The Pavlina 2012 Republican Presidential Primary Election

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Because the demographics of people who actually think it's a good idea to take polls on the internet are very different from the demographics of Republican primary voters.

Republicans don't like to participate in online polls?

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Something I don't quite understand--why do online polls seemingly always have Ron Paul winning by landslides?

The reason Ron Paul always takes the lead is because his supporters 1) tend to be younger and thus are more internet-savvy and 2) actively go around the internet getting other supporters to come fill out every internet poll available.

So for instance, when a poll appears on CNN.com asking what candidate you support, most people who support any of the other candidates will just answer the question then leave the poll/website. But Ron Paul supporters will answer the question, then go to an official Ron Paul forum/internet meeting place and get all the other RP supporters to come to CNN.com to answer the poll as well. This creates an over-representation for Ron Paul on the CNN.com website, since none of those other RP supporters would have found the poll to begin with if they hadn't been told to go there by similar supporters.

So Paul polls higher typically because his supporters are basically dedicated to their "grassroots" style of getting everyone they can to come to the website that is doing the polling, whereas other candidate supporters aren't really so active. And again, this higher level of internet activism is in part because he is popular with young people who know how to use internet forums and sites like Reddit.com and such.

Originally Posted by royster

Julie Brown as Sarah Palin - Caribou - YouTube

Reminded me of Cooking With Sarah Palin.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Republicans don't like to participate in online polls?

Many people who are politically (and especially socially) conservative believe that no one but the ballot box needs to know who they're going to vote for. They don't answer polls (phone or internet), don't post about politics on the internet etc. This is a well known phenomenon among pollsters - it's why for national polling you have to use a likely voter model to re-sample your results, or they will continually under-represent the social conservative vote.

Internet polls also totally fail to exclude people who can't vote in a given election. So in this case you've got lots of people not registered to vote in the Republican primary in their state expressing an opinion. That's all well and good, but it has nothing to do with who will win the nomination.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Those voting in the primaries disagree. He's already lost.

Oh my, I wasn't aware that any primaries had taken place yet. Could you please post a link to me, with the primary results? I'm very curious to see them.

All I've seen lately are the numerous polls taken putting Ron Paul consistently in a statistical tie for 2nd place in Iowa. See the following polls:

Newt up in Iowa - Public Policy Polling
Iowa Poll: Newt Gingrich leads three-candidate race in Iowa | Iowa Caucuses
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/doc...a_GOP_1129.pdf

Oh, and here's one also showing him to be the most likely to beat Obama:
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-cont...%20Release.pdf

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Gabo

Oh my, I wasn't aware that any primaries had taken place yet.

You need a better poll. Among likely primary voters in Iowa, Ron Paul polls in 4th place with about 10% of the vote. He's down there with Michelle Bachmann.

2012 Iowa Republican Caucus - Rasmussen Reports™ (consistently the most accurate polling firm in America)

Fact is, conservatives want nothing to do with Ron Paul. Liberals and foreigners pretending to be conservatives on the internet love him. Big difference.

Oh, and just so you know Ron Paul polls consistently poorly against Obama in accurate polls.

2012 Presidential Matchups - Rasmussen Reports™

He's done. Actually, he never got started.

[Gabo]

Haha, both of those polls are more than a month old. I'm linking recent polls, and far more of them too. Cain is out of the race now, and Paul has clearly gained from that. Not to mention that Bachman and Perry are completely done as well.

I'd also like to remind you that a poll is not a primary. Nobody has voted in primaries yet, but based upon the all of the most recent polls, Ron Paul will likely come in 2nd in Iowa, and probably a close third in New Hampshire.

Also, you insinuate that the poll I linked matching Obama up against the other candidates was not accurate. What is your reasoning behind that claim?

[Brutha]

Fact is, conservatives want nothing to do with Ron Paul. Liberals and foreigners pretending to be conservatives on the internet love him. Big difference.

When it comes to Ron Pauls main base I don't think it makes sense to label those folks as liberals or conservatives.
They are libertarians.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Brutha

When it comes to Ron Pauls main base I don't think it makes sense to label those folks as liberals or conservatives.
They are libertarians.

Then he should try running for the libertarian nomination for president. He might win that.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Then he should try running for the libertarian nomination for president. He might win that.

He tried that already in 1988. The problem is in our 2 party system a 3rd party candidate has little hope of being included in the debates and taken seriously.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

He tried that already in 1988. The problem is in our 2 party system a 3rd party candidate has little hope of being included in the debates and taken seriously.

Don't worry, he's not being taken seriously now either. It's a LONG ways from writing racist newsletters to get elected in a mostly rural district in Texas to winning the presidential nomination.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Don't worry, he's not being taken seriously now either. It's a LONG ways from writing racist newsletters to get elected in a rural district in Texas to winning the presidential nomination.

Don't worry he is being taken quite seriously by everyone but the media. Just wait to see what happens in Iowa.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Don't worry he is being taken quite seriously by everyone but the media. Just wait to see what happens in Iowa.

You mean, when he loses decisively just like the polls tell us he will?

It's amazing how delusional internet Ron Paul supporters are.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Don't worry, he's not being taken seriously now either. It's a LONG ways from writing racist newsletters to get elected in a mostly rural district in Texas to winning the presidential nomination.

One interesting thing though is that Ron Pauls' presence in the debates has definitely brought some of the other Republicans towards some of his views. Paul was basically the first Republican in 2008 to say anything about auditing, changing or closing the Federal Reserve, and now today almost every Republican candidate in the debates has talked about it as an important issue to address in order to help the American economy recover.

I've also noticed that it seems his policy of massive spending cuts has brought some of the other candidates closer to a big spending cut policy.

IMO, Ron Paul's most popular policies are simply his economic idea of massive federal spending cuts. The other candidates have noticed that "big spending cuts" = big applause from Republican audiences (who generally want smaller government), thus they've adopted some of those ideas while leaving Paul alone in his less popular ideas like abandoning the Middle East entirely or almost entirely.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

You mean, when he loses decisively just like the polls tell us he will?

It's amazing how delusional internet Ron Paul supporters are.

Brilliant as usual, Snerp.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

IMO, Ron Paul's most popular policies are simply his economic idea of massive federal spending cuts. The other candidates have noticed that "big spending cuts" = big applause from Republican audiences (who generally want smaller government), thus they've adopted some of those ideas while leaving Paul alone in his less popular ideas like abandoning the Middle East entirely or almost entirely.

I find it interesting that his "less popular ideas", which also include a focus on civil liberties, though unpopular among Establishment Republicans, are nonetheless likely to appeal to Democrats.

That said, I find it even more interesting that no one seems to have noticed that such makes him more electable in a general election. If the Republicans were really as bent on defeating Obama as they say they are, then it would seem to be much less likely to go so unnoticed.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I find it interesting that his "less popular ideas", which also include a focus on civil liberties, though unpopular among Establishment Republicans, are nonetheless likely to appeal to Democrats.

That said, I find it even more interesting that no one seems to have noticed that such makes him more electable in a general election. If the Republicans were really as bent on defeating Obama as they say they are, then it would seem to be much less likely to go so unnoticed.

Eh, as much as Democrats tend to be anti-war, I don't think anyone but the super-far left and super-libertarians in America would be comfortable letting Iran get nukes, which seems to be an okay idea in the mind of Ron Paul.

[CroMagna]

I voted for Ron Paul because he's represents maximum liberty. But he got 0% of the popular vote in 1988, perhaps because he ran as a third party candidate. In 2008 he didn't succeed either.

What are Ron Paul's plan for saving the economy and what does he plan to do about the lack of jobs? How is closing the Federal Reserve supposed to rescue it?

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by CroMagna

How is closing the Federal Reserve supposed to rescue it?

The American Dream By The Provocateur Network - YouTube

[Spinoza]

Does anyone else think Gingrich's rise in the polls is amazing. I find it astounding. 3 months ago double digit numbers were a delusion for this guy.

Any thoughts on why it happened SnerpGoodWord?

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

Does anyone else think Gingrich's rise in the polls is amazing. I find it astounding. 3 months ago double digit numbers were a delusion for this guy.

Any thoughts on why it happened SnerpGoodWord?

I can think of several things:

1) he's the strongest debater

2) the fall of Herman Cain was obviously the catalyst

3) his platform is the most consistent with Republican primary voters

4) he has a track record of actually shrinking government, which none of the others can say

The obvious negatives are his affairs, 3 marriages, the slightly Stepfordish air about Calista, and for some people his conversion to Catholicism. Normally those would relegate him to be a commentator rather than a candidate. But Romney is so unpalatable to the primary voters that they're willing to overlook all that just to get a competent conservative candidate. Romney's competent but not conservative. Perry and Cain are conservative but not competent. The rest are loons.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

I can think of several things:

1) he's the strongest debater

2) the fall of Herman Cain was obviously the catalyst

3) his platform is the most consistent with Republican primary voters

4) he has a track record of actually shrinking government, which none of the others can say

The obvious negatives are his affairs, 3 marriages, the slightly Stepfordish air about Calista, and for some people his conversion to Catholicism. Normally those would relegate him to be a commentator rather than a candidate. But Romney is so unpalatable to the primary voters that they're willing to overlook all that just to get a competent conservative candidate. Romney's competent but not conservative. Perry and Cain are conservative but not competent. The rest are loons.

While I do not agree with Newt, I would add to Snerps points by saying he is by far the smartest of the candidates. Like him or hate him, he knows his stuff..

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

The obvious negatives [to Gingrich] are his affairs, 3 marriages, the slightly Stepfordish air about Calista, and for some people his conversion to Catholicism. Normally those would relegate him to be a commentator rather than a candidate. But Romney is so unpalatable to the primary voters that they're willing to overlook all that just to get a competent conservative candidate. Romney's competent but not conservative. Perry and Cain are conservative but not competent. The rest are loons.

You forgot the ethics violations that got him a $300,000 fine (and arguably resulted in his unspoken abdication).

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

I can think of several things:

1) he's the strongest debater

2) the fall of Herman Cain was obviously the catalyst

3) his platform is the most consistent with Republican primary voters

4) he has a track record of actually shrinking government, which none of the others can say

The obvious negatives are his affairs, 3 marriages, the slightly Stepfordish air about Calista, and for some people his conversion to Catholicism. Normally those would relegate him to be a commentator rather than a candidate. But Romney is so unpalatable to the primary voters that they're willing to overlook all that just to get a competent conservative candidate. Romney's competent but not conservative. Perry and Cain are conservative but not competent. The rest are loons.

1) I have only seen him debate once recently and he's good but not great. Just my opinion but he's not really any better than Romney. He's definitely no Reagan or Clinton when it comes to debate or speech skills.

3) This is the same guy that a few months ago a republican shows up at one of his events and throws flour in his face because he said he was a joke to the party. I have heard plenty of statements from him that make it seem like he is not completely anti government involvement.

4) He does have the advantage of being the speaker of the house during the republican revolution. I'll give him that but it doesn't really account for the recent rapid change.

Which leaves number 2. I'm going to suggest another possibility in connection with number 2. The power of conservative radio. I'm guessing Rush, or one of the other conservative talking heads indirectly endorsed him as a legitimate conservative and then the rest started echoing this statement. Herman Cane drops out of the race leaving a vacuum plus conservative radio equals Newt's rapid rise.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by Beingist

You forgot the ethics violations that got him a $300,000 fine (and arguably resulted in his unspoken abdication).

Yep, and in fact he had 86 ethics violations against him. Also, When someone calls Newt a conservative it's like calling Obama a libertarian complete lying or misunderstanding of who the man is and what he stands for. Can you say climate change? Or how about the individual mandate? Or maybe we should discuss the fact he took over 1.6 million from Freddy Mac. Or how he collaborates with the likes Of Al Sharpton to praise failed public schooling. Or maybe how he just admitted to believing “Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits for working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday” and “They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’… unless it’s illegal” No way in hell would I vote for someone like Newt. I would rather have Obama if it comes to that, and I don't like BO at all.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Or maybe how he just admitted to believing “Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits for working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday” and “They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’… unless it’s illegal”

He's 100% right about that. The median number of wage earners in bottom-quintile income households in the US is ZERO. In other words, kids in a large number of poor households grow up living with no one who works. Under those conditions how would they ever learn good work habits?

[aelle]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Or maybe how he just admitted to believing “Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits for working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday” and “They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’… unless it’s illegal”

What bothers you with this statement? May he uses it to advocate for iffy policies, but the quote itself is perfectly true. My father worked most of his life in adult literacy and social reinsertion programs, my mom still does today (and so did I for a while) and this is exactly what happens.

My mother's clients are for many of them 4th generation life long unemployed adults - as in no one in their family has had a legitimate job since their great-great-grandparents. The hardest part for social workers is not to teach these adults to read, or teach them employable skills, or get them a job, it's to teach them to get up every morning and show up at work even when they don't feel like it, because they have been raised in a radically different culture where these concepts do not exist.

[scorpio1980]

Why does it bother me that Newt believes poor kids don't do things for money unless it's illegal? Oh I don't know maybe the fact he just called people criminals based on income, and lumped then into one group. Doesn't matter anyways that little quote isn't what I despise the man over it just adds energy to how I feel about him. The ethics violations, etc are the main reason I posted anyways. Anyone can get a quote taken out of context, but his principles need much scrutiny.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Why does it bother me that Newt believes poor kids don't do things for money unless it's illegal? Oh I don't know maybe the fact he just called people criminals based on income, and lumped then into one group. Doesn't matter anyways that little quote isn't what I despise the man over it just adds energy to how I feel about him. The ethics violations, etc are the main reason I posted anyways. Anyone can get a quote taken out of context, but his principles need much scrutiny.

What exact ethic violation bothers you and why. The only violation I know of that wasn't dropped was claiming tax exempt status for an online college course he put on.

[Gabo]

The reason Newt has catapulted to front-runner status is the same reason Bachman, Perry, and Cain were catapulted to front-runner status.

1) The corporate media decided they wanted the candidate to be a front runner.
2) The media told everyone we should keep an eye out for that candidate surging.
3) The media followed and showed everything possible about the candidate, capitalizing upon and screaming about every victory, small or big.

This is precisely why you've seen FOUR candidates now shoot rapidly to the top. It is also the same reason why the previous three fell to the wayside after their month in the spotlight, and the same reason why Newt will be history in a month.

The media is throwing every candidate they can after Ron Paul, one at a time, to see if any of them will stick. Who knows, maybe Newt somehow will, but I find that hard to believe with his insane ethics problems, infidelity, insider position, corruption, and taking bribes from Fannie/Freddie.

In the end, the race will be between Romney, whose support has been unenthusiastic and waning over the course of the campaign, and Ron Paul, whose support has steadily increased despite continual lack of media coverage, and outright media blackout.

[Bliss Sage]

Originally Posted by Gabo

The reason Newt has catapulted to front-runner status is the same reason Bachman, Perry, and Cain were catapulted to front-runner status.

1) The corporate media decided they wanted the candidate to be a front runner.
2) The media told everyone we should keep an eye out for that candidate surging.
3) The media followed and showed everything possible about the candidate, capitalizing upon and screaming about every victory, small or big.

Now there's an answer I can believe. That, and he hates Arabs .

Originally Posted by Gabo

This is precisely why you've seen FOUR candidates now shoot rapidly to the top. It is also the same reason why the previous three fell to the wayside after their month in the spotlight, and the same reason why Newt will be history in a month.

Hope you're right. If that hate-filled, inhumane racist screwball makes it to the presidential election, he is going to force me to do something I really don't want to do - vote for Obama again.