Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
I authored the thread. The point of the thread is that there is a consensus, a majority view, that Ron Paul is a "fringe" candidate. My reaction to that is the crux of the thread...OH YEAH??? SEZ WHO?
All republican party candidates and some democrats are "on the fringe", IMO. Paul is actually the most reasonable of the bunch, IMO. My previous post is a "look at the rest of them", message.
The republican party and the vast majority of it's members are "on the fringe", and exhibit unparalleled and unsurpassed hypocrisy and insincerity. The candidates and elected from the party, say and do things that support my accusations.
Is that clearer now?
|
Great post host! Much better and way clearer. Which candidate, if any, are not on the fringe or at least closer to the mainstream in your opinion? And why do you think that is? Do you see it as a problem of all the candidates being way out of touch with the voters or do you think a plurality is the best we can hope for.
It seems to me, no one candidate fits the mold of what I would like. Maybe if I could make a composite of all the candidates I liked.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The 5-7% poll numbers for Paul dont surprise me at all.
Perhaps its Paul and his supporters who are out of touch with the majority of American voters.
|
Maybe, maybe not. host could be onto something that all the candidates are on the fringe. Huckabee was sitting at 3% I think for quite some time before spiking recently. It's quite possible that Ron Paul could as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I think thats the other obsession with Paul supporters.....the single-minded focus on the amount of money raised, rather than focusing on how to translate that money into votes.
|
I don't think you can paint all Ron Paul supporters with the same brush as obsessed money-raisers.
Howard Dean and his Deaniacs had this problem too.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Follow the red line for the last few weeks. Can you explain why his numbers have flattened out, after a small rise, since the first money bomb? 
So he got 25,000 donors today and 25,000+ in the first money bomb. Do you really believe 50,000+ votes nationally is significant....assuming all donors can vote in Republican primaries.
Why would "mainstream" (Bush types) pro-war, pro-wiretapping/eavesdropping Republicans vote for him? Why would Independents whose beliefs are opposite his on many other issues vote for him?
His problem is that he has not demonstrated any capacity to attract either group (Bush republicans or more centrist independents) in significant numbers. The added publicity is likely to make that even more evident. |
Awesome chart DC, please keep them coming. Do you have a larger one or maybe a link? My eyes aren't that great; the detail is a bit fuzzy.