For Rudy Giuliani Fans and Girlianites Only

Maybe today, but today the people actually betting their own money on the election have 8 to 1 odds on Paul. He started around 200 to 1, I think. Were you not urging support for Duncan Hunter early on? He's still a 200 to 1 kind of guy, so it's possible your assessment of who is electable is a bit off.
Click to expand...

Oh I love Hunter and I was stumping for him in the beginning. However the writing is on the wall, and he doesn't have the numbers to win. Thats just life.

As far as Paul supporters betting money on the election, people do stupid things with their money all the time. Because I see all the bluehairs pulling the slot levers doesn't mean its somehow a good thing.

You guys look everywhere for these BS statistics except reputable national polls. There isn't a single one that shows Paul at more than 5%. Its just a numbers game and Paul doesn't have enough chips to win.
 
As far as Paul supporters betting money on the election, people do stupid things with their money all the time.
Click to expand...

Come on, you can do better than a silly, baseless mischaracterization like that. I linked to a sports betting site with a side business in other contests, and odds on every possible candidate, and you characterize it as "Paul supporters betting money on the election."

You guys look everywhere for these BS statistics except reputable national polls.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should look into who is better at actually calling the race, especially this far out, polls or gamblers. Gamblers may not be reputable, but they're accurate.
 
How can someone effectively demonstrate the ability to use a handgun if they don't own one with which to practice that ability? A bit of a catch-22 don't you think?
 
Lots of ranges hold classes rent guns, and just because you can't own one does not mean that you can't shoot with experienced friends when learning.
 
Publius, bookies base their odds on the money coming in not some magic formula. Pauls odds get shortened up because for whatever reason even at short odds people bet money on him. This does not speak well of the financial acumen of Paul supporters.
 
Lots of ranges hold classes rent guns
Click to expand...
That's fine if you're in the vicinity of one who does, but many don't. Besides, that's just imposing an undue expense. I can own and drive a car (both of which are privileges, not rights) without a driver's license or registration. We shouldn't have to held to a higher standard for something that is a right.
 
Justme,

what makes you think it is Paul supporters betting on him to win? I don't bet at all, and wouldn't bet on Paul to win if I did. They're gamblers who may or may not support the person on whom they are betting.

Are they lacking in financial acumen? Kinda goes with the gambling territory if you ask me, but nevertheless they are often proven right, more so than polls in many cases.

raccol,

We agree, I was just pointing out that it's not impossible to gain experience without owning a gun.
 
Lots of ranges hold classes rent guns
Click to expand...

At best, that is a significant additional cost. CCW classes here, in Ohio, will set you back at least 125 dollars, and that involves a mere 12 hours of total training with only two hours on the firing line (and did not cover the cost of renting a gun or providing ammunition). Two hours on the firing line isn't near enough to train someone from never having touched a handgun before.

125 dollars is not trivial. It's ten bricks of .22lr ammo, and somewhere on the order of 500 rounds of .380 ACP or 9mm. It's half the cost of a decent Bersa.

At worst, well, tell me how many handgun owners will advocate CCW when they're required to answer the state's questions just like the state wants?
 
Come on, you can do better than a silly, baseless mischaracterization like that. I linked to a sports betting site with a side business in other contests, and odds on every possible candidate, and you characterize it as "Paul supporters betting money on the election."
Click to expand...

So you are going to discount all of the reputable polling organizations and hold up some bookie as evidence that Paul has some prayer in winning the nomination.

I have truly seen it all. For some reason I keep thinking of that knight in monty python. I wonder why.
 
It's easy to make a poll look like Dr. Paul has not support...just don't include him as an option in the poll. It's an old trick.
 
No excuse needed. The difference being that he was actually INCLUDED in the polls in which he did well.

I am not saying that I think that ALL of the polls where he's behind are skewed..but I have not doubt that many of them are. I've seen to too many websites where there is not a single mention of him to believe that it could possibly be a coincidence.

In the case of these polls...it's easy to exclude data..but it's much more difficult to create results out of thin air.

I think that Dr. Paul's success at fundraising in the last quarter attest to the fact that he has a much larger base of support than his detractors would have had us believe a couple of months ago. This contradicts the claim that he had only a small number of supporters who were stacking the deck so to speak in the online polls.
 
I think that Dr. Paul's success at fundraising in the last quarter attest to the fact that he has a much larger base of support than his detractors would have had us believe a couple of months ago. This contradicts the claim that he had only a small number of supporters who were stacking the deck so to speak in the online polls.
Click to expand...

Nah, I still say it was just a few guys spamming the campaign with $5 million under thousands of identities. They're at it again, almost $600,000 so far this month, with a goal of $4 million by the end of the month, $12 million by the end of the year.
 
So whats your excuse for the one's that do?
Click to expand...

Leaving aside tinfoil theories of liberal media bias, there is one plausible answer. They do telephone polling, using land lines. The only land line into my house goes straight to a fax machine. I give that number to businesses which want a number, and which I don't think should have my real (cell) number, but I've never hooked an actual phone to the line, let alone answered it.

I'm not alone, especially among young people, where Ron Paul finds most of his support. LOTS of us future brain tumor patients ONLY use cell phones these days.
 
And now for something completely off topic...

For some reason I keep thinking of that knight in monty python.
Click to expand...

I could watch that movie over and over on an endless loop for the rest of my life, and still laugh each time. :D
 
In the case of these polls...it's easy to exclude data..but it's much more difficult to create results out of thin air.
Click to expand...

So then why doesn't he break 5% in a single national poll of likely republican voters.

I'm not alone, especially among young people, where Ron Paul finds most of his support. LOTS of us future brain tumor patients ONLY use cell phones these days.
Click to expand...

Ever take a look at what percentage "young people" make up in primary elections.
 
LOTS of us future brain tumor patients ONLY use cell phones these days.
Click to expand...

Or use voice over IP trunk lines; much cheaper than ground lines until you get into the 2,000+ minutes per month range, and pretty comparable in price if you go far past that point. The setup is a pain, but given how much extra functionality you can get, it's worthwhile for a lotta desk jockey sorta positions.

That said, neither the cell phone-only or land line-less groups seem to make up a significant enough portion of the voting public to alter poll values to the degree it would be necessary to explain Ron Paul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top