Ron Paul is having another one of his silly moneybombs today

[Meeker]

The portion of Republicans who would never vote for Romney is significantly higher than the portion of Republicans who would never vote for Paul.

No.

Mitt Romney favorability: +24%
Ron Paul favorability: -25%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_10121122.pdf

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The portion of Republicans who would never vote for Romney is significantly higher than the portion of Republicans who would never vote for Paul.

No.

Mitt Romney favorability: +24%
Ron Paul favorability: -25%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_10121122.pdf

Favourability ratings have very little relation to actual results.

Example:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1011925.pdf

Gingrich has a favourability rating of +24. Romney has one of +15. Santorum has one of +29. Ron Paul has one of -9%.

However, Gingrich is polling at 8% (and PPP polls generally have Gingrich slightly higher than other polls), Romney has 22%, Santorum has 5% and Ron Paul has 10%.

The only candidate who has proper correlation between favourability and votes is Cain, and he was still shining and sounding like a good candidate at the time.

So, there is about as much correlation between favourability and support as there is between the rain falling and houses being built.

Favourability fluctuates far too much to count for much of anything, seeing as how voters often see one side of a candidate they like and then as a gut reaction decide to find them favourable while they side another side of a different candidate and then decide they find the unfavourable.

[Meeker]

That's comparing multiple people with positive favorability ratings... your statement said that someone with a -25% favorability rating is more likely to win than someone with a +25% favorability rating. That's so laughably absurd I don't even know how to argue against it.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

That's comparing multiple people with positive favorability ratings... your statement said that someone with a -25% favorability rating is more likely to win than someone with a +25% favorability rating. That's so laughably absurd I don't even know how to argue against it.

So?

You presumably think Romney is going to win, yet Romney's favourability is lower than Cain's. Ergo, using your logic, Cain will definitely win the nomination.

Remember, not too long ago Cain had negative favourability whereas Romney had positive. Does this mean Cain suddenly had no chance?

Favourability changes at the drop of a hat from poll to poll and you have yet to demonstrate that it effects the end results in any significant way. Way back when, Paul had around +30 in New Hampshire, just a tiny bit behind Romney. He had similarly high ratings in Iowa. Every other candidate had similar sudden drops and increases because unlike direct polling numbers, favourability is rather mushy. Joe Republican might consider Romney favourable when listening to him talk, and then consider him unfavourable after hearing that he was strongly in favour of abortion not so long ago. Similarly, he might like Perry's posture and that he is Texan and consider him favourable, or he might hear him actually talk in a debate and consider him unfavourable.

It doesn't even have to come down to "bad sides". One voter might be hearing about one particular issue and thus like the candidate and then dislike the candidate when he changes topics. Paul would be a fine example of this; When he talks primarily about government spending, states' rights, etc the Republicans suddenly like what they hear and decide to increase his mark him as favourable (without voting for him, of course). Then he talks about foreign policy primarily and they find it strange to be coming out of a Republican's mouth so they mark him as unfavourable. That isn't even mentioning, for example, media coverage, spin, etc (The guy who is being covered by news channels constantly is going to see the bigger fluctuations than the guy who isn't). A Ron Paul given a single week of constant media coverage for his trillion dollar cuts exclusively would do to his favourability what a week of constant media coverage of Perry or 9-9-9 did for them. A Cain given a single week of constant media coverage on foreign policy or a Romney in a debate with someone pointing out his abortion/gun rights views would both see similar drops.

Favourability has no relevance at this point.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Paul v. Romney is a Romney Paul win.

Paul says mean things about touts his support of Reagan and Mitts old liberal influences that have still stuck with him.

[BigSkyBob]

$1.2 million wasted so far. Maybe they'll buy another blimp or two.

Pffft, that's nothing.

Thus far, $17 million has been wasted on Perry, ~$23 million on Romney, and, for a grand prize, well over $150 million on Obama.

You seem to miss the point. One of those three will actually be elected President.

It is you who has completely missed the point. For better or worse, Ron Paul is running on a platform of change for America. Those that agree with those proposed changes are funding his campaign. Paul is then using that money to argue the case for those changes. That simply isn't a "waste" of the money. That's participating in American democracy!

Calling participating in American democracy "silly" is purely ad hominem.

[King]

ITT: Ron Paul fanfic