U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[TheVadar]

In caucus states alone, not overall. My theory being that caucuses require much more dedication to get delegates through, and he's getting more than his poll numbers would suggest, indicating high levels of enthusiasm.

[Wells]

The fact is that those Straw Polls are accurate in showing which candidate has the biggest amount of enthusiastic supporters willing to show up at these events.

So much so that the people running them are pissed about the way Paul has been stuffing them right?

---------- Post added 2012-02-19 at 11:21 PM ----------

He's not winning on that front. He's doing much better than what the media gives him credit for though.

He's getting pretty trounced

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

[Deleted]

So much so that the people running them are pissed about the way Paul has been stuffing them right?

Yeah, they're pissed that they don't have enough enthusiastic support. Those candidates, especially Romney, would kill to have the same enthusiasm amongst his support.

He's getting pretty trounced

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

That's what I meant with media misreporting. Those delegate counts are completely wrong. NYT has just guessed the delegate counts for all caucus states except for Nevada. They have not even been awarded yet.

It shows Paul having 0 delegates from Minnesota and Iowa, while Santorum or Romney grabs all, altough he will most likely get most delegates of all candidates in both states. Certainly not zero.

In short: All reported current delegate counts for all caucus states except Nevada are pure speculation, and vary wildly between media agencies.

[Wells]

Yeah, they're pissed that they don't have enough enthusiastic support. Those candidates, especially Romney, would kill to have the same enthusiasm amongst his support.

You didn't understand me.

Let's see what you think the delegate count should actually be Diurdi. With a link, something nice and respectable, not a Paul fan site.

Because all you're doing right now is saying the NY Times is wrong without really explaining why.

I mean he didn't even win the Minnesota or Iowa primary. Nor Nevada.

Where are your numbers coming from here.

---------- Post added 2012-02-19 at 11:32 PM ----------

In short: All reported current delegate counts for all caucus states except Nevada are pure speculation, and vary wildly between media agencies.

yes, delegate results in primaries are not actually binding. However, they rarely change and you're not making a very strong argument. Saying "results aren't binding" is not the same as showing Paul is doing anywhere even close to good.

[Deleted]

Let's see what you think the delegate count should actually be Diurdi. With a link, something nice and respectable, not a Paul fan site.
Because all you're doing right now is saying the NY Times is wrong without really explaining why.
I mean he didn't even win the Minnesota or Iowa primary. Nor Nevada.
Where are your numbers coming from here.

I guess I understand more about how the caucus process works than you

Delegates won't be awarded until june in most caucus states, the process of choosing them will be going on until then. CNN shows Iowa as 7 for Romey, 7 for Paul, 7 for Santorum for example. (http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia) NYT shows 13 for Romney and 12 for Santorum.

In short, they're just guessing. It's complete nonsense. Compare delegates for all candidates between the NYT stats and the CNN stats for example (http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html) Only NH, FL, SC and NV have decided the delegates.

[Wells]

Furthermore, while yes delegate counts vary, he's not doing well in any count.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpo...rprints_no.php

Granted this one is a little out of date, but you get it.

I mean the best is CNN's count at 20, and they're pretty high and outside everyone else.

Face is dude, your man is done.

---------- Post added 2012-02-19 at 11:38 PM ----------

Delegates won't be awarded until june in most caucus states, the process of choosing them will be going on until then. CNN shows Iowa as 7 for Romey, 7 for Paul, 7 for Santorum for example. (http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia) NYT shows 13 for Romney and 12 for Santorum.

If the best you can do is another link showing your man is in a solid last place my point stands.

[Deleted]

Furthermore, while yes delegate counts vary, he's not doing well in any count.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpo...rprints_no.php
Granted this one is a little out of date, but you get it.
I mean the best is CNN's count at 20, and they're pretty high and outside everyone else.
Face is dude, your man is done.
If the best you can do is another link showing your man is in a solid last place my point stands.

Look, I'm not saying he's going to win, but the delegate counts by all agencies are complete nonsense. They're just a result of people looking at the vote percentages and drawing their own conclusions. For example, it's totally possible that Santorum has got very little delegates despite his strong showings in the polls, due to bad organisation.

I know you're a sophist and want to argue every little case, but seriously go look up how the delegate process works. See how the votes in the caucus "straw polls" don't really mean all that much if your voters won't stay to choose the precinct delegates that then choose the actual delegates.

[Wells]

So in other words you don't have anything to argue that Ron Paul is not getting his teeth kicked in?

I know estimates vary. But when every estimate has you in last place then that doesn't matter.

[Deleted]

So in other words you don't have anything to argue that Ron Paul is not getting his teeth kicked in?

Well maybe you should read what I posted:

He's not winning on that front. He's doing much better than what the media gives him credit for though.

In other words, he's not going to get most delegates from the already held primaries and caucuses. But he's going to get much more than what they're "reporting", i.e. guessing, right now.

Also, you can't take an average of the estimates and conclude that it's in any way representative of whats going to happen. It simply isn't.

[Wells]

I keep asking you for some evidence and all you keep doing is claiming its so. I'm well aware of how delegates work.

I know what you said, it just doesn't reflect anything other than what the Paulites want to believe is true.

So please, do you have anything solid to actually refute the claim that Paul is getting trounced?

[Dacien]

Can we all just agree to get behind Mitt Romney, so we can focus our collective efforts on attacking Obama? Eh? Alright.

[Deleted]

I keep asking you for some evidence and all you keep doing is claiming its so. I'm well aware of how delegates work.
I know what you said, it just doesn't reflect anything other than what the Paulites want to believe is true.
So please, do you have anything solid to actually refute the claim that Paul is getting trounced?

There's no solid evidence that he is getting trounced in the caucus states (namely Iowa, Minnesota, Maine) either. He got trounced in Florida and South Carolina, and did fairly well in New Hampshire and got some delegates from Nevada. Those 4 are indisputable results. It's just guessess from all sides. There is alot of anecdotal evidence of Paul doing really well in getting precinct delegates in minnesota for example, far outperforming his caucus straw poll results (second with like 25% or so).

Can we all just agree to get behind Mitt Romney, so we can focus our collective efforts on attacking Obama? Eh? Alright.

Idk, I'd rather have 4 more years of Obama than Romney. They're both horrible, but atleast Obama second term would ensure that all hell breaks loose on his watch.

[Dacien]

Idk, I'd rather have 4 more years of Obama than Romney. They're both horrible though.

This is blashphemy.

[Wells]

There's no solid evidence that he is getting trounced in the caucus states (namely Iowa, Minnesota, Maine) either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results...tial_primaries

He's losing the popular vote solidly.

I mean his best state was Maine and he still lost.

(second with like 25% or so).

This of course ignoring the fact that Santorum took 45%

---------- Post added 2012-02-20 at 12:00 AM ----------

This is blashphemy.

I'd rather have a man who governs like a centrist than a man who governs in the way that he thinks gets him in office.

[Deleted]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results...tial_primaries

He's losing the popular vote solidly.

I mean his best state was Maine and he still lost.

Seriously instead of replying to me, go and look how the overall popular vote means shit for how delegates are earned.

For example, you only would need 6k votes in Maine to get 21 delegates and 100% of the vote. That's 285 votes per delegate.
South Carolina had 25 delegates but a total of 600,000 votes. That's 24,000 votes per delegate.

Not only that, but you don't need to even win all 6k votes to get all Maine delegates. You just need to have enough of your own guys to stick around to win most of the precinct delegates.

Coming second by like 150 votes in Maine is not losing. From a delegate perspective that little votes makes no difference.

[Wells]

Ok so he's losing in the popular vote. He's losing on delegates.

So again, all you're going to do is hand wave reality and claim he's really doing better than every shred of data available indicates? And you're holding up Maine, a state he didn't even get first place in, a state with only 24 delegates, as counter proof?

You see why people say paulites live in another world yet? His internet echo chamber does you people no favors.

And there are several states with bound delegates, its not all up in the air.

[Deleted]

Ok so he's losing in the popular vote. He's losing on delegates.
So again, all you're going to do is hand wave reality and claim he's really doing better than every shred of data available indicates? And you're holding up Maine, a state he didn't even get first place in, a state with only 24 delegates, as counter proof?
And there are several states with bound delegates, its not all up in the air.

Don't even bother replying if you're not going to read the content of my posts. Seriously I'm tired of having to explain everything twice.

Yes, in the states with bound delegates Romney is winning massively, Santorum and Paul are doing bad.
In the states with nonbinding Caucuses, Romney, Santorum and Paul are doing well.

And you don't know if Paul won Maine or not. They didn't even count all the counties that ultimately will choose delegates to the official results. The straw poll results are essentially a big mess as votes got tangled up in spam filters and what not. None of that bullshit matters for the selection of the precinct delegaets.

[Willeonge]

Again...



Might help to explain.

[Wells]

But that's the thing, Paul isn't doing well.

You can't simultaneously say he's doing well and then dismiss all the ways he's not doing well.

And you don't know if Paul won Maine or not.

Then you shouldn't hold it up as evidence he's doing ok.

Seriously man, get back to the real world. There is no data to suggest Paul is doing anything other than very poorly.

[Deleted]

But that's the thing, Paul isn't doing well.
You can't simultaneously say he's doing well and then dismiss all the ways he's not doing well.

Then you shouldn't hold it up as evidence he's doing ok.
Seriously man, get back to the real world. There is no data to suggest Paul is doing anything other than very poorly.

I just told you to not reply to me if you don't read what I say. I never said Paul is winning. I only said that he is doing better than what is reported on most MSM delegate counters, because the delegate counters for nonbinding caucus states are just guesses based on the straw polls.

If you look at the delegate predictions in the wikipedia link you gave me, he's essentially tied with Gingrich and Santorum, while Romey has a massive lead in total. It's completely possible that Paul could have more total delegates from these already held states in June than Gingrich and Santorum.

You need to educate yourself on the process before you start being mr. smartypants. And I'm perfect "in the real world".