Why Hilary??

[JOHN MATRIX]

after watching a democratic debate the other day i concluded there were probably 3-4 out of the 8 that were clearly superior choices to Hilary.
yet its already been established since day one that those 'no namers' would not have a chance to win. seriously they do not even have a chance. never mind that they are better candidates. hilary has the trump card-her name is Clinton

there is Nothing democratic about American presidental elections. its not a matter of who the best man is, its a matter of who has the biggest name and the most money behind them to drive spam media campaigns. its simply the same aristocracies perpetuating themselves

[Dos Equis]

after watching a democratic debate the other day i concluded there were probably 3-4 out of the 8 that were clearly superior choices to Hilary.
yet its already been established since day one that those 'no namers' would not have a chance to win. seriously they do not even have a chance. never mind that they are better candidates. hilary has the trump card-her name is Clinton

there is Nothing democratic about American presidental elections. its not a matter of who the best man is, its a matter of who has the biggest name and the most money behind them to drive spam media campaigns. its simply the same aristocracies perpetuating themselves

I watched the second half of that debate and I don't think any of the candidates were clearly superior choices.  They're all terrible.  Maybe Edwards would do the least damage?  I wouldn't vote for any of them. 

Name recognition can play a major role in elections, but to say there is nothing democratic about presidential elections is an overstatement.  I have a problem with the obscene amounts of money involved in state and national elections, but it's still the people and their votes who make the decision at the end of the day. 

I actually think the biggest problem with elections isn't the money, but voter apathy.  Our voter turnout is atrocious.  Embarrassing.   

[240 is Back]

For people who follow politics, Ron Paul is very popular.  This is evidenced by people AT the events, who talk about Paul winning some of the events.  He has been very "common sense" oriented, and certainly grabs the pro-Constitutional types.  Remember, a lot of Repubs aren't too happy about the Patriot Act.  You can argue if it's a good thing or a bad thing, that's another argument.  But all parties agree it does give the govt more power and does reduce privacy.  Many constututional repubs hate this.

IMO, Paul does poorly in polls because they are conducted on joe sixpack who doesn't watch MSNBC all day.  He does great in online (voluntary) polls.  Because those who vote on cnn.com polls are political junkies.  THIS group likes Paul a lot.  The gen population doesn't know him.

All that being said, you gotta be careful here - major polls have Ron Paul at 2% or whatever.  This is based on standard polling of about 1000 people of varied demos.  Do you consider these numbers to be accurate?  Many times on getbig, a poll of 1000 americans is "stupid" or "idiotic" or "scientifically baseless" when a polls shows 67% of Americans want 911 re-investigated.  But when people use a poll of 1000 people showing only 2% support Ron Paul, and that is used as evidence to support your point...

You undermine your own position when you do this.  You cannot shit on polling when you don't like the results, then boast about it when the poll findings fit your beliefs.

[Decker]

....IMO, Paul does poorly in polls because they are conducted on joe sixpack who doesn't watch MSNBC all day.  He does great in online (voluntary) polls.  Because those who vote on cnn.com polls are political junkies.  THIS group likes Paul a lot.  The gen population doesn't know him.......

That's it in a nutshell.  That's why money is important.  Advertising makes the candidate.  Nobody in the mushy middle knows who in the hell Ron Paul is.

[Hedgehog]

IMO, Paul does poorly in polls because they are conducted on joe sixpack who doesn't watch MSNBC all day. 

Don't kid yourself into believing that MSNBC, CNN and other outlets aren't somehow the mainstream, corporate media.

They represent two out of the six biggest media trans national companies (TNC) in the world.

AOL Time-Warner, the owner of CNN, is one of the bigger companies in the world, and has interests in multiple areas.



Here are some good links, showing a lot of ownerships:
http://www.cjr.org/resources/

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php

[Dos Equis]

People know who Ron Paul is.  He has been on the national stage with the Republican presidential candidates several times.  He's a member of Congress.  Voters simply don't like him.  He sort of reminds me of Wes Clark.  They don't present themselves very well. 

[Decker]

People know who Ron Paul is.  He has been on the national stage with the Republican presidential candidates several times.  He's a member of Congress.  Voters simply don't like him.  He sort of reminds me of Wes Clark.  They don't present themselves very well. 

Trust me on this one.  They don't have a clue to who Ron Paul is. 

Anecdote time.  I was bartending in a blue collar bar at the end of the Reagan/Bush era and Bush was running for president.  A majority of the people in the bar did not know who George Bush was....the man had been vice president for 8 years and was running for president and they didn't know him!!!

[Dos Equis]

Trust me on this one.  They don't have a clue to who Ron Paul is. 

Anecdote time.  I was bartending in a blue collar bar at the end of the Reagan/Bush era and Bush was running for president.  A majority of the people in the bar did not know who George Bush was....the man had been vice president for 8 years and was running for president and they didn't know him!!!

Good point.  I've had similar experiences.  Just watch The Tonight Show when Jay Leno goes "Jaywalking" and you'll be alarmed at how little some people know about the country. 

That said, people who actually vote (typically less than half of registered voters) tend to at least know who the candidates are.  Some candidates just don't have the charisma to sell themselves.  Others can give a great speech in prime time and become overnight rock stars (Obama).   

[Decker]

Good point.  I've had similar experiences.  Just watch The Tonight Show when Jay Leno goes "Jaywalking" and you'll be alarmed at how little some people know about the country. 

That said, people who actually vote (typically less than half of registered voters) tend to at least know who the candidates are.  Some candidates just don't have the charisma to sell themselves.  Others can give a great speech in prime time and become overnight rock stars (Obama).   

I just don't understand how someone could live such a disengaged life.  What the hell do these people do with their time?

[240 is Back]

People know who Ron Paul is.  He has been on the national stage with the Republican presidential candidates several times.

How many Americans do you estimate watch the Repub debates?  I'd guess not too many.

He's a member of Congress.

There are 535 people in Congress, and reps carry a lot less weight than senators.  Again, please estimate what % of Americans can name even 15 or 20 of those in Congress.  I'd guess a very low number.

Voters simply don't like him.  He sort of reminds me of Wes Clark.  They don't present themselves very well. 

"Voters" don't like him?

Online polls show him at the top.  Military people have given he and Obama the most money.  Good thing they don't vote, eh?

[BayGBM]

I just don't understand how someone could live such a disengaged life.  What the hell do these people do with their time?

Be real.  You pass people like this every day, at the gym for example.  Some of these very disengaged people are your friends.  The fact is poeple have different interests: bodybuilding, politics, cars, clothes, music, movies, etc.  You happen to be interested in the former two.  Most people are not.  

[240 is Back]

I just don't understand how someone could live such a disengaged life.  What the hell do these people do with their time?

They watch Friends at 6 PM with dinner.  They put the kids to bed and watch Heroes, Desperate Housewives, or Dancing with the stars until their xanax kicks in and they can sleep until work tomorrow.  

[Decker]

I was posing a rhetorical question. 

I know that the vast majority of people out there are wastes of space wasting time.

[Tre]

The Dems just don't get it.

The Republicans handed them this election on a silver platter and they've blown it. 

At this point, unless someone comes out of nowhere, I don't see the Dems having any chance of winning in 2008, especially if they insist upon keeping Clinton propped up as their 'frontrunner'.

[Dos Equis]

How many Americans do you estimate watch the Repub debates?  I'd guess not too many.

There are 535 people in Congress, and reps carry a lot less weight than senators.  Again, please estimate what % of Americans can name even 15 or 20 of those in Congress.  I'd guess a very low number.


"Voters" don't like him?

Online polls show him at the top.  Military people have given he and Obama the most money.  Good thing they don't vote, eh?

I have no idea how many Americans watch Republican debates, but I'm sure you can find the numbers somewhere.  What's relevant is how many likely voters watch the debates.  I don't know what that figure is either, but that's the pertinent part of the population.

Same goes for people who can name members of Congress. 

If online polls show Ron Paul as the leading presidential candidate then those polls are unreliable.  A better indication is the Iowa straw poll from August of this year:

August 11, 2007
Iowa Straw Poll Results
Mitt Romney:  4,516 / 31.5%

Mike Huckabee:  2,587 / 18.1%

Sam Brownback:  2,192 / 15.3%

Tom Tancredo:  1,961 / 13.7%

Ron Paul:  1,305 / 9.1%

Tommy Thompson:  1,039 / 7.3%

Fred Thompson:  203

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/08/iowa-straw-poll.html

He would have finished even lower if Rudy participated. 

[240 is Back]

I have no idea how many Americans watch Republican debates, but I'm sure you can find the numbers somewhere.  What's relevant is how many likely voters watch the debates.  I don't know what that figure is either, but that's the pertinent part of the population.

Same goes for people who can name members of Congress. 

how many people voted? 100 million?  Sorry, but nowhere near a majority of that watches the debates.  I'm betting a VERY small % of that 100 mil who vote can name members of congress.  You have too much faith in the average people, IMO.

He would have finished even lower if Rudy participated. 

I disagree.  Rudy and Paul have FAR different likely voters.  Rudy would have pulled votes from the next nearest man of ideology.  We can HARDLY consider Paul and Rudy to be of like ideologies. 

[Dos Equis]

how many people voted? 100 million?  Sorry, but nowhere near a majority of that watches the debates.  I'm betting a VERY small % of that 100 mil who vote can name members of congress.  You have too much faith in the average people, IMO.


I disagree.  Rudy and Paul have FAR different likely voters.  Rudy would have pulled votes from the next nearest man of ideology.  We can HARDLY consider Paul and Rudy to be of like ideologies. 

I didn't say a majority of likely voters watch the debates.  Likely voters are the only opinions that matter when it comes to determining whether a candidate is viable. 

Which online polls are you referring to that show Ron Paul as the leading Republican candidate? 

You have too little faith in the "average people."  I'm not one who believes most people are stupid.  In any event, we're not talking "average people," but likely voters, who are probably more knowledgeable about the political process and candidates than "average people."

Are you saying Ron Paul would have beaten Rudy in the Iowa straw poll if Rudy had entered?   

[240 is Back]

I didn't say a majority of likely voters watch the debates.  Likely voters are the only opinions that matter when it comes to determining whether a candidate is viable. 

Which online polls are you referring to that show Ron Paul as the leading Republican candidate? 

You have too little faith in the "average people."  I'm not one who believes most people are stupid.  In any event, we're not talking "average people," but likely voters, who are probably more knowledgeable about the political process and candidates than "average people."

Are you saying Ron Paul would have beaten Rudy in the Iowa straw poll if Rudy had entered?   

Most average people vote.  over 1/3 of the population votes.  Throw out the jailed, felons, and under-18 and 12 mil illegals... that's a lot of regular folks voting.

I don't know why you'd ask if I said "Are you saying Ron Paul would have beaten Rudy in the Iowa straw poll if Rudy had entered?   "   I didn't say that.   I said that Rudy would have chisled away from other candidates with more similar views.  Voters can't choose rudy, so they pick the next guy who is closest to rudy.  (you don't pick rudy cause you love the war, then when rudy's not there, choose an anti-war guy like paul).   IMO, very very few Rudy supporters chose Paul.  Therefore his vote woulnd't have changed much at all.


Funny stuff.  9% of repubs in Iowa picked Paul, even though he didn't put any $ at all into the straw poll.  Romney bussed in people nonstop, and paid them to vote for him, and only got 31.5%....


I'm telling ya beach bum... Paul has no money and no coverage... but he's theonly anti war repub.  And since 1/3 of the party is anti-war by every major poll.... well, if the repubs keep all 9 guys running, Paul could easily slip in and take the nod.  Consider what happens if - and if - all 30% of anti-war repubs vote paul.  That leaves 70% of votes to be split between rudy, romney, mccain, and thompson.  If there was ONE candidate, paul wouldn't have a chance.  But FOUR major choices - that's a recipe for disaster.  THe reason dems are ahead in every blank party pres poll - they chose their horse already.  If the repubs keep waiting, their division could let a paul slip in.  Remember, that's how ventura got his job as an independent with crazy ideas.

[Dos Equis]

Most average people vote.  over 1/3 of the population votes.  Throw out the jailed, felons, and under-18 and 12 mil illegals... that's a lot of regular folks voting.

I don't know why you'd ask if I said "Are you saying Ron Paul would have beaten Rudy in the Iowa straw poll if Rudy had entered?   "   I didn't say that.   I said that Rudy would have chisled away from other candidates with more similar views.  Voters can't choose rudy, so they pick the next guy who is closest to rudy.  (you don't pick rudy cause you love the war, then when rudy's not there, choose an anti-war guy like paul).   IMO, very very few Rudy supporters chose Paul.  Therefore his vote woulnd't have changed much at all.


Funny stuff.  9% of repubs in Iowa picked Paul, even though he didn't put any $ at all into the straw poll.  Romney bussed in people nonstop, and paid them to vote for him, and only got 31.5%....


I'm telling ya beach bum... Paul has no money and no coverage... but he's theonly anti war repub.  And since 1/3 of the party is anti-war by every major poll.... well, if the repubs keep all 9 guys running, Paul could easily slip in and take the nod.  Consider what happens if - and if - all 30% of anti-war repubs vote paul.  That leaves 70% of votes to be split between rudy, romney, mccain, and thompson.  If there was ONE candidate, paul wouldn't have a chance.  But FOUR major choices - that's a recipe for disaster.  THe reason dems are ahead in every blank party pres poll - they chose their horse already.  If the repubs keep waiting, their division could let a paul slip in.  Remember, that's how ventura got his job as an independent with crazy ideas.

About 50 percent or less (usually less) than registered voters vote in national elections.  The numbers are much lower for state and local elections. 

I said:  "He would have finished even lower if Rudy participated."  To which you responded:  "I disagree.  Rudy and Paul have FAR different likely voters.  Rudy would have pulled votes from the next nearest man of ideology." 

Even if we assume what you say to be true, Rudy would have still finished higher than Paul, which would pushed Paul from 5th to 6th place. 

And I doubt Rudy and Paul have far different likely voters in the Republican primary. 

We shall see how this plays out.  I predicted several weeks ago that he will quit shortly before or after New Hampshire.  This could change, but I'll be surprised if he makes a run at Rudy, Romney, etc.   

Also, which online polls show Paul is the leading Republican candidate? 

[240 is Back]

And I doubt Rudy and Paul have far different likely voters in the Republican primary. 

PLease explain your position.

Rudy is pro-war.  Paul is anti-war.

Rudy is pro-patriot act.  Paul is strongly anti-patriot act.

Rudy supports most of Bush agenda and position. Paul hates most of them.

Rudy is Mr 911.  Paul admitted it's possible there was a contorlled demo (of WTC7, rudy's building!!!) and wants full investigation.

Paul has outright called out Rudy during repub debates for many things.




So um, why would ANYONE who supports Rudy, support Ron Paul?   

[Dos Equis]

PLease explain your position.

Rudy is pro-war.  Paul is anti-war.

Rudy is pro-patriot act.  Paul is strongly anti-patriot act.

Rudy supports most of Bush agenda and position. Paul hates most of them.

Rudy is Mr 911.  Paul admitted it's possible there was a contorlled demo (of WTC7, rudy's building!!!) and wants full investigation.

Paul has outright called out Rudy during repub debates for many things.




So um, why would ANYONE who supports Rudy, support Ron Paul?   

They are both Republicans.  They may disagree on some issues, but they share much of Republican party platform.  I have not done an issue-by-issue comparison, but I'd be surprised if they didn't hold similar views on issues embraced by most Republican voters.   

"Also, which online polls show Paul is the leading Republican candidate?"     

[240 is Back]

They are both Republicans.  They may disagree on some issues, but they share much of Republican party platform.  I have not done an issue-by-issue comparison, but I'd be surprised if they didn't hold similar views on issues embraced by most Republican voters

Everyone in the field is republican.  Kills that point.
They actually don't share much at ALL of the repub party platform positions - I'd consider them nearly polar opposites. 

ROn Paul has won or come in second on CNN voting in the recent repub polls, and I believe on msnbc he won.  You can look it up.  Seeing as you are willing to argue for 30 minutes about how similar Paul and Rudy's positions are without even knowing them, I'm guessing you have plenty of time to do research

They are both Republicans.  They may disagree on some issues, but they share much of Republican party platform.  I have not done an issue-by-issue comparison, but I'd be surprised if they didn't hold similar views on issues embraced by most Republican voters.   

"Also, which online polls show Paul is the leading Republican candidate?"     

[Dos Equis]

Everyone in the field is republican.  Kills that point.
They actually don't share much at ALL of the repub party platform positions - I'd consider them nearly polar opposites. 

ROn Paul has won or come in second on CNN voting in the recent repub polls, and I believe on msnbc he won.  You can look it up.  Seeing as you are willing to argue for 30 minutes about how similar Paul and Rudy's positions are without even knowing them, I'm guessing you have plenty of time to do research

If Ron Paul shares very little with the Republican party platform then he isn't a Republican.  I think I will indeed compare his positions with the Republican party platform. 

Since you probably made up your claim about him winning polls, or got the information from an "alternative" source, I'll also check CNN and MSNBC for polls showing him being the top Republican candidate. 

author=240 is Back "Voters" don't like him?

Online polls show him at the top.  

[Hedgehog]

Most average people vote.  over 1/3 of the population votes.  Throw out the jailed, felons, and under-18 and 12 mil illegals... that's a lot of regular folks voting.

Source on that?

Roughly 36% people voted in the last election.

BTW, under-18 and illegal immigrants aren't eligible citizens, so they can't vote, they're never included in the stats, ie that's not why the percentage is 36%.

[240 is Back]

Source on that?

Roughly 36% people voted in the last election.

BTW, under-18 and illegal immigrants aren't eligible citizens, so they can't vote, they're never included in the stats, ie that's not why the percentage is 36%.

I thought 110 mil voted out of 310 mil population.  I posted that over 1/3 of the population voted.

I contend that less below-average people vote because 1) they don't care about issues, 2) they don't have means/time to vote 3) They are more likely to be felons.

Isn't it fair to believe that more people %-wise of an IQ 100 vote, than people with an IQ of 80?