Gingrich Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks as though a big crowd, doesn’t necessarily mean a good thing.
 
But before his finish in Iowa, he had minuscule crowds. They were mostly media.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
What conspiracy mongering? It was just pictures of the crowds. As I said, there were no crowds. The Santorum surge is nothing more than media spin.
Click to expand...
“Santorum’s ‘Surge’ Fishier than the Pike Place Fish Market!”

“Fishy” means they don’t believe his surge is real. The comments following all the photos are mostly conspiratorial. Phony results, fraud, etc.

The reality of the surge is evident from the actual caucus results, which showed Santorum equal to Romney and both of them beating Paul. I realize that Paul supporters don’t want to accept reality, but there it is.
 
rlg94086 said:
“Santorum’s ‘Surge’ Fishier than the Pike Place Fish Market!”

“Fishy” means they don’t believe his surge is real. The comments following all the photos are mostly conspiratorial. Phony results, fraud, etc.

The reality of the surge is evident from the actual caucus results, which showed Santorum equal to Romney and both of them beating Paul. I realize that Paul supporters don’t want to accept reality, but there it is.
Click to expand...
They mean it’s a media sham, that it’s not based on popular support. Rather, they contended that the media was stirring up so-called support for the guy.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
They mean it’s a media sham, that it’s not based on popular support. Rather, they contended that the media was stirring up so-called support for the guy.
Click to expand...
Uh huh…

"WE’RE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT SANTORUM IS NECK AND NECK WITH PAUL AND ROMNEY??? PUHLEEZE!"
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
They mean it’s a media sham, that it’s not based on popular support. Rather, they contended that the media was stirring up so-called support for the guy.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that the proof is in the pudding: Santorum nearly won Iowa. Sorry your guy lost but no need for sour grapes.
smndtupidisaftr said:
How much coverage of this have yous seen?

nbcphiladelphia.com/entertainment/television/NATL-Stump-Speech-or-Victory-Speech-136728613.html

And you’re telling me that the media isn’t controlling popular opinion?
Click to expand...
Is this your example of a media conspiracy for Romney? Look, I’m sorry that your guy Ron Paul lost the Iowa caucus, but conspiracies are the last refuge of losers. Face it: your guy lost, not because of a media conspiracy, but because people had a choice and opted not to vote for the 76 year old fringe libertarian guy. Get over it.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Seems to me that the proof is in the pudding: Santorum nearly won Iowa. Sorry your guy lost but no need for sour grapes.

Is this your example of a media conspiracy for Romney? Look, I’m sorry that your guy Ron Paul lost the Iowa caucus, but conspiracies are the last refuge of losers. Face it: your guy lost, not because of a media conspiracy, but because people had a choice and opted not to vote for the 76 year old fringe libertarian guy. Get over it.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Ron Paul received 7 delegate votes, same as Romney and Santorum. I hardly consider that loosing.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Ron Paul received 7 delegate votes, same as Romney and Santorum. I hardly consider that loosing.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Iowa Caucus is really just a straw poll. The actual delegate numbers are decided after by the people who stay after the vote. From what we can tell, it was mostly Paul supporters that stayed and volunteered to be local delegates. It is these people who eventually choose delegates to the national convention, and if these are mostly Paul supporters deciding, then Paul probably got most of the delegates.
 
ishii said:
Seems to me that the proof is in the pudding: Santorum nearly won Iowa. Sorry your guy lost but no need for sour grapes.
Click to expand...
You’re ignoring my thesis which is that the so-called Santorum surge is not authentic and not based on actual support. The media swayed support to Santorum, and the evidence of this are the tiny crowds he drew before the Iowa caucus. The media effectively swayed the undecided voters to Santorum, as evidenced in the entrance polls showing that those who had decided most recently heavily favored Santorum.
Is this your example of a media conspiracy for Romney? Look, I’m sorry that your guy Ron Paul lost the Iowa caucus, but conspiracies are the last refuge of losers. Face it: your guy lost, not because of a media conspiracy, but because people had a choice and opted not to vote for the 76 year old fringe libertarian guy. Get over it.
Click to expand...
Ishii
Click to expand...
Besides the fact that this is not even a response to the argument, my point is not a conspiracy theory. If you accept the premise of a “liberal bias” in the media which many people do, then what is so absurd about thinking that the media selectively chooses how to portray candidates?
 
rlg94086 said:
Uh huh…

"WE’RE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT SANTORUM IS NECK AND NECK WITH PAUL AND ROMNEY??? PUHLEEZE!"
Click to expand...
Check out the entrance polls. Among those who decided before December, Paul had a huge lead with 37%. The next closest was 28% (Mitt Romney). Santorum had 9% in this category. Among those who decided in December, Santorum was basically tied with Romney. Among people who chose the day of or a few days before the caucus, Santorum had 35% and 33% respectively. That’s a huge lead over Romney who was the next closest who had numbers int he 20’s. This is the phoniness of Santorum’s support. Nobody knew him before, not many who voted for him knew his actual positions or history; his support was based on getting media coverage a week or two before the caucus. That’s why it’s a joke.
 
Code: 
V
smndtupidisaftr said:
They mean it’s a media sham, that it’s not based on popular support. Rather, they contended that the media was stirring up so-called support for the guy.
Click to expand...
This seems to play nicely into the Paul supporter world of conspiracies where Paul would be the overwhelming favorite if not for a gullible public ,easily manipulated by dark forces dedicated to keeping the greates canidate in History from getting the nomination

Of course the alternative is Paul has always been fringe candidate who came in third in the only race he had a chance of winning
 
estesbob said:
This seems to play nicely into the Paul supporter world of conspiracies where Paul would be the overwhelming favorite if not for a gullible public ,easily manipulated by dark forces dedicated to keeping the greates canidate in History from getting the nomination

Of course the alternative is Paul has always been fringe candidate who came in third in the only race he had a chance of winning
Click to expand...
Again, can I get a real response to the argument I’m providing instead of a dismissive attitude?

Here’s another argument. The same thing happened with Herman Cain. Back when Ron Paul was winning straw polls across the country (he still is as he just recently won some Idaho straw polls), the media paid absolutely no attention. Good luck finding news reports of the straw poll in San Diego, for example. However, Herman Cain wins one straw poll in Florida and suddenly he’s in the top tier. You tell me how that makes sense.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Again, can I get a real response to the argument I’m providing instead of a dismissive attitude?

Here’s another argument. The same thing happened with Herman Cain. Back when Ron Paul was winning straw polls across the country (he still is as he just recently won some Idaho straw polls), the media paid absolutely no attention. Good luck finding news reports of the straw poll in San Diego, for example. However, Herman Cain wins one straw poll in Florida and suddenly he’s in the top tier. You tell me how that makes sense.
Click to expand...
So if I wast so gullible and easily manipulated I too would be a Ron paul supporter?
 
estesbob said:
So if I wast so gullible and easily manipulated I too would be a Ron paul supporter?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I’m just saying that it seems like many voters (46% in Iowa) took until the last few days to decide and most of them voted for Santorum since he was the one getting the most air time right before the caucuses. It’s not that all voters would decide to favor Paul if he got better treatment in the media; it’s that most voters won’t do the research beforehand when they vote and instead seem to vote for whomever is portrayed in the best light. Before the caucuses, there is no doubt that the one who got the most favorable portrayal was Santorum. Most people don’t even know anything about him!
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Not necessarily. I’m just saying that it seems like many voters (46% in Iowa) took until the last few days to decide and most of them voted for Santorum since he was the one getting the most air time right before the caucuses. It’s not that all voters would decide to favor Paul if he got better treatment in the media; it’s that most voters won’t do the research beforehand when they vote and instead seem to vote for whomever is portrayed in the best light. Before the caucuses, there is no doubt that the one who got the most favorable portrayal was Santorum. Most people don’t even know anything about him!
Click to expand...
Perhaps the truth is, the more people find out about Pauls simplistic solutions to complex problems the less they like him.
 
estesbob said:
Perhaps the truth is, the more people find out about Pauls simplistic solutions to complex problems the less they like him.
Click to expand...
The only thing that people heard about Ron Paul before the caucuses were the newsletters. How many of them heard about him predicting the housing bubble? How many of them heard about his views on the Federal Reserve? Nope. Instead, we heard how his foreign policy views are crazy and dangerous.

Among those who strongly support the candidate that they voted for, Ron Paul has a commanding lead.
 
estesbob said:
Perhaps the truth is, the more people find out about Pauls simplistic solutions to complex problems the less they like him.
Click to expand...
As long as you believe there is a politician out there with complex solutions to complex problems, you will have the complex problems you had before along with the complex problems the politicians complex solutions brought you.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
The only thing that people heard about Ron Paul before the caucuses were the newsletters. How many of them heard about him predicting the housing bubble? How many of them heard about his views on the Federal Reserve? Nope. Instead, we heard how his foreign policy views are crazy and dangerous.

Among those who strongly support the candidate that they voted for, Ron Paul has a commanding lead.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt there is anybody who has followed the election even briefly that does not know Ron Paul believes the Federal Reserve is a root of all evil and that the solution to America’s foreign-policy problems is to bring everybody home.

Ron Paul has always been a fringe candidate, never had a chance for the nomination and I am happy that this is the last presidential election, we’re going to have to put up with him and his supporters.
 
estesbob said:
Ron Paul has always been a fringe candidate, never had a chance for the nomination and I am happy that this is the last presidential election, we’re going to have to put up with him and his supporters.
Click to expand...
There will be more Ron Paul’s, the next ones name is Rand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top