Ron Paul Drops to 4% Support in New Hampshire

Is this thread part of the "media buzz" surrounding Ron Paul that you keep talking about?
 
See but the thing that I find interesting about this, is, why is Paul doing so badly in primary polling? This isn't a rejection of Libertarian economic policy. The R base LOVES the idea of starving poor people. It's a real toss-up as to what gets them more excited, starving poor people or torture.

I have no doubt that in a general, his nutting ecomonics would be roundly rejected and he'd lose in a landslide as all moderate republican and independent voters went democrat.

But, the R base is not rejecting this. So what are they rejecting?

Ron Paul doesn't love this war. He's not throwing them red meat talking about how he's going to torture people quicker than anyone else on the stage, and smile wider while doing it. He's not telilng them, yeah we are probably going to have to burn to death a million or so women and children in Iran.

That is what they are rejecting. They want torture. They want the blood of innocent people. They want to see it. They want to hear about it. They want to cheer it.

That people, is what the Republican base craves.
 
See but the thing that I find interesting about this, is, why is Paul doing so badly in primary polling? This isn't a rejection of Libertarian economic policy. The R base LOVES the idea of starving poor people. It's a real toss-up as to what gets them more excited, starving poor people or torture.


This is a really good point. Under normal circumstance, I would think that more than 4% of the republican base would LOVE most of what Ron Paul advocates, in terms of "starving the poor" as you put it. A return to the capitalism of the pre-New Deal, in effect.


But its a good point that what gets these people really ginned up is torture, and war on some nebulous threat of worldwide "islamo fascism". The right has always needed a boogeyman, always needed fear. always needed some evil "other" to coalesce against.


Beefy: Don't you think Ron Paul is getting just a tad disproportionate media and internet coverage, considering he's at only 4% in the polls, and barely above candidates like Duncan Hunter and Chriss Dodd?
 
Cypress said:
See but the thing that I find interesting about this, is, why is Paul doing so badly in primary polling? This isn't a rejection of Libertarian economic policy. The R base LOVES the idea of starving poor people. It's a real toss-up as to what gets them more excited, starving poor people or torture.


This is a really good point. Under normal circumstance, I would think that more than 4% of the republican base would LOVE most of what Ron Paul advocates, in terms of "starving the poor" as you put it. A return to the capitalism of the pre-New Deal, in effect.


But its a good point that what gets these people really ginned up is torture, and war on some nebulous threat of worldwide "islamo fascism". The right has always needed a boogeyman, always needed fear. always needed some evil "other" to coalesce against.


Beefy: Don't you think Ron Paul is getting just a tad disproportionate media and internet coverage, considering he's at only 4% in the polls, and barely above candidates like Duncan Hunter and Chriss Dodd?
Click to expand...

True and neither Hunter or Dodd get anywhere near the coverage Paul does.
 
Darla said:
See but the thing that I find interesting about this, is, why is Paul doing so badly in primary polling? This isn't a rejection of Libertarian economic policy. The R base LOVES the idea of starving poor people. It's a real toss-up as to what gets them more excited, starving poor people or torture.

I have no doubt that in a general, his nutting ecomonics would be roundly rejected and he'd lose in a landslide as all moderate republican and independent voters went democrat.

But, the R base is not rejecting this. So what are they rejecting?

Ron Paul doesn't love this war. He's not throwing them red meat talking about how he's going to torture people quicker than anyone else on the stage, and smile wider while doing it. He's not telilng them, yeah we are probably going to have to burn to death a million or so women and children in Iran.

That is what they are rejecting. They want torture. They want the blood of innocent people. They want to see it. They want to hear about it. They want to cheer it.

That people, is what the Republican base craves.
Click to expand...


"The R base LOVES the idea of starving poor people. It's a real toss-up as to what gets them more excited, starving poor people or torture."


Need evidence?


Joe Klein of Time Magazine attends a republican focus group of undecided republican voters during the GOP debate"


I attended Frank Luntz's dial group of 30 undecided--or sort of undecided--Republicans in St. Petersburg, Florida, last night...and it was a fairly astonishing evening.

Now, for the uninitiated: dials are little hand-held machines that enable a focus group member to register instantaneous approval or disapproval as the watch a candidate on TV.....snip

In the next segment--the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee's college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants--I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, "After all, these are children of God," the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted (30s).

EDIT

But there was worse to come: When John McCain started talking (against) torture--specifically, about waterboarding--the dials plummeted again. Lower even than for the illegal Children of God. Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
"The R base LOVES the idea of starving poor people. It's a real toss-up as to what gets them more excited, starving poor people or torture."


Need evidence?


Joe Klein of Time Magazine attends a republican focus group of undecided republican voters during the GOP debate"
Click to expand...


:rolleyes: This group was made up of 24 Independent undecided voters selected by CNN...not exactly a scientific or for that matter a realistic poll...
However the writer forgot to mention that overall Huckabee received the highest ratings during the polling!
 
UPDATE:

Ron Paul support cratering in New Hampshire?


Actually, this is suprising to me since New Hampshire is about the friendliest state possible to a candidate with a libertarian message.

Ron Paul is down to 2% support in the latest NH poll (ARG - November 28). Down from 7 or 8% in a couple mid-November polls. Basically the same level of statistical support as Tom Tancredo (at 1%). Unfortunately, Ron Paul is also at anemic levels of support at 3% in Iowa and South Carolina, respectively.


http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

Fox (Nov. 28, also) had him at an anemic 4%. I honestly thought after the fundraising bomb on Guy Fawkes day, and the mini media buzz that followed ron paul after that, his numbers might climb a tad. Certainly, I didn't think they'd crater.

He's still got some time though. Its not like my man, Edwards, is making any moves in the polls, either. He's stuck between 15 and 20%. Bummer.




Caveat for Ron fans: Since hardly anyone on this board will admit to voting for or supporting Bush anymore, and since nobody on this board will admit to supporting Gulliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain or Tancredo, you'll have to excuse me for making a concerted effort at some Ron Paul posts. He seems to be the only candidate the rightwing on this board will admit to supporting. So, I think its only fair we talk about him, in the context of the "horse race". Don't take it so personally. :)
 
Last edited:
Nope.............

Cypress said:
UPDATE:

Ron Paul support cratering in New Hampshire?


Actually, this is suprising to me since New Hampshire is about the friendliest state possible to a candidate with a libertarian message.

Ron Paul is down to 2% support in the latest NH poll (ARG - November 28). Down from 7 or 8% in a couple mid-November polls. Basically the same level of statistical support at Tom Tancredo (at 1%). Unfortunately, Ron Paul is also at anemic levels of support at 3% in Iowa and South Carolina, respectively.


http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

Fox (Nov. 28, also) had him at an anemic 4%. I honestly thought after the fundraising bomb on Guy Fawkes day, and the mini media buzz that followed ron paul after that, his numbers might climb a tad. Certainly, I didn't think they'd crater.

He's still got some time though. Its not like my man, Edwards, is making any moves in the polls, either. He's stuck between 15 and 20%. Bummer.




Caveat for Ron fans: Since hardly anyone on this board will admit to voting for or supporting Bush anymore, and since nobody on this board will admit to supporting Gulliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain or Tancredo, you'll have to excuse me for making a concerted effort at some Ron Paul posts. He seems to be the only candidate the rightwing on this board will admit to supporting. So, I think its only fair we talk about him, in the context of the "horse race". Don't take it so personally. :)
Click to expand...


I voted for GW twice...and I support Tancredo along with Hunter and Huckabee...McCain is finally pulling himself outta his hole...so he is on the radar!
 
LMAO.............

Young Libertarian said:
Your post makes absolutely no sense, so I'm going to run drink two fifths of Jack Daniel's and read it again to see if I understand it when I'm on your level.
Click to expand...



OMG another Liberal with the lack of reading comprehension 101...at least come up with something new on the canned response...golly gee he must be drunk because I do not understand the comment...how juvenile!... Get over RP already...this guy wants the US to mimmick Switzerland...a neutral country...did I really have to spell it out for you?


Nice try robdog or should I say beefy..the Jack daniels is a giveaway.....keep them support numbers for old man RP up there...albeit they are duplicates...lol
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
See but the thing that I find interesting about this, is, why is Paul doing so badly in primary polling? This isn't a rejection of Libertarian economic policy. The R base LOVES the idea of starving poor people. It's a real toss-up as to what gets them more excited, starving poor people or torture.

I have no doubt that in a general, his nutting ecomonics would be roundly rejected and he'd lose in a landslide as all moderate republican and independent voters went democrat.

But, the R base is not rejecting this. So what are they rejecting?

Ron Paul doesn't love this war. He's not throwing them red meat talking about how he's going to torture people quicker than anyone else on the stage, and smile wider while doing it. He's not telilng them, yeah we are probably going to have to burn to death a million or so women and children in Iran.

That is what they are rejecting. They want torture. They want the blood of innocent people. They want to see it. They want to hear about it. They want to cheer it.

That people, is what the Republican base craves.
Click to expand...


That is severly twisted and skewed.

You should be charged with treason!
 
Hurray Cypress! I'm with you. Now a real candidate who loves torture and war have solidified their position by gaining an extra two points to their numbers!

This is definitely something that any pro-war American should celebrate!
 
Darla said:
See but the thing that I find interesting about this, is, why is Paul doing so badly in primary polling? This isn't a rejection of Libertarian economic policy. The R base LOVES the idea of starving poor people. It's a real toss-up as to what gets them more excited, starving poor people or torture.

I have no doubt that in a general, his nutting ecomonics would be roundly rejected and he'd lose in a landslide as all moderate republican and independent voters went democrat.

But, the R base is not rejecting this. So what are they rejecting?

Ron Paul doesn't love this war. He's not throwing them red meat talking about how he's going to torture people quicker than anyone else on the stage, and smile wider while doing it. He's not telilng them, yeah we are probably going to have to burn to death a million or so women and children in Iran.

That is what they are rejecting. They want torture. They want the blood of innocent people. They want to see it. They want to hear about it. They want to cheer it.

That people, is what the Republican base craves.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're pretty good with the strawmen.

You must be really fun to hang out with also. LOL
What a twat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top