The national average is irrelevant. He has a 40% name recognition rate nationally. That would proportionally make his 4% really 10%. What matters right now, are the early primary states. Iowa Wyoming New Hampshire Michigan Nevada South Carolina
Not sure about you peeps in the USA (didn't you get fooked with no online gambling) but as I am from England we love our betting. I'm sure you can bet somewhere buddy, but not being American I have no idea on your gambling laws. I was looking for an eachway bet on Ron Paul in NH as I think he might get 2nd but sadly it has to be "On the Nose." Each way betting means that you get paid on 1st or 2nd places (sometimes 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th depending on the amount of entrants in the list.) I think Ron can do a job there and get 2nd. The DP P&R Crazy Gang will know about it too if he does!
Wrong. Blatantly wrong. There isn't a national vote for the primary elections, so a national average is meaningless. Also, all states don't vote the same day, so again, a national average is meaningless. It's an ongoing thing, and as such, the results of the early states will affect the results of the later states, making the states listed the primary focus right now. To think any other way is ridiculous.
See what I mean.. What is with all this wishy washy Ron Paul sobbing.. It's pathetic... Debating a RonPaulian is like being in the 1st grade all over again..
Mia doesn't seem to know much how the primary process works. If the national average were all that mattered then Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuilani would have ended up being the nominees. That is looking increasingly unlikely. (although I wouldn't say it's impossible just yet.) You can look back through the years and see many times where a candidate who started off poorly in the national averages ended up taking the nomination by building momentum in the early states. 2004 is the latest example. John Kerry was way behind in all the national polls before the primaries began.
Thank you. I'm a wishy washy 1st grader for explaining why Mia's analysis of the primaries is wrong? It's fact bud. As Zibblu points out, there are many cases in history where the national frontrunner ended up losing to a virtual nobody, based on the results of earlier primary states. I did not ever tie in Ron Paul to my argument, and in fact never mentioned any candidates' names in my post. Why? Because regardless of the candidates this year or any previous election cycle, my post still rings true. It's not a sprint, it's a marathon. The national average is meaningless when it can change dramatically overnight as a result of a debate, a public gaffe, or a state's primary results.