general than is Gingrich. Romney seems a "safer" choice. Who's your pick?
Count me in the growing "anybody but Obama" crowd. I would even vote for Huntsman before Obama. Don't bother mentioning Hillary. I'll be damned before I will vote for a Democrat. I would even vote for that wack job Ron Paul before I would vote for Obama. The potential damage a second Obama term will do to world affairs and the economy are too terrible.
I hope the GOP ends up nominating a loony-bin right-wing candidate (i.e. not Romney). That's probably what it will take for the Republicans to come to their senses for 2016.
It sucks not having a meaningful opposition party right now. The choice we have is either the Democrats or the insane asylum.
How well reasoned and insightful. Your brilliance has helped me decide. Thank you.
LOL. It wasn't trying to convince you, or any particular person, to do anything. The Tea Party sentiment and irrational hatred of Obama are probably strong enough to make the Republicans cut off their nose to spite their face, and run someone who has no hope of winning the White House. That's what happens when you have a significant portion of the base with tribally-driven affinities to your party.
My suspicion is that the elites know this, so they're just running a new standard-bearer every couple of months to remind people:
"Yeah, we have no hope of winning, but, hey, see, we don't all hate Mormons, African Americans, women, Catholics, Hispanics, etc. (while, naturally, winking at the racists and other assorted bigots and reminding them that they still have a place under their tent); keep that in mind for 2016."
Sorry, I had trouble reading your last posting - I had to wipe the regurgitated vitriol out of my eyes. I have been reading hate from the state-ists Democrat and Republican liberals for so long it is little more than background noise.
George W. Bush was an idiot - but I bet he gets corpse-man right even without a teleprompter.
Sarah Palin is an idiot - but I bet she knows Hawaii isn't in Asia - especially without a teleprompter.
Michelle Bachmann is an idiot - but I bet she knows they speak German in Austria - not Austrian - even without a teleprompter.
Republicans are hateful monsters - look they think the "Arab Spring" is an Islamist revolution not a democratic one. Idiots, we better rush good Democrats like John Kerry over to Egypt to praise the Muslim Brotherhood's pending extermination of Egypt's Coptic Christian minority - BRILLIANT!
sell your hate somewhere else - I have heard it for decades and it is dull.)Speaking as a life long Catholic - I have never felt so much disgust as when Democrats like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi pretend(ed) to be good Catholics)
That's what happens when you let "background noise" of your own choosing color your entire perception.
Like I said before, I'm not selling you or anyone else anything. I know fully well you will vote for whoever the GOP candidate is. I will be voting for Obama. Our votes are spoken for. We are just discussing what will probably happen, our speculations and hopes, next year. Your vote and my vote are basically insignificant.
You assume you know for whom I will vote. Continue in your assumptions. It is only a matter of time before we all live in the workers paradise. How are things "progressing" in the great progressive countries of Europe or in the progressive bastions of California, Illinois and New York? It is just a matter of how soon we will all discover the cost of California's decades long experimentation with liberalism.
Keep on bashing. And, you're right, I made an assumption about who you'll vote for. But I don't ultimately care, because, as I said before, your particular vote is insignificant (as is mine).
As for those progressive states: they're also the hotbeds of innovation in our country, and contributors to all those red state wards that are low on the education and innovation front. Sorry, our governments might be a mess, but our industry is dragging you forward.
California is in genuine trouble. How brilliant to return to the governors palace that numbskull Jerry Brown. Every major economic indicator shows flat growth or negative growth for California. Michigan, Illinois, the liberal North East are all in decline. Texas and the oil rich Northern Plains are drawing huge influxes of capital and people.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001 … ny-leaving
Good luck with the delusions.
Yes, government jobs and oil jobs. Low tech.
But, believe me, I'm all for all of the red states being cut off from the federal teat. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
It will be fun to watch California finally collapse.
You're wishing that a state of 36 million collapses? What an ethos you have.
35990000, 35989999, 35989998, 35989997...
You get the consequences you deserve. Californians have been blessed with enormous natural wealth and have been destroying themselves for decades. The destruction of farming in the greatest agricultural region in the world is a good indicator of where the rest of California is heading.
California is sabotaging its own mineral industry at a time when rare earth minerals are the real future of technology. Californians could produce energy from every conceivable source but continues to pass the dope and wax up the surf board rather than buckle on the big boy pants and do something real.
It won't be too much longer. California's job production still lags behind those benighted red states. Yes I do want to watch California fail, at the present there is nothing that will prevent its failure. California, Michigan, Illinois, Nevada and a couple of others are the equivalent of those foolish social-democrat European failures like Greece and Spain. Greece entertains me also.
The natural consequences of Californian's choices will lead to the collapse of California. Perhaps there will remain enough wealth among the entertainment class that California can waddle on for a few more years but its collapse under the weight of stupid liberalism is inevitable.
Even if California reversed direction, a virtual impossibility, it would take decades to rescue Californians from their goofy liberal disaster.
Tony Soprano will always be my favorite Catholic.
Not impossible but unlikely that another candidate will emerge successfully. Donald Trump said the other day that he hasn't ruled a candidacy out.
Right. He'll file his candidacy papers right after he ferrets out Obama's real birth certificate.
The arrogance. The unmitigated arrogance.
Back to the OP.
Will NOT be Gingrich.
Will quite possibly be Huntsman.
Ron Paul will be your president - Obama is signing the end of his presidency with the NDAA.
Not going to happen. Not even conservatives are that crazy.
I'll not vote for a criminal under any circumstance - it's Ron Paul or bust - anyone else elected and it's a fascist nation here, and wage slavery is the absolute norm.
Why not just rip the Constitution to shreds? Use an original copy as toilet paper? <<<<< that's what Obama represents - even more of a fascist than "W."
Fine, throw away your vote. That makes sense. If enough people do it, a GOP crazy might win and he or she will surely appreciate your meaningless protest.
Sure, anything's possible. But this election will not be about the Republican candidate. This election wil be about a referendum on Obama.
The true challenge on the conservative side is not so much the candidate as it is getting on message and staying there rather than allowing things to wander or moving toward the center to gain appeal. 42% of the American public is "self-described" as conservative in their politics and another 30% describe themselves as moderates with conservative leanings. If the message is clear, factual, and consistently delivered, it will gain the proper attention and garner the necessary vote. It's that simple. WB
I was watching the debate last night and thought that Michelle Bachman pimp slapped Ron Paul on foreign policy. Ron Paul sucks.
Ron Paul still remembers the good old days when the Atlantic Ocean kept invaders away, until 18112. I think he still has a "Wilson Kept Us Out of War" bumper sticker on his horseless carriage. He treasures the autographed picture he has of Lindy and the other America Firsters. That Ron Paul, he has been so right for decades - those decades were 1781-1811 - but he was still right.
He remembers the days before we had a $14 trillion debt, and before we went around pissing off every country in the world.
Oh, and the days when we still had freedom.
The Muslim world does not need an excuse to be pissed off. The billions in aid, the billions in military facilities and support, the liberation and protection of millions of Muslims from Kosovo to Iraq to Afghanistan all freed to worship as they will, to live as they will and the United States is still the enemy.
We are the enemy because there are two spheres - the sphere of Islam and the sphere of the infidel. We are the most powerful force against the triumph of the Islamic sphere. That is why they hate us. There can be no peace with Islam until there is a reformation in Islam. That reformation has occurred and the Islamists have won.
In the 1950s Americans could travel all over the Muslim world with little risk of molestation. What changed? Even into the 1970s the Muslim world was not as hostile as it is now, why? What changed?
The radicalization of Islam with the support of an increasingly pacifist West has facilitated the rise of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Brotherhood, etc.... It isn't until the West started blaming itself for the failure of Islam to modernize that the real hatred of the West began.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is loony at best but more likely suicidal. It wouldn't help to settle the hash of the Federal Reserve if the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is in a smoking nuclear wasteland. That is what Ron Paul's 17th century isolationist lunacy promises.
It's not "financial aid" if we are using the money to support dictators that we put in place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irani … 7%C3%A9tat
That's called "empire building". And the victims of it usually get pissed off.
Remember that entire "American Revolution" thing?
The "victims" were, are and ever will be pissed off because you are not a Muslim nor do you bow down to the Caliph. This is a conflict that predates America and one that the Muslim world prosecuted into the 16th century and beyond. It is the clash of Islam with non-Islam.
Right now those "victims" in Iran have been brutalized by an America free Tehran for decades and would rather trade the Mullah run Oligarchy for just about anything. We see the coming disaster in Egypt after an America backed strong man is deposed the Brotherhood starts its campaign to murder the Copts and abuse women.
The non-Muslims of Iraq, smaller in number now than in decades, are terrified now that the "Great Satan" of the Islamists and the Paulniacs has left. It is amusing, where you see empire and compare the United States to The British Empire others see the grave yards of American service men who liberated France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, So. Korea, etc....
Maybe Ron Paul and his minions just need to get new prescriptions for their eye wear and leave out the brown tint this time.
The mainstream media spends far too much time attempting to report the shortcomings of Romney or Gingrich after dispensing with Cain. This leaves little or no time for the other candidate to gain face time in the public arena. Santorium has a wealth of experience and knowledge as does Bachman but neither will get enough media exposure to shore up their campaign hopes. The same pretty much holds true for Perry as the media has been down on him from the start. In essence, the conservative side of the aisle seems to be willing to sit back and let the media determine who the nominee will be and that is a sad state of affairs. Ron Paul, though seeking the nomination now, will in all likelihood jump to independent status if he cannot secure it. This will do nothing positive for the conservative side of the aisle regardless of which candidate gets the nomination. Paul will have the same effect that Perot had in his bid...splinter the conservative vote and guarantee Obama re-election. No conservative candidate who cares about the future of this country should be willing to take that chance. WB
"This will do nothing positive for the conservative side..."
It would be the best thing that could ever happen to conservatives. Just because there's an (R) in front of a liberal's name doesn't make him a conservative.
Maybe it'll finally wake up REAL conservatives to the fact that the Republican party has been giving them tax-and-spend crooks for the past 4+ decades.
What about a woman? I guess the USA is one of the only countries that has never had a woman in that position
Palin and Bachmann have been suggested at various points in time, but for various reasons they have not been deemed suitable or popular enough. Bachmann comes across as intelligent, but her views are too extreme for some, which of course isn't going to help in an appeal to moderates.
It really wouldn't surprise me if there was an Obama/Clinton ticket next year though. Win or lose this election, she might have an opportunity for try to become the first female president in 2016.
I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be a VP change in an incumbent ticket. Hillary might make a good president but this country rejects women in power even more than they reject blacks in power. They may respect a foreign country with a woman in power but not their own. It's kind of like the wealthy town I live in. They're always crying for better stores and restaurants but when these businesses come in they're not supported. The residents spend their money out of town.
@icountthetimes - don't you live in another country?
Yes I do, but I'm a big follower of US politics. Primarily because whatever happens in the US impacts all of us, and also because your politics is much more dramatic than in typically is here (with the possible exception of right now, where there is lots of friction between the UK and the Eurozone countries).
I've seen the last couple of Republican debates and regularly check out the realclearpoltics polls to see who is favoured at this moment in time. I have connections to the US so I guess that it part contributes to my interest too.
Bachmann is also from the House of Representatives, there has never been a president elected directly from the House.
I'd say Bachmann is more of a political pariah in the House. I find that to be a good thing. I like this woman. She's going to need a strong showing (IMO above 25%) in Iowa to continue her campaign tho.
Two people running for president - IMO- would fundamentally change America :: Paul & Bachmann. I'd take either one. I'd also take Romney.
Lol - yeah, do you REALLY want Bachman or Palin to be Prez?
then please stop asking for them.
Someone else,Ron Paul. When you think about it,republicans will honestly understand that Newt is a moron and corrupt beltway insider. Mitt just can't get the job done. Republicans will default to the last "R" they see on the ballot,Ron Paul,party backing or not.They need to see the "R" there for some reason.Now we have the Democrats that are on the fence with Obama.They want change that Obama didn't bring. With the occupy movement now brought out in the open,the rank and file people in the US want these matters addressed. I feel that people will cross party lines just so we can fix this country.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/in-io … -gingrich/
Ron Paul may be nipping at the heels of Neut. If he can't catch Neut, then Neut will have the nomination at the end of the day. From what I can see so far, I don't believe that Mit Romney has a chance.
If Brenda says someone isn't insane, then I say the person belongs in the looney bin.
Other than that, I say there isn't a single candidate out there who will be able to take the country where it needs to go. But, then again, I'm one of those wacky folks who wants to see the federal government dismantled.
I think Ron Paul may just end up getting the nomination. Not saying I support any of them or Obama either. I think we could use a "REAL" leader but I don't think one is going to emerge. The problem is all of these men and women are career politicians
There's not one politician who is interested in getting America back on it's feet. Not one. And, that shame folks is on the people.
What's the difference? Has Obama reflected what you thought that the democratic party should?
The debate last night was telling. Romney did not give a knock out punch to Newt. Bachmann came pretty close to doing it. If Romney wants to get out in front he needs to do what Bachmann is doing. If not, I believe Newt will keep on going stronger and stronger,and he will end up with the nomination.
Why? Bachmann and Paul are smacking Newt around pretty good and allowing Mitt to stay above it all and look presidential.
Looking Presidential to 25% of those polled doesn't make one President. Romney is unlikely to get the nomination unless he moves to the right of Gingrich and there is room to Gingrich's right. Romney would be unable to move that direction with any credibility because everyone knows he is a moderate. Moderate Republicans win elections for Democrats.
Here's an animation showing how Newt Gingrich has found himself in the lead in GOP polls
This is sounding like the last go 'round...maybe McCain can throw his hat back in...He was loved as much as a current choices
I just heard that Newt and Mitt are tied in 3 different polls. I wont be surprised if Mitt ends up on top of the list. Looks like Mitt is going to be slow walking Newt down.
Tied for second ?
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics … ont/46360/
The problem with Bachmann's experience and 'knowledge' is that she hasn't gained any knowledge from her experience, and none of the 'knowledge' she has in spite of her experience is true. The GOP as a whole isn't crazy enough to nominate her, even if a large minority of their base is.
If Ron Paul goes independent, he will pull lots of votes from both the left and the right. I think it might be the best thing for the country if Ron Paul does run on the Libertarian ticket. He'll pull the votes of the disillusioned from Obama, and the votes of the people who understand the difference between patriotism and nationalism from whomever the GOP nominates. He might not win, but I bet he'll get more votes than any other 3rd party presidential candidate to date (with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt when he ran on the Progressive/Bull Moose ticket).
Ron Paul is being bashed for making some highly racial and insensitive coments in his news letter several years ago. I believe that will slow him down and keep him down.
Nah. The people who actually bother to look into things (not the mainstream media) have found out that, not only did he NOT write those newsletters, but that many prominent minority leaders defend his honor as non-discriminatory.
In a purely ideological sense, being a racist and a libertarian is impossible because racism is to view people as a collective, whereas libertarianism demands you see only individuals. The second one begins to define people as having rights/attributes based on purely genetic attributes, one ceases to be a libertarian.
by American View5 years ago
What do you think of this ticket:Huntsman/Bachmann 2012I really like this combonation, not sure it will happen. What tickets do you Like?
by Jason Menayan5 years ago
It strikes me that there are 2 distinct types of people voting in the Republican primaries and caucuses: partisans and libertarians.The partisans are about 80%; they might have their favorite candidate, but in the end,...
by 910chris5 years ago
Over the last couple of days a lot of media attention has gone towards a conspiracy theory involving Ron Paul and Mitt Romney banding together. They seem to be pushing it pretty hard which in my mind means that...
by John Coviello5 years ago
Any opinions about Gingrich's chances in South Carolina now that Perry is gone are welcome.
by Susan Reid5 years ago
I just had to share this WTF? Ron Paul supporter moment. I was in a store called Sacred Space in Durango, CO the other afternoon.The proprietress is a seer/healer. Does readings. Sells crystals and tinctures/herbs and...
by Ralph Deeds5 years ago
Daily Beast: Newt Gingrich has peaked, Ron Paul is surging. Is it showtime for Jon Huntsman? Mark McKinnon and George Caudill on the jumble that's likely to come after the caucuses....
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.