CNBC learns not to mess with Ron Paul

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: dualsmp
Those mischievous internet Ron Paul hackers! Has he gone through the logs, sussed out the IP's, and put them in the "Ron hacker" database? Or are all these "Ron hackers" based on conjecture and conspiracy theories on the part of CNBC? Maybe they can post the entire log of actual votes cast vs. IP address. Most of these online polls allow only one vote per IP, even if deleting the cookie and trying to vote again. I say CNBC show the evidence of all these hackers.

It's probably based on the fact that the chance of Ron Paul receiving 71% of the votes in a poll with 30,000 votes or so votes is astronomically low when taking into account the other polls that put him at 2% or less.

Other polls = gallup polls, which he is at 5%. The reason is that a more general audience, which is what gallup goes after, have actually heard about him.

Whereas all of the straw polls combined, Paul overall is ranking #1 in. That's because people that are involved in politics know Paul, and the GOP is losing base fast right now (turnouts are really low). People will just say that straw polls don't matter, but his movement is real. I'm seeing posters, bumper stickers, and people at work talk about him. But they all must be spammers, huh?

You can claim hacking, spamming, but even with text polls after Fox News debates, he gets a high percentage. You can only vote once per mobile phone. Call it spamming if you'd like, but I call it organization.

He's going to be on Jay Leno on the 30th, and he's going to begin advertising. Since his financial numbers for Q3 were reported, the media is beginning to take him seriously.

Like I said, Ron Pauls supporters scare the bejeebers out of me.

Yeah, God forbid young people get involved in politics and support someone who has a history voting in favor of limited government power, protecting rights, and who is against attacking other countries and meddling with their affairs.

You have to be dumb to think following the constitution is a good idea.

:roll:

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is going to be some serious crow eating when the voting starts.

I would guess that Paul is a non-issue by the second or third week of January.

I'd say he's toast after January 3. But we'll see :laugh:

Uh, he's toast already. It's one of those situations where the body is dead but the brain doesn't know it yet.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

"Well what did you guys think of him in the House?"

"We thought he was crazy"

😛

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
"Well what did you guys think of him in the House?"

"We thought he was crazy"

😛

Considering the source, that's a compliment.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: dualsmp
Those mischievous internet Ron Paul hackers! Has he gone through the logs, sussed out the IP's, and put them in the "Ron hacker" database? Or are all these "Ron hackers" based on conjecture and conspiracy theories on the part of CNBC? Maybe they can post the entire log of actual votes cast vs. IP address. Most of these online polls allow only one vote per IP, even if deleting the cookie and trying to vote again. I say CNBC show the evidence of all these hackers.

It's probably based on the fact that the chance of Ron Paul receiving 71% of the votes in a poll with 30,000 votes or so votes is astronomically low when taking into account the other polls that put him at 2% or less.

Other polls = gallup polls, which he is at 5%. The reason is that a more general audience, which is what gallup goes after, have actually heard about him.

Whereas all of the straw polls combined, Paul overall is ranking #1 in. That's because people that are involved in politics know Paul, and the GOP is losing base fast right now (turnouts are really low). People will just say that straw polls don't matter, but his movement is real. I'm seeing posters, bumper stickers, and people at work talk about him. But they all must be spammers, huh?

You can claim hacking, spamming, but even with text polls after Fox News debates, he gets a high percentage. You can only vote once per mobile phone. Call it spamming if you'd like, but I call it organization.

He's going to be on Jay Leno on the 30th, and he's going to begin advertising. Since his financial numbers for Q3 were reported, the media is beginning to take him seriously.

Like I said, Ron Pauls supporters scare the bejeebers out of me.

Yeah, God forbid young people get involved in politics and support someone who has a history voting in favor of limited government power, protecting rights, and who is against attacking other countries and meddling with their affairs.

You have to be dumb to think following the constitution is a good idea.

:roll:

That's what scares myself, techs, and others about Paul's supporters: the asinine assumption that Paul's extreme libertarian beliefs are the same as those of the founding fathers* and of the constitution.

Paul's campaign slogan, based on his supporters here, should be "Ron Paul for America: Don't you like freedom?" Because that seems to be the belief of many of his supporters: a black and white view of the world rivaling Bush's.

* And as far as the founding fathers go, they were far from uniform in opinion, so saying Paul shares their beliefs is not only asinine, but a logical impossibility. That's why, for instance, the US was run under the Articles of Confederation for several years after the revolution but before the Constitution, and why the Constitution itself wasn't passed by huge margins in the first place.




I by no means agree with the Bush administration's foreign policies, and some of what Paul says in that area I agree with. But he seems take it to the opposite extreme: if US foreign action caused problems that are now coming back to haunt us, the solution then is to leave foreign affairs (i.e. isolationism). Withdrawing from foreign affairs wouldn't solve the problem: what we need is better policy, not no policy.

That's a recurring faulty thought process on the part of libertarians (and to a lesser extent, conservatives) with regard to federal spending and the like: they point to things like the mismanaged government aid for Katrina, and say "well, that shows government involvement is bad, and thus we shouldn't have any". Whereas the liberal (I'm using the term loosely for sake of expediency) reaction would be "well, that shows those specific government policies aren't working, and thus we need better government policies".

 

[RaiderJ]

The online polls aren't supposed to be scientific, they are just a quick measure of the current audience's opinion. To say that EVERY poll is being consistently hacked by RP fans is kind of silly. I guess Digg is being hacked too!

Ron Paul is gaining in popularity, and has the straw poll wins and money to prove it.



EDIT: Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
The online polls aren't supposed to be scientific, they are just a quick measure of the current audience's opinion. To say that EVERY poll is being consistently hacked by RP fans is kind of silly. I guess Digg is being hacked too!

Ron Paul is gaining in popularity, and has the straw poll wins and money to prove it.



EDIT: Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

First of all, that's just Republican candidates. Second of all, that's just Alaska. Third of all, you fail to mention anything about the time frame of the above fundraising (i.e. that could simply be one single day when Paul happened to raise the most: factually correct, but far from meaningful). And fourth and most importantly, you cite nothing to back up these claims.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
The online polls aren't supposed to be scientific, they are just a quick measure of the current audience's opinion. To say that EVERY poll is being consistently hacked by RP fans is kind of silly. I guess Digg is being hacked too!

Ron Paul is gaining in popularity, and has the straw poll wins and money to prove it.



EDIT: Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

First of all, that's just Republican candidates. Second of all, that's just Alaska. Third of all, you fail to mention anything about the time frame of the above fundraising (i.e. that could simply be one single day when Paul happened to raise the most: factually correct, but far from meaningful). And fourth and most importantly, you cite nothing to back up these claims.

Here's the complete news release:

Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas) received more contributions from Alaskans than all other Republican candidates for the third quarterly report.

Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

Paul also outraised all other GOP candidates in Montana, Washington and Hawaii. You can learn more about Ron Paul by visiting his campaign website www.ronpaul2008.com and www.dailypaul.com

Source: Federal Election Commission http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/

So, yes, it is the GOP candidates (how observant of you). And no, it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates. Timeframe and source are listed above. 😛

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is going to be some serious crow eating when the voting starts.

I would guess that Paul is a non-issue by the second or third week of January.

I'm not sure that's a good thing. I've made no secret of my dislike of Ron Paul's politics, but I think our system is a little too good at turning everyone who isn't some middle of the road goober into a "non-issue". Am I the only one who keeps being surprised that in a nation of 300 million people, the two gomers who end up squaring off are the best we can do?

I'd say you're pretty naive to not know why that happens, and just plain bonkers to be continually surprised by it.

Which candidate do you support? I can't wait to hear this.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

First of all, that's just Republican candidates. Second of all, that's just Alaska. Third of all, you fail to mention anything about the time frame of the above fundraising (i.e. that could simply be one single day when Paul happened to raise the most: factually correct, but far from meaningful). And fourth and most importantly, you cite nothing to back up these claims.

Here's the complete news release:

Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas) received more contributions from Alaskans than all other Republican candidates for the third quarterly report.

Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

Paul also outraised all other GOP candidates in Montana, Washington and Hawaii. You can learn more about Ron Paul by visiting his campaign website www.ronpaul2008.com and www.dailypaul.com

Source: Federal Election Commission http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/

So, yes, it is the GOP candidates (how observant of you). And no, it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates. Timeframe and source are listed above. 😛

My point that it was only the GOP candidates was in response to your comment that Paul "is gaining in popularity": even if he somehow manages to be the Republican candidate for president, that still doesn't change the fact that he would have to face whichever democratic candidate in the election (in other words, were he to beat other Republicans, that would show only partial rising support, as Republicans are far from the only voters in the election).

At any rate, the link above from the Federal Election Commission, which you cited as your source of the above information, said nothing about state specific contributions (i.e. does support the numbers you posted) but in any case your claim that " it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates" is blatantly false: the link you provided shows Giuliani with over five times the total net contributions.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

CNBC must be shaking in their boots right now.

😀

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

First of all, that's just Republican candidates. Second of all, that's just Alaska. Third of all, you fail to mention anything about the time frame of the above fundraising (i.e. that could simply be one single day when Paul happened to raise the most: factually correct, but far from meaningful). And fourth and most importantly, you cite nothing to back up these claims.

Here's the complete news release:

Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas) received more contributions from Alaskans than all other Republican candidates for the third quarterly report.

Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

Paul also outraised all other GOP candidates in Montana, Washington and Hawaii. You can learn more about Ron Paul by visiting his campaign website www.ronpaul2008.com and www.dailypaul.com

Source: Federal Election Commission http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/

So, yes, it is the GOP candidates (how observant of you). And no, it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates. Timeframe and source are listed above. 😛

My point that it was only the GOP candidates was in response to your comment that Paul "is gaining in popularity": even if he somehow manages to be the Republican candidate for president, that still doesn't change the fact that he would have to face whichever democratic candidate in the election (in other words, were he to beat other Republicans, that would show only partial rising support, as Republicans are far from the only voters in the election).

At any rate, the link above from the Federal Election Commission, which you cited as your source of the above information, said nothing about state specific contributions (i.e. does support the numbers you posted) but in any case your claim that " it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates" is blatantly false: the link you provided shows Giuliani with over five times the total net contributions.

I haven't said that Paul is going to win the nomination. But suppose he did, it would have been entirely on his platform, word of mouth, and performance in debates. If that happened, Paul would have no trouble taking on the likes of Hillary. He has been arguing against the war in Iraq since the Clinton Administration passed the Iraq Liberation Act (for regime change) in 1998. His voting record would be huge leverage against Clinton. His position against Universal Healthcare, and why he believes as a professional doctor that it doesn't address the real issues of high cost healthcare would have more credibility than Clinton.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

First of all, that's just Republican candidates. Second of all, that's just Alaska. Third of all, you fail to mention anything about the time frame of the above fundraising (i.e. that could simply be one single day when Paul happened to raise the most: factually correct, but far from meaningful). And fourth and most importantly, you cite nothing to back up these claims.

Here's the complete news release:

Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas) received more contributions from Alaskans than all other Republican candidates for the third quarterly report.

Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

Paul also outraised all other GOP candidates in Montana, Washington and Hawaii. You can learn more about Ron Paul by visiting his campaign website www.ronpaul2008.com and www.dailypaul.com

Source: Federal Election Commission http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/

So, yes, it is the GOP candidates (how observant of you). And no, it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates. Timeframe and source are listed above. 😛

My point that it was only the GOP candidates was in response to your comment that Paul "is gaining in popularity": even if he somehow manages to be the Republican candidate for president, that still doesn't change the fact that he would have to face whichever democratic candidate in the election (in other words, were he to beat other Republicans, that would show only partial rising support, as Republicans are far from the only voters in the election).

At any rate, the link above from the Federal Election Commission, which you cited as your source of the above information, said nothing about state specific contributions (i.e. does support the numbers you posted) but in any case your claim that " it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates" is blatantly false: the link you provided shows Giuliani with over five times the total net contributions.

I see the toughest obstacle to Ron Paul winning the presidency is getting the republican nomination. I don't think there is a democratic candidate who would stand a chance at beating him in the election. I don't think you realize how much support he is getting from democrats either!

Guiliani might have beaten RP in overall contributions, but raised less money than RP in those particular states. If you click on a specific candidate then Contributions by State, you can easily see how much an individual raised in each state. If you can't work the internet, I'm afraid many things will be difficult for you to discover.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

First of all, that's just Republican candidates. Second of all, that's just Alaska. Third of all, you fail to mention anything about the time frame of the above fundraising (i.e. that could simply be one single day when Paul happened to raise the most: factually correct, but far from meaningful). And fourth and most importantly, you cite nothing to back up these claims.

Here's the complete news release:

Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas) received more contributions from Alaskans than all other Republican candidates for the third quarterly report.

Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

Paul also outraised all other GOP candidates in Montana, Washington and Hawaii. You can learn more about Ron Paul by visiting his campaign website www.ronpaul2008.com and www.dailypaul.com

Source: Federal Election Commission http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/

So, yes, it is the GOP candidates (how observant of you). And no, it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates. Timeframe and source are listed above. 😛

My point that it was only the GOP candidates was in response to your comment that Paul "is gaining in popularity": even if he somehow manages to be the Republican candidate for president, that still doesn't change the fact that he would have to face whichever democratic candidate in the election (in other words, were he to beat other Republicans, that would show only partial rising support, as Republicans are far from the only voters in the election).

At any rate, the link above from the Federal Election Commission, which you cited as your source of the above information, said nothing about state specific contributions (i.e. does support the numbers you posted) but in any case your claim that " it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates" is blatantly false: the link you provided shows Giuliani with over five times the total net contributions.

I see the toughest obstacle to Ron Paul winning the presidency is getting the republican nomination. I don't think there is a democratic candidate who would stand a chance at beating him in the election. I don't think you realize how much support he is getting from democrats either!

Guiliani might have beaten RP in overall contributions, but raised less money than RP in those particular states. If you click on a specific candidate then Contributions by State, you can easily see how much an individual raised in each state. If you can't work the internet, I'm afraid many things will be difficult for you to discover.

Just because Paul raised more than Giuliani in at least one state is far from proof of him "gaining in popularity". The fact that Giuliani and the other frontrunners beat Paul in nearly every state, and by far in total funding, far outweighs Paul's "victories" in at least one state.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

First of all, that's just Republican candidates. Second of all, that's just Alaska. Third of all, you fail to mention anything about the time frame of the above fundraising (i.e. that could simply be one single day when Paul happened to raise the most: factually correct, but far from meaningful). And fourth and most importantly, you cite nothing to back up these claims.

Here's the complete news release:

Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas) received more contributions from Alaskans than all other Republican candidates for the third quarterly report.

Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

Paul also outraised all other GOP candidates in Montana, Washington and Hawaii. You can learn more about Ron Paul by visiting his campaign website www.ronpaul2008.com and www.dailypaul.com

Source: Federal Election Commission http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/

So, yes, it is the GOP candidates (how observant of you). And no, it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates. Timeframe and source are listed above. 😛

My point that it was only the GOP candidates was in response to your comment that Paul "is gaining in popularity": even if he somehow manages to be the Republican candidate for president, that still doesn't change the fact that he would have to face whichever democratic candidate in the election (in other words, were he to beat other Republicans, that would show only partial rising support, as Republicans are far from the only voters in the election).

At any rate, the link above from the Federal Election Commission, which you cited as your source of the above information, said nothing about state specific contributions (i.e. does support the numbers you posted) but in any case your claim that " it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates" is blatantly false: the link you provided shows Giuliani with over five times the total net contributions.

I see the toughest obstacle to Ron Paul winning the presidency is getting the republican nomination. I don't think there is a democratic candidate who would stand a chance at beating him in the election. I don't think you realize how much support he is getting from democrats either!

Guiliani might have beaten RP in overall contributions, but raised less money than RP in those particular states. If you click on a specific candidate then Contributions by State, you can easily see how much an individual raised in each state. If you can't work the internet, I'm afraid many things will be difficult for you to discover.

Other posters have responded to the points above, but as far as the bolded section, I went directly to your link (http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/) and found nothing there supporting the data you posted. Either prove me wrong, or accept that you still haven't posted any source for the data you posted.

Are you seriously unable to follow directions? I said specifically how to see each candidate's contributions by individual states.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

First of all, that's just Republican candidates. Second of all, that's just Alaska. Third of all, you fail to mention anything about the time frame of the above fundraising (i.e. that could simply be one single day when Paul happened to raise the most: factually correct, but far from meaningful). And fourth and most importantly, you cite nothing to back up these claims.

Here's the complete news release:

Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas) received more contributions from Alaskans than all other Republican candidates for the third quarterly report.

Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

Paul also outraised all other GOP candidates in Montana, Washington and Hawaii. You can learn more about Ron Paul by visiting his campaign website www.ronpaul2008.com and www.dailypaul.com

Source: Federal Election Commission http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/

So, yes, it is the GOP candidates (how observant of you). And no, it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates. Timeframe and source are listed above. 😛

My point that it was only the GOP candidates was in response to your comment that Paul "is gaining in popularity": even if he somehow manages to be the Republican candidate for president, that still doesn't change the fact that he would have to face whichever democratic candidate in the election (in other words, were he to beat other Republicans, that would show only partial rising support, as Republicans are far from the only voters in the election).

At any rate, the link above from the Federal Election Commission, which you cited as your source of the above information, said nothing about state specific contributions (i.e. does support the numbers you posted) but in any case your claim that " it's not just Alaska that's he has out-raised the other candidates" is blatantly false: the link you provided shows Giuliani with over five times the total net contributions.

I see the toughest obstacle to Ron Paul winning the presidency is getting the republican nomination. I don't think there is a democratic candidate who would stand a chance at beating him in the election. I don't think you realize how much support he is getting from democrats either!

Guiliani might have beaten RP in overall contributions, but raised less money than RP in those particular states. If you click on a specific candidate then Contributions by State, you can easily see how much an individual raised in each state. If you can't work the internet, I'm afraid many things will be difficult for you to discover.

Other posters have responded to the points above, but as far as the bolded section, I went directly to your link (http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/) and found nothing there supporting the data you posted. Either prove me wrong, or accept that you still haven't posted any source for the data you posted.

Are you seriously unable to follow directions? I said specifically how to see each candidate's contributions by individual states.

I edited that part out after going back to the site: after having browsed Wikipedia for a while before posting, I assumed at first glance that the initial links listed in each candidate's profiles were simply code to scroll down to specific areas (which is what the first three links, summary, detailed summary page, and allocations by state do). Thus, I initially scrolled down and saw the chart on both candidate's pages and saw the chart listed 0 for all states under "ALLOCATION OF PRIMARY EXPENDITURES BY STATE".

So yeah, that was my fault. As I re-edited my post to say, however:

Just because Paul raised more than Giuliani in at least one state is far from proof of him "gaining in popularity". The fact that Giuliani and the other frontrunners beat Paul in nearly every state, and by far in total funding, far outweighs Paul's "victories" in at least one state.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Are you seriously unable to follow directions? I said specifically how to see each candidate's contributions by individual states.

I edited that part out after going back to the site: after having browsed Wikipedia for a while before posting, I assumed at first glance that the initial links listed in each candidate's profiles were simply code to scroll down to specific areas (which is what the first three links, summary, detailed summary page, and allocations by state do). Thus, I initially scrolled down and saw the chart on both candidate's pages and saw the chart listed 0 for all states under "ALLOCATION OF PRIMARY EXPENDITURES BY STATE".

So yeah, that was my fault. Though that's beside the point, as I re-edited my post to state:

Just because Paul raised more than Giuliani in at least one state is far from proof of him "gaining in popularity". The fact that Giuliani and the other frontrunners beat Paul in nearly every state, and by far in total funding, far outweighs Paul's "victories" in at least one state.

Ron Paul has been gaining in popularity, in both "hacked" online polls, and in "scientific" gallup polls. He's also been raising more money in each successive quarter and has won 1st in almost half of all the straw polls. That sounds like gaining popularity to me.

Ron Paul is the only republican candidate I'd vote for. If he doesn't get the nomination, then I'm voting democrat (unless Hillary were to win).

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is going to be some serious crow eating when the voting starts.

I would guess that Paul is a non-issue by the second or third week of January.

For some of us the crow eating means very little. I am scared for my country. It feels foreign to me. I long for the nation in which my father fought a war and that which the forefathers intended. If we continue on this path I believe the very soul of this nation is headed for destruction in much the same way the Roman empire imploded. Not with a bang but a whimper.
So if you can comprehend my belief maybe you can understand why i couldn't give a shit about eating crow.

 

[sandorski]

We all know how easy it is to skew Online Polls, but:

1) Putting a Poll Online, then taking it down when it becomes lopsided is just stupid. It was bound to be inaccurate to begin with. You shouldn't treat what is fundamentally flawed as if it were the same as a News Article.
2) I wouldn't be afraid of RP supporters anymore than I'd be afraid of Quake Fans. Quake Fans are an annoyance, but everyone knows that Unreal pwnzz!!!!!!!!111oneone11!!! Unless those RP supporters become violent, or insist Q3>UT, what's there to fear? Their Threads and Online Poll skewing?

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
The online polls aren't supposed to be scientific, they are just a quick measure of the current audience's opinion. To say that EVERY poll is being consistently hacked by RP fans is kind of silly. I guess Digg is being hacked too!

Ron Paul is gaining in popularity, and has the straw poll wins and money to prove it.



EDIT: Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

So fucking what! Are you really naive enough to believe that the most dollars in the pot automatically wins? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ron Paul has already lost the election.

Mope along folks, nothing to see here. 😉

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
The online polls aren't supposed to be scientific, they are just a quick measure of the current audience's opinion. To say that EVERY poll is being consistently hacked by RP fans is kind of silly. I guess Digg is being hacked too!

Ron Paul is gaining in popularity, and has the straw poll wins and money to prove it.



EDIT: Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

So fucking what! Are you really naive enough to believe that the most dollars in the pot automatically wins? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ron Paul has already lost the election.

Mope along folks, nothing to see here. 😉

Ron Paul doesn't have "the most dollars in the pot". He doesn't need it either. His popularity has taken a huge leap in the last six months, I see no reason why it won't increase even more in the future.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Ron Paul doesn't have "the most dollars in the pot". He doesn't need it either. His popularity has taken a huge leap in the last six months, I see no reason why it won't increase even more in the future.

Good. I hope he the Republican Nominee.

That will make sure Hillary is President.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
The online polls aren't supposed to be scientific, they are just a quick measure of the current audience's opinion. To say that EVERY poll is being consistently hacked by RP fans is kind of silly. I guess Digg is being hacked too!

Ron Paul is gaining in popularity, and has the straw poll wins and money to prove it.



EDIT: Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

So fucking what! Are you really naive enough to believe that the most dollars in the pot automatically wins? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ron Paul has already lost the election.

Mope along folks, nothing to see here. 😉

Ron Paul doesn't have "the most dollars in the pot". He doesn't need it either. His popularity has taken a huge leap in the last six months, I see no reason why it won't increase even more in the future.

You say that money doesn't equal popularity, and yet you posted the above Alaska fundraising statistics to prove his rising popularity.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: techs
And once again Ron Pauls supporters scare the bejebsus out of me.
Seriously, you guys make the Hitler Youth seem like they were mildly supportive of Der Fuehrer.

Are you kidding? Ron Paul is the only republican candidate who isn't retarded and/or spewing bullshit. I'd like for him OR Obama to be president. Though, now with the possibility of Colbert running... I'm not so sure.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
The online polls aren't supposed to be scientific, they are just a quick measure of the current audience's opinion. To say that EVERY poll is being consistently hacked by RP fans is kind of silly. I guess Digg is being hacked too!

Ron Paul is gaining in popularity, and has the straw poll wins and money to prove it.



EDIT: Here is the breakdown for funds raised in Alaska for Presidential candidates:

Ron Paul......................$10,807

Mitt Romney................$10,690

John McCain..................$7,581

Rudy Giuliani..................$5,200

Fred Thompson...............$3,700

Sam Brownback..............$1,388

Mike Huckabee..................$200

So fucking what! Are you really naive enough to believe that the most dollars in the pot automatically wins? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ron Paul has already lost the election.

Mope along folks, nothing to see here. 😉

Ron Paul doesn't have "the most dollars in the pot". He doesn't need it either. His popularity has taken a huge leap in the last six months, I see no reason why it won't increase even more in the future.

You say that money doesn't equal popularity, and yet you posted the above Alaska fundraising statistics to prove his rising popularity.

Well, wouldn't the fact that he's getting more and more donations from people be a good indicator that he's gaining in popularity?

One reason he probably won't ever raise as much money as the other candidates is that he won't accept money from special interest groups, lobbyists, corporations, etc. The numbers you see are just from individuals. Impressive I think.