Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How is he not a serious candidate? He's polling well in key states, raising plenty of money, and has an excellent ground game in the campaign. Romney and the rest have hollow support. Ron Paul actually generates excitement in his supporters. Excitement is what gets people to the polls, which is especially important in low turnout primaries and caucuses.

How'd that work for Howard Dean? (well in terms of being President)

[Hauldren Collider]

Lyndon LaRouche's supporters are completely rabid, but I will eat my own **** if he ever becomes President.

[KrazyHorse]

How is he not a serious candidate? He's polling well in key states, raising plenty of money, and has an excellent ground game in the campaign. Romney and the rest have hollow support. Ron Paul actually generates excitement in his supporters. Excitement is what gets people to the polls, which is especially important in low turnout primaries and caucuses.

Feel free to buy his contract on intrade; it's currently sitting at ~6%

[DinoDoc]

The only polls that really matter at this point are for the early states. Clinton had twice Obama's national support in December of 2007, but Obama's wins in Iowa and South Carolina gave him the momentum he needed to secure the nomination. If Paul wins in Iowa, he could very easily have a bump in time for NH and SC. He's a long shot, but there's definitely a plausible scenario where Ron Paul wins the nomination.

President Dean agrees with this message.

[Felch]

Your counter to President Obama's victory strategy is pointing out that it didn't work for Howard Dean? Congratulations, you just proved how retarded you are.

KH, 6% sounds about right. I'd like to see him win, I'm certainly rooting for him, but I'm not delusional. I think that the fundamentals of his campaign are in place. There's a lot of excitement about his campaign. He's getting money, a growing body of supporters, and now excellent media coverage. His difficulty will be in closed primary states, where the right wing reactionaries will have more pull. But I have no doubt that he will trounce the other GOP candidates among Democrats and independents. Hell, I'm a Democrat, and I'd vote for him over Obama.

[Dinner]

Gary Johnson is apparently pulling out of the race to run as Libertarian candidate. That might limit Pauls options.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1161760.html

There is a new "party" registered in all 50 states where any candidate of any party can be drafted if enough people on the internet vote for them. That candidate (what ever his party) must choose a running mate from the other party to form a kind of unity ticket. It's a dumb idea but it seems to be custom made for Ron Paul's 3rd party run. The internet poll to choose the candidate doesn't happen until after both parties have their primary process so it would be very, very easy for Ron Paul to switch after he loses the Republican nomination.

I forget the name of this group but it's been covered by several news networks and was on Maddow last week.

[HalfLotus]

Ron Paul isn't a serious candidate. Why are y'all discussing him like he is?

Paul is the only serious candadidate. He's the only one who's serious about balancing the budget, ending the wars, and reigning in the welfare and nanny states.

If we don't get a Ron Paul in office soon, we're ****ed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your counter to President Obama's victory strategy is pointing out that it didn't work for Howard Dean? Congratulations, you just proved how retarded you are.

No, silly. The counter is that Paul doesn't resemble Obama as much as he resemble's Dean. Obama's poll numbers were MUCH higher at this stage of the game.

[OzzyKP]

There is a new "party" registered in all 50 states where any candidate of any party can be drafted if enough people on the internet vote for them. That candidate (what ever his party) must choose a running mate from the other party to form a kind of unity ticket. It's a dumb idea but it seems to be custom made for Ron Paul's 3rd party run. The internet poll to choose the candidate doesn't happen until after both parties have their primary process so it would be very, very easy for Ron Paul to switch after he loses the Republican nomination.

I forget the name of this group but it's been covered by several news networks and was on Maddow last week.

That effort's whole intention is to find a moderate ticket who can bridge differences, etc. Paul doesn't fit that profile, and I believe the folks organizing that have stated he wouldn't be eligible. Think more Bloomberg or Evan Bayh.

[Felch]

No, silly. The counter is that Paul doesn't resemble Obama as much as he resemble's Dean. Obama's poll numbers were MUCH higher at this stage of the game.

At the end of the year, December 31, Clinton held a substantial lead in superdelegates, and she was leading in the national polls with 42% of likely voters, over Obama, 23%, and Edwards, 16%.

Compare that to-

The former Massachusetts governor and the former House speaker each got 20 percent support, with Paul receiving 10 percent.

Obama was behind by 19 points. Paul is behind by 10. Reasonable people can differ on the significance of those numbers, but I think the Obama example is instructive. It's way too early to say that Ron Paul is not a serious candidate. Remember, Kuci opened his big mouth long enough to say that Ron Paul isn't a serious candidate. I'm disputing this by showing that he has a realistic chance of winning, roughly one in twenty according to KH. It's a long shot, but it's not impossible. Ron Paul is doing well enough that he merits discussion.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I'm up for discussion. Particularly about whether his past stupidity/irresponsibility worries people more than his impending senility.

[Dinner]

Paul is the only serious candadidate. He's the only one who's serious about balancing the budget, ending the wars, and reigning in the welfare and nanny states.

If we don't get a Ron Paul in office soon, we're ****ed.

Now you're just being a clown. You do realize the President has to get Congress to pass stuff before he can sign it, right? Paul's own party is against his radical agenda ergo he couldn't do anything which wasn't run of the mill done even if he got elected, which would never happen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obama was behind by 19 points. Paul is behind by 10.

Obama had 23% support, Paul has 10%. When we are talking about the candidate's poll numbers, we should talk about their numbers. How much they are behind is shifting goal posts.

[Felch]

I'm not shifting goal posts, I'm examining the numbers. I'm not impressed that you can figure out that 23 > 10. Look at the big picture. The fact that none of the Republicans are drawing more than one in four shows that it's still an open race. There are obviously a ton of undecideds out there. Remember that in December of 07, it looked like Clinton had a lock. Obama winning was a huge upset. I think that the best lesson to learn from that race is that a lean energetic campaign is able to compete with the big party machines.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In December of 2007, Obama also had support of almost a quarter of the people. That's significant. Yes, the Republican field is open; however a lot of those supporters would flock to other candidates other than Paul if theirs dropped out. Hence only have 10% support is a BIG barrier.