Ron Paul won the Nevada GOP presidential straw poll

Status
Not open for further replies.
You think that because you went to a Romney speech and saw how many people were there you have any idea how many workers he has for his campaign.

Careful. They're not workers. They're compensated volunteers. ;)

(What an ego trip, spending that much of his own money pretending to have a campaign behind the empty suit.)
 
I have to ask, have you ever actually worked on a political campaign? from what you've written I doubt it.
Hate to bust your bubble, but yeah. I've actually worked on a political campaign. Now turnabout is fair play. Have you?
No, forget that. Not important. What I want you to do is support some of these "facts". Now. Please.
 
Wahooo! Ron Paul is my man! He's gonna declare the income tax unconstitutional and let me smoke pot! And keep Jorge Bush and the Jews from causing the terrorists to attack!
Go Ron Paul!
 
Yup. Brian Bilbray, Duke Cunningham, and indirectly, Duncan Hunter.

As far as the "facts" your looking for, I've tried to be as clear as possible but its evident that you're going to dismiss anything I say.

So with that in mind, I'll put my bonafides on the ultimate "fact" to be illustrated on the day following the primary election.
 
"As clear as possible"?!?
Seems pretty straightforward to me;
1) Did "Romney volunteers fill the Celtics stadium for a week"? Yes or no?
2) Are random national polls the most accurate method during primaries? Yes or no?

If yes to either, please support. You have made statements of fact. It is incumbent upon you to support them with evidence. Please either do so or retract them. Think carefully, as they are the foundation for your entire argument.

its evident that you're going to dismiss anything I say.
No. I'll question it if it seems fishy and I'll dismiss it if you can't prove it.
 
1) Did "Romney volunteers fill the Celtics stadium for a week"? Yes or no?

Yes. From the interviews he was giving on the news, the entire main floor as well as everything behind the camera was full. Could he have done this for a PR moment, sure.

Of course, this really is a huge distraction from the main question of whether Romney, Guliani, and the other main republicans have "grassroots" support. Of course they do. The reason it doesn't seem like it does is because the ONLY thing Paul has is grassroots support. You can't win elections on that alone.


2) Are random national polls the most accurate method during primaries? Yes or no?

National polls are the msot accurate method of determining primaries. Look at all of the presidential elections since Bush the elder and look at the polls a month before the election.
 
Yes. From the interviews he was giving on the news, the entire main floor as well as everything behind the camera was full. Could he have done this for a PR moment, sure.
You wouldn't happen to have these interviews linked on youtube or something, would ya? The stills I posted are from his own website and they show conclusively that he did not fill the stadium, let alone for a week. Just sayin'; a Monkees reunion tour could have filled the place better than this.

Of course, this really is a huge distraction from the main question of whether Romney, Guliani, and the other main republicans have "grassroots" support. Of course they do.
I was at the Iowa straw poll. I didn't see no steenkin' "grassroots support" for him. It's not "grassroots" if you have to pay for it. He and the other "main Republicans" may have someone somewhere who qualifies as grassroots, but it's nothing compared to what the Paul campaign has. These people are waving signs in the rain, paying for campaign materials out of their own pockets, hanging signs from bridges, and yelling themselves into heat stroke. *That's* grassroots. Paul's got it to the tune of over 50,000 volunteers in over 1,000 locations. The others don't.

The reason it doesn't seem like it does is because the ONLY thing Paul has is grassroots support.
Not true. He's also #3 in net assets and #1 in the straw polls.
You can't win elections on that alone.
I agree with you here. It takes votes to do that. Votes that are generated by shoe leather and money. He's doing just fine on both counts.

National polls are the msot accurate method of determining primaries. Look at all of the presidential elections since Bush the elder and look at the polls a month before the election.

I have. That's the problem. Even predating Bush Sr. the national polls have an incredible record of picking who won't win. I can't find enough data to analyze the track record of aggregate straw polls or chickens pecking at levers, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the dismal performance of national polls in primaries isn't difficult to exceed. It's like proclaiming a skinniest kid in fat camp.

Random polling has a fatal flaw in primaries; it has to be weighted. Somebody has to guess who's gonna show up to vote and *surprise* they always get it wrong in primaries. They assume that the same people are going to show up as last time and they will vote the same way....except they never do.
Random polling in primaries is a fiction. A useless statistic for measuring the horse race that has no bearing on reality. It's based on a guess that's always wrong.
Straw polls have random polls beat hands-down in this regard; there's no guessing about who showed up. The participants will almost certainly vote in the primaries....but who else will join them?
Truth is nobody knows what's going to happen until the end of the primaries. For all we know, the next Republican candidate could be Keyes.
Here's what I do know: The Iowa straw poll has a 50% success rate for predicting the Republican nominee. The national polls can't even exceed that. Therefore, national polls are *not* the most accurate predictors. They're good for gauging name recognition and nothing else.

So save your random polling for the general election. It works reasonably well there.
 
For all we know, the next Republican candidate could be Keyes.


Keyes has as much a chance of winning the nomination and the White House as Ron Paul. I dont care about polling, it means nothing to me. The republican candidate will be Romney or Rudy. Its that simple. Thats just the way it will be. I know its not fair or right, Ron Paul will not get the nod, he has put his foot in his mouth and acted like a kook way to many times. The first debate when he implied that America was at fault for 9/11 did him in. I will head you off on the arguement on that, we can debate what he meant, tried to mean, or said. The fact remains, in millions of conservative minds is that he blames America for 9/11, just like most left wing wack jobs.

So, come election day it will be Romney or Rudy. Right now, I dont even think Fred has a chance. Its sad really. We either pick a liberal who has stated they want to ban guns (democrat) or we pick a republican who has been way liberal in banning guns. Not much of a choice.
 
Its that simple. Thats just the way it will be.
Surely you have something to support your certainty beyond extending your personal reaction to America at large?
I'll tell you my reason for thinking that Paul isn't likely to win and it's related to what you mentioned: He offends the party insiders.
See, the primary process is an internal party function. They can nominate whoever they like. The people aren't voting for candidates, they're voting for delegates. The delegates are appointed at the county level by the party. They're the ones who pick the nominee, not us. They're establishment people, and Ron Paul offends the establishment.
 
a Monkees reunion tour could have filled the place better than this.

Heh. Davy Jones performed at my local state fair a few years ago. I've never seen so many overweight housewives in one place. If they lacked in numbers they compensated in mass :D
 
All I can say is that his supporters are sure annoying people here in NH, and turning them off to him.

Bunch of freaky hippie sorts who probably just want him to decriminalize pot, which is their religion.
They're like the worst of CA and gunshows in one. Extremely overweight, wild-eyed, open-carrying in urban areas because they can, little sense of hygiene, babbling about legalizing pot and Zionist conspiracies.
 
All I can say is that his supporters are sure annoying people here in NH, and turning them off to him.

O RLY?

Among GOP contenders, Romney was the winner, taking in $85,400. The Republican runner-up, however, was a surprise: Ron Paul beat out Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson in state fundraising, with $46,146. According to Andrew Sullivan's blog The Daily Dish, New Hampshire is Ron Paul country: The state ranks first in the nation for per capita Paul donors.
 
Gee, GoSlash, it's nice to know that you, in Iowa, are such an expert about what's going on in New Hampshire, where I live, just from reading an opinion column in a newspaper. :rolleyes: And of course the Paul Disciples are giving all of their money, even if it is from welfare checks and trust funds. After all, he's their political messiah, he'll grant them POT! All they can smoke, without being arrested!

For the record, people outside of those Mass transplants cherry-picked for "polls" (coughBScough) DESPISE Hillary, too.
 
Somebody remind me about which straw poll this thread is supposed to be about?

Oh, nevermind. This ones has veered way too far to be pulled back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top