The American Spectator

Watson| 11.4.11 @ 11:57AM

Huntsman is Romney without the flip flops. His economic plan cuts taxes, eliminated deductions and credits, eliminates the AMT, eliminated double taxation on capital gains, and cuts the corporate tax rate. It repeals Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. His energy plan is very pro development. He would privatize entitlements.

The election will be about the economy. Unfortunately selecting the nominee isn't about finding someone with the strongest possible message on the economy nearly as much as it should be.

I'd even consider Ron Paul if he wasn't out in left field on foreign policy. It doesn't help that his supporters mostly seem to be whackazoids.

JP| 11.4.11 @ 12:45PM

Any candidate can craft an impeccable economic plan. However, it is all about getting it passed mostly intact. Both Huntsman and Mittens have an uncanny knack of following Leftist orthodoxy. Where Huntsman and Mittens both agree is AGW (or Climate Change). Both of these candidates back the EPA's findings that CO2 is a pollutant and must therefore be regulated. Romney even passed a carbon cieling on Mass. public utilites.

And I seriously doubt that either men have the stomach to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with a more workable, market driven solution.

Jack in Wi| 11.7.11 @ 6:16AM

Nate Silver: Chief propagandist for the New York Times forgets to mention that the Real Clear Politics compliation of polls fails, that he uses to mention that Ron Paul runs best against Obama, except for Romney. That is as of October 31st. Mr. Joseph Lawler another propagandist also fails to mention that. Dr. Paul is 6 points behind Obama at 40.6%. Romney is at about 46 % and Obama at 47%. Dr. Paul and romney are the only 2 that have a chance to beat Obama. I think Romney would never be a good President. but I do believe he is by far the best of the 7 dwarfs running against Dr. Paul. Let there be a long and civil debate between these 2 and lets see if we can unite the party against Obama.

Occam's Tool| 11.5.11 @ 10:48AM

The problem is that the writer feels that Republicans will do better the closer they move to the middle. Not so. We need a candidate who can energize his base while not alienating the rest of the party. Paul fails dismally in this regard, for example. It certainly hurts him that within the Republican House membership he is known as a man who cannot be worked with, and his alliance with Barney Frank onthe marijuana issue will destroy him, incidentally. THC, by the way, is available legally in pill form as Marinol, which renders this whole issue moot, in reality.

One would expect an MD to know that, particularly since its major use would be in terminal cancer patients to reduce chemotherapy induced nausea, and among HIV patients suffering from wasting. But Paul hasn't been an active doc for a long, long time.

Clint| 11.5.11 @ 7:41PM

You're The Screwball Israel Firster RINO-CINO,who said you would vote for The Ruling Elites' RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Clint| 11.5.11 @ 8:04PM

"There are 60 or 70 different cannabinoids in marijuana," says Abrams. Marinol contains only one cannabinoid -- delta-9 THC. When THC is isolated from the plant, other ingredients are lost, including those that might be buffering any adverse effects of taking "straight" THC. "In Chinese medicine," Abrams says, "they prescribe whole herbs and usually combinations of herbs."

Abrams goes on to point out that, "In 1999 the Institute of Medicine did a report -- Marijuana and Medicine. And they said, in fact, that cannabinoids have benefit in relief of pain, increase in appetite, and relief of nausea and vomiting."

Dr. Ron Paul,
"Well, removing it from the jurisdiction of the federal government and allowing the states to regulate it, like they would alcohol. And this seems to be strange for a lot of people, but I’m only going back to 1937 when that’s the way it was handled. The states always did this, and I’m motivated strongly also because the states legalize it for the use of medicinal purposes and it is helpful to people who have cancer or are getting chemotherapy. So this is not a huge radical idea,"

de Maistre| 11.4.11 @ 12:17PM

Silver is a top notch propagandist in convincing "conservatives" that a Leftist should be their standard bearer.

Dixie Pixie| 11.4.11 @ 3:11PM

The graph is useful in showing who the NYT thinks is closest to Obama on a political spectrum.
And who the NYT would like to see as the Republican nominee.
Based on that data, Bachmann is the clear Conservative favorite.

Dai Alanye| 11.4.11 @ 12:25PM

When theory fails to predict the real world, theory must change. Nate Silver's analysis is not merely wrong but laughably so.

The majority of voters don't choose a candidate based on matching lists of programs but on an instinctive estimate of character and likeability. Huntsman fails on both counts. He does seem, however, well-suited to head the Federal Department of Snark.

JP| 11.4.11 @ 12:50PM

Huntsman is the GOP of choice for Progressives. But Huntsman barely even registers with Republicans. The former Utah govenor made a calcultated risk when he accepted the China ambassadorship from Obama. Back in early 2009, it must have looked like a resume enhancer to him. He fell for Time Magazine's "We are all socialists, now" shtich. But, he wasn't alone. Everyone from Krauthammer (Obama's the only real adult in DC), to Peggy Noonan (Obama's the coolest), to Frum (Obama's the future, get used to it) all fell for the Anointed One's propoganda.

Dixie Pixie| 11.4.11 @ 3:16PM

Greetings Dai
Love the Dept of Snark.

But would the Democratic Party Propaganda Department of Snark be a minor subdivision in the New York Times and Washington Post?

Clint| 11.4.11 @ 12:30PM

Interesting that The New York Times PropagandaBoy, Nate Silver Dr.Ron Paul's attempts to hide Dr.Ron Paul's Numbers.

In a recent Harris Poll, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul beats President Obama 51 percent to 49 percent in a general election race.

We Are Being Set Up By Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' .

These Are The Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Uradin Galing| 11.4.11 @ 12:44PM

"After explaining Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas to voters who initially said they preferred Ron Paul over Obama, 97% changed their selection to Obama. The other 3% said that a nuclear war in the Middle East might not be such a bad thing really."

Smirking Weasel| 11.4.11 @ 5:07PM

You must be a really scared, insecure creature, to offer such nonsense as a supposed rebuttal to the post above yours. If you think Paul is a bad candidate, either philosophically or tactically, then offer a reasoned, laid out argument why-if that's possible, either for you specifically(writing and logic skills) or for anyone(there's very little to argue against in Paul's platform, at least for anyone who actually wants limited, Constitutional government).
Stupidity like this is why the Obozo will get reelected, and it'll be the fault of alleged 'conservatives', not those who find Paul the best candidate available.

Clint| 11.4.11 @ 12:48PM

Go Sit With Your Girlfriend Nate Silver.

"While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.

“The President also defended his unconstitutional intervention in Libya,
authorized not by the United States Congress but by the United Nations,
and announced new plans to pressure Syria and force the leader of that
country to step down."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Uradin Galing| 11.4.11 @ 1:06PM

You must be thrilled by this:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....el-strikes

Clint| 11.4.11 @ 3:10PM

Oh Really, Poseur Punk Poster: You Are A Ding A Ling.

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,
On Iran,The President should:
1.) Explain to the American people that Iran is no threat to the United States unless we or Israel attack it first, and then it would be a serious threat to U.S. access to energy and would likely stage terrorist operations in the continental United States. [The last thanks to 30-years of federal immigration policies that leave us without knowledge of who is in the country or what they are capable of doing.]

2.) Publicly state that there will be no U.S. surprise attack on Iran, and no U.S. attack at all on Iran unless the president asks for a formal declaration of war and the Congress votes its approval in a constitutional manner."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Occam's Tool| 11.5.11 @ 10:50AM

Seems awfully Israel Firster like to me, Clint, and doen't jive with cutting off all sales to Israel if it defends itself against Iran posts which you you also routinely cut and paste. Ad hominem counter in 3, 2, 1...

Clint| 11.5.11 @ 11:37AM

Seems Like You Are The Same Serial Liar You Usually Are, Screwball Israel Firster Fanatic,Tool Job.

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,
"On Iran,The President should:

3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war.

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Dixie Pixie| 11.4.11 @ 3:00PM

This metric is so biased as to be useless.
The metric is obviously based on the premise that to beat Obama a candidate must be of the same policies and positions that Obama has.

This idea is so ludicrously wrong because it is directly opposite of the political reality shown by the 2010 election.
There is no political evidence that a center moderate can ever win a Presidential election.
In fact every moderate has lost since Franklin Pierce.
Coupled to that, Obama is nowhere near the center but but wandering around Marxist territory, an alien philosophy that has been continually rejected by the American populace.

It is well known Obama (and MSM) had to massively lie to be elected.
Obama and his policies have been so politically poisonous the Democrats have been losing seats that were formally impossible to lose.
To make Obama the political center is factually absurd.

Besides when has it ever happened that a political clone has ever beaten an incumbent?

The NYT Nate Silver article is so devoid of reality as to be either NYT propaganda to support the Socialist cause, or the product of Socialist Magical Thinking from an Alternative Universe.

A more accurate graph would have a value of 100 subtracted by the Silver numbers to give a realistic figure.
That would show the clear favorite is Bachmann.

Besides after all that the NYT has done, is there a Conservative stupid enough to believe the New York Times?

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.4.11 @ 3:36PM

McCain was our best option last time too, huh?

Teflon93| 11.4.11 @ 5:46PM

Silver lays an egg here. He's clearly over-weighted the "mainstream" factor given that with a terrible economy the liberal Republicans do far better relative to the conservatives.

In fact, as we saw with Reagan, people become open ideologically the more they see the competing ideology fail.

In Silver's model, there's no such thing as Reagan Democrats.

Mark J. Goluskin| 11.5.11 @ 12:16AM

Hmm, one big name missing on the graphic? How about Newt Gingrich? I am afraid that Michele Bachmann should not even be on the chart. I am not backing Newt, but he is gaining and I think he is getting a serious look as the conservative wall to Mitt Romney.

Matt X| 11.5.11 @ 12:21AM

It's a fact that Huntsman is more annoying and goofy than Romney is.

What's the point of talking about Huntsman?

If we are goiung to go moderate as the poli sci majors like Lawler insist we must to beat Obama, it seems to make sense to go with Romney over Huntsman.

martin j smith| 11.5.11 @ 8:01AM

I6ts from the NYT_ FORGETABOUTIT. You Lawler are barking up the wrong tree.

IF I were trying to make a guess about this--I would take multiple polls from various cources round out the difference, throw them away and make my own views based on my own instincts and what I know. Period. But personally I will not even bother with that.

martin j smith| 11.5.11 @ 8:03AM

Right now I would say those with the chance to win are Cain,Romney Perry, Gingrich. Paul and Huntsman --zero chances. The others are up in the air. There is lots dof time

Clint| 11.5.11 @ 9:20AM

" Top Tier: Ron Paul Polls Third In Three Early Voting States

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul is polling in third in the key early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, according to a new CNN/Time poll released yesterday.

The Texas Congressman attracted 12% in telephone polls with potential voters in all three states."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Consertive View| 11.5.11 @ 12:24PM

OF AGEING GENERALS AND LAST YEARS POLITICOS.

Once long ago I knew a neighbor who had been a general in WWII. I was a child, he was my hero, and I listened to his every word. Then I went to Vietnam. All I had learned from my neighbor proved useless. Nate Silver sounds to me so very much like my neighbor, all ready to fight the last war with confidence of victory. The problem being of course, this war is nothing like the last.

Cain is ahead for a reason, he isn't fighting the last war. He is rapidly changing the rule book, he has looked at his army, he has looked at the enemy, and now understanding both better than anyone.

The army of Herman Cain consists of all those Americans so discusted with buisness as usual in Washington today. They are tired of Washington cramming bills and regulations down their throats, they are sick of the infighting and useless bickering. They are frightened of a collapseing echonomy. And they want someone, almost anyone that is not part of the tragic mess we are in to offer them a way out. Herman Cain supplies that. He is the outsider looking in with ideas, intellegence, and equal anger at all Washington has become. He is a man that knows his army, and leads it just where he wants it to go.

He knows the enemy too. He sees with clearity the depths they they will go to in trying to stop him. He sees the infighting, the liberal slants clothed beneith stelth like cloaks, he knows where they are weak in new ideas.

Herman Cains 999 plan defangs Washington. His opponents know it, and his army is learning it. You can't use the tax code to control the behavior of the population with a fixed sales tax. That scares the professional politicans to death. You can't use the tax code to pay off political favors. That frightens the Washington croud to the core. But what frightens the Washington croud the most, is that damn it, he's still there, he's still winning, he is still a force.

Carl Rove, Nate Silver, et alla, they are all sounding to me more and more like last wars generals, men whos ideas of politics and how it works are mired in the muck of what was, and not evolving to meet the new war that is here. I respectively suggest to Mr. Cain, leave all the old generals to write their books, their useless articles, and perform as a talking heads on TV shows. Continue to lead your army of voters sir, right stright to the booth.

Clint| 11.6.11 @ 9:23AM

Reuters - Allegations that Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain sexually harassed women in the 1990s have begun to damage his bid for the White House, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

The poll showed the percentage of Republicans who view Cain favorably dropped 9 percentage points, to 57 percent from 66 percent a week ago.

Brendan| 11.5.11 @ 1:14PM

Read Nate Silver's "analysis". Part of his assumption is that some of the Republican candidates are more extreme, and that turns off voters. Nate, O ran as a moderate and has governed like a South American Presidente. I think voters realize that, and so one of his indicators is not as strong an advantage for O as he would like it to be.

Otherwise, it was decent - but it would be better if he incorporated the work done by on how the prior election results in congressional districts correlate with the next presidential election. Its a big indicator, and Silver ignores it.

Interested Conservative| 11.5.11 @ 2:35PM

I have no doubt that Gov. Huntsman is a decent, accomplished and altogether admirable man, even politically speaking. However, we are very close to a "Huntsman Rule" - namely, any mention of Huntsman in connection with the 2012 race eliminates any serious consideration of the topic under discussion. It could be a corollary to the Godwin Rule.

As it is, it's also getting difficult to separate Mr. Silver's analytical skills (which are considerable) from his projections. Like so much of the NYT it's imperative to identify and understand the assumptions and bias from the reporting to reach the useful material.

Oldefarte| 11.6.11 @ 1:28PM

Ignoring the insults of COPY/PASTE CLINTOROUS [who sadly eliminates potential supporters of his supreme master Paul 24-7], Paul's previously issued economic plan to downsize government should seriously be considered/discussed by all. It is the most articulate problem-solving agenda put forth by any of these candidates to date regarding our defecit/debt potential explosion of the economy. Why is not anyone [politicians or voters] now discussing same? I only think that Paul's time frame for implementation of the elimination of the five named federal departments is too extreme, and that more realistically a four year conclusion would be more appropriate. I request that each/every one of you bloggers here educate yourselves concerning this Paul plan/agenda and begin discussion here as to the merits etc of same. IMO, this plan would seriously be able to bring about eventual solution of our defecit/debt problem and begin restoring balance and sanity to the federal government!!!!!!!!!!

Clint| 11.6.11 @ 7:40PM

.

You're The Reformed Whore,Who Badmouthed Dr.Ron Paul & His Tea Party Supporters. Who Consistently Stood Up For Dr. Ron Paul.

Don't Lecture Us, Reformed Whore Fart Mouth.