PPP teases with NH tweets

[rideurlightning]

So does everyone now think that punching down is useless?

 

[TheDriver]

I have these 2 concerns:

1. There is still a huge misunderstanding by a whole lot of people about Paul's foreign policy being dangerous. They need the dots connected and badly. Paul has been given the opportunity to say which foreign policy experts agree with him, but he didn't mention a one. It was unfortunate, since a number agree with him.

2. Older Americans need to be reassured that Paul will not end Social Security and Medicare. There have been too many claims by the other candidates that he will and Paul doesn't consistently stress this point when he mentions cutting 1 trillion dollars the first year.

The next 2 are not really concerns for NH, but they will be for SC.

3. Many people misunderstand what a President Paul would do about drugs. They have formed pictures in their heads that little Billy and Susie will be able to buy heroin at the corner store. President Paul would decriminalize drugs at the federal level, ending the federal war on drugs and meddling by the federal government into the drug laws of each state. All 50 states have drug laws right now and they would still have them after Paul got the federal government out of the drug business.

4. Many people misunderstand what President Paul would do about abortion. He would not just leave it up to the 50 states to decide for themselves. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. What this would do is make it murder if someone took that life. Where the states come in, is that it would be up to them to prosecute and punish said murder, as they do most every other murder case under the sun.
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

If these things would be clarified, I think Paul would get far more Republican support and that includes with the "Social Conservatives".

^Excellent concerns!

 

[sailingaway]

I have these 2 concerns:

1. There is still a huge misunderstanding by a whole lot of people about Paul's foreign policy being dangerous. They need the dots connected and badly. Paul has been given the opportunity to say which foreign policy experts agree with him, but he didn't mention a one. It was unfortunate, since a number agree with him.

2. Older Americans need to be reassured that Paul will not end Social Security and Medicare. There have been too many claims by the other candidates that he will and Paul doesn't consistently stress this point when he mentions cutting 1 trillion dollars the first year.

The next 2 are not really concerns for NH, but they will be for SC.

3. Many people misunderstand what a President Paul would do about drugs. They have formed pictures in their heads that little Billy and Susie will be able to buy heroin at the corner store. President Paul would decriminalize drugs at the federal level, ending the federal war on drugs and meddling by the federal government into the drug laws of each state. All 50 states have drug laws right now and they would still have them after Paul got the federal government out of the drug business.

4. Many people misunderstand what President Paul would do about abortion. He would not just leave it up to the 50 states to decide for themselves. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. What this would do is make it murder if someone took that life. Where the states come in, is that it would be up to them to prosecute and punish said murder, as they do most every other murder case under the sun.
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

If these things would be clarified, I think Paul would get far more Republican support and that includes with the "Social Conservatives".

Copied as a new thread to the campaign suggestion box forum....

 

[steph3n]

NH polling is not the most accurate, historically NH voters don't get swayed much by the polls.

If I remember properly last cycle in 2008, Paul actually had 3% less in returns than in polling last days.

 

[qh4dotcom]

Predictable. Face it guys. They will never allow Paul to be 2nd. Let's just hope all the candidates are out by super tuesday. no way they will allow us to get 2nd.

Ron Paul got 2nd in Nevada in 2008.

 

[Liberty74]

Hopefully the Paul supporters were hung over and still sleeping for the morning calls and they will be contacted later today. Pretty much the only hope we have left.

This attitude is a pet peeve of mine. Too many people on these forums make too many assumptions not based in reality. People do it over over again in here in almost every thread.

Face it, Huntsman is surging (whether in reality or artificially) because Paul and the campaign isn't getting aggressive. They let a fake CNN poll take them down in Iowa. Now they are letting a fake YouTube ad take them down NH.

Do not be shocked if Paul comes in third now destroying any possible momentum going into SC.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm not sure why we are worried about Huntsman surge. He will get most of his votes from Romney, our biggest rival. And since Huntsman has no chance to win the nomination, but Romney does, we will only gain as a result.

No, the reason Huntsman has been smearing Ron is because Huntsman thought HE would get the independents and dem's going to Ron. It was his entire strategy. It is why Huntsman never mentions Iran (where he wants a land invasion) just getting troops out of Afghanistan. He's like Obama 'this is a bad war' not 'we need to change policy and not have war constantly for non-defense reasons'.

 

[TheDriver]

So does everyone now think that punching down is useless?

I don't think Huntsman has staying power--he won't be around on the radar on Super Tuesday. Therefore we should be tearing down those herding the sheeple, as that's where the populist supports lies.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Hunstman didn't get a tough question in either debate. The media is pushing him. The pollsters are pushing him. We should have been ready to smack this shit down.

What do you really expect us to do?

 

[sailingaway]

This attitude is a pet peeve of mine. Too many people on these forums make too many assumptions not based in reality. People do it over over again in here in almost every thread.

Face it, Huntsman is surging (whether in reality or artificially) because Paul and the campaign isn't getting aggressive. They let a fake CNN poll take them down in Iowa. Now they are letting a fake YouTube ad take them down NH.

Do not be shocked if Paul comes in third now destroying any possible momentum going into SC.

Do you think you are helping?

I suspect Huntsman did go up yesterday, hence the Paul emails on some of his positions (which should have mentioned his plans to invade Iran to independent voters imho). However, I think the debate and Fox interview were events Ron knocked out of the park PLUS we now have evidence no Ron Paul supporter ever created the awful anti-Huntsman video blamed on us. I think we should bounce back and regain steam. Obviously, the media is against us, and it is potent. But we have to bear that, everywhere.

 

[Marky]

The "surge" is just a way to make the rigged results more plausible. I don’t believe the Santorum “surge” was real, and this one is fake too. We predicted it folks……Project ”Surge” Pt. 2 is in full swing.

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[Kevin Smyth]

I'm so confused. NBC has us at 22%, Suffolk has us at 20%, Huntsman way back. Anyone think PPP is adjusting their methods after Iowa to suppress Ron's numbers?

PPP was pretty straight-forward and accurate last time, the only thing they couldn't predict was where the last minute Undecideds would go.

 

[Number19]

... Many people misunderstand what President Paul would do about abortion. He would not just leave it up to the 50 states to decide for themselves. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception...

LibertyEagle, I have read this several times and I don't understand. What would be RP's Constitutional justification for this legislation. I think it would take an Amendment.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

This attitude is a pet peeve of mine. Too many people on these forums make too many assumptions not based in reality. People do it over over again in here in almost every thread.

Face it, Huntsman is surging (whether in reality or artificially) because Paul and the campaign isn't getting aggressive. They let a fake CNN poll take them down in Iowa. Now they are letting a fake YouTube ad take them down NH.

Do not be shocked if Paul comes in third now destroying any possible momentum going into SC.

Talk about assumptions, look in a mirror, bud! You have a pet peeve about making assumptions, and then you go and make a few of your own. Why should we make a big deal over a stupid youtube video? It's not a big deal. Why assume that Huntsman is surging be4cause the campaign isn't getting aggressive? You ARE assuming that, you know. There's no evidence of that. It's the media.

What do you really think the Paul campaign should do to counter Huntsman? There's only so much they can do and, beside, they are doing some things to counter Huntsman. There were at least a couple instances in the last 2 debates where Paul called out Huntsman. What more are we supposed to do?

 

[pauliticalfan]

2008 New Hampshire Dem polls were all wrong.

 

[sailingaway]

LibertyEagle, I have read this several times and I don't understand. What would be RP's Constitutional justification for this legislation. I think it would take an Amendment.

It reverses what Roe v Wade unconstitutionally did -- and against EVERY principle of judicial notice....

Judicial notice is a principle that says you don't have to prove things 'everyone knows' in court, which aren't controversial. It saves time. Suppose it is known a murder occurred at high tide -- judicial notice would allow you to bring in an almanac saying when the tide was high that night, so you don't have to prove when the tide was high. In Roe v Wade Blackmun who had strong personal pro-choice views JUDICIALLY NOTICED when life began in a 'split into three parts' (by trimester) manner. Ron Paul's bill that he has proposed before uses the Constitutional authority to determine what subject matter jurisdiction federal courts have and says because 'when life begins' is controversial, the question of abortion could not be in the federal subject matter jurisdiction so only state courts could address it. Variations of Ron's bill say 'life begins at conception SO the states need to address abortion issues just as states address defenses to murder across the board (insanity, self defense, whatever, are state defenses). So a state theoretically could decide you have a DEFENSE when it is in (whatever stage of the pregnancy) and specify the circumstances.

 

[bobburn]

PPP was pretty straight-forward and accurate last time, the only thing they couldn't predict was where the last minute Undecideds would go.

Undecideds made up just 5% of the sample in PPP's last poll. Even if 2.5% went to Santorum and Romney, they were still stretching the MOE. They're pretty accurate, but they're not the most accurate poll out there.

 

[AdamT]

So will all MSM channels take this "poll" as gospel and push it 24-7 until the 10th? Would fix their MO perfectly.

 

[Sublyminal]

So will all MSM channels take this "poll" as gospel and push it 24-7 until the 10th? Would fix their MO perfectly.

We'll know soon enough.