Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

What if Ron Paul wins Iowa

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 9:15:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Currently, with all the campaigning these are the polls at the moment:
12/20 WeAskAmerica -- Paul 19, Romney 18, Gingrich 16, Bachmann 15
12/19 Rasmussen -- Romney 25, Paul 20, Gingrich 17, Santorum 10
12/18 ISU/Gazette -- Paul 28, Gingrich 25, Romney 18, Perry 11
12/18 PPP (D) -- Paul 23, Romney 20, Gingrich 14, Perry 10
12/18 Insider Adv -- Paul 24, Romney 18, Perry 16, Gingrich 13

What we see here is that the conservatives have divided themselves mainly between Paul and Gingrich. Do you think Newt needs attack ads? He does not use them and thus might lose any hope of guaranteeing himself a win.

Currently it is predicted that Mitt Romney has a 73% chance of winning, Gingrich 25% of winning the nomination(http://www.elephantwatcher.com...). Before that latest recalculation, Romney has a 65% chance to win and Gingrich 32%. Ron Paul, as expected, comes in dead last with a 0% chance of winning the nomination. Paul's loyal following guarantees him a certain percentage of the vote. However, he has proven unable to appeal to anyone beyond this small group. Only an unforeseen catastrophe could bring him close to winning the nomination. Iowa is not what could bring him close to winning it. What Ron Paul will instead do is ruin the Tea Party's chance of getting a conservative to win the nomination. Because it seems he will win in Iowa, Romney will off course win in New Hampshire, and Gingrich wins South Carolina. For the record, South Carolina is actually a very important primary to win because its super Republican and really helps the winner of the primary. New Hampshire is valuable because of the independent vote. Iowa is just a first round caucus and is really the only hope for minor candidates. Florida and Nevada straw polls will have to wait.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 11:25:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anybody who truly believes that Ron Paul has a zero percent chance of winning should wager here: http://www.intrade.com.... There is about an eight percent chance of him winning.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 11:47:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
it doesn't mater. Huckabee won Iowa and lost. Also on Hannity they said that NH is more important to Iowa. And SC is the most important. Every republican candidate has won SC when they win, so SC is historically important.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 12:16:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 11:25:36 PM, mongeese wrote:
Anybody who truly believes that Ron Paul has a zero percent chance of winning should wager here: http://www.intrade.com.... There is about an eight percent chance of him winning.

Those are just a bunch of gamblers that put money down on who they think would win which is not exactly research on the candidates to scientifically conduct a certain percentage in which to give the candidates based on their actions in the past and present.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 12:40:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Those are just a bunch of gamblers that put money down on who they think would win which is not exactly research on the candidates to scientifically conduct a certain percentage in which to give the candidates based on their actions in the past and present.:

Polling is useless pseudoscience in almost all instances where it attempts to reach a large demographic. Polls are notoriously inconclusive, and more often than not, differ markedly from other polls which is supposed to be reaching out to the same exact demographic.

Furthermore, they tend to create self-fulfilling prophecies in the form of dissuading others from voting for someone the pollsters believe will lose, thus drawing away attention from specific candidtates, and focusing on others.

Even supposing it wasn't, who gives a sh*t what other people think? All that should EVER matter is why YOU think a candidate would make a good president, not what CNN thinks, not what FOX thinks, not what any poll thinks based on results from Iowa, New Hampshire, or wherever. It's irrelevant.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 1:24:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 11:47:15 PM, 16kadams wrote:
it doesn't mater. Huckabee won Iowa and lost. Also on Hannity they said that NH is more important to Iowa. And SC is the most important. Every republican candidate has won SC when they win, so SC is historically important.

Eh... I believe that this is the (reverse of) Monte Carlo fallacy. What happened in the past =/= what will be true in the future. If that die has come up at the 1 every single time, that does not mean that that die will come up one again in the future. The same thing applies here.
DaveElectric
Posts: 107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 6:30:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Iowa caucus comes first so logically it is the most important one so this idea that this victory will not help RP is quite frankly delusional. When Romney was winning Iowa they said this would be predictive of his success in 2012. Now when RP gets close to the top now they are saying it is irrelevent. Sorry. That is just denial. Polls and elections foster herdlike behavior in future voters. Voters are more likely to vote for someone they think is going to win rather then someone who has low numbers.

NH is a very liberal state anyway. It's not a surprise that Romney is going to win that. No other conservative candidate had even a remote chance of winning NH compared to Romney.

Also, Iowa and NH are some of the whitest states in the nation. What happens when RP gets to a blacker state? Clearly he would get a further boost in the polls. He is the only conservative candidate against the War on Drugs and he is also against the death penalty (which supposively is "racist")

Although, I do see a future for RP I highly doubt this logic will prenetrate the MSM which is propandizing the "irrelevence" of the Iowa caucuses.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 6:44:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Who cares who wins, it will be business as usual no matter who wins. Voting only exists to appease the ignorant masses. Money and power is what matters and rules. Voting, LOL. If you want to change things you have to become rich and powerful to affect anything meaningfully towards your own view.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2011 7:43:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/26/2011 6:44:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
Who cares who wins, it will be business as usual no matter who wins. Voting only exists to appease the ignorant masses. Money and power is what matters and rules. Voting, LOL. If you want to change things you have to become rich and powerful to affect anything meaningfully towards your own view.

You are being cynical today.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2011 6:19:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/26/2011 6:44:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
Who cares who wins, it will be business as usual no matter who wins. Voting only exists to appease the ignorant masses. Money and power is what matters and rules. Voting, LOL. If you want to change things you have to become rich and powerful to affect anything meaningfully towards your own view.:

Jimminy Christmas!!! Where the hell have you been?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2011 7:44:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ron Paul is different man.. he's almost handled more poon that Herman Cain and Gingrich combined.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2011 8:14:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/26/2011 6:30:46 PM, DaveElectric wrote:
The Iowa caucus comes first so logically it is the most important one so this idea that this victory will not help RP is quite frankly delusional. When Romney was winning Iowa they said this would be predictive of his success in 2012. Now when RP gets close to the top now they are saying it is irrelevent. Sorry. That is just denial. Polls and elections foster herdlike behavior in future voters. Voters are more likely to vote for someone they think is going to win rather then someone who has low numbers.

NH is a very liberal state anyway. It's not a surprise that Romney is going to win that. No other conservative candidate had even a remote chance of winning NH compared to Romney.

Also, Iowa and NH are some of the whitest states in the nation. What happens when RP gets to a blacker state? Clearly he would get a further boost in the polls. He is the only conservative candidate against the War on Drugs and he is also against the death penalty (which supposively is "racist")

Although, I do see a future for RP I highly doubt this logic will prenetrate the MSM which is propandizing the "irrelevence" of the Iowa caucuses.

Not if the whole race scandal he's involved in catches steam. That might hurt him in blacker states.