Ron Paul and the Curse of the Stubborn Percentiles
by Brandon Dean
January 15th, 2008
So I've been paying attention while the Michigan results have been rolling in. Since one percent of precincts were reporting around 5:00pm PST, Dr. Paul has been stuck (held steady?) at six percent. He's in fourth place, which is better than fifth place for sure, but how does one stay exactly at six percent in Michigan all night, at exactly eight percent in New Hampshire all night, and at exactly ten percent in Iowa all night? It's uncanny, I tell's ya...
Am I to believe that as we progress through the primaries and caucuses, that each state, whether it divides its districts by town, county or parish, is so uniform throughout these towns, counties or parishes that the first district to report any votes is an absolute perfect reflection of the entire state? I've watched the same thing happen three times now. At this exact point, it is 7:00pm PST, and Dr. Paul has recorded 27,432 votes so far in the Michigan primary, holding six percent of the vote.
My problem is: I started watching the results roll in when they first started, and Paul held about 1200 votes at the time, starting firmly at six percent of the vote. I've been watching ever since (they started rolling in at about 5:00pm PST) and he's been perfectly, steadily rising at six percent, and forty-five percent of Michigan precincts are now reporting!
The same exact thing happened in both Iowa and New Hampshire. I didn't watch enough of Wyoming to say for sure, but I'm almost positive the same thing happened there. What, is there some sort of ceiling set which the dreaded baby-delivering Dr. Paul cannot breach for reasons of "NATIONAL SECURITY?"
How does CNN project a winner when less than ten percent of the precincts are reporting their results? Like I wondered earlier, is each county in Michigan so alike that the first county just so happens to perfectly reflect the rest of the state? Just like with Iowa and New Hampshire? Is this just coincidence?
It is 7:07 pm PST at the moment, and Ron Paul is still holding steady at six percent, now with 32,171 votes and fifty-four percent of precincts reporting. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will), but I think that puts Dr. Paul past the total number of votes cast for him in Iowa, Wyoming, and New Hampshire put together.
Interesting...
Updates to come later.
Prediction:
If Ron Paul finishes with either more than seven percent, or less than five percent, I will eat my boots with a vodka chaser...
by Brandon Dean
January 15th, 2008
So I've been paying attention while the Michigan results have been rolling in. Since one percent of precincts were reporting around 5:00pm PST, Dr. Paul has been stuck (held steady?) at six percent. He's in fourth place, which is better than fifth place for sure, but how does one stay exactly at six percent in Michigan all night, at exactly eight percent in New Hampshire all night, and at exactly ten percent in Iowa all night? It's uncanny, I tell's ya...
Am I to believe that as we progress through the primaries and caucuses, that each state, whether it divides its districts by town, county or parish, is so uniform throughout these towns, counties or parishes that the first district to report any votes is an absolute perfect reflection of the entire state? I've watched the same thing happen three times now. At this exact point, it is 7:00pm PST, and Dr. Paul has recorded 27,432 votes so far in the Michigan primary, holding six percent of the vote.
My problem is: I started watching the results roll in when they first started, and Paul held about 1200 votes at the time, starting firmly at six percent of the vote. I've been watching ever since (they started rolling in at about 5:00pm PST) and he's been perfectly, steadily rising at six percent, and forty-five percent of Michigan precincts are now reporting!
The same exact thing happened in both Iowa and New Hampshire. I didn't watch enough of Wyoming to say for sure, but I'm almost positive the same thing happened there. What, is there some sort of ceiling set which the dreaded baby-delivering Dr. Paul cannot breach for reasons of "NATIONAL SECURITY?"
How does CNN project a winner when less than ten percent of the precincts are reporting their results? Like I wondered earlier, is each county in Michigan so alike that the first county just so happens to perfectly reflect the rest of the state? Just like with Iowa and New Hampshire? Is this just coincidence?
It is 7:07 pm PST at the moment, and Ron Paul is still holding steady at six percent, now with 32,171 votes and fifty-four percent of precincts reporting. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will), but I think that puts Dr. Paul past the total number of votes cast for him in Iowa, Wyoming, and New Hampshire put together.
Interesting...
Updates to come later.
Prediction:
If Ron Paul finishes with either more than seven percent, or less than five percent, I will eat my boots with a vodka chaser...
6 comments:
update:
still at six percent with sixty-five percent of precincts reporting.
Dr. Paul now has 38,902 votes.
update:
7:48pm PST
STILL at six percent...
77 percent precincts now reporting
ron paul now has 45,781 votes
update:
8:15pm PST
STILL at six percent!!
now with 89% of precincts reporting.
dr. paul now has 50,030 votes...
final tally:
100% precincts reporting
Ron Paul
54,434
6% <-------still six percent..
guess I won't be eating my boots...
You can at least feel good about the fact that Paul beat out Rudy and Thompson. Small comfort, I'm sure, but still.
Didn't notice what you were talking about, but then again, I would rather eat your boots minus the vodka than pay attention to the primaries. They buy those votes and the whole system is crap - without mentioning the fact that some of those primaries let people vote in either primary regardless of party registration.
yeah it's definitely a big joke to these people. primaries are so easy to steal, even without diebold computers fucking everything up. I think of this in a positive way, however. all that's happening with the ron paul people is they're waking more and more people up to the truth of their media manipulation. it's going to backfire on them.
I especially know this because I know if the elections weren't fucked with at all, and somehow ron paul got the nomination, they'd just kill him anyway. you can't have a presidential candidate talking about disbanding the FED. let the congressman rattle all he wants, but people around the world tend to listen to the president.
anyhow, the more they manipulate, the more people will see the truth, and I believe that is more important than ron paul becoming president...
Post a Comment