I suppose it’s not impossible, but still very unlikely. And I know my numbers aren’t exact, but conceptually it’s close enough.

Believe me, if he showed he could do it, I just might be among the 7%.

They also don’t do a good job at personalizing issues. You can still be hardcore and personable at the same time.

And for a disclaimer, I should add that I am not saying that they shouldn’t have the unpopular positions, but they can learn how to redirect their energy away from them (e.g. Paul didn’t need to say that Libby should be in jail for helping to mislead us into war).

Logipundit, you forgot to mention that $$$ will win the Republican primary and, unless something changes drastically, Hunter and Huckabee are long shots at best. But, your point regarding their fate if they matched up against Hillary/Obama is dead on and for that reason the Republicans will probably pick a “star” candidate (McCain or Guiliani), regardless of whether they’re the best guy for the job.

GO PAUL!!!

That’s been the reality since Kennedy and Nixon’s first TV debate.

Nevertheless, I agree that McCain and Giuliani are not the best Republicans have to offer on that stage. I would say that there were three or four (including Ron Paul) that have more to offer, but out of those three or four, the most “electable” (and all the pitiful components that come with that) is not Ron Paul.

Forget looks on camera, just think likability, just think, communication skills, and name recognition (can’t ignore that). Firebrands do not do well in Republican nominations. Optimists do well, and Paul does not come across as an optimist.

Changing course and shaking things up effectively takes good policy AND good politics, and if you look at the stage the best balance of that is honestly:

Hunter and Huckabee.

Romney, McCain, Giuliani are way too much politics (although McCain hardly looked appealing the other night) and not enough policy.

Tancredo, Paul, Thompson are way too much policy and not enough politics.

Brownback and Gilmore are also fairly balanced, meaning they present themselves well and are “true” conservatives, but Brownback is too much of a pretty preacher boy, and Gilmore is just so utterly unknown. I live in Virginia and didn’t recognize the guy right off.

Based on what I know and the debate the other night, if I had to vote today in a primary (and luckily I don’t) it would be for probably either Huckabee or Hunter.

Regardless, I believe if either of those were nominated they would probably not stand a chance against an Obama or a Clinton-as it stands right now. My point is SOMEONE (and Ron Paul is good enough for me) should run as a third party or independent, and put a stop to this partisan back and forth bulls***. And given the popularity Paul has that you pointed out and the low odds of his being nominated…

Maybe Unity08 will snag him. I’m a delegate, and I’d vote for him.

got a link to the Huckabee interview?

as far as coming across well on tv, i think he did ok. true he does not have the good looks of romney, but if the public punishes ron paul for that pathetic criterion, then the public deserves what they get in the form of a lesser leader.

i think the choice is clear on the republican side ; professional politicians with similar rhetoric as the bush admin, or the true conservative in the republican ranks, ron paul, whose libertarian roots are in the spotlight right now.

i think the bush admin did much to anger its conservative base, and i think the support that ron paul received, at least after the first debate, is a backlash from the current republican admin ignoring its conservative base.

who knows, but if ron paul keeps it up, he can certainly challenge boobs like mccain and guiliani, who are the worst to offer from the republican side, in my opinion.

i listened to huckabee interviewed by jon stewart (?) , and i thought he had some good things to say.

but my man is ron paul !

ACTUAL DEBATE COVERAGE: 8-9:30PM:

FNC 2,023,000
MSNBC 1,762,000
CNN 599,000

More people watched FOXNEWS TALKING about debate than the actual DEBATE!

Hopefully, though, there were enough Republicans who paid attention to his statement (roughly quoting), “That’s the problem with the Federal Government, we seem to be able only to either prohibit or subsidize.”

That was a VERY accurate and VERY important statement, which summed up well his views (in and out of this debate) on the flaws of a spendthrift government.

But as accurate as the “policemen of the world” statements may be, I fear that a lot of these votes on MSN aren’t from those who would vote in a Republican primary. But, hell, I could be way off. It would have been interesting to see what would happen if the votes were split up between R, D, and I.

Honestly, though, I find it sad that some of the other candidates aren’t given more credit for having very level-headed views and presenting themselves very well. Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee did very well in this debate, and are being almost COMPLETELY ignored by the talking heads.

As far as Ron Paul, he just doesn’t come across very well on screen, which sadly is very important. Ross Perot proved that the smartest guy making the best points will make a minimal impact on the general election.

You know, though, now that I think about it…2008 would be a perfect time for Paul to run as a 3rd party or independent. My thoughts are he would pull as many people from the left (anti-war) as he would from the right (spending), which would make him less of a “spoiler” (like Perot on the right and Nader on the left) and more of a tool for change.

Thoughts?