U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Wells]

I mean do you guys seriously think people like Romney, who can vastly outspend Paul aren't going to be doing the same thing during Caucuses?

I mean can anyone actually honestly think that's going to make up losing colorado by like 30% and Minnesota by 20%?

The dude is getting trounced and all the wishful thinking doesn't actually change a damn thing.

Get out of the echo chamber.


---------- Post added 2012-02-20 at 12:46 AM ----------

I never said Paul is winning.

I said he was getting his ass handed to him. You felt that worth replying to and have yet to show that its not true. If you don't want me to debate with you don't bother to try to correct me.

[Deleted]

I mean do you guys seriously think people like Romney, who can vastly outspend Paul aren't going to be doing the same thing during Caucuses?I mean can anyone actually honestly think that's going to make up losing colorado by like 30% and Minnesota by 20%?
The dude is getting trounced and all the wishful thinking doesn't actually change a damn thing.
Get out of the echo chamber.

At the very wikipedia page you linked, they guesstimate that Minnesota delegates will be divided following:

Santorum 47% of the vote, 12 delegates; Paul 27% of the vote, 12 delegates. That's just how the system is. So please educate yourself before having strong opinions on subjects you don't really grasp.

I said he was getting his ass handed to him. You felt that worth replying to and have yet to show that its not true. If you don't want me to debate with you don't bother to try to correct me.

And damn right I replied. I had just previously posted how the MSM underreports Paul based on pure guesses and no facts, and then you post that NYT link that was essentially nothing more than misinformation.

Paul, Gingrich and Santorum (altough Santorum is on an upward trajectory and Gingrich is crashing), are currently getting their assess handed by Romney.

[Wells]

Santorum 47% of the vote, 12 delegates; Paul 27% of the vote, 12 delegates. That's just how the system is. So please educate yourself before having strong opinions on subjects you don't really grasp.

Oh sorry 30% not 20%, he did even worse than I remembered.

And I thought these numbers didn't matter.....

And damn right I replied. I had just previously posted how the MSM underreports Paul based on pure guesses and no facts, and then you post that NYT link that was essentially nothing more than misinformation.

I gave you a long list of estimates all of which had Paul is a far last place.

Paul, Gingrich and Santorum (altough Santorum is on an upward trajectory and Gingrich is crashing), are currently getting their assess handed by Romney.

So when I say Paul is getting his ass handed to him your defense is to point out 2 other guys are also losing but not as badly?

---------- Post added 2012-02-20 at 01:03 AM ----------

At no point have I gotten how the primary season works wrong, you just can't deal with the fact your expectations of what's going to happen and your perception of what is happening is wildly unrealistic and kinda sad.

[Deleted]

Oh sorry 30% not 20%, he did even worse than I remembered.
And I thought these numbers didn't matter.....

/facepalm. You're looking at the wrong numbers. The interesting thing I was trying to highlight is that even with a 20 percentagepoint difference in votes, Santorum and Paul are still estimated by some sources to recieve identical amounts of delegates.

So when I say Paul is getting his ass handed to him your defense is to point out 2 other guys are also losing but not as badly?

This is why you're just unbrearable. You don't care about what I actually said. You just make up my arguments for me and attack them. This is also called attacking a Strawman.

I never said Paul was winning. I explicitly said he was not. I also said that he was not doing as bad as most media is reporting, due to how the caucus system works. Go look up that post.

But you don't understand how the Republican caucuses work, and you don't understand what's happening in them this year. While that's understandable as you're a democrat, you still should not have strong opinions on subjects you do not comprehend.

[Tastyfish]

Santorum isn't going to win in the more liberal leaning states in the caucuses. Romney will win, it'll just take time to arrive at the obvious. Unfortunately, I don't think any of their candidates can beat Obama unless it's a electoral college upset sort of like Bush vs Gore.

I don't think they will go there again tho. The country can't handle that atm, imho.

It feels like the GOP is not really trying in all honesty.

[Wells]

/facepalm. You're looking at the wrong numbers. The interesting thing I was trying to highlight is that even with a 20 percentagepoint difference in votes, Santorum and Paul are still estimated by some sources to recieve identical amounts of delegates.

And I'm telling you that's wildly optimistic to the point of religious fervor.

This is why you're just unbrearable. You don't care about what I actually said. You just make up my arguments for me and attack them. This is also called Strawmanning.

I made a statement, and you felt it necessary to respond to. So tell me, since you seemed to take issue with it, how is Paul not getting it handed to him right now? Because that's what you responded to with your "well the primary data is wrong" stuff.

While that's understandable as you're a democrat

Not a democrat.

[Deleted]

And I'm telling you that's wildly optimistic to the point of religious fervor.

So the wikipedia guesses are wrong but the NYT ones are correct? "B-b-but it's the NYT, it's like the bible!". The fact is that both of them are based on pure speculation.

I made a statement, and you felt it necessary to respond to. So tell me, since you seemed to take issue with it, how is Paul not getting it handed to him right now? Because that's what you responded to with your "well the primary data is wrong" stuff.

No, go back to that post. I just said the NYT and other MSM guesses had no factual basis to them. Alot of people think the estimates are solid, but they're nonsense as the delegates haven't even been chosen yet.

I also said there is anecdotal evidence (i.e. not solid) that Paul will overpowerform in some of these caucuses, reported by actual people who were there when the precinct delegates were elected (who inturn will elect the actual delegates later).

Im going to bed now, but I'm sure that won't stop you from arguing against me, as what I write is surely not very important to how you form your arguments.


P.S. I like how you throw "religious" around like it's an insult.

[Wells]

So the wikipedia guesses are wrong but the NYT ones are correct? "B-b-but it's the NYT, it's like the bible!". The fact is that both of them are based on pure speculation.

So if all data is speculation how can you make any of these claims about Paul's performance.

No, go back to that post. I just said the NYT and other MSM guesses had no factual basis to them. Alot of people think the estimates are solid, but they're nonsense as the delegates haven't even been chosen yet.

There are many delegates who are set. Romney already picked up 50 in florida.

[Deleted]

So if all data is speculation how can you make any of these claims about Paul's performance.

No, I specifically claim that the data is pure speculation, thus you cannot claim that Paul is doing poorly in the caucus states. We simply don't know yet. Anecdotal evidence show he's doing well.

I just said that. But you refuse to read. It's almost comical, but mostly sad.

There are many delegates who are set. Romney already picked up 50 in florida.

Yes, that's what I have been saying all the time. I'm speaking of the unreliability of the speculation from the caucus states. I think I have said this maybe 10 times in the last 10 posts, but you're on a tangent arguing your own battle.

I bet you still think I'm claiming that Paul is winning.

[Wells]

No, I specifically claim that the data is pure speculation, thus you cannot claim that Paul is doing poorly in the caucus states. We simply don't know yet. Anecdotal evidence show he's doing well.

No, no evidence shows he's doing well. We have mountains of evidence showing he's doing poorly and you're hand waving it away.

Yes, that's what I have been saying all the time. I'm speaking of the unreliability of the speculation from the caucus states. I think I have said this maybe 10 times in the last 10 posts, but you're on a tangent arguing your own battle.

You're severely overestimating the chances of an upset in caucus states. Primaries are pretty historically accurate.

[Deleted]

No, no evidence shows he's doing well. We have mountains of evidence showing he's doing poorly and you're hand waving it away.

There is no solid evidence showing him doing poorly or well in caucus states. We simply do not know until delegates are selected.

You're severely overestimating the chances of an upset in caucus states. Primaries are pretty historically accurate.

Primaries are not the same as Caucuses. Paul invest a disproportionate amount of funds in caucus states compared to primary states (NH being an exceptions). And no, I'm not saying he will sweep the nomination by getting all delegates in the caucuses, because I'm sure that was what you would somehow assume that I was arguing.

[Wells]

There is no solid evidence showing him doing poorly or well in caucus states. We simply do not know until delegates are selected.

Again, maybe in theory or in an echo chamber. In reality how the voting goes down is almost always how the delegates are handed out. Its simply rare for serious changes to occur.

Primaries are not the same as Caucuses.

I misspoke.

[Deleted]

Again, maybe in theory or in an echo chamber. In reality how the voting goes down is almost always how the delegates are handed out. Its simply rare for serious changes to occur.

Not true, except in states where the rules state that the delegates must be proportionally awarded based on straw poll results.

[Catta]

This is blashphemy.

This isnt madness...!

[Grizzly Willy]

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

Maybe I'm just not following the Republican race enough, but I don't see how any of the republican nominees can beat Obama. Not to say I endorse either side (I have yet to find a candidate I would feel good voting about).

Although, if backing Mitt Romney got Santorum out of the picture I would be happy. I thought Gingrich was the crazy guy, but Santorum is creeping up there. I would feel bad for republicans if it was Obama vs. Santorum.

[Dacien]

Maybe I'm just not following the Republican race enough, but I don't see how any of the republican nominees can beat Obama. Not to say I endorse either side (I have yet to find a candidate I would feel good voting about).

The candidate with the best chance is Mitt Romney. Die-hard social conservatives will vote for Romney over Obama anyway, so he doesn't need to be super-socially conservative. And Mitt will attract some Independents and possibly some dissatisfied Democrats. Newt will do abysmally with women as some polling has already shown, in addition to getting trounced by Obama over all his failures in the last 20 years. Santorum will scare away needed moderates and Independents, and certainly any Democrats. Paul unfortunately has little support from both parties.

[Deleted]

Paul unfortunately has little support from both parties.

Actually he does pretty good in general election polls. His problem is that he doesn't have enough neocon/social conservative republican support.

[Dacien]

Actually he does pretty good in general election polls. His problem is that he doesn't have enough neocon/social conservative republican support.

Yeah, he has a groundswell of support, just not enough.

[Wells]

The candidate with the best chance is Mitt Romney. Die-hard social conservatives will vote for Romney over Obama anyway, so he doesn't need to be super-socially conservative. And Mitt will attract some Independents and possibly some dissatisfied Democrats. Newt will do abysmally with women as some polling has already shown, in addition to getting trounced by Obama over all his failures in the last 20 years. Santorum will scare away needed moderates and Independents, and certainly any Democrats. Paul unfortunately has little support from both parties.

You also have to deal with the fact that you'll see a lot of conservatives just stay home like they did with McCain.

This right here is why Obama can be reelected

[Dacien]

You also have to deal with the fact that you'll see a lot of conservatives just stay home like they did with McCain.

This right here is why Obama can be reelected

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/ima...EeGnfeh0DALGaA

New data suggests an upward trend for Republicans: