[Covert Hawk]

According to Rasmussen

Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%

Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. Read More...

In case your wondering how other GOP front runners are doing, CNN Polls show that Obama is beating every one by comfortable margins

What about the hypothetical general election matchup in 2012 against President Obama?

The poll shows Obama topping Romney 53 percent to 45 percent, beating Huckabee 54 percent to 45 percent, defeating Gingrich 55 percent to 43 percent and topping Palin 55 percent to 42.

[ALUmnus]

You're comparing a Rasmussen poll to a CNN poll. Different methodology, different samples.

And why is Huckabee's name still being thrown in there?

[From the class of 09]

Could there be two more politically opposite people…one just expanded the federal government to its largest size ever… the other thinks we should abolish income tax and the IRS.

[mrmacphisto]

Could there be two more politically opposite people…one just expanded the federal government to its largest size ever… the other thinks we should abolish income tax and the IRS.

Yeah, I don't think Ron Paul would have time to accomplish these things even if he had four terms.

[PastorZack]

Give Obama a couple of more months trying to push through his agenda and ANY Republican SHOULD beat him in November of 2012. I just wonder if he will have any type of challenge from the center-left during his primary. I think that would be great theatre.

[adam42381]

Give Obama a couple of more months trying to push through his agenda and ANY Republican SHOULD beat him in November of 2012. I just wander if he will have any type of challenge from the center-left during his primary. I think that would be great theatre.

I don't see that happening. Who's gonna beat him, Palin?

[From the class of 09]

Give Obama a couple of more months trying to push through his agenda and ANY Republican SHOULD beat him in November of 2012. I just wander if he will have any type of challenge from the center-left during his primary. I think that would be great theatre.

I don't see that happening. Who's gonna beat him, Palin?

That would be the worst move ever by the GOP. I'm not sure I would even vote for Palin over Obama. Mitt Romney is still respectable if you want to go mainstream....and there is always Ron Paul if you want to go radical

[LUconn]

Mitt is going to have a difficult time running against a very similar Health Care reform plan he championed and signed into law in Massachusetts.

[01LUGrad]

Mitt is going to have a difficult time running against a very similar Health Care reform plan he championed and signed into law in Massachusetts.

Meh. Parts of it were similar, but some of the crazy stuff was very different.

That being said, I still can't think of a good Republican candidate right now. Something needs to happen quickly (over the next year or so) or we are going to be stuck with Barry for another 6 years.

[UNCA Alum]

By 2012, it will be all about Obama and less about the Republican candidate. Obviously somebody Palin probably wouldn't be able to win, but Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, Gingrich, Thune, Paul, etc. all have about the same chance of beating Obama.

[Hold My Own]

2012 is going to be just like last time. Anyone OTHER than Bush. This time in 2012 it will be ANYONE other than Obama. I swear with the media's help they could have run a Donkey out there and beat McCain.

[rueful]

2012 is going to be just like last time. Anyone OTHER than Bush. This time in 2012 it will be ANYONE other than Obama. I swear with the media's help they could have run a Donkey out there and beat McCain.

they didnt?

[01LUGrad]

2012 is going to be just like last time. Anyone OTHER than Bush. This time in 2012 it will be ANYONE other than Obama. I swear with the media's help they could have run a Donkey out there and beat McCain.

You are exactly right. The problem for the 'pubs is that the media will not be helping them in the least. Hence, the afore mentioned donkey will win again.

[Sly Fox]

Did anybody catch the Newsweek story on Rick Perry? It appears the leftist national pubs are trying to set forth the opponent they believe their man in the White House can beat. And they all seem to be believe that the Tea Party is so polarizing that anyone tied to it is toast in 2012.

[SumItUp]

Did anybody catch the Newsweek story on Rick Perry? It appears the leftist national pubs are trying to set forth the opponent they believe their man in the White House can beat. And they all seem to be believe that the Tea Party is so polarizing that anyone tied to it is toast in 2012.

They also misunderstand the Tea Party and the American people's disgust with Washington's arrogance.

[LUconn]

The only problem with the Tea Partyers that I can see is that I think there will be enough support thrown to a 3rd party. Effectively siphoning off a lot of votes away from the viable candidate, giving Barry win by default. Like what we saw with Nader in 2000 and Perot in 92.

[Covert Hawk]

The only problem with the Tea Partyers that I can see is that I think there will be enough support thrown to a 3rd party. Effectively siphoning off a lot of votes away from the viable candidate, giving Barry win by default. Like what we saw with Nader in 2000 and Perot in 92.

I suppose that depends on whether or not the Republicans put out a series candidate committed to cutting taxes and reducing the deficit. If they nominate some lame candidate like Mitt Romney, then I hope they siphon off enough votes to cost the the Republicans the White House.

In modern American history, we saw this strategy applied by the Eastern Republican Establishment's refusal to support Goldwater in 1964. They ran Governor Scranton as a last-ditch effort to keep Goldwater from getting the nomination. When that failed, they literally walked out of the convention.

Johnson won in 1964. He did not run in 1968. Nixon defeated Humphrey, and the Republican Establishment took over the White House in 1969. They were willing to go down to defeat in 1964 in order to ruin the Goldwater wing of the party. They were wise to do this.

Goldwater sold out the conservatives in 1968. The Rockefeller wing that had ruined his candidacy in 1964 got him to give his infamous "grow up, conservatives" speech at the 1968 convention. "Grow up" meant "vote for Nixon." He lived to regret this. He was on the side of the pro-impeachment Republicans in 1974. Too late.

Click Here to read to rest

Defeating Obama just for the sake of defeating Obama is vain if all it means is getting the Republican form of big Government.

The Establishment Republicans will wail in despair. "This is keeping the party from winning." Exactly! The goal is to do this for as long as the Republic Party does not publicly pursue the agenda of the Tea Party wing.

Two election cycles later, the wafflers will be gone. At that point, the Tea Party bloc will control the Republican Party's grass roots.

The political cancer today is big spending. Big spenders must be removed with surgical precision. Every candidate must know that he will lose in November if he waffles.

Politicians see the light only when they feel the heat. This is the doctrine of hell in politics. It is time to give politicians hell.

Click here to read the rest

[LUconn]

The only problem with the Tea Partyers that I can see is that I think there will be enough support thrown to a 3rd party. Effectively siphoning off a lot of votes away from the viable candidate, giving Barry win by default. Like what we saw with Nader in 2000 and Perot in 92.

I suppose that depends on whether or not the Republicans put out a series candidate committed to cutting taxes and reducing the deficit. If they nominate some lame candidate like Mitt Romney, then I hope they siphon off enough votes to cost the the Republicans the White House.

In modern American history, we saw this strategy applied by the Eastern Republican Establishment's refusal to support Goldwater in 1964. They ran Governor Scranton as a last-ditch effort to keep Goldwater from getting the nomination. When that failed, they literally walked out of the convention.

Johnson won in 1964. He did not run in 1968. Nixon defeated Humphrey, and the Republican Establishment took over the White House in 1969. They were willing to go down to defeat in 1964 in order to ruin the Goldwater wing of the party. They were wise to do this.

Goldwater sold out the conservatives in 1968. The Rockefeller wing that had ruined his candidacy in 1964 got him to give his infamous "grow up, conservatives" speech at the 1968 convention. "Grow up" meant "vote for Nixon." He lived to regret this. He was on the side of the pro-impeachment Republicans in 1974. Too late. read more...

Defeating Obama just for the sake of defeating Obama is vain if all it means is getting the Republican form of big Government.

The Establishment Republicans will wail in despair. "This is keeping the party from winning." Exactly! The goal is to do this for as long as the Republic Party does not publicly pursue the agenda of the Tea Party wing.

Two election cycles later, the wafflers will be gone. At that point, the Tea Party bloc will control the Republican Party's grass roots.

The political cancer today is big spending. Big spenders must be removed with surgical precision. Every candidate must know that he will lose in November if he waffles.

Politicians see the light only when they feel the heat. This is the doctrine of hell in politics. It is time to give politicians hell.

That's what I kept telling myself at the time, this last election was. McCain was a garbage candidate. He's responsible for what was, one of the biggest restrictions of the first amendment. Nothing would have changed under him, and conservatism would have had a huge black eye. I thought the republicans being exiled for 2-4 years would thin out RINOs and get things straight, hoping that things wouldn't get too messed up in the mean time. Can you imagine doing that again and 2nd term Obama residing, without having to pander to the middle anymore? I shudder to think.

[ALUmnus]

The only problem with the Tea Partyers that I can see is that I think there will be enough support thrown to a 3rd party. Effectively siphoning off a lot of votes away from the viable candidate, giving Barry win by default. Like what we saw with Nader in 2000 and Perot in 92.

I suppose that depends on whether or not the Republicans put out a series candidate committed to cutting taxes and reducing the deficit. If they nominate some lame candidate like Mitt Romney, then I hope they siphon off enough votes to cost the the Republicans the White House.

In modern American history, we saw this strategy applied by the Eastern Republican Establishment's refusal to support Goldwater in 1964. They ran Governor Scranton as a last-ditch effort to keep Goldwater from getting the nomination. When that failed, they literally walked out of the convention.

Johnson won in 1964. He did not run in 1968. Nixon defeated Humphrey, and the Republican Establishment took over the White House in 1969. They were willing to go down to defeat in 1964 in order to ruin the Goldwater wing of the party. They were wise to do this.

Goldwater sold out the conservatives in 1968. The Rockefeller wing that had ruined his candidacy in 1964 got him to give his infamous "grow up, conservatives" speech at the 1968 convention. "Grow up" meant "vote for Nixon." He lived to regret this. He was on the side of the pro-impeachment Republicans in 1974. Too late. read more...

Defeating Obama just for the sake of defeating Obama is vain if all it means is getting the Republican form of big Government.

The Establishment Republicans will wail in despair. "This is keeping the party from winning." Exactly! The goal is to do this for as long as the Republic Party does not publicly pursue the agenda of the Tea Party wing.

Two election cycles later, the wafflers will be gone. At that point, the Tea Party bloc will control the Republican Party's grass roots.

The political cancer today is big spending. Big spenders must be removed with surgical precision. Every candidate must know that he will lose in November if he waffles.

Politicians see the light only when they feel the heat. This is the doctrine of hell in politics. It is time to give politicians hell.

I don't agree. And for people who are claiming to be true to the purity of their ideals, in essence they're not. They're playing the game of power trying to manipulate future results.

And it would be good practice to start linking to whatever you're quoting.

[From the class of 09]

I don't agree. And for people who are claiming to be true to the purity of their ideals, in essence they're not. They're playing the game of power trying to manipulate future results.

Purity of ideals??? Politics???? Unfortunately I don’t think these can go together in today’s world. Sometimes you have to lose the battle to win the war. Being an idealist for a politician is great….until you get elected

[Covert Hawk]

The Political Insurrection Has Begun

On Saturday, May 8, an extraordinary event took place. United States Senator Bob Bennett, a 3-term Republican, failed to make the cut for his party's primary. Not only was he not nominated to run, he did not make the cut to get nominated. He was a distant third. Two Tea Party candidates beat him.

Bob Bennett is a legacy Senator. His father served as Senator before him.

This was an insurrection.

Bennett had turned squishy years ago. He had an undeserved reputation as a conservative. He backed the TARP bailout in 2008. Then he backed Obama's health insurance bill. That did it. "No mas!" The folks back home sent him a message: "You're out of here!"

Then, three days later, across the country, it happened again. Congressman Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, was smashed in the Democratic Party's primary, 56% to 44%. He had held that seat for 14 terms – almost 28 years. He had supported Obama's health care bill. He was one of the Stupak Seven. When Stupak folded, Mollohan folded. That ended his political career.

This is a bipartisan insurrection. It indicates that the voters have finally had enough. It may represent a turning point in American politics.

Think about what these two votes mean. In American politics, voters decide between two parties. Politicians' campaign strategies are targeted at the 80% of the voters who are in play. The 10% at each end of the political spectrum are either true believers or staunch enemies. They are ignored. They get platitudes from the candidates, but that's all. A politician who campaigns on a straight ideological platform is extremely rare. Ron Paul is such a politician, but how representative is he of politics in general?

As soon as a person is elected to Congress, his party supports him thereafter, no matter what. Local politics is seen as "our man in Washington vs. their would-be interloper." The faithful party member now overlooks every deviant vote by the incumbent. The incumbent is always seen as better than the other party's candidate, no matter who that candidate is.

At the level of the Presidency, there are enough independents and enough marginal voters to enable a popular candidate to win votes from members of the other party. Think of Jimmy Cater in 1980. Reagan overwhelmed him. Carter lost votes from his own party.

The nation is really divided. We have never seen before what happened under Clinton and Bush II: a pair of two-term Presidents from rival parties. There is now ebb and flow at the national level. No party has a lock on the Presidency.

This ebb and flow has not existed locally within a party. Once elected, a Congressman or a Senator who decides to run again is going to get the nomination of his party at the next election. The faithful conclude, "Our man, right or wrong." Bob Bennett and Alan Mollohan discovered that this tradition has ended.

It ended without warning. Bennett did not figure out what was about to happen to him until the last minute. To save his candidacy, he invited Mitt Romney to introduce him at the convention. How out of touch can a politician be? Mitt Romney represents the Eastern Republican Establishment. He was governor of Massachusetts. He passed a health care law similar to Obama's. That Bennett thought Romney could help him with the Republicans back home indicates how completely out of touch he had become.

Yes, Romney is a Mormon. Yes, Utah is Mormon. In the good old days, the folks back home would have thought, "It's us vs. them." But with his voting record, Bennett had moved into the camp of "them." He did not perceive this until it was too late.

In a CNN interview with a man identified as the founder of the Tea Party movement in Utah, the interviewer with the flowing hair tried to identify Bennett as a conservative. She reeled off names of supporting right-wing Beltway groups. The man being interviewed shrugged this off. "It isn't a matter of conservatism," he said. "It's a matter of responsibility." Bennett should not have voted to bail out failing companies, he said. But, she hastened to ask, "should a man's career end because of one vote?" His answer was perfect: "His career WILL end with that vote." And it did. CNN then switched to Bennett, who defended that vote. He is gone. The video is worth watching.

The incumbents are facing an insurrection. A fundamental assumption of all Congressional politics is being called into question: guaranteed re-nomination of incumbents. This means that the folks back home are going to nominate newcomers who are dependent on swing voters in a way unseen before in American politics. There will be no more of "our man, right or wrong."

This means that voters back home are so angry that they would prefer to lose the November election with a candidate who reflects their views rather than win with an incumbent who doesn't. It means that the politics of the Capitol Hill club is no longer secure. It means that the Old Boy Network of incumbents on the Hill can no longer secure automatic re-nomination.

If this continues, the nation's political system will change. Incumbents will have to pay attention to the opinions of the voters in their parties in their districts. This places power in the hands of dedicated minorities back home who are willing to send a message to their men in Washington: "You will remain our man for only as long as you vote our way on the issues that matter to us." There will be no more free rides at the nomination level.

This is a positive development. It introduces an element of uncertainty into national politics. The informal alliances on Capitol Hill will be undermined as never before. The ever-popular game of logrolling will get more risky. Logrolling is this: "I'll vote for your pork-filled bill if you'll vote for mine." Incumbents play this game for pork's sake. But if voters back home are angrier about pork-for-all than they are about insufficient-pork-for-us, the political structure will begin to shift rightward. This will fundamentally change the rules of the game.

Click here to read the rest

[LUconn]

Bennett backed Obama's health insurance bill? I was under the impression that no Republican voted for it. Or is that something different than the health care bill that they reconciled through to law?

[01LUGrad]

Guy to keep an eye on- Scott Walker from Wisconsin.

[matshark]

I say screw the Republicans... give me a Constitutional Conservative. If that happens to be a Republican, so be it, but I tend to find those few and far between in the GOP ranks. Constitutional Conservatives have all moved to Independent (i.e. Libertarian/Constitution Party) b/c they are sick of the GOP being Dem-Lite!

When Republicans start being a party of Constitutional Law and Fiscal Conservatism, they will have the support of the Tea Party. That's why the TP motto is essentially "principles not parties."

Mike Huckabee is a liberal that was pushed extensively by the MSM. He had absolutely NO traction, no webs searches, NOTHING - until the press brought him up. and why would they do that? Simple, they wanted him to succeed. The press vilifies that which they fear. Find somebody they silence or say all sorts of nasty things about and there is the candidate you should be looking at. (can anyone say Ron Paul in 2008? Fox News excluded him from a debate)

[RubberMallet]

Bennett backed Obama's health insurance bill? I was under the impression that no Republican voted for it. Or is that something different than the health care bill that they reconciled through to law?

he didn't vote for the bill in its current form. however he was for a more watered down version that still fit the bill of retardation.

i know a guy through business that is a delagate in Utah...he emailed me right after it happened...

hopefully other states follow suit.