Of course, it could be that the Paul-bashers are googling themselves into a frenzy, trying to find Bad Things they can post at FR. LOL.
Posted on 08/05/2007 5:34:39 PM PDT by Lovebloggers
I turned Fox News off quite a while back. Maybe Michelle, Bill O'Rielly, and Jerry Rivera need an hour show together. It would give Wrestling shows a run for their money in staged fights :>}
Xenalyte admitted that earlier in the thread.
I just turned 38. What is your point? You do realize that the straw poll is meaningless, right? People essentially buy their way in. So candidates who want to make a good showing just ship their people in. It is basically like an on-line poll where people are told to “freep” it. Buchanan won the straw poll. Big deal.
The August of 1999 Iowa Straw Poll launched George W. Bush to the White House. It is a big deal.
It didn’t “launch” anything. GWB was the favorite all along. It was/is just a dog and pony show.
That’s what I said. It is the first beauty contest. Generates lots of Buzzz. Steve Forbes spent millions in 1999 and got swamed. Took lots of energy out of his campaign.
Whatever....I suppose if you’re a penny ante operation like Paul, you have to put all your eggs in that basket. Good luck to ya!
Not meaningless at all. The straw poll is not anything official, but political campaigns can advance or retreat based on the perceived support or lack thereof.
Gaining momentum is important in the early stages, and even a little gain can translate into significant advantage later on.
The presumed front-runner, Rudy, recognized the very real possibility of his campaign losing momentum at a critical stage, therefore he bailed out instead of taking that chance.
The remaining candidates would like to show "fence-sitters" that they have the support needed to garner national attention. Any national coverage can and will help the second-tier candidates, and will put more pressure on the front-runner.
So yes, the straw poll has a purpose, and is valuable to the process.
Thank you!
Romney sunk a ton of resources and cash into Iowa, and among the three is the most conservative so was thus most assured of winning it. Giuliani and McCain chose to avoid the hit a loss to Romney would generate, and put their resources elsewhere, like Florida, CA, NY, NJ — where it is imperative they show well. McCain also does not have the money to campaign.
So what they did instead was bow out rendering the straw poll meaningless, and embarassing Romney by forcing him to stand firm in a poll where the likes of long shots like Paul place 2nd or 3rd.
It was a good political move. You are seriously delusional if you think that Guiliani or McCain fear Paul in some fashion. Straw polls are very expensive to campaigns when there are legitimate candidates vying to place in the top three. Romney made an error he probably won’t make again.
Don’t read anything into this on a National level.
Also note that McCain and Guiliani’s people are there in droves to ensure the long shot candidates do well which will further embarrass Romney.
Politics is all a game.
If it is “valuable”, it is only valuable to those who think voters will be swayed by hype and image. Again, to me it is the equivalent of “freeping” a poll. It may make you feel good, but does it really mean anything? I suppose, if you think “fence sitters” are too dense to see what is going on.....
In case you hadn't noticed, most voters are swayed by hype and image.
"..if you think “fence sitters” are too dense to see what is going on....."
Apparently they are.
FYI
Wow! do you think Paul could place 2nd or 3rd?
Wow again! If he does, then he's got momentum building! Good for him! Go, Ron!
read
read
(Gambling911.com)Following this weekend's Republican debate in Iowa and some extensive mainstream coverage and sound bytes., 2008 US Presidential candidate Ron Paul's odds to become the next Commander-in-Chief have been slashed further from 15 to 1 to 8 to 1.
The Presidential betting odds for most candidates have barely moved in recent weeks at Sportsbook.com and Ron Paul's odds have remained steadfast at 15 to 1 for the past two months after heavy action forced the online bookmaker to slash his odds from 100 to 1.
There are usually very little fluctuations this early in the campaign as most of the betting takes place the few months leading up to Election Day while in 2004, several million dollars were bet on Election Day alone.
Sportsbook.com is heavily referenced by Gambling911.com for its political betting odds menu. Sportsbook.com is the largest North American-facing sports betting website in terms of overall volume of customers.
2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul sat down with Gambling911.com's Kira Wissman for a few moments Friday night following his speech at a rally in Mars, Pennsylvania, just outside Pittsburgh. The time spent was brief since Paul had to rush out on his way to Iowa the next morning.
Paul was very adamant regarding Internet gambling prohibition and Internet prohibition across the board.
Dr. Paul is co-sponsoring with Barney Frank (a Democrat). He said that Congressman Frank had approached him about co-sponsoring the bill to legalize online gambling and he had agreed.
“I believe strongly that the internet should not be regulated by the federal government and believes even more strongly that people should be free to engage in the activities they wish, as long as they are willing to take responsibility for their actions.”
I also asked about the likelihood of such a bill passing. He agreed its chances were remote because of the stigma attached to the internet.
“The majority of people in Washington were afraid to support the internet for fear it would label them ‘pro-porn’ or ‘pro-gambling’.”
Paul voted against anti-Internet gambling and poker legislation attached to an unrelated port security bill last October (The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, also known as UIGEA).
Heavy fluctuations in betting odds is typically caused by the amounts of money coming in (public betting action). For sporting events, news related to injuries and weather could play a role in line changes without relying first on public response (betting volume on a particular side).
At press time, Ron Paul's payout potential sat at $800 for every $100 bet. Amazingly, he was listed with the same odds (8 to 1) as Mitt Romney, who is widely considered to be among the front runners in the Republican party.
John McCain's odds remained at 5 to 1. Rudy Giuliani remained at 3 to 1 odds.
"The old taunt reflects a deep economic principle: Talk is cheap, but if someone is willing to risk money, it means they're serious," writes Tim Harford of Slate.com, a general-interest publication offering analysis and commentary about politics. "Put the principle into action and you realize that electoral forecasters should pay as much attention to the betting odds as to the opinion polls.
"When money is on the line, informed people, perhaps including insiders, have an incentive to turn their knowledge into cash by making big bets. In the process they make the odds more accurate. And of course, there are several reasons to lie to pollsters, but no reasons to make a money-losing bet."
I’m going to go and beat my forehead concave now...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.