UPSET! Ron Paul Wins MSNBC Debate and Poll!

MSNBC isn't sure how (or whether) to report it, but according to their own polls, the very clear winner of the Republican Presidential debate they hosted is Ron Paul, the outspoken Congressman from Texas.

With over 50,000 online votes counted, Paul was the overwhelming winner out of 10 candidates:

Who was the most convincing candidate?        36%
(runners up: Romney 21%, Giuliani 16%)
Who showed the most leadership qualities?     31%
(runners up: Romney 21%, Giuliani 18%)
Who stood out from the pack?                        36%
(runners up: Romney 23%, Giuliani 17%)
Who had the best one-liner?                          30%
(runners up: Romney 16%, McCain 15%)

That's right - by every MSNBC measure, Ron Paul garnered about double the support of Giuliani or McCain and left most of the others even farther in the dust.

But wait - there were two other MSNBC poll winners:

Who avoided the questions? - Giuliani, 36%
(runner up: McCain 14%)
Who had the most rehearsed answers? - McCain, 31%
(runner up: Romney 24%)

So the question is, what do we do with this info?  Daily Kos had similar results in its own poll on debate night, with Ron Paul again the clear winner.  

Sadly, like MSNBC, the talking heads are so far afraid to report it honestly.  (Unlike MSNBC, the DKos pollster had the gall to update the Debate Recap poll diary to discourage people from voting for Paul.)  But it's going to be a long primary season, and Ron Paul is going to be making all the other Republicans look bad.  Shouldn't we help?

We should be jubilant - instead of torn as we are when Mike Gravel's and Dennis Kucinich's honesty make the Democratic frontrunners look bad but those upstarts still don't win the poll.

We can demand an honest accounting from MSNBC and support Ron Paul however we can.  If he "can't win" that's good for us, right?  (And if an honest candidate has a chance, isn't that good for us too?)

For an excellent analysis, see GoSlash27's "Why is MSNBC Lying?

•  I love how the Google description of his website

  Lists him as "libertarian congressman".  Nary a mention of the Republican Party other than the R next to the TX.

  by dmsdbo on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:41:34 AM PDT

  •  Giuliani won the SUSA instant poll.....Obama won.

    the SUSA poll and the MSNBC polls.....MSNBC never reported it, they were too busy praising Hillary.

    by swartmoredrive on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:29:15 AM PDT

•  The reality is American's hate the Iraq War,

  and Paul was the only one of the Ten Stooges who was willing to condemn the war.

  by blue jersey mom on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:41:43 AM PDT

•  Heck, I voted for him.

  I split all of my votes between Tancredo and Paul. Except the stuff about looking bad -- dished those votes over to McCain.

  Heh heh. Paul needs all the help he can get!

  by kath25 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:43:22 AM PDT

•  Go Click On The MSNBC Link And Rate Up The

  poll results so that thet stay up as long as possible.

  by MO Blue on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:48:21 AM PDT

•  I thought Zombie Reagan won

  my mistake

  by Tirge Caps on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:49:05 AM PDT

  •  dKos...

    luuuuvs some Zombie Reagan.

    by ek hornbeck on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:15:37 AM PDT

•  I worked for Ron Paul's campaign many years ago

  Ron's a good man. And he's the only Republican in Congress who voted against Iraq in the first place (which makes him FAR more anti-war than any of the leading Dem presidential candidates!!!)  I don't watch televised debates, but I'm not surprised he did well and I am glad he's getting some recognition for it.  I will vote for him if I get the chance.  

  by Steffo on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:50:45 AM PDT

  •  He also voted against the Patriot Act

    He's definitely not the average Republican these days.

    by pipsorcle on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:43:35 AM PDT

  •  He's also a racist

    One of only about 32 congresscritters to vote AGAINST extending the Voting Rights Act.

    Be careful who you support.

    by world traveler on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:11:46 AM PDT

•  I voted for fight for democracy.

  Here's the thing: If Paul makes our frontrunners look weak, perhaps we have the wrong frontrunners!  I'd vote for any of them before the Repubs, but Rep. Paul will have the effect of actually having to debate major issues and not just giving them the blowoff.  Mike Gravel serves the same purpose, as does Dennis Kucinich.

  It's a sad state of affairs when some of the best candidates are written off eight months before a single vote is cast.  This goes for both parties.

  by rjones2818 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:52:27 AM PDT

•  What should we do about Romney?

  He's polished enough that he could convince enough people to get  himself elected.
  Damn, I do not like those numbers of his.

  by NYFM on Sat May 05, 2007 at 09:58:20 AM PDT

  •  don't worry too much

    He wasn't asked (or forced to answer) any difficult question in the press conference. The one difficult question was "what don't you like about America" which mitten didn't answer. tweet didn't make him answer it either. mitten's response was all flowers and candy and "morning in America".  Wait until mccain or rudi snap.  Both have well-known tempers and they won't let mitten get away with it forever. mccain is certain the nomination was snatched from him in 2000 and he isn't about to let it happen again while rudi is an autocrat who doesn't think anyone is better than him. mitten will be tested yet. His numbers will go down as soon as he's tested.

    by dougymi on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:04:51 AM PDT

    •  don't underestimate

      the power of a slick surface.

      Romney is ultra-smooth at first glance. And that matters A LOT for a popularity contest, like the presidential election. He has the perfect look for president. IMO, there's enough shallow people out there who can be mesmerized by a hollywood-look president. See Reagan for an example.

      by galore on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:38:28 AM PDT

  •  I'm Hoping Romney or Giuliani Get the Nomination

    It will split the Rebublican party because of the fundy wingnuts wouldn't support either of them. We could take the South if either of them run against Edwards.

    by GW Chimpzilla on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:25:55 AM PDT

•  Paul just keeps making Iraq front and center

  He keeps verifying the Dems while villifying the GOPs. It's like Ann Northrop's primary campaign in KY against Gov. Ernie "Lightfingers" Fletcher -- she's got almost no chance to win the nomination at this point but she's rippin' the hellouttahim, good as any Democrat would. In fact, if you watch her recent ad, it says "This is what Democrats will say about Ernie Fletcher."

  I have my own follow up: "This is what Democrats have to say to Ann Northrop: 'Thanks.'"

  Ron Paul has exactly ZERO chance to win the GOP nomination, since it's all about local and state organizations and big money, for both parties but even moreso for the GOP, so let him be the fart in the GOP's elevator. They'll all smell bad when it's over.

  by N0MAN1968 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:03:55 AM PDT

•  C-Span had a half hour call in for

  repubs. only.  Question was, who won the debate. More people called in for Paul than any other cand.

  by Owllwoman on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:11:01 AM PDT

  •  Missed that!

    The SC GOP's receptionist's phone has been ringing off the hook from people making sure he's going to be in the next debate.

    "freeped" my a$$!

    by GoSlash27 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:46:58 AM PDT

•  Even Though This Is A Dem Blog Site

  Party affiliation, as we have seen, is nothing more than a badge. Ron Paul, no doubt, would make an excellent President. If his campaign gains traction, it will be interesting to see how the so-called Fair & Balanced Fox News Network handles him. I'm guessing not very gently, as he is neither a fascist (cf. Guiliani) or (wannabe) elitist (cf. Romney). Which reminds me, those are two best GOP money can bankroll?

  by Vinnie Vegas on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:27:39 AM PDT

  •  Ron Paul would

    "No doubt" make an excellent president? Erm, somehow I don't think the case for ron Paul is that open-and-shut.

    by DavidNYC on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:38:49 AM PDT

    •  Yup

      He is very useful in showing how old style conservative views have little to do with GOP of today. So long as he is out there with the other Republican candidates reminding viewers of concepts like Liberty and the Constitution, he is doing good.

      by wondering if on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:13:07 AM PDT

      •  Old style?

        Like gay bashing, restricting choice, making racist statements?

        by Mia Dolan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:19:06 PM PDT

  •  He's the only GOP candidate I can stomach.

    The main problem is that he's too socially conservative, but at least he believes in limited-constitutional government so the worst he is likely to do is push states' rights while appointing more conservative RETRO-ACTIVIST judges.

    I have come to believe that perhaps it is just going to take 20 years of losing Roe v. Wade to convince America that pro-choice states prosper while pro-life states decay. The cost in human suffering will be tragic, but at least it will finally destroy the faith-based convictions of all those pro-life lemmings.

    by toddpw on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:09:51 AM PDT

  •  A racist would make a good President????

    You might want to really, really re-think that position.

    Especially after Tres de Mayo in Los Angeles.

    by world traveler on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:17:54 AM PDT

    •  I'm black

      And even I would vote for him.

      by GoSlash27 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:48:15 AM PDT

      •  Clearly you don't live in his district

        Ideas have consequences, and here in Paul's district, the consequences are unpleasant.  Like, transfer students moving from one (mixed-race) district to another (lily white) district, and being called "n-lovers."  And no one (school officials, elected politicians) does anything about it.  Because they don't have to.  No one expects them to.  Now, expand that sort of "benign neglect" nation-wide, extended  beyond just name-calling. That's a Ron Paul presidency. Live here, see it.

        by world traveler on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:41:10 PM PDT

        •  Part of the Libertarian philosophy

          .."Hate speech" = "free speech", which is an unfortunate by-product of living in a free society.

          I'd rather deal with the yokels than deal with a government that infringes my right to speak my mind "for the greater good".

          I'll take knuckleheads over tyranny any day of the week.

          by GoSlash27 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:50:34 PM PDT

          •  A knucklehead racist would make a good president.

            hmmmm.

            by world traveler on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:52:28 PM PDT

          •  He's not even close to being a libertarian

            He's just a hypocrite and an asshole.  

            by Mia Dolan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:18:17 PM PDT

      •  Then Ron Paul thinks your a criminal

        Well, he thinks 95 percent of blacks are criminals, so there is a 95 percent chance he thinks you are.  

        by Mia Dolan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:17:41 PM PDT

  •  LOL

    Ron Paul is anti-choice, anti-gay, racist piece of filth.  

    by Mia Dolan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:16:50 PM PDT

•  I know this is tongue-in-cheek anyhow,

  . . .but:

  We can demand an honest accounting from MSNBC

  The only "honest accounting" would be to point out that a Democrat-freeped online poll is completely worthless.  But no harm in trying to get them to buy our spin, I suppose.

  by cardinal on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:29:04 AM PDT

•  My guess?

  There is a very active and vibrant libertarian (and Libertarian Party) community online. Indeed, they seem to be stronger online than just about anywhere else. So I could easily see them freeping this poll en masse.

  I doubt it's lefty sabotage because if it were, we'd almost certainly up-rate Tancredo.

  by DavidNYC on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:39:54 AM PDT

•  What to do with Paul?

  Get him the hell out of his district seat--let him bow out as rep if he's going to run a real campaign for president.  That way, no matter how things go in the election, at least one little corner of Texas could rejoin the rest of the country in being represented in Congress.  Even a Republican would be an improvement.   Anyone would be better than Paul, who does nothing than say "no", spout bigoted rhetoric, and hate women.  

  by rocketito on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:51:52 AM PDT

  •  If he wasn't in that seat

    you'd have yet another Bush ass kisser in his place, voting more and more power to Beloved Leader. At least Paul voted against criminalizing taking minors across state lines to get an abortion, not many in the GOP did that.

    by wondering if on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:16:48 AM PDT

•  upset?

  nutty libertarians rule the interweb so why wouldn't a nutty libertarian win some silly online poll?

  The poll is fucking meaningless.

  by jbou on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:06:18 AM PDT

•  I don't think we should encourage racists.

  Compilation of some racist remarks by Paul.

  "Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people...I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

  Lovely.

  by NNadir on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:17:20 AM PDT

  •  And he voted against the Voting Rights Act n/t

    by world traveler on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:20:05 AM PDT

  •  a semi-defense of Ron...

    I don't know much about these remarks. If true, then those remarks are indefensible.

    However...

    The great irony of Ron is that he may hate black/brown people but, if he were elected president, he would do more towards ending the relentless incarceration of black men than any Democrat. He would end the drug war and he would restrict the extreme power the police have gained as a result of the drug war.

    Since the drug war is the chief reason so many black men are unjustly imprisoned, this would have an enormous positive effect on minority communities. This would end the institutionalized racism inherent in the modern prohibition and would greatly reduce crime in poor neighborhoods.

    by pandaba on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:29:05 AM PDT

    •  I don't think there is any defense.

      I agree that many African-Americans are imprisoned for drug crimes, but the fact is, this man is a racist.

      Those comments are outrageous.   He shouldn't even be in the House.

      by NNadir on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:36:27 AM PDT

      •  i understand what you're saying...

        And Ron may very well be a huge racist.

        But that doesn't erase the good he would accomplish for minorities. Ending the drug war would be a huge huge plus. Plus, his strong emphasis on constitutional rights and ending governmental abuses of power would also be great for minorities, since government abuses fall disproportionately on them.

        by pandaba on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:57:29 AM PDT

        •  Except

          That Paul is a liar - he's not libertarian at all.  He votes against choice, he votes against gay rights -he's a gigantic hypocrite.  

          by Mia Dolan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:21:29 PM PDT

      •  Point in fact,

        According to the same source cited above, those comments weren't his.

        Go back and click the link.

        by GoSlash27 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:04:01 PM PDT

        •  Your Quote Is Partially True, But . . .

          only partially true.  First of all, he is only speaking specifically to the Barbara Jordan quote . . . . Quoting from her source:

          When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
          
          His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

          The reference may be only to the Barbara Jordan quote, since his concern is not the language on affirmative action, but with personalizing the attack.  He says he never does that.

          That is far from denying responsibility for the language.  Moreover, his failure to fire the staff and to clarify his position puts him in a well established tradition of southern politicians who use racist messages to win elections.  

          I did not know this before about Paul, and to be honest, I'm completely surprised and disappointed.  I would not have expected it.  I thought he was a completely different kind of Republican.  Not like I was going to vote for him, but - I appreciate an America where the politicians on both sides are honorable.  But that was not honorable behavior.

          by BigBite on Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:00:32 PM PDT

          •  Illuminating - though not relevant to the debate,

            since I don't think these disturbing issues came up, did they?

            I haven't seen the debate yet, but evidently audiences are responding to Paul's stances on Iraq, the drug war, and the issues that were discussed - and the fact that he was the only candidate discussing them honestly - similar to the roles Gravel and Kucinich played.

            That makes Paul the most credible and arguably the most important participant, even if by 18 months from now it's clear the issues you raise do disqualify him for president.  Wherever he goes he refocussed the debate from money to issues.

            The issues being debated are what's important right now and, perhaps sadly, Ron Paul is at the top of the Republican heap and the public is responding.

            by Freiheit on Sat May 05, 2007 at 08:29:29 PM PDT

          •  Why didn't you quote the entire comment?

            If you read the entire article, it addresses all of the quotes.

            In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
            In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

            When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

            His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

            by GoSlash27 on Sun May 06, 2007 at 05:04:26 AM PDT

            •  Oh

              "It wasn't me.  It was my campaign aides.  I'm not a racist"

              How fucking dumb are you?

              by Mia Dolan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:22:37 PM PDT

              •  which republican is not racist?

                Honestly--most of them probably are.

                by Salo on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:08:53 PM PDT

                •  Fair enough

                  But Ron Paul is in a class of his own.  

                  by Mia Dolan on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:17:01 PM PDT

        •  LOL

          by Mia Dolan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:19:42 PM PDT

        •  LOL

          They  were in Paul's newsletter, but he blamed them on a staffer.  What a contemptable piece of shit.

          by Mia Dolan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:20:15 PM PDT

•  cross-link

  To my 'blog on this same subject:

  Come on in, the water's fine

  by GoSlash27 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:50:17 AM PDT

•  This is great for pressure on getting out of

  Iraq.

  If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to choose a Republican for Prez, I'd do one of two things:  let them shoot me, or vote for Ron Paul.  Not sure which option I would favor, I'd have to be in the moment.

  by DianeL on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:57:52 PM PDT

  •  Pure comedy gold :D

    Not snarking; I really mean it.

    by GoSlash27 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:06:40 PM PDT

    •  Can you further explain your comment,

      please?

      Exactly why my post was funny?

      Some folks actually have numerous nightmares going on in their lives right now, so much so, that the best they can do is snatch pieces of what a politician is about and go from there with their conclusions.

      IF, you're laughing at me, you can go fuck yourself.  If not please explain.
      

      by DianeL on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:09:17 PM PDT

      •  Not laughing at you.

        The whole "I'd have to be in the moment" thing was just funny. I agree; There's really nobody else worth voting for.

        by GoSlash27 on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:25:35 PM PDT