Posted on 01/10/2008 1:11:53 AM PST by Kevmo
What value were polls other than anti-democratic?
The polls had it wrong over New Hampshire. And it was polls that were used to exclude Hunter from the New Hampshire debates, the same debates which proved that polls were wrong. But poll results are still valid for EXCLUDING candidates like Hunter, who actually had a DELEGATE that REAL VOTERs voted for, while Rudy had NONE, but look at his polls! Now the same travesty is happening in South Carolina.
For the Republican side, half right is more than half wrong when you’re relying on the data to exclude someone from the process of democracy. And if they were wrong, how do we know they were right on the republican side? The prevailing assumption should be that they need to PROVE their data is reliable, but by excluding a candidate that could have done well in that state if he had access to the media, they AFFECTED THE OUTCOME.
CONSERVATISM vs. REPUBLICANISM
I don’t see how anyone can defend this action when it affects a conservative. This is a conservative forum, not a GOP one. It’s not just the GOP that’s jumping the shark, they’re taking Free Republic with them. On the latest poll, "I’ll vote R regardless" is leading the pack. I call people who vote this way UIN republicans, because they’ll vote for anything with an R in front of it, regardless of what it means.
Free Republic’s (1/9) poll on Republican candidates’ liberal positions that would be deal killers
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=210;results=1
thread discussion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951136/posts
Free Republic used to be a gathering place for conservatives. Now it’s becoming a gathering place of republicans. Putting republicanism ahead of conservatism is the opposition to the aims of this website.
JimRob says, “We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.” Freepers who are defending the fact that Hunter was excluded from the debates are in direct opposition to this tenet.
From the front page of Free Republic:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. .... We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. .... We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
This is NOT a GOP website, it says so right there, we have no affiliation with any party... That often catches republicans by surprise.
CHANCES OF WINNING
For those who don’t think we defend the country by voting for people who have next to zero chance of winning , they need to realize that THIS IS COMPLETE BALONEY. Right NOW, on Intrade, the folks who make it their business to deal in “chance of winning” and make money helping others trade on those chances have Hunter and Thompson EQUAL in chance to win the president race.
chances on intrade -- snapshot http://www.intrade.com
2008.PRES.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to win 2008 US Presidential Election M 0.2 0.4 0.2 41936 -0.1
2008.PRES.FIELD
Field (any other candidate) to win 2008 US Presidential Election M 0.2 0.3 0.2 18051 +0.0
USING INTRADE RESULTS I know that many freepers do not view futures markets with as much confidence as I do. But many of those same freepers view Polls with confidence. The article below is but one example of how futures markets are more reliable than poll results.
The Efficacy Of Prediction Markets The Liberty Papers ^ |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922961/posts
Whenever I post results from Intrade, there’s often a back & forth about how this data isn’t reliable, it’s subject to manipulation, all that stuff. All of these items are discussed and explained on this thread.
Futures market data that has proven to be more reliable than polling data, which is why Rasmussen started using Intrade results on their website. Rasmussen is the first polling organization to start using and referencing futures market data. In particular, once you look at the data and the interface, you’ll realize that it’s just a frontpiece for Intrade.
“Our prediction market for Iowa turned out to be very accurate,” Rasmussen said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1948537/posts?page=53#53
Rasmussen started using Intrade results.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945852/posts
THE PRACTICAL RESULT
The practical result was a failure in our democracy and it DIRECTLY affected the most conservative man in the race for the GOP presidency. By defending the practice, such freepers are betraying that they are a republican first, conservative second. Usually, it’s because this travesty did not affect their candidate. That is not how conservatism is forwarded. But it IS how republicanism is forwarded.
Hunter, as a result of this cascaded failure of democratic process, is excluced from the South Carolina debate. Recall that Hunter had a statistical tie with Giuliani for the lead in the Spartanburg straw poll. But for the media, that doesn’t mean anything, poll results that they decide are important are the ones being used. Is this what the primary process was designed to do, this early in the game? NO!
Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950953/posts
Everyone on FR, anyone that calls themselves a conservative or an American should be outraged. But Free Republic has changed. It looks more each day like a de facto branch of the GOP. There will not be this outrage that once characterized Freepers, because this travesty favors their guy. One more nail in the coffin for conservatism, delivered and gift wrapped by the GOP.
If Thompson drops out, will he most likely endorse his friend McCain? If he does endorse McCain, how will Thompson followers feel? Do most freepers feel that such an endorsement would be a good thing or a bad thing? If such a thing as the exclusion from debates happened to your candidate, what would you expect from the GOP, as well as from Freepers? When you see that not taking place, would that change the way you view Free Republic, as a bastion of conservatism? If Hunter drops out, he’ll most likely endorse Fred. If Hunter drops, then Fred drops, we will all be pissed if the first scenario comes true, and there is no conservative in the race.
My husband listens to the business reports every evening. All you hear is them speculating on this or that. Well, hey that’s what the market is all about. And, the only thing most of that “speculating” means is for those day traders.
And, the housing market for god sakes! There is nothing wrong with the housing market (except bad lending practices) other than the normal swing back to the other side a little. It was bound to slow down. Nothing stays on the peak forever. Gravity pulls it down. LOL
Understandable angst. But speaking personally, the points I make ARE designed to promote conservatism in America, even though some on FR virulently reject my advocacy of Mitt Romney. Guess it comes down to one’s definition of conservative promotion. It’s all a matter of degree.
***That’s a typical “yeah, but” response. What you seem to neglect is that it’s a yeah-but response to JimRob’s DEFINITION of CONSERVATISM on the FRONT PAGE of Free Republic. If you’re in Yeah-but mode right there, you need to reevaluate your commitment to conservatism. You really shouldn’t be a freeper. You should be spreading this RINO garbage on some GOP website.
Last I checked, Romney (and others) ARE openly and willingly promoting conservative values in which I believe .... freedom of worship without ridicule, low taxes, strong military/American presence in defending our nation, good wholesome family issues.
***Last time I checked, you were yeah-but’ing JimRob’s definition of conservitism on the front page of this website. Maybe you should check again.
I also focus on getting results... of being pragmatic.
***OK, so where does that show up in JimRob’s definition? Accordingly, how much emphasis should be placed on it? And there’s NOTHING more pragmatic than addressing a constitutional error. When I joined Free Republic it was considered a constitutionalist website. This bullshiite compromising on conservative values doesn’t fly.
Would much rather get 80% of what is good for America (thru Romney’s conservative promotion) than 0% if we get smooshed in the election.
***Or maybe it’s only 20%. The guy who scored 100% on conservative values in JimRob’s poll was denied access to debates. Maybe, now that we see what the MSM is doing by propping up guys like your RINO candidate and excluding the true conservative, maybe we’re getting 5% of what is good for America.
I am not a believer in holding on to the deck of the Titanic as it sinks six miles thru icy cold waters to the bottom of the Atlantic.
***Are you a believer in the republic? Do you believe in the democratic process? Do you believe in the constitution? You sure sound like someone whose answer is “yeah-but” to all 3 of those questions.
At some point, we as conservatives must be alive to continue the good fight.
***At this point, what you’re writing sounds like more justification for your compromising of conservative values. Re-read the definition of Conservatism, as put forth by JimRob. Re-evaluate whether you’re really a conservative. You’re a Republican, not a conservative.
I believe that some leaders are truly repentant of things they’ve said, of decisions they’ve made, in the past.
***That’s about what I would expect someone to say who’s backing a candidate who has flipflopped on important issues.
I know I am repentant of dumb things I once believed.
And thus we should at least be willing to give them the benefit of their conversion.... not just outright nasty rejection.
***There is a candidate who holds such positions more deeply, more sincerely, for longer, and who hasn’t had to “repent” from making flipflopping pandering mistakes, so there’s no reason to give your candidate the benefit.
Anyway, that’s my two-cent cup-of-coffee thought for the morning.
***Your two-cent thoughts are severely lacking in judgement.
&&&Crickets&&&
About what I expect. There is no answer to that question, because what is being put forward by these pseudo-conservatives is complete bull shiite.
It would save us all time, effort, energy, and other wherewithal.
You lost me there... not sure what you're referring to.
I don’t really want to purge these pseudo-conservatives. I’m just tired of them hiding behind rocks. They’re dishonest.
Duncan Hunter and his son risked their lives for our country, but Duncan Hunter is not allowed free speech in the debate.
We need to find out when the NEXT debate will be, and who’s running it, and flood them via phone calls, and tell them we want Duncan Hunter, one of our American heros, to be allowed to debate! They are singling him out!
You should read the other responses that are alongside your response to that post. They make what you say look like a second grader’s lesson in learning bull shiite.
When you say, “It does no one any good to just get mad and pout if our (your) preferred perfect candidate is not selected” then my response is “Fine, then let’s just get rid of your preferred candidate in some undemocratic process and level the playing field.” You’ll see things differently, but by then the republic will be lost. You are a partisan, not a conservative.
Actually, I think the person you’re posting to might be a RINO.
Not sure why you are mad at me, or anyone else who supports someone other than your preferred candidate.
I supported Hunter and would (have been) happy as a clam had he been the nominee.
Even sent him money four or five times. $20 each time.
But there comes a time when you gotta face reality. Duncan was allowed in all the debates up till this latest one.
His name was on the Wyoming, New Hampshire and Iowa ballot.
There was nothing stopping Republican voters from casting their lot with Duncan, but it just didn't happen.
Is that fair? Not necessarily. But it is what happened.
Romney supporters are not to blame.
Now we must just move on and make due with what is still available.
Good answers. I note the sound of crickets in reply.
Well ... as a “vote R regardless” voter, I at least have good company. I’m pretty sure that both Rush and Levin have stated that they would support any of the Republican candidates, over any of the Democrat candidates.
***Then why don’t you go push your partisan bull shiite on some GOP website rather than this conservative one?
O.M.G! Will get back to you later...off to my Thursday date! ;*)
You're right. Most Romney supporters like myself ARE compromising some of our conservative values.
We did the same thing when we elected Bush the Elder. (not that I was happy with GHWB)
We (I) do the same thing each and every time I vote for almost every lower candidate from US Senate to House to State Rep. to local councilman.
VERY FEW are rock ribbed take-no-prisoners conservatives.
If THAT is the absolute criteria for support, we all might just as well just never vote or get involved in politics at all.
Can you name me three other candidates outside of Duncan Hunter whom you view as acceptable.
In other words, my “vote R regardless” was in the context of this current race. I’d pick any of the Republican candidates over Hillary or Obama, the only two likely Democrat candidates. Honestly, I suspect you would too.
***I have already posted that if Rudy were the nominee, I would write in Hunter. 100% Republican Ticket! I haven’t made up my mind about the other candidates. I have said I would vote for Thompson, but I will not support him. There’s probably millions of ProLife evangelicals (PLEVs) like me who probably think along similar lines.
And to those who say they’d stay home or vote third party or write in “Bozo the Clown”, I ask this: If your single vote was the tie breaking vote, the single vote that counted, in the deciding state, and if voting for anyone other than the Republican nominee meant that Hillary became President, how would you vote?
***Cool. A Hypothetical question. I’ll answer yours when you answer my hypotheticals (ALL of them) , as posted in the article. So if you answer, “well, it isn’t going to happen” or “That’s not likely, so I won’t bother responding” then that will be the same response to you.
Yes, for the primary, we should each back the one we prefer. But in the general,
***WE’RE NOT IN THE GENERAL YET.
sometimes one’s highest priority must be voting against the Marxist lying treasonous murdering stealing felonious b**atch.
***Same, standard, partisan bull shiite compromising on conservative values. Go peddle your garbage on some GOP website. This is a conservative website, not a GOP one.
If nothing else, the prospect of two more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs should be enough to steel anyone’s spine.
***Then you should have no trouble supporting the most conservative man in the race. Because putting forth a flipflopper is exposing yourself to the likelihood of someone just as bad as Ginsburg. And recall that tootyfruityrudy has called Ginsburg a “strict constructionist”. I’ll take the democrat who appoints a ginsburg over a republican who does, thank you very much.
I’m with you Kev. In fact, on my local tv channel (NOT FNC!) they were also using In Trades in their political story (this is Hunter country!). I thought of you!
***LOL. I suppose this means my posts have been effective in creating mindshare.
If republicans elect a moderate instead of a conservative WTH do you expect us to do? Sit it out, and let a true blue liberal/socialist win???
***Oh, cool, another hypothetical. I’ll answer your hypothetical when you answer all of mine in the article. And if you try the typical tactic of detracting or not addressing the hypothetical by saying “that’s not likely” then that’s the kind of response you can expect from me.
How do you know the GOP polling was fine? The polls were off by 7 to 15 points. If you add that to Hunter’s polls, he gets into the debate, wins it like he won the last one, and takes his momentum into Nevada (where he has the endorsement of Nevada GOP somthin-or-other) and smokes South Carolina where he basically tied tootyfruityrudy in the Spartanburg straw poll. But instead, we have the MSM excluding this candidate on the basis of polls that are conducted by the MSM and the polls are proven WRONG. But that doesn’t stop them, they proceed anyways, even though there are ACTUAL delegates to Hunter’s name at the time of New Hampshire and Tootyfruityrudy had NONE.
You can’t say that this part of the puddle is fine, that other part is the one that’s poisoned. Not in this republic. Not if you’re a conservative. But you can say it if you’re a partisan. Thanks for exposing your agenda.
Tell that to JimRob, the owner of this website, who says he’ll sit on the sideline if Rudy is nominated.
Free Republic really needs to get rid of RINOs like you. Go to some GOP website. This is a conservative website.
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.