North Dakota

No, it was the media. That fake CNN poll created the "surge" and the sheep jumped on the bandwagon.
Santorum campaigned in every stinking county in Iowa and was climbing in the polls before the Santorum surge stories. The news stories hit about the surge a landslide of people remembered that they shook his hand in their local town parish. "I liked him then but I thought he dildn't have a chance."
RP blew his surge by letting the media spin get ahead of him on the newsletters and there was no excuse for that as anyone with the least bit of political background would have know the attacks would come.
 
How many times did Rick and Mitt go to a state for a day, and then return home for 3 or 4 days at a time? Get back to me when you figure out the answer.

Mitt Romney is spending the first night in his house in 9 weeks tonight. Santorum spent 3 weeks on a bus in Iowa before staying in a room.

The answer sucks, but there is the answer.
 
I truly believe the media and the other candidates ignore Ron Paul because they simply don't perceive him to be a threat, not because he is a threat. We're in a bubble that doesn't fit with reality. The masses are asses and sadly guys like the other three stooges appeal to them.

Then why does Ron poll best head to head against Obama?
 
Is it possible the votes in fargo were split up into the peoples actual precincts, and those votes still need to be added to the actual precinct counts?
 
Not to add to conspiracy theories or anything but how does this make any sense
ND Website: 89.4% - 8,283 votes in
AP: 62.7% - 9,957 votes in
CNN: 77% - 9,957 votes in
 
Then why does Ron poll best head to head against Obama?

There is a prevailing opinion in the media, from what I can tell, that not covering Paul helps him, and the more that people hear about his "extreme" views, and newsletter connections, and things like it, the worse he would do. I don't share the opinion, but I have a couple of fairly close friends in TV news (ABC). They say that's the talk around the water cooler, that not covering Paul is doing him a *favor*, because everything people hear, they dislike. Again, I don't agree, but it's not malicious. They do say the people they work with think he is irrelevant, and only projection of our wishes is what gets him his hard core support.

It's kind of absurd IMO, but they don't follow the reasons we support him as close as we do, I suppose. It's ignorance, in the dictionary sense.
 
America still NOT ready for Ron Paul and libertarianism, but a THEOCRAT :confused::eek: For shame to those conditioned sheep!
 
North Dakota Public Service Commissioner Brian Kalk, a candidate for the U.S. House, predicted Paul would "win easily."

North Dakota GOP Chairman Stan Stein said about 4,000 ballots were printed up just for the Fargo site. In 2008, about 9,500 voters cast ballots, but because the weather is pleasant and the contest heated, Stein said he wouldn't be surprised if as many as 12,000 voters turned out.

http://www.whig.com/story/17086841/paul-eyes-nd-caucuses-to-pick-up-a-state-victory

lol?
 
Not to add to conspiracy theories or anything but how does this make any sense
ND Website: 89.4% - 8,283 votes in
AP: 62.7% - 9,957 votes in
CNN: 77% - 9,957 votes in

bad reporting isn't conspiracy theory, it is natural course of affairs.

But I don't know why the discrepency. It is odd.
 
There is a prevailing opinion in the media, from what I can tell, that not covering Paul helps him, and the more that people hear about his "extreme" views, and newsletter connections, and things like it, the worse he would do. I don't share the opinion, but I have a couple of fairly close friends in TV news (ABC). They say that's the talk around the water cooler, that not covering Paul is doing him a *favor*, because everything people hear, they dislike. Again, I don't agree, but it's not malicious. They do say the people they work with think he is irrelevant, and only projection of our wishes is what gets him his hard core support.

It's kind of absurd IMO, but they don't follow the reasons we support him as close as we do, I suppose. It's ignorance, in the dictionary sense.

that doesn't address why he beats Obama.
 
Back
Top