Well, did anyone really think it would happen ?
Republican Rep. Ron Paul told the Tribune this morning he will not back Sen. John McCain as his party’s nominee unless the Arizona senator “has a lot of change of heart.”
“I can not support anybody with the foreign policy he advocates, you know, perpetual war. That is just so disturbing to me,” Paul said. I think it’s un-American, un-Constitutional, immoral, and not Republican.”
As for his own campaign, Paul seems to think that there’s actually a chance he could still win this thing:
“It is true the numbers are not very positive. But you know we started off with eleven [candidates] in the campaign and now it’s down to three,” he said.
“I suspect it’s not totally impossible for something to come up about McCain that will totally discredit him. When the people know how liberal he is – that’s coming out all the time.”
Paul added: “It is true the numbers are bad, but influence is important too. If we have a significant number of people and we’re still here, why can’t we influence the party to become conservative again?”
First of all, Paul’s right, it’s not totally impossible that he’d win the Republican nomination. It’s also not totally impossible that, tomorrow morning, we’ll all wake up to discover that pigs really can fly. It’s just not very logical to think that either of these events will actually happen.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
It is ironic that you would compare flying pigs to Ron Paul’s chances of being the republican nominee for the US presidency, especially when you compare the logic behind Dr. Paul’s political views and solutions with those of his opponents. It is not so far fetched to think that a large amount of people can wake up and think for themselves, especially considering the unprecedented amount of people that are registering to vote before primary cutoff dates. Stranger things have happened.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Don,
I am more likely to win the lottery than Ron Paul is to win the Republican nomination.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Don,
What makes you think people will “wake up” and choose Ron Paul? Doug is right: the chances are dismal, at best. Look at his campaign! He has cut staff, and started funneling resources into his congressional campaign. He (generally) can’t escape the single digits, and without Romney in the race, a brokered convention is out of the cards (something even Dr. Paul admits). We know he won’t win. Keep up the fight, but don’t get disillusioned.
Doug,
Your argument is not cogent. It makes a good statement though: Ron Paul doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Of course it isn’t wise to take RP statistics out of perspective, but you fail to acknowledge that the dynamics of the race can change.
We have several months left in the race. Search historically for the reasons the field gets narrowed; your catchy phrases just aren’t convincing enough to predict an outcome based on logic. Things happen: some outed scandal or stifling incompetence could cripple a candidate, campaign funding is always on the table, domestic or foreign issues could take a sharp turn, or even keeling over can’t be ruled out.
It appears you were just looking for an opportunity to inject your prediction while slapping some RP supporters instead of writing your comment about RP not endorsing Mac. What harm is there in believing? Would you rather people not vote?
February 12th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Concerned,
A belief founded on fallacious reason is fine if you want it to be, people do this with religion all of the time. But unlike religion, this example will have real, testable outcomes. I propose to predict these outcomes through the use of reason. Is it a crime to reason?
Would I rather people not vote? Why should I care? That is their choice. In fact, the less other people vote, the more my vote counts, is this not true?
In any case, I was responding to Don’s argument against Doug’s commentary on Ron Paul’s abismally low chances of securing a nomination. Sure, many things can happen theoretically in the next…month? But the probability of that happening, and even more so, the probability of an event like that helping Paul in any way, is so abominably weak that it is not sufficient to even consider.
This is not an argument against supporting Ron Paul. I get that all the time, and you all need to check your logic, because you obviously have drawn the wrong inferences. My argument is to propose that Dr. Paul has a terribly low chance of winning.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:24 am
I apologize for jumping into a private conversation. Beg your pardon, I will not post again.
David, I am sorry not to have addressed Doug’s original piece clearly enough to make it obvious that the object of my entire comment was my distaste with the perceived purpose of his original post about the pigs and to add some to Don’s comment, maybe leading to a thought provoking conversation. It was not a challenge to your comments or methodology.
But David, fallacious reason? I am not delusional and no one is deceiving me. I think you were secretly hoping I was a closet crusader and subsequently stung by your religious analogy- sorry to disappoint. Propose away, with or without reason, it’s your right, your vote. I just simply stated bs happens, and I was trying to add some dimension to boost Don’s comment. You’re prediction is not in question and is certainly a testament to the numbers reported in the polls. Minimizing my comment implying that it has no basis in logic and is basically based on unverifiable “belief” is harsh and your motive questionable. Patronizing me for a comment intended to balance the negativity implied against RP’s chances of getting the nomination? I understand you probably thought the post was directed at you and you were defending yourself. But, you see that I am a stranger that has stubbled in, took offense, and responded. Your response is a spit in my face.
If the playing field changes the probabilities also change. Implying that there is no tangible evidence for a significant event changing the dynamics, therefore, the probability of the election, is an impossible charge to counter, obviously, and the results of such an event probably won’t be testable either. But my logic is based on more than delusional belief, I base my thoughts on the facts presented. Until Mac reaches the magic number, the game is still on. Did I ever state the win was inevitable? Did I state that a brokered convention is inevitable? Did I approach you with the typical ra ra RP? My comment was merely a suggestion to Doug to consider the possiblities with more of an open mind, that I felt he didn’t address the quotation, and I was clearly offended by the flying pigs comparison.
Proving that God exists is fruitless. Not the same as proving if Mac will be destroyed by his war zeal and liberal voting history (as an example). So how can this be proven in foresight- by induction only. There are 7 months until the Convention. Mac lost some momentum in last weekend’s polls after speaking to CPAC. If it isn’t reasonable to think about dynamics when something like that happens I don’t know what is. Coincidence maybe, verifiable as the root of the decline, probably not (could have been just the severe weather). In addition, RP delegates are reporting back to the campaign with dropout convert delegates and undecided delegates that were afraid to declare RP their candidate at the caucases. Some are reporting that voters are leaving after the straw polls and not voting for delegates for the straw poll winners, leaving the remaining voters to take the spoils. That certainly skews the straw polls, if you prediction includes those. It surely won’t be enough to bring him the nomination, but as information is discovered the dynamics change. A plot to lean on Huckabee in winner takes all states to throw a brokered convention was discovered yesterday. The campaign HQ went into a frenzy after this report and has discouraged such actions fiercely. That would throw the election on its head if they were crazy enough to do it anyway and keep Mac from reaching the magic number. I understand based on the straw poll information it isn’t going to happen, never been delusional about that. Based on this information in hand, which is indeed not an epiphany or delusional reasoning, I do not agree with your dismal outlook for RP. Since I feel you insulted me, I have attempted to defend myself against having misguided false hopes.
Correct, Doug wasn’t arguing against supporting RP, just a little dirt in the eye to the supporters, no harm done. I misunderstood the purpose of the post, feeling it didn’t address the quoted exerpt displayed and felt that it kicked RP supporters in a popular spot.
David, there is no logic to check- no inferences, as for your response, your dismissive tone is like an eviction notice to RP supporters lovingly signed Friend. No one on this page has advocated RP supporters to give up. Undoubtly, your logic is based on the statistics and can safely be scientifically deduced.
If I have offended any of you I apologize. Now I am aware of the nature of this conversation and that it clearly wasn’t meant to address the exerpt in a public manner, I am sorry for the intrusion.