The other being Romney: http://www.revolutionpac.com/2012/01/ron-paul-a-national-candidate-one-of-only-two-republicans-on-all-state-ballots/It lets you know who the serious candidates are.
Mitt Romney is a serious candidate? There are only two serious candidates: Ron Paul and The Establishment(Mitt Romney, Obama, Congress, big financial institutions, big banks, Corporations, etc.)
He's not really a national candidate. He's a two-state candidate: Iowa and NH. He was third in Iowa, lost by 16% in NH, and is way behind in SC. He's doing better than 2008, but still isn't anywhere near a 50-state contender.
He and Mitt are the only ones on the ballot in 50 states. So there are only two 50-state contenders. Furthermore, using your logic, none of the other candidates are worth a second thought since they got raped by Mitt and RP in NH and only one other one was able to finish top tier in Iowa, but was nothing more than a flash in the pan.
Mitt Romney, the candidate to settle for! Beach Bum, hasn't Ron Paul done far better than you expected?
Being on the ballot in all 50 states doesn't necessarily make him a national candidate. It's being competitive with enough money to win in every state that makes him (or anyone) a national candidate. Romney is the only who can do that at this point. Ron Paul's performance in Iowa is based in part on the amount of time and money he spent there. His performance is NH is attributable largely to the NH demographics, which includes a number of libertarians. If he was truly a national candidate, he'd be in contention in SC and Florida. He's not.
He is the only one with enough boots on the ground and enough money to run a national campaign... True, he doesn't have the backing of the MSM that he needs in order to easily win the nomination, but that doesn't change the fact that he is one of two national candidates. Besides, if your contention were true regarding Iowa and NH, he should have done much better in '08 than he did.
Ron Paul's message and clean record had nothing to do with it, not even a little?
yummy. and a Paul supporter.
Good response. That's part of the reason he performs well. He knows how to answer questions. Privately, he has to be high fiving his staff over Ron Paul's performance, because he's not nearly the threat pre-meltdown Newt, pre-debate Perry, or pre-scandal Cain would have been.
You didnt anser the question earlier though my man. Should the other candidates all drop out now becasue if Paul isnt going to win with his performance thus far, how will the others?
I watched 10 minutes of X Factor one night and she came off as a real c*nt. But she is ridiculously hot and OK in my book now. She deleted the Paul endorsement, though.
"Mitt Romney is on the glide path to the Republican nomination. But it is not escaping GOP notice that Romney's vote total in Iowa was the same as it was in 2008, and just 5 percentage points higher in New Hampshire than four years previous. Turnout among self-identified Republicans decreased in both states, even after more than three years of Barack Obama's misgovernance.Ron Paul, on the other hand, more than doubled his vote total in Iowa, and tripled it in New Hampshire, largely by attracting nearly half of all independents and young voters. Paul has gotten twice as many votes as Newt Gingrich so far. In the Granite State, he received more votes than Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry combined."http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/opinion/welch-paul-libertarianism/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9
