Ron Paul, where'd you go?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Cache Landing, Jan 8, 2008.

  1. For the last month I've seen countless threads dealing with RP. What happened? I'm not being facetious.

    It seems that the RP revolution crashed when he only got 9% of the vote in Iowa. There are still a few hard core supporters out working for him, but even the online support has seemingly vanished. People have suggested that the media has conspired against him and that the polls are misleading. They say the votes will tell the true story.

    RP supporters seemed so passionate that I wondered at times if he might actually be able to get enough support to make a run. At this rate he will drop out of the race before Super Tuesday. What gives!?!

    As I see it, there are two major problems for him. To make a serious run, he needs support from the most libertarian states. It doesn't really matter how many independents he can sway if he can't get the majority of his own party. Three states that come to mind are California, Nevada, and New Hampshire. These states have more Libertarians than other states. Unfortunately his poll results are as follows:

    California -- 2-4%
    Nevada-- 2-7%
    New Hampshire-- 8-11%

    California has more libertarians than any other state which should be great for RP because of the huge number of delegates, but he only polls at 2-4%. Now, people can say that the polls don't reflect the real support, but he has hardly demolished the poll results so far. Iowa polls had him at 6-8% and he came in with 9%. Didn't even register on the radar in Wyoming.

    I disagree with anyone saying New Hampshire is crucial for McCain, Romney or the other front-runners, but it is absolutely critical for Ron Paul. I've seen polls as high as 11% and as low as 5%. IMO, he needs at least 20% in New Hampshire to stay in the race at all. That would put him at 7 delegates to date. That puts him ahead of Thompson and Guliani, but Guliani hasn't even started yet and I think Thompson is about to drop out after South Carolina.

    His second problem is what type of support he attracts. A huge bunch of his supporters are bandwagon demonstration attendees. They participate as long as there is an fun event to attend. If the electricity fizzles, then so do they. Unfortunately these people usually don't vote in primaries. He must convince them to vote.

    Anyway, he absolutely needs the media attention of grabbing 20% of the vote today, or it is over for him.
  2. its odd how the republican party still will not release the precinct totals in iowa. get ready tonight.. the fix is in. no real count.... just more corruption from the old guard. predicted this crap months ago. did you people think that the straw polls were the only places they would tamper with the vote? wake up people.
  3. Iowa is really a strange stone-age system that has little effect in the end. The numbers are in and there is no conspiracy behind it. Rigging this process would be so difficult that it is almost outside the realms of possibility.

    Claims of rigged votes get pretty tiresome. IOW, a rigged system wouldn't take Ron Paul from say 25% of the vote, down to 9%. Too many people would have to be involved in the conspiracy. Any successful conspiracy requires secrecy on the part of the participants. With that many people involved, secrecy becomes almost entirely impossible.

    I like Ron Paul, and he will never have a chance if the only argument on his behalf is that the elections are rigged. You must convince people to be FOR RP rather than against a rigged system.
  4. i will speak my mind about Ron Paul and the rigged system. all i care about is the truth... let the chips fall where they may. and i couldn't disagree wight you more about the vote fraud..... when the counting is done in secrecy and non transparent... i dont trust it for a second. this whole thing about loose lips... and conspiracy, i can't even begin to tell you how wrong your opinion is. there are people going to jail right now in ohio for the 04 election fraud. it is rampant. did you even follow the straw polls?
  5. fhl


    Ron Paul's explanation about the New Republic story is as laughable as his explanation on Meet the Press about the earmarks he included in spending bills.
  6. Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters

    January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

    ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

    “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

    “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

    “This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

    “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
  7. don't see anything laughable in the above Ron Paul statement. i do think the lil weasel jamie kirchick is a fruit cake.
  8. You can speak your mind all you want. It's a free country. I just think you should examine what you're saying.

    We are talking about the U.S. primaries here. Each state has its own system, and they are often very different. Sometimes votes are counted in "secret" and other times they aren't. Even when they are done in secret, there are multiple people involved and results are posted by county/district.

    Whether the votes are done electronically, by manual punch cards, or whatever, there are usually one or two people in each district who've seen the real results. The conspiring party would have to do one of two things.

    1) Have only their people in on the original count before it is sent to the headquarters.

    2) have their people at the headquarters to change it when it gets there.

    Obviously the second won't fly because the results for each district are posted on the internet for everyone to see. If it was changed after the original count then multiple people would have to be silenced.

    The first option is just as unrealistic to me. That sort of infiltration is so improbable on a national scale that it can be said to be impossible. Literally thousands would have to keep it secret. Not gonna happen.

    Can there be small cases of voter fraud here and there? Sure. But anything on a scale large enough to determine a presidential nominee is amazingly improbable. If you want to raise the question regarding a nationwide electronic vote that is handled by a single computer database, then the probability of successful manipulation increases dramatically. But wide scale vote manipulation of the current state primaries is so improbable that it is laughable.
  9. fhl


    It is not only laughable, it is hilarious. Saying he didn't edit it is just weasel words. Notice he didn't say that he never read the articles. How could he? Who would believe that? So, he read this stuff and let it go on for how many years. He obviously knew this stuff was being printed in his name and did nothing about it, didn't put a stop to it, nothing. Laughable, hilarious.

    I noticed that you had no response to the earmarks laugher. I suppose because there is no credible response.
    #10     Jan 8, 2008