PDA

View Full Version : Someone please explain how Ron Paul beat Peden with 70%




ButchHowdy
03-05-2008, 12:53 PM
of the vote, but only mustered 6% versus McCain in the same Texas district?

bcreps85
03-05-2008, 12:55 PM
Peden's job was to distract RP from the presidential race and siphon funds from the presidential campaign, not to win. No need to rig the vote for Peden.

Ex Post Facto
03-05-2008, 12:55 PM
This question has been brought up and is ripe for review on all angles. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=126252

WilliamC
03-05-2008, 12:56 PM
That's actually quite a telling discrepency if Ron Paul only got 6% of the Presidential votes in the same district as he got >70% of the votes for his Congressional seat.

Things that make you go hummm.....

molly_pitcher
03-05-2008, 12:58 PM
Sometimes the question is the answer ~.^

Ex Post Facto
03-05-2008, 12:59 PM
total congressional votes = 37195
total presidential votes = 9071

dbhohio47
03-05-2008, 01:06 PM
Obviously, there are many in TX-14 that think he'd make a better returning congressman for their district than a president. Then again, it could be that a large percentage of those voters didn't even realize that the Ron Paul for president and the Ron Paul for TX-14 was the same guy!

charger
03-05-2008, 01:12 PM
Read the last line of this article written by Pat Buchanan.
I'm not sure what side he is playing for but he does seem to be an insider.
This Should at least wake up a few more kool-aid drinkers.

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=957

Nash
03-05-2008, 01:17 PM
Obviously, there are many in TX-14 that think he'd make a better returning congressman for their district than a president. Then again, it could be that a large percentage of those voters didn't even realize that the Ron Paul for president and the Ron Paul for TX-14 was the same guy!

I think it's primarily the war issue for these voters. Most love his congressional votes on domestic issues and put up with his anti-war sentiments. They like him on a lot of his policy positions otherwise but don't want him to be commander in chief.

TruthAtLast
03-05-2008, 01:22 PM
I think it's primarily the war issue for these voters. Most love his congressional votes on domestic issues and put up with his anti-war sentiments. They like him on a lot of his policy positions otherwise but don't want him to be commander in chief.

If they like his domestic policy then they would HAVE to understand that ALL OF IT is dependant on decreased overseas spending. Ron Paul himself says that it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate the IRS without decreasing the National Debt and the maintaining of a military empire.

So are you saying that 70% of the people voted for him but 64% of them don't understand his policies at all?

ButchHowdy
03-05-2008, 01:25 PM
Someone from another website said the following:

"Texas’ voting is rigged. Back in 2000, in three congressional districts dominated by democrats, republicans won – all by 1,818 votes in each district."

Suppose that could be confirmed . . .

speciallyblend
03-05-2008, 01:38 PM
total congressional votes = 37195
total presidential votes = 9071

that glove dont fit. WTF

i smell rats,no way to prove it ,but i highly doubt informed ron paul voters in his own district went to vote then actually voted for someone else as a presidential candidate???? I SAY NO F WAY.

is anyone looking into this at all? run some ads in local paper asking voters to please stand up to verify this.I'm sorry i dont know one ron paul supporter that would vote for him then not in the primary. that would be insanity

speciallyblend
03-05-2008, 01:44 PM
If they like his domestic policy then they would HAVE to understand that ALL OF IT is dependant on decreased overseas spending. Ron Paul himself says that it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate the IRS without decreasing the National Debt and the maintaining of a military empire.

So are you saying that 70% of the people voted for him but 64% of them don't understand his policies at all?

that would be like saying we all support ron paul then we vote for mccain or huckabee. WOULD U???. the voters in his district know his policys. there is no way they would vote for anybody else, maybe a small 1-2% might not vote for him,but anyone voting for RON PAUL 100% knows his issues. there is something wrong with those totals.....

Nash
03-05-2008, 01:46 PM
If they like his domestic policy then they would HAVE to understand that ALL OF IT is dependant on decreased overseas spending. Ron Paul himself says that it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate the IRS without decreasing the National Debt and the maintaining of a military empire.

So are you saying that 70% of the people voted for him but 64% of them don't understand his policies at all?

No.

I don't think they like all of it necessarily I think they just appreciate the fact that he will never vote for a tax increase or "social programs". Ever.

They figure he'll never get rid of the IRS in congress but he'll never vote for a tax increase either.

The point I'm making here is that there is a big difference between voting for him as 1 vote in congress vs. leader of the free world to these voters.

Nash
03-05-2008, 01:47 PM
that would be like saying we all support ron paul then we vote for mccain or huckabee. WOULD U???. the voters in his district know his policys. there is no way they would vote for anybody else, maybe a small 1-2% might not vote for him,but anyone voting for RON PAUL 100% knows his issues. there is something wrong with those totals.....

No there isn't. If you guys are suggesting there is fraud you're being ridiculous.

jason43
03-05-2008, 01:47 PM
Because Peden sucked... not that McCain doesn't... but McCain was a POW... and plus, he's your friend.


"My friends... I was a POW and I need your money."
http://arianiekeeney.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/mccain-topper.jpg

TruthAtLast
03-05-2008, 01:54 PM
that would be like saying we all support ron paul then we vote for mccain or huckabee. WOULD U???. the voters in his district know his policys. there is no way they would vote for anybody else, maybe a small 1-2% might not vote for him,but anyone voting for RON PAUL 100% knows his issues. there is something wrong with those totals.....

that is what I was getting at.... I don't think people aren't aware of his issues and I don't believe that the majority of the people voted him into Congress but didn't vote him as President. if they support him in one way how can they not support him in the other. Either the numbers are wrong, or they don't believe what the man REALLY stands for.

TruthAtLast
03-05-2008, 01:58 PM
No.

I don't think they like all of it necessarily I think they just appreciate the fact that he will never vote for a tax increase or "social programs". Ever.

They figure he'll never get rid of the IRS in congress but he'll never vote for a tax increase either.

The point I'm making here is that there is a big difference between voting for him as 1 vote in congress vs. leader of the free world to these voters.

I don't think the majority of voters think like this. As a member of the House, he helps make policy and they KNOW his views meet stiff oposition. His views are not popular with either side of the isle. So to support him in Congress is to really BELIEVE in what he stands for, otherwise there is no point. And if that is the case, how on earth can they support a man that stands for the complete opposite, in McCain?

it doesn't make sense to me which makes me very suspicious.

Pauliana
03-05-2008, 02:00 PM
TX14 wants him all to themselves.

TruthAtLast
03-05-2008, 02:01 PM
TX14 wants him all to themselves.

haha. i guess that could be true... :D

UnitedWeStand
03-05-2008, 02:07 PM
I think=

1. name recognition. They might not know hes running for president, but theyve seen his name 1000s of times on the way to work and all over the place down here.

2. there are thousands, maybe millions of republicans who say "I like his ideas, but he's got the war thing all wrong" or "he's the smartest man alive, but we can't just pull out etc."

3.they like him, but have been told he can't win, but they know he can win his congressional seat.

4. only people who are paying close attention to politics, or read flyers otw into the polling places even know wtf Peden is. It is the reverse of the McCain/Ron Paul issue.

Nash
03-05-2008, 02:08 PM
I don't think the majority of voters think like this. As a member of the House, he helps make policy and they KNOW his views meet stiff oposition. His views are not popular with either side of the isle. So to support him in Congress is to really BELIEVE in what he stands for, otherwise there is no point. And if that is the case, how on earth can they support a man that stands for the complete opposite, in McCain?

it doesn't make sense to me which makes me very suspicious.

They support his ideas just not to the extremes that he sells them. They like the idea of less taxes but not the idea of doing away with the IRS. They like the idea of curbing domestic spending but not the idea of completely getting rid of Social Security.

They like his votes on guns. They like his votes on abortion. They like his votes on border security.

They hate his vote on the war but they put up with it because of all the aformentioned reasons.

There are plenty of Republicans out there who claim "I like Ron Paul but he can't win" or "I like his domestic policy in theory but he's wrong on Foreign Policy." There are common sentiments among typical Republican voters.

It makes perfect sense the these repub voters to like him in congress but go with McCain as president. Especially this late in the race when Paul has no chance of winning.

Paul said in his victory speech: "I will serve another term in Congress where I will continue my battle in behalf of taxpayers."

You'll notice he didn't say anything in that statement about abolishing the CIA, the WOD, or pulling out of Iraq.

syborius
03-05-2008, 02:12 PM
TX14 wants him all to themselves.

Hogwash to the Nth degree

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanmartin/2287818536/sizes/l/in/set-72157603970964652/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanmartin/2287819144/in/set-72157603970964652/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanmartin/2287032469/in/photostream/


7k people show up to his "one" rally for president in austin Feb 23rd.

josh24601
03-05-2008, 02:13 PM
If McCain was running against RP for Congress McCain would have beat him.

It's just weird to be on the other end of a popularity contest.

TruthAtLast
03-05-2008, 02:18 PM
They support his ideas just not to the extremes that he sells them. They like the idea of less taxes but not the idea of doing away with the IRS. They like the idea of curbing domestic spending but not the idea of completely getting rid of Social Security.

They like his votes on guns. They like his votes on abortion. They like his votes on border security.

They hate his vote on the war but they put up with it because of all the aformentioned reasons.

There are plenty of Republicans out there who claim "I like Ron Paul but he can't win" or "I like his domestic policy in theory but he's wrong on Foreign Policy." There are common sentiments among typical Republican voters.

It makes perfect sense the these repub voters to like him in congress but go with McCain as president. Especially this late in the race when Paul has no chance of winning.

Paul said in his victory speech: "I will serve another term in Congress where I will continue my battle in behalf of taxpayers."

You'll notice he didn't say anything in that statement about abolishing the CIA, the WOD, or pulling out of Iraq.

OK, you make some good points. Maybe I was giving those voters too much credit in thinking they were REAL Ron Paul supporters.

AJ Antimony
03-05-2008, 02:20 PM
No there isn't. If you guys are suggesting there is fraud you're being ridiculous.

Ridiculous? Can you prove there was no vote fraud? Didn't think so.

TruthAtLast
03-05-2008, 02:27 PM
Ridiculous? Can you prove there was no vote fraud? Didn't think so.

I'm not saying there was or there wasn't but you can't prove the reason for something NOT happening.

It is like the Administration saying that all of their policies worked because "see, we haven't had another 9/11 so it must have worked".

But that kind of logic is backwards. We didn't have a 9/11 the previous 200 years so were THOSE policies working too?

Ex Post Facto
03-05-2008, 02:30 PM
I'm not saying there was or there wasn't but you can't prove the reason for something NOT happening.

It is like the Administration saying that all of their policies worked because "see, we haven't had another 9/11 so it must have worked".

But that kind of logic is backwards. We didn't have a 9/11 the previous 200 years so were THOSE policies working too?

I love your thought process...so true.

syborius
03-05-2008, 02:33 PM
I'm not saying there was or there wasn't but you can't prove the reason for something NOT happening.

It is like the Administration saying that all of their policies worked because "see, we haven't had another 9/11 so it must have worked".

But that kind of logic is backwards. We didn't have a 9/11 the previous 200 years so were THOSE policies working too?

ron paul voters are the most informed in this election. No way in hell those voters would vote for anyone else for president other than Ron Paul. That is like saying that for congress Ron Paul killed Peden 70% to 30% in a landslide, but for the presidency people decided to vote for Peden 70% to 6% because he was right on the war issue. COME ON????? Give me a break, I will never believe that type of garbage. This needs to be looked at more closely than it is right now

TruthAtLast
03-05-2008, 02:36 PM
ron paul voters are the most informed in this election. No way in hell those voters would vote for anyone else for president other than Ron Paul. That is like saying that for congress Ron Paul killed Peden 70% to 30% in a landslide, but for the presidency people decided to vote for Peden 70% to 6% because he was right on the war issue. COME ON????? Give me a break, I will never believe that type of garbage. This needs to be looked at more closely than it is right now

I'm conflicted on this issue. It should always be looked into but I guess I don't know the demographic in the District 14 well enough to know what their thought process was. Were they supporting him because of name recognition, or because of his stance on taxes, or because he was just better than Peden, or are they all REAL Ron Paul supporters?

constitutional
03-05-2008, 02:37 PM
Even in my own district here in MD we got 11% at poll.

And 6-7% in his own district? Oh I smell bullshit. :o

liberteebell
03-05-2008, 02:48 PM
Someone please explain how Ron Paul beat Peden with 70% of the vote, but only mustered 6% versus McCain in the same Texas district?


I'd like an answer to that myself. That, and the statewide vote comparison. Ron Paul got ~37,000 votes in his district and ~67,000 statewide? I find that hard to believe, especially with the sentiment against the Trans Texas Corridor and all.

S3eker
03-05-2008, 03:30 PM
This is easily answered.

Most democrats voted for Ron Paul over the NEOCON Republican running against him. Nothing difficult to understand.

ButchHowdy
03-05-2008, 03:38 PM
See how kind we've become? Instead of jumping on the Diebold Fraud bandwagon (Occam's Razor) we try to uncover every other possible scenario first.

ThePieSwindler
03-05-2008, 03:57 PM
See how kind we've become? Instead of jumping on the Diebold Fraud bandwagon (Occam's Razor) we try to uncover every other possible scenario first.

*Sigh*

Yes, they just decided to rig the vote numbers in ONLY ron paul's district, even though the low number matches up with every other primary tally for the most part. What if find most absurd about this sentiment you are peddling is that you actually invoke Occam's razor to be SUPPORTIVE of the conspiratorial view... conspiracies imply a level of complexity above anything Occam's razor would apply to. Don't also forget Hanlon's razor, (Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity) or in this case, the stupidity of the masses vs the malice of the controlling elites.

This result really doesn't surprise me - most people know very little about their representatives. I'll bet there is a sizable portion of D14 that voted for Ron Paul because there was an election that day, and his name was familiar, that also voted for McCain because his name was familiar as far as the Presidential race goes. I'll bet there were also alot of people simply didn't vote because it would have been, to them, a "wasted" vote. I'm sure there are other factors, but even a limited understand of Public Choice theory and some political science... or shit, even some basic observations on the tendancies of voters (such as by exit polling) will show that this result is plausible.

Has there been voter fraud? Certainly. Do you honestly think it would be pulled off in a single district of a single primary where the presumptive nominee essentially has the thing locked up? I dunno, apply Occam's and Hanlon's razor to that line of thinking, and see what is spat out.

Sandra
03-05-2008, 04:01 PM
Maybe it's district 14"s way of saying "if we can't have you, then nobody can!"

syborius
03-05-2008, 04:02 PM
I'd like an answer to that myself. That, and the statewide vote comparison. Ron Paul got ~37,000 votes in his district and ~67,000 statewide? I find that hard to believe, especially with the sentiment against the Trans Texas Corridor and all.

I was warning people about this before the vote. I said watch he wins in a landslide in his own district, but across the state he gets 6%, and that's exactly what happened. It makes no sense. That's like saying that for his congressional seat he wins 70%, to 30%, but for the presidency people decide to vote for Peden and wipe him out with 70% for Peden to 6% for Paul because the supporters believe he is dead wrong on the war issue. That assertion is just ridiculous to even fathom, yet that is exactly what happened here. No educated Ron Paul supporter would vote that way, and this statistical anomaly is just harder to swallow the longer I think about it.

Knightskye
03-05-2008, 04:03 PM
What's the deadline for a Texas recount? :D

abe447
03-05-2008, 04:03 PM
1. People think Paul represents them well as a Congressman, but doubt Paul's ability to make a good President.
2. Chris Peden is an unknown commodity, John McCain is not.
3. They thought Ron Paul dropped out of the Presidential race.
4. McCain practically had the nomination wrapped up so they viewed voting for Paul as a waste.

There are probably many sensible variables that go into this. Those who automatically assume fraud obviously are incapable of thinking logically.

ThePieSwindler
03-05-2008, 04:07 PM
1. People think Paul represents them well as a Congressman, but doubt Paul's ability to make a good President.
2. Chris Peden is an unknown commodity, John McCain is not.
3. They thought Ron Paul dropped out of the Presidential race.
4. McCain practically had the nomination wrapped up so they viewed voting for Paul as a waste.

There are probably many sensible variables that go into this. Those who automatically assume fraud obviously are incapable of thinking logically.

Thank you for simplifying what i was trying to say!

Barney
03-05-2008, 04:08 PM
I'm not saying there was or there wasn't but you can't prove the reason for something NOT happening.

It is like the Administration saying that all of their policies worked because "see, we haven't had another 9/11 so it must have worked".

But that kind of logic is backwards. We didn't have a 9/11 the previous 200 years so were THOSE policies working too?

On the voting process, the onus is on the administrator to prove the integrity of the process, not on the electorate to prove otherwise.

The electronic machines has been shown to be easily hackable, and blatant disparities with exit polls casually dismissed.

If the electronic machines were to produce a paper ballot for an open and observable recount and the results corroborated with the electronic tallies,... that would go a long way in "proving no fraud" took place.

syborius
03-05-2008, 04:26 PM
1. People think Paul represents them well as a Congressman, but doubt Paul's ability to make a good President.
2. Chris Peden is an unknown commodity, John McCain is not.
3. They thought Ron Paul dropped out of the Presidential race.
4. McCain practically had the nomination wrapped up so they viewed voting for Paul as a waste.

There are probably many sensible variables that go into this. Those who automatically assume fraud obviously are incapable of thinking logically.

Abe, you're a proven shill, what are you doing still posting here. GFY!

Bradley in DC
03-05-2008, 04:29 PM
Competent people running his re-election campaign vs. the ones running the national one.

ThePieSwindler
03-05-2008, 04:39 PM
Abe, you're a proven shill, what are you doing still posting here. GFY!

Regardless, he is still right in the post you quote - people need to stop chalking EVERYTHING up to conspiracy.

TruthAtLast
03-05-2008, 05:03 PM
1. People think Paul represents them well as a Congressman, but doubt Paul's ability to make a good President.
2. Chris Peden is an unknown commodity, John McCain is not.
3. They thought Ron Paul dropped out of the Presidential race.
4. McCain practically had the nomination wrapped up so they viewed voting for Paul as a waste.

There are probably many sensible variables that go into this. Those who automatically assume fraud obviously are incapable of thinking logically.


This could be true to some extend but not to the disparity that the number show. 70% to 6% seems a little drastic.
It is true that maybe some McCain supporters living in District 14 just didn't like Peden, though he is cut from the same mold as McCain so I'm not sure why this would be the case.
Maybe this is the case in other states, but not in his home state. They see his name on the ballot.
This argument could also be used the other way. If they feel that McCain has practically won, why vote for him? Why not just vote for Ron then? It wouldn't hurt anything.


I don't instantly think it was fraud, though I don't rule it out either because there has been proof of it in the past. But one is not exclusive to the other.

I don't deny the mountain of evidence that suggests that the MSM has in fact blacked out Ron Paul during this campaign (and/or discredited him), and I don't deny that the GOP itself has taken great lengths to silence Ron Paul supporters and to keep him from gaining any momentum (like in Louisiana - just ask Torchbearer).

HOWEVER, I'm also not tying victory to these truths.

It is entirely possible and of course rational to concede that even if EVERYTHING was completely fair, Ron Paul may not have won ANYWAY. This is just the truth of it and it is illogical to think otherwise.

It would have certainly at least been a closer race and would have promoted legitamate debate on our policies which is often what Ron Paul wants. Certainly the possibility of winning would have been greatly increased.

I believe in Ron Paul and support his views but more than that I believe in the truest form of Democracy even if that means the guy I support loses fair and square. The frustration comes when we see that it clearly isn't fair.

My point is that there ARE conspiracies and greater powers at work but they don't account for EVERY failure in the campaign. There are also legit reasons why someone might not win and I think it is important to explore all of these and make the destinction between them. This is the only way we can learn and get better results next time.

This is a difficult task because often these factors are intertwined. It is hard really to know how people would react given different information on which to make their decision.

liberteebell
03-05-2008, 05:05 PM
This is easily answered.

Most democrats voted for Ron Paul over the NEOCON Republican running against him. Nothing difficult to understand.

Without having looked at the numbers, this is the most plausible explanation I've heard.

DFF
03-05-2008, 05:07 PM
Vote fraud so blatant it's sickening.

Penners
03-05-2008, 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by abe
1. People think Paul represents them well as a Congressman, but doubt Paul's ability to make a good President.
2. Chris Peden is an unknown commodity, John McCain is not.
3. They thought Ron Paul dropped out of the Presidential race.
4. McCain practically had the nomination wrapped up so they viewed voting for Paul as a waste.

There are probably many sensible variables that go into this. Those who automatically assume fraud obviously are incapable of thinking logically

*****
+1

S3eker
03-05-2008, 05:11 PM
There wasn't a Democrat running against him!

Democrats in his districe also voted for him. Also, what this shows is that most Republicans voted for the other guy. The Dems probably saved Ron Paul.

It was either Ron Paul or some other Bush neocon. No conspiracy here.. move along...

TruthAtLast
03-05-2008, 05:16 PM
There wasn't a Democrat running against him!

Democrats in his districe also voted for him. Also, what this shows is that most Republicans voted for the other guy. The Dems probably saved Ron Paul.

It was either Ron Paul or some other Bush neocon. No conspiracy here.. move along...

I'd love to see a breakdown of the voter affiliation that voted for Ron Paul. Do they publish this info anywhere?

Smiley Gladhands
03-05-2008, 06:07 PM
There wasn't a Democrat running against him!

Democrats in his districe also voted for him. Also, what this shows is that most Republicans voted for the other guy. The Dems probably saved Ron Paul.

It was either Ron Paul or some other Bush neocon. No conspiracy here.. move along...

You can't vote in both Primaries. So why would a Democrat excuse themselves from the hotly-contested Democratic presidential race (and other local Dem races) to vote against a neocon in a republican congressional race? I'm pretty sure they would not.

As a citizen living in RP's district, I must say there are a lot of neocons here. Some might vote for Ron for Congress just because they identify with him on his 'conservative' stances, and think he's too ineffective regarding the foreign policy issues to matter.

This vote doesn't really surprise me. Most people in Ron's district were as clueless about him as the rest of America. And people everywhere use the most twisted logic to justify who they'll vote for. My boss was talking about going to vote for Hillary in order to stop Obama from raising his taxes. That's twisted.

Also, the 6% yesterday would have been higher if Texas had a primary on Super Tuesday. I had converted several people at work to Ron Paul's philosophies but they wouldn't go vote for him because he had no chance of winning (and they were busy). 6% doesn't represent the %age who agree with Ron....6% represents the number who agreed with Ron so much that they got off their asses to vote despite the apparent triviality in doing so.

Also, worrying about voter fraud is pretty pointless....I'm pretty sure there's ZERO paper trail. My vote was entirely done by machine, without even a receipt or anything saying I voted.

Despite the apparent inconsistencies in the vote, it's not worth worrying about. If any vote should be scrutinized it should be a state like NH where there is a paper trail (however questionable that trail might be).

Joseph Hart
03-05-2008, 06:20 PM
People like to vote for the majority, who they think is going to win.

fever pitch
03-05-2008, 06:42 PM
I thought most people are against the Iraq war? If that's true, they should love Paul's foreign policy, and why the hell would they be voting McCain in such large numbers? This I cannot understand. Are people now so brainwashed, they actually believe the war is a good thing?

TruthAtLast
03-05-2008, 06:49 PM
You can't vote in both Primaries. So why would a Democrat excuse themselves from the hotly-contested Democratic presidential race (and other local Dem races) to vote against a neocon in a republican congressional race? I'm pretty sure they would not.

As a citizen living in RP's district, I must say there are a lot of neocons here. Some might vote for Ron for Congress just because they identify with him on his 'conservative' stances, and think he's too ineffective regarding the foreign policy issues to matter.

This vote doesn't really surprise me. Most people in Ron's district were as clueless about him as the rest of America. And people everywhere use the most twisted logic to justify who they'll vote for. My boss was talking about going to vote for Hillary in order to stop Obama from raising his taxes. That's twisted.

Also, the 6% yesterday would have been higher if Texas had a primary on Super Tuesday. I had converted several people at work to Ron Paul's philosophies but they wouldn't go vote for him because he had no chance of winning (and they were busy). 6% doesn't represent the %age who agree with Ron....6% represents the number who agreed with Ron so much that they got off their asses to vote despite the apparent triviality in doing so.

Also, worrying about voter fraud is pretty pointless....I'm pretty sure there's ZERO paper trail. My vote was entirely done by machine, without even a receipt or anything saying I voted.

Despite the apparent inconsistencies in the vote, it's not worth worrying about. If any vote should be scrutinized it should be a state like NH where there is a paper trail (however questionable that trail might be).


I wasn't aware of this but are you saying that if there is no Democrat running for that Congressional seat, a Democrat living in that district has NO VOICE whatsoever? They can't vote at all for who their representative will be? Just looking for clarification.

syborius
03-05-2008, 07:58 PM
I wasn't aware of this but are you saying that if there is no Democrat running for that Congressional seat, a Democrat living in that district has NO VOICE whatsoever? They can't vote at all for who their representative will be? Just looking for clarification.

That's nice truth, now how about the issue at hand. Why did we only get some 15k more votes statewide for the presidency over the landslide win over Peden in district 14? The rally in Austin had at least 5-6k people at it alone. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Agent CSL
03-05-2008, 08:44 PM
In most of the states there have been vote discrepancies that I've noticed. It seems we've put any investigation on the back burner after New Hampshire, but it is really odd, really fishy, that he gets a ton of votes in his area and very few altogether. Yes, there are indeed people who would vote for McCain and Huck, but the overall number and vote discrepancy is ODD.

I do not doubt there's vote fraud about in not only Texas, but everywhere. It's worth a relook, or hell, someone should at least write a book about it. =\

Agent CSL
03-06-2008, 01:40 AM
Blimp

UnitedWeStand
03-06-2008, 01:51 AM
I wasn't aware of this but are you saying that if there is no Democrat running for that Congressional seat, a Democrat living in that district has NO VOICE whatsoever? They can't vote at all for who their representative will be? Just looking for clarification.

yep, our district is apparently so heavily republican no democrat even tries to run.

Steve_New_Jersey
03-06-2008, 02:15 AM
Look you had Ron against 1 other guy for his seat. With the race for president people already formed a voting pattern based on what the media fed them as Rons possibility to take the race home. Its simple. Way to many people dont vote for the righ reasons. I wont tell them how to think but rather beg them to stop having children and spreading the sheeple population.

JohnCrabtree
03-06-2008, 05:29 AM
The simplest explanation is usually the most logical. and it is summed up in 1 word: Incumbency.

People DO vote for the status quo. Ron is thier congress critter, and he is the only one they know. He has good name recognition and an (I) next to his name. He is at the top of the ballot. and he was able to outspend Peden by a factor of 5:1, and that doesn't include the freebees allowed to congress critters.

It is very common for Congress critters to win elections, especially primary elections, with such margins, in fact I am amazed that Peden did so well.

These people vote for who they think will beat the democrats in the next election, Yes they are DEAD WRONG on that with McCain, but the media has told them that McCain will be the winner of the republican nomination and that McCain is the most "electible" out of McCain, Huckabee, and Paul" But they are right for Paul to beat the democrats in the congressional race. No democrat is running. Had Peden won though, A democrat may have ran in the general election, because it would be easy to defeat Peden.

Thats just my 2 cents.

Myerz
03-06-2008, 07:16 AM
I think it's primarily the war issue for these voters. Most love his congressional votes on domestic issues and put up with his anti-war sentiments. They like him on a lot of his policy positions otherwise but don't want him to be commander in chief.

Unlike the military who do want him as Commander in Chief!

Smiley Gladhands
03-06-2008, 08:51 PM
I wasn't aware of this but are you saying that if there is no Democrat running for that Congressional seat, a Democrat living in that district has NO VOICE whatsoever? They can't vote at all for who their representative will be? Just looking for clarification.

Any Texan could choose to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary, but not both during the same election. So if a Democrat has an opinion between Hillary and Obama (and most Democrats do), then they would probably vote in that race instead of voting in the Republican primary, just to spite a neocon who's challenging an anti-war Republican congressman. That's just my opinion of a Democrat's thought process, but that might be giving the average democrat too much credit for rational thinking.

heartless
03-06-2008, 09:21 PM
rye-gold

ButchHowdy
03-06-2008, 10:13 PM
From Linda -

(I am forwarding to all CD captains, and as many Ohio groups as possible):

Very Important on this thread: so keep the thread moving through the groups.

"I had a Gentleman call me when I got Home from the Kent Meeting last night from New York.

He happens to be publishing a book with photos of all of the 2004 Election Fraud Evidence, that was supposed to be published by a company in Kent State? He literally has the photographs of burned and otherwise mutilated, destroyed ballots. He is very familiar with how to follow the fraud, due to his research in the book.

I would call him an investigative Journalist, in Election Fraud.

I don't know him from Adam.

He called me last night, from New York, upset about huge numbers of precincts in Texas, where there were thousands of registered voters, and ZERO votes at all, with 100 of the Precincts reporting in.

He repeated so I understood.

He is saying there are precincts with over 2000 registered voters, and the official count is saying NO one voted at all in that precinct after the precinct has reported in officially!

He said he has been studying elections now, for years. He has NEVER seen anything like this.

He said the number of zero precincts, are especially High in the Panhandle of Texas. He also mentioned what Ron here is saying in this post.

Ron Paul got more votes in his precinct for Congressman, than he did for president in the same precinct...by huge amounts.

This investigative Journalist is just about to publish the research on the fraud, and now, the company that was going to print with his book, has suddenly pulled out, and refusing to publish.

He was supposed to be doing a book signing at Kent on the anniversary of the shootings, that happens annually there... I guess.

He now has to self-publish, which, given the situation, and the fact that he is the only one with his "manual", puts him in a great deal of danger.
Maybe I am a little paranoid for him, because of my past experience with revolution researchers and publishers who have suddenly gone missing, or suddenly 'commit suicide,' over the past ten years. But while we were on the phone, we were getting echoes, then, three or four voice cut-outs for ten, then 20 then 30 seconds. Finally, we were disconnected, and could not get reconnected.

I did ask him to write to me so I could foreword the Texas research he did to all, and let you hear about the Ron Paul Information, since I know all of you would care a lot. I explained to him how to get a hold of the Ron Paul Texas Meetups, so they could investigate, and move on the situation, if they chose. I am hoping for an email from him this morning. I will be trying to call him back all day today.

So, please to the degree you can, keep an eye on this thread. If I get him on the phone, I will let you know. He needs some help getting his information out, and wants to investigate the Ron Paul campaign and election fraud, on a larger scale. Will follow up.... and if he does send an email, I will be sure to post it to you all

Linda

bulloncoins
03-06-2008, 10:26 PM
Can anyone tell us how many people showed up in the precincts in his district to their precinct conventions? This will show how much support he had in those precincts for his Presidental run. If there is a big difference between people showing up for him at the conventions vs. votes counted in that precinct you could help prove the vote was tampered with.

They had to sign in. There are records.

nodope0695
03-06-2008, 10:36 PM
I'd hazzard a guess and say that the presidential race was RIGGED and the congressional race was not.

amonasro
03-06-2008, 11:17 PM
Maybe some voters didn't know who Ron was and took a 50/50 guess on that portion of the ballot, resulting in a lot of votes for him. Still doesn't really explain the massive difference though...

blakjak
03-06-2008, 11:41 PM
Its actually very simple. Voters didn't want to "waste their vote" on "someone that could not win" for president.

leglock
03-06-2008, 11:44 PM
incumbent

+


Its actually very simple. Voters didn't want to "waste their vote" on "someone that could not win" for president.

syborius
03-07-2008, 12:02 AM
Its actually very simple. Voters didn't want to "waste their vote" on "someone that could not win" for president.

So you mean to tell me all those Mccaniac people voted for Mccain in the 14th district, yet walked out on Peden, decided not to vote so Ron Paul could win because they loved Ron Paul? If Mccain won in a legitimate landslide, that would carry over to the congressional district and the Peden platform would prevail as well.

dirknb@hotmail.com
03-07-2008, 07:47 AM
Read the last line of this article written by Pat Buchanan.
I'm not sure what side he is playing for but he does seem to be an insider.
This Should at least wake up a few more kool-aid drinkers.

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=957

Buchanan is definitely an insider. If not, he wouldn't be on TV so much.

syborius
03-07-2008, 08:37 AM
thank you pat. :(

SteveMartin
03-07-2008, 09:48 AM
G. Edward Griffin has offered to help get that fellow's book published!

Primbs
03-07-2008, 12:29 PM
I think most people like Ron Paul as their congressman and like the fact that he raises questions. But they may not see him as presidential material.

So they support him for one position, but not the other.

Expatriate
03-07-2008, 12:54 PM
I think most people like Ron Paul as their congressman and like the fact that he raises questions. But they may not see him as presidential material.

So they support him for one position, but not the other.

Utter bologna, in my opinion.

So you think anyone who knows enough about Ron Paul to understand the questions he raises would prefer Obillary or McCain for president?

Your statement makes no sense to me.

Primbs
03-07-2008, 01:02 PM
Utter bologna, in my opinion.

So you think anyone who knows enough about Ron Paul to understand the questions he raises would prefer Obillary or McCain for president?

Your statement makes no sense to me.

I don't think most people know enough about Ron Paul. That is problem number one.

Or most people are pragmatic and just want to vote for the winner McCain.