Does Ron Paul have support?
Monday September 17, 2007
Categories: Republicans
In my Sunday DMN column, I expanded on some earlier thoughts I expressed on this blog about the difference between honor and pride, and why I think that's confusing Republican minds on the way forward in Iraq. I praised Ron...
Filed Under: Ron Paul
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
ROFLMAO - Support??? You're kidding right?
http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/09/success-in-the-.html
GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL!
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
Best Ron Paul video - (Reply: WRONG!…Best Presidential Candidacy Video EVER!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ
oops ... I forgot to mention the (9) nine straw poll victories!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
Well, you're right about pollsters missing voters. It isn't only that lots of folks in urban areas have abandoned land lines for cell phones, but there is caller ID and privacy manager, combined with voicemail which make it virtually impossible for anyone to get a call through that the folks on the other end really don't want to be bothered with.
The result is that we really have no accurate way of knowing what the public is thinking now and we just have to wait for the election to see which of us gets unpleasantly surprised the most.
LOL on Pauline Kael!
Never heard of the guy.
Remember that Karl Rove made the same point about people increasingly using cell phones, and why this meant pre-2006 election polling data underestimated Republican voters. Didn't turn out to be the case.
I'll vote for Paul in the California primary, and wish him well, but he likely won't garner a large portion of the vote. I think his average 2% showing in the polls is unfortunately accurate.
DU
Never heard of the guy, don't know where he stands, and more importantly: I don't really care. However, one thing is clear: the online polls, the text messaging polls, all of that neglects one fact. Young people don't vote in primaries. And they are where the support seems to be. Text messaging and onine polls tend, demographically, to be dominated by those in the 18-30 set, and guess who tends to be the least voting segment of the poplation. the 18-30 set.
I just looked at his candidate page and the guy seems like a stiff, even in the video, just for the record. No different than any of the other candidates.
good luck to the guy, but in all reality, the race is down to four, though I will say this: ALL of the candidates (viable or not) are worthless, at this point. It's a wasteful sham when you have extremists from Tancredo to Kucinich (last I heard he's running again). And you have to choose another politician from the assembly line at the republican and democratic party politican factories. Our politics are distateful at best.
Don't worry - Alan Keyes has entered the race, so now the Republicans can't lose. Right? I mean, surely he could beat Obama... oh wait..
What the Paul echo chamber reminds me of is how Kerry had so much support among the 18-25 set and how they were going to tip the election.
And they didn't, because the people who were saying this were listening to their friends and their friends only. The College Democrats weren't listening to anyone but their own echo chamber of liberals. And while their stoner friends were more than happy to say they liked Kerry, at the end of the day they couldn't be bothered to show up at the polls.
I know the Paul supporters will deluge me with HOWDAREYOUCONTINUETOSUPPORTTHESYSTEM stuff, but ask yourself: Do you parents support Ron Paul? Does your secretary support Ron Paul? Does someone you know who doesn't use the Internet as much as you do support Ron Paul?
That's where the problem lies. Ron Paul, to me, sounds like a John Bircher for the 21st century. He looks marginal. He sounds marginal. Can he make a case to your parents that he's not Strom Thurmond with a Texas accent? Can he make a case to your secretary that he's not going to cut off the government programs that helped her through school and help offset the costs of being a single mother? Can he make a case to some guy who doesn't spend the day posting comments to political and libertarian blogs and listening to the echoes?
Until he can prove to me that he's not going to put my employer, which relies heavily on NIH grant money just to keep the lights on and the wheels of research humming, out of business, then I'm going to vote for someone else. Sorry. Some of his ideas are good, but the whole package? We might as well wave the white economic and scientific flag to the rest of the world.
I sincerely wish Ron Paul had a chance. I agree with Rod: I'll vote for Paul, but it will be a vote for someone who is not going to win.
The fact is, this country is not ready for someone like Ron Paul. The political environment for someone to reverse the entitlement mentality is not there. Most people want to keep the government handouts coming in some form or another.
It's wonderful to hear Paul talk about abolishing the IRS. But he doesn't just get to do that as President - he has to deal with Congress.
And it's wonderful to hear Paul talk about ending other government agencies and program. But many people rely on them, and these people are not going to become instant libertarians.
I'm sad that in the U.S. people like Ron Paul don't get the support they deserve. I wish Guiliani wasn't a nut, and McCain a has-been, and Romney a plastic phony, and Thompson a lazy couch-potato. I don't know why they are the ones at the top. But one of them will get the nomination.
And if Paul runs as an independent, at best he'll do as well as Nader did in 2000.
Sad. This country really does deserve better leadership. To have a leader who reveres the Constitution would be a great thing. But it ain't gonna happen.
Hey, I'm a Ron Paul supporter and what Dreher is saying is what I suspect (and have been telling other RP supporters) as well.
Nonetheless, although I had sworn off ever participating in politics again after the Clinton and W. debacles, today I called my county Republican HQ to inquire about who my precinct chair is. Tomorrow I'm going to call him (or her) and see if he supports Dr. Paul. If he doesn't, I'll educate him.
I also picked up a bumper sticker to go with my yard sign, and pile of "slim jims" (slick campaign handouts perfect for leaving inside a door), and I plan to systematically go door to door in my neighborhood talking with my neighbors about this guy.
Hopeless? Maybe. Probably. But for someone who despises politics as much as I despise it, this whole post is a minor miracle. This may be my last vote for president ever, but I'm proud to support the only candidate worth supporting for the past several elections.
I think his support is growing, as indicated by his fundraising and straw poll wins. He's amassed more straw poll votes across the country than any other Republican. That says something. His campaign continues to report "our best fundraising day EVER" about every week or two. He's really on a roll.
But, I don't know whether he'll have the time to watch that roll develop into something as substantial as the anointed top-tier candidates by the time the primaries come around. His job is being made even more difficult by the fact that so many states are moving their primaries up. It used to be that an underdog candidate could pull off a surprising win in NH or one of the other early primary states and use the momentum and exposure to garner even more support in time for remaining primaries. (It's what happened to Reagan and Clinton.) Not so anymore.
Also, to the point about much of his support coming from 18-30 year old nonvoters, I must concede that's true. I'd say his real support is probably somewhere around 5-7% of the voting public, given that the vast majority of 18-30 year olds would not be called in a phone poll. They've got cell phones, voip phones, caller ID, and the fact that they probably didn't vote in the last election going against their being represented in these "scientific" polls. Nevertheless, he's energized these younger voters like no other candidate I've seen. These voters WILL show up for their man. There are no ho-hum Ron Paul supporters.
The Paul campaign is betting that about 70% of his super-energized supporters will turn out to vote for him. And, they're betting that other candidates' supporters will show up in the typical 40-45% primary turnout that Republicans generally garner. So, they're hoping that the pro-war vote will be so thoroughly diluted by the 9 other Republicans in the race that Paul could win the nomination.
The following video crunches the numbers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtmA2u2pVCA
I plan on sitting out 2008 all together. After 20 years of voting, I'm ready to try not voting and see how that goes.
FWIW, I read Paul's web site to get the gist of his war position here. It's bland enough to accommodate just about any eventual action including leaving the troops in for years to come (which I believe we are morally obligated to do anyways). Overall, RP is a let down and a sort of paleo-con photo negative of Howard Dean, IMO.
Frankly, the best thing that could happen is to set a new record in low voter turn out. These sorry excuses for candidates are only important in proportion to their ability to attract our attention. Best to ignore them and perhaps they'll go away. Meantime, no way am I giving an ounce of my time, passion, talent, energy, or treasure for any of these dopes. In fact, I'm irritated with myself for wasting the time to write this.
For a multitude of reasons, the internet overstates the influence of certain groups and understates that of others. No group has an online presence more out of proportion to its small numbers in the general populations than hard core libertarians.
I actually like Dr. Paul and would love to see him do well. But Rod is right: He won't.
I wrote an article about why Ron Paul CAN win last week:
http://www.ronpaulnewengland.com/index.php/why-ron-paul-cant-win-wont-last
There are 3 factors that nobody is taking into account (although that TIME magazine article does acknowledge the importance of the young vote).
I believe Ron Paul will "tip" very soon and seem to burst into the national consciousness from seemingly out of nowhere.
A not-very-modest proposal: why don't we urge everybody we know to bring back the real secret ballot, that is, to vote as if your beliefs meant something? IE, to write in the name of the person you respect most in all the world (living or dead, real or fictional, American or foreign). In the first place, the physical act of writing in anybody (for any office, BTW--if you don't want to "waste" your vote for president, you can always write in somebody for dogcatcher) requires that your ballot be pulled out of the automated process queue and read and counted by a human being. Enough such votes in any precinct can completely sidetrack the count. (Yes, I know the Supreme Court has recently ruled that a state can legislate that write-ins don't have to be counted, but in fact, not too many states have actually done so yet.) And, more to the point, publicizing such a movement can have some very interesting effects on the electoral process.
Several studies have indicated that asking people who they intend to vote for, and who they would vote for if they thought that candidate had a chance at winning, produce two very different sets of results. So let's stop playing the Prisoner's Game in our elections. Casting a vote for a candidate who ends up not winning is NOT "wasting" your vote. A wasted vote is a vote cast for a candidate you don't really want to win. Let's stop wasting our votes.
I met Ron Paul in 1987 and voted for him for President in 1988 back in my wild Libertarian party days. I'm glad he's in Congress -- that's where he belongs. He's a good man with a fairly decent voting record, but has no foreign policy sense. Plus he's for "gay marriage" -- BZZZZZZT!
hahaha.... meant "Libertarian Party" days, not, uh.... "party days", but same diff for me, I guess. Freudian slip, anyone?
Marian:
At least in my state (Oklahoma) it is legally as well as physically impossible to "write in" anyone on a ballot. All ballots are tabulated by little squares next to the approved candidate's names. If you mark outside the square, the ballot is rendered immediately void.
No manual tabulation, no nothing.
Pauli -
Ron Paul is not "for" gay marriage; he's for keeping the federal government out of defining marriage. Here's what he's said about the issue:
"Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." Paul stated that "Americans understandably fear" the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage.[122] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage." from Wikipedia article on Ron Paul.
So let's stop playing the Prisoner's Game in our elections. Casting a vote for a candidate who ends up not winning is NOT "wasting" your vote. A wasted vote is a vote cast for a candidate you don't really want to win. Let's stop wasting our votes.
Hear, hear. Couldn't agree more. Voting for the lesser of two evils, simply guarantees that "evil" prevails.
yes!
don't be a sheep.
read the constitution.
read Bastiat's 'the law.
learn how to think again. remember taxation without representation??
vote for the constitution or be a slave.
What do you consider support? Clearly you as well as the MSM take corporate phone polling to be the end all be all of credibility.
I dont know who these people are calling, what questions they ask or how many people they call. I do know that Paul alienates much of the neo-conservative base, which is good, because if he didnt, I sure wouldnt support him. I can only speculate, but id imagine the polling companies think this is the target demographic, as they only poll registered repiblicans that have voted republican in the past.
I dont see people marching in 100 degree weather for anyone else. Hes surrounded by supporters everywhere he goes. I went to support him and met him personally when he landed at LAX. Im apolitical, never supported ANY candidate ever and I spent consitutution day at 3rd steet promenade in Santa monica handing out Ron Paul slim jims and waving signs. ME of all people doing this. His support comes from all over the political spectrum. I registered rebublican to vote for him, ive been a democrat my whole life.
He consistantly sells out fund raisers and his rallies outdraw his opponents significantly.
I assume you havent seen this:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
Ron Paul's Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie):
Rudy Giuliani 20-3-0
Mitt Romney 13-10-0
Fred Thompson 10-12-0
John McCain 20-2-0
Mike Huckabee 19-2-1
Sam Brownback 19-2-1
Tom Tancredo 20-1-0
Duncan Hunter 19-2-0
These are NOT online polls, but traditional straw polls. This is NOT the results of a 3% candidate, sorry.
If you want to talk online polls, well I dont need to quote you any, Paul OWNS the internet, which by the way, is made up of real people.
Paul even won Fox news post debate phone text poll for crying out loud, which only allows one vote per phone.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.