Ron Paul Wins Texas GOP Poll

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
ZEB is pleased that you were entertained.

(Okay I have to stop that now right?)[/quote]

Well, only if you don’t want newcomers to think you’re on the entire pharmacy. :stuck_out_tongue:

BTW, this third person talk reminds me of Ormus in Blizzard game Diablo II. I’m now have trouble getting that bastard out of my head. :confused:

In other news it seems that Ron Paul is polling pretty well in Iowa at the moment: Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus Preference

He was polling only 3% in April. Now only 3 months later he is at 14%? I’ve got to admit that is a startling climb. So much the better though, if this poll means anything that is.

Ron Paul is also giving up his congressional seat: Ron Paul won't seek congressional term in 2012

I was expecting this to happen but not until the next election cycle.[/quote]

Well then for sure he’s going to win Iowa THERE’S NOTHING STOPPING HIM! Then…then…it’s ON TO THE PRESIDENCY! And then…PIGS WILL FLY.

LMAO!

Um, just for your edification that Iowa poll isn’t worth a thimble full of spit. Too early. And as I said the Paulites are organized. The funny part is that if he is (IF IF IF IF IF) polling at 14% right now that will be about where he is on the day of the primary give or take.

(Crowd noise) AWWW…[/quote]

Take chill pill Ormus. Dude, I wasn’t insinuating this means he’s going to win. I just found it surprising that he’s 14% considering he was about 1-2% last time. And I have no idea whether or not this poll means anything at all which is why i posted it. In fact, I was hoping for your input from you and others, although without the adolescent condescension.

What are the most reliable polls, if any, in your book?[/quote]

You see this whole Paul thing is deserving of adolescent condescension and if I can’t do that then the Paul thread becomes even more useless than it already is because most of the entertainment value is now gone.

See what I’m sayin? Do ya?[/quote]

I was asking you about what you think are reliable polls. Are there, and if so, what are they?[/quote]

Polls can be very misleading. First of all, if you can, find out if the poll was conducted with registered voters as opposed to “likely voters” big difference. Time of year matters greatly. If it’s early (right now) the people who will show well are either those who have a big name, or those who have a loyal following. Even time of day matters. If pollsters call during the day they will tend to get more of the unemployed and senior citizens.

There are many things to look for before you assume you are seeing a reliable poll.

Edit: Also there are some cute tricks that both parties use. One example, If they ask “does Obama deserve a second term” the number might come back around 46% which is bad news for the President. However, if asked, “Do you look favorably upon the Obama” the number can be as high as 55%. If you are a republican you tout the first poll. And a democrat would certainly talk about the second number.

Anyway, the point is when you are talking about Ron Paul’s “poll numbers” please keep in mind they really mean nothing. Absolutely nothing for a myriad of reasons.

42

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
The whole “throwing your vote away” argument is about as shit stupid as it gets. Voting your convictions is what we’re all supposed to be doing, in case some of you had forgot, and if Ron Paul represents your convictions then that’s who you should be voting for, it’s as simple as that.

Or maybe having your “team” win is super duper important, important enough to “throw your vote away” on a slick talking, well moneyed candidate who only kinda sorta meets up with your convictions. Yea…that’s a whole bunch of smart.

GO TEAM REPUBLICAN!! GO TEAM DEMOCRAT!! We’re totally gonna win this year!! /sarcasm[/quote]

Agreed.

43

Yet again another surprise. Looks like Ron Paul is now a top teer candidate:

http://www.tommullen.net/featured/lord-and-levin-welcome-ron-paul-to-the-top-tier/

Placing third in the presidential race in front of Michelle Bachman. I did not really expect this to happen so soon. Honestly I thought he would still be fifth or sixth place at this point. So much the better though.

44

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
ZEB is pleased that you were entertained.

(Okay I have to stop that now right?)[/quote]

Well, only if you don’t want newcomers to think you’re on the entire pharmacy. :stuck_out_tongue:

BTW, this third person talk reminds me of Ormus in Blizzard game Diablo II. I’m now have trouble getting that bastard out of my head. :confused:

In other news it seems that Ron Paul is polling pretty well in Iowa at the moment: Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus Preference

He was polling only 3% in April. Now only 3 months later he is at 14%? I’ve got to admit that is a startling climb. So much the better though, if this poll means anything that is.

Ron Paul is also giving up his congressional seat: Ron Paul won't seek congressional term in 2012

I was expecting this to happen but not until the next election cycle.[/quote]

Well then for sure he’s going to win Iowa THERE’S NOTHING STOPPING HIM! Then…then…it’s ON TO THE PRESIDENCY! And then…PIGS WILL FLY.

LMAO!

Um, just for your edification that Iowa poll isn’t worth a thimble full of spit. Too early. And as I said the Paulites are organized. The funny part is that if he is (IF IF IF IF IF) polling at 14% right now that will be about where he is on the day of the primary give or take.

(Crowd noise) AWWW…[/quote]

Take chill pill Ormus. Dude, I wasn’t insinuating this means he’s going to win. I just found it surprising that he’s 14% considering he was about 1-2% last time. And I have no idea whether or not this poll means anything at all which is why i posted it. In fact, I was hoping for your input from you and others, although without the adolescent condescension.

What are the most reliable polls, if any, in your book?[/quote]

You see this whole Paul thing is deserving of adolescent condescension and if I can’t do that then the Paul thread becomes even more useless than it already is because most of the entertainment value is now gone.

See what I’m sayin? Do ya?[/quote]

I was asking you about what you think are reliable polls. Are there, and if so, what are they?[/quote]

Polls can be very misleading. First of all, if you can, find out if the poll was conducted with registered voters as opposed to “likely voters” big difference. Time of year matters greatly. If it’s early (right now) the people who will show well are either those who have a big name, or those who have a loyal following. Even time of day matters. If pollsters call during the day they will tend to get more of the unemployed and senior citizens.

There are many things to look for before you assume you are seeing a reliable poll.

Edit: Also there are some cute tricks that both parties use. One example, If they ask “does Obama deserve a second term” the number might come back around 46% which is bad news for the President. However, if asked, “Do you look favorably upon the Obama” the number can be as high as 55%. If you are a republican you tout the first poll. And a democrat would certainly talk about the second number.

Anyway, the point is when you are talking about Ron Paul’s “poll numbers” please keep in mind they really mean nothing. Absolutely nothing for a myriad of reasons.

[/quote]

Good post.

I can give a real life example that shows that Zebs point is wery spot on.

In Norway you have a small leftist party that at the moment are outside of the parliament( but are represented in all local parliaments ). Anyway they often do good at polls right before election day, meening that according to polls they are often in the parliament with 2 seats, but at the actuall election they allways fall short and have been for 14years( Last period they had a seat in the national parliament was 1993-1997 ). Now as Zeb said there are probably myriads of reason for the disperancy beetwen the polls and election in the case of this small norwegian party and I want go into it here. I think that it is possible that this is the case with Ron Paul to, he is better in polls than real election.

All this aside I agree with the person who said that you should vote after your geniun conviction instead of going all tactical. I wiew it as a form of integrity. If more people voted after conviction I think it would be to the better. And therefor I hope that you who find Ron Paul to be most close to your convictions vote for him even though he`s chances aint that good. I vote for the little leftist party btw and have allways done so since I could vote( first time was in 2005 ).

As

45

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Polls can be very misleading. First of all, if you can, find out if the poll was conducted with registered voters as opposed to “likely voters” big difference. Time of year matters greatly. If it’s early (right now) the people who will show well are either those who have a big name, or those who have a loyal following. Even time of day matters. If pollsters call during the day they will tend to get more of the unemployed and senior citizens.

There are many things to look for before you assume you are seeing a reliable poll.

Edit: Also there are some cute tricks that both parties use. One example, If they ask “does Obama deserve a second term” the number might come back around 46% which is bad news for the President. However, if asked, “Do you look favorably upon the Obama” the number can be as high as 55%. If you are a republican you tout the first poll. And a democrat would certainly talk about the second number.

Anyway, the point is when you are talking about Ron Paul’s “poll numbers” please keep in mind they really mean nothing. Absolutely nothing for a myriad of reasons.
[/quote]

Okay. At this point then would this mean the polls are useless for every candidate?

46

I saw Paul on Fox and he said that he gets more donations from active military officers than all the other GOP candidates combined. Is there anyway to confirm that this is true? If it is than that’s a pretty amazing fact and quite telling.

47

[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I saw Paul on Fox and he said that he gets more donations from active military officers than all the other GOP candidates combined. Is there anyway to confirm that this is true? If it is than that’s a pretty amazing fact and quite telling. [/quote]

Here’s what it means; the young males in the military who support Ron Paul are just as zealous as the civilian young males.

It means no more or less than that.

48

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I saw Paul on Fox and he said that he gets more donations from active military officers than all the other GOP candidates combined. Is there anyway to confirm that this is true? If it is than that’s a pretty amazing fact and quite telling. [/quote]

Here’s what it means; the young males in the military who support Ron Paul are just as zealous as the civilian young males.

It means no more or less than that.[/quote]

Hmmm…Ok then. Would you be saying this about any other candidate?

49

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Polls can be very misleading. First of all, if you can, find out if the poll was conducted with registered voters as opposed to “likely voters” big difference. Time of year matters greatly. If it’s early (right now) the people who will show well are either those who have a big name, or those who have a loyal following. Even time of day matters. If pollsters call during the day they will tend to get more of the unemployed and senior citizens.

There are many things to look for before you assume you are seeing a reliable poll.

Edit: Also there are some cute tricks that both parties use. One example, If they ask “does Obama deserve a second term” the number might come back around 46% which is bad news for the President. However, if asked, “Do you look favorably upon the Obama” the number can be as high as 55%. If you are a republican you tout the first poll. And a democrat would certainly talk about the second number.

Anyway, the point is when you are talking about Ron Paul’s “poll numbers” please keep in mind they really mean nothing. Absolutely nothing for a myriad of reasons.
[/quote]

Okay. At this point then would this mean the polls are useless for every candidate?[/quote]

Here are just a few things that matter in a field of probably 50 or so variables.

1- Depends on who is being polled.

2- How are the questions are asked?

3- The specific questions asked.

4- - Who did the poll?

5- How many people were questioned in the poll?

6- How were those people chosen?

7- When the poll was done, from time of day to how far from the specific election?

8- Was it an Internet poll, phone poll or done another way.

9- What is the sampling margin of error (this can be figured a few different ways)?

10- What order were the questions asked?

11- Was it a “push poll.” A poll where your decision is being influenced?

12- Was a good cross section of demographics used including age, race, geography, etc?

  1. What other polls have been done on this topic? Do they say the same thing? If they are different how so?

Not always, but many times with Ron Paul the deck is stacked. His supporters hop on buses and travel 3 hours to vote for their man. Or, they phone in repeatedly and tilt the end result in his favor. Finally, some of the polls are done through the Internet where the Paul supporters excel and multiply a single vote to many more. Again. that isn’t to say that he will not have his share of support in any legitimate poll, he will. But in the end it will mean nothing.

The problem with Ron Paul is that his support is active and vocal, but not deep and broad. As I’ve been saying to the constant whine of a few Paul supporters. Just because you and your pals like Paul that doesn’t mean that everyone does, or even a large minority. We know that he has vocal support in the 20 something male age group. But, for example, does he have the support of the majority of senior citizens? No Does he have the support of women 18 to 49? Certainly not. Does he have the support of labor unions? Absolutely not. Does he have the majority of small business behind him? Not at all. Does he have the support of minority groups? Once again the answer is no.

I could go on and on, cutting the demographics at least 25 different ways. His support is thin but vocal. And at this point the writing is on the wall with Ron Paul (no poem intended). His support while vocal and active does NOT encompass the broad spectrum of support needed by a man who is attempting to capture the nomination of his party for the highest office in the land. Sorry, as I’ve said many times, I don’t make the rules I just abide by them.

I’ll leave every one with one comparison. Jesse Jackson ran for President in 1984, only the second African American to do so in our history, up to that date. His really’s were always jam packed. Massive numbers of people would show up. He also received five and ten dollar bills in the mail from throngs of supporters (sound familiar?). Was he ever a threat to become President of the United States? No. His support was mostly from black people and also young liberal 20 somethings who thought that Jackson represented their views. He even finished in third place with 18% of the primary vote, behind Gary Hart who finished second and Walter Mondale who won the democratic nomination (and later went on to lose to Ronald Reagan in a landslide).

Of course as we all know in 2008 an African American was elected to the Presidency who did gain a broad spectrum of support from many different (and diverse) groups of people which is exactly what it takes to win!

So as you can see Ron Paul, while exciting those who truly love him will never, ever gain the nomination as his appeal is limited to mostly young male adults (not all of it just most of it). And I would not be quite so confident if he was a new face on the scene, as broad appeal can begin with one group and spread to others (usually not the way it happens). But having run for President on two other occasions that tells me quite a lot. The people have seen him and they have rejected him in large numbers. This time around I’ve heard things like “the people have now seen how accurate Ron Paul’s great economic prognostications have been.” But that will not change the outcome. As the republican nominee, or whomever the front runner is, will receive any good will that is available through Obama’s mishandling of the economy. In short, it’s not the reality of Paul’s economic stand that will matter, but the perception of that reality as the front runner benefits. Put yet another way, the people will love whom they love! A really hard slap in the face to the Paul supporters I know but that is the way politics has always worked and will continue to work as long as large amounts of people choose our President.

Sorry to the Paul supporters for once again raining on their parade with facts. And while in a way I admire Paul’s supporters for displaying such zeal, I also caution them to be prepared for the worst regarding Paul’s candidacy because it will surely come, sooner or later.

50

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Here are just a few things that matter in a field of probably 50 or so variables.

1- Depends on who is being polled.

2- How are the questions are asked?

3- The specific questions asked.

4- - Who did the poll?

5- How many people were questioned in the poll?

6- How were those people chosen?

7- When the poll was done, from time of day to how far from the specific election?

8- Was it an Internet poll, phone poll or done another way.

9- What is the sampling margin of error (this can be figured a few different ways)?

10- What order were the questions asked?

11- Was it a “push poll.” A poll where your decision is being influenced?

12- Was a good cross section of demographics used including age, race, geography, etc?

  1. What other polls have been done on this topic? Do they say the same thing? If they are different how so?

Not always, but many times with Ron Paul the deck is stacked. His supporters hop on buses and travel 3 hours to vote for their man. Or, they phone in repeatedly and tilt the end result in his favor. Finally, some of the polls are done through the Internet where the Paul supporters excel and multiply a single vote to many more. Again. that isn’t to say that he will not have his share of support in any legitimate poll, he will. But in the end it will mean nothing.

The problem with Ron Paul is that his support is active and vocal, but not deep and broad. As I’ve been saying to the constant whine of a few Paul supporters. Just because you and your pals like Paul that doesn’t mean that everyone does, or even a large minority. We know that he has vocal support in the 20 something male age group. But, for example, does he have the support of the majority of senior citizens? No Does he have the support of women 18 to 49? Certainly not. Does he have the support of labor unions? Absolutely not. Does he have the majority of small business behind him? Not at all. Does he have the support of minority groups? Once again the answer is no.

I could go on and on, cutting the demographics at least 25 different ways. His support is thin but vocal. And at this point the writing is on the wall with Ron Paul (no poem intended). His support while vocal and active does NOT encompass the broad spectrum of support needed by a man who is attempting to capture the nomination of his party for the highest office in the land. Sorry, as I’ve said many times, I don’t make the rules I just abide by them.

I’ll leave every one with one comparison. Jesse Jackson ran for President in 1984, only the second African American to do so in our history, up to that date. His really’s were always jam packed. Massive numbers of people would show up. He also received five and ten dollar bills in the mail from throngs of supporters (sound familiar?). Was he ever a threat to become President of the United States? No. His support was mostly from black people and also young liberal 20 somethings who thought that Jackson represented their views. He even finished in third place with 18% of the primary vote, behind Gary Hart who finished second and Walter Mondale who won the democratic nomination (and later went on to lose to Ronald Reagan in a landslide).

Of course as we all know in 2008 an African American was elected to the Presidency who did gain a broad spectrum of support from many different (and diverse) groups of people which is exactly what it takes to win!

So as you can see Ron Paul, while exciting those who truly love him will never, ever gain the nomination as his appeal is limited to mostly young male adults (not all of it just most of it). And I would not be quite so confident if he was a new face on the scene, as broad appeal can begin with one group and spread to others (usually not the way it happens). But having run for President on two other occasions that tells me quite a lot. The people have seen him and they have rejected him in large numbers. This time around I’ve heard things like “the people have now seen how accurate Ron Paul’s great economic prognostications have been.” But that will not change the outcome. As the republican nominee, or whomever the front runner is, will receive any good will that is available through Obama’s mishandling of the economy. In short, it’s not the reality of Paul’s economic stand that will matter, but the perception of that reality as the front runner benefits. Put yet another way, the people will love whom they love! A really hard slap in the face to the Paul supporters I know but that is the way politics has always worked and will continue to work as long as large amounts of people choose our President.

Sorry to the Paul supporters for once again raining on their parade with facts. And while in a way I admire Paul’s supporters for displaying such zeal, I also caution them to be prepared for the worst regarding Paul’s candidacy because it will surely come, sooner or later.

[/quote]

I agree about the online polls, straw polls and so forth. I put ZERO stock in those (I have no idea why other Ron Paul supporters seem to put so much stock in those kinds of polls. I guess they didn’t learn from last time). But what about the “official” polls like Rasmussen, Gallup and so forth (where Paul supporters cannot simply flood the market). He’s polling in third place at this point in non-straw polls and non-online polls. In 2007 he wasn’t even on the radar in those polls. Last time he had no presence in those polls and all could see that he got no support in the primaries either. It looks like this isn’t true this time around.

So I guess my question is that since Ron Paul supporters can’t flood those “official” polls how do we account for his higher position in those as well? Or is there some other reason we should now ignore those too?

51

In the exceedingly unlikely event that RP won the nomination he would never be able to unseat Obama. Bachmann couldn’t unseat Obama either. Hopefully Romney or Perry can.

I see Hollywood are hard at work pimping the mack daddy brand:

http://news.yahoo.com/kathryn-bigelows-bin-laden-movie-obama-campaign-propaganda-110600014.html

52

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I saw Paul on Fox and he said that he gets more donations from active military officers than all the other GOP candidates combined. Is there anyway to confirm that this is true? If it is than that’s a pretty amazing fact and quite telling. [/quote]

Here’s what it means; the young males in the military who support Ron Paul are just as zealous as the civilian young males.

It means no more or less than that.[/quote]

You don’t find it at all odd that the military supports Paul and his “wacky” foreign policy?

Or is it not really “the military” but a small minority of officers that are making a lot of the donations?? I guess what would be more interesting would be to see not the absolute figures, the total contributions, but the average dollar amount of each contribution and the number of contributions. Do you think this would show that the military donations are coming from a small number of officers?

53

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I saw Paul on Fox and he said that he gets more donations from active military officers than all the other GOP candidates combined. Is there anyway to confirm that this is true? If it is than that’s a pretty amazing fact and quite telling. [/quote]

Here’s what it means; the young males in the military who support Ron Paul are just as zealous as the civilian young males.

It means no more or less than that.[/quote]

You don’t find it at all odd that the military supports Paul and his “wacky” foreign policy?

Or is it not really “the military” but a small minority of officers that are making a lot of the donations?? I guess what would be more interesting would be to see not the absolute figures, the total contributions, but the average dollar amount of each contribution and the number of contributions. Do you think this would show that the military donations are coming from a small number of officers?[/quote]

As I said the Paul supporters are mostly young males. And who fills the rank and file of the military? Young males. Also the Paul supporters are zealous. That tells me that no matter where there are young males there will be donations to Ron Paul. This is not rocket science is it? But that doesn’t necessarily mean that one should adopt the misconception that the entire military supports Paul. That would be assuming far too much at this point, don’t you agree?

With that said there is no way to determine how many Ron Paul supporters are in the military. We know that Paul gets a lot of donations from the military and that’s all we know.

Since I have no idea of the dollar figure coming from the military, let’s take a guess, and only a guess. If 3% (could be 5% who knows?) of “the military” sends donations to Ron Paul that’s a lot of cash coming in. But the other 97% (or so) are silent. What does that tell you? Does it remind you of what’s happening in civilian life as well? We have 3% - 10% really vocal Ron Paul supporters. They make a lot of noise, take bus trips, hop on the Internet and vote in polls and contribute a lot of money. Once again zeal does not equate to large numbers. I maintain, as I wrote in my post on the previous page, that his support is quite thin. But because of their zeal and the noise that they make young males (fairly new to the political process at this level) assume that means political prominence, and…it doesn’t!

In the end the military, as always, will support the republican candidate. And that candidate won’t be Ron Paul!

54

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Here are just a few things that matter in a field of probably 50 or so variables.

1- Depends on who is being polled.

2- How are the questions are asked?

3- The specific questions asked.

4- - Who did the poll?

5- How many people were questioned in the poll?

6- How were those people chosen?

7- When the poll was done, from time of day to how far from the specific election?

8- Was it an Internet poll, phone poll or done another way.

9- What is the sampling margin of error (this can be figured a few different ways)?

10- What order were the questions asked?

11- Was it a “push poll.” A poll where your decision is being influenced?

12- Was a good cross section of demographics used including age, race, geography, etc?

  1. What other polls have been done on this topic? Do they say the same thing? If they are different how so?

Not always, but many times with Ron Paul the deck is stacked. His supporters hop on buses and travel 3 hours to vote for their man. Or, they phone in repeatedly and tilt the end result in his favor. Finally, some of the polls are done through the Internet where the Paul supporters excel and multiply a single vote to many more. Again. that isn’t to say that he will not have his share of support in any legitimate poll, he will. But in the end it will mean nothing.

The problem with Ron Paul is that his support is active and vocal, but not deep and broad. As I’ve been saying to the constant whine of a few Paul supporters. Just because you and your pals like Paul that doesn’t mean that everyone does, or even a large minority. We know that he has vocal support in the 20 something male age group. But, for example, does he have the support of the majority of senior citizens? No Does he have the support of women 18 to 49? Certainly not. Does he have the support of labor unions? Absolutely not. Does he have the majority of small business behind him? Not at all. Does he have the support of minority groups? Once again the answer is no.

I could go on and on, cutting the demographics at least 25 different ways. His support is thin but vocal. And at this point the writing is on the wall with Ron Paul (no poem intended). His support while vocal and active does NOT encompass the broad spectrum of support needed by a man who is attempting to capture the nomination of his party for the highest office in the land. Sorry, as I’ve said many times, I don’t make the rules I just abide by them.

I’ll leave every one with one comparison. Jesse Jackson ran for President in 1984, only the second African American to do so in our history, up to that date. His really’s were always jam packed. Massive numbers of people would show up. He also received five and ten dollar bills in the mail from throngs of supporters (sound familiar?). Was he ever a threat to become President of the United States? No. His support was mostly from black people and also young liberal 20 somethings who thought that Jackson represented their views. He even finished in third place with 18% of the primary vote, behind Gary Hart who finished second and Walter Mondale who won the democratic nomination (and later went on to lose to Ronald Reagan in a landslide).

Of course as we all know in 2008 an African American was elected to the Presidency who did gain a broad spectrum of support from many different (and diverse) groups of people which is exactly what it takes to win!

So as you can see Ron Paul, while exciting those who truly love him will never, ever gain the nomination as his appeal is limited to mostly young male adults (not all of it just most of it). And I would not be quite so confident if he was a new face on the scene, as broad appeal can begin with one group and spread to others (usually not the way it happens). But having run for President on two other occasions that tells me quite a lot. The people have seen him and they have rejected him in large numbers. This time around I’ve heard things like “the people have now seen how accurate Ron Paul’s great economic prognostications have been.” But that will not change the outcome. As the republican nominee, or whomever the front runner is, will receive any good will that is available through Obama’s mishandling of the economy. In short, it’s not the reality of Paul’s economic stand that will matter, but the perception of that reality as the front runner benefits. Put yet another way, the people will love whom they love! A really hard slap in the face to the Paul supporters I know but that is the way politics has always worked and will continue to work as long as large amounts of people choose our President.

Sorry to the Paul supporters for once again raining on their parade with facts. And while in a way I admire Paul’s supporters for displaying such zeal, I also caution them to be prepared for the worst regarding Paul’s candidacy because it will surely come, sooner or later.

[/quote]

I agree about the online polls, straw polls and so forth. I put ZERO stock in those (I have no idea why other Ron Paul supporters seem to put so much stock in those kinds of polls. I guess they didn’t learn from last time). But what about the “official” polls like Rasmussen, Gallup and so forth (where Paul supporters cannot simply flood the market). He’s polling in third place at this point in non-straw polls and non-online polls. In 2007 he wasn’t even on the radar in those polls. Last time he had no presence in those polls and all could see that he got no support in the primaries either. It looks like this isn’t true this time around.

So I guess my question is that since Ron Paul supporters can’t flood those “official” polls how do we account for his higher position in those as well? Or is there some other reason we should now ignore those too?[/quote]

Read the example above about Jesse Jackson when he ran in 1984. He did a great job and surprised everyone and came in third with 18% of of the vote. But third is not first and there was never a President Jesse Jackson.

Third, fifth, last…does it really matter?

If you are going to make a case that Paul can beat Romney, Perry or whoever else may jump in the race like Christie or Rubio you better have a more compelling argument than “well he’s doing better than he did four years ago.” We don’t know where he’ll finish yet because we still don’t know who else is in the race. But what does an argument based upon Paul finishing higher than four years ago have to do with him winning the nomination and then going on to defeat Obama?

55

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Read the example above about Jesse Jackson when he ran in 1984. He did a great job and surprised everyone and came in third with 18% of of the vote. But third is not first and there was never a President Jesse Jackson.

Third, fifth, last…does it really matter?

If you are going to make a case that Paul can beat Romney, Perry or whoever else may jump in the race like Christie or Rubio you better have a more compelling argument than “well he’s doing better than he did four years ago.” We don’t know where he’ll finish yet because we still don’t know who else is in the race. But what does an argument based upon Paul finishing higher than four years ago have to do with him winning the nomination and then going on to defeat Obama?

[/quote]

I never said I think he can beat Romney or Perry. Now I do think he has a great deal more support than four years ago. Although I seriously doubt he’ll ever have enough to beat Romney or Perry. What I’m trying to discover is if even the Rasmussen, Gallup, and Zogby polls are pointless, why even have them? Seems like a waste of time and effort to me.

56

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Read the example above about Jesse Jackson when he ran in 1984. He did a great job and surprised everyone and came in third with 18% of of the vote. But third is not first and there was never a President Jesse Jackson.

Third, fifth, last…does it really matter?

If you are going to make a case that Paul can beat Romney, Perry or whoever else may jump in the race like Christie or Rubio you better have a more compelling argument than “well he’s doing better than he did four years ago.” We don’t know where he’ll finish yet because we still don’t know who else is in the race. But what does an argument based upon Paul finishing higher than four years ago have to do with him winning the nomination and then going on to defeat Obama?

[/quote]

I never said I think he can beat Romney or Perry. Now I do think he has a great deal more support than four years ago. Although I seriously doubt he’ll ever have enough to beat Romney or Perry. What I’m trying to discover is if even the Rasmussen, Gallup, and Zogby polls are pointless, why even have them? Seems like a waste of time and effort to me.[/quote]

They have them because political junkies like you and I love to read them. And it’s part of their job to do polling, so they do it. But if you think at this early date main stream America cares about those polls, think again. And to their credit they’re probably correct in not paying that much attention this early (they could pay more attention than they do though). The game will change considerably before a winner is decided.

57

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Read the example above about Jesse Jackson when he ran in 1984. He did a great job and surprised everyone and came in third with 18% of of the vote. But third is not first and there was never a President Jesse Jackson.

Third, fifth, last…does it really matter?

If you are going to make a case that Paul can beat Romney, Perry or whoever else may jump in the race like Christie or Rubio you better have a more compelling argument than “well he’s doing better than he did four years ago.” We don’t know where he’ll finish yet because we still don’t know who else is in the race. But what does an argument based upon Paul finishing higher than four years ago have to do with him winning the nomination and then going on to defeat Obama?

[/quote]

I never said I think he can beat Romney or Perry. Now I do think he has a great deal more support than four years ago. Although I seriously doubt he’ll ever have enough to beat Romney or Perry. What I’m trying to discover is if even the Rasmussen, Gallup, and Zogby polls are pointless, why even have them? Seems like a waste of time and effort to me.[/quote]

They have them because political junkies like you and I love to read them. And it’s part of their job to do polling, so they do it. But if you think at this early date main stream America cares about those polls, think again. And to their credit they’re probably correct in not paying that much attention this early (they could pay more attention than they do though). The game will change considerably before a winner is decided.[/quote]

It would think it would change quite a bit. I remember that last time McCain went from nowhere to the front runner. What would be your best guess as to who might get the Republican nomination this time around?

58

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Read the example above about Jesse Jackson when he ran in 1984. He did a great job and surprised everyone and came in third with 18% of of the vote. But third is not first and there was never a President Jesse Jackson.

Third, fifth, last…does it really matter?

If you are going to make a case that Paul can beat Romney, Perry or whoever else may jump in the race like Christie or Rubio you better have a more compelling argument than “well he’s doing better than he did four years ago.” We don’t know where he’ll finish yet because we still don’t know who else is in the race. But what does an argument based upon Paul finishing higher than four years ago have to do with him winning the nomination and then going on to defeat Obama?

[/quote]

I never said I think he can beat Romney or Perry. Now I do think he has a great deal more support than four years ago. Although I seriously doubt he’ll ever have enough to beat Romney or Perry. What I’m trying to discover is if even the Rasmussen, Gallup, and Zogby polls are pointless, why even have them? Seems like a waste of time and effort to me.[/quote]

They have them because political junkies like you and I love to read them. And it’s part of their job to do polling, so they do it. But if you think at this early date main stream America cares about those polls, think again. And to their credit they’re probably correct in not paying that much attention this early (they could pay more attention than they do though). The game will change considerably before a winner is decided.[/quote]

It would think it would change quite a bit. I remember that last time McCain went from nowhere to the front runner. What would be your best guess as to who might get the Republican nomination this time around?[/quote]

I have no idea.

Perry has to be careful, while steering to the right he could easily implode. Probably won’t happen because he has some good handlers who know just how far to push it. Over all he could play rather well on the public stage vs Obama. Perry can almost (not quite) match Obama’s stage presence. He’s a decent speaker. And his enthusiasm is far and away better than Obama’s and that matters when voters look at them side by side. The Christian right loves him to pieces which means that they’ll turn out in large numbers on election day. The media will have a field day trying to scare voters into thinking that Perry is a scary Christian man who will make every one pray before Dinner each evening. I can hear Jon Stewart now taking Perry apart piece by piece—But he’s just a comedian right? Ha! The good part is the Christian right has abandoned Michelle Bachman. That I’m thankful for.

Romney passed health care in Mass. This is something that the media will grab a hold of and not let go. He’s also a Mormon and even though we have freedom of religion in the US, that will be a point of contention with some people, why I don’t know, if you seriously ill and the best doctor around was a Mormon would you decline treatment? But of course the media will drill it home so often that before the election is through you’ll think he has 5 wives. Side by side with Obama Romney will look just as Presidential and he is a better speaker and debater than Obama. You read that correctly! Romney is polished poised and if he should be the nominee will be very much used to standing on stage and debating. This is something that Obama will not be used to. So he may look rusty as Bush did in his first debate with John Kerry. Either way Romney matches Obama’s charisma.

I doubt Christie will enter the race but if he does he will zoom to the top three rather quickly. He has that “every man” appeal which will win over plenty of male votes. He won’t do as well with the women as Perry or Romney. He brings NJ (15 electoral votes) to the republican side and that’s a big help as they usually vote for the democrat. But I rather think that Christie would better serve the republican party on the bottom half of the ticket. There he could pound Obama and allow the top part of the ticket to take the high road.

Rubio will not run this time around, nor will he accept the VP position. Sure I could be wrong but I’d bet on it. He has a promising future and does not want to throw it away running against Obama the media darling. Plus he’s fairly new to Washington and would help himself more by establishing his power base and running in 2016 against a new pack of democrats, should Obama win this time around.

Bachman is DOA. When Perry entered the race you could hear a huge sucking sound at her national campaign headquarters. It was the wind created from all of her supporters running from her to Perry. Like a balloon losing air the Bachman candidacy is in huge trouble. She may hang in there for a while but I don’t see her going the distance. And if the nominee is smart he’ll not pick Bachman for VP for many obvious reasons. Her only hope is to win a major debate over Perry in her next couple of outings. Don’t expect it as Perry is far to savvy to allow Bachman the opportunity.

I heard former Governor of NY George Pataki may get into the race. He is nothing that anyone should be concerned with. But, he would make a fabulous VP. If he can help win New York (31 electoral votes) for the ticket. But there’s no guarantee, as sitting Governors do a lot better in their states than former Governors. A huge plus for the GOP ticket if they could pull that one off. And I dare say this would put them over the top as New York is never in play for the republicans. The last time that New York voted for a republican was Ronald Reagan in 1984. And in fact Reagan lost New York in 1980 against Jimmy Carter.

Santorum is in this race to win the bottom part of the ticket. He was underfunded from the beginning and his intentions are obvious. Santorum might work well with a more centrist nominee such as Romney. But there is no guarantee that Santorum could bring PA he was unseated in running for reelection for Senator. Bob Casey beat him back in 07’. After that I thought his political career was essentially over. What he’s doing now is, I think pure genius, if he can pull it off. I like his conservative positions but he comes off as mean spirited at times and scowls far too much. Someone should tell him that only happy upbeat conservatives like Ronald Reagan get elected to high office.

Cain Absolutely not going any where. Dull is a good word to define Cain. Between his lack of stage presence and his lack of experience he’s the total losing package. Nor would I suggest that the eventual nominee choose him for VP hoping to win the black vote. The black vote is not going to take even one step away from the democratic party, especially with Obama on the ticket.

John Huntsman is one more who is in it for the VP slot and has already stated that he’d be proud to serve on the ticket with Michelle Bachman. No one ever says things like that this early unless that is in fact their true intentions from the start. But whomever gets the nomination should steer clear of this guy. He’s a democrat in republicans clothing. And more importantly he’s dull. Not Herman Cain dull, but not much better. He too, like Santorum has a smiling problem. And yes that stuff is important. And not on a conscious level. Someone may not look at him and say “he’s not smiling I’m not voting for him.” But on a subconscious level it is very important. “You know I like that guy, I can’t put my finger on why but I just do.” That type of thing. Huntsman is not going anywhere. He’ll soon drop from the public screen and you will never hear of him again. He will move to Mexico and live under an assumed name. Okay, probably not but he’s not going to become President that I can assure you.

Ron Paul Since I’ve already written volumes on why he will not win I don’t feel compelled to restate the obvious here. Suffice it to say that only the young and naive believe that he has a chance. Nor will he be on the ticket with the eventual winner. He will however go back to his tiny district and probably get reelected until he reaches the age of 100 which is only a few years away. :slight_smile:

So who is going to win? I Don’t know. But it’s a lot of fun trying to figure it all out isn’t it?

59

Great summary, Zeb.

All indications are that Perry has moved into a very solid first among GOP voters…with Romney in second (and slowly, but surely, losing steam).

What has been interesting is to see Palin’s popularity among GOP voters. Most polls have her at anywhere between 10-12% (in candidate rankings)…and she still has not even declared.

How do you view Palin at this point, Zeb?

Mufasa

60

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Great summary, Zeb.

All indications are that Perry has moved into a very solid first among GOP voters…with Romney in second (and slowly, but surely, losing steam).

What has been interesting is to see Palin’s popularity among GOP voters. Most polls have her at anywhere between 10-12% (in candidate rankings)…and she still has not even declared.

How do you view Palin at this point, Zeb?

Mufasa

[/quote]

Non entity relative the the Presidential race. Very important person by virtue of her ability to bring in the right wing of the base. Whichever candidate gets the nomination he will be dealing with Palin. She is, because of her great popularity among those voters, a king maker!

What do you think?