Zyphlin

I remember hearing about the polls, and its definitely idiotic to pull them. Its obvious that Ron Paul has the most online savy supporters of any of the candidates...if you don't want your poll thrown off and bumrushed by them, don't put one up.

stevenb

Yeah really.

He does have quite a following on the internets.

__________________
George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

jallman

I don't understand why there isn't more turnout by the younger generations. Most of the hot button issues, especially in the last election, targeted issues that appeared to rile up not just the religious right on one side, but the younger voters on the other.

__________________
Prayer and blasphemy...the two are so narrowly separated in these trying times.

stevenb

Due to my age, and connection with a lot of people in our local car scenes.


It's apathy, alot of younger voters think that their votes mean ****.

Apathy is very much a form of control. Look at our laws and our politicians these days.

__________________
George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

Zyphlin

I think this is actually the root cause for his base of followers to always feel so dejected, and so surprised when he doesn't reach expectations.

MANY of his followers appear to be of the internet generation, younger people that are very fluent on the computer. As such, they have utilized things like YouTube, blogs, forums, and online polls very very effectively. To those that spend the majority of their time online the Ron Paul Revolution looks like its the biggest thing since sliced bread, espicially compared to some of the other campaigns.

The question though is how much that translates to the real world, and compared to other campaigns supporters. I don't think it translates as well as some of them believe,e so when they see this HUGE outpouring on the internet but not the same thing translating to the polls they get very confused.

Zyphlin

ahahahahahaha

He was doing good early on. I think after the last little rant he just went on he'd probably wish he was banned from it again.

ARealConservative

agreed.

He looked older then 71 for way too long.

Zyphlin

Paul looked like a ranting nutcase when asked about the Iran thing.

However he did very good with his response to the 9/11 truther's question, as well as the electability question.

He isn't that bad when he's talking impassioned and confident. But when he gets this lecturing/whining tone to him it just kills his attempt to get a message across. Still, the electability question rebounded him a bit after bombing the iran thing

Zyphlin

Since the Paul voters here seem to be more level headed then the ones on the Paul boards I've been reading, I have a question...

Do you feel he got a fair shake tonight? Fair amount of air time? Were the questions poor?

The only question I thought was a bit iffy was the one about the 9/11 truthers, and I actually am glad they asked that because that IS an issue that Paul is tied with in the mind of non-Paul supporters and while his response may've not mattered at all to all the Paulites, it is an important one in the mind of undecideds on him that you have to sway to get the vote.

Outside of that it seemed like he was given a lot of time to rebut things, and was given the same kind of questions as the others. But I'd love to hear what you all think.

ARealConservative

He got a ton of time - but much of it was because the other candidates challenged him.

The electibility question gets old, and the F.U. Frank focus groups always suck.

But they gave him a spot, and that's all I ask.