Ron Paul 2nd in total delegates currently?

Originally posted by MrWendal

I do not think anyone is saying you can not question any possible bias. Read the post above yours, I explain the difference for you.

But they say on the website that these are the real numbers, even since the numbers are projected and the delegate count has not concluded. It's just false information at the highest level. Projections aren't wrong if the MSM does an accurate job at projecting the winner, EVERY time! But then, that must be a conspiracy too.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


There you go again.

Is it really that hard to just get a straight answer out of you? You are certainly more than allowed to have your opinions and say whatever you want but with some of the things that you say and the insults you throw at people it seems more then fine for people to ask you to explain yourself.

All I ever see you do is spout slander than cry victim whenever someone ask you to explain yourself. Why is it so hard for you to just converse with people politely and explain your opinions when requested?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Wookiep

 

So I can't question He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named? It's insulting to you that I am not his supporter? Why is this? Every supporter has asked me this question. Why can't I just question him outright? Why do I need to explain all of my political views to every single person who asks me this question after I attack He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named? He is not a God nor a dictator. I have every right to question this bias on his website and campaign. I don't have to explain myself to you or anybody. I do not need to jump on this train nor anyone's train. I don't even think the Republicans are going to win this year, sadly.

I question the MSM too, but those numbers are more aligned with each other's than DailyPaul. Seems to me like they are the ones lying.

However, let's just say, the people I want in the White House are not in the race or have already dropped out.

You can question Ron Paul and everything in this thread. I was simply trying to address your doubts on the content in the OP. I'm not insulted, but I detect that you may be a little bit. I have not yet asked what your political views are as I'm sure I've seen you around and probably already know, somewhat. Either way, I'm not asking you to explain yourself. I don't believe Ron Paul is a God or a dictator. I do wonder why you accuse me of thinking this? I think he's a man with good principles and a solid track record, but aside from that, I believe more importantly in the message of liberty than the man himself.

I would actually encourage you to *not* jump on any train that you don't want to jump on to. No pressure from me, pier pressure is never a good thing to give into. I never gave into it myself. It was not my intent to portray that kind of pressure, I was simply addressing your original comment which had more to do with the delegate count. Keep on keepin on!

reply to post by Wookiep


well I am sorry if i barked at you it was just a typical Paul supporter question. To ask me to tell you who I am voting for. That's not what this is about, this is about me questioning the information on Paul's website from his campaign. You can't possibly think that they are correct numbers, especially since they work for him, and he's in last place. I mean look at Perry and Bauchmann they were delusional thinking that they could win, only difference was back then they didn't have data yet. Now, all the candidates are using skewed data to make people believe that they are winning. Santorum is winning from the national polls, right now.

There is no reason to believe that the Paul campaign will not do this as well. He is afterall, a politician.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
Total Delegates (IA, NH, SC, FL, NV, MN, CO, ME)
Romney: 93 (6, 7, 2, 50, 14, 2, 7, 5)
Paul: 82 (13, 3, 0, 0, 5, 28, 17, 16)
Gingrich: 29 (0, 0, 23, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0)
Santorum: 25 (6, 0, 0, 0, 3, 7, 9, 0)
Unpledged: 14 (3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3, 3, 3)

Someone's indulging in a bout of wishful thinking. They're assuming that all the 'unpledged' delegates (whether from caucuses or elections) are all going to fall behind Ron Paul -- for no other reason than "the Daily Paul site supports Ron Paul."

We could also say that using the same metrics, Romney's got 155 delegates and Ron has 20.
Or Gingrich has 91 and Paul has 20
Or Santorum has 87 and Paul has 20.

Here's the latest, untwiddled figures

reply to post by sageofmonticello


I explained my reasoning behind that post right above this post. But did you read any of the questions/concerns that I have methinks not? You were just quick to attack me personally.

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Someone's indulging in a bout of wishful thinking. They're assuming that all the 'unpledged' delegates (whether from caucuses or elections) are all going to fall behind Ron Paul -- for no other reason than "the Daily Paul site supports Ron Paul."

We could also say that using the same metrics, Romney's got 155 delegates and Ron has 20.
Or Gingrich has 91 and Paul has 20
Or Santorum has 87 and Paul has 20.

Thank you someone with a brain this is exactly what I was talking about. You cannot deny that these delegate counts are also possible. SO in that case could Gingrich be second too?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Wookiep

 

well I am sorry if i barked at you it was just a typical Paul supporter question. To ask me to tell you who I am voting for. That's not what this is about, this is about me questioning the information on Paul's website from his campaign. You can't possibly think that they are correct numbers, especially since they work for him, and he's in last place. I mean look at Perry and Bauchmann they were delusional thinking that they could win, only difference was back then they didn't have data yet. Now, all the candidates are using skewed data to make people believe that they are winning. Santorum is winning from the national polls, right now.

There is no reason to believe that the Paul campaign will not do this as well. He is afterall, a politician.

Honestly, I would be thinking the same thing about this whole process and the delegate counts if I hadn't seen the process for myself this year. I never knew that what the media projects is based off of a straw poll (which is non-binding and literally doesn't mean anything) before I went to the cacuses in my state. I didn't know that when we hear a candidate is winning a state by such and such votes, that it very literally means nothing in caucus states! (it's like an illusion) I had to go to caucus training and even now I'm still confused on many things, but I get the main process. The primary states work differently which is why we can say that Romney is actually leading in the overall state delegate count.

I don't believe the numbers from the Paul camp are skewed, however we can agree to disagree on that, no problem!

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by MrWendal

I do not think anyone is saying you can not question any possible bias. Read the post above yours, I explain the difference for you.

But they say on the website that these are the real numbers, even since the numbers are projected and the delegate count has not concluded. It's just false information at the highest level. Projections aren't wrong if the MSM does an accurate job at projecting the winner, EVERY time! But then, that must be a conspiracy too.

Nowhere on the website on that post does it say those are the real numbers. QUOTING "this is a far more accurate portrayal of the true state of play than allocating delegates proportionately to the straw poll or entirely to the straw poll leader. And it shows that, for now, this is a two-man race in delegates between Paul and Romney."

reply to post by rootzgemini


Have you seen the title of the article perhaps?The Real Delegate Score: They are claiming that this is real in the title. So it's a very misleading title.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

No, the way I understand it is these are actual pleged Ron Paul STATE delegates. Some delegate spots have not been voted for yet because they start at the county level then go up the chain to the state level, then the convention level etc.

That's not correct. They're counting pledged plus unpleged and assuming unpledged will all vote for Paul.

However, they didn't talk to any of these delegates. CBS news, however, DID talk to some of them and their numbers don't match the Paul campaign's numbers.

In fact, the Daily Paul numbers are completely out of line with any other sources.

reply to post by Indellkoffer

Someone's indulging in a bout of wishful thinking. They're assuming that all the 'unpledged' delegates (whether from caucuses or elections) are all going to fall behind Ron Paul -- for no other reason than "the Daily Paul site supports Ron Paul."

If you visit the link they say

*Unpledged includes Huntsman's delegates in NH as well as unbound party leader delegates in certain states.

They say right in the article that Unpledged delegates have not been awared to Paul in their calculations.

Nobody has assumed anything. These numbers are based on projections they have acquired through their delegate research. Possible bias has already been addressed and honestly is so self evident that it doesn't need to be mentioned. If your research shows something else I would love to see it.

They believe they are positioned to win 50% of the delegates in Iowa, 75% in Minnesota, 50% in Colorado, and 75% in Maine. From reports coming from people who have become delegates in those states. Have you contacted any of the delegates to ask them?

I am not saying it is the absolute truth but saying it is absolutely false is just as biased as saying it is absolutely true. Do you see what I am saying?

reply to post by Wookiep


Yes, I believe we will be able to agree to disagree. I'll try to help others understand my questions a bit better. I don't take anything a politician says as 100% fact. Even if it is backed up, which this data is not backed by outside parties.

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

No, the way I understand it is these are actual pleged Ron Paul STATE delegates. Some delegate spots have not been voted for yet because they start at the county level then go up the chain to the state level, then the convention level etc.

That's not correct. They're counting pledged plus unpleged and assuming unpledged will all vote for Paul.

However, they didn't talk to any of these delegates. CBS news, however, DID talk to some of them and their numbers don't match the Paul campaign's numbers.

In fact, the Daily Paul numbers are completely out of line with any other sources.

It's correct according to the report. I understand that there are still delegates not voted on, however it clearly states pledged delegates. It even has a column for un-pledged. No-where does it say they are "assuming" unpledged delegates will vote for Paul.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Indellkoffer

 

They believe they are positioned to win 50% of the delegates in Iowa, 75% in Minnesota, 50% in Colorado, and 75% in Maine. From reports coming from people who have become delegates in those states. Have you contacted any of the delegates to ask them?

Aren't delegates extreme supporters of whatever candidate they choose? Why would I ask a Paul delegate for extreme bias? I should ask a Romney delegate about Paul's position.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by sageofmonticello

 

I explained my reasoning behind that post right above this post. But did you read any of the questions/concerns that I have methinks not? You were just quick to attack me personally.

There you go again.

Where did I personally attack you? Also how am I supposed to read a post you wrote after asking you questions before I ask you the questions? Am I a time traveler now? To be honest with you, I have read every single post you have put in this thread and have addressed your concerns multiple times. Keep playing the victim. It is hilarious.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
We could also say that using the same metrics, Romney's got 155 delegates and Ron has 20.
Or Gingrich has 91 and Paul has 20
Or Santorum has 87 and Paul has 20.

Thank you someone with a brain this is exactly what I was talking about. You cannot deny that these delegate counts are also possible. SO in that case could Gingrich be second too?

Or Santorum, even. However, CBS News in making their projections didn't make the assumption that "this candidate is posed to take 50% of the unpledged delegates" -- they actually talked to some of them and found out who they were voting for and based their projections on the sample.

They could, of course, have accidentally sampled the only unpledged delegates who were voting for Mitt. But I believe their numbers will end up being closer to the actual numbers than the figures on the Daily Paul site.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by rootzgemini

 

Have you seen the title of the article perhaps?The Real Delegate Score: They are claiming that this is real in the title. So it's a very misleading title.

Theres your argument, All headlines are misleading, it doesnt make it right. But within the content of the article, it is never stated that the numbers were definite. The article is just to make a point to Paul fans that the MSM numbers are more than likely wrong. If you this whole time complained about the title, then you would be correct about how misleading/untrue the title is.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


I have no idea what you are trying to say here. May I suggest you take a few deep breaths, calm down a little bit, address people with even a slight amount of respect and then try again.

reply to post by sageofmonticello


I don't know how I am playing the victim. So questioning He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named is now seen as inferior? Victims are usually helpless and hurt by bullies are you calling yourself a bully?

Please tell me what exactly you don't agree with me on and I will try to elaborate. I think I brought up some pretty good questions and concerns which you have yet to address. I will be waiting for your response.