Ron Paul: Electable and rising

[Paco Bedejo]

Baseless? Paul has run for president how many times? How many times has he succeeded?

He's succeeded as many times as the other GOP candidates. Romney lost in 2008 as well...yet I don't see you calling him unelectable.

 

[sepe]

Baseless? Paul has run for president how many times? How many times has he succeeded?

How many times have some of the others ran for president and succeeded? How many times have some of the others threatened to run for president only to bow out realizing they'd get little to no support?

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

I could only hope the good Dr can win the nomination and eventually the White House, as much as he is what America really needs, he just wouldn't win.

The vast majority of people are not right or left, they are in the middle. Paul is not liked by the dems, he is merely tolerated by the GOP, and I have no idea if the middle would vote for him. I hope I am wrong and he will get my vote if he runs.

 

[melensdad]

Ron Paul is DROPPING in the polls now.

In Iowa he has been passed by Romney.

 

[88GT]

He's succeeded as many times as the other GOP candidates. Romney lost in 2008 as well...yet I don't see you calling him unelectable.

How many times have some of the others ran for president and succeeded? How many times have some of the others threatened to run for president only to bow out realizing they'd get little to no support?

Point taken.

But then there's this:

Romney is now seen as the strongest candidate against President Obama by 35% of Iowa caucus-goers. Twenty-five percent (25%) see Gingrich as the strongest candidate. A week ago, the two were even in that category. Fifteen percent (15%) see Paul as the strongest candidate.

Paul is seen as the weakest candidate by 26%, Bachmann by 21%. Sixteen percent (16%) say that Gingrich would be the weakest general election candidate while only three percent (3%) hold that view of Romney.

From the same poll that has Paul gaining ground for the caucus vote. In politics perception is reality. What people think, people act on. It may turn out that those who call him unelectable are going to be proven wrong. But it's not baseless.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

From the same poll that has Paul gaining ground for the caucus vote. In politics perception is reality. What people think, people act on.

You missed a step: What is oft-repeated from bully pulpits & soap boxes, people think, and then act upon.

Many members of this forum are just as guilty as the media, for distorting that perception, via repetition, instead of looking at the real merits of each candidate. If you guys want a big circle jerk, that's fine. I can excuse myself until the floors are mopped & the linens are washed. If you want useful discussion, please dispense with the manipulative nay-saying.

 

[sepe]

Point taken.

But then there's this:



From the same poll that has Paul gaining ground for the caucus vote. In politics perception is reality. What people think, people act on. It may turn out that those who call him unelectable are going to be proven wrong. But it's not baseless.

There are polls that show a couple candidates losing ground and showing different levels of "weakest candidate". I remember some supporters (not saying you as you've stated you're unsure, at least the last I paid attention) talking about how these polls mean nothing. If they mean nothing when Dr. Paul is gaining, why should they when he is losing (which I've seen Rasmussen and several other polls that show either Romney or Paul in the lead, some by a wider margin than what the Rasmussen is showing). Dr. Paul is obviously making some people nervous as there are quite a few people in the media reporting about how if he wins, he'll be ignored. Gotta love the MSM pushing their guys.

 

[88GT]

You missed a step: What is oft-repeated from bully pulpits & soap boxes, people think, and then act upon.

Many members of this forum are just as guilty as the media, for distorting that perception, via repetition, instead of looking at the real merits of each candidate. If you guys want a big circle jerk, that's fine. I can excuse myself until the mopping is done. If you want useful discussion, please dispense with the manipulative nay-saying.

Where's the distortion? Is that not the way Paul is perceived? How does a man have a negative favorability regarding his chances for beating Obama with a positive perception of his electability?

The fact that more people plan to vote for him than think he can beat Obama should tell you something. Even people who support him have their doubts about his ability to win. Are you willing to call them sheeple for simply recognizing the prevailing perception?

To the bolded: I live in reality. If this were the way people picked their candidates, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You can grouse all you want about the fact that people choose based on non-ideological grounds, but that's the reality. It's not nay-saying or a distortion to recognize that and point it out.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

If this were the way people picked their candidates, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

My point is that this is a discussion forum. Let's discuss. Nay-saying & prophecy, delivered as truth, are best left to other outlets.

 

[88GT]

There are polls that show a couple candidates losing ground and showing different levels of "weakest candidate". I remember some supporters (not saying you as you've stated you're unsure, at least the last I paid attention) talking about how these polls mean nothing. If they mean nothing when Dr. Paul is gaining, why should they when he is losing (which I've seen Rasmussen and several other polls that show either Romney or Paul in the lead, some by a wider margin than what the Rasmussen is showing). Dr. Paul is obviously making some people nervous as there are quite a few people in the media reporting about how if he wins, he'll be ignored. Gotta love the MSM pushing their guys.

We must have been posting at the same time.

I've never said they mean nothing literally. They have a meaning, just a very, very limited one.

It's not Paul's numbers on the "who are you going to vote for" question that I'm talking about. It's the "who has the best/worst chance of beating Obama" that I think is at issue.

It's been said that pointing out Paul's "unelectability" is a baseless claim. I just pointed to a poll that showed a 9 point disparity in how people view his electability. And it wasn't in his favor. So while the claim may be technically wrong, it's not baseless.

People vote based on perception. If the perception is that Paul can't win, and if there are any other considerations a voter has besides making a pure liberty vote, Paul won't be his candidate. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy to be sure. But that doesn't make it baseless.

It absolutely creates an unnecessary hurdle for Paul. Possibly even an unfair one if you allow for the existence of fairness in this business. But that's the nature of the beast. And Paul should have known this going in. To whine about it now is absurd.

 

[sepe]

We must have been posting at the same time.

I've never said they mean nothing literally. They have a meaning, just a very, very limited one.

It's not Paul's numbers on the "who are you going to vote for" question that I'm talking about. It's the "who has the best/worst chance of beating Obama" that I think is at issue.

It's been said that pointing out Paul's "unelectability" is a baseless claim. I just pointed to a poll that showed a 9 point disparity in how people view his electability. And it wasn't in his favor. So while the claim may be technically wrong, it's not baseless.

People vote based on perception. If the perception is that Paul can't win, and if there are any other considerations a voter has besides making a pure liberty vote, Paul won't be his candidate. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy to be sure. But that doesn't make it baseless.

It absolutely creates an unnecessary hurdle for Paul. Possibly even an unfair one if you allow for the existence of fairness in this business. But that's the nature of the beast. And Paul should have known this going in. To whine about it now is absurd.

I know, as far as I've seen, you haven't been saying that literally. There have been quite a few people that have been poo-pooing on Paul when he was gaining based on the fact that those numbers don't mean anything. I was talking about the best chance at beating Obama as well. There are different polls that show very different numbers (some with Newt being 2nd weakest to Mitt...the basement dwellers totally ignored).

Yep, if people vote based on perception...Dr. Paul will have serious issues as he isn't given a reasonable shot during debates and is by talking heads for his stances even when other candidates are drifting towards in the direction of Dr. Paul, however not as extreme (since most are just flip flopping). The MSM has far too much influence in the process. Their job should be fair and balanced debate coverage, leaving their bias out of it, and letting the average citizen that cares enough to be informed...have access to all of the information. The MSM crapping on politicians or candidates being ignored during debates (don't care who it is) is just plain BS. We might as well not even vote if we're going to be force fed the candidates the left and right slanting media outlets choose. Maybe the process should be changed into some sort of reality show, at least there would be greater interest in voting by the blind, deaf, and dumb.

 

[NYFelon]

Ron Paul is DROPPING in the polls now.

In Iowa he has been passed by Romney.

Where are you getting this from? As of yesterday Dr Paul was leading in most major polls except rasmussen.

RealClearPolitics: Paul Leads in 3 Most Recent Iowa Polls | Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty

News Headlines

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

What data do you have which says otherwise? That last link, to realclearpolitics is current, as in, from today. Doctor Paul is in the lead by quite a few points in all except rasmussen, as I mentioned earlier.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

Santorum. Light brown. I'm sorry, but that's some funny right there.

I know...I'm a child

 

[NYFelon]

Santorum. Light brown. I'm sorry, but that's some funny right there.

I know...I'm a child

Ha, I didn't even notice that. How ironically fitting.

 

[KG1]

Repetition of baseless nay-saying is not healthy for a democratic republic. Discuss the policies...but leave this high school out of it. TYVM

Santorum. Light brown. I'm sorry, but that's some funny right there.

I know...I'm a child

Nice discussion of the issues concerning Santorum.

At least you admit your childish behavior but you've managed to revert even farther back than high school to junior high or maybe even grade school level. Congratulations.

 

[NYFelon]

Well, if one finds Santorum to be a POS, then the correlation between his graphed performance color and your opinion of him is fitting. Sophomoric perhaps, but no less valid.

 

[mrjarrell]

Nice discussion of the issues concerning Santorum.

At least you admit your childish behavior but you've managed to revert even farther back than high school to junior high or maybe even grade school level. Congratulations.

Why not Google Santorum and tell us what pops up first?

 

[KG1]

Why not Google Santorum and tell us what pops up first?

A vile invented slang definition? That some how makes it all better and more acceptable? If Paco knew about that and still made the comment in a giggling schoolboy manner then that would make it even more sophomoric and childish.

Besides that what does it have to do with categorizing someone else's discussions as "high school " for not sticking to the issues and then turning around and posting something like that?

 

[NYFelon]

evidently humor will not be tolerated.

 

[KG1]

evidently humor will not be tolerated.

You're missing the whole point. maybe re-read my other post and the post I quoted and you might get it.