Ron Paul can't win . . .

[melensdad]

Paulists are rejoicing at the Iowa Caucus polling data but they are idiots for doing so.

Closer scrutiny of the polling data shows a lot more than the simple polls tell and its obvious that:

• Many Paul supporters are NON-voters
• Paul does very badly among the Tea Party supporters
• Paul does worse with GOP voters than Independents

Look to the various polls from Gallup and PPP and its pretty clear that among "registered voters" Paul is less popular than among "adults." But only "registered voters" are allowed to VOTE.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Ah, another one of these guys:

Why so many nay-saying threads about ALL CANDIDATES lately? If they're on the ballot, they can win. STFU already with the worthless predictions-presented-as-truth. It really makes our community look quite ignorant...

 

[Kase]

Ah, another one of these guys:

Why so many nay-saying threads about ALL CANDIDATES lately? If they're on the ballot, they can win. STFU already with the worthless predictions-presented-as-truth. It really makes our community look quite ignorant...

Best thing I've read all day. Rep inbound

 

[LotsofGlocks]

Blah Blah Blah Im still voting for Paul even if I have to write him in!

 

[88GT]

Ah, another one of these guys:

Why so many nay-saying threads about ALL CANDIDATES lately? If they're on the ballot, they can win. STFU already with the worthless predictions-presented-as-truth. It really makes our community look quite ignorant...

What makes our community look ignorant in the proclivity to stick one's head in the sand when the data doesn't favor one's position or to clam up and call people who bring pertinent information to the table idiots for not toeing the party line.

FTR, there's only one person responsible for the majority of the anti-candidate threads around here.

 

[Sylvain]

What kind of people supports a candidate if they are non-voter?
As a non-voter myself, I guess you could call me like that, im not going to support anyone's campaign knowing that im not going to vote for that election.

Im not sure what they call non-voters though, people who are not registered to vote, people not old enough to vote, people who cannot vote, people who dont want to vote, all the above?

 

[Tebow]

"Ron Paul can't win"

I love hearing people say someone "Can't" do something. That's the best motivation out there.

Just when you think he can't win, he will. Don't be surprised.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

88GT, you do understand that the polls are completely worthless, right? Polling 1,000 people with landline phones doesn't tell you anything. Votes shouldn't be measured in parts/million, as homogeneity should not be presumed.

It's all just an attempt to create a media-fueled self-fulfilling prophecy & it's the height of either ignorance or arrogance to continue spreading NEGATIVE comments based upon polls. Until everyone is polled at each individual caucus/primary, it would be beneficial for our community, IMO, to only focus upon the positive polling numbers. Wallowing in negativity based upon polls is one of the biggest circle jerks we've had around here in a long time**.

I'm very happy to see Dr. Paul doing so well in the polls. Listening to the nay-sayers over the last 6 months, he should be at about 5% right now. Ignorant-predictions are ignorant.

** The only potentially-larger circle jerk I could imagine around here would be deciding who would win in a fight: a Nation-Building Christian with a Glock or a Terrorist Muslim with an XD...

 

[RockofStrength]

88GT, you do understand that the polls are completely worthless, right?

I'm very happy to see Dr. Paul doing so well in the polls.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I should have stated that I'm glad to see him doing well in the polls because of the positive media attention it brings to both his campaign & the libertarian ideals he represents. Thanks for questioning me so I could clarify.

 

[HICKMAN]

IU CAN'T BEAT #1 Kentucky...


oh... wait...

 

[KG1]

it would be beneficial for our community, IMO, to only focus upon the positive polling numbers.

And by this I take it to mean only positive Ron Paul polling numbers?

 

[blamecharles]

I hate any poll that has .00000000000001% of the population as its numbers. All i know is I will vote for who i want this time.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Even though I learned on INGO that Indiana had no chance against Kentucky (the asteroid of reality), they still played the game.

The best poll is what happens January 3rd.

Wait and see.

 

[R.G.Gray]

There's only one party he will hurt and its not the Democrats.
It is what it is!

 

[Donnelly]

Irregardless of all the above, I am only voting for one name for president in the primary and the general elecction, and that is Ron Paul. If he is not on the ballot for the general election, I will not be casting a vote for president in the general election.

For those who say that in that case I guarantee an Obama win, so be it.

I am tired of compromising my principles at the polls. This time I stand firm.

 

[88GT]

88GT, you do understand that the polls are completely worthless, right? Polling 1,000 people with landline phones doesn't tell you anything. Votes shouldn't be measured in parts/million, as homogeneity should not be presumed.

It's all just an attempt to create a media-fueled self-fulfilling prophecy & it's the height of either ignorance or arrogance to continue spreading NEGATIVE comments based upon polls. Until everyone is polled at each individual caucus/primary, it would be beneficial for our community, IMO, to only focus upon the positive polling numbers. Wallowing in negativity based upon polls is one of the biggest circle jerks we've had around here in a long time**.

I'm very happy to see Dr. Paul doing so well in the polls. Listening to the nay-sayers over the last 6 months, he should be at about 5% right now. Ignorant-predictions are ignorant.

** The only potentially-larger circle jerk I could imagine around here would be deciding who would win in a fight: a Nation-Building Christian with a Glock or a Terrorist Muslim with an XD...

No, not completely worthless. Only of limited value. And you want me to substitute one of limited value for one with less. No, thanks.

ETA: To your bolded colored text--I suppose if the same methodology had found Paul to have a better chance of winning, you'd be perfectly fine with the results. I didn't make the polls. I didn't even crunch the numbers. And a careful reading will show you that it's not even based on the actual poll numbers as much as the belief people have in the ability of those poll numbers to reflect reality.

 

[BillyT]

"Ron Paul can't win"

I love hearing people say someone "Can't" do something. That's the best motivation out there.

Just when you think he can't win, he will. Don't be surprised.

Are these the same people who elected a black & Muslim & non citizen over a white & Christian & citizen & war /pow/ vet? No 'ism just saying it's obvious the status qoe of can't really doesn't exist.

I think saying "can't" is very delusional in our modern society when voters can be so fickle at a wim.

Americans are desperate for an answer and I doubt they see dem or repubs as the answer (obviously).

 

[rambone]

This thread topic has been scooped!!

Paul's chances of securing nomination slim

 

[chizzle]

“Those that say it can’t be done should get out of the way of those doing it” Chinese Proverb