Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul Making Waves Among Pollsters and Pundits Now that Texas Republican Ron Paul has shown he can raise the big bucks in his presidential campaign's fundraising effort, pollsters and pundits are paying attention. What's most significant is that they're saying anything at all.by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
It had to happen eventually. With Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas scoring big in the fundraising derby, the in-the-knowsters are finally paying attention. Today's report from Rasmussen shows that in a head-to-head race with Hillary Clinton, Paul trails by 10%, which puts him in the same statistical ballpark as other potential Republican nominees in the Hillary sweepstakes. Interestingly, against Barrack Obama he trails by 17%, suggesting that if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, Paul draws some of Obama's anti-war vote, but what's even more interesting is to watch the pundits take their shots at him
First, there's Rasmussen themselves saying of Congressman Paul:
"Ron Paul has passionate supporters and a lot of campaign money, but just 17% think he has any chance of winning the general election if nominated. Only 4% believe he would be Very Likely to win it all....
"Among all voters, 46% think Giuliani has a chance to win if nominated, 43% say McCain has a shot and 40% say the same about Thompson. Thirty-two percent (32%) say Romney could win, 22% see Huckabee as at least a somewhat likely victor and 12% think Paul could possibly win if nominated."
You gotta love pollsters. Rasmussen is saying that 17% think he has any chance of winning the election, then two paragraphs later they say that 12% think he could win if nominated. So let me get this straight, Rasmussen: you're saying that after the Republican nominee is determined, Ron Paul's chance of winning slips from 17% down to 12%???
Then there's Fox's Sean Hannity claiming that his own network's straw poll that Ron Paul won hands down doesn't mean anything, that it's "Just for fun." I'm certainly glad to hear Mr. Hannity is finally having some fun, since he's far too emotionally unstable most of the time.
Over at townhall.com there's Phil Harris claiming that, "Ron Paul and others believe we should simply duck and cover." National Ledger's Jim Roberts is declaring, "This weekend [Paul] was likely just passed by Mike Huckabee." This followed by one day an article by National Ledger's Tim Morgan saying:
"The 'Libertarian Leaning' candidate was hit in the face with a bit of that [idea he can't win] recently when he was included in a poll by Zogby poll that asked, 'Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?'
"The man that is often referred to by supporters of the head of the Ron Paul revolution grabbed forty-seven percent in that poll. That means that almost half of the country would not vote for Paul under any circumstances."
"But at last night's GOP debate, something happened for the very first time: A candidate -- Ron Paul -- drew boos
"What Paul said that produced those boos is nothing new for the anti-war, libertarian Texas congressman. 'I think the American people, if we as a party realize this and understand it ... the people in America want the [Iraq] war over with. They're sick and tired of it, and they want our troops to come home.'
"While many in the audience weren't happy with Paul's comments, those Republicans represent a minority of Americans -- which highlights a looming general election problem for the GOP."
Then there's the news that redstate.com, a pro-war Republican website, has declared that Paul supporters aren't welcome at their website anymore. Leon H. Wolf, a redstate.com editor, posted a notice saying:
"Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal."
But the best part was Wolf's reason why he was instituting the ban:
"We are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once"
Well, that's certainly refreshing honesty. Leon's philosophical brother at redstate.com, Mark Kilmer seconded the motion saying:
"I no longer think Ron Paul should be included in any serious discussion of the Republican Party or its Presidential candidate. (I've recommended Leon's diary, which you may count as a co-signature.) Ron Paul has ceased to be that amiable figure, the eccentric insisting that government derives its mandate only from the consent of the governed.
"It's the surrender bit, completely incompatible with what I had thought of Ron Paul; it is, however, a good way to drag confused Code Pinkers and pseudo-libertarians into the cash-donating aisle with the Red Light special."
For those who don't regularly drink red Koolaid, what Kilmer means is that he doesn't like the fact that Paul is opposed to our presence in Iraq and wants to pull the troops out. In short, what Kilmer, Wolf, and others at redstate.com are saying is that any discussion of pulling troops out of Iraq is off the table and should never be discussed.
The significance of their banning Paul and his commentary isn't that they're opposed to Paul (no surprise there) but rather that they now feel threatened by his participation in the Republican primaries, because Paul represents what to them is an unthinkable threat...the idea that the Republican Party could conceivably nominate a candidate who opposes neo-con thinking. The fact is that threat is intolerable to them, which is why they're paying so much lipservice to the idea that Paul is unelectable.
Wolf did state that, "Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect."
I'd like to take a moment to invite Wolf, Kilmer, and those redstaters over to our site if they really want to respectfully discuss the issues. Unlike redstate.com, our website is open to everyone: libertarians, liberals, conservatives (including neo-conservatives), statists, and centrists. Of course, I don't expect any of them to participate here, but it doesn't hurt to ask. In all likelihood, they really don't want to debate. They just want the 2008 campaign to be little more than preaching to their choir, particularly where Iraq is concerned. Frankly, I don't think they have the guts for a real debate.
But getting back to my main point, which is this. All of this attention on Ron Paul is due to the fact that he has astonished everyone with his ability to raise money. So it really doesn't matter whether the attention is positive or negative...or even blacklisting (in redstate.com's case). What matters is that a tiny trickle of commentary on Ron Paul from outside the reaches of his loyal followers is starting to flow, and in the long run that can only help his campaign. Truly, for a long-shot candidate like Ron Paul there is no such thing as bad publicity at this stage of his campaign.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 179 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Walt Thiessen only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Walt Thiessen is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Well said.
I think at the end of the day, the Red Staters, like the neocons, are rapidly becoming more and more frightened of Ron Paul. I mean, if he was really as hopeless as they claim, why go to such extremes to exclude mention of him?
They have good reason to be afraid. If this election turns out to be as disasterous as many predict, Big Government "Conservatives" are going to have to return to their rightful party or find another line of work. Maybe they can work a deal with Lieberman.
Funny, but I would have thought Redstate would appreciate new members. Wouldn't having new members and more people reading their site increase Add revenue? They are really bad capitalists at Redstate and to think they consider themselves republicans..
Yes, I am a Ron Paul supporter. I do not understand why there are people in this world that still believe going to war really solves anything. It creates division amoung the people, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I have never felt so strongly for a Presidential Candidate as I do for Ron Paul, maybe with the exception of Ronald Reagan. He is this Country's last hope.
Ron Paul has my support and vote. As far as I am concerned Redstate.com has made a big mistake, and they might as well join the Neo-cons and Hannity over at Fox news.
I recently read that only between 10 and 11 percent of the public actually knows who Ron Paul is. I hope these people who hate Ron Paul realize that once everyone actaully heres about Ron Paul, there may be quite a different public opinion of him. Further every time they report negatively about him it provides him media coverage allowing his message to be spread more widely. The more coverage the better even if it is bad. Just think back to the negative coverage of Clinton just prior to him being elected. This is great! Keep the coverage up! People in this country will unite behind a message like Ron Paul's! Most Americans are logical people that think wisely. Ron Paul's message appeals to all logical and wise people.
Nice read - in defense of redstate, some recent RP supporters have been over the top AND not offering anything to the topic. We must be putting a hit to their web servers.
dailypaul is on par with redstate - appearing to take over the traffic. Not that they matter, but I wonder how their alexa stats will look next week?
"only between 10 and 11 percent of the public actually knows who Ron Paul is"........and......."The man that is often referred to by supporters of the head of the Ron Paul revolution grabbed forty-seven percent in that poll. That means that almost half of the country would not vote for Paul under any circumstances."
It's only Redstate.com. Red as in repressive communist. It's not like it's anything significant, like CNN. They can't stand freedom, and even when a legitimate question is asked, all 6 of them respond with ad homenin attacks and bans. Many of us have asked them many times exactly what they disagree with Dr. Paul on and why, and they never answer the question! They just resort to the usual kindergarten behavior. They can't handle the debate, they have no substance, just a bunch of namecalling and snotty behavior. If that's the way they are then it is best for all of us Paul-unteers to ignore them since they are clueless anyway.
Either that or have the spammers--you know, the ones evereyone claims are spiking the polls! LOL-- power-slam their site until they ban every IP on the Web, making their page more isolationist than they deliberately and erroneously claim Dr. Paul is! :) LOL
Is there subtle bias in Google's search engine? Typing "Ron Paul" for a news search produces several, and I mean serveral, articles about Red State's decision to block Dr. Paul. Is Red State even a "news" source? I think it is more of a blog. And a crappy, facist one at that!
If the Red Staters arguments were so superior, if they really were such staunch proponents of a constitutional republic, why don't they create a special section for dissing and debunking Ron Paul? That way their members could choose whether or not they want to engage in open discussion. But no, they just want to plug their ears and cover their eyes, or rather those of their forums participants. If I were on a forum that banned anyone's views and the expression thereof, I would take that as a sign to start hunting for a new webboard to hang out on.
Posted By: Darren Donahue
Date: 2007-10-23 15:01:25
"zero chance of winning", "long-shot", "dark horse", "power-ball odds of winning". EVERY MSM article includes one of these mantras usually in the first sentence. Can you say FEAR?
Redstate is manufacturing the problem. They are the ones generating the negitive Ron Paul attack articles and putting them on the Google News feed. Remove the Ron Paul articles from the feed and *poof* all fixed.
Of course their new traffic drops like a rock and the place becomes a lonely echo chamber.
Everyone donates $12, even if you’ve given before, to the Ron Paul HQ at www.ronpaul2008.com
Ron Paul’s HQ will post our info online. Our Name / State we reside in / Our pledge to vote in our State Republican primary. This will prove that our campaign has the largest grassroots support of any candidate!
If we can’t raise enough money and get enough people to commit, Ron Paul won’t win, no matter how popular he is on the net
Actually, looking at Rasmussen's own data on usaelectionpolls.com it would appear that Dr. Paul has a very good chance against Hillary. Weighting the data based on what % of age groups voted in 2004 actually makes it look even better. Hillary would beat Paul in a general election 54% to 48% but it is the exact same as Giuliani. McCain would even beat Guliani by 0.2%! I don't know why they choose to publish this data in this post and not the www.usaelectionpolls.com data.
Redstate is hysterical. Its obvious they are tired of average Americans that are allowed to vote. Thats what I see going on. They give us two parties.. put the one they want us to see and we go vote. If somebody that doesnt play by the rules they dictate... they destroy.
Dont forget the holidays. Families everywhere are going to be together before the primaries. That could work in our favor around the dinner table. The supporters are pretty darn hard core. Nobody elicits this much excitement.
Also.. thisnovember5th.com to pledge to donate $100 11/5 (with 7,897 other so far)
And search RP08 in ebay to find people auctioning items off to donate the proceeds.
We can win this. Its time for the elite to get a little nervous. We are Americans, give us hope and the right man to deliver the message and we will deliver him to the white house!
I'm an American living in Canada. Over the course of the election campaign I have dropped in on the Red State blog (and as many other political blogs as well), in order to help educate myself to as many opinions as possible. What has always stood out about Red State in particular is how close minded, combtive and condesending the publishers of that site are.
I don't think that the Ron Paul supporters should be upset at this ban, but rather embrace for what it is: Recognition of Paul's sucess
A famous Canadian politician, Lester Pearson, once said: "Those who sling mud, generally lose ground."
I cant wait to see the faces of the Hannity's, O'Reilly's, redstate.com, MSNBC, FIX News aka FOX NEWS and all the others that try to disrespect and marginalize Ron Paul. On 11/05/07, something quiet extrodinary will be happening that has never been done in the history of Presidential Campaigns. The "Remember, Remember the 5th of November Money Bomb" will be executed on that day. 100,000 Ron Paul supporters will be making $100 donations to ronpaul2008.com to give him a 1 day take of $10,000,000. Think of the Publicity and the anger all the Neo-Cons will feel? If anyone is interested in pledging to make a $100 contribution on that day you can pledge at the official money bomb webpage: http://www.thisnovember5th.com/ lets make this a reality! GO PRESIDENT PAUL!!!!
Good points by all. Clearly Dr. Paul is exposing the liberal-emperial philosophy embodied by all the GOP candidates. Tradional republican voters have basically had no choice but to support neo-cons, with lliberal democrats as the ulternative. Now comes Ron Paul who embodies all that the republican party once stood for and people are begining to see the truth of it. The only question now is whether the message can reach enough of these people. Certainly support is coming from a broader base than traditional conservatives (what's left of them) are probably used to receiving. Perhaps it reflects a wider awakening to the periles of liberalism/socialis/globalism and the need for a return to strick Constitutional Law. Dr. Paul deserves great credit for illuminating the mesage and he needs our support. Thanks.
PS. I'm not a Paul-Bot or Paul-Ite. I am a busy hard working person who attends college at night and an admirerer of a great American public servant. Also, his courage in the face of aggresive opposition has been inspiring...heroic in my view.
Yes, I had the NERVE to go on redstate.com and ask them if they could at least discuss things without name calling and I got banned. I can't even read their site any more and I'm not the least bit concerned. I have a Google News watch on "Ron Paul", so I get to see all the articles that come out referring to Ron Paul. Redstate talks a BUNCH about Ron Paul for hating him so much.
Zogby poll, "Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?":
Gravel 47%, Paul 47%, Brownback 47%, Tancredo 46%, Hunter 44%.
These are all candidates most of the public have never heard of so the poll is meaningless for Paul and the other little know candidates. No doubt Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter would have had similar results before they were known.
Nice comments. Some things to note: In that Zogby poll that said that 47% would never vote for Ron Paul, the rest of them had some pretty high ratings too. Clinton beat him with 50% saying they would never vote for her and she is the frontrunner. 43% would never vote for Giuliani. Look up the poll. Why do they only report on Ron Paul's numbers. He is only a point or two off of the other front runners. I guess this poll means no one is going to vote at all.
As far as the boos go, the deck was stacked. There were (they won't tell us the exact figure) thousands and thousands of people in that auditorium and they only let Ron Paul supporters get a small number of those tickets. No wonder he didn't do so well.
And what is wrong with the GOP base? I have never seen such a war hungry group of people dying to kill people! Are they all crazy? I mean really crazy? They cheer when someone wants to drop a nuke and boo at the idea of peace. Who are these nuts?
It is about time that someone sue Hannity for lying on the air and trying to rig an election. He knows that people could only vote once for Ron Paul. His big complaint and proof that the poll was rigged was that fact that there are Ron Paul supporters out there? Well, gee, yes, there are. And that proves what exactly? But by calling the results of the debate into question over and over he is lying on TV purposely. Isn't that against FCC regulations or something? Are you allowed to just lie through your teeth about a candidate and make things up about them and their supporters? I mean really, it is time to start complaining to the FCC and the elections commission and any ethics boards out there.
I tried calling Fox news once and their news director laughed in my face and promised that they would never retract anything about their inaccurate portrayal of the polls because they don't have to, it is not a scientific poll and they can say anything they want to about it. My God, is this really America?
As far as the rest of the folks out there banning all talk of Ron Paul, they are certainly allowed to, but they are guaranteeing a win for Hillary. Either the neo-cons are out of their minds ( a distinct possibility) out of touch with America (a definite possiblity) or so egotistical that they think they can walk on water (a near certainty). Won't they be surprised when the 68% of the country that doesn't want this war, let alone a war with Iran or heaven forbid a draft, start voting.
Has anyone except the Daily show noticed how the rhetoric about Iran is nearly identical to the rhetoric leading up to this absolutely necessary 3 day war with Iraq? Are Americans so amnesiac that they can't remember the same lies told to them just a few years ago?
I saw a great documentary on the BBC recently (not sure how old it was) that said that Al Queda didn't even exist at the time of 9/11 but they needed a scapegoat. That all this fear is just designed to manipulate us. I think it was called the politics of fear. Look for it. Very illuminating.
Could be we have been chasing ghosts all this time while we lose all of our liberties. If so, that is very disturbing.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-10-24 06:01:36
Good points one and all. I do want to correct one tangential misconception that was expressed in the above comment. Al Qaedda was definitely known to exist before 9/11. I myself remembering reading reports about bin Laden's so-called "fatwahs" long before the turn of the millenium, and a number of websites have maintained depositories of information about them for many, many years. There is also no question that the Reagan administration financially supported bin Laden and his followers in their battle against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the early 1980s. So claims that 9/11 marked the creation of Al Qaedda are definitely false.
Thanks Walt. I appreciate the correction. Try to find the video and I would love to know what you think of it. I know better than to trust the media here, but the BBC somehow always has an air of being a little more trustworthy. But I certainly cannot vouch for it. Again, it was called The Politics of Fear. Fascinating documentary. I would love to know if anyone else has seen it and what errors (if any) they can find in it.
I didn't explain it very well. According to the documentary, way back in some year, 1998 perhaps, they went after a group of people for a terrorist attack. They wanted to get Bin Laden as part of the group. But he wasn't actually there. The only way they could legally go after him was to claim that the people who did the deed (I can't remember what it was - a bombing of some embassy in Africa I think?) were part of a "group." They wanted to use the same laws they use against the Mafia when they try to get the whole bunch even if they weren't there on that particular job.
But, these folks didn't work for any group. They were just a bunch of radicals who thought up some terrorist attack. But the government had to have a "group" or they couldn't get Bin Laden and that is when they created Al Qeada. They said they were all a part of that group and then they had their "group" for legal purposes and I think they convicted him even though he wasn't there.
I know I have this all mixed up. But the documentary is interesting, and very scary if true. Again, I am not vouching that is the truth or that this is what happened. But, the film made a lot of sense.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-10-24 18:15:51
Hi Gregory,
I understand. If you want to learn more about Al Qaedda, you might take a look at the Wikipedia article about them. If nothing else, it's a good starting point for your investigations.
Most documentary creators are very good at making their films sound dire, particularly where political subjects are concerned. That's why it's always good to take them with a grain of salt and actually check their sources before accepting what they have to say. Most people don't check sources. More's the pity. If more people did check sources, there'd be a lot less misinformation out there.
Even worse is when someone makes claims without citing documentation. Those are the most untrustworthy of all.
I can't speak for others, but I pledge to always provide documentation for all articles I write on this website whenever humanly possible. I urge you to check my documentation in those cases. Don't even take what I say for granted. Question everything.
I am not a member of redstate. If I was I would terminate my membership at ONCE! I advise all to abanden redstate.com.
Ron Paul has more support than any of the main stream media would ever want to know. They would die of fear if they know what is going to happen. LOL Ron Paul is going to win hands down. Money talks:)
That website that I dare not name (just using one of their tactics) is pitiful, not only do the ban you for not agreeing with them, but they censor your posts by replacing them with youtube videos. How could a 'conservative' site endorse censorship? Quite sad actually. One of the posts hey censored of me was just pointing out how 4 of their top 10 'recommended' blogs were about Ron and that I thought they were banning all discussion of the man.... I guess not.....
I tried to follow their rules and just post regarding the issues instead of the man, and they still censored me, banned me, and tried to ridicule me. I guess they aren't so interested in discussing issues intelligently. It's funny how they call anyone that supports Ron a 'leftist'. 1st of all, if a leftist is supporting Ron, isn't that good for the Republican party because he is growing the 'base' and pulling support from the other side? 2nd of all, they refuse to believe that a born n bred conservative like myself could possibly support Ron. It makes me laugh when they call me a 'leftist' because they have no idea.
Ok, I have that off my chest now, I will not post about the site that dare not be named again.
I am giving as much as I can on Nov 5th ($500 maxed my $2300 out) and telling friends, family, and coworkers to do the same.
Question.... is it legal to make a donation in someone else's name as a present? Similar to what you might do with a donation to a charity in someone elses name? Just wondering.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-10-27 06:32:21
In answer to the previous question:
A contribution made by one person in the name of another is prohibited. 110.4(b). For example, an individual who has already contributed up to the limit to the campaign may not give money to another person to make a contribution to the same candidate. Similarly, a corporation is prohibited from using bonuses or other methods of reimbursing employees for their contributions. 114.5(b)(1)
The logical inconsistency you speak of lies in the public, not the statistics. The problem lies in the poll itself. 47% of people would never vote for Ron Paul. In a poll presenting names listed as Republican or Democratic candidates, most Democrats will check all Republicans as people they would never vote for whether they know who they are or not. Most people in our society do not vote based on the individual, but rather they vote by party and popularity. The party lines are drawn about 50% so for 47% of people to say they would never vote for Ron Paul is really no news at all. Whether an individual knows him or not is not judged in this particular poll, only who the would and would not vote for. Another thing that this particular polls fails to consider is that logical individuals will not vote for someone they have never heard about before.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
