EPTOn January 04 2012 11:06 Zealotdriver wrote:
It will be hilarious if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus. Obama victory incoming.
It will be hilarious if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus. Obama victory incoming.
Watch less mainstream news outlets plz..
Republican nominations - Page 206
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Powerpill
United States1693 Posts
Watch less mainstream news outlets plz.. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:07 Risen wrote: You umm... do know they are individually counting the votes and then sending their results in, right? You do know they're counting WHILE the voting is still open right? | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:05 xAiKitsune wrote: If I was going to live in the US, looks like I would live in Van Buren County, 40% for Dr.Paul! You don't want to live in Iowa at all. There's nothing there. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:08 Powerpill wrote: Watch less mainstream news outlets plz.. The thing I've been seeing is the major news networks focus on how many republicans won't vote for Paul, but neglect how many Democrats and Independents WILL vote for him. | ||
|
Powerpill
United States1693 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:10 Risen wrote: The thing I've been seeing is the major news networks focus on how many republicans won't vote for Paul, but neglect how many Democrats and Independents WILL vote for him. Exactly, they leave a lot of things out, important things. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yBT7A.png) | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:10 Risen wrote: The thing I've been seeing is the major news networks focus on how many republicans won't vote for Paul, but neglect how many Democrats and Independents WILL vote for him. I redirect you to this. National polls look very similar. Paul can carry about a third of the country, but won't ever get over 45%. He is the definition of unelectable based on current electoral models (which is a caveat I admit). | ||
|
annYeong(o11)
Canada784 Posts
gah so close, come on paul, don't fuck this up iowa! edit: rooting for paul because i'd love to see how the mainstream media will avoid talking about him if he wins. "Devastating defeat for Romney, Sanctorum, Gringrich, Bachman, Perry and the other guys, now with more on who lost the caucus, 5 hours of bullshit pulled out of the ass of pundits." | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:13 Derez wrote: I redirect you to this. National polls look very similar. Paul can carry about a third of the country, but won't ever get over 45%. He is the definition of unelectable based on current electoral models (which is a caveat I admit). I'd direct you to every election in Modern American Politics. Candidates get their base, ergo they almost automatically get 35-40%, and then independents carry them the rest of the way. People will SAY all kinds of shit when asked questions for a poll, but when it comes down to it, Republicans will vote for their candidate and Democrats will vote for their candidate. Edit: I have no idea why I've capitalized Modern American Politics. | ||
Fionn
United States23455 Posts
Can't wait for Obama vs. Paul for the United States Heavyweight Title next year at President Bowl 57. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:18 Fionn wrote: Ron Paul talking trash on Twitter. Can't wait for Obama vs. Paul for the United States Heavyweight Title next year at President Bowl 57. "@JonHuntsman we found your one Iowa voter, he's in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks." LOL. That's awesome. Edit: ROFL. CNN cut off everyone below top 3 on their website :D | ||
Gaga
Germany433 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:13 Derez wrote: I redirect you to this. National polls look very similar. Paul can carry about a third of the country, but won't ever get over 45%. He is the definition of unelectable based on current electoral models (which is a caveat I admit). though times call for though measures ... dont underestimate the discomfort of people over what is happening right now in the world. Ron Paul is the only one who has a slime chance at doing something different. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:13 Derez wrote: I redirect you to this. National polls look very similar. Paul can carry about a third of the country, but won't ever get over 45%. He is the definition of unelectable based on current electoral models (which is a caveat I admit). Also, you seriously underestimate the Bradley effect in our country. In his first run Obama did much better than expected amongst white voters. This time people will have excuses to feed their racism, so I'm expecting a full-kick in of the Bradley Effect. Having said that, any Republican nominee other than Romney will have trouble winning. Romney will probably win ezpz | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:17 Risen wrote: I'd direct you to every election in Modern American Politics. Candidates get their base, ergo they almost automatically get 35-40%, and then independents carry them the rest of the way. People will SAY all kinds of shit when asked questions for a poll, but when it comes down to it, Republicans will vote for their candidate and Democrats will vote for their candidate. Edit: I have no idea why I've capitalized Modern American Politics. I probably sounded too cocky which I apologize for, but the fact of the matter is that Ron Paul carries about 35% of the republican base. General elections tend to become a turnout game rather then an actual choice (I agree with you there). It's just that republicans are going to have a hard time getting the 65% of republicans that don't give a shit about Ron Paul to the polls on election day. It's the same issue Obama faced with Hillary voters, he just got lucky that McCain/Palin became completely irrelevant before people actually pulled the lever. Romney has this problem too, Santorum can whip the evangelicals into a bible thumping frenzy and have them go door to door, but even that isn't a guarantee for a win. On January 04 2012 11:23 Risen wrote: Also, you seriously underestimate the Bradley effect in our country. In his first run Obama did much better than expected amongst white voters. This time people will have excuses to feed their racism, so I'm expecting a full-kick in of the Bradley Effect. Having said that, any Republican nominee other than Romney will have trouble winning. Romney will probably win ezpz I disagree on the Bradley effect. Obama will do worse among white voters in the next general, that's for sure, but I wouldn't put it down to the bradley effect, it's just the result of the democrats 'giving up' on the average white 'joe'. The dems have actively given up on the white working class, and it won't yield any results for them that's for sure. It's just about limiting losses. | ||
|
annYeong(o11)
Canada784 Posts
| ||
|
Cathasaigh
United States285 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:31 annYeong(o11) wrote: Ahhh they're all at 23 now! half of de moines hasn't reported back but it looks like a lot of sanctorum territories also haven't responded (the north west corner) Has Santorum really been so irrelevent that people can't even get his name right? | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:31 annYeong(o11) wrote: Ahhh they're all at 23 now! half of de moines hasn't reported back but it looks like a lot of sanctorum territories also haven't responded (the north west corner) Yeah, the remaining spots look pretty Santorumy. I imagine it's good for Paul that the district featuring Grinnell isn't in yet. What are the other Iowa college towns? | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:24 Derez wrote: I probably sounded too cocky which I apologize for, but the fact of the matter is that Ron Paul carries about 35% of the republican base. General elections tend to become a turnout game rather then an actual choice (I agree with you there). It's just that republicans are going to have a hard time getting the 65% of republicans that don't give a shit about Ron Paul to the polls on election day. It's the same issue Obama faced with Hillary voters, he just got lucky that McCain/Palin became completely irrelevant before people actually pulled the lever. Romney has this problem too, Santorum can whip the evangelicals into a bible thumping frenzy and have them go door to door, but even that isn't a guarantee for a win. I disagree on the Bradley effect. Obama will do worse among white voters in the next general, that's for sure, but I wouldn't put it down to the bradley effect, it's just the result of the democrats 'giving up' on the average white 'joe'. The dems have actively given up on the white working class, and it won't yield any results for them that's for sure. It's just about limiting losses. How much of the black vote do you think obama will pull? More importantly, will he maintain such a high african-american turnout | ||
|
annYeong(o11)
Canada784 Posts
On January 04 2012 11:35 Cathasaigh wrote: Has Santorum really been so irrelevent that people can't even get his name right? I will admit, I only know how to spell the names that have been mocked on the Daily Show. also, why don't news channels ever call him "Dr. Paul" he is an actual, medical doctor who practised right? | ||
|
Inty
United States99 Posts
| ||
| ||
