|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jan 21, 2012 9:38:18 GMT -5
Any candidate other than Paul would do better because the party would at least back them. They'd still lose, but the party would back them. Polls with Obama/Paul assume the Republican party would back him and that there is no 3rd party candidate like Romney/Gingrich. I don't think either of those would happen. the party, listen to the people. Republican voters will back him. Why do all Ron Paul supporters seem to assume everyone will support him when he's the nominee? He differs greatly from much of the core Republican support (especially social conservatives), he'd have a hell of a job to unite them.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 21, 2012 12:24:50 GMT -5
the party, listen to the people. Republican voters will back him. Why do all Ron Paul supporters seem to assume everyone will support him when he's the nominee? He differs greatly from much of the core Republican support (especially social conservatives), he'd have a hell of a job to unite them. We only have polls to go off of and he performs quite well as I showed. We only have polls to go off of for why they'd support Mitt "I'll be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights" Romney.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 21, 2012 13:02:52 GMT -5
Why do all Ron Paul supporters seem to assume everyone will support him when he's the nominee? He differs greatly from much of the core Republican support (especially social conservatives), he'd have a hell of a job to unite them. We only have polls to go off of and he performs quite well as I showed. We only have polls to go off of for why they'd support Mitt "I'll be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights" Romney. The polls assume two things that aren't necessarily true. a) The party will unite behind him. b) A more conservative or moderate candidate like Romney/Gingrich/etc... won't run as a viable 3rd party. I don't think either one of those things is true. If either of them is false, the polls fall apart. If both are false, you can toss the polls right out the window.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 21, 2012 13:20:30 GMT -5
We only have polls to go off of and he performs quite well as I showed. We only have polls to go off of for why they'd support Mitt "I'll be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights" Romney. The polls assume two things that aren't necessarily true. a) The party will unite behind him. b) A more conservative or moderate candidate like Romney/Gingrich/etc... won't run as a viable 3rd party. I don't think either one of those things is true. If either of them is false, the polls fall apart. If both are false, you can toss the polls right out the window. I'm done. I'm sick of arguing with you. You assume things that aren't true or you keep spouting off things that you know aren't true and have been debunked yet you keep going on and on.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Jan 21, 2012 14:38:42 GMT -5
I have a hard time understanding why people seem to think that Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney are more conservative candidates than Paul.
If somebody has an explanation, I'd like to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 21, 2012 15:04:56 GMT -5
If he doesn't win the nomination this year will he give his delegates to whomever the nominee is? With all due respect, I don't think you do understand the delegate thing. This sentence I quoted here makes no sense if you do understand the process. What you're saying is that he should give up his delegates after we figure out who the nominee is. Why? At that point, it makes zero difference whether the official nominee has every single delegate or the absolute minimum number needed. They're the nominee either way. In 2008, McCain had only 72% of the delegates. Romney, Huckabee AND Paul ALL received delegates at the national convention. Did Mitt Romney alienate the party by not giving his delegates to John McCain? Oh yeah, it looks like the party HATES him right now as he sprints toward the finish line to become the nominee in the very next election. But somehow, according to you, Ron Paul would alienate the party by doing the exact same thing that the current front-runner did. The polls assume two things that aren't necessarily true. a) The party will unite behind him. What do you even mean by that? Are you going with the assumption that the Republican party would sabotage its own candidate? Even if that is true, the question posed to people in the poll is, "Who would you vote for - Ron Paul or Barack Obama?" It doesn't matter if the "party gets behind him." All that matters is whether PEOPLE would vote for him. Yes, Romney or Gingrich would potentially run as a third party candidate, but what are the chances that they'd stick it through 'til the end when they have zero chance of winning? Talk about alienating your own party. There's actually a realistic chance that Ron Paul could run as an Independent. Why? Because he just doesn't give a . If he doesn't win this nomination, he's done with politics.Unlike Gingrich and Romney, he has the opportunity to stay in the race without the concern of hurting his future profession. If Ron Paul does win the nomination, Hulk, we can do a separate bet on whether Gingrich or Romney will run as a third party candidate. I'll give you the same odds you gave me on Paul winning the nomination. Why? Because I know these slimy political s like Romney and Gingrich. They're in it for themselves. Without a realistic chance to win, they have no reason to run as a third party candidate and simply won't do it. I have a hard time understanding why people seem to think that Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney are more conservative candidates than Paul. If somebody has an explanation, I'd like to hear it. Because the phrase "conservative" has taken a sharp turn to the left over the years. The media does a beautiful job of telling people that allowing the U.S. Federal government to control you and the rest of the world is a "conservative" idea.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 21, 2012 15:36:50 GMT -5
Yep.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 21, 2012 17:11:59 GMT -5
In 2008, McCain had only 72% of the delegates. Romney, Huckabee AND Paul ALL received delegates at the national convention. I have no idea where you get these numbers. According to Wikipedia, McCain got 98% of the delegates (which is usually what happens). All but thirty seven voted for him. Fourteen of them were delegates who didn't vote at all for whatever reason. Two of them were idiots who voted for Romney even though Romney had already pledged his delegates to McCain. Twenty one of them were for Ron Paul who refused to even attend the convention. Instead he held a convention of his own across town in protest. As I said, he does not play well with his own party. Why would his party back a guy who won't do things their way and won't play the game? I know that's what endears him to you and I get that, but that's not how the system works. The party is not going to back a guy who think won't work with them once he gets in office. Which, as I said earlier assumes that it's an either or. It assumes that there isn't a 3rd party candidate running that has significant backing from the conservative/moderate wing of the party and it also assumes the party backs it's candidate. It very much matters. If Paul can't unite his party behind him Obama and the Dems can easily, very easily, slam him as a guy who will cause even more division in the US. "If he can't unite his own party, how will he unite an entire country. Already we have red states and blue states. The divide between the 99% and the 1% grows wider. Do we really want to elect a man who will create a bigger division? Vote for Obama for four more years." Paul has done that in the past though. Romney and Gingrich aren't going to alienate the party if they have the backing of the conservative/moderate wings of the party. I don't disagree with that. If he does, he probably ensures Obama's re-election. He won't take many votes away from Obama, but he could easily take enough votes away from whomever the Republicans candidate is to ensure Obama's win. I disagree. While they won't win, if they come in ahead of Paul, it gives them a big leg up for 2016. Who will the Dems run then? Biden most likely. That's what usually happens. Romney/Gingrich could claim that he came in second without the full support of his party. He could win if he had the full support. I think a guy like that could easily have the funds to make a viable national run. Could he come in ahead of Paul given all the idiots who will vote for whomever the Republicans run? I don't know. If he does though he's a clear front runner for 2016 without question. The GOP is very much run by the conservative wing of the party. They would forgive him I think.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 21, 2012 17:42:54 GMT -5
I have no idea where you get these numbers. According to Wikipedia, McCain got 98% of the delegates (which is usually what happens). All but thirty seven voted for him. Fourteen of them were delegates who didn't vote at all for whatever reason. Two of them were idiots who voted for Romney even though Romney had already pledged his delegates to McCain. Twenty one of them were for Ron Paul who refused to even attend the convention. I was going off of RealClearPolitics' numbers, but even if you want to go off of Wikipedia's numbers, it's still practically exactly what I said... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008 What numbers are YOU going off of? Instead he held a convention of his own across town in protest. As I said, he does not play well with his own party. Why would his party back a guy who won't do things their way and won't play the game? I know that's what endears him to you and I get that, but that's not how the system works. The party is not going to back a guy who think won't work with them once he gets in office. Again, if he wins enough delegates, he will be the nominee; and the party will back him or fall apart. If they fall apart, all the better, if you ask me... But that's not going to happen. It very much matters. If Paul can't unite his party behind him Obama and the Dems can easily, very easily, slam him as a guy who will cause even more division in the US. " And Ron Paul can say, "Well if you want politics as usual, vote for Obama. If you're sick of the two party system and their squabbles, and you want actual change, you can vote for me." That message is now resonating with a significant portion of the population. A very significant portion. Enough of a portion that it's going to be the deciding factor of who wins this next election. If he can't unite his own party, how will he unite an entire country. Because people are sick of the bullcrapand, as polls have shown, are starting to come around to the libertarian mindset. Already we have red states and blue states. The divide between the 99% and the 1% grows wider. Do we really want to elect a man who will create a bigger division? Vote for Obama for four more years." More division is good for America. It's the two party system that is ing things up as it is. You'd have Republians, Democrats, and Ron Paul people. That would be GREAT for America, in all reality. Paul has done that in the past though. Romney and Gingrich aren't going to alienate the party if they have the backing of the conservative/moderate wings of the party. You're completely disregarding reality here, man. Think about it. If Ron Paul does win the nomination, he will at the very least have support of half of the party, who are going to vote Republican no matter who is on the ballot. Remember, the majority of people who vote have no ing idea what they're voting for anyway. They go right down the list and check "R" or "D." With that, Ron Paul essentially guarantees himself 25% of the popular vote, and that is being almost ABSURDLY generous to whoever this theoretical "third party" candidate would be. With a third party, less "Republicans" would turn out to vote because they would know that neither candidate has a chance in hell of winning; so Obama would probably clean up with somewhere around 60-65% of the vote, leaving the third party candidate with about 15% of the vote. I don't disagree with that. If he does, he probably ensures Obama's re-election. He won't take many votes away from Obama, but he could easily take enough votes away from whomever the Republicans candidate is to ensure Obama's win. Paul is taking votes away from Obama no matter if he's the nominee or not. www.bluerepublican.org/I disagree. While they won't win, if they come in ahead of Paul, it gives them a big leg up for 2016. So your theory is that they would receive LESS of the Republican vote than Ron Paul for the nomination... Yet somehow get more of the TOTAL vote than Ron Paul in the actual election? Yeah, I feel safe giving you 10,000/1 odds on this... Who will the Dems run then? Biden most likely. That's what usually happens. Maybe. But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not Biden. No one really seems to like him. LoL. Romney/Gingrich could claim that he came in second without the full support of his party. He could win if he had the full support. "You didn't support me last time, so I ed the party over by running as a third party candidate; thus giving Obama four more years in the biggest landslide in modern political history." - Gingrich/RomneyOh yeah, I can see that speech going over REALLY well... I think a guy like that could easily have the funds to make a viable national run. Could he come in ahead of Paul given all the idiots who will vote for whomever the Republicans run? I don't know. If he does though he's a clear front runner for 2016 without question. The GOP is very much run by the conservative wing of the party. They would forgive him I think. It's just funny to me that you think the party won't forgive Ron Paul for not giving up his delegates (which don't matter, mind you, unless you're the nominee); but somehow someone who intentionally s the party out of an election is going to be forgiven. COME ON SON.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 21, 2012 19:31:04 GMT -5
I'm going off the actual voting, not the number of promised delegates. McCain did indeed win 72% like you said, but the other candidates promised their delegates to McCain when they bowed out hence he ended up getting 98% at the actual nominating convention when the vote was taken. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Republican_Convention#Delegate_countI think you'd see the party fall apart. I really do. You would see a viable 3rd party candidate for the first time since Perot. Completely disagree. That portion of the population hasn't been enough so far to really influence a primary vote. I fail to see how it's going to influence the vote on the national level. I really wish that were the case, but I don't think it is. No Libertarian candidate has ever received more than 1% of the vote in a Presidential election. Currently there only about 160 Libertarians in office nationwide and none of them are in Congress. None of that looks to change any time soon. For the record, I'm a registered Libertarian and have been for about a decade. I disagree. Currently the country is basically divided in half red/blue. Obama only too 52% of the popular vote. In '04, Bush took just over 50%. In '00, he got 48%. So, it's been divided right down the middle for a little over a decade at least. In fact you have to go back to '84 when Reagan took nearly 60% of the vote to see an election where a candidate really trounced another one. I fail to see how dividing that vote in three parts would really be great. One of the two parties dieing and being replaced by another would be a good thing I think as the two parties are way too much like each other. Splitting in three I don't think would be good. I think Paul would be guaranteed 20% of the vote that way. A 3rd party could easily take another 20%. You have to bear in mind that the Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly's of the world are going to be trumpetting the virtues of the 3rd party candidate. Obama would win 50-55% easily and would take the electoral college with ease. Not enough to matter. A 3rd party candidate is going to take votes away from Paul. I think they COULD get more votes than Paul in the election. If they can, it's a big success for them going into 2016. Wouldn't be framed that way. Would be more like, "I ran as a 3rd party and came in second. What success I could've had if I had the full support of the party. This year, the Dems are vulnerable 'cuz they're running Biden and everyone hates him. Vote for me. I could've beaten Obama last year. I'll definitely beat Biden this year." The difference is Paul went against party rules/traditions by not giving up his delegates. A 3rd party would ostensibly run with the support of party members. All of this is completely hypothetical though as Paul hasn't won a single primary to date. Doesn't look like that's going to change in SC either. Early exit polls seem to indicate Gingrich in the lead there. Paul is looking at finishing 4th below Santorum. Ouch!
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 21, 2012 20:46:59 GMT -5
Everyone seems to agree that Gingrich has won. Makes the race very interesting. Since Reagan, every one who has won SC has gone on to win the nomination. Also interesting that three different candidates have won the first three primaries. Has never happened before.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 21, 2012 23:16:15 GMT -5
Gingrich's win tonight puts him right back in the running. He's tied with Romney in the delegate count and 7 ahead of Santorum. Florida has 50 delegates and its' a winner take all state I think. It comes up in 10 days. Romney currently is polling at like 40-45% there and Gingrich/Santorum at like 20% a piece. It'll be interesting to see if Gingrich can leverage this win into a win there as well.
I'm honestly shocked that Gingrich is even relevant in this race at all. This is a guy who was basically forced out of office by his own party way back in '98.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 22, 2012 0:06:27 GMT -5
I'm going off the actual voting, not the number of promised delegates. McCain did indeed win 72% like you said, but the other candidates promised their delegates to McCain when they bowed out hence he ended up getting 98% at the actual nominating convention when the vote was taken. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Republican_Convention#Delegate_countSo you're going off of the number of delegates that a candidate received once the other candidates had dropped out and the race was over? Okay. LoL. At that point, no one cares. Not only that, but I've never heard one single person say, "Well Ron Paul didn't give up his delegates in 2008, so I'm not voting for him." Not one person. And trust me, I've talked to a LOT of people who dislike Ron Paul. I think you'd see the party fall apart. I really do. You would see a viable 3rd party candidate for the first time since Perot. I'd actually be okay with that. I highly, highly doubt it'd happen... But I'd be okay with it. Completely disagree. That portion of the population hasn't been enough so far to really influence a primary vote. I fail to see how it's going to influence the vote on the national level. These same people are the ones who got Obama elected. Yeah, it's significant. I really wish that were the case, but I don't think it is. No Libertarian candidate has ever received more than 1% of the vote in a Presidential election. I said the libertarian mindset, not the libertarian party. Ron Paul could easily run away with the libertarian nomination if he wanted it, but he's trying to change the Republican party. Not only that, but he polls best among democrats and independents. Currently there only about 160 Libertarians in office nationwide and none of them are in Congress. Ron Paul is in Congress. Rand Paul is in Congress. Call them what you will by official party, but they're about as Libertarian as it gets. None of that looks to change any time soon. For the record, I'm a registered Libertarian and have been for about a decade. Then I hope you'll support Ron Paul or Gary Johnson for President. I disagree. Currently the country is basically divided in half red/blue. Obama only too 52% of the popular vote. In '04, Bush took just over 50%. In '00, he got 48%. So, it's been divided right down the middle for a little over a decade at least. In fact you have to go back to '84 when Reagan took nearly 60% of the vote to see an election where a candidate really trounced another one. I fail to see how dividing that vote in three parts would really be great. One of the two parties dieing and being replaced by another would be a good thing I think as the two parties are way too much like each other. Splitting in three I don't think would be good. A third party with a strong percentage of support, even like 20%, would do wonders in stopping this ridiculous "voting along party lines" bullcrapthat happens in Congress. We would never see a "majority house" or a "majority senate" that passes crapthrough without a problem again. We'd see REAL debate and these people would actually have to come up with realistic options that would appease the population and not just high five one another as they pass another lopsided bill that s us all. I think Paul would be guaranteed 20% of the vote that way. A 3rd party could easily take another 20%. You have to bear in mind that the Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly's of the world are going to be trumpetting the virtues of the 3rd party candidate. Obama would win 50-55% easily and would take the electoral college with ease. I think you're overestimating the success that Romney or Gingrich would have without the Republican party name behind them, but I think we have the same point. Obama wins in a landslide if anyone runs as a third party candidate. Even Ron Paul. Not enough to matter. A 3rd party candidate is going to take votes away from Paul. Oh definitely not enough to win if Romney or Gingrich runs as a third party candidate, I'm just saying, he's the only one that's doing that. If Romney, Gingrich or Santorum get the nomination, Ron Paul's supporters are not just going to vote for them. We are not "Republicans." We simply vote that way because that's where our man sits. In fact, I personally know quite a few Ron Paul people who will vote for Barack Obama over any of the other Republicans in the race. It's a matter of "the devil you know versus the devil you don't." Ron Paul will have an effect on this election no matter where he finishes. Whether he is the nominee or not, the person who receives the most of his supporters is very likely to be the next President. Even if only 8% of America is a Ron Paul supporter, that's enough to swing an election one way or another for Obama or the eventual Republican nominee; especially given the electoral college system. Romney, Santorum and Gingrich supporters simply do not have that kind of dedication. Want to know how I know that? Because their numbers continue to rise and fall in every poll. As Bill O'Reilly and Mike Huckabee even said on FOX the other day, at this point, the Republican establishment voters are choosing between three personalities - they're not choosing because of issues. If their guy drops out, they just move onto someone else... If Ron Paul drops out, the Ron Paul supporters will pretty much write his name in or vote for Gary Johnson... Or they'll stay home and not vote at all, which will be equally detrimental to the Republican nominee. I think they COULD get more votes than Paul in the election. If they can, it's a big success for them going into 2016. Not a chance man. Not without that machine behind them. Even when the Republican party put up dumbass who no one liked like Bob Dole; and Ross Perot, one of the 100 richest people in this country, was running as an independent; Perot still didn't even come close to getting a delegate. He got 8.4% of the vote. People generally LIKE Ron Paul. They may disagree with him, but there are very few people who think he's a bad person. I just don't believe that there is enough of a faction of people who would justify leaving the Republican party given that there is zero chance that their candidate would win the election. Wouldn't be framed that way. Would be more like, "I ran as a 3rd party and came in second. What success I could've had if I had the full support of the party. This year, the Dems are vulnerable 'cuz they're running Biden and everyone hates him. Vote for me. I could've beaten Obama last year. I'll definitely beat Biden this year." I'm not really saying that the candidate themselves would run on that platform, I'm more saying that it'd be incredibly easy ammunition for anyone running against them in the next election. All of this is completely hypothetical though as Paul hasn't won a single primary to date. Doesn't look like that's going to change in SC either. Early exit polls seem to indicate Gingrich in the lead there. Paul is looking at finishing 4th below Santorum. Ouch! Ron Paul is in third place right now when it comes to (estimated) delegates. He's ahead of Rick Santorum, who did not receive any delegates in New Hampshire. Finishing below Romney or even Santorum will end up being irrelevant because Newt Gingrich is, I believe, now guaranteed to win every delegate from the state (which I believe is 25). If he gets 25, he is now 4 behind Romney who is estimated to have 29. It is estimated that Ron Paul has about 10-12 delegates right now, to Santorum's 8. However, I think it's important to remember that Iowa's delegate counts are only an estimate at this point. With Ron Paul having run only 4% behind Romney and Santorum, it is very possible that he will actually get the most delegates in Iowa based on the caucus system and his organization in the state. With that said, Ron Paul is not going to run well in Florida. Why? Because he has hardly campaigned there. He knows that it is a strong state for Romney and, given its winner-take-all stakes, it is financial suicide to try to compete there when he knows he isn't going to win. Florida is a huge state. It will be a huge win for whoever wins it (most likely Romney), but it will not be Dr. Paul. It is also very unlikely to be Rick Santorum. Ron Paul will instead focus his attention on the next four states after Florida: Nevada, Maine, Colorado and my home state of Minnesota. All four of these are caucus states, which will bode well for Paul as his campaign's organization comes into play significantly more in those states. If Ron Paul does poorly in those states, that is likely it for his campaign (he'll still continue, but it'll really only be in principal). But to put a nail in the campaign's head now, after three states that he wasn't even expecting to do well in... That's a bit premature.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 22, 2012 0:13:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 22, 2012 0:16:02 GMT -5
Gingrich's win tonight puts him right back in the running. This is correct. He's tied with Romney in the delegate count and 7 ahead of Santorum. This is not correct. Florida has 50 delegates and its' a winner take all state I think. It comes up in 10 days. Romney currently is polling at like 40-45% there and Gingrich/Santorum at like 20% a piece. It'll be interesting to see if Gingrich can leverage this win into a win there as well. Highly unlikely. I think Romney runs away with it as Gingrich/Paul/Santorum move on. Florida is important because of its number of delegates, but its "winner take all" system has made it largely irrelevant when it comes to actual head-to-head campaigning in the state. I'm honestly shocked that Gingrich is even relevant in this race at all. This is a guy who was basically forced out of office by his own party way back in '98. Yeah, it's a ing shame that people really think this guy should be the next President. It really, really is.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Jan 22, 2012 1:08:40 GMT -5
I guess I should not be surprised Newt won tonight.
His win makes this much more interesting I guess.
So is Florida next or is a state or two before it?
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 22, 2012 1:14:30 GMT -5
Florida is next, but it's pretty much a slam dunk for Romney to win all 50 delegates.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Jan 22, 2012 3:37:52 GMT -5
Thanks for replying.
Must suck for all the others if they pretty much know he will win.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 22, 2012 8:52:35 GMT -5
I thought this was the party of morals? Newt is pretty much bankrupt in that category. But SC ate up his little hissy fit in that CNN debate.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 22, 2012 10:33:23 GMT -5
So you're going off of the number of delegates that a candidate received once the other candidates had dropped out and the race was over? Okay. LoL. At that point, no one cares. You're wrong. At that point people do care. The tradition is you drop out and give your delegates to the winner. That way the party unites behind one guy who you also back. Paul refused to do that. He refused to back the party's candidate in 2008 choosing instead to keep his delegates and hold his own convention. Yet now he's going to call for the party to back him. Then they should call themselves Libertarians and not Republicans. Instead, they want to say that Republicans are the problem therefore they're going to join the Republican party. Historically 3rd parties never work in this country. Either the 3rd party becomes so big that it takes the place of one of the two other parties and one of those parties dies or one of the two major parties adopts the major platforms of the 3rd party and the 3rd party dies. Which goes back to my previous point that Paul does not play well with his own party. Why would the Republican party back a guy who does not play by their rules? There is a influential faction of the Republican party who does not like Paul because of his history. He doesn't play well with the party. Why would they back a guy who, if elected, will likely actively work against what they want to do?
|
|