Someone please explain how Ron Paul beat Peden with 70%

[Barney]

I'm not saying there was or there wasn't but you can't prove the reason for something NOT happening.

It is like the Administration saying that all of their policies worked because "see, we haven't had another 9/11 so it must have worked".

But that kind of logic is backwards. We didn't have a 9/11 the previous 200 years so were THOSE policies working too?

On the voting process, the onus is on the administrator to prove the integrity of the process, not on the electorate to prove otherwise.

The electronic machines has been shown to be easily hackable, and blatant disparities with exit polls casually dismissed.

If the electronic machines were to produce a paper ballot for an open and observable recount and the results corroborated with the electronic tallies,... that would go a long way in "proving no fraud" took place.

 

[syborius]

1. People think Paul represents them well as a Congressman, but doubt Paul's ability to make a good President.
2. Chris Peden is an unknown commodity, John McCain is not.
3. They thought Ron Paul dropped out of the Presidential race.
4. McCain practically had the nomination wrapped up so they viewed voting for Paul as a waste.

There are probably many sensible variables that go into this. Those who automatically assume fraud obviously are incapable of thinking logically.

Abe, you're a proven shill, what are you doing still posting here. GFY!

 

[Bradley in DC]

Competent people running his re-election campaign vs. the ones running the national one.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Abe, you're a proven shill, what are you doing still posting here. GFY!

Regardless, he is still right in the post you quote - people need to stop chalking EVERYTHING up to conspiracy.

 

[TruthAtLast]

1. People think Paul represents them well as a Congressman, but doubt Paul's ability to make a good President.
2. Chris Peden is an unknown commodity, John McCain is not.
3. They thought Ron Paul dropped out of the Presidential race.
4. McCain practically had the nomination wrapped up so they viewed voting for Paul as a waste.

There are probably many sensible variables that go into this. Those who automatically assume fraud obviously are incapable of thinking logically.

1. This could be true to some extend but not to the disparity that the number show. 70% to 6% seems a little drastic.
2. It is true that maybe some McCain supporters living in District 14 just didn't like Peden, though he is cut from the same mold as McCain so I'm not sure why this would be the case.
3. Maybe this is the case in other states, but not in his home state. They see his name on the ballot.
4. This argument could also be used the other way. If they feel that McCain has practically won, why vote for him? Why not just vote for Ron then? It wouldn't hurt anything.

I don't instantly think it was fraud, though I don't rule it out either because there has been proof of it in the past. But one is not exclusive to the other.

I don't deny the mountain of evidence that suggests that the MSM has in fact blacked out Ron Paul during this campaign (and/or discredited him), and I don't deny that the GOP itself has taken great lengths to silence Ron Paul supporters and to keep him from gaining any momentum (like in Louisiana - just ask Torchbearer).

HOWEVER, I'm also not tying victory to these truths.

It is entirely possible and of course rational to concede that even if EVERYTHING was completely fair, Ron Paul may not have won ANYWAY. This is just the truth of it and it is illogical to think otherwise.

It would have certainly at least been a closer race and would have promoted legitamate debate on our policies which is often what Ron Paul wants. Certainly the possibility of winning would have been greatly increased.

I believe in Ron Paul and support his views but more than that I believe in the truest form of Democracy even if that means the guy I support loses fair and square. The frustration comes when we see that it clearly isn't fair.

My point is that there ARE conspiracies and greater powers at work but they don't account for EVERY failure in the campaign. There are also legit reasons why someone might not win and I think it is important to explore all of these and make the destinction between them. This is the only way we can learn and get better results next time.

This is a difficult task because often these factors are intertwined. It is hard really to know how people would react given different information on which to make their decision.

 

[liberteebell]

This is easily answered.

Most democrats voted for Ron Paul over the NEOCON Republican running against him. Nothing difficult to understand.

Without having looked at the numbers, this is the most plausible explanation I've heard.

 

[DFF]

Vote fraud so blatant it's sickening.

 

[Penners]

Originally Posted by abe
1. People think Paul represents them well as a Congressman, but doubt Paul's ability to make a good President.
2. Chris Peden is an unknown commodity, John McCain is not.
3. They thought Ron Paul dropped out of the Presidential race.
4. McCain practically had the nomination wrapped up so they viewed voting for Paul as a waste.

There are probably many sensible variables that go into this. Those who automatically assume fraud obviously are incapable of thinking logically

*****
+1

 

[S3eker]

There wasn't a Democrat running against him!

Democrats in his districe also voted for him. Also, what this shows is that most Republicans voted for the other guy. The Dems probably saved Ron Paul.

It was either Ron Paul or some other Bush neocon. No conspiracy here.. move along...

 

[TruthAtLast]

There wasn't a Democrat running against him!

Democrats in his districe also voted for him. Also, what this shows is that most Republicans voted for the other guy. The Dems probably saved Ron Paul.

It was either Ron Paul or some other Bush neocon. No conspiracy here.. move along...

I'd love to see a breakdown of the voter affiliation that voted for Ron Paul. Do they publish this info anywhere?

 

[Smiley Gladhands]

There wasn't a Democrat running against him!

Democrats in his districe also voted for him. Also, what this shows is that most Republicans voted for the other guy. The Dems probably saved Ron Paul.

It was either Ron Paul or some other Bush neocon. No conspiracy here.. move along...

You can't vote in both Primaries. So why would a Democrat excuse themselves from the hotly-contested Democratic presidential race (and other local Dem races) to vote against a neocon in a republican congressional race? I'm pretty sure they would not.

As a citizen living in RP's district, I must say there are a lot of neocons here. Some might vote for Ron for Congress just because they identify with him on his 'conservative' stances, and think he's too ineffective regarding the foreign policy issues to matter.

This vote doesn't really surprise me. Most people in Ron's district were as clueless about him as the rest of America. And people everywhere use the most twisted logic to justify who they'll vote for. My boss was talking about going to vote for Hillary in order to stop Obama from raising his taxes. That's twisted.

Also, the 6% yesterday would have been higher if Texas had a primary on Super Tuesday. I had converted several people at work to Ron Paul's philosophies but they wouldn't go vote for him because he had no chance of winning (and they were busy). 6% doesn't represent the %age who agree with Ron....6% represents the number who agreed with Ron so much that they got off their asses to vote despite the apparent triviality in doing so.

Also, worrying about voter fraud is pretty pointless....I'm pretty sure there's ZERO paper trail. My vote was entirely done by machine, without even a receipt or anything saying I voted.

Despite the apparent inconsistencies in the vote, it's not worth worrying about. If any vote should be scrutinized it should be a state like NH where there is a paper trail (however questionable that trail might be).

 

[Joseph Hart]

People like to vote for the majority, who they think is going to win.

 

[fever pitch]

I thought most people are against the Iraq war? If that's true, they should love Paul's foreign policy, and why the hell would they be voting McCain in such large numbers? This I cannot understand. Are people now so brainwashed, they actually believe the war is a good thing?

 

[TruthAtLast]

You can't vote in both Primaries. So why would a Democrat excuse themselves from the hotly-contested Democratic presidential race (and other local Dem races) to vote against a neocon in a republican congressional race? I'm pretty sure they would not.

As a citizen living in RP's district, I must say there are a lot of neocons here. Some might vote for Ron for Congress just because they identify with him on his 'conservative' stances, and think he's too ineffective regarding the foreign policy issues to matter.

This vote doesn't really surprise me. Most people in Ron's district were as clueless about him as the rest of America. And people everywhere use the most twisted logic to justify who they'll vote for. My boss was talking about going to vote for Hillary in order to stop Obama from raising his taxes. That's twisted.

Also, the 6% yesterday would have been higher if Texas had a primary on Super Tuesday. I had converted several people at work to Ron Paul's philosophies but they wouldn't go vote for him because he had no chance of winning (and they were busy). 6% doesn't represent the %age who agree with Ron....6% represents the number who agreed with Ron so much that they got off their asses to vote despite the apparent triviality in doing so.

Also, worrying about voter fraud is pretty pointless....I'm pretty sure there's ZERO paper trail. My vote was entirely done by machine, without even a receipt or anything saying I voted.

Despite the apparent inconsistencies in the vote, it's not worth worrying about. If any vote should be scrutinized it should be a state like NH where there is a paper trail (however questionable that trail might be).

I wasn't aware of this but are you saying that if there is no Democrat running for that Congressional seat, a Democrat living in that district has NO VOICE whatsoever? They can't vote at all for who their representative will be? Just looking for clarification.

 

[syborius]

I wasn't aware of this but are you saying that if there is no Democrat running for that Congressional seat, a Democrat living in that district has NO VOICE whatsoever? They can't vote at all for who their representative will be? Just looking for clarification.

That's nice truth, now how about the issue at hand. Why did we only get some 15k more votes statewide for the presidency over the landslide win over Peden in district 14? The rally in Austin had at least 5-6k people at it alone. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Agent CSL]

In most of the states there have been vote discrepancies that I've noticed. It seems we've put any investigation on the back burner after New Hampshire, but it is really odd, really fishy, that he gets a ton of votes in his area and very few altogether. Yes, there are indeed people who would vote for McCain and Huck, but the overall number and vote discrepancy is ODD.

I do not doubt there's vote fraud about in not only Texas, but everywhere. It's worth a relook, or hell, someone should at least write a book about it. =\

 

[Agent CSL]

Blimp

 

[UnitedWeStand]

I wasn't aware of this but are you saying that if there is no Democrat running for that Congressional seat, a Democrat living in that district has NO VOICE whatsoever? They can't vote at all for who their representative will be? Just looking for clarification.

yep, our district is apparently so heavily republican no democrat even tries to run.

 

[Steve_New_Jersey]

Look you had Ron against 1 other guy for his seat. With the race for president people already formed a voting pattern based on what the media fed them as Rons possibility to take the race home. Its simple. Way to many people dont vote for the righ reasons. I wont tell them how to think but rather beg them to stop having children and spreading the sheeple population.

 

[JohnCrabtree]

The simplest explanation is usually the most logical. and it is summed up in 1 word: Incumbency.

People DO vote for the status quo. Ron is thier congress critter, and he is the only one they know. He has good name recognition and an (I) next to his name. He is at the top of the ballot. and he was able to outspend Peden by a factor of 5:1, and that doesn't include the freebees allowed to congress critters.

It is very common for Congress critters to win elections, especially primary elections, with such margins, in fact I am amazed that Peden did so well.

These people vote for who they think will beat the democrats in the next election, Yes they are DEAD WRONG on that with McCain, but the media has told them that McCain will be the winner of the republican nomination and that McCain is the most "electible" out of McCain, Huckabee, and Paul" But they are right for Paul to beat the democrats in the congressional race. No democrat is running. Had Peden won though, A democrat may have ran in the general election, because it would be easy to defeat Peden.

Thats just my 2 cents.