Having recently praised the GOP Bloggers/Matt Margolis online poll and more recently criticized the intense-if-undersized group of Ron Paul supporters — proving well enough that activists can imitate astroturfers, even if they’re more legitimate manipulators — an update is warranted.
So while it’s nothing like guessing Time’s Person of the Year, my expectation has born out that, upon Ron Paul’s first inclusion in the GOP Bloggers Straw Poll, this would count as another online victory for the Ronbots:
Let us not take that poll result seriously. Rather, let us find out a bit about the people who produced that result.
Don’t forget, the GOP Bloggers poll includes a few useful crosstabs, and we horse-race journo junkies thrive on crosstabs. Most importantly, each poll participant is asked first to rate their favored candidate and then to record who else from the field would be acceptable nominees if their man fell short. Neither major party is about to go for Instant Runoff Voting, but the same concept shapes the invisible primary, and this poll gives insight into that thought process.
So let’s compare the Ron Paul Machine against the online proponents of Mitt Romney and John McCain, the two candidates racing to catch up with Giuliani, a feat Paul’s supporters contend is not an impossibility for their elderly Texas goldbug with an M.D. We will count supporters of Giuliani, F. Thompson and Gingrich as well, just because.
First up, acceptablity ratings for supporters of the candidate whose alleged “bots” are most often compared to Paul’s:
Romney’s supporters find Paul most unacceptable — putting them firmly in the mainstream camp — and however unenthusiastically, could accept F. Thompson and to a lesser degree, Huckabee (!) and Hunter (!!). With Giuliani and Gingrich it’s nearly even.
Next, the only other anti-anti-anti-torture Republican:
McCain supporters find Giuliani and F. Thompson acceptable. Paul is not the least-favored candidate; Tancredo and Gilmore are. Tancredo makes sense on the level of issues — they are surely on opposite sides of the current immigration debate. As for Gilmore, well, perhaps of those tagged “Rudy McRomney,” it’s the “Mc” fans who may have taken the greatest offense.
And here is Paul’s ostensible nemesis, the guy whose base yours all belongs to, whose moderate (and even libertarian) backers are probably in ur base killing your doodz right this very minute:
Giuliani supporters find the most candidates acceptable*, taking extreme exceptions only to Paul, T. Thompson and comparatively so to McCain, while ranking F. Thompson and Romney as highly acceptable. That Giuliani supporters are rating Paul lowest is rather dog-bites-man, but worth pointing out.
The man who isn’t (yet) there:
*Among delcared candidates, that is. Thompson supporters, so far, actually rate the most candidates acceptable: six vs. five. Only Paul and McCain earn their sincere disregard; T. Thompson, Gilmore and Brownback, as usual, can take a hike.
Now, let’s give Gingrich his due, because otherwise it would be Duncan Hunter, and even though Hunter is declared where Gingrich is not, Gingrich increasingly says he will announce (which would prove this prediction wrong) — and ultimately, Gingrich’s name ID with GOP primary voters would turn Romney green (let alone Duncan Hunter):
Gingrich supporters neatly line up with F. Thompson backers, both showing telltale signs of the “almost anyone else will do” sentiment, and approving of precisely the same candidates. Sounds to me like their supporters’ combined votes are a good representation of engaged but uncommitted online GOP Internet users.
Now, without the Beltway media and MSM churning, I wouldn’t have even included McCain: his fans number less than 100 (at the time of publication) out of nearly 11K recorded. While Paul, F. Thompson and Romney have appear to have formidable online bases, and Giuliani and Gingrich have their fans, the rest received too few votes to count in this post. Apologies again to Hunter and to Huckabee fans, who at least were not beaten by “(none).”
Still, the most interesting finding of all (besides FDT’s across-the-board acceptability) is this:
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ron Paul supporters like nobody less than Giuliani — for whom most observers called that debate based on his response to Paul’s “blowback” comments, even as the Ronbots contended that the very same exchange proved Ron Paul the obvious winner.
Unlike supporters of the realistic (and popular, arguably faddish and maybe unrealistic) candidates, Ron Paul supporters apparently would not vote for any other GOP candidate in the Republican primary — though intriguingly, a minority would consider Tancredo.
I submit this as fair evidence that Ron Paul’s online base of support is not drawn from actual Republican party primary voters. Activists for every other candidate have their fallbacks, nemeses and frenemies, but no other group is so far outside the mainstream as the activists for Ron Paul.
Maybe Ron Paul is the GOP vanguard. More likely, his support measures something besides the current Republican mood.
Get a grip man Paul support is coming from all the republicans who left the party over the last 4 years.
I’ve had quite a few folks tell me that they voted for RP in ‘88 but are supporting Tancredo right now because of his focus on immigration, so that could explain why a minority of RP voters would consider Tancredo.
As for the overall feeling of the results… no surprise really. RP doesn’t represent the current base of Republican primary voters, I don’t think that has been disputed by even the most vocal Paul supporters. What he does represent is a decent sized chunk of Republicans who feel the party has went astray and a growing amount of Democrats that recognize the significance of his campaign for both parties. Not to mention Libertarians who are known for utilizing the Internet as it’s their only way to communicate and get their message out there.
The entrenched establishment fears Ron Paul, and that should make the people think because Ron Paul stands up for the people regardless of party. So if the establishment is against Ron Paul, does that mean the establishment is against the people?
Regardless of whether it’s liberals or conservatives supporting Paul, he still wins. Lots of disenchanted conservatives coming home to Paul, with a lot of liberals crossing over this time. Can you dig it? Best of luck to ya.
I don’t know why you say that neither major party is going to support Instant Runoff Voting. IRV is their best friend, because not only does it lead to two-party duopoly, but it also prevents spoilers from upsetting their “sure wins”.
See: http://rangevoting.org/TarrIrv.html
What third parties should be desperately fighting for, as their NUMBER ONE ISSUE, is Range Voting (the simplest form of which is called Approval Voting). You just score the candidates, say 0-10, and elect the candidate with the best average. It’s objectively the least resistant to strategic voting (IRV by contrast absolutely falls apart under strategic voting, behaving essentially the same as plurality), and it picks better winners as objectively gauged by social utility efficiency calculations. Approval Voting is effectively Range Voting with a “range” of 0-1. An Approval Voting ballot looks exactly like a normal ballot, except that you can vote for as many candidates as you “approve” of. Radically simpler and better than IRV - and conducive to multiple parties, instead of enforcing two-party duopoly like IRV does.
The Libertarian Reform Caucus knows this, and they use Range Voting for their internal processes.
See http://ReformTheLP.org/issues/voting/range.php
As for Ron Paul, I created
http://groups.google.com/group/electronpaul
I meant to say:
“It’s objectively the least susceptible” to strategic voting, not least resistant. Oops!
I’m a Republican who hasn’t voted in a primary since Bush Sr. but I will be early next year. Do you think it might be possible that Ron Paul is so different from the other potential nominees that those statistics are inevitable? Their graphs show the same effect for Paul so it appears all it says it that people who would vote for Paul wouldn’t support any of the other potential nominees and people who would vote for any of the other potential nominees wouldn’t vote for Paul.
One of my democrat co-workers who I turned on to Paul back in 2002 has just changed his party affiliation because of Paul so I have a feeling we’re going to see record turnouts at the upcoming primaries.
What? I’m a republican who had to vote for Kerry in 04. My party screwed up by blindly backing Bush and bowing down to his every need. I’m a true republican, you sir are not. I‘m guessing you’re young, too young to remember what it was like to have government off your back, out of your life and out of your wallet. And one more thing, I voted in that poll, so when I vote in the primaries, will I be considered a spammer then too?
GOP will implode if they continue to follow their current warmongering, empire-building, bill of rights destroying course, and that’s a fact. The only hope for the GOP is to abandon Bush and his policies like he was an aids infected transvestite crackwhore.
Is it the GOP’s plan to self-destruct? If so, then continue as you were with your plans for endless war, and endless fear. In 2008 you’re going to witness a political tsunami unlike anything seen in modern memory.
The ONLY hope for the GOP is if they move towards Paul’s policy positions. Paul is the only GOP candidate that can pull in substantial independent and democrat voters. Remember Reagan? He won by pulling in those same people.
But don’t mind me, you guys go right ahead trying to win a national election with the pitiful remnants of diehard Bush fans. Hope you enjoy the next decade or so of political irrelevance.
I’m registered libertarian right now (I’m changing this to R only to vote for Paul) but in past elections I’ve voted for Republican candidates numerous times. I’ve never voted Democrat.
I participated in this poll and put Paul as my first choice and labeled Tancredo and Hunter as “acceptable”.
I find this data very interesting but I’d like to point out a few reasons why I think Paul can win some of the early states and be considered a “serious” candidate in the eyes of the MSM.
1) Many states have open primaries. This makes it easy for anyone regardless of party registration to vote for Paul.
2) New Hampshire is the most libertarian leaning state in the nation. This is how Pat Buchanan and Howard Dean got momentum for their longshot campaigns in previous years.
3) The majority of people voting in Primaries are hard core followers. Also, very few people vote in primary elections (compared to general elections). This means that the same people supporting Paul regardless of party are very likely to actually vote for him in the primaries, even if it means jumping party registration to do so. The rabid support for Paul can easily eclipse the support for the “top tier” when very few voters actually go to the polls.
All that can add up to a lot of noise when New Hampshire voters go to the polls. I still don’t know if Paul can win. But I would not be shocked if he won a few states early and finished high in several others.
Your assumption that “Ron Paul’s online base of support is not drawn from actual Republican party primary voters” is incorrect. The GOP has long ago lost its way and for many years we have had no one that represents our ideas. Election after election GOP voters have had to hold their nose and vote for the “lesser of two evils” and many, myself included, have done so for the last time.
The reason why Paul supporters find the rest of the field unacceptable is a simple one - principle. While Rudy McRomney supporters are willing to compromise for the sake of the party, Paul supporters are not. This time there will be no compromising. The Paul candidacy has awoken the sleeping giant within the GOP who feel that it is time to take our party back from the big-spending, globalist, neo-cons that have done so much to destroy it.
I actually participated in that poll, and I voted for Paul and gave all the other voters unacceptable ratings.
The reason all the other candidates are unacceptable is because the sort of Republican candidate I would have found acceptable no longer exists in the party. There is no Reagan in that list. There is no Jack Kemp. You can’t even point to the EQUIVALENT of a Reagan or a Kemp.
The guys on that list who think the Earth is 6000 years old aren’t getting my vote.
The guy on that list who worked for W’s administration is not getting my vote.
The guy on that list who instituted universal health care and compulsory health insurance in Massachusetts isn’t getting my vote.
And I have a sneaking suspicion that Tancredo hates Hispanics.
That leaves Giuliani and Hunter, pretty much. I lived on Long Island when Giuliani was mayor of NYC and even though he was mayor of “those city people” I’ve seen enough Giuliani to last me a life time. And Hunter wants to continue Bush’s failed foreign policy.
I want to vote for a candidate who actually believes in small government, who actually advocates closing the government departments Reagan wanted closed [can you imagine what the budget would have looked like if Reagan had both houses of Congress the way W did? I can], who actually believes in free speech and the other enumerated rights, and who isn’t committed to continuing a war that is damaging our interests and security worldwide just to protect W’s pathetic “legacy”. I only have one candidate to vote for, given that list of wants.
Paul’s certainly not perfect. He’s spent so long in the wilderness of the fanatical edge of the party that he has some real cranks as associates. And I’m pro-free-trade, and he’s anti-NAFTA. But that’s small potatoes compared to the problems I have with the other guys.
Oh - it occurs to me that I should address Gingrich. I had a lot of hope at one point that Newt would come back and save the soul of the party. I actually believed he meant all that stuff he put in his lectures about our inheritance from the founders and the unique value to mankind of our Constitutional tradition. Then he decided to give a speech saying that he no longer thinks free speech is a good idea. I was a fool to have had any hope in Newt.
He’s pulling support from everywhere, liberals, libertarians and conservatives. Maybe you should realize that:
A) The American people are sick of war, and he’s more anti-war than any Democrat
B) The GOP is supposed to be big tent
C) People will become Republicans to vote for this guy
D) Every other candidate has something that would make them unfavorable
At the last Republican debate, the moderator mentioned that 77% of Republicans supported the war in Iraq. The remaining 23% would tend to favor Congressman Paul on this issue — the other candidates have a bigger pie, but they have to split it nine ways. I am pretty sure that a lot of support comes from Democrats and Independents who see relatively few candidates with that view apart from Kucinich and Gravel (who, let’s face it, are far less attractive to fiscal and social conservatives). At this point, Ron Paul has a monopoly on anti-war views on the Republican side, which brings him attention from the media — conflict is always more exciting than consensus.
What would make this really interesting is if Chuck Hagel entered the race. He might be more attractive for antiwar Republicans.
I voted for Ron Paul in this poll and put a negative on every other candidate. My reason for doing this is because I feel no other candidate at all represents me in any way, shape, or form. When he is up there speaking in the debates he is the only one that seems genuine at all. He makes the rest of the candidates look fake and unprincipled.
Republicans are giving the election away to Democrats if they do not choose Ron Paul. He’s the only one that can beat any Democratic candidate.
“Fluffy” got it 100% right. It’s not that we’re not Republicans. It’s that this past 8 years of nation-building, big government, spending like a drunken sailor, stay-the-course antagonistic Republicanism has turned most of us off completely, and it’s distressing to hear most of the other candidates pledge more of the same. Yes, Tancredo and Hunter have some good points, and if I were desperate, I might consider voting for them, but it’s hard to take them seriously or think hard about whether they’re better than Ron Paul, because quite frankly, Paul has a much better chance of winning this nomination than any of the remainder of the 2nd tier. Why we don’t support Giuliani should be patently obvious, even beyond the war issue. McCain has lost a lot of support with some of his own efforts to find a base somewhere in the party. And Romney is a joke. Aside from his socialized medicine garbage, he’s taken virtually every position on every issue. Aside from the schizophrenic vote, I’m not sure how he’ll be able to win any voting bloc. Finally, I think it is important to point out to our detractors within our party that whoever gets the Republican nomination still has to win the general election in November, and I find it hard to believe that anyone BUT Ron Paul can do so. If you think people are tired of this war now, wait until we’ve gone through another 18 months of it. Nominating any of the mindless pro-war blowhards is a sure way to lose the election. (I don’t include McCain as mindless on this issue. I don’t agree with his troop surge at this time, but at least he’s given the issue some thought, unlike Romney or Giuliani).
That’s the issue for me, Bill. I’m not really a genuine Republican primary voter, but I’m considering registering just to toss a vote at Paul. You see from my perspective, and from the perspective of many libertarians, the other 11 candidates are all, essentially, the same or equally deplorable. Young earthers? Healthcare universalists? Guiliani? I mean maybe, if he actually ran, F Thompson would be the least bad selection aside from Paul (although Paul’s deplorable immigration stance leaves a lot to be desired, frankly). The rest seem to want to continue Bush’s policies only…more/better or something, and only the mouth-breathing party loyalists at LGF will see that as a good idea.
Is Paul a pretty bad public speaker? Yeah. Do I think he’ll help libertarianism as an ideology much? Maybe, maybe not, but given the standard hit pieces from the more popular camps, I doubt it. Would I vote for the dude in the general anyway? Yeah.
I am one of the people who voted Ron Paul as THE ONLY acceptable choice.
Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who is even TALKING about my issues:
1)the war, 2)getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with nothing, 3) getting rid of the Federal Reserve System and inflation, 4)repealing the PATRIOT ACT and the Military Commissions act, 5)protecting Habeas Corpus, 6) reducing the Federal government’s functions to the 17 items specifically listed in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
There simply isn’t another candidate out there who addresses all these issues.
It’s Ron Paul or nothing. Period.
RE: Fluffy
You said, “And I’m pro-free-trade, and he’s anti-NAFTA”…
These are the same thing. You can’t be pro-free-trade and pro-NAFTA. NAFTA is a managed trade agreement that gives us nothing resembling free trade.
Murray Rothbard said it very well:
“If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary.”
So, if you really want free trade then you should be anti-NAFTA, anti-CAFTA and anti any other so called “free trade agreement” as well because free trade doesn’t require an agreement.
Here’s Ron on the matter:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr042401.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst060605.htm
I’m a second generation republican, voted republican in every election but 2004 and 20006 when i voted third party because of the blind support of many in the GOP for a policy contrary to their platform. Our local caucus acctually voted 100% to send a resolution on saying that the National Rebulican leadership and those of the GOP in washington should start acting Republican and give up the big government, nation building policies used by Clinton and Gore and others of the demoncrats
I’m finally glad to vote for a true Republican in Ron Paul
Clay Shentrup makes the argument that instant runoff voting 1) elects extremists; 2) preserves the two-party duopoly. Go figure.
The reality is that instant runoff voting combines the values of needing core support and broad support. Freed of the spoiler fear, this can allow a third party with majority support to win. Of course the trick is having majority support. Third parties and independents occasionally have that in IRV elections (Mary Robinson in the presidential race in Ireland in the 1990s and Burlington’s first mayoral election with IRV, say), but it’s a challenge unless the major parties really are propped up only by voter fear of spoiling.
For ongoing multi-party fairness, you need proportional representation. Douglas Amy has a good site on this at:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
For more on instant runoff voting, see:
www.instantrunoff.com
The analysis only shows that Ron Paul is distant from the other candidates in some space of acceptability factors as considered by those who participated. That does not mean he is distant from the ideal of Republicans. The falacy is assuming that the top teir cluster around the ideal of Republicans and there is no evidence of that. Except for the above comments, it is still open as to whether those participating are representative of Republicans; time will tell.
Guys, Ron Paul gets 0-1% in all national polls. Virtually every one places him dead last. I actually did like the guy before he started wading into 9/11 stuff and “Alex Jones Show” conspiracies, but he doesn’t represent nor is he supported by much of anybody.
Considering how well Ron Paul does in scientific polls, one can’t help but assume all the commenters here represent every single actual Ron Paul supporter (unless they’re all Ron Paul using sock puppets).
nice job..and your comments section proves the point the Ron Paul supporters are spamming everything..even websites that analyze polls..bottom line is that Republicans are onto this scam..he’ll be tossed out in no time and his supporters can go back to whomever the “progressive” left is supporting
Sorry, but when I hear words like “empire” tossed out by the Paulists (or others), I have to wonder which nation they are talking about.
The US has no empire. We have troops in substantial numbers located in three major hotspots. Elsewhere, we have a few dozen to several hundred troops stationed in odd places around the world.
Yes, our navy is projected everywhere; but that is to maintain the free flow of shipping through the seas. If the US does not maintain those channels, who will?
Which nation do the Paulists wish to control the seas? If not the US, someone will.
Historically, great empires spent upwards of 40-60% of their GDP’s maintaining the empire. The US is spending about 4-5% of our GDP (~$600 billion in a $14 trillion economy).
The current administration would like nothing better than to remove the troops from Iraq. But the risk of sounding cavalier, losing 1,000 soldiers a year and spending $50 billion is an extremely small price to pay (yes, the loss of life is incaculable and heartbreaking; but history is a cruel mistress).
If the United States is not the pre-eminent power in the world, which country or entity should be?
Whether we like it or not, if the US withdraws from the world, if the dominance of the US diminishes, something else will replace it. Either a single power or a series of regional powers or nations organized to dominant the world.
Anyway, we can’t get Belgium to sign off on half the stuff we would like passed in the UN.
If that’s an empire, it’s not much of one. Not at all.
SMG
He’s pulling support from everywhere, liberals, libertarians and conservatives.
This is true. There are delusional nutcases from all over the political spectrum! But unfortunately for Ron Paul and the Paulbots, they’re just about ALL on teh internets, so their numbers are laughably overstated in online (unscientific!) polls.
You Paulbots aren’t Republicans; you are John Birchers. Get it straight.
Well, except for Matt at 4:03, who said,
I’m a republican who had to vote for Kerry in 04. My party screwed up by blindly backing Bush and bowing down to his every need. I’m a true republican, you sir are not. I‘m guessing you’re young, too young to remember what it was like to have government off your back, out of your life and out of your wallet
Yeah, Democrats are all about getting out of your back/life/wallet. How’d ya like that big tax increase they just passed while you were busy obsessing about how great Utopia will be? How about those thought police laws (”hate crimes”) they love so much? How ya like all those laws telling you what and where you can and can’t eat/drink/smoke? Yeah, I can see why you voted for Kerry. Bush Derangement Syndrome, irrational paranoia (OMG the fundies are gonna make me go to church!), and the war, which as you can see, the Democrats have no intention of ending because it scores them political points.
That’s a Ron Paulbot for ya.
I’m not really a genuine Republican primary voter, but I’m considering registering just to toss a vote at Paul. You see from my perspective, and from the perspective of many libertarians, the other 11 candidates are all, essentially, the same or equally deplorable.
At last, an honest answer.
Not that I agree that they’re all deplorable or that I’m a libertarian–I’m NOT–but it’s nice to see someone who actually is honest about his vote.
Okay.
Ron Paul appeals to my domestic libertarian leanings. But he is absolutely not presidential material. He is perfectly good to have in Congress: Since he (usually quite correctly) votes in favor of nothing and against everything, his role in Congress is to serve as a one-man version of deadlock. If there were more like him, we’d have less silly legislation from Congresscritters.
Still, Ron Paul is not good presidential material. He has no grasp of foreign policy except a blind adherence to his isolationist principles — principles with which we should all agree 9 times out of 10 because they are practical and advisable 9 times out of 10. Paul holds to them 10 times out of 10 because for him, they are doctrine, not merely “usually the best policy.” As a result, he is deeply wrong about 9/11, and about the current state of Militant Islam, and how best to combat it. He is, in a way, a fanatic: His one-solution-strategy doesn’t match the facts on the ground, so he ignores the facts and holds to the solution.
Now there were three reasons the GOP lost Congress: (1.) Conservative disgust with their elected officials’ disregard of the principles of the party base; (2.) Moderates’ disgust with the progress of the Iraq war; and, (3.) The tendency of the politically unobservant to get bored with the party that’s in power in a “6th year” election.
Conservatives and conservative leaning libertarians want a GOP candidate who’ll be a genuine small-government conservative (as opposed to the “compassionate” variety) while fighting the Iraq war with all available resources and taking a play-by-the-rules, law-and-order approach to illegal immigration. These, the party core, will select the nominee. They will certainly not select Ron Paul, as he does not match the above description. (He’s small-government, but won’t adequately go medieval on the medieval-era Militant Muslims.)
Instead, they will select Giuliani, or Romney, or Fred Thompson. If Romney stumbles, McCain has a chance; otherwise, he doesn’t, because he’s perceived to be the slightly-unhinged Howard Dean of the GOP (besides knifing conservatives in the back on a few key issues). And Giuliani will only have a chance if events make social conservatives sufficiently frightened of Militant Islam that they say, “Just this once, fugheddabout abortion and gay marriages/adoptions.” If Thompson enters the race, he’ll be found to be most acceptable to all the camps within the GOP, provided he can raise enough funds to compete.
What is so nutty about wanting to restore the republic?
Why is it that jealous non-supporters have to call Paulites, ‘nutty’? oh yea because their — jealous!
To borrow a phrase from Abraham Lincoln:
You can fool some of the people some of the time. Some of the people all the time. But the Paulbots can’t fool anyone but themselves.
This poll result is just further proof that these people are not part of any serious political movement and certainly are not part of the Republican Party.
I’ll wager (any takers?) that the vast majority of them have never done anything to support Republican candidates, the conservative movement or the Republican Party.
They’re an odd and selfish bunch of self centered, totally impractical goofballs who suffer from dangerous delusions about the nature of the enemy we face and are afflicted by some fantasy of what would actually address the threat.
I’ve pointed out before that bin Laden, in his 2002 “Letter to the American People” made it clear that the only way for Americans to appease him and his followers is by converting to Islam and replacing the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Law.
But of course each time I mention that to the Paulbots they ignore this reality and just launch into another fantastical and delusional episode.
I’ll ask them one more time: Are you willing to convert to Islam and allow radical Mullahs to rule America or are you willing to fight to win this war?
Only two choices here. Victory or Death!
I’d wager they’ve never voted at all.
Anyone blathering about an “American Empire” either doesn’t know what an Empire is or has no idea what the geopolitical situation is in the world or any clue about US history. It is an asinine statement and marks the person making it as unserious, dishonest or ignorant and it is, frankly, baldy anti-American.
Interesting that McCain supporters find Thompson and Giuliani acceptable but Giuliani, Thompson and Romney supporters all find McCain unacceptable to a greater or lesser degree. Not surprising really, but its interesting to see it demonstarted in (however unscientific) a poll.
Ron Paul is a clown and the “straw polls” prove nothing.
Just produce one scientific poll that demonstrates Ron Paul is this champion of the disillusioned Republican. Just one statistically significant result in a reliable scientific poll of a randomly selected sample of registered Republicans. Just one. If any of you can do that then, of course, your candidate would have to be taken seriously. The fact of the matter is, you’re manipulating unreliable data (and more than likely the surveys that created the data) to your own ends, and you’re not fooling anyone.
These voodoo “straw polls” and Fox News post-debate polls… they’re garbage. Let’s go through a few types of bias present in this particular “survey” that’s been called a “straw poll.”
First, there’s the sample…. it’s self-selected. That means that those that are most motivated need only to sign up to be included in the poll. Those that are even more motivated can resort to multiple email addresses, clearing cookies, using different computers/ different IP addresses. Are all of these respondents Registered Republicans? Doubtful. But who’s voting in the primary? There are many apathetic and less interested people that will vote but yet wont log on or text message a poll. You motivated thousands are far from a representative sample, especially when the sample is just of blog readers that, by their nature, are particularly passionate and motivated. It should surprise no one that outliers and extreme survey responses are the end result. Then factor in response bias, where you ultra-motivated supporters vote a certain way in the hopes of manipulating the end-result, not because it’s the way you actually feel. Now we’re whittling away our reliability.
Aside from other obvious sampling errors, how about those that don’t have computers? Those that can’t afford to squander a dollar on the text message to Fox? Or perhaps consider the Democrats that might have texted fox for the person they most liked… I think we can guess who they might choose.
It all comes down to the SAMPLE.
That being said, the more interesting result would certainly be to evaluate the survey data with respect to the blogs that referred them. After all, those reading blogs are
the real sample, not eligible Republicans. Why not examine the real subsets of data here? Right now there simply aren’t enough blogs registered to allow comparison of referrers. Perhaps in the polls to follow, a question could be included regarding favorite/most read blog (maybe a Likert-scale or an ordinal style). Anyways, I digress…. Now none of these blogs are expected to be unbiased (nor do they claim to be). Hell, it’s their editorial nature that makes them such influential tools to marketers, the same can certainly be said for political candidates. I don’t have all of the data available to me, but it would be interesting to see if a blog’s support or condemnation generated a statistically significant result for any candidate in the GOP straw poll. I’ve got a general sense as to whom my favorite blogs lend their support; what I’d love to know is if the results indicate a trend of potential influence in responses.
Motivation for GOP Bloggers: have numbers to back your ad sales, e.g. “Readers of my site clearly support your campaign , by advertising on my site you’re getting the rare chance to target a potentially huge audience of new donors that have already demonstrated their support for you.” Conversely, demonstrate to struggling campaigns the influence that blog is having. Advertising on your site allows the candidate to reach supporters that might be leaning towards them but are not yet committed to them as a first-choice candidate.
Gimme the data.
I support candidates, not political parties. I support Ron Paul because he advocates limited, constitutional government. None of the other Republican candidates and none of the Democrats do so. Therefore none of these candidates would receive my vote in November 2008. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and in 2004 and I am very, very disappointed in his increase of the size and scope of the federal government. Therefore, I will not vote for a Bush-like candidate in 2008.
Jesus, where are all these freaks coming from?
They just come out of nowhere and then they’re crawling all over you. It’s like that scene from Aliens. Fall back and lay down supressing fire with the incinerators.
I say we find their hive and roll some cans of nerve gas in it, gas the whole f@ing nest.
The reason we RP supporters WILL NOT accept ANY other candidate, Dem or Rep, is very simple:
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate, either party, who will abolish the Federal Reserve system and restore sound money to our economy.
He is the ONLY candate who will work to re-establish the traditional non-interventionist foreign policy recommended by the Founding Fathers.
He is the ONLY candidate who will work to abolish the income tax and replace it with NOTHING.
He is the ONLY candidate who will end the counterproductive War on Drugs.
He is the ONLY candidate who will bring US troops home from wherever they are stationed outside US borders.
He is the ONLY candidate who understands the rational concepts of Austrian economics.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.
For those who support Ron Paul there simply isn’t anyone else out there who measures up to what we believe in.
Ron Paul is simply the ONLY candidate. We will not accept anyone else. Period!
I’m a registered Republican, and have been so since my 18th b-day. In the 8 years since, i’ve voted in every major primary and general election, and have NEVER checked a box for a Democrat. And, as of now, i’m about 90% sure i’ll vote for Paul in the primary.
Maybe i’m the exception. Do I agree with Paul on everything? No way. But here’s why I support him.
Check out this USA Today article. The liabilities of the US government is at $59 trillion - that equates to over $500,000 per US household. How long can this continue? How long can we keep printing money to finance programs and policies that revenue cannot keep up with? Our spending is being paid for by future generations through inflation.
The system needs a shock. This is FAR more important to me than Iraq. Paul IS NOT an isolationist, but I would support one if that’s what it took to get our finances in order. If we want the general populous to live responsibly, and use debt appropriately, the example needs to be set by the federal government first.
Protecting the US dollar is critical to our nation’s economy. That’s why I am supporting Ron Paul.
Oops - forgot to paste the link…
Click my name or follow this link for USA today article mentioned in my post above…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm?csp=34
Ron Paul supporters come from the those who want a smaller government. Most of us stopped supporting the republicans over the last 12 years as we saw that the modern party has become mroe socialist than FDR. The first bush lied about raising taxas and we never trusted that bush 2 would reduce government. His reckless warmongering has further convinced large numbers of repbulicans that the GOP has lost its anchor in free-markets and individual rights. We are the portion of the republican party who regularly read!
“He is the ONLY candidate who will bring US troops home from wherever they are stationed outside US borders.”
So he’s the only candidate that will turn over South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel to Communists and Terrorists? Damn, I gotta get me a piece of that. The one thing we really need is a destabilized world with more communists, dictators, and terrorists. How can I lose?
“He is the ONLY candidate who will work to abolish the income tax and replace it with NOTHING.”
He’ll fund the Government with dreams and rainbows. Genius.
…
That is medical grade crazy there, not the street value crap I been smoking.
“He is the ONLY candidate who will end the counterproductive War on Drugs.”
Ok, I think some of you started early, your candidate for one.
There is no freaking way that republicans are voting for Ron Paul (except for the very few JB cultists). This is ample evidence to confirm that the liberal activists who register as republicans for republican primaries to affect candidate selection have simply evolved to do the same online. One need have only watched the debate on Fox to note the revulsion in the room to Paul’s statement (a good sampling of the republican base) and how the online poll a few moments later had Paul in a stagerring lead. Who do you people think you’re fooling? Really, don’t you have more important things to do? Don’t you know this disinformation campaign will make zero difference in the end? Why are you wasting your time on this little game? To me, it just shows how much you despise the American public because you think they will fall for this. I wouldn’t even expect Rosie O’Donnel to fall for this nonsense.
Gekkobear:
The dreams and rainbows you speak of come from welfare ideas such as social security, medicare, and other government service monopolies that are funded through a coerced and wholly forced-to-subscribe customer base (aka taxpayers).
Removing the income tax, and therefore cutting the legs out from under these harebrained “by their bootstraps” monopolies, is actually an attempt to REMOVE said dreams and rainbows.
You are going to be proven very wrong after the Republican primary. I have never voted for a Republican in my life but I have already registered as a Republican and will be voting in the primary. The fact is that no other Republican has ever attracted my vote and this is due to their failure to follow their oath to uphold the constitutional.
That is not the case with the Honorable Ron Paul. He has won my vote due to being a man of integrity and honesty. I would not vote for President at all if he were not in the running because I have looked at the record of all the others and they are not working for our Constitutional Republic.
I am most certain the other candidates simply work for the Military Industrial Complex and other special interests. The voting record clearly shows this to be true as well as the recent debates. Take a look at the campaign contributions of the front runners if you do not agree with my assessment.
Not the slightest bit interested in a discussion of Congressman Paul’s opinions or sanity. I would like to point out that as of ten minutes ago, relative support for Ron Paul and Fred Thompson among those who marked each of the other candidates as their first choice is as follows:
Ron Paul:
Acceptable = 485
Unacceptable = 3491
Acceptability to non-supporters = 12.2%
Fred Thompson:
Acceptable = 3155
Unacceptable = 935
Acceptability to non-supporters = 77.1%
I believe that in light of the obvious fraud representing support for Paul, this is the only measurable result from the unscientific online poll that can be counted on for reliability, since it represents the opinions of those who didn’t mark either of these men as their first choice.
Fred Thompson was marked as the next most acceptable candidate by supporters of every other candidate except Tancredo, where Hunter was marked the next most acceptable, with Thompson still enjoying well over 60% approval. Interestingly, it was also Tancredo supporters who offered Paul the closest to a positive acceptability number, at 107/145 (42.5%)
I find this discussion fascinating. I am amongst those who suspect Paul’s support is well overstated by his internet following. Nevertheless I find him to be a very interesting candidate from the perspective of his diverse backing.
In terms of previous presidential voting patterns, how will Paul’s support break down? One would think that the most fertile ground would be those who have voted Libertarian and Constitution, but based on 2004 results, this would only limit him to a universe of about 560K people (not adjusting for deaths, and of course the question of how many of these people would be registered and interested in voting for him in a GOP primary). If we broaden it a tad based on 2000 results, including Buchanan supporters, this group would be closer to 800-900K, but again, now 7 years have passed and you’d lose more people (esp. with Tancredo and Hunter). Could we throw in some Naderites? OK, a few very anti-establishment, anti-Republicrat global corporate forces, but I don’t think he’d get many Nader voters (with Kucinich, Gravel and other Democrats in the running).
For him to make a dent, he’ll have to pull significantly from the Bush, Kerry or Did not vote constituencies.
Given how strongly he has condemned the Bush administration, can he gain many Bush voters? This is such a big universe that we can’t typecast them easily, but it will be tricky for Paul. The proverbial “Paleocons” would seem to be drawn to him, and many of them voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils. Of course, there are some people who were enthusiastic about Bush in 2000, somewhat comfortable voting for him in 2004 and have since become very disappointed with the Iraq War and the second term in general. There is another core group of voters that don’t follow politics much and base their decision on the right to bear arms and other fundamental issues that relate to govt restrictions (IRS powers, farming, land use, etc.) that checked the box for Bush and would find Paul attractive.
As far as Kerry voters, again, the problem for him is that there is such a big field of Democrats to choose from. Also, the added risk to Paul is that many will not be registered to vote in a GOP primary. However, I would concede that there are many Kerry voters who could be drawn to him. The first group would tend to be younger voters, socially very liberal but not dependent on social benefits, and strongly against gun controls and Fed govt bureaucracy who commonly reside in Western and New England states. The second are the generally lifelong republicans who considered Bush to be grossly incompetent and wasteful, including a few Paleocons.
The did not vote category is the hardest of all to put a finger on. There are those who are between 18-21 who were simply ineligible. Add a few others in their 20s who never got around to registering last time. To the extent Paul is doing well among the very young, he could be drawing heavily here. The “I don’t vote, they’re all crooks anyway” segment is very difficult to size up and politically unreliable by definition.
Of course this is all very oversimplified given how complex the voting decision is, but I would be very interested to see how Ron Paul’s support turns out.
I voted in this poll and voted for Ron Paul, and against all other candidates except Trancedo. I am a life long republican who will never vote for these neo cons who have hijacked the republican party. The republican party use to stand for liberty and small government. Now it stands for big brother, illegal spying, RealID, gun control and many other anti american, anti freedom things.
The only real republican running is Ron Paul. He believes in small government, the constitution, and freedom. All things we should all fighting to regain. I think Ron Paul will also attract many democratic voters becuase of his message of freedom.
If Ron Paul does not end up running I will vote democrat, not becuase I like democrats, but to help kill the republican neo con party.
interesting indeed, I think we’ll do quite well. support for paul is genuine I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. I’ve even seen neo-cons like the ones who post on this board do a complete turn around and support paul just as fanatically. bushes push for amnesty will be a big boost for us, luckily he keeps trying to ruin the country and drives anyone with any sense left to the paul camp.
to those that seem to get confused and say we’re fighting bin laden in Iraq, HES IN PAKISTAN YOU IDIOTS. the only people we’re fighting in iraq are iraqis that are pissed off that we’re occupying thier country
Just a quick question about the “spamming”: Is this one person voting a thousand times, or a thousand people voting one time apiece? If it’s the former, a simple IP check and account verification via email should be sufficient to prevent most of it.
“to those that seem to get confused and say we’re fighting bin laden in Iraq, HES IN PAKISTAN YOU IDIOTS. the only people we’re fighting in iraq are iraqis that are pissed off that we’re occupying thier country”
Yeah - because Al Qaeda has never engaged in attacks in a country that Bin Laden isn’t located in.
Well William, out of 2,731 votes cast thus far at vote.com, Ron Paul absolutely fucking DROWNED all other so called “candidates” by SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT of the votes.
Your efforts to convey the absurd claim that Ron Paul support is NOT coming from disgusted, pissed of Republicans is the most intellectually vapid ejaculation I have heard in a long, long time.
The loudest applause of the entire night last night, (even though Wolfie Blitzed tried to drown out the crowd by talking over them) was when Dr. Paul responded to the question “…what is the most important moral challenge for America today?”
He responded that the U.S. can’t continue Bush’s inane policy of threatening destruction of other nations via continuous threats and initiation of “pre-emptive wars.”
The loudest, longest applause of the night came then. I beleive the majority of the votes on vote.com were prompted by that statement, and the previous two times he won instant online polls and text message polls, were all spurred by the straight forward, politicaly risky statements he made on those occasions.
He is the only candidate in either the Democrat or Republican fields who isn’t running based on the claim he will BOMB and SHOOT more people into “submitting” to a democratic form of Government. MOst old time Republicans DO NOT believe that a Democracy is built by “Dynamic Entry” into private homes.
If MSNBC and FOX can’t manage to cut his air time off completely, and he is granted the chance to speak or respond to at least one question in each debate in the future, he will probably win those hands down also.
Face it. The Republican party members such as me, having been a member for over forty years, are fed up with the “North AMerican Union Organizers” within the party, and we will not stand for our nation being turned into a thrid world fecal matter depository.
Ron Paul is the only guy who will actually halt the North American Partnership Agreement/Treaty unconstitutionally “…made”* in 2005 by the Bush Administration. THAT ALONE will get him elected should the majority of Sheeple ever wake up to it.
I am one of those who said I would accept Tancredo, but him alone, if Ron Paul does not win the nomination. I find your reasoning that this makes me somehow un-Republican. That’s an interesting take on the issue, since I am 50 years old and have been a registered Republican since I first became able to vote.
The reason you are searching for has to do with a total turn of the Republican party from traditional conservatism. Today, the Republican party appears to represent the same advocation for big government that is found in the Democratic party. They only differ on what they want to use that big government force, to do. This is not conservatism. Conservatism is about limited Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility in government, personal privacy and responsibility and individual liberty. Does this sound like Bush or quite frankly, many of the Presidential candidates. Well, there you are. There’s your answer. The only conservatives on the ticket are Tancredo and Paul. Period. And please don’t throw out Fred Thompson, as he is only the same big government shill as all the rest; he just has acting skills.
Ron Paul’s support comes from across the political spectrum. It’s much like Dr. Paul said… the Freedom message brings us together; it doesn’t divide us. So please don’t discount us any longer and refer to us as “spam” or “bots”. We are not. What’s more, you know as well as I do that most polls check IP addresses, so even if someone did want to vote multiple times, they would not be allowed to do it.
Please stop sliming this great man, Ron Paul. Let his message get out and let the chips fall where they may. Isn’t this what our country was supposed to be all about?
Nibbles, you said the following:
“I say we find their hive and roll some cans of nerve gas in it, gas the whole f@ing nest.”
Listen, I heard Janet Reno had a job opening. Sounds like a perfect fit for you.
You didn’t show Tancredo voter’s stats. They were the most likely to choose Paul as acceptable. Likewise, Paul voters are the most likely to choose Tancredo as acceptable. This is because Tancredo and Paul are by far the closest to eachother. But it should not be surprising that Paul voters tend to disfavor anyone but Paul for one simple reason that any idiot would have noticed:
THE IRAQ WAR
That is a very significant issue to many voters. I personally chose Tancredo (only) as being acceptable, but I can easily see other Paul voters seeing this as the make-or-break issue.
If you actually use your head for five seconds, it makes perfect sense.
Can’t believe none of these comments are calling you out for calling RP supporters “Ronbots”.
No, i personally have not been a Republican primary voter in several years. In disgust at the blatant hypocrisy of the party “mainstream”, I changed registration to Independent several years ago. Dr. Paul is likely going to change me back.
I voted for Bush in 2004. I voted for republican candidate sin the 2006 election. I voted for Dick Devos to be the governor of Michigan.
I am for protection of my civil liberties. I am for lower taxes. I am for the constitution and only one man represents that on the stage and that is Ron paul. Wars should be declared and they should only last until the objectives are complete. We should have left Iraq in 2003, after DECLARING WAR and ousting the old regime.
Ron Paul is a serious contender and I will vote for him in the Primary in Michigan on Feb 5 and until then will convince all I know to do the same.
It strikes me as odd that people belive the “republican base” will vote for someone in favor of gun control, who ran New York City as a police state.
Ron Paul’s message is clear and unwavoring, listen to Romney change is mind 3 times a debate.
I have also left the Republican party for Independent/Libertarian leanings… The Republicans used to be the lesser evils than the Democrats so they had my votes, though I never really supported any of them for quite some time.
Now there’s actually a candidate where it’s possible he won’t get absolutely creamed running as a third party candidate… Face it, America likes it’s 2 party flip a coin system and the 99% of politics that benefit from it will try to keep it that way.
I’m not only voting for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries, but donating and volunteering for the campaign. I HAVE NEVER DONE THIS FOR A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN…
I know we have a huge job ahead and it’s such a slim chance, but it’s worth it to do what’s right for the country. Better than not voting at all like the majority of people I know. If we can just get to some of those people…
I’m a liberal who will vote for Ron Paul. I’m changing my party affiliation so that I can vote for him in my state’s primary. Many of my liberal friends are doing the same thing.
I would never consider voting for another Republican. It’s Ron or it’s Obama. So, your results above make perfect sense to me. Many who would vote for Ron Paul will vote for no other Republican. Simple as that.
Ron is doing what every other presidential candidate wishes s/he could do: pull voters across party lines to their side of the trench. Ron Paul’s message is resonating with people who are determined to protect our FREEDOM, as it is at stake in case you haven’t been paying attention. It’s do or die and Ron is the only one willing to put his neck out there to do.
I support Ron Paul; with my vote and with my money.
Guess you can call me a proud RonBot!
Much of Ron Paul’s support comes from Libertarians, Constitutionalists, other Independents, disenfrachised former Republicans (like me), and crossover Democrats. But his largest base is actually people who have either never voted before or haven’t in a long time. Considering that a minority of potential voters even register and vote, one might consider that Ron Paul is the only candidate that IS mainstream - because the mainstream doesn’t even vote, let alone vote Republican lately - but that’s where Dr Paul’s support blows all other candidates out of the water. People who had given up on our self-serving leviathan federal government and the loss of our Liberties - people who will only support a candidate whose record shows he will actually live up to his oath of office - for those people, Ron Paul is the only choice.
Normally I would vote Democrat, but I’d be proud calling myself a Republican with Ron Paul leading the party. In fact, I’m strongly considering donating to his campaign, something that’s never crossed my mind during any other election.
Yeah, I disagree with his stances on immigration and abortion, but damnit he’s the ONLY candidate, Republican or Democrat, that has any intention of turning this country around and reducing the size and power of the government.
The numbers actually show what a lot of people know: there’s Ron Paul and then there’s this big wadded hulking mass of candidates all stuck together because they all talk the same talk and walk the same walk. They’re all the same. Interchangeable. Cookie-cutter candidates. So it’s no suprise that they’d all be disliked.
Ron Paul supporters apparently would not vote for any other GOP candidate in the Republican primary
Maybe they are just returning the favor. Apparently, supporters of all other GOP candidates would not vote for Ron Paul in the primary.
I last voted for a Republican presidential candidate when Reagan ran the first time. The second time he ran, I voted Libertarian, concluding that Reagan was more talk than action. Now I’ll vote Republican again if Paul gets the nomination, since he actually believes in smaller government, and will do something about it.
I’m dismayed by the name calling on both sides of this discussion. Perhaps we could take Dr. Paul’s fine example and keep this conversation polite and intelligent.
I’ve been following Dr. Paul for the better part of 30 years, and find him to be the most honorable, consistent, and human canditate in the running — regardless of his views (which I agree with almost all the time).
What concerns me is the people on this board is the name calling and stereotyping of Ron Paul supporters. I am a Ron Paul supporter and….
I am an ex-Republican that will be coming home. Why did I leave? Failed promises by the Republican controlled congress in the 90’s. Then I voted for Bush…never have voted for a Democrat mind you…and loved the no nation building, humble foreign policy stance. Are we conservatives INSANE! Have we forgotten how ticked off we were with Billary hopping into Somalia and Bosnia. We were ticked at his “I’m Mr. World Policeman”.
Okay…9/11…boy was I ticked…go get than dirty SOB Osama! Right on! Crap…we didn’t get him and now we are nation building…maybe it’ll be alright…but why are we not getting the sucker…irritation set in…not liking this policing crap.
What’s this…Iraq? Shouldn’t we be getting Osama and his buddies? Sure, Hussein is a dirt ball…but I want Osama dang it! Didn’t Dick Cheney warn about this as Secretary of Defense…yes he did….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7kkx9domJo&eurl=http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/dick-cheney-iraq-war.html
Oh what the heck…maybe Dick Cheney was wrong in his analysis in the first Gulf War…Ok…lets go get Hussein. What the heck…crap…more nation building and what’s this? The 90′ Dick Cheney was correct! What happened to the old Dick Cheney…crap…Dick Cheney has lost his memory and mind!
Oh well…still hating Democrat Socialism…voting Bush again in 2004.
Crap…old Dick Cheney is looking like a prophet…really starting to get unsettled…getting more big gov’t, inflation rising, economy weakening, my fellow citizens dying at approximately 100/month(btw I’m ex military and pro military).
What the heck is happening to the Republican party! I want my small gov’t, low spending defenders of the Republic!
Ladies and gents…the other Republican candidates ARE NOT small gov’t, low spending defenders of the Republic! I want the old Dick Cheney back. I want Reagan, Goldwater, Eisenhower…I want RON PAUL!
Anyhow…here is the journey of a ticked off conservative and why I put the other candidates as unacceptable except Ron Paul. So live in your delusional world that there are not a lot of conservative like me. I have seen them in groups all over my state. I have seen thousands in the streets of Seattle just weeks ago…and yes we have energy and yes we are ticked!
The Republican party? What Republican party??
Oh… you mean that new big-government, war-mongering, Constitution-hating party that still calls itself the GOP….
“Real” Republicans want to vote for a fellow “real” Republican… Ron Paul.
(BTW, don’t you think it’s great that a lot of Independent and Democratic voters are responding to Dr. Paul’s message of limited government and liberty? If you believe in those principles, shouldn’t you be rejoicing?)
If the GOP doesn’t begin embracing it’s own (supposed) values, it will continue to shrink.
To paraphrase the Gipper. We did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left us.
There are other possible explanations.
The pro-war Republicans have many choices, but the anti-war Republicans only have one choice – Ron Paul.
The big government Republicans have many choices, but the small government republicans only have one choice – Ron Paul.
The other candidates don’t even come close on the issues that mater the most to Ron Paul Republicans.
Some Republicans are tired of having to vote for a guy just because he is a little bit better than the democrat candidate. With Ron Paul they will be voting for someone, not just against the other guy.
If Ron Paul is nominated; the Republicans have a chance to win, if not, then the so called anti-war Democrat will win. It will be impossible for a pro war candidate to win this election. Nominating any other Republican candidate will be handing the election to Hilary on a silver platter.
If Ron Paul is elected; conservative will finally get the smaller government that they have been dreaming of. Any of the other candidates – Republican or Democrat will guarantee a government that continues to grow and grow.
Being a small government Republican is a little like following Moses around in the desert for forty years, with the Promised Land just beyond the next mountain. Let’s only hope that the Republican Party doesn’t have to die for us to get there.
So, Bill… You seem concerned that Ron Paul supporters might not be true Republicans? Well guess what, you’re right! Putting party over principal is, IMHO, akin to treason. My loyalty IS NOT to the GOP, it’s to America and the ideals this great country was founded on.
I, for one, am proud to be a Ronbot…
America is Sick.
Dr. Ron Paul
Is the Cure.
I have voted in every State and National election I was eligible for. I have never voted for a Democrat, so I can’t support any of the Republicans except Ron Paul.
It was a Progressive Democrat that lead us into WW1, so Wilson could start his beloved League of Nations precursor to the UN; it was a Progressive Democrat that exercised Eminant Domain - outlawing and confiscating gold from Americans at $20/oz., so Roosevelt could turn around and give it to a private Federal Reserve for sale on the international market at $35/oz.; it was a Progressive Democrat that lead us into Korea, so Truman could stop the Communist threat to Wilson’s international agenda; it was a Progressive Democrat that lead us into Vietnam, so Johnson could stop the Communist extremists who were seeking to overcome our way of life here; and it was a Progressive Democrat that lead us into Iraq; so Bush could stop third world dictatators from leveraging their power and overtaking the White House.
The greatest threats to Conservative American political values in the last 100 years have come from International Socialism and National Socialism. We fought wars against both. We just didn’t see that the threat that they posed was not a physical one, but was instead posed by the intrusion of their ideologies into the Democratic and Republican parties.
Ron Paul is the ONLY conservative American politician running for president. How can I support anybody else? How can you support anybody else?
I have been a lifelong Libertarian minded Republican. I voted Republican in every presidental race since I could in 1992 except for 2004. I voted for Bush in 2000 with great hopes for cutting the size of the federal government. Of course we all know how that turned out. So I voted for Mike Badnarik in 2004 as a protest vote. This year I will vote Republican no matter what but I have been a HUGE Ron Paul fan for at least 5 years since he is the only libertarian in Congress.
In case you have been asleep for the past year, Ron Paul is the only Republican who advocates ending the war in Iraq and pulling out troops as fast as possible. Surely you can reason that Republicans who are strongly against the war in Iraq would not find any of the other candidates acceptable because of this reason alone.
Get a clue.
Colbert gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.
The people know too much,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.
Honesty compassion intelligence guts.
No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.