• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

A couple of stories concerning the (scientific) nationial polls

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,358
0
71
Poll-obsessed media focus on strategy over substance

With just a few weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, polls are providing pundits and political junkies with fresh data to spin out a new round of the usual "who's up, who's down" campaign coverage. But while the press seems settled on a new narrative for the campaign, journalists should recall what the polls told them last time around about who would likely win the Iowa caucuses.

The tone of coverage of the Democratic race seemed to shift when a Nov. 19 ABC/Washington Post poll of likely caucus-goers showed a tight race among three candidates: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

The difference from the previous survey was within the poll's margin of error, so the actual data said very little. Much of the media seemed to think otherwise. "The ground may be shifting," announced NBC anchor Brian Williams. The Los Angeles Times called it "a shift in momentum in this crucial state" ? in an article that boiled the race down to just two candidates, Clinton and Obama.

The Washington Post's write-up was downright confusing ? the Post mentioned the results were "only marginally different" from their poll several months prior, yet nonetheless pointed to "significant signs of progress for Obama ? and harbingers of concern for Clinton."

On ABC, reporter Kate Snow mentioned something most of her colleagues seemed unconcerned with: the fact that these polls actually tell you very little about the outcome of the race. Snow recalled that "four years ago, John Kerry ? who eventually was the Democratic nominee ? he was polling in Iowa at 4 percent."

Indeed, campaign reporters should all remember the lesson of the 2004 Iowa caucus. A little more than a month before Iowa Democrats actually caucused in January, the poll-obsessed media had narrowed down the field to two "front-runners": Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

"Two See Iowa as Crucial Battleground," announced The Washington Post on Nov. 29, 2003, billing the race as a "fight rich in substance and symbolism." A Nov. 9 Post report said that Dean was "for the first time, threatening to pull away from the pack," and even discussed his "opening for a quick-kill strategy" by winning Iowa and New Hampshire.

The polling was presumably a key factor leading reporters to reach such conclusions. A December 2003 Pew poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers showed Dean leading the pack with 29 percent, followed by Gephardt at 21 percent.

Kerry was in third with 18 percent, followed by John Edwards at 5 percent. A Zogby poll from around the same time had a closer race between Dean and Gephardt (26 to 22 percent), with Kerry and Edwards picking up 9 and 5 percent, respectively.

And what happened when Iowa Democrats actually caucused? Kerry won with 37 percent, followed by Edwards at 32 percent. "Front-runners" Dean and Gephardt finished with 18 and 11 percent, respectively.

The point is not just to note that polls at this stage are hardly predictive ? though the media acknowledging as much would be a start. Nor is it to wish that the national press would simply work at finding a better method of declaring which candidates are "front-runners," and whose campaigns aren't worth your attention.

The more fundamental problem for the press ? and for American democracy ? is that the media's overreliance on polls encourages a kind of political conversation that prioritizes strategic consideration and tactics over substance.

A recent study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism confirmed that much of what passes for campaign journalism focuses primarily on the tactical dimensions of the race (like poll results and fundraising) and not on the actual policy differences between the candidates.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, former ABC News political director and current Time magazine editor-at-large Mark Halperin admitted that most political coverage is built around the notion that you can judge candidates' potential to be a good president based on how well they run their campaigns.

Halperin admits he was "wrong," and suggests a change of course: Journalists "should examine a candidate's public record and full life as opposed to his or her campaign performance." What a concept. But then Halperin added a strange qualifier: "But what might appear simple to a voter can, I know, seem hard for a journalist."

Halperin seems to be saying that if you think it's hard to cover the substance of electoral politics, it's a good bet you're a campaign reporter.

That's bad news, to say the least ? and makes it hard to imagine journalists are going to change any time soon.
Source: Seattle Times

So Kerry was polling at 4% nationally and between 9-18% in Iowa right before the caucus. John Edwards was polling at 5% in Iowa immediately prior to the caucus.

The supposed frontrunners were Howard Dean polling at 26-29% and Gephardt polling at 21-22 % in Iowa.

How did the Iowa caucus turn out?

Kerry 37%
Edwards 32%
Dean 18%
Gephardt 11%


Next story:
Zogby: Ron Paul Will Surprise You

Friday, December 21, 2007 2:16 PM

By: John Zogby Article Font Size

If we have learned one thing this year in American politics, it's that there is no such thing as an inevitable President. In my last column, I outlined my thoughts about the Democratic presidential candidates - now, the Republicans.

Rudy Giuliani: I believe Rudy had a flawed strategy right from the outset. The whole idea was that his name recognition and national numbers would turn him into the inevitable candidate and that he needn't spend time in or worry about Iowa or New Hampshire because his national numbers would just automatically lift him up. If for some reason they didn't, he would be a sure shot to win in Florida, and then proceed into the big states on February 5, where he would be automatically have the money on hand to be able to compete in the television markets of New York and California and umpteen other states.

I always thought that was a mistake, because Iowa is extremely important, and a loss there, particularly an embarrassing loss, would produce several days of negative stories. The primary system is all about momentum and I think everyone is beginning to see that. He can still win the nomination, but even he has begun to see that he might end up in fourth- or even fifth-place in Iowa, third- or fourth-place in New Hampshire. Now, he's even down in Florida, because someone else - Mike Huckabee - has gained momentum in Iowa and built on it nationally.

Mitt Romney: Romney, interestingly, had the exact opposite strategy of Rudy: to spend a lot of money in the early states and build a compelling lead, so he'd roll in Iowa and New Hampshire, and then carry that momentum with him. And for a while it looked like that was working. He can still win the nomination. I suspect he will end up doing well in Iowa and he continues to lead in New Hampshire and is among the leaders in South Carolina and Florida. What he did not count on was Mike Huckabee.

Mike Huckabee: In addition to Huckabee's numbers going up dramatically in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, we've also seen a dramatic decrease in the numbers of undecideds among Republicans. Translated: Many conservatives have told us they were unhappy with the field of candidates and were looking for a conservative leader and winner. Frankly, they hadn't considered Huckabee because he just didn't look like he had a chance. You combine his strong numbers with conservatives and respectable showing among independents and moderates, because he appears to be so affable and rational, and the Republicans right now are experiencing a Mike Huckabee "boomlet." The key question, is, however, are these just Huckabee's few days in the sun, at a time of the year when daylight is at its shortest?

John McCain: Talk about a little boomlet. John McCain seems to be getting his now, too. His candidacy bottomed out several months ago for a number of reasons, including internal campaign disputes and overspending, as well as a redefinition of McCain that undefined the John McCain of 2000: the war hero, the maverick, the straight-talker. But for those Republicans who want to believe that the surge in Iraq is working, that issue is less on the table, no longer hurting McCain, and he's very much back to being the maverick warrior. McCain's numbers in Iowa are disastrous, because he never campaigned there and he opposes ethanol subsidies. But he may just do better than expected, moving into third or fourth place, then on to New Hampshire where he runs a respectable second for now. His biggest problem is he has no money.

Fred Thompson: I've never seen the point of his candidacy. I still don't get it. There are some who suggest that he's caught some fire and he could come in second or third place in Iowa, as Huckabee or Romney fades. But right now, his candidacy has all the qualities of Baltic Avenue in a Republican sea of St. Charles Places. (Note: If Thompson wins the nomination, my comments here are for entertainment purposes only.)

Ron Paul: He's going to do better than anyone expects. Look to Paul to climb into the double-digits in Iowa. Why? He's different, he stands out. He's against the war and he has the one in four Republicans who oppose the war all to himself. Libertarianism is hot, especially among free-market Republicans and 20-somethings. And he's an appealing sort of father figure. He's his own brand. All he needs to do is beat a couple of big names in Iowa, then New Hampshire is friendlier territory. After all, the state motto is "Live Free or Die."

Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Alan Keyes are also running and they have no chance.

There is a real possibility that there will be no clarity on the Republican side after February 5. The best-laid plans of front-loaders may have backfired. Figure out that mixed metaphor.
Source: NewsMax

Please consolidate multiple similar thread topics into one to alleviate traffic in the forum, thanks!
PC Gaming and Security Moderator Oakenfold
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,019
1
0
We're so close to the Iowa caucus now, I'd rather not play the pre-cognition game. It's time to sit down and be patient and see what happens with Paul. I personally don't believe he will poll above 10%, but I'm well aware of the pitfalls of trying to guess based on polls. Let's just wait and see.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Wow, talk about distortion of reality. Does the OP realize how the dem caucus operates? it isn't a pull a lever or secret vote. So it rarely(read never) turns out like the polls do. Republicans however have a ballot system so it does follow polling somewhat well but as always - polls are just polls and have no meaning - the ballots do. :)
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Sorry but there is not enough air in the room for Paul to survive.

Mitt, Huckabee and Rudy will suck it all up themselves and leave everyone else on the outside looking in.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
heyyyyy, wait a second! Did you just sneak in yet another "RP uber alles!" thread, in the guise of something to do with polls? How oh so crafty of you!!!

These RP freaks are too damn funny...

/thread

 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,358
0
71
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wow, talk about distortion of reality. Does the OP realize how the dem caucus operates? it isn't a pull a lever or secret vote. So it rarely(read never) turns out like the polls do. Republicans however have a ballot system so it does follow polling somewhat well but as always - polls are just polls and have no meaning - the ballots do. :)
Obviously the polls differ from the primaries. That is my point. As far as the republican polling goes, remember that they are polling likely republican voters from a record low turnout in 2004. I can guarantee you there will be a hell of a lot more republican voters this year that have never voted republican. Many traditional democrats & independents will be voting republican this year as well. Almost sounds like you want to argue yet you lack any intelligent points.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,435
79
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
heyyyyy, wait a second! Did you just sneak in yet another "RP uber alles!" thread, in the guise of something to do with polls? How oh so crafty of you!!!

These RP freaks are too damn funny...

/thread
Yeah you have to look at who the OP is to decipher if it's a RP thread or not now. They aren't putting it in the title anymore.

Nice new avatar BTW.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,012
798
126
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: palehorse74
heyyyyy, wait a second! Did you just sneak in yet another "RP uber alles!" thread, in the guise of something to do with polls? How oh so crafty of you!!!

These RP freaks are too damn funny...

/thread
Yeah you have to look at who the OP is to decipher if it's a RP thread or not now. They aren't putting it in the title anymore.

Nice new avatar BTW.
QFT
The fringe is at it yet again.

 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,358
0
71
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: palehorse74
heyyyyy, wait a second! Did you just sneak in yet another "RP uber alles!" thread, in the guise of something to do with polls? How oh so crafty of you!!!

These RP freaks are too damn funny...

/thread
Yeah you have to look at who the OP is to decipher if it's a RP thread or not now. They aren't putting it in the title anymore.

Nice new avatar BTW.
QFT
The fringe is at it yet again.
Quit spamming the thread. Do you ever actually read or do you simply bounce from thread to thread spamming? Try stopping and actually reading every once in a while it'll do wonders for your intelligence.
There are two interesting stories at the top of this thread. Start there and post some comments and maybe you can actually join in on the discussion.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wow, talk about distortion of reality. Does the OP realize how the dem caucus operates? it isn't a pull a lever or secret vote. So it rarely(read never) turns out like the polls do. Republicans however have a ballot system so it does follow polling somewhat well but as always - polls are just polls and have no meaning - the ballots do. :)
Obviously the polls differ from the primaries. That is my point. As far as the republican polling goes, remember that they are polling likely republican voters from a record low turnout in 2004. I can guarantee you there will be a hell of a lot more republican voters this year that have never voted republican. Many traditional democrats & independents will be voting republican this year as well. Almost sounds like you want to argue yet you lack any intelligent points.
Uhh no. What I was talking about was the comments you made on the dem side. The caucus will NOT turn out close to the polls because the way the dems have their caucus here in iowa. On the Republican side - polls are a bit more accurate because we don't make people ditch their <15% candidate. So again, it's a distortion of reality to argue against poll accuracy by using iowa dem caucus results.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,358
0
71
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wow, talk about distortion of reality. Does the OP realize how the dem caucus operates? it isn't a pull a lever or secret vote. So it rarely(read never) turns out like the polls do. Republicans however have a ballot system so it does follow polling somewhat well but as always - polls are just polls and have no meaning - the ballots do. :)
Obviously the polls differ from the primaries. That is my point. As far as the republican polling goes, remember that they are polling likely republican voters from a record low turnout in 2004. I can guarantee you there will be a hell of a lot more republican voters this year that have never voted republican. Many traditional democrats & independents will be voting republican this year as well. Almost sounds like you want to argue yet you lack any intelligent points.
Uhh no. What I was talking about was the comments you made on the dem side. The caucus will NOT turn out close to the polls because the way the dems have their caucus here in iowa. On the Republican side - polls are a bit more accurate because we don't make people ditch their <15% candidate. So again, it's a distortion of reality to argue against poll accuracy by using iowa dem caucus results.
Would you care to put some money on it?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: palehorse74
heyyyyy, wait a second! Did you just sneak in yet another "RP uber alles!" thread, in the guise of something to do with polls? How oh so crafty of you!!!

These RP freaks are too damn funny...

/thread
Yeah you have to look at who the OP is to decipher if it's a RP thread or not now. They aren't putting it in the title anymore.

Nice new avatar BTW.
Thanks... the decision to switch to this avatar actually took me a few years, and I'll probably switch back and forth to the penguin just to keep you guys on your toes! I'm kinda obsessed with the little ice-bound fvckers!

So who do you think will win in the Redskins vs. Vikings matchup this Sunday?
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,012
798
126
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: palehorse74
heyyyyy, wait a second! Did you just sneak in yet another "RP uber alles!" thread, in the guise of something to do with polls? How oh so crafty of you!!!

These RP freaks are too damn funny...

/thread
Yeah you have to look at who the OP is to decipher if it's a RP thread or not now. They aren't putting it in the title anymore.

Nice new avatar BTW.
QFT
The fringe is at it yet again.
Quit spamming the thread. Do you ever actually read or do you simply bounce from thread to thread spamming? Try stopping and actually reading every once in a while it'll do wonders for your intelligence.
There are two interesting stories at the top of this thread. Start there and post some comments and maybe you can actually join in on the discussion.
I will stop posting in your threads when you finally decide to consolidate all your RP garbage into one thread, as you have been requested to do. You, I , and the rest of us all know you posted this as another attempt to talk about Ron Paul. We've heard enough already! Nice disguise however. I'm sure you make the rest of the Ronpaulians proud, but you truely are a fanatic.

 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,358
0
71
Originally posted by: compuwiz1

I will stop posting in your threads when you finally decide to consolidate all your RP garbage into one thread, as you have been requested to do. You, I , and the rest of us all know you posted this as another attempt to talk about Ron Paul. We've heard enough already! Nice disguise however. I'm sure you make the rest of the Ronpaulians proud, but you truely are a fanatic.
You don't get it do you? This is a politics & news forum. This is where individuals gather to discuss subjects of common interest. Most are here to discuss the issues yet a few can't help but to act like children or brats.
If you don't like the subject then stay out of the thread. I can promise you one thing though...antagonizing people isn't going to get you what you want. In fact it might have the exact opposite effective.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,607
211
106
just for your information, the Des Moines Register very last Iowa poll accurately placed the Democratic candidates in the right order in 2004 while most other polls (i.e. Zogby) still showed Dean and Gephardt 1st and 2nd. The race on the Democratic side shows it to be so close. It's going to come down to organization and unfortunately, breadth of support across the entire state. It's not enough to pack voters in the population centers, candidates have to do well in rural areas where a few votes could mean picking up delegates.

As for Ron Paul, his message should have registered in Iowa where a recent Strategic Vision poll poll showed that 49% of the Republican primary voters favor pulling out all US forces out of Iraq within 6 months. These are potential Ron Paul voters. Yet, his negatives are bad among rank-and-file Republican voters. Anyway, Huckabee looks like he may hold on and win Iowa but Romney is still spending millions attacking him so it could come down to the wire.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,012
798
126
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: compuwiz1

I will stop posting in your threads when you finally decide to consolidate all your RP garbage into one thread, as you have been requested to do. You, I , and the rest of us all know you posted this as another attempt to talk about Ron Paul. We've heard enough already! Nice disguise however. I'm sure you make the rest of the Ronpaulians proud, but you truely are a fanatic.
You don't get it do you? This is a politics & news forum. This is where individuals gather to discuss subjects of common interest. Most are here to discuss the issues yet a few can't help but to act like children or brats.
If you don't like the subject then stay out of the thread. I can promise you one thing though...antagonizing people isn't going to get you what you want. In fact it might have the exact opposite effective.
Brilliant you are. Was that a subtle threat? If it was, you're fucking with the wrong person. When it's on, I can throw it faster than you can dish it.

 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,358
0
71
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: compuwiz1

I will stop posting in your threads when you finally decide to consolidate all your RP garbage into one thread, as you have been requested to do. You, I , and the rest of us all know you posted this as another attempt to talk about Ron Paul. We've heard enough already! Nice disguise however. I'm sure you make the rest of the Ronpaulians proud, but you truely are a fanatic.
You don't get it do you? This is a politics & news forum. This is where individuals gather to discuss subjects of common interest. Most are here to discuss the issues yet a few can't help but to act like children or brats.
If you don't like the subject then stay out of the thread. I can promise you one thing though...antagonizing people isn't going to get you what you want. In fact it might have the exact opposite effective.
Brilliant you are. Was that a subtle threat? If it was, you're fucking with the wrong person. When it's on, I can throw it faster than you can dish it.
Yeah I'll bet you're a real badass. I bet you could really open up a can of whupass if you wanted to huh? Now leave and let the rest of the civilized world get on with our discussion please.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,358
0
71
Originally posted by: chowderhead
just for your information, the Des Moines Register very last Iowa poll accurately placed the Democratic candidates in the right order in 2004 while most other polls (i.e. Zogby) still showed Dean and Gephardt 1st and 2nd. The race on the Democratic side shows it to be so close. It's going to come down to organization and unfortunately, breadth of support across the entire state. It's not enough to pack voters in the population centers, candidates have to do well in rural areas where a few votes could mean picking up delegates.

As for Ron Paul, his message should have registered in Iowa where a recent Strategic Vision poll poll showed that 49% of the Republican primary voters favor pulling out all US forces out of Iraq within 6 months. These are potential Ron Paul voters. Yet, his negatives are bad among rank-and-file Republican voters. Anyway, Huckabee looks like he may hold on and win Iowa but Romney is still spending millions attacking him so it could come down to the wire.
Iowa is going to be extremely interesting. Truthfully I don't think anyone really knows what to expect. This is where I think guys like Zogby really know what they're talking about. There are a few areas they underestimate however. The demographic of young voters becoming new republicans this year is probably unheard of in our time. Secondly of all the polls I've seen 50% of all Paul supporters are traditionally republicans and identify with the republican party more than other parties. Many of these however did not bother to vote in the last election cycle as Bush was uncontested which mean they are not taking part in these polls.
yes...Iowa will be great fun.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,012
798
126
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: compuwiz1

I will stop posting in your threads when you finally decide to consolidate all your RP garbage into one thread, as you have been requested to do. You, I , and the rest of us all know you posted this as another attempt to talk about Ron Paul. We've heard enough already! Nice disguise however. I'm sure you make the rest of the Ronpaulians proud, but you truely are a fanatic.
You don't get it do you? This is a politics & news forum. This is where individuals gather to discuss subjects of common interest. Most are here to discuss the issues yet a few can't help but to act like children or brats.
If you don't like the subject then stay out of the thread. I can promise you one thing though...antagonizing people isn't going to get you what you want. In fact it might have the exact opposite effective.
Brilliant you are. Was that a subtle threat? If it was, you're fucking with the wrong person. When it's on, I can throw it faster than you can dish it.
Yeah I'll bet you're a real badass. I bet you could really open up a can of whupass if you wanted to huh? Now get the heck out of this thread and let the rest of the civilized world get on with our discussion please.
I might be, but on a lighter note, I'm seriously not trying to harass you man. The point I am trying to deliver, which apparently is not sinking into your neanderthal-thick skull, is that you need to find your favorite Ron Paul thread and make it your official thread discussing him. We don't need every member of this forum taking the opportunity to post about every candidate's next farting bowel movement. Is that too hard for you to grasp? :)

 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,604
17
81
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I might be, but on a lighter note, I'm seriously not trying to harass you man. The point I am trying to deliver, which apparently is not sinking into your neanderthal-thick skull, is that you need to find your favorite Ron Paul thread and make it your official thread discussing him. We don't need every member of this forum taking the opportunity to post about every candidate's next farting bowel movement. Is that too hard for you to grasp? :)
Oh dammit, I was going to post a request in FI for a new sub-forum on candidate bowel movements, emcompassing all possible states of matter that they may deal with.


Yes, a dedicated Ron Paul thread might be nice. Of course, it'd have to be locked once an hour due to flaming......

Perry404 - I find myself intrigued by Ron Paul's ideas too, if only because he's something different, and I'm tired of the same-old same-old corruption and BS in Washington. But I don't go posting threads constantly. At this point, the "market" is saturated. Once a market reaches saturation of a commodity, in this case, Ron Paul threads, the value of said commodity begins to decline. At that point, it's time to find another market.
(I love how all of life's little problems can be explained in terms of economics.:D)
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,358
0
71
Originally posted by: compuwiz1

I might be, but on a lighter note, I'm seriously not trying to harass you man. The point I am trying to deliver, which apparently is not sinking into your neanderthal-thick skull, is that you need to find your favorite Ron Paul thread and make it your official thread discussing him. We don't need every member of this forum taking the opportunity to post about every candidate's next farting bowel movement. Is that too hard for you to grasp? :)
Oh you deliver alright. I post a few times per week and you post again and again and again and again and again in multiple threads what spammers the Paul supporters are. Hows that for the pot calling the kettle black?
I tried a consolidation thread once and your little spam crew fucked it up by spamming in that thread.
You had your chance.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,012
798
126
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: compuwiz1

I might be, but on a lighter note, I'm seriously not trying to harass you man. The point I am trying to deliver, which apparently is not sinking into your neanderthal-thick skull, is that you need to find your favorite Ron Paul thread and make it your official thread discussing him. We don't need every member of this forum taking the opportunity to post about every candidate's next farting bowel movement. Is that too hard for you to grasp? :)
Oh you deliver alright. I post a few times per week and you post again and again and again and again and again in multiple threads what spammers the Paul supporters are. Hows that for the pot calling the kettle black?
I tried a consolidation thread once and your little spam crew fucked it up by spamming in that thread.
You had your chance.
You, sir are on the verge of losing your marbles. I take that back. You have already lost them. You are a classic zealot, fanboi, or to put it another way, a left wing deluded moonbat on a mission with a spinning compass. What color is the sky again? You'd probably start to say bluuuuu, but then you'd say Paul!

God help us ;)

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY