Ron Paul Wins RLC Straw Poll

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

Here Ron Paul is tied with Bachmann.

Now Ron Paul losing here in Iowa would not surprise me. Ron Pauls poll numbers won’t increase till well into the primary season when the weaker wons are knocked off. Last year he was polling 1% at this time. [/quote]

Do you just recycle your posts from 2008? That is almost the exact same thing that you said back then. Your logic is so filled with flaws, and replaced with dreams and wishes that it’s actually difficult to read.

  1. Ron Paul IS one of the weaker ones, you need to acknowledge that.

  2. What makes you think that when the (other) weaker candidates drop out that Paul will automatically get their supporters? It makes more sense to me that someone who wanted say Gingrich, a well established former republican Speaker of the House would then back a candidate like Romney, Bachman or Pawlenty. You know someone who actually has a chance of winning.

  3. How dare you brag about a candidate because one year ago he was only a flicker at 1% and now has about 7% support? Granted Paulies have to take whatever they can get their hands on and try to make it look good, but you only make yourself look foolish touting numbers like these. You do realize that it will take a great deal more than 7% to win the republican nomination right? And then a good deal more than that to defeat Obama.

How long will you be living this fantasy? Furthermore, I want some kudo’s when I am correct about Paul, AGAIN. Last time out I called it exactly and you didn’t have the good manners to mention it.

Here is a bet offer for you. If Paul gets the nomination I’ll write at the end of every one of my posts that “John S. is brilliant.” If he is defeated you must write the same thing at the end of your posts, except substitute my name for yours.

I’m not even talking about him winning the Presidency, just the nomination. And if you don’t even think that he can win that much why do you waste everyone’s time with you nonsense about Paul?

Deal?[/quote]

Ron Paul was 1% last election(at this time). And what I am counting on is the esablishment votes being split between the other candidates the same way it happened in 08. Lets see, Cain is barely surviving after his blatantly biggoted responses in reguards to Muslims so he is out. How long do you give the Media before they absolutly destroy Bachmann? That would leave just one Tea Party candidate in the race.

When Herman Cain and Bachmann get knocked out the tea party support goes behind Ron Paul.

Then let the esatblishment candidates split the votes up and bam we got Ron Paul nomination. Remember Huckabee and Romney splitting the votes and McCain won? Nothing retarded here just using logic.

And when you throw skin in the game and pick a candidate then we can talk about a bet.

*edit I supported Romney last election cycle, I never heard of Ron Paul till after the debates.

82

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

Here Ron Paul is tied with Bachmann.

Now Ron Paul losing here in Iowa would not surprise me. Ron Pauls poll numbers won’t increase till well into the primary season when the weaker wons are knocked off. Last year he was polling 1% at this time. [/quote]

Do you just recycle your posts from 2008? That is almost the exact same thing that you said back then. Your logic is so filled with flaws, and replaced with dreams and wishes that it’s actually difficult to read.

  1. Ron Paul IS one of the weaker ones, you need to acknowledge that.

  2. What makes you think that when the (other) weaker candidates drop out that Paul will automatically get their supporters? It makes more sense to me that someone who wanted say Gingrich, a well established former republican Speaker of the House would then back a candidate like Romney, Bachman or Pawlenty. You know someone who actually has a chance of winning.

  3. How dare you brag about a candidate because one year ago he was only a flicker at 1% and now has about 7% support? Granted Paulies have to take whatever they can get their hands on and try to make it look good, but you only make yourself look foolish touting numbers like these. You do realize that it will take a great deal more than 7% to win the republican nomination right? And then a good deal more than that to defeat Obama.

How long will you be living this fantasy? Furthermore, I want some kudo’s when I am correct about Paul, AGAIN. Last time out I called it exactly and you didn’t have the good manners to mention it.

Here is a bet offer for you. If Paul gets the nomination I’ll write at the end of every one of my posts that “John S. is brilliant.” If he is defeated you must write the same thing at the end of your posts, except substitute my name for yours.

I’m not even talking about him winning the Presidency, just the nomination. And if you don’t even think that he can win that much why do you waste everyone’s time with you nonsense about Paul?

Deal?[/quote]

That won’t help Paul if Romney has say 25%, Bachman 17% and Pawlenty 15%. If Paul only has 7% if the votes are split equally he’ll still be in dead last, or close to dead last place. If you going to dream you have to do better than this John.

Yet, he has been polled in the top 3 or 4 in Iowa while Ron Paul is sitting there with 7%. So, if he’s out what does that say for Ron Paul?

Finally, we agree on something…phew…that took a while. True the media will be all over Bachman like a pack of junkies on the only needle left in the bag. But that has nothing to do with Paul. The Tea Party wants to win, and they know Paul is not going to do that. He’ll get some support, but it will be split between the candidates.

More wishful thinking. Keep in mind that both have to actually get knocked out. Certainly, one or both could stay in to the bitter end. Also keep in mind that both of them look mighty good for the VP slot.

And when you throw skin in the game and pick a candidate then we can talk about a bet.
[/quote]

I’m not the one constantly rambling on about how Ron Paul can capture the nomination, YOU ARE. And you did it right here in this post. Funny you are not willing to back up your beliefs. Is that because deep down you know Paul is not going to win? Why else would you pass up a chance to shut me up?

83

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

Here Ron Paul is tied with Bachmann.

Now Ron Paul losing here in Iowa would not surprise me. Ron Pauls poll numbers won’t increase till well into the primary season when the weaker wons are knocked off. Last year he was polling 1% at this time. [/quote]

Do you just recycle your posts from 2008? That is almost the exact same thing that you said back then. Your logic is so filled with flaws, and replaced with dreams and wishes that it’s actually difficult to read.

  1. Ron Paul IS one of the weaker ones, you need to acknowledge that.

  2. What makes you think that when the (other) weaker candidates drop out that Paul will automatically get their supporters? It makes more sense to me that someone who wanted say Gingrich, a well established former republican Speaker of the House would then back a candidate like Romney, Bachman or Pawlenty. You know someone who actually has a chance of winning.

  3. How dare you brag about a candidate because one year ago he was only a flicker at 1% and now has about 7% support? Granted Paulies have to take whatever they can get their hands on and try to make it look good, but you only make yourself look foolish touting numbers like these. You do realize that it will take a great deal more than 7% to win the republican nomination right? And then a good deal more than that to defeat Obama.

How long will you be living this fantasy? Furthermore, I want some kudo’s when I am correct about Paul, AGAIN. Last time out I called it exactly and you didn’t have the good manners to mention it.

Here is a bet offer for you. If Paul gets the nomination I’ll write at the end of every one of my posts that “John S. is brilliant.” If he is defeated you must write the same thing at the end of your posts, except substitute my name for yours.

I’m not even talking about him winning the Presidency, just the nomination. And if you don’t even think that he can win that much why do you waste everyone’s time with you nonsense about Paul?

Deal?[/quote]

That won’t help Paul if Romney has say 25%, Bachman 17% and Pawlenty 15%. If Paul only has 7% if the votes are split equally he’ll still be in dead last, or close to dead last place. If you going to dream you have to do better than this John.

Yet, he has been polled in the top 3 or 4 in Iowa while Ron Paul is sitting there with 7%. So, if he’s out what does that say for Ron Paul?

Finally, we agree on something…phew…that took a while. True the media will be all over Bachman like a pack of junkies on the only needle left in the bag. But that has nothing to do with Paul. The Tea Party wants to win, and they know Paul is not going to do that. He’ll get some support, but it will be split between the candidates.

More wishful thinking. Keep in mind that both have to actually get knocked out. Certainly, one or both could stay in to the bitter end. Also keep in mind that both of them look mighty good for the VP slot.

And when you throw skin in the game and pick a candidate then we can talk about a bet.
[/quote]

I’m not the one constantly rambling on about how Ron Paul can capture the nomination, YOU ARE. And you did it right here in this post. Funny you are not willing to back up your beliefs. Is that because deep down you know Paul is not going to win? Why else would you pass up a chance to shut me up?

[/quote]

First off the poll in Iowa was of 400 people so lets not all jump over ourselves on that one. And as I have said before when it comes to Ron Paul I am looking for a few events to take place, I said if the events take place he wins, if not we get to witness the big tent get destroyed when the libertarians leave the republican party for good.

In the goal to reach Freedom, true freedom not this you are free to do as I say I place my bets behind Ron Paul, Someone who does stand a chance and a good one at that if this market continues to do what it has been doing. Now I have also said that a lot of Republicans are borderline retarded I refer to them as the religious right, and if they fuck this up us Ron Paul supporters will make it so they never see the white house again.

84

[quote]John S. wrote:

First off the poll in Iowa was of 400 people so lets not all jump over ourselves on that one.[/quote]

You left out an important part. They were 400 members of the Iowa caucus, not just people on the street.

You’re looking for the perfect storm. The odds are just about 1,000,000,000,000 to 1 that won’t happen. And if the Libertarians want respect and power they better put up someone who can actually win. Paul is a joke in that category!

But you don’t! I offered to bet and you declined sheepishly. So much for your real feelings of how Paul will do.

John, John, John you know so little about politics and in general “group think” that it would probably take me up to one full year to bring you up to snuff. And of course you’d have to actually want to learn. Anyway, suffice it to say that the tiny group of 20 something’s that support Paul will NOT be much of a factor in 2012. Don’t get me wrong, if Paul supported the republican nominee and could possibly rally every one of them to vote, then yes it would make a difference. Aside from that as I’ve told you previously your little group will be split among the candidates and of course staying home which is what the majority of this age group has been doing for many election cycles.

Now how about that bet John? No faith in Paul?

85

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

First off the poll in Iowa was of 400 people so lets not all jump over ourselves on that one.[/quote]

You left out an important part. They were 400 members of the Iowa caucus, not just people on the street.

You’re looking for the perfect storm. The odds are just about 1,000,000,000,000 to 1 that won’t happen. And if the Libertarians want respect and power they better put up someone who can actually win. Paul is a joke in that category!

But you don’t! I offered to bet and you declined sheepishly. So much for your real feelings of how Paul will do.

John, John, John you know so little about politics and in general “group think” that it would probably take me up to one full year to bring you up to snuff. And of course you’d have to actually want to learn. Anyway, suffice it to say that the tiny group of 20 something’s that support Paul will NOT be much of a factor in 2012. Don’t get me wrong, if Paul supported the republican nominee and could possibly rally every one of them to vote, then yes it would make a difference. Aside from that as I’ve told you previously your little group will be split among the candidates and of course staying home which is what the majority of this age group has been doing for many election cycles.

Now how about that bet John? No faith in Paul?

[/quote]

You know nothing of Ron Paul supporters. The Libertarians support Ron Paul, and no you will not see them splitting the votes. Ever check that CNN poll that showed Ron Paul with the best chance to beat Obama. You know why it said that? Because there is more then one way to reach our goal and if it takes a depression that makes the great depression look like the roaring 20’s to get to it then so be it. us Ron Paul supporters are more then willing to crash the GOP. Go ahead and take a look at the CNN poll again. Explain to me why Ron Paul is the only one with a chacne and everyone gets destroyed if it is not for us leaving the party.

You may understand Republicans, but you have no understanding of Libertarians and how pissed we are right now.

As I said pick your candidate and lets have a bet.

Would you like to hear about all the tea party elected officals and tea party organizations here in Iowa that have backed Ron Paul?

86

[quote]John S. wrote:

You know nothing of Ron Paul supporters.[/quote]

Sure I do Bub, Paul supporters are mostly young, male and libertarian. Look it up. You’ll see that I’m correct.

You’ve forgotten political science 101. There is no cross party poll that is accurate at this early stage. I even gave you examples, remember? Scroll back I’m rewriting this stuff.

I agree, you are more than willing. Fortunately for America you are unable.

I actually share that feeling with you and your fellow libertarians. If you think that conservative republicans are happy with the Obama circus you are mistaken.

Honestly, I will vote for Paul or any other republican who might get the nomination. Obama is a catastrophe. But at this point I don’t know who will get the nomination. But you seem to be convinced that Ron Paul is the man. If you don’t want to back that up I understand. I guess one can say anything that they want on the Internet—they don’t have to back it up.

87

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

You know nothing of Ron Paul supporters.[/quote]

Sure I do Bub, Paul supporters are mostly young, male and libertarian. Look it up. You’ll see that I’m correct.

You’ve forgotten political science 101. There is no cross party poll that is accurate at this early stage. I even gave you examples, remember? Scroll back I’m rewriting this stuff.

I agree, you are more than willing. Fortunately for America you are unable.

I actually share that feeling with you and your fellow libertarians. If you think that conservative republicans are happy with the Obama circus you are mistaken.

Honestly, I will vote for Paul or any other republican who might get the nomination. Obama is a catastrophe. But at this point I don’t know who will get the nomination. But you seem to be convinced that Ron Paul is the man. If you don’t want to back that up I understand. I guess one can say anything that they want on the Internet—they don’t have to back it up.[/quote]

Um, who do you think didn’t vote last election that allowed Obama to win?
I am backing myself up, we either get Ron Paul or America gets Obama for another 4 years.

It is not that we will not come out and vote, it is that we will vote this time we will just vote Obama.

Lets see we account for right now 3-4 million votes(when you add our independent voters in). Yeah that seems more then enough to insure the GOP fails.

88

I guess I’ll rephrase my question, Zeb, because I’m still confused with the Poll
discrepancies.

Why would Paul “win” a Republican Leadership Conference Poll…then fair so badly among Iowa Caucus voters?

What am I missing?

Mufasa

89

[quote]John S. wrote:

Um, who do you think didn’t vote last election that allowed Obama to win?[/quote]

If memory serves we had one of the better turnouts in 08 than in the past several election cycles. They did turn out for five major reasons.

1- Obama motivated the 18-24 age group. This is the group that usually stays home in droves.

2-People had republican fatigue, mainly because of Bush and two wars. And of course the press did a number on Bush for four years, some would say eight. This tends to drive down your poll numbers.

3-The press got fully behind Obama. Surveys indicate that in terms of favorable headlines Obama beat McCain by almost 2-1. Yeah that stuff matters a lot.

4-To his credit Obama and his people ran a great campaign. They gave the people something that they could easily digest in their very busy world - One word: “Change”

5-Obama had the cash to back up his simplistic message. Obama spent approximately $7.40 per vote. Where McCain spent only 5.80 per vote.

So not only was there a large turnout, there was a large turnout for some very good reasons.

Please stop sounding like a kid, I beg you. Whether we get Obama or not has everything to do with who gets the republican nomination, how well they run their campaign, how the economy is doing and of course what types of things happen on the world stage which Obama can manipulate to further his own aspirations. Please tell me you understand this stuff.

You and a few of your friends might. And depending on the state that you live in in might make a difference, but probably not. As I said the 7% of the Paul voters will be split in many different directions. From staying home to voting for Obama. Either way it won’t mean a thimble full of spit.

You wish it was 4 million votes. The 7% that I speak of is not 7% of the total electorate. In 2008 about 132 million people turned out to vote. Assuming we get about the same turnout Ron Paul would have to garner 3% of that total which is about 4 million votes. If you think that’s going to happen you are showing more of your youth and inexperience. Ralph Nader is a much more well known figure and he gained only about half of one percent. Ross Perot with his billions could only get just over 8% in 1996.

And to add to your already erroneous assumption Paul is not even running as an independent! You are counting on all of his followers (call it 2 million at best) to actually vote for Obama. That is NOT going to happen. As I said some will stay home some will vote for the republican and still others for Obama.

Look, I actually admire your exuberance, but it is misplaced my friend. Paul is an asterisk in the field of Presidential candidates. A good man to be sure, but he’s in the wrong game to actually be successful.

90

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I guess I’ll rephrase my question, Zeb, because I’m still confused with the Poll
discrepancies.

Why would Paul “win” a Republican Leadership Conference Poll…then fair so badly among Iowa Caucus voters?

What am I missing?

Mufasa

[/quote]

Very simple answer Mufasa, Paul did well in the RLC poll because he was aloud to “bus in” his supporters. (by the way the same reason that John Huntsman did well…and he’s not going anywhere either). Paul’s people are a tech savvy group and organize and unite well. Can you imagine a small army of John S’s out there? Those guys are motivated! But of course in the scheme of things that are not nearly enough of them. And when reality hits and votes cannot be manipulated Paul loses. And we saw this when the important 400 caucus members were polled.

As I’ve been saying on a regular basis Paul will have a hard time cracking double digits in any of the primaries. Sure it could happen but it will be an anomaly.

91

Makes sense.

Thanks, Zeb.

Mufasa

92

[quote]John S. wrote:
It is not that we will not come out and vote, it is that we will vote this time we will just vote Obama.
[/quote]

Sorry John, I’ll have to say speak for yourself on this one. I wouldn’t vote for a worm like Obama under any circumstances. But then, neither will I vote for any typical neocon either.

93

As much as I am an avid Ron Paul supporter I seriously doubt Johns claim that any significant portion of Paulites will vote for Obama if Paul doesn’t get the nomination. I think they’ll either stay home or write him in.

94

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
As much as I am an avid Ron Paul supporter I seriously doubt Johns claim that any significant portion of Paulites will vote for Obama if Paul doesn’t get the nomination. I think they’ll either stay home or write him in.[/quote]

Excellent post Gaius!

95

Lol. Do I get a gold star?

96

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
As much as I am an avid Ron Paul supporter I seriously doubt Johns claim that any significant portion of Paulites will vote for Obama if Paul doesn’t get the nomination. I think they’ll either stay home or write him in.[/quote]

Yup. Besides, Obama is the polar opposite of Ron Paul.

97

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Lol. Do I get a gold star?[/quote]

No, just a pat on the back for good analysis.

98

When i listen to the republicans debate, Ron Paul is the only one I believe who truly means what he says. The others for the most part are just mouth-pieces for their corporate constituencies.

Whether i agree or not with his policies he is the real deal and not some self-serving career politician. He honestly wants to change Washington. The rest just play the charade.

It’s a joy to watch him speak and debate.

99

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
It is not that we will not come out and vote, it is that we will vote this time we will just vote Obama.
[/quote]

Sorry John, I’ll have to say speak for yourself on this one. I wouldn’t vote for a worm like Obama under any circumstances. But then, neither will I vote for any typical neocon either.[/quote]

You can stay home that still is a vote the Republican party doesn’t have. Others like myself will vote Obama if he doesn’t get nominated, either way the Republican party is screwed without Ron Paul as the nominee.

From what I have seen from most of the Ron Paul supporters we are either staying home or going to vote against the establishment candidate. I am sure a lot of Gary Johnson voters are also thinking the same thing.

So lets say 40% of Ron Paul supporters take up the montra of Fuck the GOP while the other 60% stay home, I am not seeing any way the establishment candidate who will never tell us what they will cut has any chance. With the Election going to be as close as it will be the Big Tent republican party will fall when its Libertarian part abandons it.

100

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The others for the most part are just mouth-pieces for their corporate constituencies.[/quote]

LOL…care to elaborate on exactly which corporate constituencies are supporting the candidates that you speak of? Or are you just mimicking what you’ve heard some the wacko’s say on T Nation?