truth and accountability absent from RP brigade
for months the paulists bleated and moaned that the conventional polls were woeful distortions of ron paul’s “real” numbers. supposedly, the swamped online and text polls at faux news and elsewhere were closer to representative. while it was of course true that the oft wrongly characterized “scientific” polls were flawed, and that ron paul was largely blacklisted from the lamestream media, it didn’t warrant tripe such as,
What do the numbers mean?
Posted by James Ostrowski at August 19, 2007 02:03 PM
Ron Paul has done well in various straw polls. I think you have to judge the straw polls against Ron’s “scientific” poll national number of 2-3 percent.
Iowa–9%
Alabama–81%
NH–73%
Illinois–19%
SC–18%
Average–40%These polls measure a factor that will be very important in early primaries and caucuses which have traditionally low turnouts: intensity of support. Polls don’t measure that and are therefore not scientific.
Thus, as I’ve said before, the MSM should base their degree of coverage on objective, scientific factors such as contributions, crowds and straw polls.
Not that they will!
what’s the closest that loudmouthed wrong asshole james ostrowski can get to acknowledging he was full of shit? he posts a passive-aggressive attempt to laud his soothsaying because he was wrong:
Better late than never
Posted by James Ostrowski at January 20, 2008 10:30 AM
Ron Paul did in Nevada what I erroneously predicted he would do in Iowa: double his poll number.
that, of course, on the heels of a ludicrous mound of harping on his supposedly prescient harping on ron paul and hillary clinton, which so far has dick supporting it.
i’ll divert for a moment to consider this jewel of the ostrowski prediction facade. bypassing for this post the shameful tactic of “predicting” the world and then cherry-picking the “correct” ones afterward, here’s a simple question: under what conditions will ostrowski assert that he was wrong with this hammered tactic of his? for insight, look at it in the reverse — at conditions which ostrowski has considered, or likely will, to be substantiation of his “prediction”.
- somebody declares that clinton’s the one “republicans” need to beat. (wow — ostrowski nailed it!)
- clinton gets the demoflab nomination
- clinton doesn’t get the demoflab nomination
- ron paul gets the RINO nomination.
- ron paul doesn’t get the RINO nomination
- ron paul does “third”-party run
- ron paul doesn’t do “third”-party run
- [ad nauseum]
think about it. ostrowski has declared (probably hundreds of times — each as if he’s carrying stone tablets down the mountain) that ron paul is the only one who can beat hillary clinton for the 2008 emperor coronation.
here’s just what a set of balls that inanity required. imagine that
- clinton gets nominated.
- ron paul doesn’t get nominated.
- clinton wins running against some “republican” who’s not ron paul.
OMG! ostrowski was right! he’s a fucking soothsayer to defeat all soothsayers! 
get it? basically, he can’t be wrong. flip a few fuzzy variables and he’s still “right”. given that he’s spread his “prediction” to include the claim that “Ron Paul is the only candidate who can beat the Democrats this year”, any scenario in which ron paul wasn’t the “republican” nominee and the RINOs don’t win is guaranteed to result in chortling dickwad ostrowski strutting his BS over at the LRC blog. “I was right!”
BTW, captain predicto doesn’t believe his filth either:
If Ron doesn’t get the nomination, you will hear Hillary take the oath of office. Even if she doesn’t, a man who is to her left, Obama, will.
Don’t have any illusions or misconceptions about this.
illusions or misconceptions about what? that he just used the classic “no way am i wrong, but even if i am” construction?
if ron paul runs as a “third” party, it’s almost guaranteed that the RINOs will be trounced (by the demoflab candidate). in that case ostrowski’s covered because ron paul was supposedly screwed and had to run at a “third”-party disadvantage. “‘Twas a noble effort, and it’s too bad the Republicans didn’t listen to me, since it was I who told them only Ron Paul could beat Hillary.”
do it. take some time and find some scenario where you can go back afterward and say ostrowski was completely full of shit in his “bold” prediction. good fucking luck. it’s perhaps the most pussified, contrived “prediction” of the last five years. the only way simpletons will even consider seeing that he was wrong is if ron paul’s the “republican” nominee, clinton the demoflab, and ron paul loses. even then fuckboy’s protected, since he can still claim that ron paul had the best chance, despite losing. and no matter what happens he can retreat to the same tactic lew rockwell put in play after the IA disaster: the problem wasn’t the prediction; it was the people who didn’t go along with the prediction. never mind that the prediction regarded precisely that same set. never mind that these are supposedly adherents to mises’s insights into the complexity of human action.
the results from the “early primaries and caucuses which have traditionally low turnouts” are in, asshole ostrowski. you were wrong. you alleged that the ron paul blowout straw poll mechanisms were better indicators of public support. you went further, however, and claimed that “the MSM should base their degree of coverage on objective, scientific factors such as contributions, crowds and straw polls.”
turned out that the conventional polls, generally, eclipsed the results of ostrowski’s pet pro-RP methods. apparently using the same method they’d used all along, ron paul’s poll numbers rose gradually until they nearly met the actual results of the early primaries and caucuses. what does unaccountable blowhard ostrowski pull from his ass and wave around? an anomaly.
how about some truth, LRCers? how about noting that generally you were terribly wrong in the manifold articles and drool patrols denying the obvious.
their fool asses were nailed, correctly, here at the IDIOT.
ignoring for a bit the extended, repetitive statist gushing of dipshit tex macrae and many other similar fools at LRC, get a load of this classic from “lawyer” and black-robe-buttmuncher james “dumbass” ostrowski:
Why not judge candidates by the number of people who show up to hear them speak? What’s wrong with that? A simple, fair test of support.simple, maybe. fair? worthwhile? accurate? hardly. the dimming bulbs at LRC and elsewhere, so far up ron paul’s ass they need scuba tanks, haven’t yet computed the self-selection and desperation angle on their official criminal of choice’s candidacy. RP fanatics are pissed off, eager, frustrated, etc. For decades these people have been awaiting the alignment of american politics favorable to a supposed liberty candidate. many have passed the same onto their children. some more lucent kids have picked up the correct path (toward liberty) themselves, but haven’t yet had the chance to understand that the extension of that path points away from the state.
whatever their reasons, RP fans are a rabid minority, seeing their single window of opportunity dangling. of course they’re going to outnumber people showing up for the usual bullshit. they’re excited. they’re psyched. they’re stupid. and when the self-selection factor gets watered down, in primaries and elections where a wider part of the general population participates, they’ll be drowned in their embarrassing screaming of someone’s name — mass worshiping a man in the name of individualism.
does anyone know what will happen after this moment, in the race of the lunatics to rule the perverse? nope. i do know, however, that one LRC jackass after another asserted that the polls were so far off as to be discounted almost entirely — the same polls LRCers and other duplicitous twats can’t resist linking to as dispositive whenever the result pisses on jizzliani, taxabee, mcslayer, schlompson, or the robot. the same polls of which a less panicky puke in july 2007 noted,
We are right to be skeptical of polls, particularly early polls about small turnout primaries and caucuses. However, experience shows they do very roughly portray public opinion at any given time. Ron needs to slowly creep up to and pass at least one “leading contender.”
once the distorted straw polls started firing in abundance, mere weeks later, the puke changed horses. he picked the wronger horse.