TexasCHLforum.com

Redneck_Buddha wrote:So is Glass being trotted out there as a fake Libertarian by Obama's bundlers like the fake Libertarian they rolled out in Va.?

No, she's not. She's a genuine Libertarian candidate. I've spoken to her husband once by phone, and they (she) are the real deal. I respect her, and while I don't buy into the entire libertarian party platform, I lean that way generally speaking. It's just that I am a political realist, and she hasn't got a prayer of being anything other than a spoiler for any republican candidate.

The thing is, more and more Tea Party members are beginning to identify themselves as "libertarian-leaning," even while they tend overwhelmingly to be republicans. There is a libertarian-trending movement afoot within the republican party. The current issue of News Max Magazine (Print) has an interesting article about Rand Paul and the influence that he and others who are following in his footsteps are having upon the republican party. They are, gradually, taking the party in that direction. It will never be as fully committed to libertarian principles as the libertarian party is itself, for the simple reason that the republican party is a bigger tent. But honestly, if you had the choice between a libertarian leaning republican candidate who could get elected, and a libertarian purist who will never get more than 5% of the vote, and if the vote were going to be close enough that the libertarian candidate could actually cause the republican to lose, resulting in another Obama, wouldn't you rather have the libertarian leaning winner than the next Obama?

I'm not voting for any republican just because they are electable and lean conservative-libertarian. Even Christi and McCain are more likely to support conservative positions than the collectivist who make up the democrat party, but their willingness to compromise on principles I hold sacred makes them unacceptable to me. My days of voting republican just because they are the lesser of the two evils is over. While some may consider that throwing away my vote, I consider it standing by my principles.

In the Governer's race, I haven't made my decision yet. I am not saying I won't vote for The Republican candidate, I don't know enough about him yet. I am not voting for him just because he is opposing the big Windy.

CowboyEngineer wrote:In the Governer's race, I haven't made my decision yet. I am not saying I won't vote for The Republican candidate, I don't know enough about him yet. I am not voting for him just because he is opposing the big Windy.

You would be voting for him because he is very pro-gun, and Windy, as you spell it, (lol) is very anti-gun. Since you are a member of this site, I would venture to guess you are pro-gun too!

Now see, wasn't that easy?

I will be voting for Abbott as he is no Romney, McCain or Christie. He gets my vote over that horrible Wendy Davis.

Last I heard, Tom Pauken was still running against Abbot in the primary....and he's supposed to be very pro-2A.

What say y'all about him?

Jason K wrote:Last I heard, Tom Pauken was still running against Abbot in the primary....and he's supposed to be very pro-2A.

What say y'all about him?

I don't much about him, but he's a dead man walking in the primary. Here's a screen shot from the wiki page:

We're actually considering the Texas Tribune a credible source now?.....

Jason K wrote:We're actually considering the Texas Tribune a credible source now?.....

I don't know anything about the Texas Tribune, for or against. You asked how Pauken was doing. I gave you a screenshot from a wiki page with TWO sources on it (Texas Lyceum being the other). If you don't like those sources, go do some google-fu and come back with more reliable numbers. I'm open-minded.

But you asked, I answered, and you shot down the answer. Go get your own answer then. I don't care.

Not shooting down your answer, but I'd question using TT for anything related to conservatives in the news. They tend to be as objective as MSNBC in these areas....

I'd like to see some other results, too. Anyone seen anymore polls on the Gov race lately?

Why would anyone even take a look at an unknown candidate when we have a long, excellent track record with Abbott? The man is great on all issues and he has proven he can win a statewide election.

Chas.

Abott, period.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Why would anyone even take a look at an unknown candidate when we have a long, excellent track record with Abbott? The man is great on all issues and he has proven he can win a statewide election.

Chas.

This...

The Annoyed Man wrote:I gave you a screenshot from a wiki page with TWO sources on it (Texas Lyceum being the other). If you don't like those sources, go do some google-fu and come back with more reliable numbers.

"They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true."

tbrown wrote:"They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true."

Bonjour!

tbrown wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I gave you a screenshot from a wiki page with TWO sources on it (Texas Lyceum being the other). If you don't like those sources, go do some google-fu and come back with more reliable numbers.

"They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true."

sjfcontrol wrote:

tbrown wrote:"They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true."

Bonjour!

Touché, but I think that the whole point was missed. The question was how was the relatively unknown candidate doing. In a poll of apparently UT students and faculty, almost nobody knew who he was and picked Abbott. But here is more detail from the UT poll: http://www.texastribune.org/2013/11/04/ ... s-davis-6/

Here are some graphics from the link:


In the question which included Pauken, here is what they found:


THEN, they removed Abbott from consideration and asked this question:


Now, you want to know how bad Pauken is doing? Without Abbott in the race, respondents pick Davis over Pauken. With abbott in the race, they don't even know who Pauken is. In the question of who they would vote for in the republican primary, 50% pick Abbott, 42% don't know, the remaining 8% are spread between Pauken and 3 other names. EVEN IF the 42% "don't knows" went for Pauken, he would be only be at 44% to Abbott's 50%, and that would still leave 6% who could go either way, including to Abbott. But I've been a registered voter for 40 years or more, and I've never seen a 2% pre-primary candidate win a general election that I can recall.

I'll grant you these are UT people writing the article, but not even the UT Tribune would fake a discrepancy that large. As untruthful as the Obama administration is, even they wouldn't lie about numbers that far apart.

RealClearPolitics.com doesn't even mention Pauken: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... /governor/

Forth Worth Star Telegram says Pauken has 0%: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/10/02 ... -2014.html

Pauken says he has $400,000 in campaign "commitments," and says he'll have $100,000 of his own money to invest in the campaign. (SOURCE) $500,000 will not pay for a gubernatorial campaign in any state.

I don't have anything against the guy, and he may be an honest broker with all the right values, but in terms of defeating Wendy Davis, he's a distraction.