[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This same thing occurred during the Howard Dean phenomenon, if you were paying attention.
[/quote]
It did? I remember something a little different–like the MSM reporting how unelectable he was because he was too vocal…
Thats what happens when you let MSM dictate your beliefs to you.
More fun with Lifticus’ embarrassing stupidity.
If you take Lifticus’ poll, take the total votes, subtract out the people who responded they wouldn’t be voting for a Republican period, you are left with 58,809.
Total votes for Paul as victor: 41,479
As a percentage, this would mean that of the likely GOP voters, [u]70.5%[/u] of GOP voters think Paul the victor and likely support him as such.
Over 7 out of 10 Republican-leaning voters - according to Lifticus’ poll (and he is really smart, just ask him) - are all about Uncle Ron.
Yet, in every other poll, Paul can’t even crack 5%.
Seventy percent.
Internet poll.
“See, he is a legitimate candidate!”
Does anyone wonder why, despite being a decent guy, Ron Paul is headed nowhere? The anchor around Paul’s neck remains his half-retarded supporters.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Self-selecting polls are only good at gathering information about how motivated people are…so my question stands: why aren’t other supporters as motivated as Paul supporters?[/quote]
Could it be that they have lives and don’t sit with baited breath in front of the internet their entire lives? Could it be that they really don’t care about a snapshot Internet poll, despite being interested in politics?
Not deciding to go click a button on an Internet site for a meaningless poll is no signal of “motivation” at all. After I watched the debate, I sat around with friends at a bar and talked about it. But then, unlike Ron Paul troglodytes, I may be guilty of having a life.
Easy answer to your question - are you just plain immune to common sense?
Ron Paul presidential odds slashed to 8:1.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Easy answer to your question - are you just plain immune to common sense?[/quote]
What is the “common sense”? If it includes all the lies I hear political pundits spew then I don’t want any–thanks.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The anchor around Paul’s neck remains his half-retarded supporters.
[/quote]
You have any more ad hominem attacks?
This poll doesn’t measure only GOP voters/supporters. Who is the stupid one? It measures anyone who watched the debate and went to vote. It is most likely that the people who voted were independent. I highly doubt his support is coming from the base of the Republican party.
I love how you claim internet polls are inaccurate but will quote phone polls that are just as inaccurate. Is this a case of selective measurement on your behalf? At least have the honesty to claim they are both inaccurate.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It did? I remember something a little different–like the MSM reporting how unelectable he was because he was too vocal…
Thats what happens when you let MSM dictate your beliefs to you.[/quote]
What does Dean’s statistical overrepresentation in Internet polls have to do with the media “dictating” anything to anyone? His Internet-savvy followers were very vocal on the Internet and they spammed polls.
Sound familiar? That has nothing to do with your “MSM dictating beliefs” garbage.
How about having enough common sense to know that “poll spamming” doesn’t demonstrate much of a threshold of “motivation” of a candidate’s political support?
Your reply made zero sense - my point on poll spamming has nothing to do with “pundits”. It has to do with the fact that there is an easy explanation for why Ron Paul gets inflated numbers and why supporters of other candidates might couldn’t care less about weighing in on some fleeting Internet poll.
Ron Paul’s supporters spam the polls - it is common knowledge.
I weep for your students.
There isn’t a number high enough for Paul’s Army of Wannabe Radicals. But don’t confuse a basic insult with an ad hominem.
You are right on that last point - but your poll is just one more example of a spam attack for effect. People with common sense know this and understand it - it is really no big deal - you think it is some political Gospel that shows how your libertarian Messiah really has come.
What polls are you talking about? Do you not have sense enough to know that polls that ask for people to volunteer to vote are different than polls that seek out people who have not volunteered?
I have no idea how accurate the phone polls are - I always take them with a grain of salt - but many are done across a broad section of the populace and the results keep coming up that Paul is a bit player. Not unusual - libertarians aren’t wanted at the national level. That is old news - everyone knows it. Well, except you.
My God, I am beginning to actually feel sorry for Ron Paul. A decent, principled man is having whatever dark horse candidacy he could have otherwise enjoyed sandbagged by his legions of moronic moonbat followers. A sad day for Paul, who had his only shot by getting to the mainstream.
Thanks to the likes of the mushy-minded and unserious Lifticus - who has dissolved into a cartoon - Paul’s candidacy was stillborn from the start.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Does anyone wonder why, despite being a decent guy, Ron Paul is headed nowhere?[/quote]
Bad timing for those types of comments, what with the real poll being two days away. If you think he’s going to bomb it, I’d love to hear your case. Otherwise, place your bets and hold your piece until saturday.
What is the point of bringing up this crap at the 11th hour? It’s game time. Iowa or bust.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
More fun with Lifticus’ embarrassing stupidity. [/quote]
Can this guy ever have an argument without resorting to low and despicable ad hominems?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Could it be that they have lives and don’t sit with baited breath in front of the internet their entire lives? Could it be that they really don’t care about a snapshot Internet poll, despite being interested in politics? [/quote]
I guess that explains the “10,000 volunteers in one week” figure, right?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Can this guy ever have an argument without resorting to low and despicable ad hominems?[/quote]
Why should I sugar coat how ridiculous some of the arguments have become around here?
And stop confusing insults with ad hominems.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Why should I sugar coat how ridiculous some of the arguments have become around here?[/quote]
I’m not gonna teach you common courtesy. That’s your mum’s job.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m not gonna teach you common courtesy. That’s your mum’s job.[/quote]
I doubt there is much you could teach anyone anyway - the bigger point is that at some point, you stop extending the courtesy of legitimizing silly thinking with politeness when it no longer deserves it.
Moonbattery doesn’t deserve the “hmmm, interesting, I see and value your point” approach anymore - too much of that has gotten us where we are today.
And I wouldn’t worry about my level of courtesy - I am more than happy to entertain different opinions other than mine. I just expect a minimum level of competence and I don’t like having my time wasted with wannabe radicals who want their brainless opinions respected by others when no such respect is deserved.
Clear on that?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
I’m not gonna teach you common courtesy. That’s your mum’s job.
I doubt there is much you could teach anyone anyway - the bigger point is that at some point, you stop extending the courtesy of legitimizing silly thinking with politeness when it no longer deserves it.
Moonbattery doesn’t deserve the “hmmm, interesting, I see and value your point” approach anymore - too much of that has gotten us where we are today.
And I wouldn’t worry about my level of courtesy - I am more than happy to entertain different opinions other than mine. I just expect a minimum level of competence and I don’t like having my time wasted with wannabe radicals who want their brainless opinions respected by others when no such respect is deserved.
Clear on that?[/quote]
Ron Paul’s campaign and his namesake have experienced exponential growth since February of this year. This is undeniable.
The vast majority of the praise and discussion about him is centered around this growth, as opposed to his chances of winning, per se.
So, with that having been established, what, exactly, is there for you to disagree with?
The only thing you can say is, “That’s nice, but he still isn’t going to win the primary”.
So, after every new poll, after each new milestone, you’ll give us the same treatment:
“That’s nice, but he still isn’t going to win the primary”.
“That’s nice, but he still isn’t going to win the primary”.
etc…
Can’t you see why it’s such a bore?
Stop thinking in absolutist terms and acknowledge the very fact which everyone else on this thread is talking about: Ron Paul’s exponential growth.
In my future posts I won’t be as nice to you, since you really don’t deserve it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Explain to me why he isn’t a viable candidate.
Because polls like this require voluntary participation and Uncle Ron’s internet legions converge on polls like this in order to produce the numbers you see?
Note in the bottom corner of your poll how it says [u]Not a Scientific Survey[/u]?
This poll is about as serious as ESPN’s “Who’s More NOW?” - hate to spoil your fantasy.
Don’t forget everyone - Lifticus is an “intellectual” and an “academic” who can’t even recognize what a call-in poll looks like.
This same thing occurred during the Howard Dean phenomenon, if you were paying attention.[/quote]
Inductive fallacy: Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
The game is on, better start trying now.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Inductive fallacy: Absence of proof is not proof of absence. [/quote]
Interesting that you would point out Lifticus’ inductive fallacy. He is the one that is reaching a conclusion - Paul is a legitimate contender - on the basis of subpar information that actually suggests a different phenomenon taking place - therefore, take your pick: hasty generalization or solthful induction. I like the latter.
Lifticus’ poll - based on how it got its numbers - simply doesn’t support the conclusion he wants it to. My pointing that out is, of course, no fallacy at all.
"“A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”
Ames Straw Poll Results: Romney Wins, Paul takes 5th Place with 9.1%
11th place: John Cox (41 votes, 0.3%)
10th place: John McCain (101 votes, 0.7%)
9th place: Duncan Hunter (174 votes, 1.2%)
8th place: Rudy Giuliani (183 votes, 1.3%)
7th place: Fred Thompson (203 votes, 1.4%)
6th place: Tommy Thompson (1,039 votes, 7.3%)
5th place: Ron Paul (1,305 votes, 9.1%)
4th place: Tom Tancredo (1,961 votes, 13.7%)
3rd place: Sam Brownback (2,192 votes, 15.3%)
2nd place: Mike Huckabee (2,587 votes, 18.1%)
1st place: Mitt Romney (4,516 votes, 31.6%)
News and commentary:
http://www.iowaindependent.com/magFront.do
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879808/posts
Video:
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
My comments:
Overall, a moderate disappointment for Ron Paul.
As a result of today’s events, I believe he is now running a symbolic candidacy and no longer has a chance at winning the nomination.
There is still reason to believe that Paul has the staying power to make it to the primaries, but he won’t get the surge in popularity that a 2nd-place finish could have provided. Instead, that will go to Mike Huckabee and Brownback.
The placing of the other candidates is very interesting, and more-or-less confirms the predictions that I’ve made up to this point. Here’s what can be said:
-Romney is going to get a huge upsurge and within a month he’ll have tied or surpassed Rudy in the polls. The latter is going to continue his long dive to the bottom (which has already begun).
-There is now strong pressure on Fred to declare. If he waits any longer, Romney will simply run away with the nomination. Expect a formal announcement from him very soon.
-McCain is a goner, although everybody already knew that 2 months ago.
Final Verdict: The Republican nomination will go to either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Whomever among them loses the nomination will run on the VP ticket in the general election. That is assuming that Fred actually declares and doesn’t drop out. If the latter occurs, all bets are off, and I will revise my prediction.
General election 08:
Clinton/Obama
vs.
Thompson/Romney
It will be too close to predict. Could go either way, given the current political climate. And that’s assuming that Bush won’t bomb Iran before he leaves office.