Thread: What's the dealio with GOP candidate Ron Paul?

LMAO so basically the bloggers are conspiring to make him win. Okay, sure.

I'm not claiming the polls that dare include his name are innaccurate. I was just arguing tht he is popular despite that he has gone unnoticed by some.

But I don't see where you come up with "scientific voting polls" as a term. Your polls seem completely random to me like you picked out the ones that reflected him negatively.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

LMAO so basically the bloggers are conspiring to make him win. Okay, sure.

I'm not claiming the polls that dare include his name are innaccurate. I was just arguing tht he is popular despite that he has gone unnoticed by some.

But I don't see where you come up with "scientific voting polls" as a term. Your polls seem completely random to me like you picked out the ones that reflected him negatively.

No, I did not come up with the term. Take a statistics class and learn all about what a scientific poll is. A scientific poll is one that systematically maximizes the avoidance of all possible confounding variables. I provided links with very long lists of major polls that are scientific. They are not C-Span call in contest polls with numbers that result from a complete lack of regard for representative sampling principles and avoid other confoundings such as differences in will to call a show and affect numbers. Giuliani supporters don't freak out and go, "Like, oh my God! Let's get Rudy really high numbers on C-Span in the next five minutes!" They don't feel the need to prove themselves in that way. Paul supporters are obsessed with it. That is why the scientific polls show profoundly different results.

You mentioned that some polls do not include his name. That is because his numbers are so low he fits under the category "other". It's not like there is a 60% reading with the name "The Unmentioned Phantom Candidate" beside it.

But any way, Ron Paul is not going to be the next president. This is not something we are going to have to argue about forever. In a few days more than a year, we are going to see that he was not elected. We will see much sooner that he did not get the Republican nomination. He will not even make the top five. If he runs as an independent, he will not come close to winning. Just watch. The truth will very obvious. I feel silly even arguing about this. It is not even an issue.

lol do you think any republican besides Ron Paul could win in the general election?

Originally Posted by jaasum

lol do you think any republican besides Ron Paul could win in the general election?

I think Giuliani is the only person who would have a shot at it, and I am not even sure he would win. I am 99% convinced he is going to be the candidate. Hillary would easily beat any of the other candidates.

Why would she beat any of the other candidates? Their platforms are very similar, after all. Why isn't John McCain as good as Giuliani? Or Huckabee, for that matter?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Why would she beat any of the other candidates? Their platforms are very similar, after all. Why isn't John McCain as good as Giuliani? Or Huckabee, for that matter?

Giuliani is more popular. He is seen as a better leader.

Haha, no not really. He was the mayor of new york during the terrorist attack, and people think he even did a poor job at that. He is a sniving pandering moron that is for big buisness, just look at his background it has "conflict of interest" written all over it. Not to mention all his campaign money is made off of pulling people's emotion's over 9/11.