I'm surprised anyone would think otherwise at this point. Several high profile Republicans have already dropped out, and the ones left behind are very weak.
Paul gains very little when others drop out. Pawlenty and Cain will get the bulk of support if they outlast the others. Romney will NEVER, EVER be able to beat Obama. This list is weak, the GOP had better hope Christie or Daniels jump in. Rumors of Jeb Bush running would be a disaster for the GOP. Rick Perry might not be a bad option same for Paul Ryan or Scott Walker.
Jeb rocks plus I think he grabs some of the Latino vote that McCain couldn't get.
I think the legacy kills Jeb particularly so soon after W. Sad, because Jeb is the brother who should have been president. Ask the family or close friends.
I'm surprised anyone would think otherwise at this point. Several high profile Republicans have already dropped out, and the ones left behind are very weak.
Serious question....do those websites pick the most favorable poll for each week to report?
Personally, I think Obama will get reelected, but I'm not 70/30 sure about that.
I'm surprised anyone would think otherwise at this point. Several high profile Republicans have already dropped out, and the ones left behind are very weak.
Serious question....do those websites pick the most favorable poll for each week to report?
Personally, I think Obama will get reelected, but I'm not 70/30 sure about that.
When that many polls all show him leading every other candidate, the bias argument doesn't have a lot of weight.
I'm surprised anyone would think otherwise at this point. Several high profile Republicans have already dropped out, and the ones left behind are very weak.
Serious question....do those websites pick the most favorable poll for each week to report?
Personally, I think Obama will get reelected, but I'm not 70/30 sure about that.
When that many polls all show him leading every other candidate, the bias argument doesn't have a lot of weight.
Wow, you didn't even attempt to answer my question. Good Job!
RE: Gallup: Ron Paul tied for 2nd nationally in GOP primary
He's clearly in front now. There's an expectation that the economy will improve. If it doesn't then things get interesting. If the economy is worse, republicans win unless they nominate a disaster.
Given the TEA party and the split between social and fiscal conservatives, I think there's a real chance of a significant third party candidacy. That could pretty much hand the white house to Obama. I could very easily see something like a 40-35-25 split. Since the 3rd party probably wouldn't have many down ballot candidates, and since the 35 and 25 groups would both favor republicans in congressional elections I could see republican congressional gains with Obama being re-elected. Particularly considering the breakdown of the seats up this time, that would include a republican takeover of the senate.
Since I don't really feel that strongly about any of the likely republican candidates, I could live with that.
RE: Gallup: Ron Paul tied for 2nd nationally in GOP primary
(05-27-2011 05:06 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:
(05-26-2011 11:34 PM)Claw Wrote: Why would Meth addicts would be any different than the homeless alcoholics?
That's it! Ban alcohol. There's a subset of humans that abuse the drug and let it negatively affect their lives. It must be banned.
(05-26-2011 10:48 PM)Rebel Wrote: Meth heads aren't just a danger to themselves. They rob, steal, and, tell ya what, since you Paulbots are so into the right to do whatever the **** you want, how would you like a Meth factory next to your home?
"Alcoholics aren't just a danger to themselves. They drink and drive, abuse loved ones, and tell ya what, how would you like a makeshift distillery next to your home?"
Do you see how ridiculous this attitude is? You're not worried about a moonshine still blowing up next door are you? I'm sure there are alcoholics hiccuping and stumbling up and down the street to get some of your neighbor's home-brew, right?
No. None of this happens. There is an industry that legally and safely handles its distribution and sale.
Meth and hard drugs are much much stronger than Alcohol. Addicts of hard drugs *will* rob, steal, and burglarize to get it. Apples and oranges. Ideologically, I think all drugs should be legal, but pragmatically, hard drug legalization would likely increase property crime.
I'm surprised anyone would think otherwise at this point. Several high profile Republicans have already dropped out, and the ones left behind are very weak.
Serious question....do those websites pick the most favorable poll for each week to report?
Personally, I think Obama will get reelected, but I'm not 70/30 sure about that.
When that many polls all show him leading every other candidate, the bias argument doesn't have a lot of weight.
Wow, you didn't even attempt to answer my question. Good Job!
I'm surprised anyone would think otherwise at this point. Several high profile Republicans have already dropped out, and the ones left behind are very weak.
Serious question....do those websites pick the most favorable poll for each week to report?
Personally, I think Obama will get reelected, but I'm not 70/30 sure about that.
When that many polls all show him leading every other candidate, the bias argument doesn't have a lot of weight.
Wow, you didn't even attempt to answer my question. Good Job!
You can't be that retarded, can you?
Let's see...I'm trying to have a discussion with you, so I'm pretty sure that makes me retarded.
RE: Gallup: Ron Paul tied for 2nd nationally in GOP primary
(05-27-2011 05:26 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: Meth and hard drugs are much much stronger than Alcohol. Addicts of hard drugs *will* rob, steal, and burglarize to get it. Apples and oranges. Ideologically, I think all drugs should be legal, but pragmatically, hard drug legalization would likely increase property crime.
Where is the line separating hard/soft?
Prosecute people for the crimes they commit while high, not for them getting high.
Will addiction increase/decrease/not change after legalization. Protect the sources of these hard drugs, and you'll prevent the crime from people tweaking to get their drugs. They can just walk into a store and buy it, there's no reason to assault the local dealer. Show me how there will be more addicts because it is legal, then we can talk about more people assaulting citizens for their money/property so they can buy drugs. If no more become addicted, that point is moot.
RE: Gallup: Ron Paul tied for 2nd nationally in GOP primary
(05-27-2011 05:26 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:
(05-27-2011 05:06 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:
(05-26-2011 11:34 PM)Claw Wrote: Why would Meth addicts would be any different than the homeless alcoholics?
That's it! Ban alcohol. There's a subset of humans that abuse the drug and let it negatively affect their lives. It must be banned.
(05-26-2011 10:48 PM)Rebel Wrote: Meth heads aren't just a danger to themselves. They rob, steal, and, tell ya what, since you Paulbots are so into the right to do whatever the **** you want, how would you like a Meth factory next to your home?
"Alcoholics aren't just a danger to themselves. They drink and drive, abuse loved ones, and tell ya what, how would you like a makeshift distillery next to your home?"
Do you see how ridiculous this attitude is? You're not worried about a moonshine still blowing up next door are you? I'm sure there are alcoholics hiccuping and stumbling up and down the street to get some of your neighbor's home-brew, right?
No. None of this happens. There is an industry that legally and safely handles its distribution and sale.
Meth and hard drugs are much much stronger than Alcohol. Addicts of hard drugs *will* rob, steal, and burglarize to get it. Apples and oranges. Ideologically, I think all drugs should be legal, but pragmatically, hard drug legalization would likely increase property crime.
Risk is what drives the pricing of "illegal" drugs. Take away that risk and the price comes down due to competition. Putting all drugs in a regulated marketplace would be a much safer solution than our current failed methods. Quality control, purity and dosage information would be accessible to users in a controlled marketplace and would decrease overdoses in users. As it stands now, users have no idea what they really are buying. This leads to a more dangerous situation.
I agree with Ron Paul....Making these substances legal is not going to make people run out and try Meth, Heroin and other dangerous drugs any more than legal alcohol make people run out and buy booze. It just makes it safer for the user...who is going to use it anyway.
Somewhere down the road...we are going to have to face the reality that prohibitions do not work. It only creates a violent black market. We already have plenty of evidence to substantiate this in our history.
Putting peaceful people in jail cells for consumption of "illegal" substances is waste of law enforcement resources and has caused our legal system to be totally log jammed with drug cases.... both in the courts and penal systems.
RE: Gallup: Ron Paul tied for 2nd nationally in GOP primary
(05-28-2011 09:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:
(05-27-2011 05:26 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:
(05-27-2011 05:06 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:
(05-26-2011 11:34 PM)Claw Wrote: Why would Meth addicts would be any different than the homeless alcoholics?
That's it! Ban alcohol. There's a subset of humans that abuse the drug and let it negatively affect their lives. It must be banned.
(05-26-2011 10:48 PM)Rebel Wrote: Meth heads aren't just a danger to themselves. They rob, steal, and, tell ya what, since you Paulbots are so into the right to do whatever the **** you want, how would you like a Meth factory next to your home?
"Alcoholics aren't just a danger to themselves. They drink and drive, abuse loved ones, and tell ya what, how would you like a makeshift distillery next to your home?"
Do you see how ridiculous this attitude is? You're not worried about a moonshine still blowing up next door are you? I'm sure there are alcoholics hiccuping and stumbling up and down the street to get some of your neighbor's home-brew, right?
No. None of this happens. There is an industry that legally and safely handles its distribution and sale.
Meth and hard drugs are much much stronger than Alcohol. Addicts of hard drugs *will* rob, steal, and burglarize to get it. Apples and oranges. Ideologically, I think all drugs should be legal, but pragmatically, hard drug legalization would likely increase property crime.
Risk is what drives the pricing of "illegal" drugs. Take away that risk and the price comes down due to competition. Putting all drugs in a regulated marketplace would be a much safer solution than our current failed methods. Quality control, purity and dosage information would be accessible to users in a controlled marketplace and would decrease overdoses in users. As it stands now, users have no idea what they really are buying. This leads to a more dangerous situation.
I agree with Ron Paul....Making these substances legal is not going to make people run out and try Meth, Heroin and other dangerous drugs any more than legal alcohol make people run out and buy booze. It just makes it safer for the user...who is going to use it anyway.
Somewhere down the road...we are going to have to face the reality that prohibitions do not work. It only creates a violent black market. We already have plenty of evidence to substantiate this in our history.
Putting peaceful people in jail cells for consumption of "illegal" substances is waste of law enforcement resources and has caused our legal system to be totally log jammed with drug cases.... both in the courts and penal systems.
I'm surprised anyone would think otherwise at this point. Several high profile Republicans have already dropped out, and the ones left behind are very weak.
Serious question....do those websites pick the most favorable poll for each week to report?
Personally, I think Obama will get reelected, but I'm not 70/30 sure about that.
RealClearPolitics aggregates all polls. For daily tracking numbers like the Gallup and Rasmussen POTUS approval ratings, I believe they go by three-day windows and simply add those numbers to the averages. RCP's "averages" have been a bit criticized in the past because at one point in the 2008 election I think they decided to include a poll (I'm forgetting the name) in their data without including it in their averages, which was seen as biased, but on the whole, they're definitely reputable.
Pollingreport is something I don't know about so I can't vouch, but for RCP, there's really no such thing as "favorable" polls to spotlight.
Personally, my poll aggregate of choice used to be Pollster.com because they'd take literally any poll and add it into their averages (which created a lot of outliers but was like porn for polling data junkies like myself). They were sold to the Huffington Post awhile back and have become pretty much unusable.
Anyway, I hope that helps to answer your question a little bit.
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2011 01:30 PM by CD11.)
RE: Gallup: Ron Paul tied for 2nd nationally in GOP primary
(05-27-2011 06:16 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: I like Cain and Paul a lot. I'd probably give the nod to Paul though because I'd like to see Peter Schiff as head of the Treasury or Fed lol XD.
I like that idea, but I also like Jim Rogers for the very same. CNBC asked him what he would do if he was Chairman of the Fed ... and his response was priceless. Skip to 3:15.
/
Gallup: Ron Paul tied for 2nd nationally in GOP primary
