The issue is who has and can raise money to last long enough to get thru the early primaries. Trump has name recognition and his own money. Romney also has money. Palin has the ability to raise money. Trump like Palin will generate media attention. Newt has name recognition too. The challange for the guys like Pawlenty is to get name recognition like Huckabee did and catch fire. MCCain almost had to drop out because he ran out of money and came back and one because no one else broke thru. With Trump in the race who does he take votes from. Romney perhaps a bit from the business community. The social conservaties likely won't be impressed by Trump. Taunting Paul supporters isn't gonna win tea party folks.

(02-12-2011 01:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Cain?..Trump?..even Paul...Come on. Let's get real. If this is what the GOP is planning to use to extract Obammy from office? I really am beginning to thing the the GOP is as stupid as as the Dims.

Cain has absolutely no negatives. At this point in time, he's loved all over the nation and is a Tea Party favorite. He's also well-received in Iowa. Remember, no one knew who the fk Obama was at this point in time.

(02-12-2011 05:01 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Cain has absolutely no negatives.

Remember this post the next time you rag GTS for having a Paul-boner. I seriously doubt he'd ever say that about Paul.

I like Cain...he'd be my 3rd or 4th choice probably, but he has little name recognition outside the Deep South, and he has no legislative experience whatsoever. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, but for many people, it is. He has also been pro-Affirmative Action.

(02-11-2011 02:42 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Well if there's a guy who knows how to go bankrupt, it's Donald Trump, so he'll be right at home with our deficit.

The one Reagan tripled or the one W. doubled? :patriot:

(02-12-2011 06:14 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(02-12-2011 05:01 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Cain has absolutely no negatives.

Remember this post the next time you rag GTS for having a Paul-boner. I seriously doubt he'd ever say that about Paul.

I like Cain...he'd be my 3rd or 4th choice probably, but he has little name recognition outside the Deep South, and he has no legislative experience whatsoever. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, but for many people, it is. He has also been pro-Affirmative Action.

Guess you missed the "loved in Iowa", "Tea Party favorite", and "known throughout the nation". He's hosted Hannity several times and is a regular on Boortz. As for legislative experience, that's good. ...because he's running for an executive position that requires making a decision. That he has a ton of.

BTW, if you think Cain is only known in the Deep South, then you know nothing about Herman Cain. He has a Masters from Purdue, spent years in Philly, and spent even more in Omaha, Nebraska where he was given an honorary doctorate from the University of Nebraska.

People, no one knew who the hell Obama WAS at this point in last cycle and where was his legislative experience? Voting f'n present? We don't NEED someone in the White House that's the f'n status quo. We've done that for decades. Where's it gotten us? Herman has been a success at EVERYTHING he's done. Trump? Puhleeze. If it weren't for his name and cult of personality, he'd be broke.

"One challenge Cain will face is having virtually no name recognition..."
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/herman-...ntial-run/

"Cain, though a popular speaker on the Tea Party circuit, is a relatively obscure name for most Americans."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/...ential-bid

"Cain..has virtually no name recognition beyond the GOP grass roots and is not even a blip in most early presidential polls"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/...ntial-race

Do you have anything to back up your "loved in Iowa" or "known throughout the nation" claims? Yes, he is popular within the Tea Party and Boortz watchers, but he's just preaching to the choir there, not gaining any traction with swing voters.

The comparison to Obama is apples to oranges. Cain won't get the "Barackstar" treatment from the liberal media, with so-called journalists bowing at his feet. That was the catalyst for his meteoric rise.

(02-12-2011 07:42 PM)Rebel Wrote:  no one knew who the hell Obama WAS at this point in last cycle

I think by February 2007, Obama was very well known to (1.) pretty much everybody in the state of Illinois, (2.) black voters across the United States, (3.) anti-war activists across the United States, and liberals in general, and (4.) people of all views who pay attention to politics (say, 10% of the country). Plus (and this was crucial) he was taken seriously by the media, who largely supported his agenda and wanted him to do well in his campaign, even if many within the media were still rooting for Hillary overall, and hoped Obama would be her VP.

I have a lot of respect for what Herman Cain has achieved. I think he is equally or more qualified to be President than the incumbent, and I generally agree with his outlook on the issues. But his political strength here in February 2011 is simply not in the same league as Obama's political strength was in February 2007. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

Quote:Trump? Puhleeze. If it weren't for his name and cult of personality, he'd be broke.

You mean he's not?

(02-11-2011 02:15 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Can't help but think it's just some shameless self promotion on his part.

This basically sums up everything he does.

Quote:But if he does get into the race what does everyone think?

He wouldn't break more than 5% in any caucus or primary. It wouldn't matter how much money he spent.

(02-12-2011 09:51 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  He wouldn't break more than 5% in any caucus or primary. It wouldn't matter how much money he spent.

Who does better, Paul or Trump?

(02-12-2011 09:58 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Who does better, Paul or Trump?

I don't think there is any chance in hell that Trump's name will be on the ballot for Any primary/caucus, so if I'm right about that, it's a moot point.

But, just for the sake of argument?

I think there are more -- a LOT more -- Ron Paul supporters out there, in every GOP primary, than there are Donald Trump supporters.

I think Paul garnered the support he did last time around because I think most had resigned themselves to the fact there was no way the republicans would hold the White House in 2008. Voting for him was a nice novelty 2 years ago.

This time around there is a very good chance Republicans take back the White House with the right candidate. Majority know that isn't Paul, so the candidate that is the most likely will get the nod. People who last time voted for Paul due to the novelty will not vote for him this time. They'll want a candidate that can win.

(02-12-2011 10:15 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I think Paul garnered the support he did last time around because I think most had resigned themselves to the fact there was no way the republicans would hold the White House in 2008.

That sense of resignation did not take root with grassroots Republicans until after the financial meltdown in mid-September. When the primaries were still going on in Jan-Feb-March-April, I think most people who showed up to vote in them really were voting for the person they genuinely wanted to win. I think that was true for Paul's supporters no less than everyone else's. If anything, I think the difference is that Paul's supporters were voting for him as the most viable symbol of a deeply-felt cause or causes (generally, "Libertarian", allowing for some leeway on definition) and since he is still the most viable symbol of those causes, I think those same people will pretty much stick by him again. Of course, that's nowhere near enough to win the presidential nomination of either the GOP or the Democrats, but for a true believer (and Ron Paul is nothing if not a true believer) it is more than enough to justify competing, starting with the CPAC straw poll and going all the way to the last caucus, the last primary, the last ditch in the last mile, wherever that may happen to be.

Forgot to add that if Gary Johnson is serious, he could obviously cut in to Paul's support among certain groups of people, especially out west.

Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the right. It's a long way to 2012 but as of today Romney is the only re-thug-lican capable of beating Obama

(02-13-2011 06:09 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the right.

That's extremely flattering to Kucinich. It would be interesting to compare the # of votes Kucinich got in the 2008 presidential primaries with the # of votes Paul got.

Quote:It's a long way to 2012

+1

2012 election polling data "as of today" is widely scattered in terms of results, and virtually irrelevant in terms of predictive value.

(02-13-2011 08:39 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-13-2011 06:09 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the right.

That's extremely flattering to Kucinich. It would be interesting to compare the # of votes Kucinich got in the 2008 presidential primaries with the # of votes Paul got.

I am talking in terms of being outside the party establishment. In 2007 Kucinich won 40 states in the Democracy for America "pulse poll" and also the Daily Kos poll on who won the Las Vegas debate just as Ron Paul carried CPAC but with the party machinery actively working against a candidate they are in a no win situation. If Paul got the nomination I would have to give him a look.