Ron Paul Has A Legit Shot.

UncleBuck said:

wanna bet $10,000 dollars on that?

Click to expand...

Dan Kone said:

Well no, you're delusional. Polling is a lot like asking 10 people at a grocery store, except instead of 10, it's 10s of thousands which is more accurate. And in those polls Paul is finishing a very strong 3rd place. So he's not there yet, but I think the odds that he'll get there are very high at this point.

Click to expand...

Dan Kone said:

I don't think you understand what the supply of oil we have in America is like Vs the supply in the middle east. In the middle east, all the oil in near the surface and in the form of relatively pure crude oil. To get to most of the American oil supply you'd literally have to knock down and remove the rocky mountains. Then once you'd do that you'd end up with oil in rock form mixed with other minerals. Then you'd have to go through an extended refining and purification process way beyond anything we do now in order to get it to the point where it can be used as gasoline.

The reason we aren't doing that now is because it's actually cheaper to buy it from Saudi Arabia at cartel pricing and ship it to America. That's why oil companies have millions of acres of drilling leases that they aren't even using right now. It's not because we aren't letting them drill or because there is no oil. It's because most American oil is so damn expensive to get out of the ground and purify, that's it's not cost effective.

One day we will have to tap into all that oil, but that day is not today. Gas needs to be $10-15 dollars per gallon before oil companies will have any interest in it.

Click to expand...

Dan Kone said:

It's not the polling % that's important here. You're right, those numbers do not represent an accurate statistic of what an actual vote would look like.

What they do tell us which is fairly reliable is that Romney is clearly trending down, Newt has peaked and seems like he's may start to decline, and Paul is holding strong, trending up. I find that to be very credible.

Elections are all about timing and momentum. Seems like republican voters are giving the candidates all "their turn" as the front runner, sort of like an audition. It's been Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, now Newt. Seems very likely it's going to be Pauls turn next. And when it is Pauls turn, he's not going to have the same problems the other front runners have had. Paul isn't a say one thing do another type like Newt or Romney. He doesn't make gaffs like Newt, Perry, Bachmann, and Cain. He's not retarded like Perry and Bachmann. And if he can achieve front runner status in the next few weeks, he's going to do it at exactly the right time, when the voting starts. That's really the only time the polling is really crucial.

Basically, Paul doesn't have the same fundamental flaws the other candidates have. For that reason any popularity gains made by Paul are WAY more likely to become permanent. People aren't going to hear what Paul says, agree with it, and then later off discover something else he did they don't like. IF Paul can become the front runner I think there is a 95% chance he'll win the nomination unlike the other candidates who tend to go up or down in the polls.

The same things that have kept Ron Paul at a low popularity level to this point are the exact same things which are likely to make him a lock if he can achieve front runner status in the polls. Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

Purplestickeypunch said:

LOL @ Unclebuck Romney

Click to expand...

sync0s said:

No, I totally agree with you.

Let's hope you're right, because if Gingrich pulls the momentum to Iowa... or if the war monger neo-con Santorum get's the spotlight next... the Republicans are doomed.

Click to expand...

Canna Sylvan said:

You don't work with polling or know much about statistics? All polls are 95% confidence with a +/-2.5% (or larger error), which would give a 1,537 sample size, or less. For a 99% confidence and +/-1% error, would give a 16,640 sample size. No one does that level of confidence unless you're doing high level precision manufacturing.

What counts most is a random sample selection. So even 20,000 people from a grocery store wouldn't cut it. Not even tens of thousands, if the sample is from a biased area. Say San Francisco, California vs Keene, New Hampshire for who would vote Ron Paul.

Click to expand...

Purplestickeypunch said:

Huh. Funny I've read that the majority of our oil is in the Dakotas. Some say there is more there than in the middle east combined. It would make sense since we've been siting on it while they have been sucking it out.

Click to expand...

And who says oil companies have to get involved? We would have a massive influx of troops that need things to do. Put them to work drilling for oil of shore or on land. Fuck the oil companies that are tied into other countries. We are still thanking BP for screwing up by the way.

Click to expand...

Dan Kone said:

It's estimated we have 100-200 years worth of oil supply.



That wouldn't likely reduce the cost of extraction/refining enough to the point where it'd be cheaper than the Saudi/Canadian/Mexican oil we use now.

It's good that we have that supply. We'll likely need it in the future. Pulling all the worlds oil out of the ground RIGHT NOW would likely just give us a temporary price reduction at the cost of future scarcities. Let the middle east pull up all their oil. When they are out we'll be flush with oil and by then oil will be much more valuable.

Click to expand...

Dan Kone said:

Yeah, dude. I don't remember saying anything the contradicts that, so completely unnecessary to proclaim I don't understand how polling works. f- off

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

LOL @ you saying that my parents will not get SS checks. or me for that matter. the fund is good until 2037 as is, 2084 at reduced benefits.

raise the cap and its good forever. but you go on with your hyperboles and exaggerations, don't allow reality to stand in your way.

Click to expand...

Dan Kone said:

It's estimated we have 100-200 years worth of oil supply.



That wouldn't likely reduce the cost of extraction/refining enough to the point where it'd be cheaper than the Saudi/Canadian/Mexican oil we use now.

It's good that we have that supply. We'll likely need it in the future. Pulling all the worlds oil out of the ground RIGHT NOW would likely just give us a temporary price reduction at the cost of future scarcities. Let the middle east pull up all their oil. When they are out we'll be flush with oil and by then oil will be much more valuable.

Click to expand...

Canna Sylvan said:

1,600 is a lot less than, "except instead of 10, it's 10s of thousands which is more accurate." You're the one mocking that other guy and seem to think an astronomical sample size is any more accurate. But that's ok? Then when called on it say you already knew and fuck off.

Click to expand...

On top of that you make a thread bitching about what happened to Bush against Obama.

Click to expand...

Bush was so hated many people chanted, "anyone but Bush!" Lots more people hate Obama.

Click to expand...

It's just the MSM are trying to hide it and others are afraid of being called racist. Obama's ineptness is the same difference between tens of thousands and 1,600 compared to Bush. But the whole lot of you fell for it. Just because he had political correctness.

Click to expand...

You must be a real joy to hang around.

Click to expand...

Harrekin said:

As price goes up demand goes down, as demand goes down the price goes down again and generally stabilises somewhere in the lower middle. Don't leave it too long to drill up is all I'm saying

Click to expand...

Purplestickeypunch said:

WOW You have little faith in evolving from fossil fuels.

Click to expand...

I think solar and nuclear will take over if we let it.

Click to expand...

Hybrid cars are going a long way on a gallon. Pair that with a hydrogen engine and we will be off fossil fuels for the most part. It can happen. If we can spend money blowing things up; we can spend money to put the R&D in to making alternative energy a reality.

Click to expand...

Willyßagseed;6765842 said:

Won't vote for Ron Paul

Great personal freedoms policies
Great foreign, stay the fuck out of the shit, policies

Near total deregulation to let the average citizen get raped without a kiss blows it for me.

Click to expand...

CaliMackdaddy said:

Im afraid if RP is Elected, were gonna have another JFK situation.. he was also for the people.

Click to expand...

budlover13 said:

And i have already voluteered for that duty should it be necessary

Really. Volunteered. Pay room and board and i will do my job.

Click to expand...

Dan Kone said:

That's the only thing other candidates can really hit him with. His views on Israel are extremely unpopular. However I believe the republicans are so sick of Romney and will be sick of Newt for the same reasons, that they will tolerate Paul's opinions on Israel. I actually think the major of republicans are ready for the pull out in Iraq and Afghanistan, so the rest of Paul's foreign policy isn't really a huge knock against him.

Click to expand...