Unlike the other candidates Ron Paul is actually consistent.
In fact I think I saw something back last year which showed that Ron Paul has made the least false statements out of all the candidates and even then they were mostly misstatements, not outright lies.
Bachman on the other hand lied like 70% of the time.
And yet the Republican Party has he shall always be an "also ran."
I dont agree with RP on a lot of things, ut from what little I know, he seems to be pretty honest. Of course I could be hilariously uninformed and maybe he is just another scumbag instead of an honest but kinda crazy person.
If that Rasmussen is the one I saw on RealClearPolitics today, then it only pertains to Georgia. I'm not sure that says much if Ron Paul polls ahead of Obama in that state.
Scratch that, I miss reread or misremembered. Apparently it was the Survey USA poll for Georgia.
You need to be a subscriber to see their tracking poll against all four candidates, which is presumably where your friend got that. Ras also wildly skews their sample really, really old and white.
Well, yeah, the first thing I did was point out the 3.9% republican bias in Rasmussen polling that Nate Silver talked about.
But I was still curious if there was a way to see the 3% lead Ron Paul supposedly had over Obama.
From polls I've seen he does pretty consistently do the best or close to it against the President.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Unlike the other candidates Ron Paul is actually consistent.
In fact I think I saw something back last year which showed that Ron Paul has made the least false statements out of all the candidates and even then they were mostly misstatements, not outright lies.
Bachman on the other hand lied like 70% of the time.
And yet the Republican Party has he shall always be an "also ran."
Because his ideas are radical enough to relegate him to the political fringe. Also, I don't know about lying. He still won't cop to those racist newsletters, and I'm still fairly certain that recent advertisement line about how he watched an aborted fetus get thrown in the trash while they diligently worked to save another down the hall is utter hogwash.
And then...there's that whole aspect of how american voters really aren't very interested in hearing the naked truth about much of anything unless it involves a juicy scandal.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So let's all speculate? Does a light turnout help Romney or Santorum?
With the poll numbers leaning more or less Romney, and with one expecting that anyone voting for Santorum would need to be energized, my guess is that it helps ol' R-Money.
So let's all speculate? Does a light turnout help Romney or Santorum?
With the poll numbers leaning more or less Romney, and with one expecting that anyone voting for Santorum would need to be energized, my guess is that it helps ol' R-Money.
High turnouts have helped Santorum so far while low turnouts were usually Romney wins.
So let's all speculate? Does a light turnout help Romney or Santorum?
With the poll numbers leaning more or less Romney, and with one expecting that anyone voting for Santorum would need to be energized, my guess is that it helps ol' R-Money.
High turnouts have helped Santorum so far while low turnouts were usually Romney wins.
Actually, I don't think turnout was that high in any of Santorum's wins, were they? *Gingrich* wins have featured high turnout.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So let's all speculate? Does a light turnout help Romney or Santorum?
With the poll numbers leaning more or less Romney, and with one expecting that anyone voting for Santorum would need to be energized, my guess is that it helps ol' R-Money.
High turnouts have helped Santorum so far while low turnouts were usually Romney wins.
The early voting that was already done apparently favored Romney pretty heavily (due to it taking place so close to the last debate).
Santorum is going to need a pretty big turnout to swing this thing.
Truth be told I was hoping Obama would have a "And be sure to go out and vote in the Republican Primary!" line during his speech to the UAW. "They need all the help they can get" or something.
IIRC Romney has a big lead among people who have already submitted their votes. So in theory the Romney campaign wants no one to turn out, and they'll have the victory in the bag.
So let's all speculate? Does a light turnout help Romney or Santorum?
With the poll numbers leaning more or less Romney, and with one expecting that anyone voting for Santorum would need to be energized, my guess is that it helps ol' R-Money.
High turnouts have helped Santorum so far while low turnouts were usually Romney wins.
Actually, I don't think turnout was that high in any of Santorum's wins, were they? *Gingrich* wins have featured high turnout.
There were high turnouts win he won all three caucuses that one time, I think.
If it's low because part of the base in demoralized which seems to be often the case for Romney, while the not Romney base isn't or still energized, it could hurt Romney. If the entire base id not energized, that probably helps Romney.
I'm wondering how much of a factor those early voting ballots will be. When were people able to start casting that way because it might be premature to say they'll largely benefit Romney. Santorum's standing in the polls didn't start dropping till after he bombed the last debate, so it possible he could have gotten a leg up on Romney there or narrowed the potential gap that Romney could have.
So let's all speculate? Does a light turnout help Romney or Santorum?
With the poll numbers leaning more or less Romney, and with one expecting that anyone voting for Santorum would need to be energized, my guess is that it helps ol' R-Money.
High turnouts have helped Santorum so far while low turnouts were usually Romney wins.
Actually, I don't think turnout was that high in any of Santorum's wins, were they? *Gingrich* wins have featured high turnout.
There were high turnouts win he won all three caucuses that one time, I think.
IIRC Romney has a big lead among people who have already submitted their votes. So in theory the Romney campaign wants no one to turn out, and they'll have the victory in the bag.
I have to think, with the long strip tease this Michigan primary has been, if Romney wins in a landslide then Santorum probably looses ALL momentum and will need to drop out.
A lot of people and talking heads are talking about the ramifications of how Romney will fare if he loses Michigan, but if he wins, Romney already has all of the West in the bag with the exception of Texas, which might swing for Santorum (ugh) if he hasn't lost all face by whenever Texas decides to let people vote (which is still TBD). He also will get most, if not all, of the remaining East Coast with the possibility of Pennsylvania leaning toward Santorum. Gingrich will possibly take some of the South and continue to not matter.
If Romney blows out Michigan and takes Arizona, ol' Frothy might as well hang up the sweater vest.
If it's low because part of the base in demoralized which seems to be often the case for Romney, while the not Romney base isn't or still energized, it could hurt Romney. If the entire base id not energized, that probably helps Romney.
I'm wondering how much of a factor those early voting ballots will be. When were people able to start casting that way because it might be premature to say they'll largely benefit Romney. Santorum's standing in the polls didn't start dropping till after he bombed the last debate, so it possible he could have gotten a leg up on Romney there or narrowed the potential gap that Romney could have.
What I would really like to know is how the hell do we already know who the early voting favors? I didn't think it was legal to post partial results of elections before the polls close because it have the possibility of effecting people who haven't voted?
Former GOP presidential candidate John McCain said yesterday he fears Republicans will be stuck with a bloodied nominee so sapped by months of campaign attacks that he can’t beat President Obama — even as the party’s four combatants prepare to do battle again today in Michigan and Arizona.
“This is like watching a Greek tragedy,” McCain told the Herald. “It’s the negative campaigning and the increasingly personal attacks ... it should have stopped long ago. Any utility from the debates has been exhausted, and now it’s just exchanging cheap shots and personal shots followed by super PAC attacks.”
...
“I know he’s going to be the nominee but I also worry about how much damage has been done,” McCain said. “I think we still can win. ... Once we get this over, the more we’ll be focused on Obama’s failures.”
So is this like Oedipus, Medea, Seven Against Thebes, or some other tragedy?
If it's low because part of the base in demoralized which seems to be often the case for Romney, while the not Romney base isn't or still energized, it could hurt Romney. If the entire base id not energized, that probably helps Romney.
I'm wondering how much of a factor those early voting ballots will be. When were people able to start casting that way because it might be premature to say they'll largely benefit Romney. Santorum's standing in the polls didn't start dropping till after he bombed the last debate, so it possible he could have gotten a leg up on Romney there or narrowed the potential gap that Romney could have.
What I would really like to know is how the hell do we already know who the early voting favors? I didn't think it was legal to post partial results of elections before the polls close because it have the possibility of effecting people who haven't voted?
I think they're judging by the opinion polls from the days following the debate (during which Romney had a massive upswing) which happen to be the days that those early ballots would've been filled out.
If it's low because part of the base in demoralized which seems to be often the case for Romney, while the not Romney base isn't or still energized, it could hurt Romney. If the entire base id not energized, that probably helps Romney.
I'm wondering how much of a factor those early voting ballots will be. When were people able to start casting that way because it might be premature to say they'll largely benefit Romney. Santorum's standing in the polls didn't start dropping till after he bombed the last debate, so it possible he could have gotten a leg up on Romney there or narrowed the potential gap that Romney could have.
What I would really like to know is how the hell do we already know who the early voting favors? I didn't think it was legal to post partial results of elections before the polls close because it have the possibility of effecting people who haven't voted?
Yeah, I find that a bit worrisome myself. I'm pretty sure it's big-mouth shit heads blabbing about who they voted for early, that don't get they should keep their mouths shut by either not saying they voted early and they support candidate X or mentioning they voted early but won't drop any names till the polls close.
The media is another issue here. With some foot work and investigation, one could gather enough information to infer who might have the lead in the early voting polls. It be nice if they would exercise some fucking integrity and not even report on the possible slant that early voters have but sadly they won't do that because they need a story to garner rating and it doesn't matter if that story could skew an election (Yeah, fuck you foxnews for 2000).
Former GOP presidential candidate John McCain said yesterday he fears Republicans will be stuck with a bloodied nominee so sapped by months of campaign attacks that he can’t beat President Obama — even as the party’s four combatants prepare to do battle again today in Michigan and Arizona.
“This is like watching a Greek tragedy,” McCain told the Herald. “It’s the negative campaigning and the increasingly personal attacks ... it should have stopped long ago. Any utility from the debates has been exhausted, and now it’s just exchanging cheap shots and personal shots followed by super PAC attacks.”
...
“I know he’s going to be the nominee but I also worry about how much damage has been done,” McCain said. “I think we still can win. ... Once we get this over, the more we’ll be focused on Obama’s failures.”
So is this like Oedipus, Medea, Seven Against Thebes, or some other tragedy?
Yep. Bunch of people unnecessarily tearing themselves apart because they're too flawed to see that they don't have to.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Unlike the other candidates Ron Paul is actually consistent.
In fact I think I saw something back last year which showed that Ron Paul has made the least false statements out of all the candidates and even then they were mostly misstatements, not outright lies.
Bachman on the other hand lied like 70% of the time.
And yet the Republican Party has he shall always be an "also ran."
Being consistent is only a virtue if you're not terrible.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Unlike the other candidates Ron Paul is actually consistent.
In fact I think I saw something back last year which showed that Ron Paul has made the least false statements out of all the candidates and even then they were mostly misstatements, not outright lies.
Bachman on the other hand lied like 70% of the time.
And yet the Republican Party has he shall always be an "also ran."
I dont agree with RP on a lot of things, ut from what little I know, he seems to be pretty honest. Of course I could be hilariously uninformed and maybe he is just another scumbag instead of an honest but kinda crazy person.
What is it with people?
Ron Paul is honest, I'll give him that. He's also an awful, miserable excuse for a human being.
Mitt Romney told FOX Business on Tuesday that Rick Santorum and Democrats are joining forces in order to prevent him from securing the nomination.
“There is no question they are in league; they probably haven’t communicated with one another, but they don’t need to," Romney said. “That tells Republicans who the Democrats are most afraid of and it’s not Rick Santorum it’s me and that’s why they are doing that."
Romney also downplayed his chances in Michigan, saying "I would like to win"but not flatly predicting a victory.
Mitt Romney told FOX Business on Tuesday that Rick Santorum and Democrats are joining forces in order to prevent him from securing the nomination.
“There is no question they are in league; they probably haven’t communicated with one another, but they don’t need to," Romney said. “That tells Republicans who the Democrats are most afraid of and it’s not Rick Santorum it’s me and that’s why they are doing that."
Romney also downplayed his chances in Michigan, saying "I would like to win"but not flatly predicting a victory.
Countdown until Romney blames the Legion of Doom (Either one, the comics or the wrestling guys) begins now.
Mitt Romney told FOX Business on Tuesday that Rick Santorum and Democrats are joining forces in order to prevent him from securing the nomination.
“There is no question they are in league; they probably haven’t communicated with one another, but they don’t need to," Romney said. “That tells Republicans who the Democrats are most afraid of and it’s not Rick Santorum it’s me and that’s why they are doing that."
Romney also downplayed his chances in Michigan, saying "I would like to win"but not flatly predicting a victory.
Unlike the other candidates Ron Paul is actually consistent.
In fact I think I saw something back last year which showed that Ron Paul has made the least false statements out of all the candidates and even then they were mostly misstatements, not outright lies.
Bachman on the other hand lied like 70% of the time.
And yet the Republican Party has he shall always be an "also ran."
I dont agree with RP on a lot of things, ut from what little I know, he seems to be pretty honest. Of course I could be hilariously uninformed and maybe he is just another scumbag instead of an honest but kinda crazy person.
What is it with people?
Ron Paul is honest, I'll give him that. He's also an awful, miserable excuse for a human being.
He's also the only candidate on either side that isn't going to send us into war any more.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
Too many people use the word "Greek" as a prefacing adjective to the word "tragedy."
Remember that time Romney got his mom pregnant after accidentally killing his father?
Unlike the other candidates Ron Paul is actually consistent.
In fact I think I saw something back last year which showed that Ron Paul has made the least false statements out of all the candidates and even then they were mostly misstatements, not outright lies.
Bachman on the other hand lied like 70% of the time.
And yet the Republican Party has he shall always be an "also ran."
I dont agree with RP on a lot of things, ut from what little I know, he seems to be pretty honest. Of course I could be hilariously uninformed and maybe he is just another scumbag instead of an honest but kinda crazy person.
What is it with people?
Ron Paul is honest, I'll give him that. He's also an awful, miserable excuse for a human being.
He's also the only candidate on either side that isn't going to send us into war any more.
I don't see Obama really pushing for a war right now.
Also not sending us to war won't do much good if your policies result in one ending up on our doorstep.
Unlike the other candidates Ron Paul is actually consistent.
In fact I think I saw something back last year which showed that Ron Paul has made the least false statements out of all the candidates and even then they were mostly misstatements, not outright lies.
Bachman on the other hand lied like 70% of the time.
And yet the Republican Party has he shall always be an "also ran."
I dont agree with RP on a lot of things, ut from what little I know, he seems to be pretty honest. Of course I could be hilariously uninformed and maybe he is just another scumbag instead of an honest but kinda crazy person.
What is it with people?
Ron Paul is honest, I'll give him that. He's also an awful, miserable excuse for a human being.
He's also the only candidate on either side that isn't going to send us into war any more.
Prove it.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Unlike the other candidates Ron Paul is actually consistent.
In fact I think I saw something back last year which showed that Ron Paul has made the least false statements out of all the candidates and even then they were mostly misstatements, not outright lies.
Bachman on the other hand lied like 70% of the time.
And yet the Republican Party has he shall always be an "also ran."
I dont agree with RP on a lot of things, ut from what little I know, he seems to be pretty honest. Of course I could be hilariously uninformed and maybe he is just another scumbag instead of an honest but kinda crazy person.
What is it with people?
Ron Paul is honest, I'll give him that. He's also an awful, miserable excuse for a human being.
He's also the only candidate on either side that isn't going to send us into war any more.
...
So, no wars, but also no social contract or reproductive or civil rights.
Unlike the other candidates Ron Paul is actually consistent.
In fact I think I saw something back last year which showed that Ron Paul has made the least false statements out of all the candidates and even then they were mostly misstatements, not outright lies.
Bachman on the other hand lied like 70% of the time.
And yet the Republican Party has he shall always be an "also ran."
I dont agree with RP on a lot of things, ut from what little I know, he seems to be pretty honest. Of course I could be hilariously uninformed and maybe he is just another scumbag instead of an honest but kinda crazy person.
What is it with people?
Ron Paul is honest, I'll give him that. He's also an awful, miserable excuse for a human being.
He's also the only candidate on either side that isn't going to send us into war any more.
I don't see Obama really pushing for a war right now.
Also not sending us to war won't do much good if your policies result in one ending up on our doorstep.
Or...you know...the complete and total collapse of the world economy.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Also all our currency will be exchanged for GOLD! SHINY SHINY GOLD! ALL THE GOLD YOU CAN EAT! GET IT WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD!
Too many people use the word "Greek" as a prefacing adjective to the word "tragedy."
Remember that time Romney got his mom pregnant after accidentally killing his father?
My understanding of a "Greek Tragedy" is that every character, by trying to do the right thing, winds up ruining everyone's lives and bringing about the fall of all that is good and decent.
Tragedy (Ancient Greek: τραγῳδία, tragōidia, "he-goat-song"[1]) is a form of drama based on human suffering that invokes in its audience an accompanying catharsis or pleasure in the viewing.
It's pretty much a Greek Tragedy if you're not a Republican.
Tragedy (Ancient Greek: τραγῳδία, tragōidia, "he-goat-song"[1]) is a form of drama based on human suffering that invokes in its audience an accompanying catharsis or pleasure in the viewing.
It's pretty much a Greek Tragedy if you're not a Republican.
Posts
Yeah I take it back. I was thinking Paul v. other R candidates not Paul v. Obama.
I dont agree with RP on a lot of things, ut from what little I know, he seems to be pretty honest. Of course I could be hilariously uninformed and maybe he is just another scumbag instead of an honest but kinda crazy person.
Scratch that, I miss reread or misremembered. Apparently it was the Survey USA poll for Georgia.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
From polls I've seen he does pretty consistently do the best or close to it against the President.
Every single other recent poll that matches the two has Obama winning by 7-10 points. Definition of an outlier even by Rasmussen standards.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/newt-gingrich-rick-santorum-jfk_n_1306348.html
Because his ideas are radical enough to relegate him to the political fringe. Also, I don't know about lying. He still won't cop to those racist newsletters, and I'm still fairly certain that recent advertisement line about how he watched an aborted fetus get thrown in the trash while they diligently worked to save another down the hall is utter hogwash.
And then...there's that whole aspect of how american voters really aren't very interested in hearing the naked truth about much of anything unless it involves a juicy scandal.
With the poll numbers leaning more or less Romney, and with one expecting that anyone voting for Santorum would need to be energized, my guess is that it helps ol' R-Money.
Actually, I don't think turnout was that high in any of Santorum's wins, were they? *Gingrich* wins have featured high turnout.
The early voting that was already done apparently favored Romney pretty heavily (due to it taking place so close to the last debate).
Santorum is going to need a pretty big turnout to swing this thing.
Truth be told I was hoping Obama would have a "And be sure to go out and vote in the Republican Primary!" line during his speech to the UAW. "They need all the help they can get" or something.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
If it's low because part of the base in demoralized which seems to be often the case for Romney, while the not Romney base isn't or still energized, it could hurt Romney. If the entire base id not energized, that probably helps Romney.
I'm wondering how much of a factor those early voting ballots will be. When were people able to start casting that way because it might be premature to say they'll largely benefit Romney. Santorum's standing in the polls didn't start dropping till after he bombed the last debate, so it possible he could have gotten a leg up on Romney there or narrowed the potential gap that Romney could have.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Probably.
But it would've made me laugh, and really that's all I'm looking for nowadays.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Colorado was low.
And Minnesota.
Which are the two relevant states. Iowa was down too.
I have to think, with the long strip tease this Michigan primary has been, if Romney wins in a landslide then Santorum probably looses ALL momentum and will need to drop out.
A lot of people and talking heads are talking about the ramifications of how Romney will fare if he loses Michigan, but if he wins, Romney already has all of the West in the bag with the exception of Texas, which might swing for Santorum (ugh) if he hasn't lost all face by whenever Texas decides to let people vote (which is still TBD). He also will get most, if not all, of the remaining East Coast with the possibility of Pennsylvania leaning toward Santorum. Gingrich will possibly take some of the South and continue to not matter.
If Romney blows out Michigan and takes Arizona, ol' Frothy might as well hang up the sweater vest.
What I would really like to know is how the hell do we already know who the early voting favors? I didn't think it was legal to post partial results of elections before the polls close because it have the possibility of effecting people who haven't voted?
I think they're judging by the opinion polls from the days following the debate (during which Romney had a massive upswing) which happen to be the days that those early ballots would've been filled out.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Yeah, I find that a bit worrisome myself. I'm pretty sure it's big-mouth shit heads blabbing about who they voted for early, that don't get they should keep their mouths shut by either not saying they voted early and they support candidate X or mentioning they voted early but won't drop any names till the polls close.
The media is another issue here. With some foot work and investigation, one could gather enough information to infer who might have the lead in the early voting polls. It be nice if they would exercise some fucking integrity and not even report on the possible slant that early voters have but sadly they won't do that because they need a story to garner rating and it doesn't matter if that story could skew an election (Yeah, fuck you foxnews for 2000).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Yep. Bunch of people unnecessarily tearing themselves apart because they're too flawed to see that they don't have to.
Being consistent is only a virtue if you're not terrible.
What is it with people?
Ron Paul is honest, I'll give him that. He's also an awful, miserable excuse for a human being.
Countdown until Romney blames the Legion of Doom (Either one, the comics or the wrestling guys) begins now.
does he not know what in league means
He's also the only candidate on either side that isn't going to send us into war any more.
Remember that time Romney got his mom pregnant after accidentally killing his father?
I don't see Obama really pushing for a war right now.
Also not sending us to war won't do much good if your policies result in one ending up on our doorstep.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Prove it.
...
So, no wars, but also no social contract or reproductive or civil rights.
Fair trade?
Or...you know...the complete and total collapse of the world economy.
My understanding of a "Greek Tragedy" is that every character, by trying to do the right thing, winds up ruining everyone's lives and bringing about the fall of all that is good and decent.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Tragedy (Ancient Greek: τραγῳδία, tragōidia, "he-goat-song"[1]) is a form of drama based on human suffering that invokes in its audience an accompanying catharsis or pleasure in the viewing.
It's pretty much a Greek Tragedy if you're not a Republican.
Schadenfreude: The Motion Picture?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube