- This topic has 54 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
markmax33.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 12, 2012 at 3:52 PM #737800February 12, 2012 at 3:53 PM #737801
markmax33
Guest[quote=svelte][quote=markmax33]
He was referring to the facts they moved the anti-Paul states up and the pro-Paul states down. [/quote]I know what he was referring to…that’s the point of my post. I proved he was incorrect about Nevada and only marginally correct about Arizona (they moved it up one position in the order!).[/quote]
You missed my point though, you didn’t account for the states that moved down.
February 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM #737804
svelteParticipant[quote=markmax33]
You missed my point though, you didn’t account for the states that moved down.[/quote]
I’m not sure how to get through to you. He was not referring to states moving down in order at all. I gave you the quote.
His specific comment was about three specific states moving up. He was incorrect.
February 12, 2012 at 4:12 PM #737805Guest[quote=svelte][quote=markmax33]
You missed my point though, you didn’t account for the states that moved down.[/quote]
I’m not sure how to get through to you. He was not referring to states moving down in order at all. I gave you the quote.
His specific comment was about three specific states moving up. He was incorrect.[/quote]
I’m sorry but I know the campaigns whole point of view that he can’t layout in a 30 second interview and you probably don’t. He was 100% accurate. Moving up pro-Romney states automatically moves down pro-Ron Paul states. Doug Weed is one of the sharpest guys in politics.
February 12, 2012 at 4:32 PM #737806SK in CV
Participant[quote=markmax33][quote=UCGal]Florida was punished for moving up in the order. They had half their delegates taken away. You could argue that hurts Romney and helps Paul. I, personally would argue that it hurts FL GOP voters because their vote counts less.
As far as what is happening in caucus states.. I clearly stated it was LEGAL. I would argue that presenting yourself as a Santorum delegate to the rest of your caucus, with a *secret* intent to vote for Ron Paul at the state convention you are not operating in an above board way…. maybe my standard of ethics is different than others.
I participated in a caucus in WA state in 1992 and was voted to represent my precinct to the next level. I felt an obligation to vote in the intent I was sent to represent (until my candidate dropped out before the next level – then I followed how that candidate pledged publicly when he endorsed the ultimate winner.[/quote]
I strongly disagree. I look at it as a failure of the Santorum voters. It also shows that even though they voted for him, they don’t really care that much. Santorum=Gingrich=Romney=Obama, that’s why nobody cares. They can’t escape the status quo. Ron Paul people are signing up in mass as delegates in every state. The strategy is quite genius. The media is slanted against him and doesn’t give him a chance and then he drives a freight train through the establishment.[/quote]
I don’t think this comment was the least bit responsive.
But I am curious about your freight train. To date, Paul has received just over 11% of the popular vote in the primaries and cacauses completed to date. Romney has received 38%. Gingrich 27%. Santorum almost 19%. So that’s 3 candidates that have all received way more votes than Paul. Is none of that important? Shouldn’t that freight train eventually turn into actual votes? It certainly appears that in big scheme of things, Ron Paul is just not that popular.
February 12, 2012 at 4:36 PM #737807Anonymous
GuestHere’s an article that provides a more objective explanation of what’s going on:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11412742/1/ron-pauls-fuzzy-delegate-math.html
The fact that Paul is resorting to this “losing is winning” doublespeak is just evidence of how desperate his campaign has become.
February 12, 2012 at 4:57 PM #737808Guest[quote=pri_dk]Here’s an article that provides a more objective explanation of what’s going on:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11412742/1/ron-pauls-fuzzy-delegate-math.html
The fact that Paul is resorting to this “losing is winning” doublespeak is just evidence of how desperate his campaign has become.[/quote]
Your comment makes no sense. If he has the majority at the state level he will send a majority to the national level. There’s nothing crazy or misleading about it. The Caucuses are straw polls and mean nothing.
I promise the Paul campaign converts more delegates at the State level and won’t give in. The Santorum and Romney delegates at the state levels will be very weak.
How is an article with the title “Ron Paul’s Fuzzy Math” even going to be objective?
February 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM #737810Participant[quote=markmax33]
How is an article with the title “Ron Paul’s Fuzzy Math” even going to be objective?[/quote]How can an article put out by the Paul campaign, or one of his avowed fanboy supporters going to be objective?
Have any actual evidence that either Santorum or Gingrich delegates will be weak at the state level? Or are you simply relying on hope?
February 12, 2012 at 5:02 PM #737811Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33][quote=UCGal]Florida was punished for moving up in the order. They had half their delegates taken away. You could argue that hurts Romney and helps Paul. I, personally would argue that it hurts FL GOP voters because their vote counts less.
As far as what is happening in caucus states.. I clearly stated it was LEGAL. I would argue that presenting yourself as a Santorum delegate to the rest of your caucus, with a *secret* intent to vote for Ron Paul at the state convention you are not operating in an above board way…. maybe my standard of ethics is different than others.
I participated in a caucus in WA state in 1992 and was voted to represent my precinct to the next level. I felt an obligation to vote in the intent I was sent to represent (until my candidate dropped out before the next level – then I followed how that candidate pledged publicly when he endorsed the ultimate winner.[/quote]
I strongly disagree. I look at it as a failure of the Santorum voters. It also shows that even though they voted for him, they don’t really care that much. Santorum=Gingrich=Romney=Obama, that’s why nobody cares. They can’t escape the status quo. Ron Paul people are signing up in mass as delegates in every state. The strategy is quite genius. The media is slanted against him and doesn’t give him a chance and then he drives a freight train through the establishment.[/quote]
I don’t think this comment was the least bit responsive.
But I am curious about your freight train. To date, Paul has received just over 11% of the popular vote in the primaries and cacauses completed to date. Romney has received 38%. Gingrich 27%. Santorum almost 19%. So that’s 3 candidates that have all received way more votes than Paul. Is none of that important? Shouldn’t that freight train eventually turn into actual votes? It certainly appears that in big scheme of things, Ron Paul is just not that popular.[/quote]
How do you define popular? Do a bunch of people who don’t really care about their bad choices but vote anyway count as “popular”?
Paul is significantly more popular than all of the rest of the candidates. Delegates = Votes. Just because Romney got Millions of Dollars from a bunch of banks and got a bunch more apathetic voters out, it doesn’t mean he is popular. He is the best of the worst. Note the very low voter turnout even with an extremely unpopular president.
The Romney and Santorum Delegates won’t stand a shot with a majority of Paul supports in the state Caucus votes. Think about it…
February 12, 2012 at 5:12 PM #737812Participant[quote=markmax33]
How do you define popular? Do a bunch of people who don’t really care about their bad choices but vote anyway count as “popular”?
Paul is significantly more popular than all of the rest of the candidates. Delegates = Votes. Just because Romney got Millions of Dollars from a bunch of banks and got a bunch more apathetic voters out, it doesn’t mean he is popular. He is the best of the worst. Note the very low voter turnout even with an extremely unpopular president.
The Romney and Santorum Delegates won’t stand a shot with a majority of Paul supports in the state Caucus votes. Think about it…[/quote]
In this context, I would define popular as people actually voting. You’re attribute importance to Paul votes, but you’re totally dismissive of votes for others. You don’t see that disconnect? There isn’t a single nationwide poll that indicates Paul’s popularity exceeds the other remaining candidates. In national polls, on average, he’s still around 15%, and in 3rd place. And he’s at the highest he’s ever been. I understand national polling isn’t terribly important in either the primaries or the general, but I’m pretty sure that no candidate has ever won either with 15% support. A lot of time for things to change, but they’re not trending Paul’s direction. He appears to have hit a ceiling.
February 12, 2012 at 5:18 PM #737813Guest[quote=markmax33]How do you define popular? Do a bunch of people who don’t really care about their bad choices but vote anyway count as “popular”?[/quote]
Yes, of course we don’t count votes cast by people who “don’t really care.”
I’m sure that’s even in the Constitution somewhere (the Ron Paul edition.)
Remember what I wrote on the other thread:
[quote=pri_dk]Dude, I hope you stick around here until November. I want to see just how desperate and contrived your arguments can become.[/quote]
Keep ’em coming! Pure comedy.
February 13, 2012 at 8:54 AM #737841Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
How do you define popular? Do a bunch of people who don’t really care about their bad choices but vote anyway count as “popular”?
Paul is significantly more popular than all of the rest of the candidates. Delegates = Votes. Just because Romney got Millions of Dollars from a bunch of banks and got a bunch more apathetic voters out, it doesn’t mean he is popular. He is the best of the worst. Note the very low voter turnout even with an extremely unpopular president.
The Romney and Santorum Delegates won’t stand a shot with a majority of Paul supports in the state Caucus votes. Think about it…[/quote]
In this context, I would define popular as people actually voting. You’re attribute importance to Paul votes, but you’re totally dismissive of votes for others. You don’t see that disconnect?
[/quote]I am not dismissive of the other voters at all. The voters are tricked into the thinking the race is down to Mitt Romney or Obama and the Romney vote is an anti-Obama vote more than a pro-Romney vote. The polling numbers show this on exit surveys and it is in every single state. The low voter turn out shows the same thing.
Here is a poll showing this:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/republican-voters-are-less-satisfied-ever/48064/
I would kill to see a Poll that said asked the question: Did you vote for Romney because you don’t think there is another choice to defeat Obama? I bet the number of poeple that vote yes to that very closely resembles Romney’s vote count.
These voters are tricked into thinking it is the “American way” to go out and vote and the whole time they haven’t realized they have been scammed by the system to vote for the same things: more wars, more welfare, more debt.
Your popularity definition is simply wrong.
[quote=SK in CV]
There isn’t a single nationwide poll that indicates Paul’s popularity exceeds the other remaining candidates. In national polls, on average, he’s still around 15%, and in 3rd place.
[/quote]Again you are completely wrong. Here is a poll from last week showing he is 2nd nationally for a nationallly well respected poll. He has 21% in this poll.
[quote=SK in CV]
And he’s at the highest he’s ever been. I understand national polling isn’t terribly important in either the primaries or the general, but I’m pretty sure that no candidate has ever won either with 15% support.
[/quote]It seems interesting he gets much less press for how well he is doing and hasn’t campaigned in many states and he’s still at 21%. If the press was fair you would know that though. Imagine what happens when he gets out to all of the States. 0% to 21% in 4 years with no real help from major media is really good. He’s 8% behind Romney nationally and hasn’t hit many states.
[quote=SK in CV]
A lot of time for things to change, but they’re not trending Paul’s direction. He appears to have hit a ceiling.[/quote]They said he was at a cieling at 5%, 8%, 10%, 15% and probably eveything inbetween. He gained 5% in one week! Have you ever studied marketing and the tipping point concept? Right at about 15% market pentration, in any market with a very popular product, the sales usually double very quickly. Read this:
February 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM #737847scaredyclassic
ParticipantStrangely I Actually find myself on agreement with markmax here.
And although I prefer vermin supreme I think Ron Paul has a more realistic chance of winning so I’d vote Ron.
Same reasoning and I thinkits true
February 13, 2012 at 9:37 AM #737849bearishgurl
ParticipantI’ve said it before and will say it again. It’s not over until the fat lady sings … and sometimes performed several encores…
February 13, 2012 at 9:47 AM #737851Participant[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
How do you define popular? Do a bunch of people who don’t really care about their bad choices but vote anyway count as “popular”?
Paul is significantly more popular than all of the rest of the candidates. Delegates = Votes. Just because Romney got Millions of Dollars from a bunch of banks and got a bunch more apathetic voters out, it doesn’t mean he is popular. He is the best of the worst. Note the very low voter turnout even with an extremely unpopular president.
The Romney and Santorum Delegates won’t stand a shot with a majority of Paul supports in the state Caucus votes. Think about it…[/quote]
In this context, I would define popular as people actually voting. You’re attribute importance to Paul votes, but you’re totally dismissive of votes for others. You don’t see that disconnect?
[/quote]I am not dismissive of the other voters at all. The voters are tricked into the thinking the race is down to Mitt Romney or Obama and the Romney vote is an anti-Obama vote more than a pro-Romney vote. The polling numbers show this on exit surveys and it is in every single state. The low voter turn out shows the same thing.
Here is a poll showing this:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/republican-voters-are-less-satisfied-ever/48064/
I would kill to see a Poll that said asked the question: Did you vote for Romney because you don’t think there is another choice to defeat Obama? I bet the number of poeple that vote yes to that very closely resembles Romney’s vote count.
These voters are tricked into thinking it is the “American way” to go out and vote and the whole time they haven’t realized they have been scammed by the system to vote for the same things: more wars, more welfare, more debt.
Your popularity definition is simply wrong.
[/quote]The very definition of dismissive. You think Paul voters haven’t been tricked, but all the others have been. Everyone voting for the other candidates are too stupid to understand, but you think only the Paul voters really understand. That IS dismissing them.
The fact that Republican voters are dissatisfied with their choices applies just as much to Paul as it does the other candidates. I understand that Paul doesn’t get the coverage that other’s do. At least he hasn’t before. But with all the debates, all the decent showings in the caucus states, that’s started to change, and he still doesn’t get the surge that every single other Republican candidate has experienced. Perry had a surge. Cain had a surge. Bachmann had a surge. Gingrich had a surge. Santorum had a surge. Paul moved up 5%. Somehow the Republican voters shifted (at least temporarily) in large numbers to other candidates, but never towards Paul.
[quote=markmax33]
[quote=SK in CV]
There isn’t a single nationwide poll that indicates Paul’s popularity exceeds the other remaining candidates. In national polls, on average, he’s still around 15%, and in 3rd place.
[/quote]Again you are completely wrong. Here is a poll from last week showing he is 2nd nationally for a nationallly well respected poll. He has 21% in this poll. [/quote]
That’s exactly what I said. There isn’t a single poll showing him leading. Second place is the very best. You didn’t actually provide a link showing him at 21%, but what I said was “on average” the national polls show him at 15%. So the 21% poll is cherry picking an outlier poll.
[quote=markmax33]
[quote=SK in CV]
And he’s at the highest he’s ever been. I understand national polling isn’t terribly important in either the primaries or the general, but I’m pretty sure that no candidate has ever won either with 15% support.
[/quote]It seems interesting he gets much less press for how well he is doing and hasn’t campaigned in many states and he’s still at 21%. If the press was fair you would know that though. Imagine what happens when he gets out to all of the States. 0% to 21% in 4 years with no real help from major media is really good. He’s 8% behind Romney nationally and hasn’t hit many states. [/quote]
I won’t quibble with you on the press. I agree, though I think his coverage has improved. But as covered before, Republican voters are still not flocking to him. You’re impressed with Paul going from 0% to 21% in 4 years. Both Gingrich and Santorum had a bigger increases in less than 4 weeks. He’s 8% behind Romney in ONE poll. An outlier. Romney has more than 2 1/2 times more support on average. (about 30% to 12%) Check pollster, where they aggregate the polls, and show the average of the various polls. That Ipsos poll, btw, has him 5% higher than any other poll has ever had him. No other national poll has had him higher than 16%.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elections/state/US/?chart=12USPresRepPR&chart_mode=new
[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV]
A lot of time for things to change, but they’re not trending Paul’s direction. He appears to have hit a ceiling.[/quote]They said he was at a cieling at 5%, 8%, 10%, 15% and probably eveything inbetween. He gained 5% in one week! Have you ever studied marketing and the tipping point concept? Right at about 15% market pentration, in any market with a very popular product, the sales usually double very quickly. Read this:
If he’s reached a tipping point, then the new polls should show it. So far, they haven’t. That 21% poll was a week ago. There have been 5 national polls released since then and they show him with lower support, not higher. If the 6 or 7 national polls that will come out in the next week show him flat, or lower than that 21% then your tipping point theory is dead in the water for now. We’ll see.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.