Looks like Ron Paul will win Iowa or come 2nd and Shock the USA

[SimpleName]

Vote Fraud is definitely possible. I am hoping good will prevail and we get honest results. And everyone should keep expectations low, but keep high hopes. Tomorrow night, we may all be VERY surprised.

 

[Quantumystic]

Everyone is being told to bring cameras. Preferably video cameras.

Record EVERYTHING, and make it impossible for the assholes to hide the Truth!

 

[Eli]

I agree, I've said something along the lines of this before. I think the election will be rigged. of course, majority of the people on this forum are jackasses and I was called a troll and they said that people like me shouldn't be on the forum because it makes Ron Paul look like a conspiracy theorist. But they'll all be crying fowl when the election is rigged and then I'll be here to say I told you so.

Ya know those situations when you see something totally odd and crazy and you know everyone around you is looking at it thinking the exact same thing, but you know that if you actually say what everyone is thinking its going to cause a whole lot of harmful chaos? So you just shut up and mind your own fuckin business instead because its better than what will happen if you say something. If you could just do everyone a favor and reenact that scenario everytime you hear about diebold and feel like running your obnoxious campaign killing mouth that'd be swell and i'm sure Ron Paul will personally thank you during his inauguration.

We're running a campaign here people not a scam awareness service.

 

[braumstr]

I dont think anyone is STUPID enough to tread on the PEOPLe this go around. I doubt there will be any monkey business in Iowa.



After a week or so of pessimism, all this hype the night before is refreshing.

 

[AgentOrange]

I don't think the powers that be will try vote fraud in Iowa, because there are too many people watching. Much more likely will be Super Tuesday, when all the resources will be spread thin. Super Tuesday will be the election that much be very closely watched.

 

[EvilEngineer]

I'm pretty sure we don't have to worry about the diebold problem tomorrow as this will be done via secret paper ballot for the caucus, is that correct?

 

[Joby]

I honestly have absolutley NO idea how Iowa will shape up...

But God I hope we do well.

 

[ecliptic]

Iowans vote YES for Dr. NO

Iowans: vote YES for Dr. NO

 

[christagious]

Ya know those situations when you see something totally odd and crazy and you know everyone around you is looking at it thinking the exact same thing, but you know that if you actually say what everyone is thinking its going to cause a whole lot of harmful chaos? So you just shut up and mind your own fuckin business instead because its better than what will happen if you say something. If you could just do everyone a favor and reenact that scenario everytime you hear about diebold and feel like running your obnoxious campaign killing mouth that'd be swell and i'm sure Ron Paul will personally thank you during his inauguration.

We're running a campaign here people not a scam awareness service.

Considering the fact that you had to resort to insults and attacks, I'm assuming I won this argument because you can't be mature and have an adult, logical debate.
It's important that everybody is aware of potential vote fraud, it's an issue that needs to be put out in the open

 

[PatriotOne]

Ron Paul has said he suspects something big :-
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=72066

That's the one that has the most impact on me. Ron Paul does not exagerate! Remember when one of the Iowa volunteers came on and posted an update for us? We asked him what kind of response they were getting. He said it was a secret! I got the sense it was a good secret.

 

[RonPaulFTFW]

If we flood the vote i don't think it will be possible to rig it.

if too many people show up for Paul how can they get away with it?
it's basically just a straw poll.

 

[nate895]

When you get instant results like Iowa, vote fraud is virtually impossible since everyone in the caucus knows what went down and even if they disagree with Dr. Paul, most people are honest and most of the precinct captains aren't part of the machine.

In the primaries, it's a whole other ball game, and we need poll observer in every precinct in every state. The primaries can be rigged because most people simply go home after they've casted their vote and only know that they voted for their candidate.

 

[hellah10]

I have my lucky boxers on (seriously I do)

that enough should help us win Iowa

 

[Karsten]

I am going crazy with excitement....alnighter tonight there is now way to sleep through this

+1 I'm on pins and needles.

 

[xexkxex]

...it's basically just a straw poll.

Exactly!!!

......and this time it's FREE!! MUAhHaHaHaHAHaHHAHAhaahaaaaa

 

[austin356]

Voter/donor ratio :-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018155.html

Already discredited in other threads. Democratic and Republican caucuses are completely different and cannot be accurately compared. Numbers of both donors and votes are also not equivalent comparisons.

Phone calls from dejected Hillary supporters :-
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=71868

I was real pleased when I read this. Though I am always cautious and skeptical about such claims.

Ron Paul has said he suspects something big :-
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=72066

"Something big" for Ron Paul means $2.4 million. He is soo humble he thinks it is massive that he has stayed in the race this long.

Ron's definition of big is way different than I; I have not been blackballed politically every year before this year. I have not been rejected by my own party. I just plain and simply have not had to put up with being on the losing side time and time again. He has come through this humbly and has not raised expectations. Big for him is not big for us, it is big for the media though.

Also all other candidates will come out the day before the caucus or primary and say these types of phrases.




Besides that I have reason to believe we are going to really do something big. (but aint gonna come out on the boards w/ it.) Though we should be more cautious than being bold and say 1st or 2nd.

 

[austin356]

I think Iowa is going to be stolen from us, Iowa is far too important for the powers that be to let Ron Paul place high. I guarantee you that there will be a huge vote fraud issue that will come out of this. New Hampshire on the other hand we will win. Only 50% of the votes there are electronic so expect the votes in those districts to be really low for Ron Paul while the others will be dominated by Ron Paul supporters.

Go spread your lies in the Alex Jones forums or at minimum the "hot topics" subforum.

 

[Karsten]

Already discredited in other threads. Democratic and Republican caucuses are completely different and cannot be accurately compared. Numbers of both donors and votes are also not equivalent comparisons.

Could you explain this a little more? And give a link if it's "already been discredited"

 

[Ivanelterrible]

I expect fourth, would not be suprised with third, and would go crazy celebrating if he does better then that. Pray voters were turned off by Romneys attack ads.

 

[austin356]

Could you explain this a little more? And give a link if it's "already been discredited"

Comparing Democratic and Republican Caucuses does not work b/c the first choice results are never released. The exception to this would be comparing to a Democrat who met the 15% threshold in the vast majority of precincts. Dennis Kucinich was used to compare, yet Dennis did not make it past the first choice ballot in hardly any precincts. This completely throws off the "voter" side of the donor to voter ratio.

Then there is the fact that sourcing for donation side of the ratio was done using non-comparative statistics. For the "control" of candidate donors on the democratic side the opensecrets website was used. It only lists donations above $200 thus leaving off the majority of donors and comparing as if they were all accounted for. On the Paul side the comparison was to 1,200 donors from Iowa, but these are all donors not just over $200.


The method and idea of comparing in such a manner is not flawed past the easily visible extent of ratio comparison among candidates. The execution of the analysis is littered with errors, the largest two were listed about. Both errors listed above completely distort both sides of the equation so much to the extent where the equation may actually come out being close to right by pure chance since both factors are working in the opposite direction.


A still very problematic but more accurate comparison would be to Howard Dean. Using assumptions b/c the needed data is not available, I reached a Dean ratio of 15-20 voters per donor. This means Paul will get around 20,000 votes if that holds up.