Ron Paul get's 2nd in Nevada!

[dullard]

Estimated # of votes:
Clinton: 60852 *estimated, using 120k turnout
Obama: 54238 *estimated, using 120k turnout
Romney: 22649
Paul: 6087
McCain: 5651
Kucinich: 4500 *estimated, using 120k turnout
Others...

Paul got 4th, not 2nd.

People always try to approximately double the real number of votes that candidates get in primaries/caucuses. Remember, not to fall into that fallacy.

Of the ~164k votes, Paul got 6087. In other words, he got 3.7% of the votes cast in Nevada. Nationwide, he is also averaging 3.7% of the votes cast.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dullard
Estimated # of votes:
Clinton: 60852 *estimated, using 120k turnout
Obama: 54238 *estimated, using 120k turnout
Romney: 22649
Paul: 6087
McCain: 5651
Kucinich: 4500 *estimated, using 120k turnout
Others...

Paul got 4th, not 2nd.

People always try to approximately double the real number of votes that candidates get in primaries/caucuses. Remember, not to fall into that fallacy.

Of the ~164k votes, Paul got 6087. In other words, he got 3.7% of the votes cast in Nevada. Nationwide, he is also averaging 3.7% of the votes cast.

Wow, I've seen people try to spin the numbers, but this one takes the cake. Including both parties in the primary totals? Amazing. You anti-Paulbots are a constant source of amusement and a reminder of why I support Paul to begin with: because the rest of the candidates and those that support them are complete fools.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dullard
Estimated # of votes:
Clinton: 60852 *estimated, using 120k turnout
Obama: 54238 *estimated, using 120k turnout
Romney: 22649
Paul: 6087
McCain: 5651
Kucinich: 4500 *estimated, using 120k turnout
Others...

Paul got 4th, not 2nd.

People always try to approximately double the real number of votes that candidates get in primaries/caucuses. Remember, not to fall into that fallacy.

Of the ~164k votes, Paul got 6087. In other words, he got 3.7% of the votes cast in Nevada. Nationwide, he is also averaging 3.7% of the votes cast.

Wow, I've seen people try to spin the numbers, but this one takes the cake. Including both parties in the primary totals? Amazing. You anti-Paulbots are a constant source of amusement and a reminder of why I support Paul to begin with: because the rest of the candidates and those that support them are complete fools.

+999999

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dullard
Estimated # of votes:
Clinton: 60852 *estimated, using 120k turnout
Obama: 54238 *estimated, using 120k turnout
Romney: 22649
Paul: 6087
McCain: 5651
Kucinich: 4500 *estimated, using 120k turnout
Others...

Paul got 4th, not 2nd.

People always try to approximately double the real number of votes that candidates get in primaries/caucuses. Remember, not to fall into that fallacy.

Of the ~164k votes, Paul got 6087. In other words, he got 3.7% of the votes cast in Nevada. Nationwide, he is also averaging 3.7% of the votes cast.

Wow, I've seen people try to spin the numbers, but this one takes the cake. Including both parties in the primary totals? Amazing. You anti-Paulbots are a constant source of amusement and a reminder of why I support Paul to begin with: because the rest of the candidates and those that support them are complete fools.

No, I agree and I'm obviously not a paul supporter but that math is dumb. It's like saying McCain didn't win NH b/c Clinton got more votes.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Wow, I've seen people try to spin the numbers, but this one takes the cake. Including both parties in the primary totals? Amazing. You anti-Paulbots are a constant source of amusement and a reminder of why I support Paul to begin with: because the rest of the candidates and those that support them are complete fools.

That post has no spin. It is only fact. I didn't put a single opinion in there to support any of the candidates or to bash any of the candidates.

Of the 164k people that came out in Nevada to vote, 6k voted for Paul. That is 3.7% of the voters.

Now, I will spin: I wish Paul had more votes there, but he didn't. More spin: in 1988, Nevada gave Ron Paul 3.5k votes, thus he did improve. He nearly doubled the total votes for him in 20 years. If he keeps doubling every 20 years, by the time the 23rd century comes around, he might win.

Originally posted by: sirjonk
No, I agree and I'm obviously not a paul supporter but that math is dumb. It's like saying McCain didn't win NH b/c Clinton got more votes.

Math like that isn't dumb. Readers of my math may be dumb though. Try thinking it through instead of reacting on instinct. What does the math say? Think about it.

About 1/3rd of the registered Democrats voted that day. Only about 1/10 registered republicans voted. This is a state that Bush won twice. If I recall correctly in 2004, Bush won all but one county in that state and that one county was a narrow loss for Bush. McCain didn't even come close to the Dems votes. Please tell me how losing Nevada to Democrats is a win for McCain. Sure, he won the battle of the republicans, but on Saturday he lost the war of winning the presidency. And that is what matters. Call that dumb, if you wish, but you will be the one looking stupid if you do so.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dullard
That post has no spin. It is only fact.

The democrats and republicans are not running against each other in primaries, so stating that a republican finished behind a democrat or vice versa is spin. People do not vote in the same numbers in the primaries as they do in gen elections.

McCain didn't even come close to the Dems votes. Please tell me how losing Nevada to Democrats is a win for McCain.

It's completely irrelevant. The current race is about getting the presidential nomination.

Sure, he won the battle of the republicans, but on Saturday he lost the war of winning the presidency. And that is what matters. Call that dumb, if you wish, but you will be the one looking stupid if you do so.

You're drawing conclusions about the general election from a caucus. You're living up to your handle.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Wow, I've seen people try to spin the numbers, but this one takes the cake. Including both parties in the primary totals? Amazing. You anti-Paulbots are a constant source of amusement and a reminder of why I support Paul to begin with: because the rest of the candidates and those that support them are complete fools.

That post has no spin. It is only fact. I didn't put a single opinion in there to support any of the candidates or to bash any of the candidates.

Of the 164k people that came out in Nevada to vote, 6k voted for Paul. That is 3.7% of the voters.

Now, I will spin: I wish Paul had more votes there, but he didn't. More spin: in 1988, Nevada gave Ron Paul 3.5k votes, thus he did improve. He nearly doubled the total votes for him in 20 years. If he keeps doubling every 20 years, by the time the 23rd century comes around, he might win.

Originally posted by: sirjonk
No, I agree and I'm obviously not a paul supporter but that math is dumb. It's like saying McCain didn't win NH b/c Clinton got more votes.

Math like that isn't dumb. Readers of my math may be dumb though. Try thinking it through instead of reacting on instinct. What does the math say? Think about it.

About 1/3rd of the registered Democrats voted that day. Only about 1/10 registered republicans voted. This is a state that Bush won twice. If I recall correctly in 2004, Bush won all but one county in that state and that one county was a narrow loss for Bush. McCain didn't even come close to the Dems votes. Please tell me how losing Nevada to Democrats is a win for McCain. Sure, he won the battle of the republicans, but on Saturday he lost the war of winning the presidency. And that is what matters. Call that dumb, if you wish, but you will be the one looking stupid if you do so.

This is perhaps the single stupiest attempt at an argument I have ever seen in a political discussion.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: sirjonk
No, I agree and I'm obviously not a paul supporter but that math is dumb. It's like saying McCain didn't win NH b/c Clinton got more votes.

Math like that isn't dumb. Readers of my math may be dumb though. Try thinking it through instead of reacting on instinct. What does the math say? Think about it.

About 1/3rd of the registered Democrats voted that day. Only about 1/10 registered republicans voted. This is a state that Bush won twice. If I recall correctly in 2004, Bush won all but one county in that state and that one county was a narrow loss for Bush. McCain didn't even come close to the Dems votes. Please tell me how losing Nevada to Democrats is a win for McCain. Sure, he won the battle of the republicans, but on Saturday he lost the war of winning the presidency. And that is what matters. Call that dumb, if you wish, but you will be the one looking stupid if you do so.

Have you even taken U.S. History in High School yet? Come back when you do :laugh:

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You're drawing conclusions about the general election from a caucus. You're living up to your handle.

So, you think record turnout for one side and quite lackluster turnout for the other side is not important? I can see arguing with you would get nowhere since facts and logic don't matter to you.

See you in November, we'll see if McCain wins Nevada. I'l always willing to eat my own words. Will you be? Same goes for all others against me in this thread. Lets come back and see who has the last laugh.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Wow, I've seen people try to spin the numbers, but this one takes the cake. Including both parties in the primary totals? Amazing. You anti-Paulbots are a constant source of amusement and a reminder of why I support Paul to begin with: because the rest of the candidates and those that support them are complete fools.

That post has no spin. It is only fact. I didn't put a single opinion in there to support any of the candidates or to bash any of the candidates.

Of the 164k people that came out in Nevada to vote, 6k voted for Paul. That is 3.7% of the voters.

Now, I will spin: I wish Paul had more votes there, but he didn't. More spin: in 1988, Nevada gave Ron Paul 3.5k votes, thus he did improve. He nearly doubled the total votes for him in 20 years. If he keeps doubling every 20 years, by the time the 23rd century comes around, he might win.

Originally posted by: sirjonk
No, I agree and I'm obviously not a paul supporter but that math is dumb. It's like saying McCain didn't win NH b/c Clinton got more votes.

Math like that isn't dumb. Readers of my math may be dumb though. Try thinking it through instead of reacting on instinct. What does the math say? Think about it.

About 1/3rd of the registered Democrats voted that day. Only about 1/10 registered republicans voted. This is a state that Bush won twice. If I recall correctly in 2004, Bush won all but one county in that state and that one county was a narrow loss for Bush. McCain didn't even come close to the Dems votes. Please tell me how losing Nevada to Democrats is a win for McCain. Sure, he won the battle of the republicans, but on Saturday he lost the war of winning the presidency. And that is what matters. Call that dumb, if you wish, but you will be the one looking stupid if you do so.

This is perhaps the single stupiest attempt at an argument I have ever seen in a political discussion.

yeah, I don't really get wtf dullard was trying to say 😕

in the grand scheme, McCain's SC win is only significant if it gives him a bump to win Florida so that he goes into super tuesday full steam.

it's interesting that the media seems to be more or less ignoring Romney's win in Nevada, though.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah, I don't really get wtf dullard was trying to say 😕

Loki, where have I done a poor job at explaining my side:

Fact:
1) Record turnout for Ds.
2) Lackluster turnout for Rs.

My conclusion:
1) Win for Ds, loss for Rs.

Everone else:
1) Dullard is stupid.



Fact:
1) Paul got second of one subset of voters.
2) One subset does not reflect all voters.

Everyone else:
1) Paul got 2nd.

Me:
1) Don't jump to conclusions. Getting 2nd on the smallest subset is nothing to get excited about.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah, I don't really get wtf dullard was trying to say 😕

Loki, where have I done a poor job at explaining my side:

Fact:
1) Record turnout for Ds.
2) Lackluster turnout for Rs.

My conclusion:
1) Win for Ds, loss for Rs.

Everone else:
1) Dullard is stupid.

the democrats had a contested election.

the republicans, really, did not.

why bother going to vote when everyone already knew that Romney had the think locked up?

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's interesting that the media seems to be more or less ignoring Romney's win in Nevada, though.

Unless hookers and gambling buisness-men are a better representation of this country than southern conservatives, then Nevada can't hold squat to having South Carolina under your belt.

Romney basically had/has Michigan from his father and the surrounding states of Utah due to his Mormon faith.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: loki8481
why bother going to vote when everyone already knew that Romney had the think locked up?

If, as you say, people shouldn't care about an uncontested primary. Then, why should people care who got second? If it isn't contested by the main candidates, then the 2nd place has no meaning. Yet for some reason I get attacked for saying so.

Also, look at the 600 thousand people who came out for an useless Michigan vote on the Dem side. Implying that people don't come out to a uncontested, unimportant election is stretching the truth a bit.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah, I don't really get wtf dullard was trying to say 😕

Loki, where have I done a poor job at explaining my side:

Fact:
1) Record turnout for Ds.
2) Lackluster turnout for Rs.

My conclusion:
1) Win for Ds, loss for Rs.

Everone else:
1) Dullard is stupid.



Fact:
1) Paul got second of one subset of voters.
2) One subset does not reflect all voters.

Everyone else:
1) Paul got 2nd.

Me:
1) Don't jump to conclusions. Getting 2nd on the smallest subset is nothing to get excited about.

Agreed, but to combine both parties candidates into one majority during nomination season and call that equal to a presidential race is ludicrous.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah, I don't really get wtf dullard was trying to say 😕

Loki, where have I done a poor job at explaining my side:

Fact:
1) Record turnout for Ds.
2) Lackluster turnout for Rs.

My conclusion:
1) Win for Ds, loss for Rs.

Everone else:
1) Dullard is stupid.

the democrats had a contested election.

the republicans, really, did not.

why bother going to vote when everyone already knew that Romney had the thing locked up?

*cough* which is the only reason Paul got second, and not McCain *cough*

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Romney basically had/has Michigan from his father and the surrounding states of Utah due to his Mormon faith.

The Mormon voters only represented 7%. 94% of them went for Romney, but they were a very, very small slice of the pie.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Pabster yet you must remember that when all 7% go to vote for Romney that's a lot of people. Oh and actually if a state is 7% one religion that's a lot of Mormons.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Romney basically had/has Michigan from his father and the surrounding states of Utah due to his Mormon faith.

The Mormon voters only represented 7%. 94% of them went for Romney, but they were a very, very small slice of the pie.

Agreed. But having that in his favor (no matter how small) in the more "insignificant" states is enough to turn off any other candidate to show face, which is precisely why only him and Paul heavily campaigned.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Honestly though in the end the way the MSM covered South Carolina and not Nevada it was definitely a mistake for either of them to campaign there at all. Strange considering Nevada has 10 more delegates.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Honestly though in the end the way the MSM covered South Carolina and not Nevada it was definitely a mistake for either of them to campaign there at all. Strange considering Nevada has 10 more delegates.

Yes while that may be true, your general Floridian voter is more likely to connect with one from South Carolina than Nevada. McCain gained the southern conservative vote in SC which puts him in a hell of alot better standing to win Florida than Romney's Nevada win.

It's all about which people will get your training rolling into delegate city; South Carolina leads into Florida and much of the south. Nevada is arguably the end of the line.