Ron Paul: why he could win.
- Thread starter Danzig
- Start date
- Status
I've voted in every primary and national election for the last 20 years. I've voted in all state elections as well. I have missed a couple town elections and seldom make it to town meeting. I've also spent a fair bit of time volunteering for local pro-gun state reps and senators.
I said before and I'll say it again, Ron Paul won't win the nomination. He won't break double digits.
Sorry, but wishing he'll do well won't make it so.
1) I don't agree with some of his positions that are non-starters for me. So no, I won't vote for him. And even if I did, it wouldn't matter, because:
2) I live in MA. The Democratic candidate will carry this state no matter who the Republican and Democratic nominees are. And since it is a winner-take-all electoral vote state, the Democratic candidate will get all of MA's electoral votes.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
You do realize that you followed to the letter what I said previuosly? As I said and I'm sure will say many more times. Care to back that up?
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Ron Paul has way too much baggage to win the nomination.
Last edited:
Shotgun Minister: That's my prediction, and I stand by it. Ron Paul will not get double digits in the primaries. You can disagree with it. That's fine. We'll find out next year.
What you wrote was:
What you wrote was:
I don't expend engery to vote, but I do expend energy to vote. I have done so for more than the past 20 years and will continue to do so. In fact, I'll be voting against Ron Paul in the primary.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Indeed we will. But you further said that you will vote against him. There are certian types that would use this to say that you are biased to begin with. Another words you have motivation to say that he will not win. So if I was to take this position I would have to ask, if he did stand a chance would you admit it? Or would you say he will lose regardless of where he stands in the polls simply because you do not like him and wish for him to be defeated?
I think you mean "In other words", not "Another words", which makes no sense.
You wrote it, so I assume you are taking that position. Why not just stand up and say so?
Look, I despise Hillary Clinton. Absolutely despise her. She's dirty -- the $1,000 "investment" she made in "cattle futures" that turned into $100,000 was clearly a bribe. The legal records that "couldn't be found" that years later were "discovered" in a White House closet were clearly hidden, purged, and then presented once they were cleansed. I don't know what happened to Vince Foster, but I sincerely doubt that he committed suicide. All that said, I think she's the odds on favorite to win the presidency.
The fact is, I don't care for most of the Republican candidates. I'm liberal on social issues (pro-choice, pro gay marriage), conservative on defense (the Army should have 1,000,000 men), and conservative on financial issues. Giuliani is closest to many of my positions, but the guy is a gun grabber and his choice of Bernie Kerik as a police commissioner and partner should give everyone great pause about his character.
Concerning polls, internet polls are worthless. Please take a Statistics 101 class. They will teach you why such polls are not an accurate measure of public opinion.
Polls that have a chance at being accurate show Ron Paul in single digits. For example:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
If I thought Ron Paul would win, regardless of my views about him, I would say so. The fact is, he won't. Sorry, but wishful thinking won't make him a viable candidate.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Actauly as of this point I have not taken any oppinon, except for the unverifiable bashing of Ron Paul.
Okay if I was to take your side and say that based on polls alone he would not win. An attitude such as that would certianly doom him. Something that you expressed a desire for. As such the more people you can convince of that the better you'll feel about the situation. I want to know if you think I care about polls be it internet or otherwise. Unlike some I vote for who best supports my political ideals regardless of where he stands in the polls. This attitude of only voting for who is likely to win is exactly how the US ended up where it is. Who I will vote for remains to be determinded. But I do know one thing. It will not based on poll results.
Shotgun Minister, wishing Ron Paul will win will not make it so. Wishing that Hillary Clinton will be defeated (as I fervently wish) will not make it so. I'm looking at this objectively; the Ron Paul junkies are looking through rose colored glasses.
Ron Paul doesn't have the money. He doesn't have the name recognition. He doesn't have the poll numbers. Yes, he has some buzz on the internet. The reality is that the wired internet "masses" who are supporting Ron Paul are a very small part of the electorate. In 2000, the wired internet masses (Moveon.org) were in favor of John Kerry. They didn't push him over the top then either.
I trust you are familiar with the electoral college. Most states in our nation are winner-take-all for the electoral college votes (I believe that Maine and one other state are the exceptions in that they pro-rate their electoral college votes based on the popular vote). That is, whoever wins that state wins all of the state's electoral college votes. And whoever wins the electoral college wins the presidency.
So whoever wins the Massachusetts popular vote in November 2008 wins all the MA electoral college votes -- the loser gets no electoral college votes.
Now some states, like OH and PA, are swing states. That is, in some presidential elections they go Republican and in others they go Democratic. Some other states are solidly in one camp or the other. I'm a registered Republican. But I live in Massachusetts. The entire MA congressional delegation is Democratic and has been for many years. Yes, I've not only voted for the challengers, I've also donated my time and money to them. I will continue to do so. But I also do not delude myself that night is day or black is white or that the Republican challengers in MA have a chance. They don't. I wish they did. I vote for them. I volunteer for them. I give them money. But they don't have a chance. The sad reality is that Teddy Kennedy will continue to win re-election until he either decides to step down or dies in office. That's not being defeatist. That is just reality.
Similarly, in the presidential election, MA will vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is. Since 1960, MA has only twice been won by a Republican presidential candidate (Reagan). And in recent years, MA has moved far to the left. MA voters are very much against Bush and against the war and they showed it in the most recent midterm election. That's just reality.
In 2008, MA will be won by the Democratic candidate, whoever that is. I wish that was not the case, but the reality is that the Democratic candidate will carry MA. I will still vote, as I always do. But it won't affect the outcome. That's just reality.
I'm not bashing Ron Paul. Nor am I praising Hillary Clinton, whom I despise but think is likely to win. I'm just giving my predictions. If you can't separate who you want to win versus who you think will win, then you need to get a grip on reality.
Do me a favor -- please criticize me for what I write and don't assign to me views that I don't have. I think Hillary is going to win. I'm not voting for her. I don't think Ron Paul is going to win, but that's not why I'm not voting for him. I'm voting against Ron Paul because I don't agree with some of his positions.
And btw, when you say:
that means that you can not verify that someone is bashing Ron Paul. I suspect that is not what you meant.
Ron Paul doesn't have the money. He doesn't have the name recognition. He doesn't have the poll numbers. Yes, he has some buzz on the internet. The reality is that the wired internet "masses" who are supporting Ron Paul are a very small part of the electorate. In 2000, the wired internet masses (Moveon.org) were in favor of John Kerry. They didn't push him over the top then either.
I trust you are familiar with the electoral college. Most states in our nation are winner-take-all for the electoral college votes (I believe that Maine and one other state are the exceptions in that they pro-rate their electoral college votes based on the popular vote). That is, whoever wins that state wins all of the state's electoral college votes. And whoever wins the electoral college wins the presidency.
So whoever wins the Massachusetts popular vote in November 2008 wins all the MA electoral college votes -- the loser gets no electoral college votes.
Now some states, like OH and PA, are swing states. That is, in some presidential elections they go Republican and in others they go Democratic. Some other states are solidly in one camp or the other. I'm a registered Republican. But I live in Massachusetts. The entire MA congressional delegation is Democratic and has been for many years. Yes, I've not only voted for the challengers, I've also donated my time and money to them. I will continue to do so. But I also do not delude myself that night is day or black is white or that the Republican challengers in MA have a chance. They don't. I wish they did. I vote for them. I volunteer for them. I give them money. But they don't have a chance. The sad reality is that Teddy Kennedy will continue to win re-election until he either decides to step down or dies in office. That's not being defeatist. That is just reality.
Similarly, in the presidential election, MA will vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is. Since 1960, MA has only twice been won by a Republican presidential candidate (Reagan). And in recent years, MA has moved far to the left. MA voters are very much against Bush and against the war and they showed it in the most recent midterm election. That's just reality.
In 2008, MA will be won by the Democratic candidate, whoever that is. I wish that was not the case, but the reality is that the Democratic candidate will carry MA. I will still vote, as I always do. But it won't affect the outcome. That's just reality.
I'm not bashing Ron Paul. Nor am I praising Hillary Clinton, whom I despise but think is likely to win. I'm just giving my predictions. If you can't separate who you want to win versus who you think will win, then you need to get a grip on reality.
Do me a favor -- please criticize me for what I write and don't assign to me views that I don't have. I think Hillary is going to win. I'm not voting for her. I don't think Ron Paul is going to win, but that's not why I'm not voting for him. I'm voting against Ron Paul because I don't agree with some of his positions.
And btw, when you say:
that means that you can not verify that someone is bashing Ron Paul. I suspect that is not what you meant.
M1911,
The entire foundation of your argument has already been thoroughly debunked.
Your vaunted random polling has already firmly established it's track record of uselessness in the primaries. If you don't understand why this is to be expected, you don't understand how primaries work.
The entire foundation of your argument has already been thoroughly debunked.
Your vaunted random polling has already firmly established it's track record of uselessness in the primaries. If you don't understand why this is to be expected, you don't understand how primaries work.
- Status