| Author |
Topic:
So, is the GOP nomination over already? [Locked] |
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
So, is the GOP nomination over already? |
Cuttlery posted:
Onslaught. posted:
I strongly believe that the republican nomination grants you the votes of virtually everyone that was going to vote republican to begin with. Paul would have gotten them a lot of the undecided, independent and fence sitting votes. He probably still wouldn't have won, but he would have done better than Romney who will get all the republican votes and little to nothing else.
There are a good portion of his own party that wouldnt even vote for him, including some of the ones running for the nomination. He also polls very poorly in electability with indepandents, not sure why you feel this way when nothing points to it aside from the really loud spam bot minority on the internet.
Again, you keep posting this misinformation.
81% of Republicans would vote for Paul compared with 90% for Romney according to a survey from Monday. That 9% isn't going to make-or-break Paul's chance against Obama, and it's a far cry from the 50% number you were touting the other day. Either way I suspect they will hold their noses and vote for Paul anyways as they always do.
Ron Paul also does better with independents than Romney (47% vs 45%), more misinformation from you Cutt. How can you criticize Paul supporters when your own arguments are wrong and misleading?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/09/cbs-poll-independents-prefer-ron-paul-vs-obama/
-----signature-----
this.
what the **** is a Barack?! - DMX
|
DunesVladHarkonnen  Title: Moderator
Probably on Vacation
Posts: 1,444
Registered: 2003-3-29 22:10:08
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
So, is the GOP nomination over already? |
Ptilk posted:
Newt wasn't running for President, he was running for a high paying gig on FoxNews and to sell more of his books full of stupidity.
Paul wasn't running for President, he was running to spread his religion (AKA lets go back in time to when only rich white men had any power and everything was perfect for everyone)
Perry was running for President, but he is a fricken idiot.
Bachmann was running for President, because her insane husband told her to do so and they thought god was on their side.
Huntsman is running for the nomination in 2016.
Romney is running to be the guy that loses to Obama. He gets his wish.
-----signature-----
There's some delight in ale and wine,
And some in girls with ankles fine,
But my delight, yes, always mine,
Is to dance with Jak o' the Shadows.
|
Cuttlery Title: Wanna see what you missed?
Posts: 2,631
Registered: 2001-1-9 19:31:21
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
So, is the GOP nomination over already? |
altered_eggo posted:
Ex-remlocke posted:
more misinformation from you Cutt. How can you criticize Paul supporters when your own facts are wrong?
Facts are irrelevant. Cutt will support the other side of the argument (BT's argument) regardless of facts in an effort to get a rise out of BT. How is that working out for you cutt?
Are you afraid someone will make you cry if you post with your own user name? Why are you so scared? Do I frighten you that much?
-----signature-----
0.o
Bored and Useless
|
Cuttlery Title: Wanna see what you missed?
Posts: 2,631
Registered: 2001-1-9 19:31:21
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
So, is the GOP nomination over already? |
Ex-remlocke posted:
Ron Paul also does better with independents than Romney (47% vs 45%), more misinformation from you Cutt. How can you criticize Paul supporters when your own arguments are wrong and misleading?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/09/cbs-poll-independents-prefer-ron-paul-vs-obama/
You are talking to me about misleading?
We've had this arguement a dozen times, I have showed you polling numbers that show Paul doesnt do well even within the GOP, I have shown you his deficit spending and large governmetn habits.
Your arguement always comes back to "He didnt vote for the Patriot Act" As I have said dozens to times Ex. If thats the reason you are voting for Paul thats perfectly fine, I dont have a problem with it. He did in fact not vote for the Patriot Act. He didnt do anything to fix the Patriot Act either but thats besides the point. All I care is that you arent voting for him for these other reason you keep stating that are proven false over and over.
-----signature-----
0.o
Bored and Useless
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
So, is the GOP nomination over already? |
Cuttlery posted:
Ex-remlocke posted:
Ron Paul also does better with independents than Romney (47% vs 45%), more misinformation from you Cutt. How can you criticize Paul supporters when your own arguments are wrong and misleading?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/09/cbs-poll-independents-prefer-ron-paul-vs-obama/
You are talking to me about misleading?
We've had this arguement a dozen times, I have showed you polling numbers that show Paul doesnt do well even within the GOP, I have shown you his deficit spending and large governmetn habits.
Your arguement always comes back to "He didnt vote for the Patriot Act" As I have said dozens to times Ex. If thats the reason you are voting for Paul thats perfectly fine, I dont have a problem with it. He did in fact not vote for the Patriot Act. He didnt do anything to fix the Patriot Act either but thats besides the point. All I care is that you arent voting for him for these other reason you keep stating that are proven false over and over.
Straw man, this poll is from MONDAY and it shows what you said earlier isn't true. You keep side-stepping this just like when I brought it up in the last thread.
-----signature-----
this.
what the **** is a Barack?! - DMX
|
Cuttlery Title: Wanna see what you missed?
Posts: 2,631
Registered: 2001-1-9 19:31:21
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
So, is the GOP nomination over already? |
Ex-remlocke posted:
Straw man, this poll is from MONDAY and it shows what you said earlier isn't true. You keep side-stepping this just like when I brought it up in the last thread.
Independants and Dems could vote in the NH polls. Why didnt Paul win? He got less of the Ind votes than Romney did, why?
-----signature-----
0.o
Bored and Useless
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
So, is the GOP nomination over already? |
Cuttlery posted:
Ex-remlocke posted:
Straw man, this poll is from MONDAY and it shows what you said earlier isn't true. You keep side-stepping this just like when I brought it up in the last thread.
Independants and Dems could vote in the NH polls. Why didnt Paul win? He got less of the Ind votes than Romney did, why?
You are only partially right about the independent vote according to these stats on the NH election from CNN regarding independents:
http://us.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/nh?hpt=hp_pc1&hpt=hp_t1
Paul got 31% of the Independent vote versus Romney's 30% for unregistered Independents, then on Registered Independents Romney won 33% to Paul's 30%. There aren't numbers for total independent votes listed but Romney and Paul are neck and neck in that category. However once you add in Paul's 25% of the Democratic vote compared to Romney's 14% I'd say Paul is doing very well for himself with Independent and Democratic voters.
And all of this is after you factor in that Romney was a Governor in a neighboring state, and he owns a house in NH. It's no surprise he has strong support there.
-----signature-----
this.
what the **** is a Barack?! - DMX
|
Cuttlery Title: Wanna see what you missed?
Posts: 2,631
Registered: 2001-1-9 19:31:21
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
So, is the GOP nomination over already? |
I dont even know why we are having this conversations Paul stands next to no chance to even get nominated. Planes carrying multiple candidates would have to crash for it to even be close to happening.
-----signature-----
0.o
Bored and Useless
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
So, is the GOP nomination over already? |
Ex-remlocke posted:
Cuttlery posted:
Ex-remlocke posted:
Straw man, this poll is from MONDAY and it shows what you said earlier isn't true. You keep side-stepping this just like when I brought it up in the last thread.
Independants and Dems could vote in the NH polls. Why didnt Paul win? He got less of the Ind votes than Romney did, why?
You are only partially right about the independent vote according to these stats on the NH election from CNN regarding independents:
http://us.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/nh?hpt=hp_pc1&hpt=hp_t1
Paul got 31% of the Independent vote versus Romney's 30% for unregistered Independents, then on Registered Independents Romney won 33% to Paul's 30%. There aren't numbers for total independent votes listed but Romney and Paul are neck and neck in that category. However once you add in Paul's 25% of the Democratic vote compared to Romney's 14% I'd say Paul is doing very well for himself with Independent and Democratic voters.
And all of this is after you factor in that Romney was a Governor in a neighboring state, and he owns a house in NH. It's no surprise he has strong support there.
Maybe independants and dems like Paul more overall vs. Romney. Maybe. That doesn't say they like Paul more than Obama.
For every moment of lucidity that Paul has, there are 10 moments of crazy that will alientate voters. Once you start talking about abolishing SS, Medicare, education, etc. you lose 85% of everyone.
-----signature-----
Cause you're not quite evil enough. You're semi-evil, you're quasi-evil, you're the margarine of evil,
you're the diet coke of evil, just one calorie, not "evil" enough.
Destroying small towns near you...
|
|
