PDA

View Full Version : CNN: Ron Paul emerges as a significant player


Taco John
01-04-2008, 05:22 PM
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EQklUftah9Q&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>

Silock
01-04-2008, 05:27 PM
I'll take "Things You Won't Hear on Fox News" for $1,000, Alex.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 05:28 PM
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qi_XBgzHxQs&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed>

DanT
01-04-2008, 06:01 PM
I thought it was kind of ridiculous that CNN's pie charts graphics in their coverage last night weren't listing Ron Paul's share of the part of the Iowa Delegation he won. They only displayed the top 4 winners from both parties. That was reasonable for the Democrats, but it was kind of a dumb rule to use to exclude Ron Paul (5th place Republican) given that his 10 percent share was only 3 points from the 3rd and 4th place finishers and almost all of the shares went to the top 5 guys (inc. Paul).

Calcountry
01-04-2008, 08:00 PM
Blow Paul.

chagrin
01-04-2008, 08:03 PM
his 10 percent share was only 3 points from the 3rd and 4th place finishers


Two pointers for you here:

1) Haha
2) Oh yeah, Iowa doesn't mean anything, that is in hindsight.

FAX
01-04-2008, 08:11 PM
If they made a Ron Paul bobblehead doll, would the head be stable?

FAX

Calcountry
01-04-2008, 08:13 PM
If they made a Ron Paul bobblehead doll, would the head be stable?

FAXBlow Paul blow.

Taco John
01-05-2008, 03:50 AM
It looks like Dr. Paul is purchasing an hour of TV to air opposite of the FOX forum. (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul+counting+on+independent+voters&articleId=0a60f2c1-9058-4717-8fe7-088c94e59755)


From RonPaul2008.com

Jan 06
Televised Town Hall Meeting with Ron Paul
New Hampshire
4:30 PM ET

Mr. Flopnuts
01-05-2008, 04:16 AM
It looks like Dr. Paul is purchasing an hour of TV to air opposite of the FOX forum. (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul+counting+on+independent+voters&articleId=0a60f2c1-9058-4717-8fe7-088c94e59755)


From RonPaul2008.com

Jan 06
Televised Town Hall Meeting with Ron Paul
New Hampshire
4:30 PM ET


I'm glad to hear that. For the Ron Paul haters, it's amazing to me that you are so unwilling to at least listen to the man speak. To me, it boils down to 1 of 2 reasons. A. Fear B. An unwillingness to listen to ideas and objectives that differ from your own. If your answer is B, we've declared wars on countries for doing the same thing. Not giving a candidate with the level of support that Paul has, is un American. IMO.

patteeu
01-05-2008, 08:58 AM
I'm glad to hear that. For the Ron Paul haters, it's amazing to me that you are so unwilling to at least listen to the man speak. To me, it boils down to 1 of 2 reasons. A. Fear B. An unwillingness to listen to ideas and objectives that differ from your own. If your answer is B, we've declared wars on countries for doing the same thing. Not giving a candidate with the level of support that Paul has, is un American. IMO.

What makes you think the so-called Ron Paul haters are "unwilling to at least listen to the man speak"? I'd bet that most of us have listened to quite a bit of Ron Paul over the past few months.

One thing I think is funny about some Ron Paul supporters is their noob-like belief that Ron Paul's message is brand new and that they are the first to have discovered it.

And bottom tier candidates getting snubbed in debates is older than I can remember. Candidates that had almost no chance of winning this thing from the beginning, like Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Keyes, and Chris Dodd have had a greater opportunity to participate in debates than I can ever remember. This political season has seen a glut of debates that included anyone who could fit on stage. For those not old enough to realize this, that's very unusual.

FWIW, I kind of think Ron Paul should be in these NH debates because NH ought to be one of his strongest states, but it's not like he didn't have a chance to play his way into a position where he could not be denied. The Paul campaign is like the team that fails to capitalize on it's opportunities early and then complains when a questionable call by the officials goes against them at the end and costs them the game. They shouldn't have allowed themselves to be put in this vulnerable position.

banyon
01-05-2008, 10:14 AM
FWIW, I kind of think Ron Paul should be in these NH debates because NH ought to be one of his strongest states, but it's not like he didn't have a chance to play his way into a position where he could not be denied. The Paul campaign is like the team that fails to capitalize on it's opportunities early and then complains when a questionable call by the officials goes against them at the end and costs them the game. They shouldn't have allowed themselves to be put in this vulnerable position.


Word.

Flustrated
01-05-2008, 10:16 AM
I'm glad to hear that. For the Ron Paul haters, it's amazing to me that you are so unwilling to at least listen to the man speak. To me, it boils down to 1 of 2 reasons. A. Fear B. An unwillingness to listen to ideas and objectives that differ from your own. If your answer is B, we've declared wars on countries for doing the same thing. Not giving a candidate with the level of support that Paul has, is un American. IMO.


Go soft on them. They are only supporting the candidates thay are TOLD to support by the media. You can't expect the majority populous to think for themselves.

HolmeZz
01-05-2008, 10:30 AM
Go soft on them. They are only supporting the candidates thay are TOLD to support by the media. You can't expect the majority populous to think for themselves.

Aww, it's the media's fault Ron Paul is still irrelevant.

Now if only you could explain how Huckabee, a guy who was polling in the single digits like Paul a while ago, was able to win a caucus.

Taco John
01-05-2008, 12:48 PM
FWIW, I kind of think Ron Paul should be in these NH debates because NH ought to be one of his strongest states, but it's not like he didn't have a chance to play his way into a position where he could not be denied. The Paul campaign is like the team that fails to capitalize on it's opportunities early and then complains when a questionable call by the officials goes against them at the end and costs them the game. They shouldn't have allowed themselves to be put in this vulnerable position.


Bullshit. Ron Paul *should* be in these NH debates exactly because he played his way into a position where he shouldn't be denied. He got 10% in the Iowa, and he's polling at least there in New Hampshire. The fact that our fair and balanced "news" organization has unilaterally decided that they are going to exclude him should be derided by every American universally.

BucEyedPea
01-05-2008, 03:47 PM
Go soft on them. They are only supporting the candidates thay are TOLD to support by the media. You can't expect the majority populous to think for themselves.

Thanks for reminding me to pick up Judge Napolitano's latest book: Nation of Sheep! :)

Cochise
01-05-2008, 03:51 PM
And bottom tier candidates getting snubbed in debates is older than I can remember. Candidates that had almost no chance of winning this thing from the beginning, like Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Keyes, and Chris Dodd have had a greater opportunity to participate in debates than I can ever remember.

I remember them shutting Ralph Nader out and he showed up anyway - didn't he get arrested or something? They lampooned it on Saturday Night Live, he was going to host the show or they had a first bit where he showed up to host, and Lorne Michaels wouldn't let him in.

Back to the thread title though, if I were going to lay down a definition of a significant player in the race, I would call that someone who has a chance to win the nomination. Or perhaps even a state. I'm not sure that there is a state we can point to where Paul is polling within 20 points of the lead. A year ago, not that big of a deal, but with most of the contest to be decided within 30 days, it's significant.

NewChief
01-05-2008, 03:56 PM
Go soft on them. They are only supporting the candidates thay are TOLD to support by the media. You can't expect the majority populous to think for themselves.


Pure conjecture, but I'd venture that there's more groupthink involved within the RP REVOLUTION than there is with any other candidate out there.

People that support Ron Paul increasingly remind me of annoying indy music fans.

Cochise
01-05-2008, 03:58 PM
Pure conjecture, but I'd venture that there's more groupthink involved within the RP REVOLUTION than there is with any other candidate out there.

People that support Ron Paul increasingly remind me of annoying indy music fans.

And I would venture that branding everyone who doesn't agree with your choice of candidate a mindless sheep does not make your guy any more attractive.

Taco John
01-05-2008, 04:03 PM
I remember them shutting Ralph Nader out and he showed up anyway - didn't he get arrested or something? They lampooned it on Saturday Night Live, he was going to host the show or they had a first bit where he showed up to host, and Lorne Michaels wouldn't let him in.

Back to the thread title though, if I were going to lay down a definition of a significant player in the race, I would call that someone who has a chance to win the nomination. Or perhaps even a state. I'm not sure that there is a state we can point to where Paul is polling within 20 points of the lead. A year ago, not that big of a deal, but with most of the contest to be decided within 30 days, it's significant.


So who gets to decide that? By your standard, Bill Clinton would have been excluded from the New Hampshire debates.

Taco John
01-05-2008, 04:06 PM
I'm not sure that there is a state we can point to where Paul is polling within 20 points of the lead.


According to Rassmussen, Paul is within that range in New Hampshire, beating Huckabee, Giuliani, and Thompson, and trailing only McCain and Romney.

Cochise
01-05-2008, 04:09 PM
So who gets to decide that? By your standard, Bill Clinton would have been excluded from the New Hampshire debates.

I think you misunderstood. I don't recall posting that I agreed with the decision. I just agreed that it was not new.

In an abstract way, might it be beneficial in my opinion for him to be excluded? I guess, since I don't feel like he has a chance, and it might be better for only realistic winners to be included. But given that he got double digits in Iowa, and he has a chance to show in New Hampshire, I don't see why he should be out of it unless it's going to be limited to national contenders.

I don't think it's very responsible, by the way, for the state parties or the media to play these things like they only apply to one state. People in other states are going to watch and gather information from them.

Taco John
01-05-2008, 04:12 PM
Ron Paul is a national contender. He's already pulled double digits in one state, and he's looking good for New Hampshire right now.

Cochise
01-05-2008, 04:13 PM
Ron Paul is a national contender. He's already pulled double digits in one state, and he's looking good for New Hampshire right now.

I would think a national contender would have to have a realistic chance to win at least one state.

HolmeZz
01-05-2008, 04:24 PM
I would think a national contender would have to have a realistic chance to win at least one state.

Nope. He plans on winning the nomination by placing between 3rd and 5th in every state.

Chocolate Hog
01-05-2008, 04:28 PM
I would think a national contender would have to have a realistic chance to win at least one state.


He was polling & Winning in Alaska.

Cochise
01-05-2008, 04:29 PM
Nope. He plans on winning the nomination by placing between 3rd and 5th in every state.

That's what I was thinking...

Chocolate Hog
01-05-2008, 05:41 PM
I don't think people like Holmezz & Cochise understand the convetion process. I know here in Kansas Delegates are bound by law to vote for whatever candidate wins the state. HOWEVER if a candidate doesn't have a majority after the first 2 rounds those the delegates are free to vote for whoever they want to which becomes a floor battle. This is important because while Ron Paul might not win any states he does collect delegates throughout the process.

Cochise
01-05-2008, 05:44 PM
I don't think people like Holmezz & Cochise understand the convetion process. I know here in Kansas Delegates are bound by law to vote for whatever candidate wins the state. HOWEVER if a candidate doesn't have a majority after the first 2 rounds those the delegates are free to vote for whoever they want to which becomes a floor battle. This is important because while Ron Paul might not win any states he does collect delegates throughout the process.

Does that refuse the premise that it's unrealistic to expect a candidate to win by never winning a state?

patteeu
01-05-2008, 05:44 PM
Bullshit. Ron Paul *should* be in these NH debates exactly because he played his way into a position where he shouldn't be denied. He got 10% in the Iowa, and he's polling at least there in New Hampshire. The fact that our fair and balanced "news" organization has unilaterally decided that they are going to exclude him should be derided by every American universally.

He came in 5th in a 5 man race in Iowa. He's the Oakland Raiders of the Iowa Republican caucus. He came in last in his division.

He obviously has an argument for inclusion, but IMO reasonable people can differ on this. He should have spent more of his record setting funds on getting into 3rd or 4th place or getting his poll numbers up. Then he wouldn't have been at the mercy of the officials.

patteeu
01-05-2008, 05:50 PM
If I were just thinking about what benefits my candidate, I'd want Ron Paul in the debate to siphon off some of John McCain's independent vote. Without regard to my candidate, my preference would be to err on the side of inclusion and let him in, but given the way these things have gone down in the past, Ron Paul fans aren't justified to believe their candidate has been treated any differently than previous fringe candidates.

Chocolate Hog
01-05-2008, 06:14 PM
If I were just thinking about what benefits my candidate, I'd want Ron Paul in the debate to siphon off some of John McCain's independent vote. Without regard to my candidate, my preference would be to err on the side of inclusion and let him in, but given the way these things have gone down in the past, Ron Paul fans aren't justified to believe their candidate has been treated any differently than previous fringe candidates.


Your candidate spent millions in Iowa and still didn't win it all. "Fringe" candidates don't poll double digits and raise nearly 20 million in a qtr.

Cochise
01-05-2008, 06:52 PM
Your candidate spent millions in Iowa and still didn't win it all. "Fringe" candidates don't poll double digits and raise nearly 20 million in a qtr.

Double digits don't mean anything except in relation to what other people got. 5th out of 5 is still 5th.

alanm
01-05-2008, 07:33 PM
These guys for Ron Paul are like Branch Davidians in their support. It's like a f*cking cult. :shake:

Taco John
01-05-2008, 08:14 PM
Double digits don't mean anything except in relation to what other people got. 5th out of 5 is still 5th.


There are 6 candidates in the running... And no matter if Giuliani pulled his campaign because he couldn't compete there, he still spent more days in Iowa than Dr. Paul.

5th isn't great, but what matters is that he broke double digits. You can *say* that didn't matter, but the New Hampshire poll today shows that it was actually significant. He took a 50% jump from his previous numbers thanks to his double digit finish. It told people that he's got a shot.

Taco John
01-05-2008, 08:16 PM
These guys for Ron Paul are like Branch Davidians in their support. It's like a f*cking cult. :shake:


They said the same thing about Reagan. Go back in Google....

patteeu
01-05-2008, 10:27 PM
Your candidate spent millions in Iowa and still didn't win it all. "Fringe" candidates don't poll double digits and raise nearly 20 million in a qtr.

LMAO Yeah, 5th is far better than 2nd.

HolmeZz
01-05-2008, 10:56 PM
LMAO Yeah, 5th is far better than 2nd.

Don't be downplaying double-digits. It was the perfect outcome.

banyon
01-05-2008, 11:10 PM
They said the same thing about Reagan. Go back in Google....

Reagan supporters were compared to cultists that would not be known for another 13 years? Man they are quite the prognosticators!

Taco John
01-05-2008, 11:25 PM
*rasing eyebrow*

What are we in Jr. High, Banyon? Do you think you honestly just zinged me?

banyon
01-05-2008, 11:27 PM
*rasing eyebrow*

What are we in Jr. High, Banyon? Do you think you honestly just zinged me?

lighten up dude. They can't all be winners.