who can beat obama?

[Lonecowboy]

However, the poll also says Paul is the candidate best suited to face Obama in an election.
Against Paul, 42 percent of registered voters in Iowa support Obama and the same number — 43 percent — support Paul. Paul's popularity among independents could be a crucial advantage. Paul leads Obama 42 percent to 35 percent among independent voters, according to the poll, and he also attracts 15% of Iowa's Democrats. Not to mention that 16 percent of voters were undecided.

Against the rest of the field, Obama wins a hypothetical race handily.

Obama leads Gingrich by a 10-point spread in a hypothetical contest, garnering 47 percent of the vote to Gingrich's 37 percent, with 16 percent undecided.

In a matchup against Romney, the president has a seven point lead: 46 percent to Romney's 39 percent


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/05/gingrich-leads-but-paul-most-likely-to-beat-obama-in-latest-iowa-poll/#ixzz1gWNGoNxB

 

[okfarmer]

I really don't believe this poll is accurate. I think whoever the Republicans choose to oppose Obama will have a better chance of winning the election than Obama. In other words, it will be theirs to lose.

Romney will be attractive to liberals as he is farther left than most Republicans like.

Newt is not as far left as Romney and not as attractive to the left, but the teleprompter won't be able to keep up with him in debates. He will make Obama cry.

I like Paul's fiscal conservatism and several of his views. Paul's biggest problem is his isolationism foreign policy. If he had said that it is congresses job to wage war against foreign countries and then stopped, he would be in a much better position.

But to continue with believing ONLY in defensive wars, even going further to comment on Iran saying that he wants to befriend them (sounds like Obama) and doesn't believe they are a threat. Believing only in defensive wars even with knowledge of a growing threat to national security or the security of a close ally is not good foreign policy. Not seeing a threat as a threat is even worse.

You would not live in the United States of America if throughout modern history, alliances were not formed and acted upon. The United States tipped the balance of the WW2. France tipped the balance of the American Revolution. Do we need to be in every sovereign Country we are in currently? No. Did we get congresses approval? No.

But the President's job is to lead. I want a Presidential Administration that has the foresight to see true threats to our country or even our Allies developing, recommend, and support appropriate preventative actions (and limiting necessary actions) rather than playing catch up.

The balance is Congressional Approval.

As long as people exist, wars will also. As long as we are prosperous, other countries will try to attack us. Jealousy is an ugly human emotion. Look even in our own country at all the movements for wanting to take the wealth away from the prosperous. Tax the rich more, because why? They are rich and I am not.

 

[Triangle Bar]

Great post okfarmer. :clap:

I would add that the Repubs shouldn't buy into this media hogwash they are trying to sell... and that is you can only vote for the 'perfect candidate'. It's some sort of divide and conquer scheme.

There are no perfect candidates, just as there are no perfect people. We can only vote for the candidate that best matches our morals and convictions. We are not trying to nominate or elect a replacement of the Democrat's false god.... just an American Citizen, man or woman with all their strengths and shortcomings.

 

[Tam]

One of the repeated critisms of Obama is he is NOT A LEADER. He thought he could restart foreign relations by playing nice and talking foreign leaders into what his vision for the world is. After three long years the US is worse off as this is what others think

Barack Obama's 'leading from behind' foreign policy: No wonder the US president looks weak and confused
By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: April 26th, 2011

"Leading from behind" would normally be a damning charge made against a Commander-in-Chief at a time of war by his political opponents. But within the Obama presidency it is bizarrely worn as a badge of honour, and is the term used to describe the president's handling of the Libya issue by one of his own advisers (who remains unnamed) in an extraordinary interview with The New Yorker this week.

In a revealing, in-depth piece from the May 2 issue entitled 'The Consequentialist', the magazine's Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza writes that "the US keeps getting stuck in the Middle East. Nonetheless, Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine":

One of his advisers described the President's actions in Libya as "leading from behind." That's not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It's a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. "It's so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world," the adviser said. "But it's necessary for shepherding us through this phase."

The Obama White House must be the first US presidency in living memory that actually prides itself on following rather than leading on the world stage. As even Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski noted in the same New Yorker article, President Obama "doesn't strategize. He sermonizes." That's a pretty strong indictment from one of the most influential Democrats in the world of US foreign policy, and himself a former adviser to Obama.

Is it any wonder that the United States, the world's only superpower, is increasingly viewed as weak and confused? Even the Germans, who worshipped at Obama's feet during his campaign visit to Berlin in 2008, have grown disillusioned with his leadership. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was spot-on in his analysis of the Obama presidency in its early days, when he questioned the president's clear lack of experience and decisiveness:

"Obama has a subtle mind, very clever and very charismatic. But he was elected two months ago and had never run a ministry. There are a certain number of things on which he has no position. And he is not always up to standard on decision-making and efficiency."

As the Libya campaign enters its seventh week, with Britain and France playing the leading roles, US leadership is dramatically absent. On Syria, where the Baathist regime is brutally suppressing democracy protestors, killing large numbers in the process, Washington remains largely paralysed while its dangerous strategy of engagement with the Assad regime continues. On the Middle East as a whole, the Obama administration barely has a coherent big picture strategy, hardly an advertisement for what it calls its "smart power" approach. In reality the Obama doctrine represents little more than the humbling of a superpower, and the stunning abdication of US leadership in an increasingly dangerous world. As I noted previously, America badly needs another Reagan-style revolution, not only to rebuild its economic might, but also to restore its standing in the world.

Obama is leading from behind, in other words letting others do the heavy lifting so he can come it and take credit if things go well and will have somebody to blame if they don't go well. Ron Paul will just be ABSENT making the US look even WEAKER than Obama.

The last thing the US, the once World Super Power needs is a guy like Ron Paul who will bring the US even further down in the Super Power standings with his very scarey nieve foreign policy views. :roll:

 

[Larrry]

I have picked my candidate. I refuse to consider patronizing a poll like this until after the Conventions. I can tell you this I might have picked one of numerous reps but when it comes to shove, any one of the reps is better as compared to the obama regime on their best day.

 

[Tam]

I really don't believe this poll is accurate .

Let's see could this statement "According to the latest NBC/Marist poll, " be the reason you don't believe the poll is accurate?

Ask yourself why would NBC a liberal bias media outlet want to make it look as if Ron Paul is the only one that can best Obama? :?

Could it be his stand on foreign policies that will weaken his electability that makes him look good to a liberal bias audience as Obama's opponent in the upcoming election?

 

[Larrry]

One doesn't want to get caught up in polls and let the polls determine your support. Polls can and are skewed, so why should we once again trust the mainstream media and their polls. Wasn't long ago ole ot lived and died by the poll, look at him now.