The SFN Primaries

[ecoli]

Take into consideration that internet polls are heavily biased toward younger people.

 

the lowest voting demographic.

 

That is 100% correct.

Old farts like me never use the internet.

 

the exception that proves the rule.

[CDarwin]

Take into consideration that internet polls are heavily biased toward younger people.

 

Which is why Ron Paul doesn't really have a chance in perdition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What? Who said that? It wasn't me!

[DrDNA]

2008 Presidential Election

Date Title Description Odds

http://www.vegas-sportsbetting.com/searchAlline.asp?leagueid=24&leaguename=2008%20Presidential%20Election&sportID=7

 

Al Gore

+600

 

 

Al Sharpton

+50000

 

Alan Keyes

+75000

 

Arnold Schwarzenegger

+25000

 

Barack Obama

+350

 

Bill Clinton

+20000

 

 

Bill Frist

+3000

 

 

Bill Maher

+100000

 

 

Bill OReilly

+75000

 

Bill Owens

+10000

 

 

Bill Richardson

+2500

 

 

Bob Ehrlich

+5000

 

 

Bob Graham

+10000

 

 

Bob Kerrey

+3000

 

Charles Schumer

+5000

 

 

Chuck Hagel

+5000

 

Clint Eastwood

+50000

 

 

Colin Powell

+3000

 

 

Condoleezza Rice

+2500

 

 

Dennis Kucinich

+15000

 

 

Dick Cheney

+10000

 

Dick Gephardt

+6000

 

 

Donald Rumsfeld

+250000

 

 

Donald Trump

+250000

 

 

Elizabeth Dole

+50000

 

Evan Bayh

+4000

 

 

Gary Locke

+4000

 

 

George Allen Jr

+5000

 

 

George Pataki

+3500

 

 

George W Bush

+30000

 

 

Harold Ford Jr

+6500

 

 

Hillary Clinton

+200

 

 

Howard Dean

+5000

 

 

Jack Kemp

+5000

 

 

James Carville

+75000

 

Jay Rockefeller

+10000

 

 

Jeb Bush

+3500

 

 

Jesse Jackson

+15000

 

Jesse Ventura

+50000

 

Joe Biden

+6000

 

 

Joe Lieberman

+10000

 

 

John Ashcroft

+100000

 

 

John Edwards

+1500

 

 

John Kerry

+5000

 

 

John McCain

+2000

 

 

Laura Bush

+250000

 

 

Mark Warner

+3000

 

 

Michael Bloomberg

+15000

 

 

Michael Moore

+500000

 

 

Mitt Romney

+3000

 

 

Newt Gingrich

+25000

 

 

Pat Robertson

+100000

 

 

Paul Bremmer

+10000

 

 

 

Paul Wolfowitz

+50000

 

 

Ralph Nader

+10000

 

 

Rudy Giuliani

+300

 

 

Ted Kennedy

+50000

 

Tom Daschle

+7500

 

 

Tom Ridge

+3000

 

Tom Vilsack

+2500

 

Tommy Franks

+15000

 

 

Wesley Clark

+5000

[ecoli]

Which is why Ron Paul doesn't really have a chance in perdition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What? Who said that? It wasn't me!

 

Perhaps, but according to a recent Zogby poll, it's only because he lacks name recognition. If if were due to policy alone, he would get the nomination... (according to the poll).

 

http://truthseeds.org/2007/11/19/ron-paul-wins-latest-zogby-poll/

[Pangloss]

I don't know, I'm still not buying it. I just don't believe that most of Ron Paul's support is real. I strongly suspect that most of his "supporters" would evaporate overnight if he actually won the nomination. It's the McCain Revolution all over again.

 

It seems like there's just something about the Wired & Emo Generation that feels compelled to make gestures that look intelligent but really aren't.

[ecoli]

I don't know, I'm still not buying it. I just don't believe that most of Ron Paul's support is real.

*shrug* if you can find another way to explain his fund raising abilities, straw poll support... I'd love to hear it.

How to explain this poll?

 

I strongly suspect that most of his "supporters" would evaporate overnight if he actually won the nomination. It's the McCain Revolution all over again.

Except that McCain, at least compared to Ron Paul, doesn't really represent anything new.

 

I think what we are seeing here is a shift (albeit a slow one) in ideology, being aided and abetting by the Internet.

Here's and interesting analysis: http://nospinradio.com/wordpress/?p=37

 

It seems like there's just something about the Wired & Emo Generation that feels compelled to make gestures that look intelligent but really aren't.

Well, perhaps not all of Dr. Paul's supporters are the most intelligent people, but the man certainly is.

 

And, perhaps the wired & emo generation may not represent a large constituent right now, but I think it's certainly a sign of the times. Ron Paul could not have gotten this much support in previous elections cycles, especially before 1996.

 

Yeah, maybe Paul isn't going to win this election, and maybe he'll pass away before he gets enough support for his ideologies to catch on at large. After all, before long, the internet generation is going to represent a large tax base and voter block.

 

I think the time is ripe for the beginnings of political revolution, where our political parties are reshaped and how we think about government is reinvented. I read somewhere that people in the younger generation, inspired by the Paul philosophy are considering future careers in local office, based on Paul's small government policies.

 

I think it says a lot that Paul could win over 30% of poll based only on his policies. I think it means Americans want change from the regular dog and pony show. Remember when politicians were respected and treated more like celebrity?

To me (though I readily admit I wasn't around) Paul's campaign reminds me somewhat of JFK... he was supposed to really shake things up, wasn't he?

 

edit: Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part, thinking that Ron Paul could be the catalyst for a ideological revolution, but I can't come to any other conclusion. When you see the level of dissatisfaction with government that you see today, how can people keep voting in the same worthless politicians who basically promise the same thing?

Why do people only seem to remember that they hate big government when April rolls around... it's slightly infuriating.

[Pangloss]

*shrug* if you can find another way to explain his fund raising abilities, straw poll support... I'd love to hear it.

How to explain this poll?

 

Fund raising? There are only 951 individual contributors on his contributions list -- this being the list published by the FEC that's generated some buzz because the roll includes such occupations as "circus clown". You don't think I can find 951 crackpots out of 300+ millions?

 

And polls aren't votes.

 

I could be wrong, and I do think that this "support" means something. All I'm saying is, I don't know exactly what it is, and I don't think you or anybody else does either. Not fully, at any rate. (shrug)

 

 

Except that McCain, at least compared to Ron Paul, doesn't really represent anything new.

 

Oh but he did. He was the man who stood up to George Bush and the religious right. He was "the only Republican I could ever vote for" for millions of liberals across the country.

 

But as soon as he started getting accolades, his support for Bush's Iraq policy suddenly leapt to the fore, and liberals had all the excuse they needed.

 

 

I think the time is ripe for the beginnings of political revolution, where our political parties are reshaped and how we think about government is reinvented. I read somewhere that people in the younger generation, inspired by the Paul philosophy are considering future careers in local office, based on Paul's small government policies.

 

I can't imagine any generation ever thinking anything like that before! You should come up with a witty slogan, like, I dunno, "make bits not war".

 

But hey, thank goodness you all have arrived. I'll need SOMEBODY to pay for my Social Security!

 

I'm just kidding though. In all honesty, I applaud your optimism.

[ecoli]

Fund raising? There are only 951 individual contributors on his contributions list -- this being the list published by the FEC that's generated some buzz because the roll includes such occupations as "circus clown". You don't think I can find 951 crackpots out of 300+ millions?

I thought the FEC reports weren't due until the end of the quarter...

 

At any rate, Ron Paul's campaign site releases the name of contributers as they donate. about 37,000 people donated to the RP campaign on November 5th.

http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com

 

And polls aren't votes.

sure, but something interesting is still going on... I mean, one Zogby poll shows that is polling at 5% nationally, while another Zogby poll says hes polling at 32%. The missing factor is name recognition.

neglecting some huge factor, I'd say this is still a significant difference. Wouldn't you agree?

 

I could be wrong, and I do think that this "support" means something. All I'm saying is, I don't know exactly what it is, and I don't think you or anybody else does either. Not fully, at any rate. (shrug)

fair enough

 

Oh but he did. He was the man who stood up to George Bush and the religious right. He was "the only Republican I could ever vote for" for millions of liberals across the country.

oh, ok... I didn't follow politics then.

 

I can't imagine any generation ever thinking anything like that before! You should come up with a witty slogan, like, I dunno, "make bits not war".

Point taken... but Paul isn't supporting the 'feel good' optimism of the 60s, but realistic financial and economic responsibility.

 

But hey, thank goodness you all have arrived. I'll need SOMEBODY to pay for my Social Security!

don't worry, when Paul becomes prez, we'll be able to opt out.

I'm just kidding though. In all honesty, I applaud your optimism.

 

Thanks

[DrDNA]

Polls may not be science but odds-making cannot afford to be based on anything but substantial predictive criteria......

 

Did you notice that only 3 people have odds of less than 500/1?

Hillary Clinton

+200

Rudy Giuliani

+300

Barack Obama

+350

 

And did anyone else notice (or care?) that Ron Paul was not even listed in the odds?

 

I have to really wonder why the bookies would be shying away from speculating on his chances.... Or could it have been just an oversight?

[YT2095]

those of you living in Canada and the United Kingdom only get non-voting membership in Congress. You can look but you can't touch. When you get around to approving statehood, we'll talk!

 

Unacceptable, Asta la vista baby

[bascule]

I don't know, I'm still not buying it. I just don't believe that most of Ron Paul's support is real.

 

Ron Paul's support is quite real, but a big act of misdirection. A lot of his support comes from Alex Jones' anarchist movement. Alex Jones, of course, covers infowars.com with Ron Paul promotion next to a big sidebar of 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's a lot of crossover in support between those two camps as well.

 

I don't actively support Ron Paul but I like what he's trying to do. It's too bad a lot of his support comes from anarchist nutjobs.

[ecoli]

Polls may not be science but odds-making cannot afford to be based on anything but substantial predictive criteria......

 

Did you notice that only 3 people have odds of less than 500/1?

Hillary Clinton

+200

Rudy Giuliani

+300

Barack Obama

+350

 

And did anyone else notice (or care?) that Ron Paul was not even listed in the odds?

 

I have to really wonder why the bookies would be shying away from speculating on his chances.... Or could it have been just an oversight?

 

Sportbook.com lists Paul as having 4-1 odds to win... that's in the top four, I believe. That's pretty good for a "longshot" candidate.

http://www.sportsbook.com/betting/Republican+Party-betting-odds-753.html

 

Ron Paul's support is quite real, but a big act of misdirection. A lot of his support comes from Alex Jones' anarchist movement. Alex Jones, of course, covers infowars.com with Ron Paul promotion next to a big sidebar of 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's a lot of crossover in support between those two camps as well.

 

I don't actively support Ron Paul but I like what he's trying to do. It's too bad a lot of his support comes from anarchist nutjobs.

 

I don't think its possible to say exactly how much of his support comes from this base.

Certainly, people against Ron Paul try to blow up this proportion, while people for him would try to diminish him.

 

One thing that seems certain, is that the genetic fallacy here is rampant.

Yes, Paul has gone on Jone's show, but since when does a guest of a show have to agree with the host?

 

I have not heard or read transcripts of Paul on Jone's show, so I don't know how much or little he agreed with Jones.

And just because Jone's website puts up an ad for Paul, doesn't mean that Paul has endorsed that ad.

 

Didn't similar situation happen when white supremacists put up GW ads in the last election? Nobody blamed him for that... why the double standard?

[Mr Skeptic]

Eh, I for one wouldn't mind an anarchist nutjob for President. Better than an insane schizophrenic linguistically challenged one that thinks the ter'rists are out to get him and that God told him to piss off the Arabs.

[ParanoiA]

Amazing how the champion for the constitution would be endearingly referred to as an anarchist nutjob.

 

No wonder good people don't run for office anymore.

[iNow]

Amazing how the champion for the constitution would be endearingly referred to as an anarchist nutjob.

 

Repeated for accuracy. Nice point.

[DrDNA]

Sportbook.com lists Paul as having 4-1 odds to win... that's in the top four, I believe. That's pretty good for a "longshot" candidate.

http://www.sportsbook.com/betting/Republican+Party-betting-odds-753.html

 

I see.

They actually have Paul 4/1 odds to win the Rep Primary.

 

.....and as they come around the first corner, it's

Me Laugh Ha Ha With Many Wives Divorce One On TV Rudy G at 9/5 in the lead barely in front of

One Wife Too Expensive To Divorce Her Saint I Am Wierd Underdrawers Mitty R at 5/2 who is neck and neck with The Maverick Just Two Wives Daddy Was An Admiral Bomb Iran McCain at 5/2,

....with Yaba Daba Do Me Got Hot Young Wife Fred Flintstone Thompson at 7/2.....followed by Dr Go To The Next State For Your Abortion Paul at 4/1 and finally Contract With Your Sista On A Crusty Mattress Newty smelling up the behind at 10/1.............

[Pangloss]

Unacceptable, Asta la vista baby

 

The British are going! The British are going!