It's funny because if that were the case you could imagine the RP loyals still make a showing and he takes a fair share of delegates...

 

Entirely possible to have a 4 man field, equally leveled.

King also missed out big time by not asking Newt why his sexual behavior isn't worth discussing while Bill Clinton's was.

 

 

Just saw the clip of King's first question to Newt, who was one of the main ringleaders in the Clinton impeachment. Talk about hypocrisy. And King would have been a softy for not asking the question. Newt's outrage is laughable.

It's funny because if that were the case you could imagine the RP loyals still make a showing and he takes a fair share of delegates...

 

Entirely possible to have a 4 man field, equally leveled.

 

 

Rep. Paul has not been campaigning in Florida. He is currently polling at 9% and the best he has done in the state in a poll over the last two weeks is 10%.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_republican_presidential_primary-1597.html

 

He is not going to do well here.

It's funny because if that were the case you could imagine the RP loyals still make a showing and he takes a fair share of delegates...

 

Entirely possible to have a 4 man field, equally leveled.

 

 

Rep. Paul has not been campaigning in Florida. He is currently polling at 9% and the best he has done in the state in a poll over the last two weeks is 10%.

 

http://www.realclear...imary-1597.html

 

He is not going to do well here.

 

Ron Paul has his group of loyal voters who aren't changing. He's going to do just as well here as he has been doing everywhere else, regardless of what the polls say. He has sleeper voters, who have long since made up their mind about voting for Ron Paul.

 

The only issue there is that he has his fair share of sleeper voters but he doesn't have the ability to sway many towards him, so the more that drop out of the race, the stronger his competition is getting.

 

With that being said, it sounds to me like you're expecting Ron Paul to finish last in Florida. If he finishes in the middle of the boat, he is likely to remain where he currently is around 2 or 3. He will likely finish with that same spot in South Carolina as well.

 

Newt is dead last right now. If Newt wins SC, it's a neck and neck race in terms of delegates, especially if Mitt Romney tanks after failures at the debates.

It's funny because if that were the case you could imagine the RP loyals still make a showing and he takes a fair share of delegates...

 

Entirely possible to have a 4 man field, equally leveled.

 

 

Rep. Paul has not been campaigning in Florida. He is currently polling at 9% and the best he has done in the state in a poll over the last two weeks is 10%.

 

http://www.realclear...imary-1597.html

 

He is not going to do well here.

 

Ron Paul has his group of loyal voters who aren't changing. He's going to do just as well here as he has been doing everywhere else, regardless of what the polls say. He has sleeper voters, who have long since made up their mind about voting for Ron Paul.

 

 

If Ron Paul had some ability to outperform his polling numbers, it would have shown up before now, right?

 

In Iowa, his average place in pre-polling was 21.5 percent. He finished with 21.4.

In New Hampshire, his average in polls was 17.5 percent. He finished with 22.9.

 

So he did slightly better in NH than the polling would indicate and no better in Iowa. Even if we give him the same 5.4 percent increase that he got in New Hampshire, he would be neck and neck with Santorum. And that's being optimistic.

 

I get it, you like Ron Paul. But he's a non-factor in Florida. He's not going to compete here.

 

And he's smart to have mostly skipped Florida, if you're talking delegates, because it's a winner take all state and he was never likely to win here anyways.

If Ron Paul had some ability to outperform his polling numbers, it would have shown up before now, right?

 

In Iowa, his average place in pre-polling was 21.5 percent. He finished with 21.4.

In New Hampshire, his average in polls was 17.5 percent. He finished with 22.9.

 

So he did slightly better in NH than the polling would indicate and no better in Iowa. Even if we give him the same 5.4 percent increase that he got in New Hampshire, he would be neck and neck with Santorum. And that's being optimistic.

 

I get it, you like Ron Paul. But he's a non-factor in Florida. He's not going to compete here.

 

And he's smart to have mostly skipped Florida, if you're talking delegates, because it's a winner take all state and he was never likely to win here anyways.

 

 

Dude... we're talking South Carolina, not Florida. The field would be leveled going into Florida. If Newt Gingrich takes SC as projected.

Then why did you respond to me when I originally mentioned Florida?

I don't even know. But that's what we were talking about. I must've just read over what you wrote. I was in between classes trying to find a way to get food with the $0.61 in my bank account.

and Newt takes SC. First three state primaries all won by different candidates, pretty sure that's never happened.

Romney's back is against the wall. Dude HAS to release his tax returns before April.

I heard who ever SC picks always get the nomination. Anyone else hear this?

Romney's back is against the wall. Dude HAS to release his tax returns before April.

 

I was talking to a tax attorney I know today, and he feels that there must be something awful on there. The Republican base after all, would probably dig a guy who worked his ass off to make himself a ton of money (albeit with some sweet connections to start) and now pays a lower tax rate on those earnings, i.e. the carried interest 15% tax rate. That's a tax the Republicans pushed hard for.

 

Sure, he might alienate lots of independents and jobless Americans -- and that's 10% of adults, not insignificant -- but I think the point is well-taken; it does feel like he's doing something way skeezier. Otherwise, why take such a massive hit? He had to know that question was coming eventually, and he had to know that this response would be widely panned.

I heard who ever SC picks always get the nomination. Anyone else hear this?

 

Even if it's historically been true, correlation =/= causation. I'm not sure of the accuracy either way, personally.

By the way, in a 4-man race, Ron Paul only finished above 4th in 3 out of the 43 counties currently reporting in SC.

 

He seems a near impossibility to win the nomination, let alone carrying the Republican base if he got there, given these results.

By the way, in a 4-man race, Ron Paul only finished above 4th in 3 out of the 43 counties currently reporting in SC.

 

He seems a near impossibility to win the nomination, let alone carrying the Republican base if he got there, given these results.

 

 

It's because he's tailored to a certain demographic. He'd do well in the general election, but how many registered Republicans are there aged 18-29 (which he took, yet again)?

 

Yeah, it's looking like a losing fight for Paul. It is the south though, so it's a bit difficult here for him. Things will be different elsewhere I'd imagine (much like Iowa and NH). Sadly, I doubt he'll come close without the media attention that the likes of Newt and Mitt get.

 

If Santorum were to drop, who would he endorse though? So much sh*t has been said between the 'big 3' left over.

By the way, in a 4-man race, Ron Paul only finished above 4th in 3 out of the 43 counties currently reporting in SC.

 

He seems a near impossibility to win the nomination, let alone carrying the Republican base if he got there, given these results.

 

 

It's because he's tailored to a certain demographic. He'd do well in the general election, but how many registered Republicans are there aged 18-29 (which he took, yet again)?

 

Yeah, it's looking like a losing fight for Paul. It is the south though, so it's a bit difficult here for him. Things will be different elsewhere I'd imagine (much like Iowa and NH). Sadly, I doubt he'll come close without the media attention that the likes of Newt and Mitt get.

 

If Santorum were to drop, who would he endorse though? So much sh*t has been said between the 'big 3' left over.

He'd probably endorse Mitt or Newt; that'd be better for his political career, and that's what this is all about, after all.

1980 Reagan

1984 Pointless

1988 Bush

1992 Pointless

1996 Dole

2000 Bush

2004 Pointless

2008 McCain

 

So - it has been correct in 5 relevant races, and 1988 was pretty much guaranteed to have HW Bush be the nominee - so more like 4

I'll be really mad if Newt Gingrich gets the nomination. I can't imagine he will though...

 

I'd rather have the lying sack of crap that is Mitt Romney. Either way, I will be voting Obama if that's the case.

Yeah, I'm actually mad because they're not showing my favorite. Legitimately.

 

 

 

Are you serious CNN? I know it's typical of MSNBC and FOX to show bias... but you too CNN? I know CNN has a left agenda for sure, but that's pretty low. Those numbers don't add up to 99%, just sayin.

Ron Paul is still in the GOP race to gain exposure through debates to push his message across as much as he can before ultimately running in the general election as an Independent. Because he will not get the GOP nomination.

I'll be really mad if Newt Gingrich gets the nomination. I can't imagine he will though...

 

I'd rather have the lying sack of crap that is Mitt Romney. Either way, I will be voting Obama if that's the case.

 

You aren't obligated to vote for either Obama or the GOP nominee. You will have other options.

 

It's highly unlikely that Newt gets the nomination. As it stands right now, Newt (and Santorum) aren't even on the ballots in some of the primary states (I don't remember the whole list, but Virginia is one of them).

 

Yeah, I've heard about that. About Newt and Santorum being 'unelectable' as the GOP candidate. Don't know what to believe or buy into though. I imagine there's much more to it than meets the eye?

 

I know I'm not obligated to vote for either Obama or the GOP nominee. It's a 'tragedy of the commons', if you will. The thought that 'even if I vote for candidate x, he wont win. I might as well just do what everyone else is doing and pick a side'.

 

Honestly, I'd love to vote for Ron Paul as an independent, but I'd have to see what the voting picture looks like. I can't just vote for Ron Paul knowing a vote for Ron Paul is systematically a vote for Newt Gingrich, ya know? It's all dependent on how things play out.

 

I'd love to hear other opinions though. Is Ron Paul much more significant come Super Tuesday, or is he as good as done for the GOP? Also, I agree completely with what you said, penguino. Paul stands up weak in the GOP but strong if they were to back him. Arguably stronger than the rest, and I sincerely think he's the only way the GOP will take down Obama.

Paul running independent could quite possibly give the presidency back to Obama. His followers are dedicated enough to vote for him even though an independent wont win. I have to think Paul supporters are leaning more right than left, whichmeans it will take the votes from the GOP, giving Obama the upperhand, unfortunately.

That's definitely not what a tragedy of the commons is

That's definitely not what a tragedy of the commons is

 

 

I know what tragedy of the commons is. I was making an example out of a pseudo-relationship to it.

Firstly, Paul should not and will not run third party. He's only "not ruling it out" because there is a 0.0001% chance that something fiscally catastrophic happens by November that would motivate him to run.

 

His campaign is operating under a deliberate plan that is an incredible longshot, but theoretically possible. The goal is to gradually accumulate delegates and hope that the nomination comes to a brokered convention. If the first delegate vote at the convention is not decisive, there will be a second vote where all of the delegates are "freed" and permitted to vote for a different candidate. There is the belief that many of them are sympathetic to Paul and will flock to his camp. Again, these pieces are unlikely to fall into place, but that has been the strategy before Iowa even happened.

 

 

Why wouldn't Ron Paul run third party at this point though?

 

And excuse me, I have no idea how these primaries work in such a complex fashion.

 

So does this mean that the more leveled the playing field is (since nobody is winning states with a majority)... the better it is for Ron Paul?

 

I'd like to better understand what the odds look like. And I'd like to better understand exactly why people would be sympathetic to Paul and flock to his camp... it sounds to me like the reason so many are staying away from Paul is because they view him as a radical and not a real Republican. To me that would mean that even in the event of a re-vote, Ron Paul would get the same amount of delegates.