Ron Paul Offically Wins Iowa and Minnesota

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
Projected Republican Voters! Bush 2 won because he energized the republican base and got them out to vote, he didn’t get votes from the middle. The polls only include projected voters. Santorum had the religous/old school base energized that Romney can’t energize. Your numbers only include projected voters. Republicans will stay at home if Romney wins and he will lose easily.[/quote]

I’m sorry, I don’t know how i missed that. Of course, it’s the NON voters that determine who wins elections.[/quote]

Exactly! The Republican base doesn’t care about Romney. The other 10 people energized a different demographic than Romeny is energizing. They might wither away and go to sleep this election but they were the sole reason Santorum won any states. They wanted the Anti-Romney.[/quote]

Every reader here is now dumber for having read that.[/quote]

You make no sense. Romney does not energize the core of the republican party and he can’t win without them. I don’t know how many ways I need to say it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
You make no sense. Romney does not energize the core of the republican party and he can’t win without them. I don’t know how many ways I need to say it.[/quote]

You don’t need to say it again. It may be true that Romney is not terribly exciting. But Paul has no chance of winning the nomination, and no chance of winning the general. Romney will win the nomination, and will get something close to 50% of the votes in the general. He may even win. He’ll do that in the general because the vast majority of republican voters will vote for him. Paul won’t do that, because he will never get there. Because he is unelectable. Not becaause the MSM doesn’t like him. They don’t like Gingrich. Nobody does. Yet he screamed to the top of the republican polls for a few minutes. As did Santorum and Bachmann and Perry and Cain.

Whose name never made that list? Ron Paul. You are among his very vocal, very dedicated, and very motivated supporters. But you are not now, nor have you ever been supporting a candidate who appeals to more than a very narrow band of the electorate. Except among your group, he just isn’t popular.

[poorgradstudent]

The 7-17 Padres are racking up wins. They beat San Francisco on Friday. Pay no mind to all their losses.

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
You make no sense. Romney does not energize the core of the republican party and he can’t win without them. I don’t know how many ways I need to say it.[/quote]

You don’t need to say it again. It may be true that Romney is not terribly exciting. But Paul has no chance of winning the nomination, and no chance of winning the general. Romney will win the nomination, and will get something close to 50% of the votes in the general. He may even win. He’ll do that in the general because the vast majority of republican voters will vote for him. Paul won’t do that, because he will never get there. Because he is unelectable. Not becaause the MSM doesn’t like him. They don’t like Gingrich. Nobody does. Yet he screamed to the top of the republican polls for a few minutes. As did Santorum and Bachmann and Perry and Cain.

Whose name never made that list? Ron Paul. You are among his very vocal, very dedicated, and very motivated supporters. But you are not now, nor have you ever been supporting a candidate who appeals to more than a very narrow band of the electorate. Except among your group, he just isn’t popular.[/quote]

I’m sorry but polls don’t agree with you. Ron Paul beats Obama and Romney doesn’t. That gets rid of your unelectability comment. Narrow band? Paul wins 10 states and that’s a narrow band? Paul has taken over state GOP chairs about 10 states and that’s a narrow band? I’m sorry your reality doesn’t match with facts. The most important thing Paul does win or lose is get traction in all of these states and helps Ron Paul people get elected to local offices and it sets the ground work for the future, even if he doesn’t win the general election.

[Anonymous]

[quote=poorgradstudent]The 7-17 Padres are racking up wins. [/quote]

And no doubt Republican nominee Ron Paul will be throwing the ceremonial opening pitch at their first World Series game this October.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
I’m sorry but polls don’t agree with you. Ron Paul beats Obama and Romney doesn’t. That gets rid of your unelectability comment. Narrow band? Paul wins 10 states and that’s a narrow band? Paul has taken over state GOP chairs about 10 states and that’s a narrow band? I’m sorry your reality doesn’t match with facts. The most important thing Paul does win or lose is get traction in all of these states and helps Ron Paul people get elected to local offices and it sets the ground work for the future, even if he doesn’t win the general election.[/quote]

He remains unelectable because he can’t get nominated. Winning 10 caucus states (as debatable as that argument is) won’t do it.

Check the polls again. I can find a single poll in the last three months that showed Paul ahead of Obama. RCP has 40 polls listing Paul v. Obama since the first of the year, with Paul ahead in 2 of them, with the recent average of Obama +7.4. That would mean Obama is ahead in 38 of 40. Does that sound like an upbeat set of facts for Ron Paul? Have it in the bag, does he?

Obama v. Romney on the other hand, has the recent average of Obama +3.3. Add in all the Rasumussen polls and its much closer.

You can’t look at a single poll and believe it to be determinitive. Some pollsters have built in biases by design (think Rasmussen).

Six months before the election and Ron Paul is still a punchline. He wasn’t a formidable candidate when the campaign began, he still isn’t. He isn’t gong anywhere.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=poorgradstudent]The 7-17 Padres are racking up wins. [/quote]

And no doubt Republican nominee Ron Paul will be throwing the ceremonial opening pitch at their first World Series game this October.[/quote]
Actually, hasn’t Ron Paul already WON the World Series this year? I mean, it’s pretty much in the bag for him based on trends.

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
I’m sorry but polls don’t agree with you. Ron Paul beats Obama and Romney doesn’t. That gets rid of your unelectability comment. Narrow band? Paul wins 10 states and that’s a narrow band? Paul has taken over state GOP chairs about 10 states and that’s a narrow band? I’m sorry your reality doesn’t match with facts. The most important thing Paul does win or lose is get traction in all of these states and helps Ron Paul people get elected to local offices and it sets the ground work for the future, even if he doesn’t win the general election.[/quote]

He remains unelectable because he can’t get nominated. Winning 10 caucus states (as debatable as that argument is) won’t do it.

Check the polls again. I can find a single poll in the last three months that showed Paul ahead of Obama. RCP has 40 polls listing Paul v. Obama since the first of the year, with Paul ahead in 2 of them, with the recent average of Obama +7.4. That would mean Obama is ahead in 38 of 40. Does that sound like an upbeat set of facts for Ron Paul? Have it in the bag, does he?

Obama v. Romney on the other hand, has the recent average of Obama +3.3. Add in all the Rasumussen polls and its much closer.

You can’t look at a single poll and believe it to be determinitive. Some pollsters have built in biases by design (think Rasmussen).

Six months before the election and Ron Paul is still a punchline. He wasn’t a formidable candidate when the campaign began, he still isn’t. He isn’t gong anywhere.[/quote]

Winning 10 states, taking over the GOP in several states and being 2nd or greater in the Republican primary still makes you a punching bag? Funny logic there. Paul is changing politics. His Audit the Federal Reserve Legislation just passed 51% in the house of representatives today.

America needs to wake up. They can steam roll CISPA through the house in a day or 2 without anyone reading yet they can’t bring a bill to vote that more than 50% of the membership has endorsed?

http://www.dailypaul.com/155726/update-hr-459-55-co-sponsors

You still seem to miss the fact he could run 3rd party and won’t be a joke in the 10 states he won in the Caucuses. He is and always has been the only real difference in Washington.

[bearishgurl]

I just reregistered again today as a Repub so I can vote for RP in the primary. I don’t like any of the other choices for Prez and will be paying attn to see how far RP can “upset the apple cart” this year!

And I’m sure I’m not alone ….

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
Winning 10 states, taking over the GOP in several states and being 2nd or greater in the Republican primary still makes you a punching bag? Funny logic there. Paul is changing politics. His Audit the Federal Reserve Legislation just passed 51% in the house of representatives today.

America needs to wake up. They can steam roll CISPA through the house in a day or 2 without anyone reading yet they can’t bring a bill to vote that more than 50% of the membership has endorsed?

http://www.dailypaul.com/155726/update-hr-459-55-co-sponsors

You still seem to miss the fact he could run 3rd party and won’t be a joke in the 10 states he won in the Caucuses. He is and always has been the only real difference in Washington.[/quote]

I read the bill. It’s ridiculous. Won’t do a thing. Doesn’t actually say anything. Waste of the pixels it takes up.

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
Winning 10 states, taking over the GOP in several states and being 2nd or greater in the Republican primary still makes you a punching bag? Funny logic there. Paul is changing politics. His Audit the Federal Reserve Legislation just passed 51% in the house of representatives today.

America needs to wake up. They can steam roll CISPA through the house in a day or 2 without anyone reading yet they can’t bring a bill to vote that more than 50% of the membership has endorsed?

http://www.dailypaul.com/155726/update-hr-459-55-co-sponsors

You still seem to miss the fact he could run 3rd party and won’t be a joke in the 10 states he won in the Caucuses. He is and always has been the only real difference in Washington.[/quote]

I read the bill. It’s ridiculous. Won’t do a thing. Doesn’t actually say anything. Waste of the pixels it takes up.[/quote]

Auditing the Fed is a waste? Sorry SK, there’s only one waste of pixels in this thread. We all know who it is!

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
Auditing the Fed is a waste? Sorry SK, there’s only one waste of pixels in this thread. We all know who it is![/quote]

We’ve talked about this numerous times. The Fed already gets audited every single year. If he had wanted the scope of the audit expanded, addressing specific issues, then he should have written the law that way. He didn’t. The bill simply says an audit will be done and the Comptroller of the Currency will issue a report on the findings. No scope identified. Without any expanded scope, there’s no necessity for this new audit to be any different than the old. This bill is either a publicity stunt on the part of Paul, or he really is a moron. I suspect the former. Though given some of his ridiculous claims lately, I’m not really sure.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
Auditing the Fed is a waste? Sorry SK, there’s only one waste of pixels in this thread. We all know who it is![/quote]

We’ve talked about this numerous times. The Fed already gets audited every single year. If he had wanted the scope of the audit expanded, addressing specific issues, then he should have written the law that way. He didn’t. The bill simply says an audit will be done and the Comptroller of the Currency will issue a report on the findings. No scope identified. Without any expanded scope, there’s no necessity for this new audit to be any different than the old. This bill is either a publicity stunt on the part of Paul, or he really is a moron. I suspect the former. Though given some of his ridiculous claims lately, I’m not really sure.[/quote]

So, SK, are you voting for Romney, Obama, your own “write-in” candidate, or have you decided to “sit out” this election year??

Just wondering if you intend to vote …..

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
So, SK, are you voting for Romney, Obama, your own “write-in” candidate, or have you decided to “sit out” this election year??

Just wondering if you intend to vote …..[/quote]

Obama. If there was a liberal running, I’d change my vote. There isn’t, so the best I can do is vote for a moderate.

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
Auditing the Fed is a waste? Sorry SK, there’s only one waste of pixels in this thread. We all know who it is![/quote]

We’ve talked about this numerous times. The Fed already gets audited every single year. If he had wanted the scope of the audit expanded, addressing specific issues, then he should have written the law that way. He didn’t. The bill simply says an audit will be done and the Comptroller of the Currency will issue a report on the findings. No scope identified. Without any expanded scope, there’s no necessity for this new audit to be any different than the old. This bill is either a publicity stunt on the part of Paul, or he really is a moron. I suspect the former. Though given some of his ridiculous claims lately, I’m not really sure.[/quote]

You really have no understanding of what’s going on. You do try hard. There has never been a full audit of the Federal Reserve presented to the public on all of their programs. He is presenting a bill that will do it. Stop slandering in cyber space again.

[Author]

Posts