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.
I don’t think most Fred Followers agree with you. They would feel as betrayed as the Tancredo followers did after his endorsement.
...by electing those self same marxists into greater numbers in the opposing party- You know the party that is supposed to stand against the marxists.
I cannot see the logic in your thinking.
Floriduh voter posted info on one of the debates. Check out post #15 here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1951255/posts?page=14#14
That’s a valid point, I felt betrayed by Tancredo as well.
But I expect Tanc to endorse Duncan or Fred. Mitt isn’t even on the same page with Tanc. While McCain isn’t either, Fred won’t get out until after S.C. and if Duncan is still at 1% I don’t seem Fred endorsing him then. But I wouldn’t vote for McCain if Ronald came to me in a dream and told me to vote for him.
It’s not the same poll. The methodology for polling a Democrat primary election in a state is not the same as that for a Republican one.
In the general election, the ballot doesn't have anything on it about which Republican candidate I'd prefer. It just has a choice of the Republican or the Democrat. In this particular election, of 2008, I already know enough to see that whomever will be the Democrat candidate (Hillary, Obama or Edwards) will be worse than any of the Republican candidates. So I know I will vote Republican in the general election.
In the general election in particular, I always vote as if the election were so close that it happened to be my vote that decided it. I'd have trouble sleeping at night if it ever turned out that Hillary gained the office of President because I was busy making some "statement" that the other guy was an unacceptable RINO .. for any of the RINO's, liars, and fools currently on the Republican ballot. Some of those so called Republicans suck pretty bad, but none nearly as bad as Hillary or Obama.
Pretty straight forward logic, don't you think?
It's not always this way; if say we put up McCain on the Republican ticket, against Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller on the Democrat ticket, I'd have to give serious consideration to voting Democrat. Better an honest liberal of stable temperment than a lying liberal with a rage issue.
I'll pick the .22, thank-you. I might live.
No, but fortunately enough Conservatives will boycott a RINO Republican nominee that your vote, and those of your fellows will make no difference.
there is no benefit in strengthening the ranks of the Rinos in their folly. They need to be taken from power.
The enemy within is far worse than the enemy beyond the gate, as the immigration flap should prove on it's face. Or the stripping of eminent domain, or the selling of our ports to foreign governments, or the limiting of our sovereignty as in the LOST at sea treaty... etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Al these and more pushed upon us by Republicans
I'll choose attacking the traitorous bastard behind me with the .22... If I am gonna die anyway, I'd rather take the chance and arm myself to defend against the .45, which will soon be at my head anyway, should I live.
Maybe that's just me.
I think you are right. No reasoning will sway him.
I am not interested in getting into a pissing match.
This election is of utmost importance (I’m sure that’s been said many a time).
If the democrats get elected, we face nationalized health care. After that the socialization of america will be complete. ANY RIGHT MINDED CONSERVATIVE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THIS AND RESIST ACCORDINGLY! Accordingly doesn’t mean sitting out any election. It means fighting tooth and nail. It doesn’t mean sitting out to prove a point, or to teach those blue blood republicans a lesson. It means sucking it up, and doing what is right.
Do I want Guiliani to be the nominee? NO!
Do I want any of the other pseudo-conservative to win the nomination? HELL NO!
But I will do what I must...does this really make me a RHINO? NO IT DOESN’T!
My first few posts on this thread were happily contributing to the pissing match here. Since then, I've been using this thread as inspiration to refine my statement of my views. I entirely agree with your observation that he won't be swayed. May he find his own path.
Or, in the case of this election, deciding to take some down with you is a choice I can respect. I'm figuring we can survive a McCain presidency, so would risk that, if the alternative was Hillary. But I can appreciate that reasonable people could figure that a McCain presidency poises as much risk to our freedom as a Hillary presidency, and choose to go out in style.
The methodology for polling a Democrat primary election in a state is not the same as that for a Republican one.
***Pure, unadulterated, 100% Bull Shiite.
In the general election in particular, I always vote as if the election were so close that it happened to be my vote that decided it.
***Then you should vote that way in the primaries as well.
I’d have trouble sleeping at night if it ever turned out that Hillary gained the office of President because I was busy making some “statement” that the other guy was an unacceptable RINO .. for any of the RINO’s, liars, and fools currently on the Republican ballot.
***Then welcome to insomnia-land. Your actions on this thread are being mirrored and replicated throughout the political discourse in the GOP today. Thousands of RINOs like you are discouraging prolife, evangelical staunch conservatives. If a RINO gets nominated, millions will feel disenfranchised. All because guys like you were making their own “statement” about electability, and as a result, they lost the election.
Some of those so called Republicans suck pretty bad, but none nearly as bad as Hillary or Obama.
***I’d rather fight the enemy in front of me rather than get stabbed in the back by a pretender friend.
Pretty straight forward logic, don’t you think?
***I agree, if you want to lose an election and make a “statement”. As Smokin’ Joe said, “Nice to have the votes, but if they aren’t that picky, then let us have a Conservative, for once, as a candidate. Why? because it doesn’t matter how pretty or slick they are, to Conservatives, the issues matter. There are some things we just won’t vote for, and if there is nothing to vote against (I.E. no difference between the candidates on the issues) we just might go fishing.” So you do the math, Mr. Realist, and figure out what kind of candidate brings in the most votes: a conservative. That’s why so many RINOs run for the presidency and climb all over themselves trying to look like the most conservative.
Not that it will happen. Anyone other than Hunter, and maybe Thompson, doesn't stand a chance in the general. the Conservatives will walk away from the rest, and w/o th Conservatives there is no chance of a Republican win.
The only enemy we face that seriously threatens us is our own Left.
However ... it's still an open issue, in my view, whether 'tis better, in a general election between a hardcore Marxist and a derranged Marxist, to vote the later, or to vote neither. I'll vote the derranged Marxist, and hope we can muddle through. We've survived (more or less) 4 years of Carter and 8 years of B.J.Clinton in recent years; the good men who constituted our federal government did a remarkably fine job.
Really, I figure we have a better shot at continuing this grand experiment in freedom if we keep the Presidency out of the hands of someone [Hillary] who is actually, personally, with the focus of a lifetime, dedicated to destroying our freedom.
Our odds are better if the Presidency in the hands of a raging nut case who [McCain] has not been a consistent Marxist his entire life.
In any case, let's do what we can now to see that we have a better choice this November.
Better an honest liberal of stable temperment than a lying liberal with a rage issue.
***This last statement kinda negates everything else you say.
There’s one other thing going on here. Social Conservatives know that they bring a large contingent and if they’re disenfranchised, they’ll speak with their fishing poles. What’s going on now in the GOP is a tug of war over evangelicals. Look at how well Huckster’s doing. It’s because of Evies. But there is outright hostility towards evangelicals from some factions in the GOP. So when these socialLiberal FiscalConservative types claim that they’d support the social conservative, in reality they merely begrudgingly accept them and in several underhanded fashions they are actively against socons. The pretenders act like the socon branch of the GOP is okay with them, but if they’re honest, they basically admit they’d rather not have them and wish the party could do without them. That’s the tootyfruityrudy support right there. But by being fake, underhanded and lying about their conservatism, they create the tension that exists in this party where the claim is to be conservative but the actions are liberal. I simply don’t care about republicans like this because by lying to us, they betray their own “principles” and their “principles” are weak. For socons to vote for a solib, they must betray their principles. For a solib fiscon to vote for a socon, supposedly there’s no betrayal of principle, because they have no real principles. For instance, what is the operating principle behind globalism other than exploitation? Give me good, solid, godly, conservative American values every day over that nonsense.
It’s a false dilemma when there’s a pea shooter and a BB gun on the table as options.
No reasoning will sway him.
***And no reasoning will sway RINOs like you, either.
You compromise during the PRIMARY season. Just think how bad things will get during the ELECTION season, and beyond.
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.