Interesting poll results in the Prez race

[Rob P.]

New poll results from this morning:

http://tinyurl.com/378s2a

WASHINGTON - And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above....

..."Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine," said David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. "The Republicans don't have that; particularly among the conservatives there's a real split. They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable."

More Republicans have become apathetic about their top options over the past month.

I think this means that we're going to have our next President elected by default and apathy.

[Citadelgrad87]

If that's what it takes for the repubican powers to get back to their roots, so be it. The demoncrap controlled congress has accomplished NOTHING except to plunge further in the polls than a lame duck president in an unpopular war.

No more votes or money for ANYONE from me unless they relfect my ideals.

"We suck less" is no longer a viable campiagn slogan.

[bwiese]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-fredimao.jpg

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-redfred.jpg

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-med-hugh.gif

[Scarecrow Repair]

Nobody for President! Nobody's better than Fred, Hillary, or any of the rest. Nobody!
http://www.nobodyforpresident.org/asbutt.jpg

[Scarecrow Repair]

Alfred E. Neuman for President!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/Alfred.jpg

[burl broderick]

"Alfred E. Neuman for President!"

That would be a third term.
At least for now, that's not legal.

[AKman]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-redfred.jpg


I think the saying was "Better Ted than Dead" from Ted Nugent's book God, Guns, & Rock 'N' Roll.

Unless your name was Mary Jo Kopechne who was rumored to have yelled "Better Dead Than Ted" as the car went over the side of the bridge.

Some people (thoseshirts) will steal anything...

[carsonwales]

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/players/thompson/thompson.jpg
"Not another gun control bill....what part of 'shall not infringe' is so confusing?"
President Thompson, April 2009

Fred Thompson on the Parker case:

“[Chris] Wallace posed the question of gun control and again Thompson made his position extremely clear. Reflecting on the recent federal court ruling striking down the DC gun ban, Thompson said he agreed with the court. The right to own guns IS an individual right, that is what the Constitution says and Thompson agrees with the Constitution!” Source

WALLACE: Gun control.

THOMPSON: Well, I’m against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You’ll find I’m pretty consistent on that issue.

WALLACE: So this federal court — appeals court ruling this last week, I guess Friday, in the case of D.C. — you’d be perfectly happy to have people have handguns in their homes?

THOMPSON: Yes. Absolutely. The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that. Source


Fred Thompson in the wake of the VTech shootings:

Well, the non-candidate responded. In the wake of the VT shooting, he posted this on the ABC radio site:

One of the things that’s got to be going through a lot of peoples’ minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself…

…In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university’s “concealed carry” policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure…

…When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all…” Read the whole thing here


Fred has my vote if he runs...I am signed up as a monthly contributor to his current effort...Please consider the same.

[chris]

imagine this hilliary wins as president. do you think that will galavanize the republican party?

[AKman]

imagine this hilliary wins as president. do you think that will galavanize the republican party?

More like a civil war....

[ColdSteel14]

More like a civil war....

Count me in...

[kilword]

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/original/stewart_colbert_2008-thumb.jpg

'Keep your facts, I'm going with the truth. - Stephen Colbert

http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/colbert.jpg

[Scarecrow Repair]

More like a civil war....

Say ... If Bill and Hillary were both gay, and had gotten a civil union, would their divorce be a civil war?

[mblat]

Say ... If Bill and Hillary were both gay, and had gotten a civil union, would their divorce be a civil war?

They aren't? :D

[ZapThyCat]

I find it telling that Ron Paul wasn't even mentioned. He's being blackballed and yet he's the most popular... I'd vote "none of the above" too.

[dychen]

Ron Paul's so far got my vote

[Rob P.]

I find it telling that Ron Paul wasn't even mentioned. He's being blackballed and yet he's the most popular... I'd vote "none of the above" too.

You didn't read the article did you... :rolleyes:

They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable...

None of the top candidates has a clear lead...

She had an easy time detailing why she was queasy about each of the most serious contenders...


The article was about those most likely to win the nomination. Ron Paul is not in the article because he doesn't fit the criteria.

And no it isn't skewed to purposefully exclude him. It ain't a conspriacy either. RP has no chance and the pollsters know it so they don't include him. He's not viable, he's not a top candidate and he's not a serious contender. He cannot win no matter what happens.

I take that back. RP has a chance only if all the other GOP candidates are together on an airplane which crashes and every soul aboard is lost. Other than that he has no chance.

I will say one thing. As a result of the debate here on Calguns I am seriously looking at New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. He's not very charismatic but he has an exceptional record on the issues we need to have solved.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Richardson.htm

[carsonwales]

Why in the world would anyone hold out for a candidate such as Ron Paul?...who doesnt have a chance....not a scintilla of hope of ever....of EVER becoming president. He is so far off the radar its ridiculous. Not in a million years....forget it....purge it from your mind.

On the republican side you have Rhino Rudy and Thompson at the top of the heap...period. McStain is a fading 3rd (Rhino)...McCain = loser.

Hunter? Not a chance...he isn't even polling on Real Clear Politics...forget it...quit wasting your time.

Your choice is going to be either rhino Rudy...or Fred...period.

IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT AS TO WHO YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR IF THATS WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO.....CONSIDER THIS:

Listen to this Rhino Rudy interview on YouTube and his comments concerning so called assault weapons....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ99sBfdqE0&NR=1

And then contrast that with what FT said:

Fred Thompson on the Parker case:
“[Chris] Wallace posed the question of gun control and again Thompson made his position extremely clear. Reflecting on the recent federal court ruling striking down the DC gun ban, Thompson said he agreed with the court. The right to own guns IS an individual right, that is what the Constitution says and Thompson agrees with the Constitution!” Source

WALLACE: Gun control.

THOMPSON: Well, I’m against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You’ll find I’m pretty consistent on that issue.

WALLACE: So this federal court — appeals court ruling this last week, I guess Friday, in the case of D.C. — you’d be perfectly happy to have people have handguns in their homes?

THOMPSON: Yes. Absolutely. The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that. Source


Fred Thompson in the wake of the VTech shootings:

Well, the non-candidate responded. In the wake of the VT shooting, he posted this on the ABC radio site:

One of the things that’s got to be going through a lot of peoples’ minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself…

…In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university’s “concealed carry” policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure…

…When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all…” Read the whole thing here

The only thing missing from this is an affirmative stance by Fred on AW's....but given his strong, clear and unequivocal comments above...I am willing to 'understand' if he won't go on record on AW's...I am content with the clarity of his statements and I contrast that with the wishy washy bull crap of the rest of the field....

I understand why FT wont go further than the above statements...its politics for gods sake....

To me it seems pretty damn clear that FT is pro gun.

Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter....forget it. McStain and Rhino Guliani...give me a break.

Thompson will crush Hillary and Obama....

Seems to me the choice is clear.

[carsonwales]

I find it telling that Ron Paul wasn't even mentioned.

Ron Paul has a snowballs chance in hell of even being invited to a debate, let alone being considered in poll analysis or as a legitimate candidate.

Check Real Clear Politics...NOT EVEN ON THE RADAR....

Time to buckle up and get focused...

[.223]

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/original/stewart_colbert_2008-thumb.jpg

'Keep your facts, I'm going with the truth. - Stephen Colbert

http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/colbert.jpg



We can dream, can't we :pinch:

[Rob P.]

Ron Paul has a snowballs chance in hell of even being invited to a debate, let alone being considered in poll analysis or as a legitimate candidate.

Check Real Clear Politics...NOT EVEN ON THE RADAR....

Time to buckle up and get focused...

Yes and time to BE SMART about how our nation is going to develop in the future.

Voting for no-hope candidates in the primary will lead to a sure victory by the wrong person.

Remember it's only the primary and if we can control who gets nominated then we control who will be on the ballot in Nov. So, change your party affiliation to Democrat (it's just a form) so that you can vote on the Democratic ballot in Feb. Change back next year before the National election if you want to.

If Hilllary wins the primary, she will win the white house because there is no viable opposition on the other side to stop her. We have to stop her BEFORE she gets the nomination.

So, we need to stop bickering on who is going to be the GOP nominee and start doing something about who ISN'T going to be the Democratic nominee. Register to vote Democratic in the Primary!

Seriously, this could work.

[AJAX22]

In CA you can register independent and vote in both primary's IIRC.

[Rob P.]

In CA you can register independent and vote in both primary's IIRC.

Be careful. Independents get to vote but they only get a "non partisan" ballot which only contains the names of the non-partisan candidates. Which means you don't get to vote for EITHER Democratic or Republican candidates.

Be safe, RE-register to vote democratic and vote for ANY OTHER candidate except Hilliary. The RE-register again to whatever party you choose before November.

You'll have to re-register by the end of the year I think (Is it 30 or 60 days prior to the election which is the cutoff?)

[paradox]

You're both wrong:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_decline.htm
History Behind California's Primary Election System

Closed Primary System
A "closed" primary system governed California's primary elections until 1996. In a closed primary, only persons who are registered members of a political party may vote the ballot of that political party.

Open Primary System
The provisions of the "closed" primary system were amended by the adoption of Proposition 198, an initiative statute approved by the voters at the March 26, 1996 primary election. Proposition 198 changed the closed primary system to what is known as a "blanket" or "open" primary, in which all registered voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of political affiliation and without a declaration of political faith or allegiance.

On June 26, 2000, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in California Democratic Party, et. al. v. Jones, stating that California's "open" primary system, established by Proposition 198, was unconstitutional because it violated a political party's First Amendment right of association. Therefore, the Supreme Court overturned Proposition 198.

Modified Closed Primary System
California currently has a "modified" closed primary system. SB 28 (Ch. 898, Stats. 2000), relating to primary elections, was chaptered on September 29, 2000 and took effect on January 1, 2001. SB 28 implemented a "modified" closed primary system that permits unaffiliated ("decline to state") voters to participate in a primary election if authorized by an individual party's rules and duly noticed by the Secretary of State.
(Ch. 898, Stats. 2000)


"Decline to State" Voters - Voting in the Upcoming 2008 Presidential and Statewide Direct Primary Elections

If you are a voter who has declined to state an affiliation with a political party, you may be able to vote for a candidate of a specific party in the upcoming February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary Election and/or June 3, 2008 Statewide Direct Primary. You may request, from your county elections official or at your polling place, the ballot of a political party if authorized by the party's rules and duly noticed by the Secretary of State. Click here to obtain county elections office contact information.

If you do not request such a ballot, you will be given a nonpartisan ballot, containing only the names of all candidates for nonpartisan offices and measures to be voted upon at the primary election.


Deadlines for Political Parties that have Adopted Party Rules in Accordance with SB 28
(Ch. 898, Stats. 2000) for the February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary Election

Political parties have until 135 days prior to an election to provide a written notice to the Secretary of State indicating the adoption of a rule allowing decline to state voters to vote the ballot of that individual party. The deadline for the February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary Election is September 23, 2007.

List of Political Parties that have Adopted Party Rules in Accordance with SB 28 for the Presidential and Statewide Direct Primary Elections

Please check back here after the 135th day deadline (September 23, 2007) for the Presidential Primary Election.
Please check back here after the 135th day deadline (January 22, 2008) for the Statewide Direct Primary Election.

History of Political Parties that have Adopted Party Rules in Accordance with SB 28

Three of the qualified political parties filed the requisite statement notifying the Secretary of State that they adopted a party rule permitting unaffiliated voters to request their party ballot in the June 6, 2006 Primary Election to participate in the primary election for partisan offices:

Democratic Party, letter dated January 4, 2006
American Independent Party, letter dated January 10, 2006
Republican Party, letter dated January 23, 2006
Three of the qualified political parties filed the requisite statement notifying the Secretary of State that they adopted a party rule permitting unaffiliated voters to request their party ballot in the March 2, 2004 Primary Election to participate in the primary election for partisan offices:

Democratic Party, letter dated October 20, 2003
American Independent Party, letter dated September 30, 2003
Republican Party, letter dated October 20, 2003

[M. Sage]

Why in the world would anyone hold out for a candidate such as Ron Paul?...who doesnt have a chance....not a scintilla of hope of ever....of EVER becoming president.

I hate to say it, but...

Because he seems to be the best person for the job?

I love how we have to vote against our conscience, just in the hope that we'll get a candidate who's at least half as good as what we want.

[Rob P.]

Ah, see they've changed the rules since I was registered as an Independent.

I still think that re-registering as a Democrat would be the best course though because you wouldn't have to jump through all the legal hoops in order to get a proper party ballot.

Ron Paul is NOT the best person for the job. Bill Richardson has a better CV, is tougher on crime, has a record of cutting taxes and reversing economic downturn, believes in the Constitution as written, is Pro gun and pro Second Amendment, has the endorsement from the NRA, etc etc etc. He's also from a border state which has immigration issues so he KNOWS what's going on and what is needed to secure our borders. Ron Paul is none of those things.

[M. Sage]

Ah, I should have said "because you think he's the best person for the job." I wasn't saying he is, but if someone thinks he is, go for it. I've had it with people discouraging each other from voting for the "black horse" candidates.

[ghettoshecky]

Ah, see they've changed the rules since I was registered as an Independent.

I still think that re-registering as a Democrat would be the best course though because you wouldn't have to jump through all the legal hoops in order to get a proper party ballot.

Ron Paul is NOT the best person for the job. Bill Richardson has a better CV, is tougher on crime, has a record of cutting taxes and reversing economic downturn, believes in the Constitution as written, is Pro gun and pro Second Amendment, has the endorsement from the NRA, etc etc etc. He's also from a border state which has immigration issues so he KNOWS what's going on and what is needed to secure our borders. Ron Paul is none of those things.

Yeah I mean not just domestically, but he was a successful UN ambassador and was former secretary of the Dept. of Energy. Great foreign policy experience and maybe he knows something or two about how to lower gas prices. Really Bill Richardson is the man, but unfortunately as in the words of a close friend who is vehemently Liberal Democrat "I would rather see a black man become president before a Hispanic man becomes president". So do I think he has a chance of winning?? HE** NO! Cuz the liberals want to see a certain man who has a name close to Saddam and Osama make it.

[luvtolean]

If Fred really does have some kind of "Win the War" sell, he'd be slaughtered in the general election, though he might carry the primary.

The only candidates capable of winning the general election will talk of how to get out of Iraq. You may not agree with that strategy, but no "KILL TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" president is going to win.

We've had 7 years of that crap. It's old. The country has exhausted more blood and treasure on it than they wanted to.

Talking about RP, as much as I like him, is a waste of breath.

[Rob P.]

Talking about RP, as much as I like him, is a waste of breath.

Have you looked at any of the other potential candidates? I get the impression that while many people think RP is great; like you they also think he can't win. So, who else would you vote for instead of RP and why? Specifically.

I'm serious in asking this because this election is going to be pivotal in shaping the future of America. The question about 'how far will the pendulum swing' is going to have to be answered in 2008.

What's nice is the fact that the candidates have started campaigning early enough so that we can get a good look at them and really think about who we want instead of doing the lemming shuffle at the last second.

So? Have you looked?