White House 2008 rankings: The Republicans

[stephanie]

take a look at what they said for Ron Paul..:laugh2:
12. Ron Paul
Texas congressman Last Ranking: 9
Just please stop e-mailing us. Thanks.



full article at...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16711064/
Updated: 11:19 a.m. AKT May 18, 2007
WASHINGTON - "Rudy McRomney" is truly starting to become a solid candidate for the GOP nomination. The problem, of course, is that the GOP can only pick one.

The most fascinating thing the second debate exposed is that not only is Rudy Giuliani the front-runner, but John McCain and Mitt Romney are now comfortable in this idea that they are vying to become the conservative alternative to Giuliani. It used to be that Giuliani and Romney were fighting to be the conservative alternative to McCain. How things have changed.

Note: Democrats and Republican rankings will be updated on alternating weeks. Click here for the latest Democratic rankings.

[avatar4321]

i would have ranked Gilmore higher than T Thompson. Tancredo is in a pretty good position i think. He isnt too low. I still dont know why they act like McCain is a top teir candidate... its a joke.

[nevadamedic]

i would have ranked Gilmore higher than T Thompson. Tancredo is in a pretty good position i think. He isnt too low. I still dont know why they act like McCain is a top teir candidate... its a joke.

Tommy Thompson is a joke.

[chum43]

take a look at what they said for Ron Paul..:laugh2:
12. Ron Paul
Texas congressman Last Ranking: 9
Just please stop e-mailing us. Thanks.


so he wins their debate polls, and they get enough emails about him that it's the only comment they have about him, and he gets last place, is that a blatant enough attack to convince people the establishment simply doesn't want him, no matter what the people say?

it seems pretty obvious to me. Personally I want the guy every major mainstream media outlet is putting in last place even though he has a huge following and wins their polls. It proves just how good he would be for the people and just how bad he would be for the type of people that run these places and put out this crap.

[avatar4321]

so he wins their debate polls, and they get enough emails about him that it's the only comment they have about him, and he gets last place, is that a blatant enough attack to convince people the establishment simply doesn't want him, no matter what the people say?

it seems pretty obvious to me. Personally I want the guy every major mainstream media outlet is putting in last place even though he has a huge following and wins their polls. It proves just how good he would be for the people and just how bad he would be for the type of people that run these places and put out this crap.

I still dont see how you think a man who looks like a complete idiot in the debate won anything.

[chum43]

I still dont see how you think a man who looks like a complete idiot in the debate won anything.

it's an msnbc ranking, and he won msnbc's debate according to every post debate poll they put out in the next two days... i'm not saying he won it, he did.

[Kathianne]

it's an msnbc ranking, and he won msnbc's debate according to every post debate poll they put out in the next two days... i'm not saying he won it, he did.

Well except I got an email telling me to vote in that poll, which I do believe leads to spamming?

[avatar4321]

it's an msnbc ranking, and he won msnbc's debate according to every post debate poll they put out in the next two days... i'm not saying he won it, he did.

Ive learned to trust no polls, particularly internet polls. especially when Democrat websites are calling on people to spam them to vote for the weakest candidates.

[chum43]

Well except I got an email telling me to vote in that poll, which I do believe leads to spamming?

a vote is a vote, i just don't see how aside from multiple votes to one person(which hasn't happened and isn't even being claimed) there is anything unfair about it... how is getting more people to vote in a poll spamming and unfair?

[chum43]

Ive learned to trust no polls, particularly internet polls. especially when Democrat websites are calling on people to spam them to vote for the weakest candidates.

I agree, i don't trust any polls, my point isn't the polls, my point is msnbc is putting out a ranking and also puts out polls and is obviously getting numerous emails, how can they put him in last place based on anything if they don't even trust their own polls and their own email inbox.

[Kathianne]

a vote is a vote, i just don't see how aside from multiple votes to one person(which hasn't happened and isn't even being claimed) there is anything unfair about it... how is getting more people to vote in a poll spamming and unfair?

How about because alot of those people never even watched the debates? If they did, they would have seen the Guiliani smackdown and audience reaction.

[stephanie]

:coffee:

Silly Internet Poll Spamming, the Sequel

Since the loons are continuing to bay at the moon and insist Ron Paul really does have massive support (and I removed him from the poll because he was “winning” and I’m a neocon fascist Hitler) I spent more time on this than it’s worth and did some analysis of the vote records in our database—and there is ample evidence of cheating. There are repeated episodes of multiple votes in short timeframes from university networks, often the same university over and over, with about enough time between them to disconnect and refresh the IP address. There are also lots of votes from dialup accounts; the same dialup networks over and over, at intervals that are about right for hanging up and redialing to get a new IP address. And I can actually see the point at which the stacking began, when the votes for Ron Paul suddenly started piling up.

Is this proof of cheating? No, but I don’t have to prove it. It’s just a silly internet poll, and this tempest in a teapot shows how desperate the Paul campaign is to get noticed.

But at the risk of repeating myself, just because it’s an unscientific, unverifiable, ultimately meaningless internet poll, that doesn’t mean I’m going to stand by and watch as people blatantly stack the results.

Here’s an explanation of some of the methods used for Stacking Internet Polls.

The Ron Paul campaign, meanwhile, has shown that they don’t plan on doing the right thing by asking their followers not to cheat on internet polls. They’re getting so much publicity by acting like idiots and creating this weird facade of a campaign, who can blame them? Ron Paul Builds Campaign on the Web.

Meanwhile, the popular conservative blog Little Green Footballs on Wednesday took Paul’s name off the list of presidential candidates in its online poll because, it said, “his supporters are deliberately spamming our polls to make it appear as if Paul has more support than he does.”

That decision prompted more than two dozen angry emails - many obscene - from Paul supporters, the blog said Thursday. Little Green Footballs said that Paul backers had not voted multiple times, but had rather sent out emails and posted a link to the poll on their own websites, urging people to vote for Paul.

“You have to look at where the criticism is coming from. It’s a neo-con site,” said Paul spokesman Benton. “We’ve had a flood of response after the [9/11] comment, about 75 percent positive and 25 percent negative saying Ron is a disgrace and we should just keep bombing people.”
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

[Kathianne]

Good show Stephanie. Anyone who's read LGF knows Charles would not have taken Ron Paul off lightly. There were reasons, besides the emails.

[chum43]

How about because alot of those people never even watched the debates? If they did, they would have seen the Guiliani smackdown and audience reaction.

is it impossible to believe that people saw it and still sided with paul... you yourself just posted an article proving giuliani was wrong and paul was right.

[avatar4321]

is it impossible to believe that people saw it and still sided with paul... you yourself just posted an article proving giuliani was wrong and paul was right.

Yes. It is impossible to see it and believe that people sided with Paul. The man was a fool.

[Kathianne]

is it impossible to believe that people saw it and still sided with paul... you yourself just posted an article proving giuliani was wrong and paul was right.

Which article was that?

[chum43]

Good show Stephanie. Anyone who's read LGF knows Charles would not have taken Ron Paul off lightly. There were reasons, besides the emails.

well I'd never read anyone claiming multiple votes until now, but it still seems like copout reasons, if they are cheating, it's incredibly sophisticated cheating and they are incredibly dedicated to refreshing ip's an redialing... but the same thing happened with text voting, which can't cheat that way, what the excuse then? oh it's a bunch of liberals, so the host of the show tells people to text in against paul, that isn't the same as spamming right?

well anyway, whether or not he actually has the support the polls show I guess I can't say for sure given the LGF thing, but I'm content to keep defending the man and wait till the primaries when we can see how much support he really has... i'm very slightly confident he'll at least get a good chunk then... I still don't think he should be last, thats a little ridiculous.

[Kathianne]

well I'd never read anyone claiming multiple votes until now, but it still seems like copout reasons, if they are cheating, it's incredibly sophisticated cheating and they are incredibly dedicated to refreshing ip's an redialing... but the same thing happened with text voting, which can't cheat that way, what the excuse then? oh it's a bunch of liberals, so the host of the show tells people to text in against paul, that isn't the same as spamming right?

well anyway, whether or not he actually has the support the polls show I guess I can't say for sure given the LGF thing, but I'm content to keep defending the man and wait till the primaries when we can see how much support he really has... i'm very slightly confident he'll at least get a good chunk then... I still don't think he should be last, thats a little ridiculous.

EXCUSE ME? You said I posted a link that refuted what I said, where was that?

[chum43]

Which article was that?


Yes. It is impossible to see it and believe that people sided with Paul. The man was a fool.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html... bin laden even says it was because we were attacking them.

[Kathianne]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html... bin laden even says it was because we were attacking them.

That I'll agree with, not that Osama has an agenda or anything. :lol: Again, it reinforces the idea that he did it, for 'cause.'

[chum43]

That I'll agree with, not that Osama has an agenda or anything. :lol: Again, it reinforces the idea that he did it, for 'cause.'

you posted it to prove a point(a very good point by the way and one i agree with after reading it) that bin laden admitted to carrying out the attacks... but now that i reposted it you say he has an agenda in saying he attacked us because we attacked him? so which is it... does he have an agenda or is what he's saying genuine?

and what do you mean for 'cause'? what does that mean? He did it as retaliation... giuliani says he did it because they hate freedom and they hate us for being free... they say differently and i know it's hard but 9/11 hero rudy giuliani is wrong and our enemies are right about their own intentions.

voting or not, poll cheating or not... paul was right and giuliani is an oppurtunist who takes advantage of 9/11 every chance he gets

[Kathianne]

you posted it to prove a point(a very good point by the way and one i agree with after reading it) that bin laden admitted to carrying out the attacks... but now that i reposted it you say he has an agenda in saying he attacked us because we attacked him? so which is it... does he have an agenda or is what he's saying genuine?

and what do you mean for 'cause'? what does that mean? He did it as retaliation... giuliani says he did it because they hate freedom and they hate us for being free... they say differently and i know it's hard but 9/11 hero rudy giuliani is wrong and our enemies are right about their own intentions.

voting or not, poll cheating or not... paul was right and giuliani is an oppurtunist who takes advantage of 9/11 every chance he gets

I'm confused. You seemed to be starting off with the US Government carried out the attacks for some reason. I disagreed. I brought up what Bin Laden said, you seem to have heard that for the first time, though I'm at a loss to understand why. Nevertheless...

this ties directly into the argument you make regarding the reasons for the WOT on another thread.

[chum43]

of all the videos and interviews with bin laden i had seen i had never heard him do anything but boast about 9/11 and threaten to do more, which is the headline of the article, the other stuff seems to be swept under the rug by most media outlets... i had never read that before... and to clear up some of your confusion, i didn't start the thread about the government and 9/11, i was just chiming in with some of my suspicions, I'm not committed to saying they did it, i just posted on the thread.

i just don't see how people can take his word for being behind 9/11 and say he has an agenda and is making up the stuff about the reason and inspiration for the attacks were our involvement with isreal and attacking palestine and lebanon.
but that is off topic and i apologize... the point is paul was right, but god loves rudy giuliani and so whoever he stares down has to be evil.