Quote :

"That would mean the US would have to return to that kind of poverty before we could climb back out with that type of growth. That was kinda the point I was trying to make. A race to the bottom is not my preferred method of economic growth. "

Not exactly, we have moved past our industrial age which countrys need to go through to ease poverty, starvation, and increase their SOL.

It takes time though, you can legislate or force it. Why you dont have a 2 yr old fly a plane. The society has to grow.

Im not sure we can get that type of growth without a drastic shift in our policies and tax code and HOPE for some innovation to transform our economy. But it certainly happens, sometimes pretty quickly. Every dollar used to conform with mandates, paid in taxes, increased energy, etc is one less dollar used for R and D. (not that Im saying they are ALL bad) I do think we would see a lot stronger growth without the govt leech draining the energy out of the private sector and also continue to raise SOL. History has shown this.

6/15/2011 2:13:46 PM

Quote :

"No, people that are dirt poor in comparison to us."

Quote :

"Not exactly, we have moved past our industrial age which countrys need to go through to ease poverty, starvation, and increase their SOL."

this is exactly the point I was trying to make. Sorry if it wasn't clear. When Ron Paul says we should expect 15% growth under his ideal system he is advocating that some portion of America, "go backwards" and live dirt poor, and I don't mean just wage-poor, I mean overall quality of life poor (includes environment, health, education etc etc)

Quote :

"Im not sure we can get that type of growth without a drastic shift in our policies and tax code and HOPE for some innovation to transform our economy. But it certainly happens, sometimes pretty quickly"

as I said earlier, the only time that type of growth has been acheived was in developing economies

Quote :

"I do think we would see a lot stronger growth without the govt leech draining the energy out of the private sector and also continue to raise SOL. History has shown this. "

I think str8foolish said it well when he said

Quote :

"Those laws protect consumers, the environment, and in many cases preserve competition. Some bad ones can go, but this vague "They are just a burden in general" sentiment is just ignorant."

6/15/2011 2:45:40 PM

I dont think he is advocating people go back to being dirt poor at all. Just that you grease the gears that gave you the industrial revolution that increased SOL for all and see what developments they produce next that changes our lives. The NEXT revolution, so to speak.

^as for regulations, why is there a belief that if the govt doesnt protect them people wont lookout for themselves? Yes, I think some regulations are needed, but you cannot be naive to think they cannot be harmful either. As I mentioned in another thread, alot of these regulations RESTRICT competition and INCREASE price... its effects on consumers are not, sometimes, the primary driver for some of these rules/regs/mandates but the exercise of political favor.

Some jobs are risky or are undesirable so they carry a wage premium than other jobs. Economist call these compensating differentials. Now lets assume you have two identical factories making the same product in competition. One factory is air conditioning and the other does not. The air conditioning does not really make the factory more productive relative to the cost of the air conditioner, but it does provide the workers a nicer/comfortable place to work. The factory without an air conditioner will have to pay its workers MORE to attract them away from the air conditioned factory. At some point the wage differential becomes too great the compnay will just put in air conditioning. A true market pressure.

Now, lets say that air conditioning was just invented and is this great new product and the dogooders in govt decided to make every factory install this into their factories to "benefit the workers". What is the result? unemployment. The factories that cant afford the new mandate will either go under, or lay off people to pay for the new cost. Others will pay for the mandate at the expense of increased wages or expansion of their business. And there would still be people who would want to work in a factory without air vs not working at all.

btw air conditioning is MUCH more prevelant in the US than poorer Europe. You see this is an easy to understand example of how these mandates/reg affect employment and business. Lets just substituted air conditioning with health care, etc.

6/15/2011 3:16:50 PM

Quote :

"Just that you grease the gears that gave you the industrial revolution that increased SOL for all and see what developments they produce next that changes our lives. The NEXT revolution, so to speak. "

and therein lies the FAITH that is needed in this theoretical system. I just can't swallow the idea that if we go back to the way things were when America was industrializing, everyone's SOL will somehow be better this time around. (Yes, I realize that America during this period wasn't perfectly laissez faire, but parallels can be made, I'm not even going to argue this)

Quote :

"Yes, I think some regulations are needed, but you cannot be naive to think they cannot be harmful either."

I agreed with you here. The bad, onerous ideas need to go, the obvious, agreeable ones first. Its likely we disagree on a lot of the other regulations -- those we should be discussing and voting on.





You really don't need to try and explain anything to me using hypotheticals. I don't really want to discuss any of that.

6/15/2011 3:48:06 PM

How do you feel about minimum wage? I'd consider that a harmful regulation. Henry Hazlitt put it pretty simply: http://athousandscreamingrabbits.com/2010/06/17/henry-hazlitt-minimum-wage/

6/15/2011 3:58:42 PM

He goes on and on and on about how harmful the minimum wage is, but doesn't produce any concrete evidence. Much like eyedrb above, he creates overly simplistic hypotheticals using worker A, employed at wage X, working for employer Z whom happens to have air conditioning blah blah blah. Simplistic hypotheticals are WAY overused on this board!!!!! People arguing ideologies (which have been beat to death) instead of reality. Its just boring and tiring to me.

so how do I feel about minimum wage? It will only actually decrease employment if it is raised to extremely high levels -- levels that we are no where near approaching right now. I mean do you actually think that if the US did away with the min. wage we would suddenly see only 5% unemployment? I'd say no. There are much larger factors at play in determining employment, even in low wage workers. Specifically I'd say the overall health of the economy, the amount of disposable income of the average person, really anything that creates demand for goods/services that low wage workers produce.

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~card/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Quote :

"Contrary to the central prediction of the textbook model of the minimum wage, but consistent with a number of recent studies based on cross-sectional time-series comparisons of affected and unaffected markets or employers, we find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state. . . . . . . . we find that the increase in the minimum wage increased employment"

6/15/2011 6:46:10 PM

What would constitute concrete proof, for you? I'm guessing that double digit unemployment isn't enough?

Do you think it should be illegal for a person to work for less than 7.25 an hour? Why should I not be able to work for 7.00 an hour?

6/15/2011 6:51:37 PM

that would be great proof if you can establish a causal link

6/15/2011 6:58:17 PM

A study similar to the one I posted would atleast help to convince me.

I'm saying that the sole cause of our double digit unemployment is NOT the minimum wage. Instead its low demand for workers since the economy has slowed. Employers don't just start hiring people because they are cheaper to hire -- They hire when they have a need (ie demand for their product has increased so they have more work that needs to be done)


I'm not going to argue over the specific minimum wage and where it should be, especially a difference of $0.25. I also think that there should likely be some exceptions for dependants who are working or part-time workers. But Yes, I do believe it should be illegal to pay a worker less than a fair wage.

6/15/2011 7:06:30 PM

Here's your proof: there are people working for less than 7.25 an hour, but they're doing so illegally. We all know this is the case, and I think it's evident enough that I don't need to drag someone onto TWW to verify it. That establishes that there are people willing to work for less than 7.25, but are unable to do so through legal means due to the minimum wage laws. If working at those rates were not illegal, more people would be doing it, but since it's illegal, they'd rather just depend on handouts than risk getting hammered by the IRS.

Quote :

"But Yes, I do believe it should be illegal to pay a worker less than a fair wage."

No, I'm not going to let you get away with this. First point - who determines what a "fair" wage is? Some douchebag in Washington? Seems pretty arbitrary.

Second, and main point - should it be illegal for me, as an individual, to provide a service (labor) to someone for 5.00 an hour? Why should that be illegal in a free country?

Think about this hypothetical situation. I've just graduated from high school. I have no real skills, the job market sucks, and I will continue to live with my family. I have an opportunity to do menial tasks around a local shop for 5.00 an hour. Even at this low wage, I could bring home anywhere between 100 and 200 dollars a week. That could pay for the main breadwinner's gas. That could pay for groceries for the week. But, according to the current laws, it's illegal for me to work and help out my household. Why?

[Edited on June 15, 2011 at 7:31 PM. Reason : ]

6/15/2011 7:11:08 PM

Quote :

"more people would be doing it, but since it's illegal, they'd rather just depend on handouts than risk getting hammered by the IRS. "

The point is, if they are working for less than a fair wage, they will still need handouts to meet their needs.

Yes, our elected officials determine the minimum wage. I will say that I'm not against the idea of it being delegated to states to determine.

The minimum wage is needed because it reduces exploitation in lopsided labor markets. A lack of negotiating power for low wage workers is a pretty common market failure. Should monopolies be allowed in a free country? it's the same concept.

Now the hypothetical. I already said I thought that exceptions for dependants and part-time work should possibly be allowed, although I'm not sure how I feel about this. The reason Im unsure is because you would be undercutting the market for people who may be the breadwinners in their family (instead of a dependant) and need to earn a fair wage to make a living.

[Edited on June 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM. Reason : ...]

6/15/2011 7:47:34 PM

Quote :

"A lack of negotiating power for low wage workers is a pretty common market failure."

So why don't we just make it illegal to be a low-skilled worker? That would solve things just about as well as a minimum wage.

It's not a market failure when someone who doesn't bring much to the table gets what someone is willing to pay them for dispensable labor.

6/15/2011 9:05:50 PM

Quote :

"The minimum wage is needed because it reduces exploitation in lopsided labor markets."

This.

We need a minimum wage because the simple fact of the matter is that somebody has to pick lettuce, mop up floors, pull the basket out of the deep fryer, whatever. Without a minimum wage, jobs like these would garner closer to two or three dollars an hour because there are enough desperate people who will take anything they can get. Even so, you could barely survive on that working 80 hours a week or more.

"But you idiot," you say, "when the minimum wage is eliminated the cost of living will go down." This may be the case--there are no independent variables here. I'm sure there have been studies done on this. It seems to me, as a layperson, that there's so much more room at the top than at the bottom that lowering the minimum wage by $7.25 would not have a drastic effect on the cost of living. That's just my opinion.

The simple fact of the matter, however, is that a human being is not a fucking pack mule. I believe that a person working a full time job deserves to be paid enough money to do more than simply not die. I believe that, since many businesses will not do this voluntarily, that the government should force them to do it. Ergo: the minimum wage.

History has proven time and time again that corporations will behave as badly as they're allowed to when it helps the short term bottom line.

I'm sure some of you would have no problem with indentured servitude, either, never mind that it's monstrous and barbaric. What right does the state have to interfere in agreements made between two consenting parties, amirite?!??

6/16/2011 2:49:30 PM

The minimum wage law is just bad economics. Hazlitt explains it best in the article posted, and I won't go through the arguments over and over again. There's a more important point to be made, though.

Quote :

"The simple fact of the matter, however, is that a human being is not a fucking pack mule. I believe that a person working a full time job deserves to be paid enough money to do more than simply not die. I believe that, since many businesses will not do this voluntarily, that the government should force them to do it. Ergo: the minimum wage."

Do people in other countries deserve to make a living wage? When you raise the minimum wage here, you export jobs overseas. The people that make your clothes and widgets get paid a fraction of the minimum wage here. Why is that any more acceptable?

I'll tell you why: because you'd rather have foreigners slaving away than actually have to see it happen here. Personally, I think people have value regardless of their nationality. Unfortunately, not everyone feels that way.

Quote :

"History has proven time and time again that corporations will behave as badly as they're allowed to when it helps the short term bottom line."

It's funny, to me, that it always goes back to the corporations. You realize that mom and pops have to abide by the minimum wage laws as well, right? Not every business has huge cash reserves; many small businesses are struggling to get by, and they're just not hiring because it's too expensive to do so.

It's absolutely ridiculous that you guys think it should be illegal to work for less than 7.25 an hour. It's an affront to liberty, it demonstrates extreme ignorance of basic economic principles, and it shows me why this country is fucked: because the people truly have gotten the government they deserve.

Quote :

"I'm sure some of you would have no problem with indentured servitude, either, never mind that it's monstrous and barbaric. What right does the state have to interfere in agreements made between two consenting parties, amirite?!??"

The state shouldn't enforce that kind of contract. I would actually argue that contracts should only be honored as long as both parties wish to continue the agreement, and either party can change their mind at any time. Obviously, this would substantially change the way business was done, but I don't think people should be forced to stay in contracts that are no longer in their best interests.

[Edited on June 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM. Reason : ]

6/16/2011 5:17:33 PM

Quote :

"The minimum wage law is just bad economics. Hazlitt explains it best in the article posted, and I won't go through the arguments over and over again."

I already said he gives us an ideal, simplistic situation -- when we look at reality the effects of minimum wage are minor compared to other factors that determine employment.

Quote :

"Do people in other countries deserve to make a living wage?"

Yes they do. Many countries have fair wage laws, its important to note that a fair wage isn't necessarily the same everywhere (but it would be nice if it was). Unfortunately their governments are either more corrupt than ours, are too slow to raise their wages, or don't properly enforce their laws. There just isn't much we can do except demand products that are made under fair working conditions.

Quote :

"I'll tell you why: because you'd rather have foreigners slaving away than actually have to see it happen here. Personally, I think people have value regardless of their nationality. Unfortunately, not everyone feels that way. "

you could not be more wrong

Quote :

"Not every business has huge cash reserves; many small businesses are struggling to get by, and they're just not hiring because it's too expensive to do so. "

If they are struggling to get by then I'm guessing its because they don't have high enough demand for their product/service. Again, the reason they can't hire isn't because its too expensive, its because they don't have enough demand for product, and therefore don't have a need for more workers to be producing.

Quote :

"It's an affront to liberty"

wage slavery is also an affront to liberty

Quote :

" it demonstrates extreme ignorance of basic economic principles"

economic principles that have to be reduced to basic hypotheticals to illustrate how they work. In this case, when we look for the principles in real world data sets they can't even be teazed out because more important factors are at play.

Quote :

"and it shows me why this country is fucked"

I think you know there are more important things fucking this country than minimum wage laws

6/16/2011 6:38:35 PM

Quote :

"Do people in other countries deserve to make a living wage?"

Yes. Of course.

Quote :

"When you raise the minimum wage here, you export jobs overseas. The people that make your clothes and widgets get paid a fraction of the minimum wage here. Why is that any more acceptable?"

It isn't. This is also a problem. A much bigger problem than anything we face here. It's much, much worse than it is in the United States. At the very least, within the scope of what the US can do, we should require that companies that do business in the US and with the US use fair labor practices elsewhere.

Quote :

"It's funny, to me, that it always goes back to the corporations. You realize that mom and pops have to abide by the minimum wage laws as well, right? Not every business has huge cash reserves; many small businesses are struggling to get by, and they're just not hiring because it's too expensive to do so."

I work for a "mom and pop" business with minimum wage employees. I realize the implications. I hire the amount of people I need to. I'm not sure that employing 10 people at $5 an hour instead of 5 people at $10 an hour would be a net gain. j/k lol I know it wouldn't.

Quote :

"It's absolutely ridiculous that you guys think it should be illegal to work for less than 7.25 an hour. It's an affront to liberty, it demonstrates extreme ignorance of basic economic principles, and it shows me why this country is fucked: because the people truly have gotten the government they deserve."

It's absolutely ridiculous that you think it should be legal to employ a human for as little as their desperation allows. It's an affront to decency, it demonstrates an extreme disregard for your fellow human, and it shows me why the human race is fucked: because some people just can't give a shit about their fellow man.

Quote :

"The state shouldn't enforce that kind of contract. I would actually argue that contracts should only be honored as long as both parties wish to continue the agreement, and either party can change their mind at any time. Obviously, this would substantially change the way business was done, but I don't think people should be forced to stay in contracts that are no longer in their best interests."

AT&T wants to sell me an iPhone at a $400 discount. In return, I sign a contract saying that I will give them my business for at least two years or pay a penalty. I'm willing to agree to this up front. Who are you to say we can't enter into this agreement? TYRANNY!!!

6/16/2011 9:02:10 PM

Quote :

"The state shouldn't enforce that kind of contract. I would actually argue that contracts should only be honored as long as both parties wish to continue the agreement, and either party can change their mind at any time. Obviously, this would substantially change the way business was done, but I don't think people should be forced to stay in contracts that are no longer in their best interests."

It would substantially change the way business is done, namely by completely preventing it.

6/16/2011 9:39:47 PM

Quote :

" I'm not sure that employing 10 people at $5 an hour instead of 5 people at $10 an hour would be a net gain."

It would be to those other 5 people.


Ill jump in a say that, if two people agree to a mutually beneficial agreement at X wage, it shouldnt be up to the govt to say that X isnt fair. There are many factors one considers when hiring someone else, pay is big one. If you have a great/productive employee you pay them more to keep them as an asset to your company. If you have a slacker, you sure as shit dont pay him the same as your most productive one. That only encourages the productive one to be less productive.

6/16/2011 9:44:22 PM

i watched both debates yesterday on youtube and I have to say, I'm really starting to like Ron Paul. It seems to me like he is the only candidate that is getting back to the roots of a true Republican. He wants to get the Federal Government uninvolved as much as possible and make issues the States responsibility. Hello small government. I like his quote concerning the budget. "We should not be thinking 'what should we cut from the budget' but instead 'what should we keep?"

i also like how he wants to make marriage a responsibility of the churches, not the government.

i also like how he wants to quit being the world police and has more of an isolationist point of view. we need to be taking all this money in foreign aid and spending it here at home.

6/17/2011 8:32:37 AM

He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act of '64. He thinks it was a mistake because people have the right to discriminate.

6/17/2011 9:48:11 AM

thanks for the heads up. i'll look into that.

6/17/2011 9:58:30 AM

I'm not sure why you're honing in on the Civil Rights act. That's not one of his most controversial positions, and we all know it isn't going to be repealed. Why not focus on some things that actually matter, like foreign policy, monetary policy, and budget issues? Those are the things that are actually going to effect your life. 1964 was a long time ago.

6/17/2011 11:21:46 AM

agreed!

6/17/2011 12:45:45 PM

Quote :

"1964 was a long time ago."

Probably doesn't seem that long if you've been on the wrong end of a fire hose.

6/17/2011 1:06:05 PM

It wasn't private business owners blasting people with fire hoses, dude. I'll give you one guess as to who those people worked for.

Quote :

"AT&T wants to sell me an iPhone at a $400 discount. In return, I sign a contract saying that I will give them my business for at least two years or pay a penalty. I'm willing to agree to this up front. Who are you to say we can't enter into this agreement? TYRANNY!!!"

They can enter into that agreement, but I'm saying either party should be able to end the agreement at any time.

Quote :

"It's absolutely ridiculous that you think it should be legal to employ a human for as little as their desperation allows. It's an affront to decency, it demonstrates an extreme disregard for your fellow human, and it shows me why the human race is fucked: because some people just can't give a shit about their fellow man."

What if the alternative is that the person doesn't get employed at all, because they simply aren't worth what the minimum wage requires? Why do you want people to be unemployed?

The anti-business rhetoric from some of you guys is actually pretty startling. You act as if every business is Wal-mart, but in reality, small businesses account for a lot of the services provided in this country. Not everyone that owns a business is a rich. Not every business can afford to pay someone 7.25 to sweep floors, and if they can't, they just won't hire anyone. That's why you're not doing anyone a favor with the minimum wage, you're just fucking people over, but you don't realize it because you believe that a good standard of living can be handed down by Congress.

[Edited on June 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM. Reason : ]

6/17/2011 1:08:00 PM

Did you read the article I posted where minimum wage had almost no effect on employment?

6/18/2011 2:01:21 PM

I read the study, but there's no way they would have been able to make that causal link anyway. It's not like you would raise the minimum wage and a bunch of people would get laid off. Most businesses would probably keep who they have on staff, but they would attempt to operate in a "leaner" than normal state, which means hiring fewer people over time. In some cases, it might have little or no immediate impact on employment. Long-term, however, the jobs that are worth much less than minimum wage will simply disappear or move to another country, which means higher unemployment.

6/18/2011 2:53:16 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/19/bizarre-episode-steals-spotlight-at-major-gop-conference/

Quote :

"New Orleans (CNN) – Another straw poll victory for Rep. Ron Paul. A surprise second place finish in the vote by former Utah Gov. and former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman. And very well received speeches by Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann. But all were possibly overshadowed by the most bizarre moment of the Republican Leadership Conference 2011, the performance of a President Barack Obama impersonator who was pulled from the stage after delivering some controversial jokes. The comedian, impersonator Reggie Brown, came onto the stage Saturday to the tune of "Born in the USA," a reference to the theory by some on the far right that Obama was not born in the United States. The release by the state of Hawaii of the president's long-form birth certificate has discredited the so-called "birther" movement in the eyes of most Americans. Brown made a series of jokes at the president's expense, at one point showing a picture of the main characters from the 1970s television show "Sanford and Son" to illustrate what Obama and the First Lady would look like after leaving office. After Brown began to make jokes at the expense of some Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner and some of the GOP presidential hopefuls, he was pulled off stage by RLC organizers, who said the performance had gone too far and was getting inappropriate. The episode served as a distraction from the GOP's goal of nominating a candidate who can defeat the president in next year's election."

Still a bit hard to conceive of people like Bachmann being amongst the serious candidates. Also, lol @ the part that crossed the line being making fun of Boehner.

6/19/2011 11:04:29 PM

just saw the vid on youtube...pretty funny!!

6/20/2011 10:23:14 AM

Bump

11/17/2011 9:20:25 PM

I think I've watched all but the Cain/Gengrich CSPAN Lincoln/Douglas-style debate. I'm not sure how many more I will be watching, but I will definitely be watching the next two debates:

November 19, 2011 Thanksgiving Family Forum
5pm ET on CitizenLink.com
Location: First Federated Church in Des Moines, Iowa
Sponsor: The Family Leader

November 22, 2011
8pm ET on CNN
Location: DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, DC
Sponsor: CNN, The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM. Reason : http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/]

11/17/2011 9:29:29 PM

THe Family Forum should be an easy one for Newt. He's got the most experience since he's had three of them!

11/17/2011 10:29:17 PM

Hard to believe these debates have been going on for over half a year now.

Haven't heard Gary Johnson's name in a while.

11/18/2011 12:16:45 AM

Debates are to see if there are any republican candidates other than Romney.

Since no one really likes Romney, Obama will trounce him in the regular election.

11/18/2011 12:35:03 AM

Not what the polls are saying ...

11/18/2011 1:04:34 PM

lawl at the first four and a half minutes of the family forum debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY8Zw5NzUXQ

11/20/2011 11:42:16 PM

Quote :

"Since no one really likes Romney, Obama will trounce him in the regular election."

Actually, moderates like Romney quite a bit. Thing is, the right has convinced itself that moderates don't exist and everyone is either a Tea Partier, a Randian Anarcho-Capitalist Ubermensch, or a Stalinist Liberal Democrap.

11/21/2011 10:39:25 AM

Got another debate coming up in about hour:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/can-gingrich-stay-positive-will-romney-go-negative-a-preview-of-saturdays-yahooabc-debate/

Quote :

"Come to ABC News and Yahoo! at 9 p.m. ET on Saturday to watch the Republican presidential debate in Des Moines, sponsored by ABC News, Yahoo News, WOI-TV, The Des Moines Register and the Iowa GOP. You will be able to provide real-time feedback, and to read and watch live coverage and analysis. Amy Walter is the political director for ABC News and David Chalian is the Washington bureau chief for Yahoo News."

12/10/2011 7:55:56 PM

na

[Edited on December 10, 2011 at 8:07 PM. Reason : wrong thread]

12/10/2011 8:06:53 PM

michelle bachmans' mom was gay?

12/10/2011 10:28:08 PM

Romney offered a 10 k bet at last nights debate, which is probably bad messing throwing around that kind of money when you're trying to win over people in this economy, but the Huntsman campaign made an ad taking him up on that bet:

12/11/2011 2:23:33 PM

LOL @ Newt's "I was in the private sector". Even he knew he was being laughed at, not laughed with.

12/11/2011 4:47:54 PM

Again, even after every internet poll had Ron Paul leading the debate, there was not one single mention of his name in the post debate coverage. Not even in passing. Like he was invisible the entire time.

12/12/2011 9:05:06 AM

^Probably because we don't nominate the GOP candidate using an online vote. Most of the polls I've been looking at have placed Paul between 5% and 10% almost this entire race. When he starts showing movement, they'll probably talk more about him.

12/12/2011 9:30:32 AM

Yeah, we can automatically ignore anyone at 16-18% in IA, and 15-17% in NH.

Instead, let's talk about Perry (9% IA, 2%NH) or Bachmann (9% IA, 2% NH).

National polls are nearly irrelevant. Even so, Paul is still third nationally, by RCP average (where all my other numbers came from).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

I don't predict a Paul win overall, but I am going to vote for him, regardless. I'm dying for him just to win Iowa, simply for the political theater that would ensue. That is within the realm of possibility.

I don't even agree with him on most things. I think he's dead wrong on a lot. But he believes in the rule of law, and that puts him in a class all by himself.

12/12/2011 10:15:40 AM

Perry lead the GOP nomination for almost a month and was the first one to find a way to knock Romney out of the lead for the nomination. He's relevant because he was the first to "break through", but also crashed hard. There are lessons to learn from Perry, good and bad, so he's in relevant to the discussion.

Bachmann is the founder and leader of the House Tea Party Caucus which is largely responsible for the election results in 2010, or at least that is how it is seen. For that, alone, she is relevant to the discussion.

Ron Paul has never risen above 10% nationally (according to RCP), has lost 1 presidential campaign as a Libertarian, he served as a campaign advisor for another failed GOP candidate, and lost the GOP nomination in 2008. He may be statistically significant in some individual states, but he also won a few state straw polls in 2008 for the nomination, if memory serves correctly. When Ron Paul can get more than 10% of the voting Republicans to acknowledge he could be their guy, maybe I'll be more willing to agree with your sentiments. Until then, he has a track record of being a good congressman with very educated domestic policies that doesn't appeal to the nation as a president. THAT is why he isn't being mentioned by the main stream media.



^Best you could argue is that FOX News gave him 12% at one point in time over the past two months, but all the previously stated facts still exist. As a candidate, which is what they are talking about, he isn't incredibly viable.

12/12/2011 10:37:03 AM

Anybody with those IA and NH numbers ought to be covered. Period.

Paul is kind of a long shot. But his chances are still better than Perry or Bachmann. Neither of them has a hope or a prayer in IA or NH, and that means they're done.

Ron Paul could win Iowa. That's just a fact. If he gets 5-8% more in the polls (unlike nationally, his NH and IA numbers have been increasing) and/or a snowstorm on election day, it's very possible.

[Edited on December 12, 2011 at 10:56 AM. Reason : a]

12/12/2011 10:56:04 AM

I can't wait until Newt implodes and Santorum emerges as the next flavor of the month. Because he's the candidate the Tea Party deserves, but not the one they need right now. So they'll choose him because he's one of them. Because he's not Romney. He's a christian warrior, a true believer. A conservative crusader.

12/12/2011 11:40:09 AM

mmm, santorum as the flavor of the month.

12/12/2011 11:50:53 AM

that's fucking disgusting

12/12/2011 12:00:13 PM