On January 04 2012 11:06 Zealotdriver wrote: It will be hilarious if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus. Obama victory incoming.
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.
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.
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:
On January 04 2012 11:13 Derez wrote:
On January 04 2012 11:10 Risen wrote:
On January 04 2012 11:08 Powerpill wrote:
On January 04 2012 11:06 Zealotdriver wrote: It will be hilarious if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus. Obama victory incoming.
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.
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
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
That's not what the Bradley effect refers to. The bradley effect is about white people being too ashamed to admit that they'd never vote for a black guy.
That said, I expect Obama to carry well within 90% of african americans, seeing how he is still running a 85ish percent approval rating among african americans. I see no circumstances under which African Americans would abandon Obama for a republican candidate.
(I still don't get how any of this is relevant tho, I'd be happy to discuss any further questions in PM's, this thread is about what I do for a living (political strategy) and most of the people posting here are either halfway with their head up some candidates ass or completely clueless to the way the system works. What I do is about math and probabilities, not about ideas.)
On January 04 2012 11:44 Inty wrote: Quick question how is Santorum able to run? From what I learned in my government class he wouldn't be able to make a run for president because people had associated his name with a sexual term so anytime someone googled him the term would also come up. Is he seriously making a run for presidency or is he just in it due to the lack of candidates?
On January 04 2012 11:06 Zealotdriver wrote: It will be hilarious if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus. Obama victory incoming.
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.
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.
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:
On January 04 2012 11:13 Derez wrote:
On January 04 2012 11:10 Risen wrote:
On January 04 2012 11:08 Powerpill wrote:
On January 04 2012 11:06 Zealotdriver wrote: It will be hilarious if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus. Obama victory incoming.
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.
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
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
That's not what the Bradley effect refers to. The bradley effect is about white people being too ashamed to admit that they'd never vote for a black guy.
That said, I expect Obama to carry well within 90% of african americans, seeing how he is still running a 85ish percent approval rating among african americans. I see no circumstances under which African Americans would abandon Obama for a republican candidate.
(I still don't get how any of this is relevant tho, I'd be happy to discuss any further questions in PM's, this thread is about what I do for a living (political strategy) and most of the people posting here are either halfway with their head up some candidates ass or completely clueless to the way the system works. What I do is about math and probabilities, not about ideas.)
No shit sherlock. I know what it is lol. You commented on giving up on the majority of the white vote, so I was commenting on black voter turnout expectations.
It says something about Ron Paul and his supporters that he can mock his opponents on twitter and they all think it's hilarious, yet when anyone says something negative about Ron Paul, they have quite the opposite reaction.
I guess maturity isn't a trait that is valued highly by Mr. Paul.
On January 04 2012 11:06 Zealotdriver wrote: It will be hilarious if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus. Obama victory incoming.
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.
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.
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:
On January 04 2012 11:13 Derez wrote:
On January 04 2012 11:10 Risen wrote:
On January 04 2012 11:08 Powerpill wrote:
On January 04 2012 11:06 Zealotdriver wrote: It will be hilarious if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus. Obama victory incoming.
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.
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
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
That's not what the Bradley effect refers to. The bradley effect is about white people being too ashamed to admit that they'd never vote for a black guy.
That said, I expect Obama to carry well within 90% of african americans, seeing how he is still running a 85ish percent approval rating among african americans. I see no circumstances under which African Americans would abandon Obama for a republican candidate.
(I still don't get how any of this is relevant tho, I'd be happy to discuss any further questions in PM's, this thread is about what I do for a living (political strategy) and most of the people posting here are either halfway with their head up some candidates ass or completely clueless to the way the system works. What I do is about math and probabilities, not about ideas.)
No shit sherlock. I know what it is lol. You commented on giving up on the majority of the white vote, so I was commenting on black voter turnout expectations.
You were expecting a 'full kick in' of the bradley effect, without any proof that it ever existed in the first place, which I tried to discredit. I don't have much to say on black turnout in the next presidential, and I reacted too fast on that in your earlier post, which I'm sorry for.
I personally expect an above average black turnout (75ish percent) during the next general, but both sides have means of influencing that number.
(It's also 4.02 in Europe right now and I'm drunk as fuck so please be patient ;p)
On January 04 2012 11:59 Saryph wrote: It says something about Ron Paul and his supporters that he can mock his opponents on twitter and they all think it's hilarious, yet when anyone says something negative about Ron Paul, they have quite the opposite reaction.
I guess maturity isn't a trait that is valued highly by Mr. Paul.
No it doesn't, people are like that everywhere no matter who they support.
Why do people think that all the heavy talk of "anybody's better than Obama" that's been going on basically for years among Republicans will not bring in the Republican vote big time if it's Paul vs Obama? Especially depending on how well he does in debates to make good points for his own fiscally conservative policies and against Obama's fiscally liberal ones? If he really speaks well, I think mainstream Republicans can forgive, if not accept his foreign policy.
On the other hand, he has a lot going for him among Democrats as well. His foreign policy is something very important to a lot of Democrats, and more popular among them than that of their own Democrat candidate. And for all his economic plans of austerity, it's a point of view that I think a lot more Democrats have come to respect lately, if not agree with. And how could you go wrong with such a rare opportunity to vote for someone who's at least honest? He's said that he will not abuse the inflated, unconstitutional powers of the president to go over the heads of the representatives in congress, or ultimately of the people. Probably the only truly significant problem he has among Democrats is the allegations that he's a racist, which fits right in with the idea that all Republicans are secretly racist, sometimes not secretly, and the only reason they hate Obama so much is because of his colour. Maybe Ron Paul should pick Herman Cain as his running mate.
On January 04 2012 11:59 Saryph wrote: It says something about Ron Paul and his supporters that he can mock his opponents on twitter and they all think it's hilarious, yet when anyone says something negative about Ron Paul, they have quite the opposite reaction.
I guess maturity isn't a trait that is valued highly by Mr. Paul.
No it doesn't, people are like that everywhere no matter who they support.
So you're saying all of the candidates have published such insults? Could you maybe post a couple links to back that up?
On January 04 2012 12:09 zobz wrote: Why do people think that all the heavy talk of "anybody's better than Obama" that's been going on basically for years among Republicans will not bring in the Republican vote big time if it's Paul vs Obama? Especially depending on how well he does in debates to make good points for his own fiscally conservative policies and against Obama's fiscally liberal ones? If he really speaks well, I think mainstream Republicans can forgive, if not accept his foreign policy.
On the other hand, he has a lot going for him among Democrats as well. His foreign policy is something very important to a lot of Democrats, and more popular among them than that of their own Democrat candidate. And for all his economic plans of austerity, it's a point of view that I think a lot more Democrats have come to respect lately, if not agree with. And how could you go wrong with such a rare opportunity to vote for someone who's at least honest? He's said that he will not abuse the unconstitutional inflated powers of the president to go over the heads of the representatives in congress, or ultimately of the people. Probably the only truly significant problem he has among Democrats is the allegations that he's a racist, which fits right in with the idea that all Republicans are secretly racist, sometimes not secretly, and the only reason they hate Obama so much is because of his colour. Maybe Ron Paul should pick Herman Cain as his running mate.
As a moderate who is probably going to vote for Obama over this garbage republican slate... Ron Paul would be the only one that I would really have to think otherwise about. However, Herman Cain as a running mate would immediately put a stop to that.
On January 04 2012 11:59 Saryph wrote: It says something about Ron Paul and his supporters that he can mock his opponents on twitter and they all think it's hilarious, yet when anyone says something negative about Ron Paul, they have quite the opposite reaction.
I guess maturity isn't a trait that is valued highly by Mr. Paul.
No it doesn't, people are like that everywhere no matter who they support.
So you're saying all of the candidates have published such insults? Could you maybe post a couple links to back that up?
I thought we're talking about the supporters of candidates... The tweet itself? Huntsman has been taking a lot of shots at Ron Paul, so some intern decided it was a good idea to post that... Oh well, who cares, shit happens?
On January 04 2012 11:59 Saryph wrote: It says something about Ron Paul and his supporters that he can mock his opponents on twitter and they all think it's hilarious, yet when anyone says something negative about Ron Paul, they have quite the opposite reaction.
I guess maturity isn't a trait that is valued highly by Mr. Paul.
You're deluding yourself if you think Ron Paul is the only candidate who is immature at times. It's more impressive if you can come up of a list of politicians who haven't made fun of, insulted, or slandered other politicians. It's also ignorant of you to assume that a few people on Twitter are representative of all of Ron Paul's representatives -- really, it's ignorant to think a few people are ever representative of all people in a group. That's exactly what stereotyping is, and it gets no where.
EPT
