The 2008 Democratic ticket will be Obama/Edwards

DPrival78

sweetpotato wrote:

and let's not forget his staunchly anti-reproductive choice stance. i wouldn't vote for him strictly based on that.

he's not anti-choice. he is against abortion, from a moral standpoint, but he doesn't believe that the federal government should decide who can have one or not. he's libertarian in that way across the board on all issues pertaining to individuals.

DPrival78

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

What in those indicators gives you the impression he doesn't have a chance?

most of all, the fact that presidential elections are rigged is what sucks just about all of the hope out of me.

sweetpotato

DPrival78 wrote:

he's not anti-choice. he is against abortion, from a moral standpoint, but he doesn't believe that the federal government should decide who can have one or not. he's libertarian in that way across the board on all issues pertaining to individuals.

he has said that he wants to overturn roe v. wade. makes it kinda difficult for states to keep it legal, doesn't it?

DPrival78

sweetpotato wrote:

he has said that he wants to overturn roe v. wade. makes it kinda difficult for states to keep it legal, doesn't it?

not necessarily. paul's take on that is that roe v. wade is invalid because abortion isn't a constitutional issue. it's a social issue, that should be left to the states to decide how they want to handle it without a blanket ruling from the federal gov't - one way or the other.

ledvedderman

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Unlike other candidates, his poll numbers and financial numbers are RISING, and he actualy has visible support via signs and bumper stickers.

First thing I learned when I got involved in politics is that signs don't vote. Have you ever studied politics or been involved in a campaign? If you had you would understand that at this point of the game Ron Paul is out of the race and will not win.

His base started growing far too late. His name is still unknown outside of the 18-25 year old crowd---which generally doesn't vote Republican anyway or at least vote in primaries. He is raising money now, but making up 25+ points in just under 40 days is unheard of.

I think your optimism is great and that you are involved is great, but the realist approch is that Ron Paul will not get elected. It's not because the elections are rigged, but it's because he is a second tier candidate in his primary. Ron Paul as in independent in a general elections would have a lot better of a chance of making an impact than a Ron Paul in a Republican primary.

my2hands

ledvedderman wrote:

Ron Paul as in independent in a general elections would have a lot better of a chance of making an impact than a Ron Paul in a Republican primary.

that could be the plan...

ledvedderman

my2hands wrote:

that could be the plan...

I hope not. I hate it when people who lose a primary turn around and run as an independent like Lieberman. Drives me crazy

DriftingByTheStorm

ledvedderman wrote:

First thing I learned when I got involved in politics is that signs don't vote. Have you ever studied politics or been involved in a campaign? If you had you would understand that at this point of the game Ron Paul is out of the race and will not win.

His base started growing far too late. His name is still unknown outside of the 18-25 year old crowd---which generally doesn't vote Republican anyway or at least vote in primaries. He is raising money now, but making up 25+ points in just under 40 days is unheard of.

I think your optimism is great and that you are involved is great, but the realist approch is that Ron Paul will not get elected. It's not because the elections are rigged, but it's because he is a second tier candidate in his primary. Ron Paul as in independent in a general elections would have a lot better of a chance of making an impact than a Ron Paul in a Republican primary.

signs dont vote,
but polls aren't really accurate either - especialy not for Dr. Paul - and i think there in lies the rub, namely:

If he IS gaining in the polls - standing at 11% currently -- but those polls are only showing numbers for individuals who were registered republicans who voted in 2004s primary AND who have land-line phones, wouldn't it stand to reason that you've missed ALL of the following who will be voting for Ron Paul:

1. any one who doesn't have a land line
2. everyone who wasn't old enough to vote in 2004
3. anyone who was a registered democrat or voted independent in 2004
4. all those apathetic non-voters who never voted in a primary, but whom Dr. Paul has rallied?

I think that is a SUBSTANTIAL base for this man, and it appears to me that it is never represented in the polls.

Personally, i fall somewhere in between 1, 3 and 4.
I don't have a landline, i was registered democrat and voted independent in 2004 but have NEVER voted in a primary race.

I truly believe that MOST of his supporters fall in one or more of those categories, so you add that to 11% and what do you get?

I guess we'll have to reserve judgement until AFTER the primaries.

my2hands

ledvedderman wrote:

I hope not. I hate it when people who lose a primary turn around and run as an independent like Lieberman. Drives me crazy

i want as many people running as possible...

ledvedderman

my2hands wrote:

i want as many people running as possible...

I understand what you mean, but if you want to run as an independent decide that before you run in a primary. If for nothing else, it gives you more time to raise money for a general election campaign w/o having to spend money on a primary you know you won't win.

ledvedderman

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I truly believe that MOST of his supporters fall in one or more of those categories, so you add that to 11% and what do you get?

Not the 10+ points he needs to be in the first tier of candidates. There are a lot of people who don't have landlines, and I would think that their support might lean more towards the Paul crowd, but you're talking of maybe a percentage point or two gain over the rest of the candidates who also pick up points.

DriftingByTheStorm

ledvedderman wrote:

Not the 10+ points he needs to be in the first tier of candidates. There are a lot of people who don't have landlines, and I would think that their support might lean more towards the Paul crowd, but you're talking of maybe a percentage point or two gain over the rest of the candidates who also pick up points.

a. i guarantee you EVERY Giuliani supporter has a landline.

b. You forgot the other 3 categories. People who voted Democrat, Independent or DID NOT vote and EVERYONE who was not 18 in 2004 but no may be 18-22 ... a LOT of people, from what i understand and LOTS AND LOTS of them voting for Ron Paul.

Thecure

why do you like Ron Paul?

ledvedderman

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

a. i guarantee you EVERY Giuliani supporter has a landline.

b. You forgot the other 3 categories. People who voted Democrat, Independent or DID NOT vote and EVERYONE who was not 18 in 2004 but no may be 18-22 ... a LOT of people, from what i understand and LOTS AND LOTS of them voting for Ron Paul.

You are still not going to make up the ground needed to win. Sorry man. I would make a friendly wager that Ron Paul doesn't even finish in the top three on the Republican side of things.

Also, EVERY Giuliani supporter has a landline...put down the Ron Paul kool aid and put your realistic glasses on.

DriftingByTheStorm

Thecure wrote:

why do you like Ron Paul?

Because i've read enough in the last half year to realize that the Federal Reserve is one of the most corrupt organizations that has EVER been allowed to run a country.

It is so far from the best interests of the average american that is nearly incomprehensible.

Beyond that,
the Feds cousin --the income tax -- could stand to go away.

Beyond that?

He is brutaly honest.

Beyond that?

He wants to end the war,
and imperialist ambitions in general.

Beyond that?
He would let me opt out of the failed Social Security system (that is ALSO realy bad scam, invented by an ottoman emperor as a scam to fund war)

Beyond ALL of that?

I just plain think he is the only one capable of "turning around" America.

All the other candidates just want to fatten the pockets of their friends while trying to appease you with either some sort of socialist leanings, or blatherings about "saftey" and "security" ... see my quote for reference on that.

:(

ledvedderman

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

All the other candidates just want to fatten the pockets of their friends

Generalization much?

Thecure

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Because i've read enough in the last half year to realize that the Federal Reserve is one of the most corrupt organizations that has EVER been allowed to run a country.

It is so far from the best interests of the average american that is nearly incomprehensible.

Beyond that,
the Feds cousin --the income tax -- could stand to go away.

Beyond that?

He is brutaly honest.

Beyond that?

He wants to end the war,
and imperialist ambitions in general.

Beyond that?
He would let me opt out of the failed Social Security system (that is ALSO realy bad scam, invented by an ottoman emperor as a scam to fund war)

Beyond ALL of that?

I just plain think he is the only one capable of "turning around" America.

All the other candidates just want to fatten the pockets of their friends while trying to appease you with either some sort of socialist leanings, or blatherings about "saftey" and "security" ... see my quote for reference on that.

:(

do you find it funny that people will alway say that "so and so" is not like the others when they agree with "so and so"

Bouse

are you aware that you have to be registered as a Republican to vote in the Republican primary? Most people who voted Democrat, etc, aren't registered Republicans now.

And the people who take the polls correct for all the variables you are talking about, like the under 24 age group and who has a landline. They have pretty good estimates of who will change party, how many new voters there will be, etc.

Ron Paul can't win because the media has (correctly) labeled him as a raging lunatic and people don't vote for candidates with that image. Most voters are too stupid to do the research themselves. And most who do the research on Ron Paul would come to the conclusion that he is a nutcase anyway. So he will lose.

ledvedderman

Bouse wrote:

are you aware that you have to be registered as a Republican to vote in the Republican primary? Most people who voted Democrat, etc, aren't registered Republicans now

Not true. I work in elections in Illinois and can tell you this is very untrue. I'm sure it might be different for various states, but in Illinois you become a registered member of a party when you vote in their primary. One problem that occurs from this is people switching party affiliates in a primary to vote for a weaker candidate on the other side so your party has an easier time in the primary.

Yoyoyo

ledvedderman wrote:

His base started growing far too late. His name is still unknown outside of the 18-25 year old crowd---which generally doesn't vote Republican anyway or at least vote in primaries. He is raising money now, but making up 25+ points in just under 40 days is unheard of.

I think your optimism is great and that you are involved is great, but the realist approch is that Ron Paul will not get elected. It's not because the elections are rigged, but it's because he is a second tier candidate in his primary. Ron Paul as in independent in a general elections would have a lot better of a chance of making an impact than a Ron Paul in a Republican primary.

18-25 year olds generally don't vote, but is that because they are not involved in the process? Maybe they have never seen a candidate worth voting for? I think you will be surprised at how many new Republicans, 18-25, will vote and we all know who they will be voting for.

But keep towing the party line, somebody has to do it.