... and if you don't believe any of that just ask the guy whose legendary "internet insurgency" of "previously unaffiliated voters" carried him into the White House in '04!
Posted on 11/11/2007 12:39:35 PM PST by PlainOleAmerican
Ain't gonna happen, my man. Ain't gonna happen. The Left is not supporting Paul, they are still behind Obama & Hillary.
With the primaries slated to begin in weeks, and the general election less than a year off, this could be an election of historical proportions.
The author of this article, JB Williams, cited polls as the basis of his claims. It is appropriate to address polls.
Throughout the course of this decade, I’ve asked all the established public polling establishments if they had ever conducted a poll of only voters that say they are Independents, or Independent leaning. Their answers were always no, and the reason given was that either they were contracted to conduct polls for the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, or they were contracted by a third party, such as a news media company, and told to conduct the polls with only Democrats and Republicans.
The last year has seen the fortunes of the Republican Party slip if Independents were considered a separate political entity. Thirty-six percent of voters say they are Democrats or Democrat leaning, 27% saying they are Republican or Republican leaning, and 24% said they were Independents or Independent leaning.
Coupled to that poll is a poll from September this year in which voters of all political parties were asked if the Democrats and Republicans do an adequate job representing the American people, or is a New Third Party needed. Thirty-nine percent of voters polled said Democrats and Republicans do an adequate job of representing the American people. An astounding 57% said the two parties do not adequately represent the American people, AND a third major party is needed. With as many as 125 million voters expected to go to the polls in 2008, 57% would represent over 71 million voters, and more than enough to defeat the Democratic-Republican political dynasty.
Of the current third parties on the national scene, both the very conservative Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party, are expected to introduce motions to back the candidacy of Representative Ron Paul, essentially both drafting him as their party presidential candidate. If Ron Paul did launch an Independent campaign, his name could appear three times on the same General Election ballot in some states.
I don’t think for a moment that Ron Paul can win the Republican Party nomination. Currently, Rudy Giuliani holds the top spot in polls of Republicans at 29%, Fred Thompson in a distant second at 19%, and all remaining Republican candidates under 15%. With 27% of voters nationwide saying they are Republican, or Republican leaning, Rudi has a solid and dismal 9% of popular support nationwide.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is supported by 45% of Democrats, with Barack Obama in the second spot at 22%. With 36% of voters nationwide saying they are Democrats, or Democrat leaning, Hillary is supported by an unimpressive solid 16-17% of the voting population.
Another interesting development in the 2008 election is that if held today, both the Democratic Party and Republican Party will have very liberal presidential candidates. Their shared theme could be “Our liberal is better than your liberal”.
I can only sit and watch the 2008 election develop at this point as I am registered as “Decline to State”, and cannot participate in the partisan primaries. I will be watching with great interest. The 2008 election could be the historic turning point where the majority of Americans throw-off the two powerful, special interest owned and operated political parties.
“Look at Dr. Paul’s YouTube videos, they are always in the hundreds of thousands of views.”
Oh yeah like that proves something.
Talk about grasping at straws.
PS - Please tone down the "neo-con" gibberish. It's not cool here.
... and if you don't believe any of that just ask the guy whose legendary "internet insurgency" of "previously unaffiliated voters" carried him into the White House in '04!
Be a man and reply to me properly instead of taking the chicken-s—t route. You got your ass handed to you on countless of other threads already.
44% of all DUmmies enthusiastically pledge their support to Ron Paul, even above their own Queen Hillary.
What you get when you Google "Ron Paul meetup democraticunderground."
Some contentions come with links and supporting evidence helpfully provided. Some, significantly, do not. Investigate for yourself.
As someone or another once so ironically put it: "FReepers [...] are legendary at sniffing out BS." ;)
Funny how ron paul supporters claim that the TRUTH about their heerow is “propaganda”.
But what would you expect from people who claim that paul is popular and use YouTube as proof?
It’s been proven a dozen times over that the leftists are trying to skew the primaries by pushing for paul.
Yeah paul’s positions are contrary to those held by the leftists but that’s not going to stop leftists from crossing over for the primary vote.
They know that hillary has the democratic nomination locked up, so they’ll cross over and vote for the one candidate with the weakest chance against her because they see it as a means to an end.
At best paul MIGHT (and that’s a huge might) get as much as 38% to hillary’s 48% in a general election.
The GOP is in shambles. All of the factions are at each other's throats. We need Dr. Paul to run in these primaries to force the other candidates back to the GOP's core beliefs. We need to meet the libertarians and independents halfway on their pet issues like the drug war, civil liberties, and yes the war itself. Certainly the GOP shouldn't advocate cut-and-running, but you have to realize that many Americans are concerned about the war. If someone like Fred Thompson or Romney is nominated, and if Paul endorses the nominee, most of the people who support Paul now will vote for the GOP nominee. So I'm kindly asking for a cease-fire on Paul when the primaries begin. OK?
Kent, that picture wasn't taken at a Paul rally, it was done at a general anti-war kook rally. The guy holding that sign doesn't mean that Paul supports his views, which he has repeatedly disassociated himself from. He's just one of the few but vocal nutjobs who is latching onto Paul, nothing more.
“Be a man and reply to me properly instead of taking the chicken-s—t route. You got your ass handed to you on countless of other threads already.”
So says the RINO coward who cried that I was somehow “stalking him” on the threads.
And I still see that you rewrite history since it was you and your ilk that keep getting your ass handed to you.
Still think our sovereign borders are “international territory”? Or was that one of your fellow paultards who said that?
Because you were lying about what I said
And I still see that you rewrite history since it was you and your ilk that keep getting your ass handed to you.
Dude whatever. If Paul wasn't a threat, you wouldn't be paying attention to him. Why are you guys spewing your hatred over someone who supposedly can't win?
While it is true that Reagan retreated from Lebanon in 1984, giving the Jihadists a victory that has undoubtedly encouraged them to attack us again and again, he considered the USSR the main enemy. Reagan did not want to get bogged down in a complicated civil war of constantly shifting alliances. I am sure he believed that once the Soviet Union fell, that terrorism itself would become less a problem, since the Kremlin was behind much of it. Remember, very few people saw the rise of Islamofascism during the 1980s. Reagan would have handled Islamofascism just like he did the Soviet Union, if that had been the threat de jure rather than Soviet expansionism. One thing for sure, he would have communicated the necessity for the struggle far better than Dubya has.
Wonderful! A community only for Americans who cannot safely roam freely in the city they helped free from Hussein. To think we aren't even fighting these bastards for the recognition of our Christian religion.
If that’’s the case then we might as well admit that this war is not winnable with the tactics we are using. In that situation I do not want to waste one more US soldiers life fighting this idiotic religous war.
“Dude whatever. If Paul wasn’t a threat, you wouldn’t be paying attention to him. Why are you guys spewing your hatred over someone who supposedly can’t win?”
Because real, rational Republicans that make up 98% of the members here as well as other sites are sick and tired of you morons spamming every damn message board and blog with your moronic ron paul sh*t.
Yes your heerow doesn’t have a damn chance, but you paultards are too damn stupid to realize that.
You paultards are too stupid to see that the leftists have been inflating paul’s numbers because against hillary he only has AT BEST has a 38% chance at winning compared to her 48%.
The leftists are crossing over to vote for paul in the primaries as a means to an end because he IS the weakest candidate.
“Wonderful! A community only for Americans who cannot safely roam freely in the city they helped free from Hussein. To think we aren’t even fighting these bastards for the recognition of our Christian religion.”
Uh huh, so you’d rather our embassy personnel and their families live out on the Iraqi economy then?
“If that’’s the case then we might as well admit that this war is not winnable with the tactics we are using. In that situation I do not want to waste one more US soldiers life fighting this idiotic religous war.”
We are winning.
I don’t believe that we are.
How can the hard core anti war leftest candidate take away more conservative votes than liberal votes?
Given that you routinely refer to my postings on Paul as "hateful" and whatnot on variious threads -- pointedly (and significantly) without ever pinging me to said comments, as per stated and long established FR policy; in other words, while behaving trollishly -- I don't believe, even for one single, fleeting moment, that you sincerely mean the faux "civil" tone you're miming, here. As I know myself to be the more genuinely adult and adept poster of we two, however: I'll extend you the (unearned) courtesy of playing Let's Pretend.
A.: You are incorrect in staing your (evident) belief that -- for me, and/or any other anti-Paulestinian hereabouts -- "it's all fun and games," re: Paul. Your demonstrable and repeateded unwillingness.inability to grant that I/we may really, truly, honestly object to his running for the office of the U.S. Presidency on the Republican ticket (NOTE. EMPHASIS.) for rational, considered and honestly held reasons -- reasons which have been shared ad infinitum with you and yours, all throughout these boards, over the period of months, now -- is so manifestly and thoroughgoingly condescending on its very face, it renders any meaningful discussion with said Paulfaction all but impossible. Own it; acknowledge it; and then kindly knock it off. You are all inarguably your own worst enemies, on this point.
B.: Speaking only on behalf of myself, and none other: I grok "the bigger picture" quite clearly, thank you. A terrifyingly large percentage of Ron Paul's support, at present -- quite poassibly (as has been repeatedly demonstrated, through linked citations galore) the greatest portion -- is being provided by individuals whose beliefs are, RIGHTFULLY, anathema to all honest, thinking conservatives of conscience: 9/11 truthers... Stormfront (and other) racists... hardcore DUmmie leftists... and other creatures cobbled from the moral and intellectual conservative equivalent of purest kryptonite. Literally DOZENS of links have been provided on these boards, over the past few months, literally showing organizers exhorting Democrats and other liberals to "re-register yourselves just for the uprcoming primaries, in order to help nominate Ron Paul." (They even actually SAY outright, in virtually every instance: WE CANNOT DO THIS WITHOUT YOU!")
If (as you continually claim) Ron Paul's purportedly swollen-and-getting-larger base of support IS primarily conservatives (disaffected or otherwise)... then, plainly: his campaign wouldn't NEED to huckster and campaign like so many rabid used car salesmen for support from the Kos Kids, red-eyed and grunting It's-all-Da-JOOOOOOOS conspiracy mongers, and Alex Jones tinfoil Timmys.
That simply isn't even decently debatable, and you obviously must know this, acknowledged or otherwise. (One doesn't, by way of comparison, see -- oh, say -- Duncan Hunter drumming and lobbying for votes from the same diseased body politic.) The only other candidate for Team "R" with a comparable record, re: hustling for votes from the Far, Far Left is Giuliani. That's pretty piss poor company to be keeping, quite frankly.
Far worse, however, is refusing to even openly and honestly own up to said facts, no matter how repeatedly presented or concretely verified. And that -- in all open candor, here; FReeper to FReeper -- renders all other pledges and assurances from the Paulestinian camp that much more difficult to even halfway credit, as a result.
That's certainly not your sole responsibility to "fix," obviously -- that's an automatic given -- but, again: it very definitely isn't ours to somehow remedy, either. And again, speaking solely for myself, I simply find myself all but incapable of trusting -- or even attentively listening to -- any person (or persons) who I absolutely, conclusively KNOW are attempting to "con" me, in some other area or respect. That's the long and the short of things, chiefly, right there.
All of the factions are at each other's throats.
Imagine how much less true that might be -- right now; this very moment -- were it not for the constant trollings and catcalls by the supporters of one particular candidate to the effect that "[xxx] is the only real, true conservative in this race, and if you don't support hi, then you can't be a conservative!", among other things.
Once again: I don't see (another example, this time) Romney supporters advancing similar claims of an aggressively obnoxious nature, anywhere on these boards. Nor Tancredo people; nor ANY of the others, in plain point of fact. (You may certainly feel free to link me directly to any such, of course, if you can actually point to any. I'm never unwilling to change my mind, IF demonstrably proven wrong.)
The Rudybots are, undeniably, responsible for approximately half of the increasing rancor and overall ill-will in these parts. (That's what resulted in the last great Purging a while back, after all.) But the Paulestinian zealots hold the uncontested copyright on the other half, in their oafish and persistent refusal to acknowledge any view of "conservatism" other than their hoarsely shouted own. And that means they (and they alone) could quickly and easily remedy at least 50% of said problem all on their own, tonight, if they genuinely so desired.
The only question remaining, therefore, is: DO they, really...?
We need Dr. Paul to run in these primaries to force the other candidates back to the GOP's core beliefs.
Unsupported assertion. Duncan Hunter (to name the most immediately obvious example) could do this, as well... and without the ugly and unnecessary excess baggage of the far left 9/11 zombies and assorted fellow travelers, to boot.
We need to meet the libertarians and independents halfway on their pet issues like the drug war, civil liberties, and yes the war itself.
There are substantially more social and religious conservatives making up the single most reliable (and numerically necessary) voting bloc within the GOP, as of this writing -- a bloc, it goes without saying, without whom the GOP has famously and repeatedly failed to win ANYbloodything on the national level, ever since the Reagan era. We are routinely hectored, bullied and out-and-out insulted, however, by the "libertarians" on a daily basis, outright DEMANDING that we all simply abandon every single last cor moral and/or ethical belief and accept candidates (either Paul or Giuliani, depending on the issue in question) who are rabidly pro-abortion; pro-homosexual agenda; pro-illegal immigration; and -- most significantly, to Paul's unerasable detriment -- insanely wrong-headed on the war against Islamofascism.
No. That's all simply too much to bluster and demand, of any one voting bloc... and particularly the one genuinely essential one, without whom this party is doomed to electoral Perdition. (You all regularly admit as much yourselves, every single time you pound the table and shriek at us that "if you dirty, rotten so-and-so's don't vote with us, Hillary will win!!!" Newsflash: we are already well aware of this, thanks.)
I don't see the Paulestinians willingly offering to met us halfway -- hell, even so much as one-quarter of the way -- on ANY of THEIR essential, core issues; simply demanding, steadily more shrilly, that we and we alone voluntarily fall upon that particular moral/ethical grenade. My own two-word response (which I daresay is one shared by any number of other religious conservatives; a far vaster number, I'm dead certain, than you fully realize are out here): "You. First."
Now go right ahead, and take up trash-talking me (and numerous other anti-Paul types) once again on various and sundry other threads, without even so much as the simple, open, honest FReeper PING as courtesy. Assuming you genuinely wanted an honest response: there, now you have it.
Eat it, as they say, in the very best of health.
Ignore the several thousand typos, please. I (clearly) ended up sacrificing keystroke accuracy on behalf of both length and intensity. ;)
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.