Paul Wins NV Straw Poll in Absentia, Beats Romney Who Spoke in Person

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now he has 58% of the population who are anywhere from "willing to consider" to "adamantly for" RP for pres

[/ QUOTE ]

source? because i'm willing to bet 58% of the population doesn't know who the [censored] ron paul is

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the context I was just saying how easy it is for a candidate with position X which is explicitly favored by only 20% of the population to present himself in such a way that way more than that 20% would be willing to consider his position. The numbers were hypothetical.

[ QUOTE ]

learn to read polls tolbiny, b/c

Quote:

From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years



!=

Quote:
explicitly pushing for a max 2 year time line

[/ QUOTE ]

So rewrite it to say- "favor a withdrawal within 2 years". Who gives a [censored] about the semantics here, the point is that no candidate represents ~50% of the voting populace with all their views. That's why they massage their message, downplay the less popular positions and try to bring to the forefront the widely acceptable ones. RP candidacy has, and will probably continue to, focus on the war in Iraq. When asked about abortion in national debates/interviews he softens his stance and talks about states rights, and stopping direct federal involvement in the issue (when he stumps in Iowa he talks about life beginning at conception).

[/ QUOTE ]

no it does matter, because according to the question, if things changed for the better (or worse actually) peoples answer to the question would change. DUCY?

[ikestoys]

also abortion is a pretty major issue, and you can't really back off the positions RP has made

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The whole article is about the number one loser, not the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

First paragraph of the article:

[ QUOTE ]
"Ron Paul won the GOP presidential straw poll conducted by organizers at the Conservative Leadership Conference held at the Nugget Casino this weekend “by a large margin,” according to an organizer."

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

And then except for listing the order of finish, they never mention him again, while talking about Romney the rest of the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahaha. Dude, the very next sentence begins with the phrase "Paul won" and says what percetnage of the vote he got. That's more than the "order of finish" AND ITS RIGHT UP FRONT IN THE ARTICLE!

More to the point, the article is about what happened AT THE EVENT. Paul wasn't there. Romney was. Thus, the article reconuts what he said to that audience.

I say again.....

LOL.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The whole article is about the number one loser, not the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

First paragraph of the article:

[ QUOTE ]
"Ron Paul won the GOP presidential straw poll conducted by organizers at the Conservative Leadership Conference held at the Nugget Casino this weekend “by a large margin,” according to an organizer."

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

And then except for listing the order of finish, they never mention him again, while talking about Romney the rest of the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahaha. Dude, the very next sentence begins with the phrase "Paul won" and says what percetnage of the vote he got. That's more than the "order of finish" AND ITS RIGHT UP FRONT IN THE ARTICLE!

More to the point, the article is about what happened AT THE EVENT. Paul wasn't there. Romney was. Thus, the article reconuts what he said to that audience.

I say again.....

LOL.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

From NBC/NJ's Erin McPike
SPARKS, Nev. – Ron Paul won the GOP presidential straw poll conducted by organizers at the Conservative Leadership Conference held at the Nugget Casino this weekend “by a large margin,” according to an organizer.

Paul won with 33 percent, Romney came in second with 16 percent and Duncan Hunter was just behind with 15 percent. "Undecided" was fourth with 11 percent, and Thompson and Giuliani were next and ahead of the rest of the pack -- all in single digits. Raw numbers haven't been provided, but there were approximately 430 registrants at the opening of the conference.
-------------------------------------

That's what's said. People can decide themselves.

[renodoc]

Ron Paul is how we roll in Nevada.

yo.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now he has 58% of the population who are anywhere from "willing to consider" to "adamantly for" RP for pres

[/ QUOTE ]

source? because i'm willing to bet 58% of the population doesn't know who the [censored] ron paul is

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the context I was just saying how easy it is for a candidate with position X which is explicitly favored by only 20% of the population to present himself in such a way that way more than that 20% would be willing to consider his position. The numbers were hypothetical.

[ QUOTE ]

learn to read polls tolbiny, b/c

Quote:

From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years



!=

Quote:
explicitly pushing for a max 2 year time line

[/ QUOTE ]

So rewrite it to say- "favor a withdrawal within 2 years". Who gives a [censored] about the semantics here, the point is that no candidate represents ~50% of the voting populace with all their views. That's why they massage their message, downplay the less popular positions and try to bring to the forefront the widely acceptable ones. RP candidacy has, and will probably continue to, focus on the war in Iraq. When asked about abortion in national debates/interviews he softens his stance and talks about states rights, and stopping direct federal involvement in the issue (when he stumps in Iowa he talks about life beginning at conception).

[/ QUOTE ]

no it does matter, because according to the question, if things changed for the better (or worse actually) peoples answer to the question would change. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

It matters only in degree, and not inkind. All positions are relative in elections, both within themselves (I prefer a candidate who would ban all abortion over one who would leave it up to the states over one who wants some forms of limited abortion over one who wants very few limits on abortion to one who leaves the decision entirely to the mother) and compared to others (The biggest issue to me is the Iraq war followed by abortion then the economy the prayer in schools), with loads of possible combinations.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
also abortion is a pretty major issue, and you can't really back off the positions RP has made

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul has already softened his position on abortion. In the videos thread there is a recently posted one of a speech in Iowa where he hammers the "life begins at conception" and a nationally televised one where he talks about how abortion should be states rights, how he doesn't want federal law to determine what individuals do.

[gobbomom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also abortion is a pretty major issue, and you can't really back off the positions RP has made

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul has already softened his position on abortion. In the videos thread there is a recently posted one of a speech in Iowa where he hammers the "life begins at conception" and a nationally televised one where he talks about how abortion should be states rights, how he doesn't want federal law to determine what individuals do.

[/ QUOTE ]

those positions are NOT in opposition, in fact they are 2 distinct topics. I would think (and someone please correct me if this is wrong) that Dr. Paul's driving principle is to lessen the role of federal government. This would supercede his personal opinions on abortion.

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also abortion is a pretty major issue, and you can't really back off the positions RP has made

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul has already softened his position on abortion. In the videos thread there is a recently posted one of a speech in Iowa where he hammers the "life begins at conception" and a nationally televised one where he talks about how abortion should be states rights, how he doesn't want federal law to determine what individuals do.

[/ QUOTE ]

he doesn't want federal law to determine what individuals do, but he'll still define the beginning of life at conception. That will ban all abortions because it would be murder. Its not that hard, just come to terms with the fact that RP wants to abortion

[JayTee]

I'm going to vote for Paul. His stance on abortion contradicts his other views, imo. Banning, or allowing the states to decide, seems to be a pretty clear case of violating property rights.