Ann Coulter: I thought Ron Paul was going to win Iowa

[jjdoyle]

I didn't know RPF'ers still took JJdoyle seriously...?

Glad you didn't address a single point! Good to see people willing to look at history, and discuss it.

Newt Gingrich was imploding in December. Ron Paul was being destroyed over the newsletters issue. There was only one candidate left for the media and sheep to fall behind and promote. Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum had been LIVING in Iowa pretty much. Making it his first/last stand. The polls showed that very thing, with him going from single, to double digits.

Any political analyst that was paying attention, probably saw that. It's why some of us were calling/emailing the Ron Paul 2012 campaign, telling them to attack Santorum in Iowa.
If Ron Paul 2012 wasn't going to address the newsletters issue, they needed to attack the only remaining candidate (other than Mitt Romney) they had not attacked in Iowa that was a threat.

Again, I created a video, sent it to Ron Paul 2012...it was ignored by them. I then created the same video, changed the ending to Rick Perry and sent it to his campaign. Within 24 hours of them getting it, they had an ad up against Rick Santorum using the same idea.

 

[eleganz]

Glad you didn't address a single point! Good to see people willing to look at history, and discuss it.

Newt Gingrich was imploding in December. Ron Paul was being destroyed over the newsletters issue. There was only one candidate left for the media and sheep to fall behind and promote. Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum had been LIVING in Iowa pretty much. Making it his first/last stand. The polls showed that very thing, with him going from single, to double digits.

Any political analyst that was paying attention, probably saw that. It's why some of us were calling/emailing the Ron Paul 2012 campaign, telling them to attack Santorum in Iowa.
If Ron Paul 2012 wasn't going to address the newsletters issue, they needed to attack the only remaining candidate (other than Mitt Romney) they had not attacked in Iowa that was a threat.

Again, I created a video, sent it to Ron Paul 2012...it was ignored by them. I then created the same video, changed the ending to Rick Perry and sent it to his campaign. Within 24 hours of them getting it, they had an ad up against Rick Santorum using the same idea.

You gave me a neg rep for not asking Ann Coulter a question and thus wasting my time (you actually gave me a neg rep because you are a butt hurt child). As if you know how to manage my priorities better than I do. Who do you think you are, the federal government?

 

[jjdoyle]

You gave me a neg rep for not asking Ann Coulter a question and thus wasting my time (you actually gave me a neg rep because you are a butt hurt child). As if you know how to manage my priorities better than I do. Who do you think you are, the federal government?

Actually, I gave you a neg rep for not responding and addressing a single point. Take a picture and post the whole thing, like I will of your's:

Clearly one of us is following guidelines, and another isn't. Any other names you would like to throw out while breaking guidelines, and trying to derail a topic that Ann Coulter thought Ron Paul was going to win Iowa, because she wasn't paying attention in December? She probably told you that (or whoever at the event), so that you/they would buy her book. She is a salesperson at these events, trying to make good ground with anybody that shows up and MIGHT buy a book.

So, I neg rep you, because you come into your own topic, go off topic...don't address a single thing I brought up...then you get upset and neg rep me saying:

So, how many times do you get to break the guidelines, that are clear as day around here? Some people were banned in the past, with no reason(s) given. Yet, some around here still call others names repeatedly, try to insult them, and little/nothing is done? I'm a bit confused on this "Liberty" message when people can't even look at things honestly...

 

[Matt Collins]

I didn't know RPF'ers still took JJdoyle seriously...?

I don't, but I still bother to respond to his divisive inaccuracies because many people reading may not know that he is spreading flat-out untruths. I'm not really writing to him, it's to everyone else who thinks he may actually be saying something factual.

 

[Matt Collins]

There was no scientific basis for 'considering separately' the last two days of voting other than to find something for the media to latch onto to push the narrative of a 'Santorum surge.' That was the famous inadequate sample from a segment of the poll, that was used to create a figleaf of plausibility to justify a non-stop push for Santorum in the media coverage. It was given saturation media coverage, whereas the full poll showed Paul with a much stronger showing. The point being, the Santorum surge was more manufactured than real, and given momentum by the media's push for anybody but Paul.

If you're going to talk about it being a 2 week phenomenom, you have to focus in on the two weeks of negative coverage bombarding Paul (on the newsletters), to monkey wrench his momentum. And then there is the case of the uncounted votes, missing votes, etc that a ton of us noted at the time in about 100 threads on the events of January 3, 2012. Let there be no false revisionist history, Paul was going to win IA or place a very close second, period.

Huh? Ron Paul was first or tied for first in 6 of the final 12 polls in December and 2nd in the other 6.

Come on, let's not let facts get in the way of a good divisive JJDoyle post.

 

[Matt Collins]

Ann might have thought Ron was going to win it, but only if she wasn't watching the TV or paying attention to any poll right before it in late December/January.

A week before hand all bets were that Ron was going to win. But hey, apparently facts don't matter to you.

Yes, and who was rising quickly in third? Polls are usually 2-4 weeks behind public perception, as shown with Herman Cain's issue. Even after the initial charges, he was still polling first and increasing in some cases.

Fair enough point, but slight correction... polls themselves are instant. But public perception will often take a week or two to change. I'm not splitting hairs, that distinction is important.

 

[eleganz]

Oh no JJ, you gave me a neg rep because you are a butt hurt child (meaning you are immature and sensitive). You gave a reason but it wasn't the real reason, let's be honest with ourselves here.

If you really want to post pics of neg reps, I COULD go back and post pics of yours but I'm not going to do that, its petty.

But you know, anybody who disagrees with you is flat out wrong, you have the answer to the universe, you are the one true reality. Congratulations!

 

[satchelmcqueen]

go back and look it up. ron won iowa. only it took about 3 months to get the count correct.

 

[jjdoyle]

Oh no JJ, you gave me a neg rep because you are a butt hurt child (meaning you are immature and sensitive). You gave a reason but it wasn't the real reason, let's be honest with ourselves here.

If you really want to post pics of neg reps, I COULD go back and post pics of yours but I'm not going to do that, its petty.

But you know, anybody who disagrees with you is flat out wrong, you have the answer to the universe, you are the one true reality. Congratulations!

LOL. I'm not the one running around calling RPF members names. I would say overreacting twice, not addressing a single point in the topic, would fall into your description of what you claim others are. Maybe you're just rehearsing lines? I'm not really sure, since you made a claim, and can't back it up while continuing to break RPF guidelines. Please, post the picture of my full neg rep. You won't because it will show the truth. You went off topic, and got neg repped for it. Then were insulted because I spoke the truth? Why did you go to the event? To video tape some supposed "protesters"? If you didn't go to buy the book, ask a question, why were you there? How are you being honest, when you won't even post my neg rep and continue to break RPF guidelines, and try to bring a subject off topic?

The facts are Ron Paul 2012 didn't attack Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum in Iowa on TV, like they had destroyed Newt on TV in Iowa. That is a fact.
Newt Gingrich was imploding in December. That is a fact.
Ron Paul was getting destroyed for 2+ weeks over the newsletters issue, which Ron Paul 2012 had no answer for. Fact.
Rick Santorum had been living in Iowa, and been picking up endorsements in Iowa since the middle/mid-late of December. Fact.

There is nothing divisive over saying that Ann simply wasn't paying attention, if she thought this. She was simply trying to sell her book to Ron Paul supporters at the event would be my guess. Having something positive to say.

You were the one that made some allusion that votes weren't counted, and after $40+ million raised by a campaign, I would imagine they should be able to show that officially. Or, is that going to be left to the grassroots to waste their time/money to find?

A week before hand all bets were that Ron was going to win. But hey, apparently facts don't matter to you.

Fair enough point, but slight correction... polls themselves are instant. But public perception will often take a week or two to change. I'm not splitting hairs, that distinction is important.

Very true. Thanks for specifying the public perception/public polling part. I just think that if RP was closer to winning Iowa and not sliding in the polls, I think he would have stayed in Iowa. Then again, that might have meant being serious about winning and not wasting supporters time/money.

go back and look it up. ron won iowa. only it took about 3 months to get the count correct.

He won the delegates at the convention, which is what was supposed to have mattered. He didn't win the popular vote.

 

[CBC4L]

Ron won IA since he took 23 of 28 Votes.

The Ames Straw Poll (Summer) was won by Bachmann.
The Caucus Straw Poll was won by Santorum, Romney a few votes back.

2 Days before the precinct caucus, a couple robo calls went out from some evangelical leaders encouraging people to switch their vote from Paul to Santorum since Paul doesn't believe that social issues should be handled at the National level. If this didn't happen, Paul would have won huge, but at least 25% of Santorum's vote was from this last minute switch.

 

[MichaelDavis]

Please ignore Ann Coulter. Her views are very stupid.

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/03...-be-president-you-cant-run-a-short-candidate/



---------------------


Admin note- too much here is not within the site Usage Guidelines. Please read and follow them.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989-Usage-Guidelines

Thread closed.



.