The sooner that fat turd Gingrich gets flushed the better.

Keeping them as comedians sounds good. Who will clean their cage, though?

One problem: None of them are funny.

The GOP-candidates in the USA are about just the right height.

I think all states should do away with the "winner take all" platform and replace it with the popular vote. The former seems to disenfranchise the voter and skew reality.

The bummer though is that there isn't a runner in the lot that looks truly Presidential. Romney is the closest yet still a far cry from the caliber of individual we need to take the helm.

Justoneguy, I think you need to elaborate, as I fail to the connection that you apparently do. Obama's supporters are loving this. The longer idiots like Santorum stay in this race, the more beneficial it is to President Obama.

They still won't mention Ron Paul. Must be a bews blackout. He's got more delegates then Newt.

One problem: None of them are funny.

Oh they are, hoodie. They just don't intend to be.

What would professional comedians do for material if there were no politicians?

Orb, calling Gingrich a fat turd is not very nice. He's fat, but a human being.

Bruce, you are just simply a hater. You probably feel it should have been you.

Bruce also forgets the very unpresidential lookling and acting dubya the dufus...I still love the goofy look when told that he had let the terrorists attack us on 911...oh yeah and the very unpresidential .Mission Accomplished' when it wasn't...lmao

Justoneguy: That is what republicans said when they cross voted for Barrack Obama instead of Hilary. Anyone but Barrack has a different meaning today because of it.

The GOP potentials give a whole new meaning to the phrase "Send in the clowns".

Alil Common Sense, It's not like Democrats are drowning out Ron Paul who has the best workable and sensible plan (in my view) to get us out the mess Bush I and Bush II and the 20 years of Congress (both parties) created. It's the Republican Establishment which loathes him so much that the Faux News and the Republican Rich Boys Media establishment wishes he wasn't around them. Case in point.

1. Ron Paul wants our military out of Afghanistan and other hot spots. Republicans wants to keep them in Afghanistan for ever, as if we are welcome in that part of the world.

2. Ron Paul wants us to lessen the support we provide to Israel and let them take care of themselves. He wants no part of Iran war mongering going on within Republican Military establishment.

3. Ron Paul wants the Federal Reserve abolished and so do many of the Liberal folks. Republican establishment and its Bankers friends hate Ron Paul for his straight talk about the Federal Reserve.

The list is endless. You get the hint right?

Vote anti-war and anti big government. Vote anti-special interest groups. Vote for Ron Paul.

JohnSixty

Orb, calling Gingrich a fat turd is not very nice. He's fat, but a human being.

Let's see his birth certificate. I need proof.

I think the article is on target. Whether you like him or not, he is getting closer and closer to locking up the Republican nomination. The big question I have is, who will he select for VP?

your 100% right. the people got to understand the republicans want war. they are big business, and they have moreof thier workers then troops in afganistan. why would they want the war to stop. they want to start 4 more wars for the money.they don't care about the soldier. why don't the media call out these republicans for not telling the american people the way it really is. why would a voter making under 600,000 dollars for for these guys . they 're not on your side . fox news is on the air to ead you over the cliff.

Ron Paul should run as an Independant, its not like hes a Republican in the first place.

I wonder what the headlines would be today if Newt and Ron had not been in the race? There is little doubt that Santorum would get the vast majority votes that otherwise go to them.

I wonder what the headlines would be today if Newt and Ron had not been in the race? There is little doubt that Santorum would get the vast majority votes that otherwise go to them.

I doubt it. Santorum's getting the social conservatives. The other three are splitting the remaining RWNJ vote. I cannot imagine the Paulites having much time for Santorum's imposing of his religious views nor his promises to make government bigger by imposing those religious mandates. Newt's followers just have short memories and obviously aren't concerned about moral failings.

Bruce-308647

The bummer though is that there isn't a runner in the lot that looks truly Presidential. Romney is the closest yet still a far cry from the caliber of individual we need to take the helm.

What exactly IS "looking presidential"? Keep in mind we elected a socialist community organizer who had state representative experience (and not much at that), had never held a "real" job, and sponsored virtually no legislation during is office holding stints (and voted "present" as much as not, avoiding being pinned down on any tough votes). Is THAT what "looking presidential" looks like?!

After Barack Obama, there is no such thing as "not looking presidential".

Bruce...you've got nothing! Do you think the Republican Party is going to win over Independents and conservative Democrats by constantly falsely labeling the President as a socialist? Do you really believe misleading information and down right lies will make the Republican Candidates a viable choice for anyone but the far-right wing?
...You've got nothing!

President Obama looks far more and is more Presidential than ANY of the people on the republican side and that includes both those running for the nominee and those that decided to sit out because they knew the republicans would get creamed this election.

To those Supporting Ron Paul,

Ron Paul is not going to be nominated or elected to anything. He's a hick who has shown he's a racist, a dull-witted anti-abortionist, a global warming flip-flopper and denier, and a rabid Christian who is completely ignorant of the Constitution, corrupting it to advance his personal beliefs. At the very least, Ron Paul allowed his name to be used by racists in his employ to publish racist rants like "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Paul has no problem banning abortions, even though such bans were outlawed by Rowe v. Wade, but just thinks it's a state's job to do so because of his warped view of the 10th Amendment. Paul has stated that because he delivered 4000 babies, he knows that life begins at conception (this is as stupid a statement as he's ever uttered--when life begins has been, is, and will always be a question for philosophers or politicians, and certainly not some quirky physician who delivered babies when he was in the Army).

Ron Paul is also a global warming flip-flopper and now a global warming denier. In 2008, he had this to say about global warming: "It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.” By 2009, Paul was singing a different tune: "The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years, has been this hoax on [...] global warming." Even if Ron isn't being paid off by Big Oil, he's still doing their bidding. The concept that humans cause global warming is shared by the vast majority of legitimate climatologists in the world; only scientists hired by Big Oil promulgate the myth that global warming is a hoax or is not caused by human activities. Moreover, his claim that global warming has been a hoax for hundreds of years is so obviously wrong: concerns about global warming have not existed for "hundreds of years." I was around for the first "Earth Day" in 1970, and global warming or climate change wasn't an issue then. I'd say it became a topic of discussion about 15 years ago. Paul's statement about there being a global warming hoax for hundreds of years is patently ridiculous.

However, the most frightening aspect of this dogmatic old fart's belief system is his conviction that we are a Christian nation. According to Ron, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." This is demonstrably wrong, according to no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court, which has consistently recognized that the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was to build or erect a wall separating Church and State, according to Thomas Jefferson, whose group crafted the clause:

"[A]t the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878).
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, citing Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

"This Court first reviewed a challenge to state law under the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947).1 Relying on the history of the Clause, and the Court's prior analysis, Justice Black outlined the considerations that have become the touchstone of Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa.2 "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' "Everson, 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S. Ct., at 511 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878)). The dissenters agreed: "The Amendment's purpose ... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." 330 U.S., at 31–32, 67 S. Ct., at 519–520 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.); accord, Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577, 599-600 (1992).

So what does Paul say about these court decisions: "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." So this arrogant twit, who is not educated in law, purports to be a higher legal authority on what the Founding Fathers intended by the religious clauses in the First Amendment than the Supreme Court, the final authority on what the Constitution means, has consistently ruled since 1878. To me, Dr. Paul resembles lots of conservatives, who rant about a variety of things being unconstitutional without knowing much about the Constitution or how it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Just because Paul wants to dismantle the federal government and eliminate federal income taxes, as you may want, and will allow you to smoke pot (unless the states continue to outlaw it) doesn't make him a fit candidate for President of the United States. His brand of government may have worked in the 19th Century, but certainly not in the 21st. He keeps being rejected by the electorate because too many of his ideas are just plain kooky.

Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's Degree in Law with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)

I guess teacher, lawyer, author, State and Federal Representative aren't real jobs now? How does a clown like Bruce post that 2008 era tripe and not expect to get smacked down?

Since when is organizing and advocating for your community an insult? Kind of what got him elected to office in the first place.

He's been a lot more calm, collected and rational in the face of....whatever it is the GOP is putting on than I would have thought possible.

@ Michael Marowitz, post 1.29...

thank you.

Why ron paul can never win is he wants to get rid completly of social security, get rid of all welfare AND get rid of the federal reserve which has kept us from repeating the great depression. I like his foreign policy but his economic policy is ludicrous.

Ron Paul should run as an Independant, its not like hes a Republican in the first place.

Ron Paul is what the Republican party CLAIMS to stand for. But claiming to stand is one thing and actually standing for it is another.

For all of you arguing if Obama looks presidential I would he looks far more Alfred E. Newman to me.

@Rick-312779

No! No! No! That was George W. Bush*! (See cover of "The Nation" 11/2000)

*Contrary to official news sources the "W" stands for "What Me Worry".

Ron Paul's views are Libertarian....not Republican. The irony is that the main leaders (not candidates) of the TEA party are also Libertarian and have the same basic views as Paul but want to distance themselves from Paul since they don't really want the American people to know what they have planned. Abolish the Federal Reserve, the EPA, and any other government agencies that makes life bearable by keeping businesses in check.

@ BOB way up at the top.

There's reasons we don't want a popular vote for these elections. The founding fathers didn't like the idea of a popular vote because to them it was nothing more than mob rule. There's something to be said about trying to avoid a tyranny of the majority. The way it is now you have to win more states than try to win people, otherwise everyone running wouldn't ever visit like half the states. Better to spend their money in N.Y. N.H. FL. CA. since it's more population dense.

@Larry right above me.

It was either Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, i can't remeber which, who said (paraphrased slightly), "The worst thing the country can do is have a centralized bank who would control the value of currency first through inflation then through deflation of the money supply. This will ultimately destroy the country."

Also the EPA has done a lot of stuff that straight screws businesses, case in point not counting labor (which is usually the biggest single expense for a business) manufacturing in China is over 20% cheaper (and you KNOW they pay their people less on top of that). I don't agree with getting rid of the EPA but we do need to look at being more reasonable about these things.

The air quality in China is also horrendous. There are cities you literally cannot breathe outside in. Screw that. Since when does China have anything to offer us regarding labor or the environment? I thought liberals were supposed to be the ones in love with the communists, yet they stand for everything we are against.

Being more reasonable usually means letting businesses but their bottom lines before the environment, or worker safety, or product quality, etc. I think there's a reason why "Made in China" is considered a derogative, even if it's not completely accurate.

Cap.T.Where do you get this ,Liberals are in love with communists? Rubbish ! Liberals,like me, abhor Oligarchs. If you are going to say that communists,in power still do not own anything then you are naive to the point of ridiculous. The political power in any state own more than their voters, if they even have voters.China is the major producer because they control the cost of living in their country and that means that they can pay their workers lower wages than any one else and as they also control the cost of living do not have as much pressure to raise wages. Our oligarchs have returned China to it's former position as historically ,the greatest producer on this planet. We can vote into President anyone that we can,but he will still not be able to reverse this trend. Our Reps. in the U.S. Congress can alter this by doing what the Unions have been asking for ,for over twenty years.Treat all American Co.'s that outsource their products overseas as foreign made and alll Co's that have a phony head office outside of the U.S. as taxable by U . S. standards.

They never mention Paul. It is ridiculous.

Why mention someone who is running a poor fourth in a four-horse race? Even if they broker the nomination at the convention, Paul is going home with just a t-shirt and a funny hat. He's done and Gingrich is right behind him.

Thats because Ron Paul is a blooming idiot, a bigot and delusional...he has no chance in hell of winning and anyone else polling as low as he is would have already dropped out.

Of course you are also fairly blind as the article DOES mention him.

...Pennsylvania (68) and about 15 times those won by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas (16).

And the Ron Paul cult will collapse this as fast as they possibly can, as if that will change a thing or change the facts

Ron Paul is mentioned.

It's math like that made it possible for Romney to hit 249 total delegates, according to NBC News' projections through midnight ET — about 2½ times the number won by Gingrich (103), almost four times those won by former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (68) and about 15 times those won by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas (16).

Maybe if Ron Paul won a few delegates, he would receive more press coverage. This is an election - not a high school debate.

Thats because Ron Paul is a blooming idiot, a bigot and delusional...he has no chance in hell of winning and anyone else polling as low as he is would have already dropped out.

Ron Paul is the best there is. Ron Paul followers are not even interested in any of the other 3, and the GOP blows them off, as you do, at its own peril.

Without Ron Paul, the USA is screwed. You can put a fork in it. Doesn't matter if it's Obama or not.

If you guys are upset about the way things work out for Paul, it is YOUR party, so YOU make the changes. The RNC is in control of who wins. Just look at how MI handled Romney. It is THEIR pick... not yours... it is yours to change.

What's to say about Paul? He didn't win anything so far!

Ron Paul is not in 4th with delegates! These are just sorry estimates! How can they give delegates when they are non-binding and there are still state conventions to go! Anything can happen and really Paul is in 2nd with delegate count. Watch This! w.youtube.com/watch?v=R4kkcvbJE4k&feature=related

Jesse-well, there's your problem. You are getting your news from youtube. Most of these ARE binding. Anything CANNOT happen. Paul is NOT in 2nd place. Do you not have any concept at all of the way elections work? Are you writing this from your 9th grade government class? The Republican members of Congress do not want Ron Paul. The actual, registered Republican voters who really cast these ballots do not want Ron Paul. Texas Republicans do not want Ron Paul. The Republican Governers' Association and their mayoral colleagues do not want Ron Paul. The Libertarian Party does not want Ron Paul. Our allies do not want Ron Paul. Even our enemies do not want Ron Paul!!! The only people who DO want him belong to a very small band of feverish zealots who have no grasp on reality and are incapable of comprehending the fact, the FACT...that their personal demigod never had any chance whatsoever. NOBODY who matters ever wanted this man. Scream about how wrong you think this is and howl in rage about your lunatic and laughable conspiracy theories. Go ahead. Deny it to yourselves and to every rational person in every conceivable forum every minute of every day until the inauguration, and nothing will change. He was never in this race. Never. The rest of this great nation knew that from the start and we collectively thank our Lord for this.

Ron Paul is just a right wing version of Ralph Nader. They both have a very loyal, very loud, and very small batch of worshippers. They both go around spouting inane nonsense that few people care about. And they both have no chance of getting anywhere politically. Nader's major political contribution was running as the Green party candidate in 2000 when he diverted enough votes from Gore to assure bush's victory. Thanks a lot, Ralphie.

People that don't have the sense to vote Paul, don't deserve a good government. The rest of the pack are nothing more than slight diversions from the current squatters. The masses will be really surprised to see the near future. Do you realize that Mitt stated that he agreed with the current squatter on the recent signing of the bill that allows American citizens to be arrested and held indefinitely without bail or trial? All under the pretense of terrorists. Those that would give up freedom for security will end up with neither. Oh, by the way, he won't do away with the new medical system despite what he claims. Remember, he did the same thing first in his state. Personally I don't believe he can beat him but if he does, not much will change. In the end, they are both on the same team. WAKE UP MY FELLOW AMERICANS

For the best results Ron Paul should run as a third party. But I think he is trailblazing for Rand. Making an organization across USA to build up to be handed over to his son. Rand is as close to Ron his views as it gets.

Dr. Paul warned of the mortgage fraud before the lawyers, the judges, the bankers
(well, some of the bankers) woke up to the one trillion dollar fraud visited
upon the U.S.A.; now our real estate legal titles are clouded and shall require
quiet title actions. Dr. Paul objected to our jingoism and "preemptive
strike" policy in Iraq and Afghanistan; he bravely contests the popular
war talks about Iran. He is the only candidate who actually served in our nation's
military. He promotes our Constitution, and urges Congress to return to a
republic form of government. He knows about the stranglehold the
military-industrial complex has on our economy, our children, our society--and
he wants to fix this corruption. Where are Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice
and their cronies now?--they slinked away, having made their billions and at
great cost to our international good will and loss of American lives--for what?
A free Iraq? A free Afghanistan? Why are we there? G.W. Bush correctly stated
"Mission Accomplished." Unfortunately, we were the fools who did not
understand WHAT mission these charlatans actually were talking about. The GOP
is no longer the party of less government interference, no longer the party of
Constitutional integrity, no longer the party of spending controls in federal
agencies and departments. The GOP has become the party of fascism, of creeping
socialism, of big government--one cannot discern any major differences between
Ds and Rs. Only Dr. Paul is a true Republican--the rest are RINOs, and should
be ignored. Romney--Wall Street lackey; Santorum--opportunist smug Christian
with a penchant to polarize our diversity; Gingrich--he never met a government
program supporting the military industrial complex he didn't like. Dr. Paul is
a centrist, a Constitutionalist, a healer--the GOP has once more shot itself in
the foot by throwing this valuable man away. What fools we mortals be. Obama-The-Kenyan
can beat anyone but Dr. Paul.

The speech Ron Paul gave tonight in North Dakota was Lights Out!

If you have a candidate who you think has a better platform after hearing this speech, I will totally respect that

But Ron Paul isn't just saying this $h1t, he actually believes it.

I'm sure there are lots of people who feel differently, that's cool, but hey, give it a listen.

I think his ideas are good for everybody, across all party lines.

And everyones divisive party lines $h1t is bad anyways.

Geting divided is step one to getting conquered.

Anyways, whatever you think, it's a great speech as far as letting you know in plain english what platform Ron Paul is running on, what he believes in.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/super-tuesday-ron-paul-speaks-north-dakota-15863607

(1.6 was supposed to be here, so, double post. Regards.)

DeeDeeDee

I don't appreciate being called a lunatic for supporting Ron Paul. You sir who you supporting tell Us. So we can give you the same respect that you have given us.

For the record...... RObamaney getting in will probably trigger Krondatieff Winter...

Just saying.

Santorum and Grinch are both pieces of feces.

It's true that the delegate counts put out by the mainstream media have no basis in reality. They scarcely even bother to print the actual apportionment rules.

For instance, in my state (Ma), we had a primary today.

Ron Paul only won 12% of the vote, despite our best efforts to mobilize.

But here's the thing... Unbenownst to MOST of the world, we will very quietly hold, right here in Ma.....

A CAUCUS!!!!!!

I know, right? WHO KNEW!

And sure, we're bound to the first vote.

But say, what if the first vote is indecisive? What if we have a second vote?

Under the rules in Tampa, if we have a second vote, Ma delegates are unbound. In fact, 87% of ALL the delegates are unbound after the first vote. Every state has different rules... for instance, the delegates from SC are bound for all of the first three votes.

The Big Money is propping up Santorum and Grinch (who everybody knows cannot win ever) just to keep the attention off of RonPaul. If there were only two up there, you couldn't ignore one of them.

Stop The Wars

End The Fed.

Bring The Troops Home.

Before They're Dead.

Liberals for Ron Paul

2012

If you are for Ron Paul, you are not a liberal. That's like saying Rebels for Darth Vader. They are anti-theses.

But Ron Paul isn't just saying this $h1t, he actually believes it.

I'm not sure that this came out the way you meant it to, but it's a fair point.

DeeDeeDee, well said. I don't care who does or does not appreciate being called a lunatic. When the shoe fits.....

Read the section analyzing convention strategy in "Fear and Loathing on The Campaign Trail '72" it is amazing what goes into every conversation, every note sent to the floor by a page and how many deals can get done if the first vote fails to determine a candidate. That being said i don't think Paul has garnered enough support from the establishment (read: the support that actually matters) to be a big time player at the convention. He may be able to secure a cozy white house job for his son but that s about all his chips will buy. The problem with a brokered convention is usually some back woods lunatic gets thrown in as VP (see: '72 Tom Eagleton and '08 Sara Palin, in fairness 08 wasn't brokered but it might as well have been with the rise of the wing-nut right) Side note: every journalist in the country should be ashamed of themselves for the past 30 years the Rolling Stone has had the most complete coverage of political and economical stories putting them to shame...

I don't understand the glee the anti-Paul vocalist have in claiming it's over for him. If we don't get Paul, troops stay in Afghanistan. More will die. Terrorism will be promoted. Spending will continue to rise. Deficits will continue to grow. Civil liberties will continue to be diminished.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The "change you can believe in" Obama preached never materialized. His promises were broken. He just continued the unpopular policies of Bush left off with, and still R voters don't get it. They continue to vote for people without principles.

Ron Paul, whether popular or not, is the only one with principles. The only one fit to be president. He's the only one. If US voters don't recognize that then we deserve the complete economic and moral collapse that's coming.

Ron Paul maybe should run as a third party candidate. This time around it will leech away Republican votes, since most Dems and Obama supporters would not vote for Paul.

Forest Roamer

F__— off!

Ron Paul maybe should run as a third party candidate. This time around it will leech away Republican votes, since most Dems and Obama supporters would not vote for Paul.

A lot of Dems are unhappy with Obama, so he could take from that base as well. Obama was elected on a promise to pull troops out of Iraq within 1 year of taking office, something he did just recently only after Iraq refused to grant US troops immunity. People were tired of the wars in 2008. That most certainly counted against McCain. But Obama has keep up and promoted the drone wars.

Unlike Obama, when Ron Paul says he'd bring troops home, he can be believed. If the economy doesn't improve this year, Oboma could lose a lot of support to Ron Paul, if he were to run 3rd party.

Unlike Obama, when Ron Paul says he'd bring troops home, he can be believed. If the economy doesn't improve this year, Oboma could lose a lot of support to Ron Paul, if he were to run 3rd party.

Not likely. Democrats understand that voting for Ron Paul would result in the election of a President Romney...Not going to happen. If you're unhappy about how the Republican Primary is being run...change it! It's your party, not ours.

the problem for Gingrich and Santorum is that, no matter how good they look in national polls compared to Romney, they're finishing third or fourth too often

Even though the article doesn't say it, we're all capable of doing basic math right? With Romney being first and santorum and gingrich being third and fourth who does that leave for second? That's right Dr. Paul. So there we have it.

Not likely. Democrats understand that voting for Ron Paul would result in the election of a President Romney...Not going to happen.

What you're implicitly pointing out, likely without realizing it, is that the pluralistic voting system we have (you get to express an opinion about one and only one candidate, no matter how many are running) is about the worst voting system there is. It ensures that, among 3 candidates, the one most different from the others is likely to win.

What's far better is an alternate method called "Approval Voting" where everyone votes for all the candidates they approve of. The one getting the most votes is the winner. With that system, there's no more "wasted vote syndrome" or voting for the "lessor of two evils" we have now where voting for the candidate you most favor helps ensure your least favored candidate wins.

The voting system we have is actually antiquated, severely defective and broken. It doesn't really serve the people at all.

If you're unhappy about how the Republican Primary is being run...change it! It's your party, not ours.

I'm actually Libertarian. But I'd vote for Ron Paul no matter what party he would run in, because he has principles that go beyond political party limits. He could be in the Communist party and I'd still vote for him. Not really much difference from the Communist party and the Republicans, actually. Communists invaded Afghanistan too, you know, and certainly had no love for civil liberties, just like Bush.

Whether I like everything Obama has done I would never vote for Paul...never. I think Obama supporters who may not be thrilled and who research Paul would never vote for him. Just wouldn't happen.

Not if the candidate you vote for drops out of the race. Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Huntsman received delegates but dropped out. Romney has been in it from the beginning. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul were competing with candidates that are not in the race any longer.

Nice try, but Paul has as much chance of getting the Republican Party's nomination as Santorum has of winning Miss Congeniality at the Miss America Pageant. Paul is down for the count. Read 'em and weep.

@ Sailcat... Might have to wait until the convention to conclude that, as that decision will be up to the delegates. But if Paul doesn't get the nod and does decide to run independent, then the GOP can forget about the Ron Paul base, as Ron Paul supporters won't care if it's Obama or some R.

If Paul strikes out as a third party candidate, he will bleed votes from the GOP and put the icing on an Obama win in November. I hope Paul is considering it.

you are a silly man

No! Paul has the inside info on Obama-that he cannot run from... Only prob is that Paul would be eliminated before he could tell it-----

If Paul strikes out as a third party candidate, he will bleed votes from the GOP and put the icing on an Obama win in November. I hope Paul is considering it.

I don't understand why he doesn't run as a third party candidate, if he thinks and all of you think he is great. The Republican Party thinks he is a joke and the only way he is going to let the rest of America know his policies is to be a candidate. Third party candidates don't win, but they have a place at the podium and the debates and sometimes that's what counts.

I won't vote for him, I will vote for Obama, but I think there is room for a third party, it makes the election so much more interesting.

Remember Democrats went through this anxiety when Nader ran with Bush & Gore.

Paul is a nincompoop, but he holds an attraction for certain individuals. He has no chance of winning, but the third party option would spell instant death for the GOP's already slim chances in November and ensure a solid win by President Obama. For that very reason, I wish he'd order a double scoop of crazy and take the plunge!

For those of us old enough to remember.... Ron Paul's candidacy is the right's Jerry Brown candidacy; a gadfly who appeals to a very committed, very vocal minority which no matter how committed or how vocal still remains a minority

Anthony vaughn

No! Paul has the inside info on Obama-that he cannot run from... Only prob is that Paul would be eliminated before he could tell it-----

Aaahhh...I was wondering when the tin-foil hats were coming out!

"When they show you who they are...believe them!"

Ron Paul will make nothing...but a retiree after he runs as an independent under the Americas Choice Party umbrella propelled by the fanatics that coo at his every word and dismiss his every flaw.

and giving Obama the election....

I agree to a degree,,, was way worried watching to voting.... Those that voted Rick don't know the man at all! Really, bringing his God into the picture.... Rick cannot make a law that makes any one believe as he does!

Does the Bible teach to bomb other countries and start wars just because they want to get weapons that you already have?

hear hear!

Does the Bible teach to bomb other countries and start wars just because they want to get weapons that you already have?

I believe it is in the Book of Armaments 1:13

You may be right. President Palin. It gives me the sweats.

yea...but the thought of the debates gives me multiple orgasm's......Hell...Joe the Plumber won tonight...so who knows !!!

Ah! The debates! That would be worth the price of admission all by itself!

The debates would be great...like watching a clown bring a knife to a gun fight!

yep...

None of the GOP candidates are electable. Get back to me in November.

I could be wrong but, to me, it looks like the way the GOP is counting delegates is just another way to make sure the folks with the big money buys the next nominee and they hope the Presidency.

but great entertainment.....how ya doin' reality??

HEY mike...did you get that judge thrown out yet ??

Great cowboy, thanks. Can't wait for November. Obama/Biden in ANOTHER LANDSLIDE.

Obama/Biden in ANOTHER LANDSLIDE.....only in the movies

...get that fly off your meds and take them for God's sake.

President Obama will take Mittens out once and for all after the debates begin.

Bain Capital did not destroy companies....how can you buy into this ignorant stuff? Read your facts. Ever heard of Staples? They saved more companies than they had to let die because they couldn't survive. If this is the nonsense that is out there, it's no wonder that people are voting against him. Romney is the only one who can fix our economy, which is paramount to our survival.

Jennifer - Staples laid off people and rehired at minimum wage - Bain Capital's business was to purchase an alright company - load them with debt, raid their pension funds and outsource their business

Read up on the whole story about Bain, they are now involved in American Airlines, their CEO quit saying this is a sham - AA was fine - it's the pension fund they are after

The only economy Romney fixed was his own!

On your side all of the way---we need to save America and our children from the woes........

He's a flip-flopper, just like Kerry was... and you know what happened to Kerry... Obama 2012!

but i dun thot us dems wer tha smert wuns.....

no we do not, you are not a very good thinker.lol

Exactly, those that went to Harvard! Or other very expensive schools..... All in it for the money and not the people! m And I'm a Mormon too!

More educated voters is a relative term; you're talking about the more educated GOP/T-baggers, et. al.. In November the more educated voters will be voting for Obama.

Find me a more educated state than Massachusetts and I will listen to that comment.

Fair enough Travisaurus, Massachusetts is arguably the most educated State, and it's voted Democrat almost exclusively since the 1930's, and is currently listed as a somewhat likely for Obama.

Wow Fred...did you get that from Rush? Don't you guys get just a little tired using the same BS propaganda all the time? I mean how long did it take to get you guys to drop the "Obama is a Muslim" crap? You're not winning hearts and minds...

@Ol_Doc

Please enlighten me and the rest who choose to read our "Wisdom". How much have you and do you study history, on up to this current administration?

And drop the "Obama is a Muslim" crap?

Obama has admitted in many places, many times that he IS a Muslim. Also if you pay real close attention, you can see him praying with them at various times throughout his term as our illegal President. He has also admitted many times, even to the United Nations General Assembly that he not only IS a Muslim, but that he was born in Kenya.

If you want to rant about how much I watch FOX News next, go right ahead. I dropped them a couple of years ago.

Please study diligently and take what you hear from the MSM with a grain of sand.

Oh, and if you would like to expand your whines to say that I must be a George Bush lover, think again.

George Bush #1 ushered in The New World Order to our beloved US of A.

I hope that you will respond. I would like to hear more from you!

Please do not forget that Mitt Romney is a good Mornon!

Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Bush only won because the Supremes unconstitutionally gave him Florida's electoral votes. Cry me a river about the "..huge Democratic machine.." and your vote not counting.

There is no longer any reason at all to use the Electoral College. It should have been gotten rid of years ago---before the 2000 election, but the 2000 election should have sealed its fate.

Yes, THERE is a reason for the electoral college. If we go to a popular vote, who will care about the middle of the country. The candidates will only campaign in areas that are heavily populated. Right now, South Dakota still has to be convinced. Without an electoral college, a candidate that can carry the east and west coasts can ignore the rest of the country. I happen to live on the east coast. Before you give up on something you should know the ramifications.

Really? I've lived on the west coast for 60 years and elections are decided before our polls have been open an hour!

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored.

When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPopularVote

Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows.

* * *

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

* * *

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections-- NH, NM, and NV. These three states contain only 14 (8%) of the 22 medium-lowest population states' total 166 electoral votes.

* *

A survey of South Dakota voters conducted on January 28–30, 2011, showed 71% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Voters were asked:

"How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 61% among Republicans, 82% among Democrats, and 77% among others. By gender, support was 83% among women and 59% among men. By age, support was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 67% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 77% for those older than 65. The survey was conducted by Public Policy Polling, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 1/2%.

In a second question in the 2011 poll, 78% of South Dakota voters said "yes" in response to the question:

"Do you think that South Dakota voters should be given the chance to vote on the question of whether the President should be elected by a national popular vote OR by the current Electoral College system?"

Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13^th with a 5% spread and the 2^nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race has been competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there have been only 55 "battleground" districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 2/3rds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

The Electoral College may be a little off topic here for this post, but perhaps not entirely so here is my point of view on the concept that the Electoral College gives voters in the less populous areas of the United States relevance they would not otherwise have---it simply does not, and in fact the Electoral College marginalizes those voters. If Presidents were elected by popular vote, a vote in Alaska or North Dakota equals a vote in California. A vote would be a vote. Under the Electoral College however the situation is that a vote in California impacts 55 Electoral Votes; a vote in a State which rates only 3 Electoral is therefore worth only one-eighteenth of a California voters vote. It is the case that in the 2000 Presidential election, Bush the Second cobbled together (an unlikely to be repeated) winning number of Electoral votes using largely less populous States, but still at the last the election was determined by the Florida decision anyway.

The Presidential election is to be won or lost in the more populous States.

I agree about the 30 years ago. Reagan was Prez then and that was the begining of the end for the USA. But you're wrong about Paul.

Innfowars,,,,I like how you think---hope that its fact!

St. Ronny couldn't even get on the Republican ballot. He was way to liberal for the new T-publican party!

YEAH RIGHT! Only Humanitarian so long as Yo ain't "BLACK" that is!!!!

I admire Ron Paul, but when you go to his website and on the front page it states he wants to eliminate the Dept. of Energy, HUD, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Interior and Dept. of Education he's just way too out there.

$5,000 tax credit for each homeschooled pupil? He's just way too out there.

He's really not a Republican, he's a Libertarian.

break that down, so ordinary genius can interpret what you are saying at 3:00 am in the mornin, '' son '' !!!!

Marshallw

In acuallity it is the status-quo candidates that are the pie in the sky crackpots for thinking we can just continue the current policies that we have.

Ron Paul been issuing any of his "dire warnings" about the economy? I hope you all go back and read what these idiots in the GOP, including Dr. Paul, have been saying for the past three years about the economy. They, and the entire GOP, have been completely wrong about their "dire warnings" about the Federal Reserve Bank. They should be forced to eat crow in the U.S. Capital on the floor of Congress. States rights = the right of bigots to discriminate if they choose. No thanks, bigots. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is a protection like a shield not a sword to take down others.

And they should do it right after they apologize to Chairmen Bernanke. He was right; they were all wrong. Did anybody see the video clip of Ron Paul babbling on three days ago at Chairman Bernanke? What a pitiful display. He should have been thanking Chairman Bernanke for devoting his entire life to the study of economics and specifically the recovery from the First Great Depression the GOP caused. Instead of twelve years it only took three and that was in the face of unrelenting and withering and in hind-sight unjustified criticism.

Bermanke has ruined the middle class and the poor. All he is good for is the big banks.