Unread

Ron Johnson's picture

I sort of support Rand, and I'll most likely vote for him.  I've been disappointed in his hedging and backtracking in the past, so I'm not as enthusiastic as I was for his dad.  Nevertheless, I am usually the one defending Rand, so I guess I'm a 'supporter,' though really don't like that term.  I endorse ideas; I try not to endorse men.  As long as Rand espouses the same ideas that I endorse, then I guess we're fellow travellers. 

.

GCN3030's picture

I'm wondering if maybe you might be referring to national polls that may have been taken just before the Iowa Caucus which probably did show much lower numbers for both Paul and Santorum around the levels which you cite.

<p>...</p>

Joeinmo's picture

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_GOP_122011.pdf

in Iowa he was running 6-10% between 16-20 of Dec in all polls and as late as 1st week of Jan in some

 

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1213925.pdf

 

Ron is a little harder to find, but it's out there I seen it before 

 

 

...

Joeinmo's picture

as I said "some" polls were still showing Ron at 6% three weeks out, and Santorum at 6% up to the week of the caucus.

 

im sure I can find, and if I get time I will

...

Joeinmo's picture

as I said "some" polls were still showing Ron at 6% three weeks out, and Santorum at 6% up to the week of the caucus.

 

im sure I can find, and if I get time I will

...

GCN3030's picture

Here is a link to the Iowa polls from the 2012 election:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republica...

If you look carefully you can see that there is no evidence which backs up your assertion that Ron was at 6% in some polls 3 weeks out of the Iowa caucus, nor is there any truth to the claim that Santorum was at 6% until a week before the election.  No offense or anything, but I just don't see any data which corroborates your claims; do you happen to have any?

<p>...</p>

zooamerica's picture

Glad to see you as well my friend.  Thank you for the kind words, mwstroberg.  Looking forward to the new year on this new adventure.     

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Joeinmo's picture

He was polling at 21% in all polls until the day before the caucus, I'm addition Santorum was at 6% literally until the week before and ended up in a tie for 1st.

...

Wiseburn's picture

I'm not currently seeing an option to see older posts at the bottom of the page.  (both Android and Google Gchrome on desktop.

GCN3030's picture

At this point in 2011 Ron Paul was polling at 21.5% in Iowa.  Rand Paul is now at 2.7% heading into the caucus right now.  IMHO the problem is that Rand is not being controversial enough so as a result he doesn't get any attention from the media.  He is making it is too easy for the other candidates to steal his thunder by mimicking his policy proposals; he has got to find a way to differentiate himself from the crowd by saying what they are afraid to speak out about.  He should come out swinging like Ron was doing around this time talking loudly about how he was going to cut a trillion $ in spending year one and eliminate whole agencies of the Federal Government.  Remember the big dog ad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA 

After it was released Ron Paul's poll numbers in Iowa DOUBLED over the next several weeks.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republica...

Beating around the bush talking about a measly $1 Billion in waste is not going to cut it.

<p>...</p>

gotliberty's picture

I've never heard it said that way..sounds like a big ice cold bucket of water to the face of the sleeping.

Formerly "liberty-or-bust" of dp/pl......."Try and separate a man from his soul..you only strengthen his and lose your own." Brother Ali

bort's picture

That's what the host called it (at the very end of the video) when Rand said both the left and right should share blame in the increased spending.  Everything is called a "conspiracy" when the establishment gets called out.

.

Ryan_76's picture

I am so tired of so called Christians advocating for continual war.  I am more of an agnostic who respects Christ's philosophy of peace.  To me, Jesus did not want to be worshiped.  He wanted people to follow his example of good will and peace.  He was against the use of force and domination by the State.  I think that many people who claim to be believers in Christ are not true followers of what he preached. As with most special interests, many Christians want to State to use force for their benefit to create a society that they advocate. I think that the Right needs to get their perspective in order.  To me, being pro life is also anti war. There is so much cognitive dissonance.  Nice article by Rand here. 

AKA Sunshine_State at Popular Liberty

If you can't trust people with freedom, how can you trust people with power?

TheTaoistTroll's picture

That the requirments for being the nomination hinges on having a majoritry of delagets of eight states, which was increased from five, durring the last go around in order to screw over the Ron delegation.  Delagates are considered bound for the first vote, maybe the second vote, but if no-one has a majority of delagets before the convention, it's my understanding that all delagates that were bound by their state laws would be free to vote.  We can hope.

Those who are; are those whom are not.

gotliberty's picture

You take it..thank you to those who made this possible

Formerly "liberty-or-bust" of dp/pl......."Try and separate a man from his soul..you only strengthen his and lose your own." Brother Ali

Pages