According to a Fox News online poll [It was actually a cellphone poll. - Ed.] earlier this month, Representative Ron Paul won the New Hampshire Republican debate by a significant margin (Ron Paul wins by a landslide). Unfortunately for Ron Paul enthusiasts, that support has not translated into big numbers on the offline polls. A September 7-8 Gallup poll put Ron Paul at the bottom of the field with 1% support. Subsequent polls show a similar level of insignificance.
Why does Ron Paul poll so well online but not elsewhere? Rush Limbaugh says it’s because of small number of his supporters are spamming the online polls (May 16 transcript) and that Paul’s buzz isn’t real.
But it’s not just Ron Paul. Other candidates are seeing the same pattern: huge online support, but dismal showings in scientific polls. In a New York Times op-ed piece (The Center Holds) David Brooks reports:
In the various polls on the Daily Kos Web site, John Edwards, Barack Obama and even Al Gore crush Hillary Clinton, who limps in with 2 percent to 10 percent of the vote.
But in the scientific polls, Hillary Clinton is polling nearly double the numbers of her nearest competitor. Gallup has her support at 47% compared to Obama’s 25% (Sept. 14-16 poll). Unless every candidate except for Clinton has supporters spamming the online polls, we can’t chalk this phenomenon up to online chicanery. Something else is happening.
David Brooks offers one explanation in his New York Times piece:
As the journalist Ron Brownstein and others have noted, Democratic primary contests follow a general pattern. There are a few candidates who represent the affluent, educated intelligentsia (Eugene McCarthy, Bill Bradley) and they usually end up getting beaten by the candidate of the less educated, lower middle class.
That’s what’s happening again. Obama and Edwards get most of their support from the educated, affluent liberals. According to Gallup polls, Obama garners 33 percent support from Democratic college graduates, 28 percent from those with some college and only 19 percent with a high school degree or less. Hillary Clinton’s core support, on the other hand, comes from those with less education and less income — more Harry Truman than Howard Dean.
Brooks’s unsaid assumption is that the internet activists are better educated and wealthier than the general public. If we assume this is true, then the skewed online polls are just another manifestation of an ongoing class divide in America. The real divide is between the wealthy and the lower middle class. Ron Paul’s online dominance is not due to libertarian crackpots stuffing the internet ballots. It is an effect of the fact that internet users are not a representative cross-section of America. It’s only the wealthier folks who support Ron Paul.
Or so Brooks’s article leads you to believe. But does his unsaid assumption fit the facts? Do internet users in America represent the “affluent, educated intelligentsia?” A 2006 Pew report shows that 73% of American adults are online. (Internet Penetration and Impact) The report shows that income and education did play a factor–53% of adults making less than $30,000 were online compared to 86% of adults making $50,000 to $75,000. But the report also shows that age is an even greater indicator: 88% of 18-29 year-olds are online compared to 32% for those 65 and older. It’s possible that the overrepresentation of Ron Paul supporters on the internet is a result of a new generation with new values. If that is the case–and I caution that it is by no means proved–then we can expect political shifts in the next few decades as this young generation matures.
But for now, the internet is irrelevant.
On the “scientific” polls conducted by phone, they don’t offer certain candidates as an option and they ask loaded or crafted questions to disenfranchise certain candidates. Someone should consider violent reprisal against Zogby and Gallup for this election interfering treason.
the polls that show ron paul doing bad are irrelevent do to the simple fact that most of the young supporters of his do not have land-line phones. Older people have land lines…older people are pro war and scared of “terrorism” and are more close minded and racist…bottom line
So why didn’t you quote the more recent Gallop poll showing Paul at 4% nationally? Guess it didn’t fit your biases.
Mick Russom said: On the “scientific” polls conducted by phone, they don’t offer certain candidates as an option and they ask loaded or crafted questions to disenfranchise certain candidates.
Well, maybe you could make that argument in Ron Paul’s case. But it doesn’t explain Obama’s numbers. The Zogby and Gallup polls aren’t trying to torpedo Obama. In fact, the whole Democratic establishment seems enchanted with Obama.
taylor said: young supporters of his [Ron Paul] do not have land-line phones.
Actually that doesn’t influence a well-conducted scientific poll. Some young people do have landline phones, and Gallup will poll those people. All the polls are then adjusted for demographics. So even if young people are underrepresented in the raw numbers, Gallup can see that, and the final numbers will be adjusted to make up for that underrepresentation. Polling isn’t as simple as “call 1000 people and tally up the numbers on a blackboard.” It involves a lot of statistics, and requires adjusting for known demographics.
Steve Dasbach said: So why didn’t you quote the more recent Gallop poll showing Paul at 4% nationally?
I haven’t seen that particular poll, but I’ll go look for it. I picked the Sept. 7-8 poll because it was the poll conducted right after the New Hampshire debate, and I thought that would make the best comparison to the Fox News poll.
The Gallup poll that Steve Dasbach mentions is a Sept. 14-15 poll that puts Ron Paul at 4% (±3%), behind Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain, and statistically tied with Romney, Huckabee, Hunter, Brownback, and Tancredo.
GOP Update: McCain Gains While Romney Fades
I wouldn’t say internet buzz is irrelevant. I just think its not fully understood as of yet. I mean, its only been a few years since Al Gore created the internet.
Anyone accusing Paul supporters of spamming should offer proof of this. Sean Hannity said that was the reason Ron Paul won the Fox debate poll following the last debate. However, it was a complete fabrication since the poll was done using cell phones, and it was impossible to vote more than once. And even if that were possible, would there be any reason to suggest that Paul’s supporters would engage in this type of behavior while supporters of other candidates would not?
Why not mention how Ron Paul either wins or places very high in nearly every straw-poll around the country? Why not mention that the pattern of people using cell phones and not having land-line phones has an affect on the phone polls that skews it? Why not mention that many “scientific” phone polls do not include Ron Paul’s name?
Ron Paul is raising money and winning straw-polls. He has a good chance of winning the primaries in spite of the fact that the networks and cable news won’t talk about him and in spite of the low “scientific” polls that are published (constantly) in an attempt to sway people’s opinions.
Will said: Why not mention that the pattern of people using cell phones and not having land-line phones has an affect on the phone polls that skews it?
I addressed this in one of my comments; the cellphone gap doesn’t have an effect on a well-conducted poll. The polls are adjusted for demographics.
But I must thank Chris Austere for pointing out that the post-debate Fox News poll was a cellphone poll, not an online poll. If young people really are more supportive of Ron Paul (which is what I suggested in my article) then the Fox News poll results make sense. Young people with cellphones voted for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, young people with cellphones are not a big part of the voting demographic, and they won’t swing the election. The Fox News poll wasn’t scientific (i.e., it wasn’t adjusted for demographics) so it doesn’t reflect reality.
Will said: Why not mention that many “scientific” phone polls do not include Ron Paul’s name?
Which polls are you referring to? The Gallup polls do include Ron Paul’s name.
Why not mention how Ron Paul either wins or places very high in nearly every straw-poll around the country?
Because most of them don’t have any reasonable rules for entry and are more about bringing people to the fair to buy stuff than about conducting a scientific poll.
As a registered Republican since 1978 when I first became eligible to vote, I have participated in many phone polls in the past. I have been called 3 times since June 2008, and in 2 of those polls, Dr Paul was not a choice I was given to pick from.
In the 3rd call that was identified as being from the RNC I was asked who I supported from the following list of Candidates, I did not wait for her to list them and stated that Ron Paul was my choice. I was then subjected to a brief pause of dead air, a terse thank you and a dial tone as they hung up.
In my view the phone polls are a joke and in no way truly represent anything other than what the people paying for the polls want them to. They are no more scientific than any online poll, and no self respecting person would give any weight to them in deciding who to vote for.
Laurie said: no self respecting person would give any weight to them in deciding who to vote for.
I certainly hope not. Nobody should look to a poll to decide how to vote.
Laurie said: In the 3rd call that was identified as being from the RNC
Has anybody here been polled by Gallup? Gallup polls are generally respected, and they don’t have an agenda like the RNC might.
“In the 3rd call that was identified as being from the RNC I was asked who I supported from the following list of Candidates, I did not wait for her to list them and stated that Ron Paul was my choice. I was then subjected to a brief pause of dead air, a terse thank you and a dial tone as they hung up.”
Wow.
I think that fundraising is also a good barometer of support. The numbers for Q3 will be out in October and if Paul has a bit of money in his coffers, then we can definitely remark that he’s making a bigger input then the polls show.
Based on my own personal anecdotal evidence, I find the online polls showing Paul winning inaccurate. Most people I know don’t even know who Ron Paul is. In fact, one of my good friends, who keeps relatively up on politics, asked me last week who Ron Paul was. If there were no internet, there would be no Ron Paul buzz.
Your article is fair but please take into account that Ron Paul is bringing out the non-voters(a significant portion of the populace). America has been so dumbed down in many areas that many won’t vote due to apathy. This favors a Ron Paul nomination. I don’t know the statistics but in my personal experience most people that are introduced to his philosophy will vote for him in the primaries. We are in the eleventh hour at a full sprint.
The last Fox debate poll was a cell phone text message poll, not an online poll. Are cell phones irrelevant?
How about straw polls? Ron Paul has the best record on the ground of any candidate. Are they irrelevant too?
What about signage, tables at fairs, etc? How many candidates have an army of voluteers putting signs all over America? Is that irrelevant, too?
What about money? The Paul campaign is raising hundreds of thousands per day, and hardly spending any of it because of the immense volunteer effort. Is that irrelevant?
And then there’s the crowds. How many candidates can get a thousand people to a rally anywhere in the US with a few days notice? Ever get the feeling you were missing the boat? Does anyone really believe that all those people who will show up and cheer themselves hoarse over fiscal policy are too dumb to register republican and vote in the primaries?
As far as I can see, the only metric where Ron Paul isn’t doing well is landline polls of handpicked samples. The major media put all their statistical eggs in that basket.
One of the criteria put forth for most of these samples is that all of these people had to have voted in the last Republican primary in 2004.
George W. Bush was running unopposed in the 2004 primaries, so only Bush idealogues voted in that election. Turnout for that was pathetic. Are you sure you want to call this based on that sample, which also excludes Democrats, Libertarians, Constitution Party and Independents who will cross party lines in the primaries?
60-70% of America opposes the War in Iraq. Is it that surprising that a traditional Republican foreign policy might gain popularity? What percentage do you think can win a primary with the pro-war vote split 10 candidates to one?
Maybe straw polls don’t have much weight. But when Romney spent $2,000 per vote to win the Iowa Straw Poll, it was apparently the greatest thing since sliced bread.
The last Fox debate poll was a cell phone text message poll, not an online poll. Are cell phones irrelevant?
For scientific barometers of overall support. Yes.
How about straw polls? Ron Paul has the best record on the ground of any candidate. Are they irrelevant too?
Yes.
What about signage, tables at fairs, etc? How many candidates have an army of voluteers putting signs all over America? Is that irrelevant, too?
Yes.
What about money? The Paul campaign is raising hundreds of thousands per day, and hardly spending any of it because of the immense volunteer effort. Is that irrelevant?
That would put them at about $59 million by now. I think you may be exadurating a little.
And then there’s the crowds. How many candidates can get a thousand people to a rally anywhere in the US with a few days notice? Ever get the feeling you were missing the boat? Does anyone really believe that all those people who will show up and cheer themselves hoarse over fiscal policy are too dumb to register republican and vote in the primaries?
Irrelevant. This shows the Quality of Ron Paul’s supporters are higher than any other candidate - but elections are won on quantity.
As far as I can see, the only metric where Ron Paul isn’t doing well is landline polls of handpicked samples. The major media put all their statistical eggs in that basket.
One of the criteria put forth for most of these samples is that all of these people had to have voted in the last Republican primary in 2004.
George W. Bush was running unopposed in the 2004 primaries, so only Bush idealogues voted in that election. Turnout for that was pathetic. Are you sure you want to call this based on that sample, which also excludes Democrats, Libertarians, Constitution Party and Independents who will cross party lines in the primaries?
This is a fair point.
60-70% of America opposes the War in Iraq. Is it that surprising that a traditional Republican foreign policy might gain popularity? What percentage do you think can win a primary with the pro-war vote split 10 candidates to one?
I agree that this helps Paul, but enough to win?
About the debate phone polls, I wonder if he Ron Paul could be getting votes from people who just think he debated the best, but not support him. That’s possible, but I doubt it’s a significant factor. Now that Keyes is in it will be interesting to see how he does in post debate polls, as he is generally regarded as a great debater.
I just think Ron Paul supporters are more likely to vote in such polls - perhaps in an (likely vain) attempt to make him a front line candidate. Supporters of the leading candidates don’t feel like they need to prove anything by voting in a meaningless poll. And none of the other minor candidates have Ron Paul’s rabid base.
Something needs to change. These polls have become more important than anything actually said or done by candidates. Sadly, the masses will tend to “cherry-pick” and follow the peer pressure of the polls to vote for front-runners because of their unconscious desire to be on the winning team. When the desire to win overcomes the desire to do the right thing, we find ourselves electing popular yet unqualified people.
I think a voluntary cell phone poll, while not of the traditional “scientific” approach, can better indicate not just agreement with a candidate but willingness to actually vote. Don’t underestimate this under 30 crowd’s willingness to take action when captivated by a good idea. Texting may be easier than actual voting but it is still more proactive than sitting in a lazyboy and picking up a random phone call. (Which makes me think, why do we base polls on the opinions of those who don’t have the good sense to screen their calls?)
If the polls are much more skewed than suspected, then their disproportionate amount of influence serves to perpetuate their skewed conclusions. The front-runners capitalize on this: they don’t care that the polls speak from the people but to the people.
Rising above the destructive power of groupthink is but one element of the Ron Paul revolution.
Young people can’t swing elections? Tell that to the cantidates that lost the elections to a wrestler in Minnesota a few years back.
If enough of these ridiculous antics we’re seeing at the debates continue, Ron Paul might win inspite of their best efforts to discount him.
Of course, that’s fine with me, since I fear the majority of the other candidates.
Kevin, “adjusting for demographics” doesn’t make a scientific poll. A randomly selected sample and an equal presentation of the choices is what makes a scientific poll. Calling only land lines is a form of sample bias. Another is the way the selections are presented. Burying the Paul selection under layers of menus, or not presenting him as a selection at all, will result in the data reinforcing whatever foregone conclusion was behind the choice to bury his selection in the first place.
Why are the candidates not presented all in alphabetical order in a single menu?
The answer is that the organizations conducting the polls want answers that support whatever interests are buttering their bread.
No “adjustment for demographics” will fix data that is so fundamentally flawed as these telephone polls.
Historically, “the non-voting majority” have … not voted. In the 2000 election, only 60% of “eligible voters” participated in the national election. The 50/50 split was actually only 30% of those eligible to vote. Many argue that Ron Paul will cause a groundswell of “non-voters” who will suddenly register (only 70% of eligible voters are registered) and vote Ron Paul.
While clearly possible (those 40% non-voters in 2000 would have made a winning plurality), I think it highly unlikely that ANY candidate will be able to mobilize that kind of unexpected demographic. There are a lot of people who will do a straw poll or cell phone poll who can’t even be bothered to register, let alone vote. What is worse, while those polled “scientifically” represent many other “non-polled” members of their demographic, 100% of the activist supporters will vote in self-selected polls. Someone as extreme as Ron Paul generally only has “activist” supporters.
While I support many of his policies, he really doesn’t have the slightest chance of winning (that said, he MIGHT influence future party platforms, which would be a very good thing).
Those bastards are spamming the hell out of the Paul Ron donation site right now
I forgot to address online polls. They can vary greatly based on who is linking to them. And those polls normally reflect people who are really excited about their candidate.
Hillary Clinton probably gets a lot of votes from people who aren’t excited about anybody, but if they’re called and asked, they’ll vote for her from name recognition if nothing else. That is a big help in actual elections, but if Obama or Edwards can beat her in Iowa and/or New Hampshire she could be in big trouble.
National polls aren’t that meaningful for the primaries anyways. Money and support in the early states is what counts.
Jake, I’m a Minnesotan and I don’t recall Ventura’s victory stemming from a lot of participation from young voters as much as the fact that Ventura was unique and the Democratic candidate was a career politician in an era when career politicians were (are) very disliked. The Repub candidate (Coleman) was also viewed as a politician first and human being second, besides the fact that Minnesota is a Democrat-leaning state. Pawlenty was able to win as a conservative for two reasons. One, he’s a very likeable guy. Two, he offered the common sense that 6 years of Ventura completely lacked.
sandman said: Your article is fair but please take into account that Ron Paul is bringing out the non-voters(a significant portion of the populace).
There isn’t any evidence of that yet. When we start getting primary results, we’ll see whether he’s actually bringing out the non-voters. I’m skeptical; remember back in 2004 when the online buzz was “young people are going to turn out in record numbers and swing the election to Kerry?” Never happened. Young people showed up at the polls in the same dismal numbers as always.
And again, this isn’t just a Ron Paul issue. Barack Obama polls much better online than in the traditional polls. He’s a mainstream candidate, a darling of the Democratic party. His name recognition is high. Are we to believe that he is also “bringing out the non-voters?” Of course not.
Dave said: Don’t underestimate this under 30 crowd’s willingness to take action when captivated by a good idea.
It’s pretty hard to underestimate it considering the historical evidence shows that young people simply don’t vote in large numbers. The Democrats on the internet were all whipped into a frenzy in 2004, proclaiming that young people were going to vote in massive numbers and turn the election. It didn’t happen. Young people do have a lot of energy and passion, but that hasn’t influenced any recent national election.
Colin Elliott said: I think that fundraising is also a good barometer of support. The numbers for Q3 will be out in October and if Paul has a bit of money in his coffers, then we can definitely remark that he’s making a bigger input then the polls show.
I agree. Money is probably a better indicator than online buzz. The buzz means little or nothing unless a candidate has enough money to run his campaign.
Maybe I should back up a bit, and explain my background. I am a Ron Paul supporter. I intend to vote for him, and I hope he wins. His success so far has exceeded my expectations, and I want him to continue succeeding. So when I say the online buzz is irrelevant, I’m not intending this as a knock on Ron Paul’s supporters, because I am one. I’m making a larger point, of which Paul is only one example. The point is that online buzz and unscientific polls are great, but they have not historically translated into election results, and there is no evidence that this election is any different.
Darius,
You don’t seem to remember very well since he was an Independant (Humprey was the dem candidate) and was basically elected by college students. Hey, maybe you live in a different Minnesota then I did, but you’re mistaken in any regard.
I’m not from Minnesota, but even I remember that Jesse Ventura was elected as a Reform Party candidate. He later resigned from the party. A quick web search reveals that he beat Humphrey (Dem) and Coleman (Rep) in 1998. He did not run for reelection in 2002. He was succeeded by Tim Pawlenty (Rep).
“I am a Ron Paul supporter. I intend to vote for him, and I hope he wins. His success so far has exceeded my expectations, and I want him to continue succeeding. So when I say the online buzz is irrelevant, I’m not intending this as a knock on Ron Paul’s supporters, because I am one. I’m making a larger point, of which Paul is only one example. The point is that online buzz and unscientific polls are great, but they have not historically translated into election results, and there is no evidence that this election is any different.”
I’m with you on this. I too am a Paul supporter, but am cautiously optimistic. I think he could definitely win against Hillary, and perhaps he could beat Obama or Edwards. The only way I could vote for him is if he gets the nomination, since I’m not a registered Republican (I’m Independent).
However, as far as buzz translating into results, I don’t think we’ve seen the potential of this because there’s no precedent. We could look at Howard “Hoowah!” Dean, but he ruined himself by the whole hoowah! fiasco, or rather he was ruined because of it and the ensuing media exposure. So although I’m cautious, I think history will record the Ron Paul phenomenon as a precedent event where online support is concerned. We’ll see, I guess.
Darius,
I also lived in MN during Ventura’s election (and was running for Congress as a Libertarian, so I was paying particularly close attention.)
What I remember most, was the way Ventura’s “Scientific” polling numbers were well below both Coleman’s and Humphrey’s.
What “Shocked the world” was the fact that Ventura beat the polling expectations.
The fact that your friend even asked you who Ron Paul is, proves that internet buzz isn’t irrelevant - It drove your friend to seek more information. Lot’s of people are starting to ask “Who is Ron Paul?” — This being the ICE age (Internet Changes Everything), people are going online to find out.
The Plain Old Telephone Surveys (POTS) are subject to many hidden biases.
1) Tightly screened sample group. From cell-phones, to 2004 GOP Primary voter (i.e. Bush Kool-Aid drinkers) to being part of the “leave me alone” coalition, many natural Ron Paul supporters are being excluded (justly and unjustly)
2) Various demographic adjustments mean that the poll can be biased after the fact. Or not released if it doesn’t show the proper person winning.
3) Polls don’t measure what people think they measure. People think they measure likely primary votes, or even candidate acceptability. But in reality, they only measure name recognition and vague feelings of good or ill.
POTS have a terrible track record:
Consider McCain and Huckabee prior to Iowa Straw poll - both had 8% according to ABC poll, but in the actual straw poll, McCain got 1%, and Huckabee got 18%
Consider Tx Straw poll - Duncan Hunter got 41%, while he gets POTS numbers that are lower than Dr. Paul’s. TX straw poll _was_ limited to past GOP delegates. Paul got 16% in that poll. This should have been at least somewhat similar to POTS polling, since the sample group was nominally the same. But in fact, Paul has *never* been included in a TX state POTS. That number (0 - cuz no one ever asks) get averaged into RCP numbers, and leads to the erroneous conclusion that RP has no support. MI straw poll was similarly restricted, and Ron Paul got similar numbers.
Consider John Kerry’s POTS numbers in Dec 2003 (4%) versus the results just one month later, after he won the Iowa primary (53%) These numbers can change with the wind, and by themselves indicate nothing.
Enthusiasm *does* mean something when a person has to be motivated enough go vote. Primary voting isn’t like general election voting. Since the dates are all different state-to-state, there is no national reminder leading up to the election to push people into voting. Most GOP Bushites are very dismotivated (for a whole host of reasons) and will probably not even vote.
People might prefer Giuliani over Paul, but unless they are enthusiastic enough, they might not care, or vote.
Right now, POTS show the only pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, anti-gun, pro-illegal-immgrantion, cross-dressing candidate in the lead among GOP faithful. How is that possible?
I am not certain that the POTS are being conducted fairly either. Consider the comments from this Miami Herald poll: http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/244648.html Note the comment from the guy who says he tried to answer Ron Paul in this survey, and was told he would be listed as “undecided” and then the poll was terminated. Same as
Chris Austere’s experience.
Later.
Chris,
POTS numbers don’t translate into votes either.
Witness John Kerry 2003/2004.
Later.
Kevin Houston just blew my mind!
Kevin Houston said: Right now, POTS show the only pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, anti-gun, pro-illegal-immgrantion, cross-dressing candidate in the lead among GOP faithful. How is that possible?
I admit that perplexes even me. I’ll be watching to see how this all pans out.
Jake and Ken… I don’t see where I said that Ventura was a Democratic candidate. Of course he was Reform Party (and a huge reason why third party candidates have little appeal anymore in Minnesota). But saying that college students made much of a difference is bogus. Out in rural Minnesota, the hicks in the sticks were much more intrigued by Ventura, a pro wrestler who had odd ideas, than with two career politicians. Students never make a difference, because in the long run, they just DON’T VOTE.
How about Giuliani answering his cell during that speech to the NRA? Talk about disrespect.
Kevin, actually my friend asked me who Ron Paul is not because he saw it on the internet or TV but because I mentioned Ron Paul’s name in a discussion we were having. For those of us who pay attention to the internet buzz, it seems crazy that someone wouldn’t know at least something about Ron Paul. However, what we tend to forget is that most people don’t use the internet at all or if they do, it’s only to buy stuff on Ebay or check their email. This is why Ron Paul will not get more than 10% (if he even gets above 3%) of the vote in any state primary.
Ken, you shouldn’t have to wait too long. Fred Thompson has already overtaken Giuliani in many polls. While national polls don’t mean a whole lot to me, they do show name recognition, which helps a lot.
To Chris:
Comparing Ron Paul and Howard Dean is ridicule in my opinion. Both from a candidate stand point and the growth of the internet since Dean’s run. The media obviously had it out for him and “miked him up” real good. He was a minor nuisance to deal with, not a good candidate, and not a threat to the establishment. Ron Paul is benefiting as a good candidate that’s winning trust, drawing support across party lines and benefitting from the internet to its much greater potential.
RP supporters are much more savvy to the tricks of the trade the establishment employ to stifle a threat. So far, just dirty tricks by co-opting with a compliant media. It’ll get much nastier from here on out. The supporters are well aware, and much more intelligent and creative in overcoming the obstacles.
lol decades!? Decades? At the rate we’re heading there wont be a middle class in a few decades. People who are waking up to that are finding sanctuary online while they wait and hope people will snap out of their hazy daze. Of course that’s not going to happen on its own, and I think the online “sanctuary seekers” are starting to understand that too. These things do take time though. Possibly more time than we have… I can only guess.
I think there are two main types of people who “are online”.
1. There are those who just play games, shop!, visit sites they hear about on tv, check their email, shop!!, watch paris hilton videos and other poppish crap, shop!!!; hmm there’s the myspace crowd… those that live in their own little bubbles and only take the power of the internet as far as their little bubbles will go. lol. These types of people are slow to acquire the tools that make surfing the web a breeze. For example, few of these people will use ctrl click, ctrl-C, ctrl V, shift click, alt esc, my fav: middle mouse click, etc
2. That small minority who have an insatiable appetite for knowledge. Those who frequently find themselves visiting new websites. Those who have been to literally hundreds of different webistes in just the span of a few weeks. Those who quickly acquire new and improved learning tools. These types of people will easily find themselves opening a dozen web pages, and often will read one while the other is loading. Multitaskers.
Group #2 is generally more informed. Not because of any particular views or income or class or even intellect. They just learn faster and/or can think independently.(Even people with an IQ of 82 can seem very smart just because they have good learning skills.)
I suspect group #1 are the Hillary/McRomney types. Group #2 are more the Paul/Kucinich type. I would guess that Obama/Edwards types are part of group #1 that are on their way toward group #2. One thing for sure is group #2 is growing, and people like Limbaugh and the establishment really hate that! They have total and utter contempt for group #2 and do a poor job hiding it.
I don’t know if Limbaugh has contempt for them as much as for group #2’s tendency to act like they’re actually a majority when in fact, as you said, they are a very tiny minority. For example, take those who actually believe that Ron Paul has a good chance of winning the nomination based on a bunch of online polls indicating it. It’s not a little annoying when they continue denying reality.
Iconoclast421, that’s a remarkable self-righteous worldview you have there.
Perhaps he should try mingling with real people for a change, huh Ken?
Darius said: Perhaps he should try mingling with real people for a change, huh Ken?
Well, I am loath to suggest something I wouldn’t do myself.
The internet buzz is not irrelevant. In fact, it is exactly the opposite, the political wave of the future.
The Old Media can’t seem to handle two things about this election cycle.
One is that the Internet allows anyone at all to run a poll. Heck, there are sites where you can customize a poll and embed it in whatever page you want. With the Old Media monopoly on polls broken, they have to resort to the tired and true BS arguments about their polls are the only ones “scientific” and “accurate” when the covers are being ripped off of that myth, exposing the illicit relationship between the sheets or Big Media and Big Buisness. Let’s face it, demographically-skewed polls are rigged, period. That may be okay for regional product marketing, but not in politics, and expecially not in Presidential races. The online polls, while random, don’t filter people, and even more now they can prevent spamming (as Sean Hannity found out to his dismay!). Therefore they are actually becoming accurate.
The second one is that the Internet had broken the Old Media hold on campaign advertising. No longer can Old Media censor campaign ads from what they consider “undesirable” candidates or groups, because now they simply go to YouTube, Myspace, etc. and post them there instead after filming them on their digital cameras, laptops, or cell phones and spread the word over the blogs and BBS’s. The Internet has allowed an end-run around the Old Media blocks. This election cycle is the first one where YouTube will play a major role in (allegedly) electing the next President. That is not only unprecedented, but revolutionary. Dr. Paul’s success online is just the tip of the ICEberg on this, and that drives the Old Media nuts!
What we are seeing here is an e-revolution politically. What eBay did to the marketplace YouTube is doing to politics. The old brick-and-mortar orgaizations fell to eBay and e-commerce (think Montgomery Wards, who only recently came back as online-only). YouTube, along with camera cell phones and the wireless communication technology we have and are improving, is making the wired Old Media obsolete. It’s only a matter of time before land lines go the way of the telegraph and phonograph–great inventions in their time but surpassed by better technology. The Old Media is still stuck in the wired age, and we’re in the wireless age now.
That’s the technological signifcance of the Internet on this campaign. Dr. Paul is merely riding the wave generated by his technological support from the Paul-unteers. The rest of the candidates haven’t quite figured it all out yet.
Speaking of money, here’s a cool candidate fundraising map and info thingie. http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/finances/index.html
I think the bigger issue is that people aren’t really paying attention yet. When they’re polled, they probably say they’re going to vote for the person they think will eventually win without having really paid any attention to them. If Paul gets a very large Q3 boost in donations (which certainly seems possible at this point), it could draw enough attention by the MSM to boost him significantly in the polls. Then, a good showing in Iowa and NH could make his candidacy a serious undertaking.
Ron Paul is raising COLD HARD CASH…and in the end, whatever his final total is, you can multiply it by at least 10 because you have to put some kind of consideration to all the time “Paulites” put in to free campaigning….I think the Neo Cons call it “Force Multiplier”. Most people who support Ron Paul don’t do it half heartedly. They do it with a gusto rarely, rarely ever seen before. The more people know about him, the more they like him despite even major disagreements.
http://www.RonPaulin08.com
Go Ron Go!
The polls are wrong. Note that most polls select “likely primary voters”. Guess what? Most Ron Paul supporters would not qualify as “likely primary voters” because they were previously disgusted with the choices and didn’t vote in the primaries.
In addition, Ron Paul has significant support across party lines. So if the polls look at Republicans, they are missing out on a lot of Ron Paul supporters.
Here is my prediction.
Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus where the vote can’t be corrupted. Ron Paul does well in NH but loses to Mitt Romney due to shenanigans with the vote counting. And Ron Paul does not win any more primaries not because he lacks support but rather because the fix is in and all of the electronic voting will fudged to select a candidate that the powers that be prefer.
John Doe said: The polls are wrong. Note that most polls select “likely primary voters”. Guess what? Most Ron Paul supporters would not qualify as “likely primary voters”
The Gallup polls are not restricted to “likely primary voters.” Gallup actually reports two sets of numbers: one for “likely primary voters” and one that includes everybody. The Sept. 14-16 Gallup poll puts Ron Paul at 4% in the everybody numbers and 3% in the likely primary voters numbers.
Tannim said: The online polls, while random, don’t filter people, and even more now they can prevent spamming (as Sean Hannity found out to his dismay!). Therefore they are actually becoming accurate.
Eeek! No. The problem with online polls and cellphone polls is that the participants are self-selected. Only the people who want to participate will vote in the polls. That’s a horrible way to get a random sample.
I know, calling people on the phone is a bad way to get a random sample too. But it’s miles better than just letting people browse to a website on their own initiative. And the pollsters work really hard to make sure their sample is representative of the national demographics–that’s why they do the adjustments for demographics and so forth. That’s designed to eliminate sample selection bias as much as possible.
Tannim said: YouTube, along with camera cell phones and the wireless communication technology we have and are improving, is making the wired Old Media obsolete.
I don’t know about obsolete, but I do acknowledge that the internet cannot be ignored. The online folks will influence elections. In fact they already have: it was bloggers who turned the CBS-Dan Rather National Guard memo story on its head by casting doubt on the veracity of the documents.
That is where the power of the internet comes in. Millions of eager amateur investigators (and some not-so-amateur) who will seize on any little story and beat it to death. And occasionally, they’ll unearth something that the mainstream media cannot ignore.
But we’ve seen how that works in an election already. Despite all the influence the bloggers had in 2004, they couldn’t affect the turnout at the polls. The throngs of young voters that left-wing bloggers promised never showed up to vote. So yeah, the internet had an effect on the mainstream news reporting (by shooting down some stories and turning others around) but it didn’t go beyond that.
I’m really impressed with these Ron Paul
conspiracy theoristssupporters.Are you stupid? Dr. Paul is now polling 4%
I thought it was 4.2%. Dang those rounders!
Everyone misses the point with the internet thing. Yeah the bloggers supported Howard Dean and it didn’t show up in the primary votes. No one in their right mind even really reads blogs to judge candidates. Most bloggers are just wannabe talking heads and therefore automatically have delusions of grandure and influence which in turn makes them as uncredible as most major media outlets. Dean did turn out the support on the ground in New Hampshire; then squandered it with the scream heard round the world. It’s interesting how that scream was so dawming and well aired… .. especially when compared with yesterday’s “childrens do learn” slipup from bush. I don’t think dean was turning up any non democratic support ; definitely not near as much as Dr. Paul will.
Joseph said: Are you stupid? Dr. Paul is now polling 4%
Yeah, 4% with ±3% margin of error. Statistically he hasn’t improved his position at all.
Jeff said: No one in their right mind even really reads blogs to judge candidates.
That’s my point. The internet buzz isn’t relevant. The bloggers don’t count.
Jeff said: It’s interesting how [Dean’s] scream was so dawming and well aired
People keep talking about that, but you know something? He lost the Iowa caucus before he screamed. It’s not like he had the nomination locked up or anything.
Gene said:
“Comparing Ron Paul and Howard Dean is ridicule in my opinion. Both from a candidate stand point and the growth of the internet since Dean’s run. The media obviously had it out for him and ‘miked him up’ real good.”
I admit that its not a good comparison, and that was sort of the point I was making. I was saying that there is no real precedent for gauging the potential success of a strong Web-based campaign. However, Dean’s campaign is the closest thing to the Ron Paul online phenomenon to date.
And Jasen, I know that many people want to chalk up Paul supporters as conspiracy theorists and “tin-foil hat” people, etc. That seems to be the easiest way to discredit people in today’s political climate - just call them names. Even the word “liberal” is used in a derogatory context by the Right. Or the word “fascist” is often used on the Left.
The truth of the matter is that everyone believes conspiracy theories, to some extent. If someone believes the official government account of 9/11, (yeah, I said it) they believe a theory. Rather they believe a theory designed for public consumption. I don’t think the Bush administration coordinated the attacks, but I don’t think they have been completely forthcoming about the matter either. To me, it comes down to an issue of evidence and credibility. Does that make me part of the “tin-foil hat” crowd or an “extreme Leftist” or an “extreme Right-winger”? Call me what you will, but I’m no “kool-aid drinker.”
You know, if it were not for the internet buzz on this thread I would not have known Alan Keyes had entered the race again. I watched him on last night’s PBS Republican debate, and I have to say he was very impressive.
TO EVERYONE:
OF THE FOLLOWING, WHICH IS MOST LIKELY TO RESTORE AMERICA TO HER CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF A LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
H. Clinton
B. Obama
R. Giuliani
F. Thompson
R. Paul
J. McCain
M. Romney
I’m asking for 100 responses, quickly and without comment.
No.
Sept 27 2007
http://www.economist.com/images/20070929/TAB3.gif
Sept 24 2005
http://www.economist.com/images/20050924/TAB3.gif
It was 100 in the year 2000.
Ron Paul has been vocal about this horrible inflation since at least 1983:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hMeNnbSqkk
You are being paid in an inflating currency. Please think about how that impacts you.
probably Ron Paul… but he is also the most likely (if not Obama) candidate to not protect America from terrorists. So which would you prefer, limited government or no government to limit?
Paul without a doubt. Obama may come in second given his experience with constitutional law.
Obama would limit government???? Ok, Chris, now you really are nuts.
The guy wants schools to teach sex ed to kindergarteners and provide universal health care… how is that LIMITING government???
“Obama would limit government???? Ok, Chris, now you really are nuts.”
Yeah, your right.
So why not register Republican and vote for him in the primary, so you have a chance to vote for him in the general election?
I hate political parties. I agree with George Washington in his farewell address. They are a stupid label that divides the people arbitrarily. Yet if there’s a candidate out there that needs a fair hearing, why not take on the arbitrary stupid label to accomplish the goal?
Now is the time for people to give up their egos and do what’s necessary to create real change in our country’s political process.
“probably Ron Paul… but he is also the most likely (if not Obama) candidate to not protect America from terrorists.”
I totally disagree with this statement. Terrorists aren’t arbitrary in who they attack. Our foreign policy motivates them. Ron Paul proposes a foreign policy that takes away most of the motivation… and ultimately, as I see it, makes us -much- safer from terrorism. It is the war on terror that makes us less safe.
Why is it that people think it is normal and desirable to have US troops in 130 countries? The alternative seems “crazy” to some because they’ve never known it any other way. The same is true with many of the other ideas Ron Paul is promoting… dismantling the Federal Reserve and the IRS, returning to a money system that is actually backed by -something-, greatly reducing the beaurocracy of the federal government… all crazy ideas. Just because what we have now is all people have ever known. Are we just to assume that because something is established as the norm, that it is in our best interest (or even constitutional)? Slavery and segragation used to be the norm. It used to be normal that women could not vote. These and many other things were considered normal, but eventually changed when some crazy people decided to try and do something about it. Most people who discount Ron Paul are simply afraid of uncharted waters. I bet people were at least that afraid when confronting England in 1776.
“So why not register Republican and vote for him in the primary, so you have a chance to vote for him in the general election?”
I wonder the same thing. I honestly don’t understand why any voter would put party before candidate. If you support Ron Paul (or anyone else), you should register with that party and help your candidate from the start.
“I agree with George Washington in his farewell address. They are a stupid label that divides the people arbitrarily. Yet if there’s a candidate out there that needs a fair hearing, why not take on the arbitrary stupid label to accomplish the goal?”
That’s assuming it would have any real impact. I know all the arguments about every vote counting and so forth, but I would only consider such a move if I was certain it would make a real impact.
At this point, there is a possibility that I won’t vote at all. The guys I like in either party are not “top tier” candidates, and if it comes down to Hillary vs. Giuliani or Romney I’m staying home. I don’t care what anyone says about it, either. Voter apathy is just as strong a force as anything, and one to be reckoned with; sooner or later someone’s going to come along and capitalize on it. Hopefully Paul will be that someone.
“I would only consider such a move if I was certain it would make a real impact.”
“At this point, there is a possibility that I won’t vote at all.”
“Voter apathy is just as strong a force as anything, and one to be reckoned with; sooner or later someone’s going to come along and capitalize on it. Hopefully Paul will be that someone.”
So… how does Paul capitalize on voter apathy unless people like yourself support him in a primary? Are you just hoping other people will do it?
If voter apathy is truly apathy, then it doesn’t mean much. But refusing to vote is a common tactic among groups who believe the election is inherently unfair. This happens a lot in countries where the people don’t trust the government to count the ballots fairly, or when the people feel their candidates have been unjustly left off the ballots. The idea is that if enough people refuse to vote, it will send a message that the results do not represent the will of the public.
Chris Austere, I suggest that instead of not voting at all, you go cast a blank ballot. That sends a stronger message than staying home.
So Chris, you would rather see Hillary in charge than to help put Giuliani into power? I guess this makes sense if you don’t believe that Islamic fascism is a significant threat, since that is the primary difference between Hillary and Giuliani. As a conservative, I can see an argument for not empowering the pro-abortion/socialistic wing of the Republican party, but at the same time, Hillary as president???? Isn’t that one of the marks of the apocalypse?
“So Chris, you would rather see Hillary in charge than to help put Giuliani into power?”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton, but neither am I a fan of Giuliani either. They both represent two factions of the same party, in my book.
And you got me pegged right on that Islamic-fascism thing. I’m not ignoring it as a potential threat, but I don’t see it as being a significant threat to the security of our republic. If America is destroyed, it will be destroyed from within.
“Chris Austere, I suggest that instead of not voting at all, you go cast a blank ballot. That sends a stronger message than staying home.”
I’ve never heard of that before. I suppose you may be correct, Jew. But I don’t think I’ll even bother to do that. Its really more about my own principles than sending a message.
I really have a problem with the argument that people “should” vote. I think people should make informed decisions; if someone is too ignorant to vote sensibly he shouldn’t vote. And if you have to vote for someone that you don’t like just to say you took part in the political process and fulfilled your civic duty, I think that is ridiculous. And while I’m still on my soap box, I don’t like it when people say that you don’t have a right to complain about something if you didn’t vote. Nonsense. This is still America, and I’ll complain if I want to. And whether or not I choose to vote should have no bearing on my ability to exercise my rights. Man, this is starting to feel like one of those Andy Rooney rants.
Write EM IN! If you like and are knowledgeable about a candidate write him in! That is your civic duty.
As for me, I’ll be on my soapbox. People follow footsteps to the promised land, I’ll make sure to wear a size 13!
“Ron Paul for the Long Haul”!
SpotlightonFreedom.com
“Write EM IN! If you like and are knowledgeable about a candidate write him in! That is your civic duty.”
I have considered that. And if the Ron Paul revolution hasn’t lost any steam come election time, I may do it. I think Paul should consider running on the Libertarian ticket if he doesn’t get the GOP nod. He said he isn’t planning on running as an Independent, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he couldn’t pick an alternative party. Honestly I don’t trust the voting system enough to think writing in a candidate would be successful in a practical way; I’d be willing to bet that a good percentage of those votes would not be counted at all. If memory serves, a significant part of the overseas military (mail-in) votes weren’t counted in ‘04.
Yeah, I always wonder about the overseas military vote. They could have an effect on the election, but do they even get counted on election night or not til a few days later? If so, that hurts the Repubs, since 70-80% of those active in the military vote Republican.
My heart skipped a beat for a moment when I thought Lew Rockwell had commented on our blog…
“They could have an effect on the election, but do they even get counted on election night or not til a few days later? If so, that hurts the Repubs, since 70-80% of those active in the military vote Republican.”
You might be right, and I think I’ve heard similar numbers quoted before. But if the votes aren’t being counted, how can we determine whether there is a shift in political attitudes in the military? I think we definitely have reason to suspect that could be the case, given the wars the United States is currently in.
Look at Pat Tillman. He was the military poster boy. Yet according to Spc. Russell Baer, Tillman’s comrade, he had become very much opposed to the Iraq war just before his untimely and mysterious death. He even reportedly had made arrangements to meet with Noam Chomsky when he returned home. Retired four-star general and former presidential candidate Wesley Clark went as far as to suggest that Tillman was murdered for his anti-war politics.
I think it is pathetic that these guys are presuming to speak for a dead man. Whether or not he was against the war doesn’t give him more or less credibility. But the left loves their token military Democrats, but they are quite rare. Look at military blogs and sites like blackfive.net. Very conservative. And that is very representative of the military as a whole. It makes sense, since patriotism and love of country (at least this country) is not a virtue on the left.
Wesley Clark is a scoundrel and a nutcase. How he got 4 stars is beyond me.
Oh, and by the way, the men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan have consistently polled as strong or even stronger Republican than previous polls, which shows that they do believe in the mission and actually see the great things that are being done on the ground there. I have seen a few letters to the editor to local newspapers from returning soldiers who were irate over the lack of honest coverage from the media.
Kenneth, I wonder if you’ve had to rethink your position a little since Ron Paul has, in large part thanks to the internet, raised a fairly significant amount of money.
He definitely does have a snowball’s chance now. It’s still a snowball’s chance, but it is now actually a chance.
No, I haven’t changed my opinion. Paul managed to raise a decent sum of money, which is good, but it has not translated into measurable results. He’s still hovering in the low single digits. The latest polls from Gallup put Ron Paul at 2% (down from 4% three weeks ago), and most people don’t even know who he is. Gallup reports that 72% of Republicans “say they don’t know enough about him to have either a positive or negative opinion.”
Giuliani Still on Top, GallupPoll.com, Oct. 9, 2007
“Oh, and by the way, the men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan have consistently polled as strong or even stronger Republican than previous polls, which shows that they do believe in the mission and actually see the great things that are being done on the ground there.”
Polls are one thing. Ballots are quite another. Plus, the fact that someone is a Republican should not indicate his or her support in “the mission” - whatever that is.
Ask yourself why Ron Paul, still relatively unknown, received more contributions from the military that McCain did in the 3rd quarter. And why did nearly 60% of participants in a military.com poll think the U.S. should pull out of Iraq by the end of 2008? I know this poll is unscientific, but it at least indicates a possible trend.
And let’s say Clark is way off base. Either way, here is what we know about the Tillman incident: he started voicing opposition to the Iraq
McCain lost almost all support when he started caring more about doing the politically expedient thing rather than the right thing. Campaign reform, Gang of 14, immigration. Why he’s still in the race is beyond me.
***oops*** War; the military initially lied about the circumstances of his death, and refuses a new investigation; he had three gun shot wounds to the forehead, which according to the medical examiner, were filed about 10 yards away. Call me an old country boy, but something about this just doesn’t add up. Was it because he was against the war? I don’t know, but it sure sounds fishy to me.
Paul stands about as much chance of becoming President as Pat Buchanan did back in 2000. Actually, those two are very similar in their views. And Paul would end up with a similar .4% of the vote in the general election, since NO ONE knows him. The only chance he stands is if he wins or takes 2nd in a state primary early on. But that won’t happen, so he’ll be gone by Super Tuesday.
He didn’t have a voice even if he was against the war. A soldier in war has very limited contact with the outside world. This is so bogus, please have enough self-dignity to not get so carried away with conspiracy theories. This assumes some levels of evil of Bush that he is not capable of. Disagree with his policies if you will, but at least admit that the guy has done all this on good motives and principles.
I watched a CBS or ABC special about it where they interviewed the guys with him. It was quite apparent that there was just poor communication and that the soldiers couldn’t tell that Tillman was a friendly.
That said, it could very well be that Tillman WAS murdered or at least killed in a manner different from the official version. But not because he was going to speak out against the war, that’s Daily Kos lunacy.
“He didn’t have a voice even if he was against the war. A soldier in war has very limited contact with the outside world. This is so bogus, please have enough self-dignity to not get so carried away with conspiracy theories. This assumes some levels of evil of Bush that he is not capable of.”
No, he wouldn’t have had a voice as long as he was in Afghanistan.