Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ron Paul's showing in NH

Expand Messages
  • Dan McGuire
    I predict that Ron Paul s 23% and second place finish in New Hampshire will mark the high point of his campaign in states with primaries. Note that he did
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I predict that Ron Paul's 23% and second place finish in New Hampshire will
      mark the high point of his campaign in states with primaries. Note that he
      did that before Perry and Huntsman dropped out. It wasn't a win, but where
      are you going to find a better result?

      Dan


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Stephen
      We got this exact same complaint in 2008, when Ron Paul got 8% and John McCain won the state. McCain went on to win the nomination, as Romney will this time.
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        We got this exact same complaint in 2008, when Ron Paul got 8% and John McCain won the state. McCain went on to win the nomination, as Romney will this time. The answer now is the same as then, basically what you just gave. NH has the first primary, so the field is still large and the vote split. Voters face the wasted-vote dilemma, so they tend to pick their favorite among the electable candidates, not their favorite overall. In 2008 Ron Paul was not seen as electable, and even in 2012 it remains the case. Ron Paul's support is thus *at least* 23%, but probably much more. This would be apparent if we had Approval Voting.

        Tanstaafl, we share your frustration, but you do not live in a libertarian nation. Come visit NH in a couple weeks for the annual Liberty Forum, and you can see for yourself how NH has proven to be the correct choice.

        --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Dan McGuire <danmcguire@...> wrote:
        >
        > I predict that Ron Paul's 23% and second place finish in New Hampshire will
        > mark the high point of his campaign in states with primaries. Note that he
        > did that before Perry and Huntsman dropped out. It wasn't a win, but where
        > are you going to find a better result?
        >
        > Dan
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • dreepa@yahoo.com
        in fact I would say that the jump from 5th place to 2nd place here in NH is in large part to efforts from the FSP participants who moved to NH. (it is at least
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          in fact I would say that the jump from 5th place to 2nd place here in NH is in large part to efforts from the FSP participants who moved to NH. (it is at least one of the factors)



          On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:56 AM, "Stephen" <simplulo@...> wrote:

          > We got this exact same complaint in 2008, when Ron Paul got 8% and John McCain won the state. McCain went on to win the nomination, as Romney will this time. The answer now is the same as then, basically what you just gave. NH has the first primary, so the field is still large and the vote split. Voters face the wasted-vote dilemma, so they tend to pick their favorite among the electable candidates, not their favorite overall. In 2008 Ron Paul was not seen as electable, and even in 2012 it remains the case. Ron Paul's support is thus *at least* 23%, but probably much more. This would be apparent if we had Approval Voting.
          >
          > Tanstaafl, we share your frustration, but you do not live in a libertarian nation. Come visit NH in a couple weeks for the annual Liberty Forum, and you can see for yourself how NH has proven to be the correct choice.
          >
          > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Dan McGuire <danmcguire@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > I predict that Ron Paul's 23% and second place finish in New Hampshire will
          > > mark the high point of his campaign in states with primaries. Note that he
          > > did that before Perry and Huntsman dropped out. It wasn't a win, but where
          > > are you going to find a better result?
          > >
          > > Dan
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Tim Condon
          You all should keep in mind also that Ron Paul does *far* better in caucus states (e.g. Maine and Nevada this weekend) than he does in voting states. Of
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            You all should keep in mind also that Ron Paul does *far* better in caucus
            states (e.g. Maine and Nevada this weekend) than he does in voting states.

            Of course, it does appear that he's joining with Romney
            now<http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-paul-alliance/2012/02/03/id/428425?s=al&promo_code=E1A6-1>.
            That's fairly odd....




            On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Stephen <simplulo@...> wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            > We got this exact same complaint in 2008, when Ron Paul got 8% and John
            > McCain won the state. McCain went on to win the nomination, as Romney will
            > this time. The answer now is the same as then, basically what you just
            > gave. NH has the first primary, so the field is still large and the vote
            > split. Voters face the wasted-vote dilemma, so they tend to pick their
            > favorite among the electable candidates, not their favorite overall. In
            > 2008 Ron Paul was not seen as electable, and even in 2012 it remains the
            > case. Ron Paul's support is thus *at least* 23%, but probably much more.
            > This would be apparent if we had Approval Voting.
            >
            > Tanstaafl, we share your frustration, but you do not live in a libertarian
            > nation. Come visit NH in a couple weeks for the annual Liberty Forum, and
            > you can see for yourself how NH has proven to be the correct choice.
            >
            >
            > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Dan McGuire <danmcguire@...>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > I predict that Ron Paul's 23% and second place finish in New Hampshire
            > will
            > > mark the high point of his campaign in states with primaries. Note that
            > he
            > > did that before Perry and Huntsman dropped out. It wasn't a win, but
            > where
            > > are you going to find a better result?
            > >
            > > Dan
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jon Isaac
            That article contains not much but hearsay repeated a few times over so it sounds like facts. Have you seen the Paul Romney commercials? They are hardly
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 3, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              That article contains not much but hearsay repeated a few times over so it
              sounds like facts. Have you seen the Paul Romney commercials? They are
              hardly complimentary. It stands to reason that both would want to weed out
              the other players, but the collusion is IMHO a bit of a stretch.

              Jon Isaac

              (404-550-5903 jisaac@... / jon.isaac@...)




              On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:

              > **
              >
              >
              > You all should keep in mind also that Ron Paul does *far* better in caucus
              > states (e.g. Maine and Nevada this weekend) than he does in voting states.
              >
              > Of course, it does appear that he's joining with Romney
              > now<
              > http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-paul-alliance/2012/02/03/id/428425?s=al&promo_code=E1A6-1
              > >.
              > That's fairly odd....
              >
              > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Stephen <simplulo@...> wrote:
              >
              > > **
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > We got this exact same complaint in 2008, when Ron Paul got 8% and John
              > > McCain won the state. McCain went on to win the nomination, as Romney
              > will
              > > this time. The answer now is the same as then, basically what you just
              > > gave. NH has the first primary, so the field is still large and the vote
              > > split. Voters face the wasted-vote dilemma, so they tend to pick their
              > > favorite among the electable candidates, not their favorite overall. In
              > > 2008 Ron Paul was not seen as electable, and even in 2012 it remains the
              > > case. Ron Paul's support is thus *at least* 23%, but probably much more.
              > > This would be apparent if we had Approval Voting.
              > >
              > > Tanstaafl, we share your frustration, but you do not live in a
              > libertarian
              > > nation. Come visit NH in a couple weeks for the annual Liberty Forum, and
              > > you can see for yourself how NH has proven to be the correct choice.
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Dan McGuire <danmcguire@...>
              > > wrote:
              > > >
              > > > I predict that Ron Paul's 23% and second place finish in New Hampshire
              > > will
              > > > mark the high point of his campaign in states with primaries. Note that
              > > he
              > > > did that before Perry and Huntsman dropped out. It wasn't a win, but
              > > where
              > > > are you going to find a better result?
              > > >
              > > > Dan
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • PhilB
              Interestingly, this makes sense to me. They both see benefits from getting rid of the other two. Romney sees what he thinks as his main challenger (Gingrich)
              Message 6 of 6 , Feb 3, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Interestingly, this makes sense to me. They both see benefits from getting rid of the other two. Romney sees what he thinks as his main challenger (Gingrich) dropped. Paul become the "not Romney" candidate and gathers all that support. Romney probably believes that Paul is no threat. Hopefully this works, and then Romney is proven wrong.

                PhilB

                --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
                >
                > You all should keep in mind also that Ron Paul does *far* better in caucus
                > states (e.g. Maine and Nevada this weekend) than he does in voting states.
                >
                > Of course, it does appear that he's joining with Romney
                > now<http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-paul-alliance/2012/02/03/id/428425?s=al&promo_code=E1A6-1>.
                > That's fairly odd....
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Stephen <simplulo@...> wrote:
                >
                > > **
                > >
                > >
                > > We got this exact same complaint in 2008, when Ron Paul got 8% and John
                > > McCain won the state. McCain went on to win the nomination, as Romney will
                > > this time. The answer now is the same as then, basically what you just
                > > gave. NH has the first primary, so the field is still large and the vote
                > > split. Voters face the wasted-vote dilemma, so they tend to pick their
                > > favorite among the electable candidates, not their favorite overall. In
                > > 2008 Ron Paul was not seen as electable, and even in 2012 it remains the
                > > case. Ron Paul's support is thus *at least* 23%, but probably much more.
                > > This would be apparent if we had Approval Voting.
                > >
                > > Tanstaafl, we share your frustration, but you do not live in a libertarian
                > > nation. Come visit NH in a couple weeks for the annual Liberty Forum, and
                > > you can see for yourself how NH has proven to be the correct choice.
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Dan McGuire <danmcguire@>
                > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > I predict that Ron Paul's 23% and second place finish in New Hampshire
                > > will
                > > > mark the high point of his campaign in states with primaries. Note that
                > > he
                > > > did that before Perry and Huntsman dropped out. It wasn't a win, but
                > > where
                > > > are you going to find a better result?
                > > >
                > > > Dan
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.