Graph: Ron Paul.. something fishy in Nevada?

Source


Well well.. growth in all the states except the one he has been favored even more heavily than in 2008.. and Romney did very poorly, comparatively, and how Nevada (esp. largest voting district HIGHLY LIBERTARIAN supporting guns and prostitution and gambling) fell short? Hmm..

reply to post by andboycott


We're still going on about this? The Ron Paul campaign has come out and said that they were fine with the results and that there was no suspicion of fraud. They also said that the reason his numbers were so low is because his supporters simply aren't voting in these primaries. If you look at the demographics of the people that support Paul they trend strongly to the youth. In Nevada only about 2,000 of the 60,000 active, registered, youth Republicans voted in the caucus. Why do you expect his numbers to be higher when the people that support him don't vote?

Its a conspiracy site you know. Kinda what they do here.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


its all a sham is all im saying. anyone who thinks the election process is proved totally viable and trustworthy PLEASE give me proof.

same as saying aliens dont exist because the government says they don't. or how 9/11 was done unaware of the u.s. government. my dig isnt against the ogvernment (though used the word 3 times now) but against conventional "wisdom". wake up! it is all a LIE!

reply to post by Xcalibur254


because we do vote, the graph shows that well enough,

clearly you already have your own presumptions to get over,

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


As I said pro-Paul sites even show him drawing support primarily from the youth. If you look at the demographics of each primary, in every case the 18-29 demographic had the lowest turnout. In most cases the were lucky to account for 10% of the voters. The Ron Paul campaign has even said that the reason he is not winning is because most of his supporters aren't voting.