Ron Paul: why he could win.

[Thumper]

How do you figure he did that. I thought he did fine.

That tears it. You can't really be serious...He even got his chance to wallow in the Vietnam defeat:

Paul: Shortly after the Vietnam War ended, Colonel Tu and Colonel Summers met, and they were talking about this. And our -- and the American colonel said, "You know, we never lost one battle." And Colonel Tu, the Vietnamese says, "Yes, but that's irrelevant."

You really think insulting the Republican base is the way to win the Republican Primary?

Did you miss the incessant booing? His scattered supporters kept getting shouted down.

Not only will he not win, he's pissed off a LOT of people down here. He might be done in his own district!

I was really hoping that he could prove to be relevant...just to move the party back to its conservative roots. Now, however, he's simply become the newest magnet for those who seek a personality cult to join. "Different is unique, and unique is neato." Whatever. I'm disappointed.

 

[fossten]

Ron Paul did not do well. Part of that is CNN's fault for only giving him 4.2% of the air time, not much more than they gave Keith Kerr, the Hillary campaign staffer plant, and far less than they gave the two poll trailers Tancredo and Hunter. So if you're going to bash Paul's performance, at least also bash CNN for not giving him a freaking chance to enter the debate.

I'm sure, knowing they would not let him speak, Dr. Paul felt pressure to get as much info into his responses as possible, and it garbled his message. In addition, he was given two crap questions and ignored on obvious questions where he would have shined. This thing was orchestrated. If you don't believe me, check this out.

 

[wingman]

Will there you go I must be a nut I agree with most of what Paul states, do I believe he will win, no, but "some" of his ideas are what we need to turn this country around, What really frightens me is the lack of knowledge most of the candidates have about the American people then tack on the stupid talking heads after the debate and it's in the not worth it category.

Oh yeah i served in Vietnam we won most battles but it was irrelevant what did we accomplish, we lost over 50,000 great kids and the same will be of raq what is the "win". Other then provide money for someone at the top and take it from the American middle class.

We need to stand by this idea, if attack retaliate with full force and then remove ourselves from the offending country. We cannot afford to police the world and build governments.

 

[UGH]

You really think insulting the Republican base is the way to win the Republican Primary?

I didn't feel insulted at all. Ron Paul states the truth and if you can't handle it than don't vote for him. It's that simple.

Did you miss the incessant booing? His scattered supporters kept getting shouted down.

Yes he got booed for some of what he said. There was alot of booing and not just for Ron Paul.

Not only will he not win, he's pissed off a LOT of people down here. He might be done in his own district!

I hope your wrong because this country is going down a road that there maybe no coming back from and needs a man like Ron Paul to turn things around. We are getting sold out a little more every day.

 

[The Tourist]

Ya' know, a few weeks ago I was willing to give RP the benefit of the doubt. History is filled with tales of dark horses.

For example, the most decorated veteran of WWII was too young and too short to ever be in the Army. And yet, there he is, CMoH and everything.

But, I'm looking at some facets of this election race, and I'd like you to consider them as an honest, and sincere observation.

Granted, RP has a great following among younger voters. But as I have often pointed out, in one of the firercest elections in my liberal city, the exit polls documented that only 17% of younger voters actually showed up. On paper, RP might have some impressive numbers. I just don't think they'll turn out to vote.

And consider this, there is such a thing as politcal capital and peaking too early. The election is a year away, and RP has already been on Leno--and been identified as a sincere, yet obscure, candidate.

Another aspect is, will the money hold? This is a very real concern. RP has generated a lot of money--surprising even him. Will it hold and continue against big name candidates, or has RP gotten all he is going to get.

That's a lot of rough ground to cover. After thinking it over, I've decided he's a forthright, honest man, who like me is a strict constructionist, but doesn't really have a fair or sure chance of ever winning.

 

[mvpel]

Well, look who else is running in the Republican primaries - a Rudy "gun-grabber" Guiliani, Mitt "Taxachusetts" Romney, Mike "Give Me Any Tax!" Huckabee, Fred "Sominex" Thompson, John "Screw the First Amendment" McCain...

For people who don't like it when others call Paul names, you sure have an interesting way of setting an example.

They're not namecalling, they're shorthand descriptions.

"Gun Grabber."

On the presidential campaign trail, Romney brags about a $3 billion budget shortfall he said he closed as governor, without any tax increases. He doesn't mention the more than $400 million in fees he raised instead. He also raised more than $300 million by closing so-called corporate loopholes, a revenue-raising measure the business community calls a tax increase.

Huckabee---Whatever Tax You Pass, "You Will Have Nothing But My Profound Thanks

Thompson's Roll Out: High Expectations, Low Energy

McCain Versus The First Amendment

McCain: “He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform….I know that money corrupts….I would rather have a clean government than one where quote "First Amendment rights" are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.”

How will anyone come to know whether or not the government is clean if First Amendment rights are not being respected.

 

[STAGE 2]

You would be incorrect. Last time around was Dean/ Kerry, which had the eventual winner buried in the noise floor prior to Iowa. And while the McCain/ Bush polling was closer, it was still outside the MoE.

The lesson is obvious: Only ameteurs and the intellectually lazy rely on these polls as indicators of anything.
And again (just to clarify), I'm not predicting anything at all. I'm just saying that the only thing these primary polls have ever reliably established is their own unreliability. If you want to know who's ahead, pay attention to what's going on on the ground in the early states.

You miss the point entirely. I'm not making the argument that the polls are accurate from a percentage point of view, I'm saying that they are accurate from a winning point of view. In the article you posted, even though the polls had poorly predicted the percentages, the guy who won was either the frontrunner or the guy next in line.

The same is true for McCain/Bush, Dean/Kerry and most of the other candidates.

The entire point of this whole thing is to show you that while the predictions are not exact as to who will win, they are 99% accurate as to who will not.

If you don't believe me than show me some examples (plural) of candidates who didn't break 5% in the polls and yet won the nomination.

 

[publius42]

Another aspect is, will the money hold? This is a very real concern. RP has generated a lot of money--surprising even him. Will it hold and continue against big name candidates, or has RP gotten all he is going to get.

Closing fast on the $10 million mark as of today.

 

[GoSlash27]

Money is not an issue for the Paul campaign.

As far as "who?" candidates who bucked the polling, I'd point out Kerry, Reagan, Carter, and George H.W. for starters.

I know you very much want to believe (or at least the promote) the viewpoint that primary polling is good for something, but it's simply not.
The fatal flaw is that while the data collection is solid and statistically valid, it's filtering is not.
There is simply no way to predict who is a "likely primary voter". Never has been and never will be.

 

[STAGE 2]

As far as "who?" candidates who bucked the polling, I'd point out Kerry, Reagan, Carter, and George H.W. for starters.

I know you very much want to believe (or at least the promote) the viewpoint that primary polling is good for something, but it's simply not.
The fatal flaw is that while the data collection is solid and statistically valid, it's filtering is not.
There is simply no way to predict who is a "likely primary voter". Never has been and never will be.

And what were the numbers of those candidates just prior to the first primary. I guarantee you that they weren't running less than 5%

 

[politicalgeek]

However far Dr. Paul goes in this election, he is doing one thing well...showing the American public that there is at least one honest and principled statesman who will stand by his convictions and principles like a rock despite, at times, an overwhelming hostility to his ideas. The truth is never popular. Do I like ALL his ideas? No, but it is refreshing to hear some who is knowledgeable of our past, our history. Someone who quotes Jefferson and not the latest study or poll numbers. It is wonderful to hear someone who is unafraid to voice his opinions, right or wrong, popular or not. He may or may not win, but he is opening a lot of doors. How many common citizens will now be inspired to run for office in their local communities? He is inspiring change and curing apathy.

 

[Crosshair]

Very true politicalgeek. People may not like everything he says, but he has a consistent voting record and observes the constitution. That is allot more than any of the other candidates who seem to flip flop every time poll numbers come out.

He tells people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. As George Orwell said, "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." Ron Paul is speaking the truth and people are finding it like a breath of fresh air.

 

[kjm]

Go Slash: Don't count me out!!!

I lined up and voted for Alan Keyes in 2000. I guess I was young (in my 20's) then. I will line up and vote for Ron Paul this time around. He is wierd. I think my wife will vote for him just because of the amazing cook book his wife puts out. Dang! We use the oreo cookie pie recipe all the time and it has become a favorite. Maybe for all the $$$ I've donated, he'll send me a hard-back copy autographed by Carol!

Ron Paul wins Texas and nobody understands why. Even I, the libertarian don't exactly understand what people see in a very non-descript, rational man who has very little charisma. I support him because I want my children to be freer than myself. I don't see a lot of hope for the country unless we elect folks like him to the really important offices in congress. Maybe by winning the Presidency, people would feel better about voting for the candidates that support the constitution.

Not that Ron Paul will change the world. He simply cannot. He can only provide an example to both liberals and conservatives that our founding documents are neither and both. I want my government to stay out of my business. I want to shoot, play, and earn what I'm worth. Ron Paul isn't a panacea, but he is a recognition that we aren't going in the right direction as of yet.

Vote for whomever you like. I like a bunch of the people running. If it weren't for RP, I'd vote for Huckabee as the most conservative. Still, only one man has captured my imagination in the past decade and I'll give until it hurts. Do any of you feel the same about your candidate? Honestly Fremmer and Wildalaska- do you feel strongly enough about any other candidate to have honestly put your check in the mail or your CC# online to support him? Or do you just feel strongly against somebody but not for somebody?

Lots of folks poopoo RP, but his supporters send hard-earned cash. Do the detractors?

Ron Paul may not win. It doesn't mean that I won't give him the chance.

 

[Fremmer]

Well, I can't speak for Wild, but I personally love Ron Paul.

As did McCain during the YouTube debate.

 

[The Tourist]

Money is not an issue for the Paul campaign.

Money is always the issue, especially at the very end of the campaign.

The figure of 10 million has been mentioned. If the far left fears a loss, my guess is that the wealthy NY supporters and socialists like Barbra Striesand will garner 10 million like it was pocket change.

In fact, it now appears that Barbara and Oprah are on opposite sides of the hammer and sickle. Either one of them has enough clout and celebrity to carry a formidable campaign for Hillary or Obama. Heck, Oprah could get enough money to make Osama a viable candidate!

If RP gets past all of the hurdles among his own kind, Oprah is going to horsepower him to death in a way we have never seen before. My guess is that the end of this campaign is going to be one of the dirtiest on record.

 

[publius42]

If RP gets past all of the hurdles among his own kind, Oprah is going to horsepower him to death in a way we have never seen before.

Darn, forgot Hillary has such a high powered blimp.

BTW, money didn't seem to be much of a problem for the Ron Paul Blimp project. Yesterday morning, they were closing on half a million dollars in just over a week since the launch of the project.

 

[GoSlash27]

If RP gets past all of the hurdles among his own kind, Oprah is going to horsepower him to death in a way we have never seen before

No she won't. Not only does he not have any problems raising money, but he doesn't even have to do most of his own lifting. His supporters have been doing his campaigning for him. And I don't just mean lawn signs and canvassing, either. I mean billboards, full-page newspaper ads, TV spots...even a blimp.

Besides, if you support another candidate the last thing you want to do is mention fundraising. The only candidate who has managed to raise more than him in a single quarter is Rudy Giuliani ($10,258,000) and Paul is going to sail by that number this week. So if Paul can't withstand Oprah....who can?

 

[mvpel]

He's coming close to sailing past that number with two days to go in the week.

And what were the numbers of those candidates just prior to the first primary. I guarantee you that they weren't running less than 5%

Ron Paul is at about 8% in New Hampshire at present, as I recall, about where Pat Buchanan was polling prior to winning the 1996 New Hampshire primary.

 

[STAGE 2]

Ron Paul is at about 8% in New Hampshire at present, as I recall, about where Pat Buchanan was polling prior to winning the 1996 New Hampshire primary.

And did Buchanan win the nomination?
Where were his numbers nationally?

To save you the trouble, he had far better numbers than Paul nationally and STILL didn't win the nomination.

 

[GoSlash27]

Breaking news:
At around 6:00pm EST the Ron Paul campaign will be the new Republican fundraising king of the hill.

-- During the third quarter, Fred Thompson raised $9,750,821 to be used during the primary election cycle.

-- Not counting money that he loaned to his own campaign, Mitt Romney raised $9,896,719.

-- Rudy Giuliani finished with $10,258,019.

Ron Paul is now at $10,123,000 and climbing at $50,000 per hour thanks to today's "Rudy's reading list" fund raising drive.
And he still has an entire month to go until the end of the quarter.