I know what you're thinking: Who's Ron Paul?
Well, he's not exactly a nobody, certainly not a Google nobody (neither am I), and he is running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, albeit with less of a chance of winning than Ronald Reagan.
However, based upon reaction to last week's Republican debate sponsored by MSNBC, you might have thought Ron Paul was the second coming of Abe Lincoln.
(Update: Ron Paul supporters help make my point.)
Not exactly, as this ABC News story spells out.
That was the unmistakable conclusion of the online poll posted by debate sponsor MSNBC, which registered Paul with higher positive ratings and lower negative numbers than any of the other nine candidates on the stage.
ABC's post-debate Internet survey showed an even clearer victory for Paul, with the congressman taking more than 9,400 of 11,000 votes as of 12:30 p.m. Monday. (Rudy Giuliani is the next ranked candidate, with barely 150 votes.)
The lesson here is a simple one that cannot be repeated often enough: Online polls suck. And by that I mean they all suck, even the ones you may encounter on this Web site. Doesn't mean that they can't be amusing or that you should ignore them entirely, just that they are useless in terms of gauging actual - never mind precise - public sentiment on any issue whatsoever.
Welcome regulars and passersby. Here are a few more recent Buzzblog items. And, if you'd like to receive Buzzblog via e-mail newsletter, here's where to sign up.
Sprint Nextel vs. 41 schools and non-profits.
Schools dropping laptop programs.
"Do we really need a security industry?"
Skip this welcome screen, please.
Repeal of online gambling prohibition deserves passage in Congress ... but don't bet on it happening.
"Ideal Digital Kitchen" looks like a recipe for overkill.
BlackBerry owes this guy a girlfriend.
The Onion tees up Vista ... hilarity fails to ensue.
|
|
Ron Paul
I do mostly agree with your general point about online polls, but both you and ABC are totally off base on this one. There has been a tremendous surge of support for Paul since his debate performance on May 2. Do a search for "Ron Paul" on Technorati, Youtube, MySpace, or Digg, and you'll see that the activity is real. Check Alexa and you will see that Ron Paul's web site is now getting more traffic than Barack Obama's.
Of course, you will hear nothing about this from the major media. They will keep trying to stuff Rudy McRomney down our throats.
Ron Paul and Technorati
All that proves is that a lot of libertarian bloggers are writing a lot of posts about Ron Paul. I believe the phrase you're looking for is "echo chamber."
Paul is as bad as all the rest
Ron Paul is hypocritical, contradictory, on the fence, and probably doesn't even write half of his own articles. Just as he denied writing the racist articles for his own newsletter back in the early 90's. He's catering to the '911 Truth Movement' on the one hand, and trying to distance himself from them on the other by saying that there's "absolutely no way 911 was an Inside Job". He states he would not vote to impeach Bush, but voted to impeach Clinton. He's a Reagan loving GATEKEEPER, who voted NO on giving Rosa Parks a $1000 dollar congressional medal of honor after her death, but is asking for $400 MILLION dollars for his pet projects in Texas (W. Land), including multi-millions of dollars for Shrimp farming. I'm sorry, respectfully, this guy is a goof, most of his supporters are goofs, and I can't wait until these freaking elections are finally over, and Ron Paul probably ends up getting less votes than he did in 88. His main job is to take votes away from the Dems, and serve the "Truth Movement" a big defeat...
He's not what he pretends to be. I'm under the impression that a couple hundred of his rabid supporters are responsible for 99% of his "Internet Revolution", spamming, and tampering with the polls, just to play the game of lies that every other politician plays.
The articles in question Ron
The articles in question Ron Paul believably denies as they were written by a volunteer who did not express his views and clearly contrast from his own comments, what is so hard to beleive about this explanation? The articles were written in the 80s and early 90s and to drag up something so minor shows you are clutching at straws. Perhaps George Bush's lack of aid in New Orleans calls for a bit more worry of racism than old newsletters. If by catering to the '911 Truth Movement' you mean he is catering to a group of people who are much better informed about political issues than the average US citizen then you would be correct, he has a wide range of supporters and to generalise them as 911 truthers is misleading. If your allegation of poll tampering, which you've backed up with a mere assumption, turns out to be true then what does that tell you? Perhaps that people are going out of their way to get Ron Paul publicised, they have taken their spare time to support his cause, maybe these people have actually also taken the time to look into the issues with more depth than the mainstream media cares to give and have used their political awareness to see Ron Paul is the commonsense vote. You have called him a hypocrite and backed up this claim with false evidence saying that he "would not vote to impeach Bush, but voted to impeach Clinton", this is blatantly incorrect, Ron Paul supports the move to investigate Bush's misinformation in reagrds to the War in Iraq and from the investigation he would decide on which way his vote would go. Please support your accusation of Ron Paul being a gatekeeper, with the lack of support shown by the mainstream media towards him I find this hard to believe. You also accused Ron Paul of being contradictory yet his voting record strongly shows otherwise, he merely follows the constitution. Ron Paul voted against using tax payers money for giving Parks a congressional medal as it is unconstitutional, as he has with all other congressional medals, however he took out $100 of his own money and asked other members of congress to join him in order to pay for the $30 000 medal (not $1000 as you falsely stated) privately however no one else obliged. It seems harder to spend when it's not your money being spent it seems. In reference to his "asking for $400 MILLION dollars for his pet projects in Texas", he is simply passing on his constituents requests to the comittee who will then vote for it, following Ron Paul's consistent voting record against spending on new government spending initiatives it would be ignorant to believe he would vote for the spending, so don't try and mislead readers otherwise. The rest of your comment contains the substanceless generalisation that "most of his supporters are goofs". Your impression that "a couple hundred of his rabid supporters are responsible for 99% of his "Internet Revolution", spamming, and tampering with the polls" is worthless and based on your own individual conspiracy theory and simply lacks the facts for it to be taken seriously.
Supporters are out there
There are all over the place, just not in the mainstream media. Get your Ron paul banners and graphics and show your support at http://www.ronpaulswag.com/
Look at it from our point of view
Hey,
Yes, online polls do suck and are not scientific. But please consider our point of view. The Republicans take libertarians for granted the way the Democrats take black people for granted. They expect us to vote for them every 4 years and then go away. The last chance we had was with Goldwater in 1964, and since then it's been the back of the center-right coallition bus for us.
The media routinely ignores us, except the occasional "those nut jobs want to legalize drugs" story.
The only way we can ever get any sort of coverage for our candidates and our message is to do things like bombarding online polls. Say what you will, it got Ron Paul more coverage than he would have gotten if our people weren't out there in droves voting in these stupid online polls.
In fairness, I will agree that we have our share of, shall we say, eccentric supporters. Please, though, understand the frustration we feel with a political system that completely ignores us.
Many people have been fighting for smaller government their entire adult lives, only to see government grow larger and larger decade after decade. It's extremely frustrating, and I can understand that when an opportunity like the Ron Paul candidacy comes along, some of the more "eccentric" libertarians may go a little nuts.
Independence of Government not the Answer, Controlling it is.
The answer is not smaller government, the answer is to have a government of, for, and by the people. Growing the number of citizens who actively participate in growing the state should be our first duty. Exercising patriotism, voting, and just being a good citizen... these are all government functions exercised by the people and more people should be encouraged to change the face and attitude of government. We should not be seeking independence from government, we should instead seek to take it over and change what government does.
A government "for and by the
A government "for and by the people" is what the country has been striving for since inception over 200 years ago, and if you don't believe we've achieved it by now its not going to happen. Simply growing the number of active voters won't solve anything especially since the majority of them don't take time to learn about the issues and vote according to "likability" (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1324263620071218?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)
Big governments inevitably lead to inefficiency and wastefulness (this can be seen in any socialist state in history). Governments take wealth from the people through taxes, and let special interest groups and lobbyists fight for the pot. Bureaucracies such as the FDA and USDA do absolutely nothing to protect us today, and Americans blindly put their families' health in their hands. According to Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, "There is no rhyme or reason to how we regulate food today in the U.S. “It’s based on antiquated laws and bifurcated agencies. The current food safety system doesn’t protect the public.”
Ron Paul is For Real . That's Why The Online Polls...
...show him beating the pants off the big tent Republicans. Stop downplaying the online poll as "it must be broken", since it didn't reflect the pre-ordained result "Clinton vs. McCain '08". Surely the polling software logs IP addresses or places a cookie (or both) to prevent re-voting.
There may be an element of the grass-roots poll-busting, but what Ron Paul says just makes sense. He is a refreshing voice for personal choice and fiscal sanity. He wants to abolish the IRS, and is against Big Brother Government ID programs, as well as Big Oil, and the War in Iraq. He consistently votes that way too, and has been elected 7 straight times as a US Congressman from his Austin, Texas district.
Where is the post-debate poll of the live audience that contradicts the online poll? Without that, this is a TV media (MSNBC and ABCNews) hit piece to maintain the status quo of carefully managed "traditional" candidates like McCain, Obama, Clinton, and Romney. People are sick of spin, as reflected by the polls.
JK
Stop being a sore loser.
Stop being a sore loser.