Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: howardroark on March 23, 2012, 10:02:14 PM
-
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/poll-ron-paul-more-electable-than-mitt-romney/ (http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/poll-ron-paul-more-electable-than-mitt-romney/)
Poll: Ron Paul more electable than Mitt Romney
The State Column | Friday, March 23, 2012
The Ron Paul for President Campaign released the following statement:
2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul polls better against President Barack Obama in a head-to-head matchup than establishment-choice moderate Mitt Romney, according to a recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling.
The poll found that Obama defeats Romney by 4 percentage points (48-44) and Newt Gingrich by 8 percent (50-42). While Santorum also joins Paul being within striking distance of the President by 3 points (48-45 and 46-43 respectively), Paul brings Obama a noticeable 2 percentage points further away from the 50 percent a candidate seeks to win on election day. Considering the +/- 3.3-percentage point margin of error, Paul in this poll is statistically tied for the presidency.
Reinforcing the electability case for Paul is that he ties Obama among independent voters, while Romney loses the largest voting segment by 6 percent, Santorum by 8 percent, and Gingrich by 15 percent – a cause for concern whether Paul’s three rivals would even be competitive come November.
While many polls have shown Paul to be the most competitive Romney alternative, it also shows Paul to be making substantial progress and momentum for a general election bid. The new poll reveals that Paul is narrowing the gap between himself and Obama by 5 percentage points since last month’s PPP poll.
Other notables are that among one of the fastest growing voter segments, the Hispanic vote, Paul takes a full third of the Hispanic vote against the sitting President, with no other candidate able to come within 5 points of Paul’s Hispanic support.
Among the largest voter segment, self-identified independents, Paul is viewed favorably by 41 percent, whereas Romney and Santorum are relegated to a melancholy 29 percent and Gingrich further behind with a mere 24 percent favorability. These favorability numbers among independents translate into a clear Election Day advantage unique to Paul, where he would tie President Obama 42 to 42 for their votes.
Young voters, those 18 to 29 years in this poll, have long been considered to be in the President’s court. Yet, in a Paul-Obama matchup, these voters leave Obama and comparatively flock to Paul, backing him with a hefty 40 percent of their support. The range of youth support for Paul’s three competitors in a head-to-head with Obama ranges 22 to 29 percent, meaning about half of Paul’s margin to weak at best.
“The media may find an inevitability about Romney becoming nominee, but it is clear that with anyone other than Ron Paul as nominee a second term for Obama is the inevitability,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.
“When polls say ‘Romney is actually not the most electable Republican candidate,’ voters should flock to the candidate who can defeat Obama by winning on true conservative principle. That man is Ron Paul,” added Mr. Benton.
The PPP poll is based on telephone surveys of 900 voters and has a +/- 3.3-percentage point error margin.
Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/poll-ron-paul-more-electable-than-mitt-romney/#ixzz1q0WfAQK5
-
Fuck FOX if they had supported him he would be the candidate
-
Fuck FOX if they had supported him he would be the candidate
yep. they went very much out of their way to mock his supporters. levin calling them 'RuPaul fans" was beyond criticizing his political positions. I mean, IF Rachel maddow went on tv and said all Mitt supporters are Trannies, the repubs would be outraged. Exact same thing here.
-
Howard,
I support RP, but that poll is utter nonsense.
-
Howard,
I support RP, but that poll is utter nonsense.
How so? Don't you think that Ron Paul's consistent libertarian principles are more likely to unite people across the political spectrum than Mitt/Newt/Frothy's faux conservatism?
-
Might as well compare Pawlenty and Obama. He has about as much chance as Ron Paul to be the nominee.
-
Might as well compare Pawlenty and Obama. He has about as much chance as Ron Paul to be the nominee.
yeah, RP is probably just working to pave his Rand2016 ticket, or maybe be up for that VP nod.
Ron Paul in the VP slot would be a DREAM for Romney. In fact, so many ppl are suggesting it, that RP had to create the etch a sketch ad to show he wasn't just there to weaken santorum to get romney the nod.
ANY suspicion that romney is just another RINO would be ignored with ron paul on that ticket. Repubs would get romney on the war & economy, with ron paul as the spending slashing specialist in the VP role. How cool woultd that be?
-
Might as well compare Pawlenty and Obama. He has about as much chance as Ron Paul to be the nominee.
You clearly don't get the point of putting Ron Paul's name in there then. The point isn't to compare different etch-and-sketch politicians like Romney and Santorum. The point is to compare how well Ron Paul's conservative libertarianism performs against Obama's statist progressivism compared to the faux conservatism of the other Republican candidates.
-
You clearly don't get the point of putting Ron Paul's name in there then. The point isn't to compare different etch-and-sketch politicians like Romney and Santorum. The point is to compare how well Ron Paul's conservative libertarianism performs against Obama's statist progressivism compared to the faux conservatism of the other Republican candidates.
That's your point.
My point is it's pointless (so to speak) to compare someone who has zero shot to be the nominee with Obama.
Ron Paul has 71 delegates. He needs 1073 of the remaining delegates to reach 1144. Romney has 563. Paul is currently polling in last place nationally and in his home state of Texas. He hasn't won a single primary or caucus. This is what makes comparing him to Obama head-to-head as relevant as Pawlenty, Palin, Cain, or anyone else who is never going to be the nominee.
-
That's your point.
My point is it's pointless (so to speak) to compare someone who has zero shot to be the nominee with Obama.
Ron Paul has 71 delegates. He needs 1073 of the remaining delegates to reach 1144. Romney has 563. Paul is currently polling in last place nationally and in his home state of Texas. He hasn't won a single primary or caucus. This is what makes comparing him to Obama head-to-head as relevant as Pawlenty, Palin, Cain, or anyone else who is never going to be the nominee.
Exactly-- not to mention the fact that despite Paul's ideological purity-- it is pure fantasy to expect Paul campaign funded polling data to release numbers that are anything but fictional.
This isn't about agreeing with the man, its about numbers. God bless him, but Paul doesn't have the support.
-
Exactly-- not to mention the fact that despite Paul's ideological purity-- it is pure fantasy to expect Paul campaign funded polling data to release numbers that are anything but fictional.
This isn't about agreeing with the man, its about numbers. God bless him, but Paul doesn't have the support.
Yep. Agree.
-
That's your point.
My point is it's pointless (so to speak) to compare someone who has zero shot to be the nominee with Obama.
Ron Paul has 71 delegates. He needs 1073 of the remaining delegates to reach 1144. Romney has 563. Paul is currently polling in last place nationally and in his home state of Texas. He hasn't won a single primary or caucus. This is what makes comparing him to Obama head-to-head as relevant as Pawlenty, Palin, Cain, or anyone else who is never going to be the nominee.
And you know the delegate count how, exactly? The delegates from the caucus states have not yet been determined.
But yes, I agree that he has almost no shot at being the GOP nominee.
That said, it is not pointless to compare him in a match up vs. Obama. It is worthwhile to see how many Republicans, Independents, and even Democrats would vote for a radical conservative-libertarian like Ron Paul in a match up vs. Obama.
-
Exactly-- not to mention the fact that despite Paul's ideological purity-- it is pure fantasy to expect Paul campaign funded polling data to release numbers that are anything but fictional.
This isn't about agreeing with the man, its about numbers. God bless him, but Paul doesn't have the support.
PPP is an independent polling company not funded by the Ron Paul Campaign.
-
And you know the delegate count how, exactly? The delegates from the caucus states have not yet been determined.
I've been posting the poll numbers and delegate count for months. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=367282.575
-
I've been posting the poll numbers and delegate count for months. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=367282.575
Those delegate counts are 100% bullshit. Nobody even knows what the delegate counts are from any of the caucus states that have already voted. They're up for grabs and if the GOP Establishment doesn't lock Ron Paul out, then he has a real shot at grabbing a plurality of delegates from many of these caucus states. Non-binding straw polls are practically worthless.
-
At this point RP would have more appeal the myth. Romney is a lying dirtbag and a piece of garbage. what he pulled against st Rick in puerto Rico is telling.
Ron Paul appeals to tons of indes and demos sick of both parties as well as the average guy like myself sick of this charade.
-
Those delegate counts are 100% bullshit. Nobody even knows what the delegate counts are from any of the caucus states that have already voted. They're up for grabs and if the GOP Establishment doesn't lock Ron Paul out, then he has a real shot at grabbing a plurality of delegates from many of these caucus states. Non-binding straw polls are practically worthless.
You may think they are 100 percent BS, but they determine the nominee in every election. Delegates are determined by voting outcomes in the primaries and caucuses. They aren't "non-binding straw polls."
Romney has an estimated 563 delegates. When he hits 1164 before the convention he will be the nominee. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html
-
You may think they are 100 percent BS, but they determine the nominee in every election. Delegates are determined by voting outcomes in the primaries and caucuses. They aren't "non-binding straw polls."
Romney has an estimated 563 delegates. When he hits 1164 before the convention he will be the nominee. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html
They are non-binding straw polls. In caucus states, the delegates are determined through a long series of voting starting with the voting for delegates after the non-binding straw polls.
Or as I said in another post in another thread:
Tell me BB, how will the delegates from Iowa be apportioned? How about Minnesota? Nevada? Colorado? Washington? Missouri? Louisiana? etc.
Hint: None of these have been decided yet, and Ron Paul's superior grassroots organization still stands a chance.
-
In another 4 years, the things repub CTers are saying will be proven to be true. Just like in 2008.
So just roll with it, republicans. If you lose in 2012, its not a bad thing. It won't be close in 2016, you'll wreck the dem, outright. You won't put up another RINO. You won't let voices on your republican radio dictate what you think about Rand paul, like you did for rand.
And we all know it - the 'old' voices who repeat those lies - we're seeing thru them. As we see more and more clips of organizers discounting RP votes, hosts calling RP fans trannies, etc - it'll add up. People grow wise and while they fall for it once, they don't fall for it twice. In 2012, today's CTers will be the wise men. Today's "loyalists" on the forums will be those blind water carriers.
-
They are non-binding straw polls. In caucus states, the delegates are determined through a long series of voting starting with the voting for delegates after the non-binding straw polls.
Or as I said in another post in another thread:
This is silly. The caucus votes mirror the election results.
It's like saying the general election is a "non-binding straw poll," because the electoral college actually elects the president. The electoral college always mirrors the general election results.
-
This is silly. The caucus votes mirror the election results.
It's like saying the general election is a "non-binding straw poll," because the electoral college actually elects the president. The electoral college always mirrors the general election results.
The way electors are apportioned is determined by the election results. The way delegates from state conventions and from caucus states are determined is completely different. These are two completely different processes which you and the MSNBC useful idiot apparently do not understand... or perhaps choose not to understand.
-
The way electors are apportioned is determined by the election results. The way delegates from state conventions and from caucus states are determined is completely different. These are two completely different processes which you and the MSNBC useful idiot apparently do not understand... or perhaps choose not to understand.
Uh, yeah, ok. Whatever. Why don't you bump this thread in June and we'll see who got it right.
-
Ron Paul is really the only person most people would vote for vs holding their nose vs Obama.
the more I read on economics, history, money, etc, it is a sin that Ron Paul is not in top spot.
Wish he ran a better race!!!
-
Uh, yeah, ok. Whatever. Why don't you bump this thread in June and we'll see who got it right.
So I guess this is you admitting that you don't have a fucking clue regarding the difference between how delegates are chosen/apportioned in caucus states and state conventions vs. how electors are apportioned the night of the general election?
And I'll be sure to start a "Roark PWNS Beach Bum" thread when Ron Paul outperforms your clueless MSM delegate counts.
-
So I guess this is you admitting that you don't have a fucking clue regarding the difference between how delegates are chosen/apportioned in caucus states and state conventions vs. how electors are apportioned the night of the general election?
And I'll be sure to start a "Roark PWNS Beach Bum" thread when Ron Paul outperforms your clueless MSM delegate counts.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that can argue pn an intellectual basis the satanic and evil nature of the Obama agenda.
Obama is a communist demon and a terrorist, and we need an idealogical icon like Ron Paul to attack him.
-
So I guess this is you admitting that you don't have a fucking clue regarding the difference between how delegates are chosen/apportioned in caucus states and state conventions vs. how electors are apportioned the night of the general election?
And I'll be sure to start a "Roark PWNS Beach Bum" thread when Ron Paul outperforms your clueless MSM delegate counts.
No, I'm admitting I don't want to keep running in a circle saying the same thing about something so stupid. Anyone who has followed elections and has at least average intelligence can figure out that delegates are awarded to candidates based on the outcome of elections in the respective states. But I'll just wait till June and let you figure that out on your own. :)
And yes, start an "owning" thread at your leisure. ::)
-
No, I'm admitting I don't want to keep running in a circle saying the same thing about something so stupid. Anyone who has followed elections and has at least average intelligence can figure out that delegates are awarded to candidates based on the outcome of elections in the respective states. But I'll just wait till June and let you figure that out on your own. :)
And yes, start an "owning" thread at your leisure. ::)
All I can say at this point is that it's clear as day that you're a fucking idiot. I guess you're just one of those people who just doesn't get the difference between a caucus, a state convention, a non-binding straw poll, and a general election. Oh well.
-
All I can say at this point is that it's clear as day that you're a fucking idiot. I guess you're just one of those people who just doesn't get the difference between a caucus, a state convention, a non-binding straw poll, and a general election. Oh well.
I think it's clear as day you Paulbots live in a dream world. Listen closely:
1. Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee for president.
2. The person who has won each caucus or primary will be awarded either their proportional share or winner-take-all delegates whenever their respective states meet, just like they are in every election. It doesn't matter who the delegates are. They always follow the popular vote (meaning the person who won the state, and finished second, etc.). This is true both at the state level and in the electoral college.
3. If something in modern history happens, that hasn't happened before, and there is a brokered convention, Ron Paul will not be the nominee. He's in last place nationally, has not won a single primary or caucus, and is even polling last in his home state. He will not have the votes at a brokered convention to be the nominee.
4. Keep listening to people like Ron Paul's campaign manager who says Texas and California are in play for Ron Paul, and you will continue to be nothing more than a Paulbot.
-
This is silly. The caucus votes mirror the election results.
It's like saying the general election is a "non-binding straw poll," because the electoral college actually elects the president. The electoral college always mirrors the general election results.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
-
All I can say at this point is that it's clear as day that you're a fucking idiot. I guess you're just one of those people who just doesn't get the difference between a caucus, a state convention, a non-binding straw poll, and a general election. Oh well.
Yup. And this happens many times with BB, although I know he thinks the same way about us. lol, its all good.
-
PPP is an independent polling company not funded by the Ron Paul Campaign.
::) PPP are Democratic pollsters - Retarded Fuck.
Guideline #1
You may think they are 100 percent BS, but they determine the nominee in every election. Delegates are determined by voting outcomes in the primaries and caucuses. They aren't "non-binding straw polls."
Romney has an estimated 563 delegates. When he hits 1164 before the convention he will be the nominee. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html
Technically, the retard is correct. It's a tiered process with voting at each level, but I wouldn't say they don't matter. Each tier sets the standard for the next one and so on.
So, while it is "possible" the outcome could be vastly different, what we are seeing now will usually mirror what's seen at the end.
Plus, I think at this point it's fairly obvious the Republican Party is attempting to obstruct RPs campaign.
-
Jon King from CNN admits Paul is second in delegate count based on how the delegate process works as described in the Reality Check segment.
This was a while ago and so based on states that are bound to the popular vote, he may have fallen behind now, but he still has a slight chance depending on what happens from here on out. I agree his chances are very slim but you never know until its close to over and its not.
-
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Yeah. Every election cycle the delegates don't vote in conformity with the primary/caucus results. What a dumb thing for me to say. ::)
-
::) PPP are Democratic pollsters - Retarded Fuck.
Guideline #1
Technically, the retard is correct. It's a tiered process with voting at each level, but I wouldn't say they don't matter. Each tier sets the standard for the next one and so on.
So, while it is "possible" the outcome could be vastly different, what we are seeing now will usually mirror what's seen at the end.
Plus, I think at this point it's fairly obvious the Republican Party is attempting to obstruct RPs campaign.
Yeah I understand how the process works. I'm talking about, practically speaking, what happens in every cycle. It's not really a complicated process because the delegates will cast their votes for the person who won the primary/caucus. No one is going to upset the apple cart at the state level, just like they won't do so in the electoral college.
Back in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote, people like Bob Beckel were calling for the electoral college to elect Gore. That kind of stuff will not happen.
And really, all this talk about the primaries or caucuses being "non-binding straw polls" is coming from fanatical Ron Paul supporters who can't get over the fact the man will never be president.
-
The point here is not about his chances on presidency IMHO, like Skip said, its pretty safe to say the Republicans are working to hold back RP's campaign.
Not really fair to compare things when the whole party is doing their best to eliminate him.
I know RP will never be president, and I'd be fine with that if he was given a fair shake. If he was so irrelevant, than why are they working so hard to make sure he cant go anywhere?
-
The point here is not about his chances on presidency IMHO, like Skip said, its pretty safe to say the Republicans are working to hold back RP's campaign.
Not really fair to compare things when the whole party is doing their best to eliminate him.
I know RP will never be president, and I'd be fine with that if he was given a fair shake. If he was so irrelevant, than why are they working so hard to make sure he cant go anywhere?
Nobody is working too hard, because he doesn't have enough supporters who show up on election day.
-
1. Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee for president.
Sadly. He's the only person running who's worth a chance at the Presidency.
3. If something in modern history happens, that hasn't happened before, and there is a brokered convention, Ron Paul will not be the nominee. He's in last place nationally, has not won a single primary or caucus, and is even polling last in his home state. He will not have the votes at a brokered convention to be the nominee.
The Republicans had a brokered convention in 1948, so I'd hardly say that a brokered convention "hasn't happened before" and I'm pretty sure that 1948 -- just 64 years ago -- qualifies as "modern history."
4. Keep listening to people like Ron Paul's campaign manager who says Texas and California are in play for Ron Paul, and you will continue to be nothing more than a Paulbot.
I believe that the probability that Paul will win California or Texas are, at best, extremely remote. However, a strong finish isn't out of the question and, all things considered, would be a powerful message in itself.
-
repubs are going to put up romney. he will be Dole II. He will lose.
Ron paul is running for rand paul in 2016 now. He knows the primary voters let hannity and Levin decide RP was a bad choice. He knows they might be smarter in 2016.
-
repubs are going to put up romney. he will be Dole II. He will lose.
Ron paul is running for rand paul in 2016 now. He knows the primary voters let hannity and Levin decide RP was a bad choice. He knows they might be smarter in 2016.
Rand Paul... meh. I don't think he's anywhere near as principled or as smart as his Father. Sometimes he says all the right things, but even then it doesn't sound like he believes it; it sounds more like he's parroting something back to you.
We'll have to see I guess.
-
Sadly. He's the only person running who's worth a chance at the Presidency.
The Republicans had a brokered convention in 1948, so I'd hardly say that a brokered convention "hasn't happened before" and I'm pretty sure that 1948 -- just 64 years ago -- qualifies as "modern history."
I believe that the probability that Paul will win California or Texas are, at best, extremely remote. However, a strong finish isn't out of the question and, all things considered, would be a powerful message in itself.
Ron Paul has zero chance at the presidency because he can't win the Republican nomination. Check the number of votes he has received so far. He's dead last. His support is paper thin.
The 1948 brokered convention resulted in Dewey being the nominee, after Dewey has won the primaries. That is exactly what will happen if there is brokered convention in 2012. That proves my point.
Have you looked at Paul's standing in the California and Texas polls? He's not going to have a strong finish in Texas, because he's running last, so any proportional share of delegates will be small, if any. He can't have a strong finish in California, because it's winner take all, and Romney is running away with California in the current polls.
-
Yeah. Every election cycle the delegates don't vote in conformity with the primary/caucus results. What a dumb thing for me to say. ::)
As usual, I give up.
-
As usual, I give up.
As usual, you bring no facts to the table. I don't expect you to dispute historical results and practices, current polling, or actual primary/caucus results, because they don't fit into your pipe dream.
-
Ron Paul has zero chance at the presidency because he can't win the Republican nomination. Check the number of votes he has received so far. He's dead last. His support is paper thin.
Please read more carefully. I never said he had a chance of winning the Presidency. I said he's the only one who's worth a chance at being President. The two statements aren't even semantically close.
The 1948 brokered convention resulted in Dewey being the nominee, after Dewey has won the primaries. That is exactly what will happen if there is brokered convention in 2012. That proves my point.
Your point was that if something that hadn't happened before (a brokered convention) happened, Ron Paul wouldn't be the nominee. Ron Paul won't be the nominee regardless of whether the convention is brokered or not. But what you said hasn't happened before – a brokered convention – has happened before.
Have you looked at Paul's standing in the California and Texas polls? He's not going to have a strong finish in Texas, because he's running last, so any proportional share of delegates will be small, if any. He can't have a strong finish in California, because it's winner take all, and Romney is running away with California in the current polls.
I haven't -- and won't -- for two reasons: (a) because I don't particularly care for political polls (having taken postgraduate level statistics courses, I've learned to be very skeptical of polls in general; experience has taught me to be very careful on polls on particular); and (b) because the American electorate is fickle and unpredictable. They behave like a dainty dandelion, floating in the gentle breeze. Sometimes the wind is Rick Perry, other times it's Newt Gingrich, other times it's Rick Santorum, other times it's Mitt Romney, other times it's Michelle Bachmann and other times it's the result of the draft from a passing pizza delivery vehicle.
As for the comment about the strong finish, I wasn't referring to delegates. I was referring to a respectable showing in terms of capturing a noteworthy percentage of votes cast. Such a showing could serve as evidence the Republicans that there's more to a platform than primal screams of "WE MUST REGULATE COCKS AND ASSES!" and "JESUS! JESUS! JESUS!"
[Update: tone down a part that was unnecessarily insulting to Beach Bum.]
-
Please read more carefully before responding so that you don't end up looking like an illiterate buffoon. I never said he had a chance of winning the Presidency. I said he's the only one who's worth a chance at being President. The two statements aren't even semantically close.
Your point was that if something that hadn't happened before (a brokered convention) happened, Ron Paul wouldn't be the nominee. Ron Paul won't be the nominee regardless of whether the convention is brokered or not. But what you said hasn't happened before – a brokered convention – has happened before.
I haven't -- and won't -- for two reasons: (a) because I don't particularly care for political polls (having taken postgraduate level statistics courses, I've learned to be very skeptical of polls in general; experience has taught me to be very careful on polls on particular); and (b) because the American electorate is fickle and unpredictable. They behave like a dainty dandelion, floating in the gentle breeze. Sometimes the wind is Rick Perry, other times it's Newt Gingrich, other times it's Rick Santorum, other times it's Mitt Romney, other times it's Michelle Bachmann and other times it's the result of the draft from a passing pizza delivery vehicle.
As for the comment about the strong finish, I wasn't referring to delegates. I was referring to a respectable showing in terms of capturing a noteworthy percentage of votes cast. Such a showing could serve as evidence the Republicans that there's more to a platform than primal screams of "WE MUST REGULATE COCKS AND ASSES!" and "JESUS! JESUS! JESUS!"
Lulz at the last. Totally agree.
-
As usual, you bring no facts to the table. I don't expect you to dispute historical results and practices, current polling, or actual primary/caucus results, because they don't fit into your pipe dream.
Actually i did. One item is only 5 minutes long and the other one was 50 seconds long but I doubt you even bothered to look at it so whats the point discussing it further? Whatever...
-
Please read more carefully. I never said he had a chance of winning the Presidency. I said he's the only one who's worth a chance at being President. The two statements aren't even semantically close.
lol, frustratingly funny
-
Please read more carefully. I never said he had a chance of winning the Presidency. I said he's the only one who's worth a chance at being President. The two statements aren't even semantically close.
Your point was that if something that hadn't happened before (a brokered convention) happened, Ron Paul wouldn't be the nominee. Ron Paul won't be the nominee regardless of whether the convention is brokered or not. But what you said hasn't happened before – a brokered convention – has happened before.
I haven't -- and won't -- for two reasons: (a) because I don't particularly care for political polls (having taken postgraduate level statistics courses, I've learned to be very skeptical of polls in general; experience has taught me to be very careful on polls on particular); and (b) because the American electorate is fickle and unpredictable. They behave like a dainty dandelion, floating in the gentle breeze. Sometimes the wind is Rick Perry, other times it's Newt Gingrich, other times it's Rick Santorum, other times it's Mitt Romney, other times it's Michelle Bachmann and other times it's the result of the draft from a passing pizza delivery vehicle.
As for the comment about the strong finish, I wasn't referring to delegates. I was referring to a respectable showing in terms of capturing a noteworthy percentage of votes cast. Such a showing could serve as evidence the Republicans that there's more to a platform than primal screams of "WE MUST REGULATE COCKS AND ASSES!" and "JESUS! JESUS! JESUS!"
[Update: tone down a part that was unnecessarily insulting to Beach Bum.]
Ok. I reread more carefully. I have no idea what you mean by "worth a chance at being president." If you're talking about electability, I disagree. If you're talking about ideological purity, I still disagree. He's a politician. More honest than most, but still a politician. I don't trust any of them.
If you're quibbling about whether 64 years ago is considered "modern history," then you win.
I have not taken postgraduate level statistics, but I've been following politics for a long time. Polls are first and foremost useful discussion pieces. Secondly, they are fairly accurate predictors. For example, you rarely see someone polling in fourth place by a large margin before the election pull out a victory, unless the voting population is relatively small.
The polls leading up to every primary and caucus this year have been very accurate.
I seriously doubt Ron Paul will capture a sizable percentage of votes in California. He did not fare well in 2008 and will likely finish last this year. In Texas, the fact he could finish last in his home state speaks volumes. Newt won his "home" state. Romney won his. Santorum will probably win Pa. Ron Paul just doesn't have a large enough following to make any long-lasting statement IMO.
I haven't heard the primal screams you're talking about. The frontrunner (Romney) is talking primarily about the economy. As in most presidential elections, the economy, defense, and taxes are the most important issues on the table.
-
Actually i did. One item is only 5 minutes long and the other one was 50 seconds long but I doubt you even bothered to look at it so whats the point discussing it further? Whatever...
If you're talking videos, no I didn't see that you posted them and didn't watch them. You need someone else to do your thinking for you?
-
If you're talking videos, no I didn't see that you posted them and didn't watch them. You need someone else to do your thinking for you?
I thought it would be easier for you to follow moving pictures and listening to someone explain it to you because you obviously cant read and I don't to waste any more of my time trying to get the point through your fat head.
-
I thought it would be easier for you to follow moving pictures and listening to someone explain it to you because you obviously cant read and I don't to waste any more of my time trying to get the point through your fat head.
Ok. Now you went and hurt my feelings. :'( But I am stunned that you are unable to articulate your position. Didn't see that one coming. lol
-
Ok. Now you went and hurt my feelings. :'( But I am stunned that you are unable to articulate your position. Didn't see that one coming. lol
You could have watched that video and actually learned something in the time it took you to type that.
Sorry I hurt your feelings. :P
-
You could have watched that video and actually learned something in the time it took you to type that.
Sorry I hurt your feelings. :P
Or I could have watched it and wondered how I would have gotten those wasted 5 minutes of my life back. :)
-
Ok. I reread more carefully. I have no idea what you mean by "worth a chance at being president." If you're talking about electability, I disagree. If you're talking about ideological purity, I still disagree. He's a politician. More honest than most, but still a politician. I don't trust any of them.
I mean that I think he's the one whose ideas are the closest the those at the foundation of our Republic. Is he a politician? Sure. Can I be 100% sure that he means what he says and he'll do what he claims? No. But he's, in my estimation, the best person out of the names we hear tossed around. Does a vast majority of Americans disagree wit that estimation? Apparently yes.
I have not taken postgraduate level statistics, but I've been following politics for a long time. Polls are first and foremost usual discussion pieces. Secondly, they are fairly accurate predictors. For example, you rarely see someone polling in fourth place by a large margin before the election pull out a victory, unless the voting population is relatively small.
I agree that someone polling at the bottom consistently and across polls by different organizations with disjoint sample sets is exceedingly unlikely, barring some sort of "revelation", to pull an upset and win.
The polls leading up to every primary and caucus this year have been very accurate.
Just to add something to this, along with your previous reference about polls being fairly accurate predictors. Political polls are more than just predictors. They influence people too, and that's why they're a dangerous tool no matter how they are used. As I mentioned, voters can be very fickle, and poll results can easily sway their opinion. Heck, even the wording of a question can sway people.
I seriously doubt Ron Paul will capture a sizable percentage of votes in California. He did not fare well in 2008 and will likely finish last this year. In Texas, the fact he could finish last in his home state speaks volumes. Newt won his "home" state. Romney won his. Santorum will probably win Pa. Ron Paul just doesn't have a large enough following to make any long-lasting statement IMO.
I agree, contingent to the definition of sizable. I think if he manages to capture anything over an 8% it would be significant. Again, not in the sense that he suddenly becomes a front-runner, but in the sense that it shows that there is more to the party than just Rick Santorum and his obsession with porn and how gay men use their cocks.
I haven't heard the primal screams you're talking about. The frontrunner (Romney) is talking primarily about the economy. As in most presidential elections, the economy, defense, and taxes are the most important issues on the table.
Oh come now. We all know that are certain red-meat issues for both parties. Issues relating to homosexuals and religion play well with the GOP base. They are red meat and there's others too.
Consider Rick Santorum. He says that he doesn't want Government intruding in the lives of people in the context of health insurance. But he finds it reasonable and proper for the Government to regulate the sexual practices of CONSENTING ADULTS on the grounds that he has a problem with those practices and he doesn't approve them. He holds similar opinions on issues like pornography.
Or Michelle Bachmann. She doesn't want Government intruding in the lives of people either. But she's deathly afraid that two people half a continent away will, somehow, remotely and magically, threaten and devalue her marriage and the precious, precious children of all Americans. So she wants the Government to keep the degenerates from doing that. How? By preventing them from being able to file joint tax returns, take advantage of inheritance laws, and be privy to visitation rights in the hospital.
These are by no means the only red meat issues. There are others. Some fall into niches of the above categories. Others are categories of their own. These sort of issues play a huge role when people are running for the nomination of their party but once they get it, some pivot away from them, to varying degrees. We can discuss this in more detail if you prefer.
-
I mean that I think he's the one whose ideas are the closest the those at the foundation of our Republic. Is he a politician? Sure. Can I be 100% sure that he means what he says and he'll do what he claims? No. But he's, in my estimation, the best person out of the names we hear tossed around. Does a vast majority of Americans disagree wit that estimation? Apparently yes.
I agree that someone polling at the bottom consistently and across polls by different organizations with disjoint sample sets is exceedingly unlikely, barring some sort of "revelation", to pull an upset and win.
Just to add something to this, along with your previous reference about polls being fairly accurate predictors. Political polls are more than just predictors. They influence people too, and that's why they're a dangerous tool no matter how they are used. As I mentioned, voters can be very fickle, and poll results can easily sway their opinion. Heck, even the wording of a question can sway people.
I agree, contingent to the definition of sizable. I think if he manages to capture anything over an 8% it would be significant. Again, not in the sense that he suddenly becomes a front-runner, but in the sense that it shows that there is more to the party than just Rick Santorum and his obsession with porn and how gay men use their cocks.
Oh come now. We all know that are certain red-meat issues for both parties. Issues relating to homosexuals and religion play well with the GOP base. They are red meat and there's others too.
Consider Rick Santorum. He says that he doesn't want Government intruding in the lives of people in the context of health insurance. But he finds it reasonable and proper for the Government to regulate the sexual practices of CONSENTING ADULTS on the grounds that he has a problem with those practices and he doesn't approve them. He holds similar opinions on issues like pornography.
Or Michelle Bachmann. She doesn't want Government intruding in the lives of people either. But she's deathly afraid that two people half a continent away will, somehow, remotely and magically, threaten and devalue her marriage and the precious, precious children of all Americans. So she wants the Government to keep the degenerates from doing that. How? By preventing them from being able to file joint tax returns, take advantage of inheritance laws, and be privy to visitation rights in the hospital.
These are by no means the only red meat issues. There are others. Some fall into niches of the above categories. Others are categories of their own. These sort of issues play a huge role when people are running for the nomination of their party but once they get it, some pivot away from them, to varying degrees. We can discuss this in more detail if you prefer.
Agree with most everything you said here.
People are not only fickle, theyre fucking stupid and leading them to vote for someone (from what Ive seen) is as simple as leading a lamb to the slaughter.
Polls can be manipulated to show whatever the pollster wants, simply by picking the audience that they are polling.
As you said, polls also are a good tool for manipulating voters. If they feel their candidate has no shot at winning, then they probably will vote a different way. People are weird like that, almost no one has any conviction anymore. Their ideals change with the winds, their choices change from minute to minute.
And totally agree on the "red meat" issues, people get really fired up over stupid shit like gay marriage, especially Santorum who has made Porn and Gays a cornerstone of his election. To me, this is more a reflection on the voters than Santorum, it means there are enough people out there who really care about that shit to warrant him pandering to them. That scares me. In a time of economic crisis where our liberties are being stripped one after the other, the fact people are so hung up on what people do in their own bedroom simply horrifys me.
It shows an incredible lack of connection to whats going on in the country, that people are more concerned with forcing their beliefs and feelings on others, rather than letting other people make their own choices, just as they themselves are allowed to choose.
And the part about Ron Paul being closest to the foundation of our republic, I emphatically agree. To me, he represents the ideals this country is founded on. A few of his ideas are out there, yes, but more than likely those wouldnt pass through congress anyway. And you know with RP, he would respect Congress' power, as he would uphold the constitution.
I
s he a politician? Yes, but they all are, youre rolling the dice with any one of them. To me, Id rather roll the dice with the most seemingly principled one, who's ideas are most rooted in personal liberty and fiscal responsability, than shady big government types who only preach what people want to hear when theyre on screen, and then turn around and do the exact opposite.
Paul says the same thing, no matter whether the people like it or not. Its part of the reason he's perfect for the job, and part of the reason he'll never win.
Its sad to say, but he's too honest to win. People no longer respect that IMHO, they want someone who is going to say what they want to here, even if the next week he says something completely different to someone else.
-
Sad but true. I speak to a lot of people and the gibberish they speak that they think represents an informed opinion is embarrassing. half the shit people think they know is just flat out false!
Ron Paul is really the only one I would be voting for. If it's myth - I will go to the polls sick to my stomach thinking it has come to this just to oust the communist traitor occupying the WH.
-
I mean that I think he's the one whose ideas are the closest the those at the foundation of our Republic. Is he a politician? Sure. Can I be 100% sure that he means what he says and he'll do what he claims? No. But he's, in my estimation, the best person out of the names we hear tossed around. Does a vast majority of Americans disagree wit that estimation? Apparently yes.
I agree that someone polling at the bottom consistently and across polls by different organizations with disjoint sample sets is exceedingly unlikely, barring some sort of "revelation", to pull an upset and win.
Just to add something to this, along with your previous reference about polls being fairly accurate predictors. Political polls are more than just predictors. They influence people too, and that's why they're a dangerous tool no matter how they are used. As I mentioned, voters can be very fickle, and poll results can easily sway their opinion. Heck, even the wording of a question can sway people.
I agree, contingent to the definition of sizable. I think if he manages to capture anything over an 8% it would be significant. Again, not in the sense that he suddenly becomes a front-runner, but in the sense that it shows that there is more to the party than just Rick Santorum and his obsession with porn and how gay men use their cocks.
Oh come now. We all know that are certain red-meat issues for both parties. Issues relating to homosexuals and religion play well with the GOP base. They are red meat and there's others too.
Consider Rick Santorum. He says that he doesn't want Government intruding in the lives of people in the context of health insurance. But he finds it reasonable and proper for the Government to regulate the sexual practices of CONSENTING ADULTS on the grounds that he has a problem with those practices and he doesn't approve them. He holds similar opinions on issues like pornography.
Or Michelle Bachmann. She doesn't want Government intruding in the lives of people either. But she's deathly afraid that two people half a continent away will, somehow, remotely and magically, threaten and devalue her marriage and the precious, precious children of all Americans. So she wants the Government to keep the degenerates from doing that. How? By preventing them from being able to file joint tax returns, take advantage of inheritance laws, and be privy to visitation rights in the hospital.
These are by no means the only red meat issues. There are others. Some fall into niches of the above categories. Others are categories of their own. These sort of issues play a huge role when people are running for the nomination of their party but once they get it, some pivot away from them, to varying degrees. We can discuss this in more detail if you prefer.
The media can manipulate public opinion and does so all the time. Polls can manipulate public opinion, but because they are typically fairly accurate when it comes to elections, what they primarily do is forecast how elections will turn out. I'm not talking about opinion polls, but polls by reputable sources involving likely voters about how they intend to vote.
If you were to actually look at Ron Paul's poll numbers in Texas, they are abysmal. Here is the RCP average:
Santorum - 32.5 percent
Romney - 29.5 percent
Gingrich - 19.5 percent
Paul - 8.5 percent
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/tx/texas_republican_presidential_primary-1598.html
If this holds true, he will finish with more than 8 percent. And you consider this significant? I certainly don't. This is a repudiation by the people who know him best. And the fact every other candidate has won or will win his home state, but Ron Paul will finish last in his home state, shows just how weak of a candidate he is.
There are certainly other issues that are part of the campaign, including social issues. They appeal to a lot of people. But "primal screams"? No. The focus of any legitimate contender's campaign? No. It sounds like you don't like the fact they talk about social issues at all.
The fact is a substantial part of the voting public cares about social issues. Nothing wrong with a candidate talking about those issues.
-
If this holds true, he will finish with more than 8 percent. And you consider this significant? I certainly don't. This is a repudiation by the people who know him best. And the fact every other candidate has won or will win his home state, but Ron Paul will finish last in his home state, shows just how weak of a candidate he is.
I consider the fact that a candidate like Paul can garner 8% in the current political climate and in the Republican party of today quite impressive in itself. Especially given the fact that he is treated as a non-entity by the media at large. As for whether it's a repudiation by the people who know him best? I wouldn't go so far. Many of those people have sent him back to the House to take care of their business on more than one occasion, which says a lot.
There are certainly other issues that are part of the campaign, including social issues. They appeal to a lot of people. But "primal screams"? No. The focus of any legitimate contender's campaign? No. It sounds like you don't like the fact they talk about social issues at all.
Of course it's primal screams. Santorum flies off the hinge when dealing with anything vaguely related to sex. He froths at the mouth! Get this straight:
Whether I, an adult, like to get paid to star on porn tapes with other consenting adults isn't any of Rick Santorum's business. Or any of your business. Or, frankly, the Government's business.
Whether I, an adult, like to buy porn tapes that feature other consenting adults, for my use isn't any of Rick Santorum's business. Or any of your business. Or, frankly, the Government's business.
Whether I, an adult, like to have promiscuous sex with a number of partners without being married isn't any of Rick Santorum's business. Or any of your business. Or, frankly, the Government's business.
Rick Santorum thinks it's appropriate to have legislation on the books detailing how you can use your dick with another consenting adult. Do you really want Santorum -- or any politician -- writing laws that control how you can fuck your girlfriend or wife?
The fact is a substantial part of the voting public cares about social issues. Nothing wrong with a candidate talking about those issues.
Frankly I don't care about candidates talking about social issues, except that I find the issue unimportant and outside the scope of of a proper Government. It's not the Government's job to regulate morality or to be the arbiter of what is socially acceptable.
But even so, a candidate can talk about anything he wants to about. The problem is that those candidates don't want stay at talk. Those candidates -- and their constituency -- want action to enforce their particular ridiculous moral code. But the problem is that in this country, the action that they seek is almost certainly unavailable, because the Government is limited by something called the Constitution.
The Republicans, in particular, are very fond of the Constitution. Some even have small breast-pocket copies printed, so they can have it with them all the time. And it's a good thing, because they reference it a lot. Except, you know... when its spirit or its text goes against what they seek to do. Then they just kind of forget about it.
There's a name for that sort of behavior.
-
I think it's clear as day you Paulbots live in a dream world.
Exposing your own bias...
Listen closely:
1. Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee for president.
I know. I've already stated as much numerous times.
2. The person who has won each caucus or primary will be awarded either their proportional share or winner-take-all delegates whenever their respective states meet, just like they are in every election. It doesn't matter who the delegates are. They always follow the popular vote (meaning the person who won the state, and finished second, etc.). This is true both at the state level and in the electoral college.
You clearly do not understand the difference between a caucus and a primary. Delegates in a caucus are not awarded on proportionality. They are awarded by a whole series of voting for delegates that ends at the state convention. The problem (for the other candidates) is that their voters do not understand this, go vote in the straw poll preceding the caucus, and then go home. Ron Paul supporters stay after and elect the delegates at the precinct level who later go to county conventions and run shit. From there, some make it to state conventions and then the national convention.
3. If something in modern history happens, that hasn't happened before, and there is a brokered convention, Ron Paul will not be the nominee. He's in last place nationally, has not won a single primary or caucus, and is even polling last in his home state. He will not have the votes at a brokered convention to be the nominee.
I don't doubt this.
4. Keep listening to people like Ron Paul's campaign manager who says Texas and California are in play for Ron Paul, and you will continue to be nothing more than a Paulbot.
\
I never said he has a fighting chance in Texas or California.
-
I consider the fact that a candidate like Paul can garner 8% in the current political climate and in the Republican party of today quite impressive in itself. Especially given the fact that he is treated as a non-entity by the media at large. As for whether it's a repudiation by the people who know him best? I wouldn't go so far. Many of those people have sent him back to the House to take care of their business on more than one occasion, which says a lot.
Of course it's primal screams. Santorum flies off the hinge when dealing with anything vaguely related to sex. He froths at the mouth! Get this straight:
Whether I, an adult, like to get paid to star on porn tapes with other consenting adults isn't any of Rick Santorum's business. Or any of your business. Or, frankly, the Government's business.
Whether I, an adult, like to buy porn tapes that feature other consenting adults, for my use isn't any of Rick Santorum's business. Or any of your business. Or, frankly, the Government's business.
Whether I, an adult, like to have promiscuous sex with a number of partners without being married isn't any of Rick Santorum's business. Or any of your business. Or, frankly, the Government's business.
Rick Santorum thinks it's appropriate to have legislation on the books detailing how you can use your dick with another consenting adult. Do you really want Santorum -- or any politician -- writing laws that control how you can fuck your girlfriend or wife?
Frankly I don't care about candidates talking about social issues, except that I find the issue unimportant and outside the scope of of a proper Government. It's not the Government's job to regulate morality or to be the arbiter of what is socially acceptable.
But even so, a candidate can talk about anything he wants to about. The problem is that those candidates don't want stay at talk. Those candidates -- and their constituency -- want action to enforce their particular ridiculous moral code. But the problem is that in this country, the action that they seek is almost certainly unavailable, because the Government is limited by something called the Constitution.
The Republicans, in particular, are very fond of the Constitution. Some even have small breast-pocket copies printed, so they can have it with them all the time. And it's a good thing, because they reference it a lot. Except, you know... when its spirit or its text goes against what they seek to do. Then they just kind of forget about it.
There's a name for that sort of behavior.
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether Ron Paul's performance in his home state is significant.
I haven't watched Santorum much the past couple months, but I haven't seen any frothing at the mouth. You have a clip of him with this primal scream stuff?
Regarding porn, etc., I'm not a libertarian who believes we shouldn't regulate public decency in some form. I look at the impact this stuff can have on kids, especially with the internet. I think we (society) should decide what those regulations or restrictions should be. It's something that should be part of the public discourse and should be part of someone's campaign, if they are passionate about that issue. They are speaking for millions of Americans.
Also, there is a reason why libertarians are not major players: they don't represent the majority of the public's views.
There is an enormous difference between regulating what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults and what gets put out on the public airways (internet, TV, etc.).
In any event, Santorum is not going to be the nominee. Romney has this all but wrapped up. Unless Romney starts talking about porn, this is nothing more than message board material. :)
-
Exposing your own bias...
I know. I've already stated as much numerous times.
You clearly do not understand the difference between a caucus and a primary. Delegates in a caucus are not awarded on proportionality. They are awarded by a whole series of voting for delegates that ends at the state convention. The problem (for the other candidates) is that their voters do not understand this, go vote in the straw poll preceding the caucus, and then go home. Ron Paul supporters stay after and elect the delegates at the precinct level who later go to county conventions and run shit. From there, some make it to state conventions and then the national convention.
I don't doubt this.
\
I never said he has a fighting chance in Texas or California.
This is the part he refuses to or simply cant comprehend.
Im curious, if all the candidates stay in to the end, what do you think would be the odds of no one gettting to the magic number of 1144? I know Gingrich has pretty much stalled but I wonder if they could still siphon off as much delegates off each other to have a brokered convention.
-
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether Ron Paul's performance in his home state is significant.
I haven't watched Santorum much the past couple months, but I haven't seen any frothing at the mouth. You have a clip of him with this primal scream stuff?
Santorum is a hostile, man child. I gave him credit when he kept his cool as all those students got on his nuts about his gay comments but he huffs and puffs all the time about some bullshit. He cant handle his emotions.
-
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether Ron Paul's performance in his home state is significant.
I haven't watched Santorum much the past couple months, but I haven't seen any frothing at the mouth. You have a clip of him with this primal scream stuff?
Regarding porn, etc., I'm not a libertarian who believes we shouldn't regulate public decency in some form. I look at the impact this stuff can have on kids, especially with the internet. I think we (society) should decide what those regulations or restrictions should be. It's something that should be part of the public discourse and should be part of someone's campaign, if they are passionate about that issue. They are speaking for millions of Americans.
Also, there is a reason why libertarians are not major players: they don't represent the majority of the public's views.
There is an enormous difference between regulating what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults and what gets put out on the public airways (internet, TV, etc.).
In any event, Santorum is not going to be the nominee. Romney has this all but wrapped up. Unless Romney starts talking about porn, this is nothing more than message board material. :)
A flip-flopping liar has this thing all wrapped up. Sad, very sad...