Who is the Concealed Candidate?
Submitted by fatima on Sat, 01/19/2008 - 19:19
(A man's face with with a censor stripe across his eyes.)
Who is this man?
Why does the media avoid his name?
He is a Congressman of 30 years.
He served his country as a flight surgeon in the Air Force.
He sought to capture Bin Laden and avoid undeclared war.
He has confronted Benarke and Greenspan about the economy.
He believes government officials should uphold the Constitution.
Meet Ron Paul.
(Smiling face.)
RON PAUL is for US.
Not the establishment.
»
Another One
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&...
Another article about the Nevada race. They did mention Paul's name, but only that he was the only other candidate to campaign in Nevada. They don't mention that he came in 2nd.
Think they'll omit the runner up in ANY other State of the 50?
How would they have avoided mentioning Dr. Paul had he actually won the state?
Screwed Even in NV
Even in Nevada, they tried to screw Ron Paul. Read the whole lengthy article to see how the GOP changed the rules and gave false information in an attempt to get Hispanic Democrats to vote for McCain and put him ahead of Dr. Paul. It didn't quite work, but it did make a BIG difference in the final tally. Below is just a snip, but it shows what's been going on:
http://natschultz.townhall.com/g/39080192-f3e9-4147-8e55-056...
Exit Polls: % of vote:
Voters: Romney McCain Paul
Rep. 84% > 53% 12% 11% > top 3 get 76% of Rep. votes
Ind. 14% > 10% 11% 63% > top 3 get 84% of Ind. votes
Dem. 2%
Total % of votes = % Ind + % Rep = Total% (if Ind% Includes Dems = 16%)
Romney - Ind: 1.4% + Rep. 44.52 = 45.92% (46.12%)
McCain - Ind: 1.54% + Rep. 10.08 = 11.62% (11.76%)
Paul - Ind: 8.82% + Rep. 9.24 = 18.06% (19.32%)
TG: So basically, the exit polls had Romney at just over 40%, and Ron Paul right at 20%, with McCain well back at less than 12%. That's a very solid showing by Dr. Paul in a State where Romney had a 25% spot, meaning Dr. Paul possibly won the non-Mormon vote. ~40% to ~20% to 11% looks a lot better than +50% to 14% to 13%.
OH NO! Ok I take that back – the GOP is really slick. The actual results are way off from the exit polls. It is not mathematically possible that the final results are so far off from the exit polls. Even giving a 5% margin of error, the final results are way off.
Why? Washoe County.
Exit polls: Romney 37%, Paul 31%, McCain 10% (top 3 total = 78%)
Final report: Romney 44%, McCain 16%, Paul 15% (top 3 total = 75%)
This cannot be possible; this is way beyond any margin of error. How can Romney gain 7%, McCain gain 6%, and Paul LOSE 16%?
Ok, the top 3 candidates lost a combined total of 3% of votes between the exit polls and the final tally; that is totally legitimate. However, it does not explain the extreme discrepancy between vote gains and loses between the candidates.
Mathematically this perfectly equates to Paul losing his 16% to the combined gains of Romney (7), McCain (6) and the extra 3% exactly. 6+7+3=16!
How can Paul be the ONLY candidate to lose votes?!?!?!?!?
How's THIS for Concealed?
Here's the link to the Politico.com story on Nevada: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7989.html
The state's sizable Mormon population, estimated at about 6 percent of the state population, delivered for Romney, who is an active member of the LDS church.
Exit polls provided by the Associated Press showed that a quarter of the Republican caucus-goers were Mormons and they overwhelmingly supported the former Massachusetts governor. Half of Romney's total votes came from Mormons.
TG: 6% of the population accounted for 27% of the caucus goers? All this time the media has been telling us that the reason it looks like Ron Paul has so much more support than his polling numbers is because almost all of his supporters are visibly active. Now they are going to have to tell us it's Romney's candidates who are more visibly active and Paul's weren't.
Romney benefited from the rest of the Republican field's lack of serious attention to the state. He visited 13 times since July 1, compared to almost no visits from McCain and Huckabee, and two each by Giuliani and Thompson.
TG: Notice somebody missing? They mentioned the winner, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th place finishers - but they missed the one who came in 2nd! Just an accidental editing oversight, I'm sure (for the 1,342nd time in a row).
This thing is all rigged, between the media, the political parties, the vote counters/machines. I'm still trying to figure out how McCain went from Duncan Hunter numbers to 30%, much less how Huckabee did it earlier. Not long ago Julie-Annie was a lock to win and Thompson entered the race to supplant him. Ron Paul has outdone both of them. So he should be leading, right?
It's RIGGED
Show me one other state where the 2nd place finisher was not even named ONCE in an article about their primary - but the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th place finishers were mentioned.
And how could he do WORSE in South Carolina than in the other states? He's gone steadily down from 10% to 8% to 6% and now 4%. It's been done step-by-step to make it appear more believable to the public.
*sigh*
Our vote total keeps falling because we had no momentum. That's why it was so important to do well in Iowa and NH. People in later states don't hear Paul as part of the story and switch to another candidate. Yes, even Paul supporters - most are not as committed as the posters on DP. We needed Nevada to happen 2 weeks ago.
OKAY
What will your excuse be when Julie-Annie has a miracle 25% bump like Huckabee and McCain have had (or a 15% bump like Thompson just got)? If Paul has no momentum, where does that put Julie-Annie, who is getting barely half as much support as Ron Paul? According to YOU, Julie-Annie should be dead on the water.
All of a sudden momentum won't matter and you'll have to invent another story to explain Julie-Annie's rise.
Momentum or lack thereof affects all the candidates
Look, no one but the core supporters thinks Paul can win. Hence, casual supporters need proof that he is doing well to feel comfortable that they are not wasting their vote. So low vote totals discourage supporters and lead to lower vote totals.
Guiliani suffered the same negative momentum in NH, MI, NV, SC, and even in Florida where he fell from a 2-1 lead in early December to trailing McCain. His Florida standing may continue to erode as the other candidates start campaigning there in earnest. If he loses Florida, even by a little, his polls in every state will collapse and he will drop out.
Thompson also suffered negative momentum in NH, MI, NV, and SC. But in SC he started from a larger base of support than Paul and his supporters didn't need as much assurance of his electability due to his media exposure. His late SC boost reflected a last-ditch all-out campaign, but it was only a 4-5% boost over the post-Iowa polling trend. Unfortunately for Thompson, that boost was too little too late and he will see his support collapse whether he drops out or not.
So don't get all conspiratorial on me - there is nothing magical about Thompson's or Guiliani's performances. They and Paul all failed to get early wins and are seeing the steady and significant erosion in support that you'd expect when voters flock to the candidates they perceive to be viable.
I repeat - we needed Nevada to happen 2 weeks ago. I'm glad it happened, but it doesn't mean nearly as much as 3rd in Iowa or NH would have. Now we need to win Maine to get Feb 5th voters to pay us any attention.