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.
We recall the loss of two elections due to the third party candidate, Ross Perot, and we are determined not to repeat that fiasco.
We are now seeing, live on this thread and elsewhere, the same thing, played on a larger scale, with just enough of a twist so as to pass unrealized for what it is, until too late.
The left, directly and indirectly, with money and media, is funding and providing publicity for every publicity hound with an "(R)" after their name they can find.
We will certainly end up with one Republican nominee for President, and almost certainly not have a viable third party candidate.
But by the time we get there, 80% of those who cared who was the Republican nominee will be pissed off that their preferred choice didn't make it, and half of those will be so disgusted at the eventual choice that they refuse to get out of bed on Election Day to vote.
It doesn't matter who you favor, and who you despise. One of the candidates that I happen to favor, Mitt Romney, inspires just as much hatred as one of the candidates I despise, John McCain. Which way is which doesn't matter here.
The only Republican candidate who has half a chance of being supported by all Republicans, Fred Thompson, is getting zero support outside of his natural constituency, zero outside money, and zero mention in the mainstream media. Hence, his chances are discouragingly low.
Whomever does get the nomination will be the first choice of 20% of Republicans, the no-way-in-hades choice of another 20%, and something in between for the remaining.
There is no more certain way than this to ensure our widespread defeat in November, in national and local races. So far as I can recall, this degree of factionalism is unprecedented. It is not business as usual.
The bitter, divisive factionalism we see on this thread is a drop of rain from a darkening cloud of tyranny over our Grand Ol' Party, this election, our nation, and free people.
If you’re a realist then you’ll know that there are tens of millions of prolife evangelicals who are likely to sit out this election because partisans don’t want their support any more. And yes, many will sit it out. So a realist would come up with a plan that addresses the tragedy happening to this republic and accommodates these voters. But instead, we got RINOs like you inundating this conservative website. What’s your realistic plan once you’ve completely co-opted this conservative website and it no longer functions as the conservative outlet it once was? Brilliant, realistic plans you guys have there. You’re not a realist, you’re a partisan.
May he rest in peace.
Thanks for the insults, old kev, you prove my points.
Like I’ve said, the reason Team Fred doesn’t lift their finger is because it doesn’t affect their candidate... yet. And when it does, they’ll have nowhere to turn to for help, because they alienated the evangelical wing of the conservatives. Team Fred shows more interest in partisanship than in conservatism, and in the end we’ll end up with wins for neither. Well done, team fred, about as well done as his biggest accomplishment and biggest acknowledged mistake in the senate, Campaign Finance Reform. And then when Fred drops out, which was a 90% chance on intrade last I checked for January, Fred will probably endorse McCain. Again, well done Team Fred. At that point, apologies will be as hollow and useless as those coming from team aRINOld.
That’s a false dilemma, a classic fallacy.
You can take one step forward with conservatism by supporting Hunter. You can stay in the same spot with Fred. You can take various steps back with other RINOs.
And then when Fred endorses McCain, you won’t even bother to be ashamed of your lack of judgement.
After all, why is it OK to compromise your principals during the general, but not OK during the primary?
***During the primary, you have a CHOICE. During the election you DON’T. It’s never okay to compromise your principles, but when you have no choice, it’s just you in that ballot box. Compromising when you have a choice is placing republicanism over conservatism. You have no courage to stand up for those supposed principles. It means you probably don’t really hold those principles in high regard to begin with.
Tell you what. I will promise to vote for Duncan Hunter in Pennsylvania if you promise to vote for Mitt Romney if Hunter has dropped out by time of the primary in your state.
***I’ll be voting for the most conservative man on the primary at the time. Why don’t you? And since you indicate that you aren’t, why aren’t you, what are you doing on this conservative website?
So, can you name me three rock-ribbed “acceptable” conservatives you have voted for, either local, state, or federal?
***Yes.
and you expect me to take Romeny’s recent conversion to Pro-life, NRA, and Illegal Immigration?
Of that I am 90% certain.
***Then you can earn money by putting your money where your mouth is on your candidate at Intrade.
I too am disheartened that the Republican base will accept the back-stabber McCain, or worst, Huckabee, who scares the pants off of me and almost all non evangelicals.
***Huckabee scares the pants off you, interesting. You and the GOP don’t get it. They need to let this faction find a home. The amount of invective aimed at evangelicals is surprising, but then everyone wants their votes. Prolife evangelicals will be very comfortable in Hunter’s camp, since he’s a prolife evangelical staunch conservative.
Although Fred is correct and a good conservative, he is simply an AWFUL boring candidate, and would get trounced by an energetic Obracko-Shrillary machine in the general election.
***I agree. Hunter would get the press so steamed up that they wouldn’t see straight and they’d jump the shark just like what happened when Dan Rather went into BDS mode.
Rudy Guiliani is looking to be less and less and less likely, which is a good thing.
***I agree.
Which brings us back to the one candidate who, despite his flaws, stands the best chance of keeping conservatives in control of the US military, and in the White House.
***And the one who knows the military backwards & forwards, Duncan Hunter.
That's the truth.
No, they weren’t. I showed you how accurate the poll I cited was.
***You conveniently overlooked the EFFECT the MSM/Poll machine had on the race before, and how they directly changed the result. You don’t know that if Hunter had been in the 2 debates, directly after winning the last Iowa debate and being 1 of only 3 candidates with delegates to his name, having momentum from Wyoming, he would have done reasonably well. You don’t know that, and your GOP polls are poisoned water because they draw from the same well as the democrat polls that were off by more than 3-4 times the margin of error.
I don’t care about the accuracy of polls of Democrats.
***It’s the SAME POLL. If it’s WRONG, it’s WRONG, and shouldn’t be used for determining anything representative in our democracy. Only partisans can’t see that.
That has nothing to do with the accuracy of polls of Republican voters.
***It’s the same Poll. It’s PROVEN WRONG.
If you want to get reliable info about GOP candidates running for the nomination, then look at the poll released that I cited. They are reliable.
***They are PROVEN UNRELIABLE. They were used to knock out results from ACTUAL VOTERS. What kind of a POS doesn’t understand that? The kind that, as you say so eloquently, “doesn’t care”. You don’t care about this republic. You’re no conservative.
The polls were completely accurate in predicting Hunter’s performance on Election Day. Deal with it or stay in denial. I don’t care.
***Polls that are wrong for one thing are wrong to be using for the electoral process. Period. The reason why you don’t want to see this is because your candidate got in, but it proves that you are no conservative. Such a thing should not be happening in this republic. Not if you’re a conservative. But you can say it if you’re a partisan. Thanks again for exposing your agenda.
The bitter, divisive factionalism we see on this thread is a drop of rain from a darkening cloud of tyranny over our Grand Ol’ Party, this election, our nation, and free people.
***And the most bitter, divisive factionalism comes from RINOs. This is a conservative website, not a GOP website. It has become inundated with partisans. The factionalism is what follows when that happens.
I’d suggest you start your own thread where you can defend antidemocratic practices, RINO. Talking about the guy who opened the thread like that is a sign you’re unbalanced. You should have sent it as freepmail.
I’ve been here since 1998 and this claim is ALWAYS made. And it is always made by a person trying to convince someone else to vote for a non-conservative candidate.
BINGO We have a winner! I have a better idea, lets all get behind a Fred/Duncan ticket and kill the beast....
That other gentleman is out to start a fight. Best if we cease responding to him, in my view.
***I started this thread, bozo. Better than ceasing to respond to me, why don’t you go to some official GOP website where you can spread your partisan cheer? You obviously don’t care about conservatism.
There is one very substantial problem with your post, and one that has yet to be addressed by this thread:
Duncan never even campaigned in Iowa or New Hampshire, as he was unlikely to get an result in these states, Iowa leaning blue, and New Hampshire being retina-damage neon blue.
He (and Fred) will not even begin to realize the fruit of his labors until the South and the West have their say- The South and the West, where the heart of Conservatism lays.
Of course he isn't placing anywhere but Wyoming. Shutting him off now removes him from play just before his constituency gets their say.
I draw this to the attention of all, as this mechanism serves to give the RINOs undue influence in the choosing of the Republican candidate.
Thanks for the insults, old kev,
***You’re welcome.
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.