Republican 2008 Primary Election: The DP Edition - Page 4

the makeout hobo · 01-04-08, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

Sorry I don't gamble my friend, as for Clinton we would of never heard of him if it had not been for a guy by the name of Perot taking votes away from Bush 1................

False. according to polling, Perot took a fairly equal number of votes away form both candidates.

ARealConservative · 01-04-08, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

Sorry I don't gamble my friend, as for Clinton we would of never heard of him if it had not been for a guy by the name of Perot taking votes away from Bush 1................

we are talking about the primaries, you are talking about the general election.

vauge · 01-04-08, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

Are you completely ignorant about political history, Vague? 1992 was very widely an abberation in primary politics. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa was running as a favorite son candidate in Iowa, so he won 92% of the vote. Iowa was effectively not a contest in 1992. To say that like it has any relevance just makes you look like you're drinking the kool-aid.

There has never been any candidate who has won fourth place, let alone fifth, in Iowa and come to win the nomination. I mean, he couldn't even beat John McCain or Fred Thompson. The only reason he even beat Guiliani is because Guiliani pretty much defaulted. If he can't bump off Thompson or McCain he ain't gonna win.

You mean since 1972 no one has won candidacy for prez less than 3rd. RP's candidacy is only recently started to show in the media and his name recognition is lackluster currently. I am happy with 5th at this stage.

Let's see what happens in NH.

RightinNYC · 01-04-08, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

False. according to polling, Perot took a fairly equal number of votes away form both candidates.

It's funny, I started to disagree with you because we did a big case study back in college where we looked at Perot voter's second choices and found that it would have shifted a popular vote majority to Bush, but now that I'm trying to find a link for that, it seems that everything I come across indicates that you're right.

hrmph.

Navy Pride · 01-04-08, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

False. according to polling, Perot took a fairly equal number of votes away form both candidates.

That is horse ****..........Perot was a fiscal Conservtive...........Clinton was a Fiscal Liberal.........If you don't believe me ask Zell Miller.........Perot cost Bush 1 the presidency..........

RightinNYC · 01-04-08, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

That is horse ****..........Perot was a fiscal Conservtive...........Clinton was a Fiscal Liberal.........If you don't believe me ask Zell Miller.........Perot cost Bush 1 the presidency..........

Associated Press, 11/4/1992:

Quote:

Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

Washington Post, 11/8/1992:

Quote:

Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

Washington Post, 11/12/1992:

Quote:

In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.

An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.

Curious George · 01-05-08, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vauge

NP, I will bet you $5 that you cannot say that after Super Tuesday.

RP expected to get 5th but would have liked 3rd or better.

BTW, Clinton only got 3% in Iowa in '92. Dr Paul got 10%.

Its only begun my friend.

I'll take that bet. I guarantee you he wins not one single state. In fact, I'll go you one better. He won't do better than 15% in any of the 50 states no matter how long he stays in, including if he decides to bolt the GOP and run as a spoiler in the general election.

It gives me no pleasure to say that, 'cause I like most of his issue positions, but the honest truth is that he's just going no where.

Navy Pride · 01-05-08, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious George

I'll take that bet. I guarantee you he wins not one single state. In fact, I'll go you one better. He won't do better than 15% in any of the 50 states no matter how long he stays in, including if he decides to bolt the GOP and run as a spoiler in the general election.

It gives me no pleasure to say that, 'cause I like most of his issue positions, but the honest truth is that he's just going no where.

And its probably for one reason, his radical view on his war on terorism...............

Curious George · 01-05-08, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

And its probably for one reason, his radical view on his war on terorism...............

Actually, I think his "radical view" is shared by a pretty high percentage of people. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who agree that part of the reason we're a terrorist target is because we occupy Islamic countries (which, to them, is a religious offense- it's also the reason specifically cited by Osama bin Laden for why he opposes us). Not everyone buys the Neo-Con rhetoric that Islamic terrorists hate us because they're deeply offended by bald eagles, apple pie and the stars and stripes.

Paul won't perform well because:

1. He's a Representative. Abraham Lincoln is the only Representative to ever be elected President. Probably won't ever happen again.

2. He's got zero "establishment" support. Unfortunately, in today's United States, you don't get elected without at least some serious endorsements. Unfortunately, Donna D'Errico doesn't really fall into that category.

3. He's not perceived by most people to be "presidential" (awful public speaker, not exactly warm and friendly, kind of socially awkward).

4. He's facing very stiff competition on both sides. This is arguably the strongest field of candidates we've seen in decades.

5. While some of his positions are wildly popular, too many more are so far outside the mainstream that they would never catch on with the bulk of the voting public. The fact that he defends them poorly (owing to his poor public speaking abilities) doesn't really help.

AcePylut · 01-09-08, 05:18 PM

Anyone but Paul. I want none of his "surrender Iraq" crap anywhere near the White House.

So I went with McCain, who imho is the best guy out of any, GOP or DNC, to lead our nation.