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.
Pure hogwash.
Sad but true.
Leading the pack though it may be, it's leading with a little less than 25%. So looking at it another way, 75% won't vote R regardless. :)
Thanks for that in depth rebuttal.
If Hunter had a dollar for every person who said, “He’s a great guy,but he can’t win”, he’d have close to a million dollars.
It’s not enough to say you’re a conservative any more. Liberals are backing up their words with money and participation. If we don’t respond with the same motivation, we’re doomed to a slow slide towards socialism.
Real conservatives know who they are and know that they, and the nation, are in grave peril.
Gentlemen - I have come to the conclusion that there is no saving the Republic. The forces of socialism have won. The candidates on both sides represent various degrees of socialist ideology, with a couple of obvious exceptions (Hunter and Thompson). I don't believe either of them will win the nomination, and if they do I don't believe they will win the election.
Socialism kills societies the way a boa constrictor does, by using a ratcheting strategy that always tightens around its victim. What you're seeing here is the end game in strangling our country to death.
Reagan got Gorbachev to tear down the wall. What he didn't do was to stop the forces of socialism within our country. No criticism there, just an observation. I don't believe anyone could have done it. The forces of international socialism lost "the battle of the Berlin Wall", but they won the overall long term war against capitalism. Our children are doomed to a grim future of working hard in order to have even a little bit above and beyond what their socialist masters permit them to have.
If we're lucky, we'll be permitted to live out our lives in peace. If we're not lucky, the socialists will make sure we never trouble them again. You can fill in the blanks in that scenario. I'll give you a hint - imagine what Hillary will do to thwart Rush Limbaugh when she's in office. Picture a national crisis, ginned up by the imaginative Clintons, under which all subversive elements are subject to their control.
Issues, (remember issues, anyone?), which are important to me:
Abortion, and the sanctity of life in general. (yet I can be for capital punishment without batting an eyelash).
Border Security--build the fence already!
Constitutional bounds: put the Fedgov back inside them.
Defense: Finish the WOT. Keep the military strong, secure the borders.
Education: Vouchers, accountability. Energy policy could fit here, too. Something grounded in the laws of physics and based on our solar system would be nice, instead of mandating mercuric light bulbs. Unfortunately, many of the problems are linked to an unrealistic view of another E, the Environment.
Firearms: Keep yer gun grabbing mitts off. In fact repeal some of that useless crap they call Gun Control.
Gun Control: See firearms.
Health Care: I have seen the mess the BIA has made of 'Indian Health', and can (unfortunately) imagine the horror show our health care would become if the Government ran it. No way.
Internet: The modern version of the soapbox in the town square. Keep the government out of it--and no taxes. Some would put Income tax here, and I'd go for a flat tax with cut-offs and caps. Some like the "fair tax" but I'm not convinced. YMMV.
Judiciary: It is the job of Congress to legislate, not the judges. The Bench can toss a law out, and that is plenty.
Kevmo, there is more, I am sure, But you get the general drift. Without shoehorning issues into a format, I am sure we could come up with something for every letter of the alphabet, and then some. But of late, many who call themselves conservatives treat the label as if it were just that. It isn't, it goes to the core beliefs of the bearer, and whether people like it or not, it represents a fixed set of beliefs.
It makes no more sense to try to drag that set of beliefs to the left and call them 'conservative' than it does to haul truckloads of sand away from the coast, pile them in a line and call it a beach.
All the hyphenations neo- so- paleo- etc., do is fractionate the believers into subsets, subsets which heartily pick and choose what they want to believe as is convenient for them, and then say they are 'conservative', too. Enough of this, and the Democrats will be claiming the title of 'conservative', and some of them more rightfully than the fractionated hypehnated groups.
Now, I know it isn't representative of the entire population by a longshot, but the poll on FR here shows about half of the respondents would vote for anyone with an 'R' after their name for POTUS. 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.
Of course we have to do more to promote conservative candidates. Including candidates for senate, house, state house, senate and governors all the way down to local school boards. The problem in the Republican Party, at least up here in the northeast, is that many conservatives have withdrawn from local party politics. I don’t know whether it’s because they are frustrated or too busy with their work and family but it seems like the energy has gone out of the state and local committees and they are being increasingly run by RINOs who just want to “get along”.
I e-mailed the party chairman yeaterday. If I get a chance, I’ll call today.
Very nice vanity, and oh so true.
Save it from what ? If Rs vote for McCain, Huckabee, Guiliani or Romney, we are voting for a democrat who doesn’t choose to call themselves one.
What’s the difference ?
Hey Russ, I did not mean that you were a sheeple.The powers that be will dictate which way the party will go and not the rank and file.When those arrogant asses run out of money at the “rnc” maybe then they will get the message.Sorry,Im not voting for rinos under any circumstances and I am not alone.
Let me know how that works out.
TLR
Don’t let them get away with choosing the candidates!
My feeling is that if a person is on the ballot, he should be included in the debates. Is Hunter on the SC ballot?
The pickins are gittin slim.
This is so true! And remember what the MSM did with the Bush & Gore election?
And, as a kind of aside - look what the MSM & Wall Street are doing to our economy. They're pushing us toward a recession with their cries of doom and gloom. I've been tuning the news out when they start with this crap.
I noticed that right away too. Sad that so many brain dead lemmings inhabit this site anymore- I miss 1998, when people around here had balls.
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.
We help elect a Republican president and then hold him accountable.
Mm-hmmm, that's what we were promised about President Bush when people got skittish over Bush's "compassionate conservatism" rhetoric. It didn't quite work out as promised.
Face it, if another lib republican makes it into the white house there will be no holding his feet to the fire. There will be cheerleading and shouting down of people who DO try to keep him accountable. It's happened that way before, it'll happen that way again.
It just might save the Republic.
Or it just might kill it.
No, your not. I’d rather see the Dims win the WH and let America see how they can screw things up for 4 yrs than vote against my conscience and values for some half-assed RINO.
I may reconsider when the Noms are selected but, at this time, I refuse to budge.
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.