The Ron Paul Effect (or not)

I remember hearing on the mainstream media that Ron Paul's supporters are somehow rigging polls online in his favor, but never chose to completely believe what I'd heard. I didn't watch the last Republican debate (I know! Shame on me). Instead, I went to youtube so I could pick and choose which clips to hear. At any rate, I came upon several Ron Paul videos, and I watched them. I have several friends that are supporters of him, and while I'm not, I thought I'd listen in. After watching one video, I see this in the comments:

I guess there is direct proof for misleading polls.

As a side note, I love how Hannity openly made fun of him and lauded Guiliani (no surprise there).

•  Your Margins Are Screwed Up

  by DHinMI on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:03:32 PM PDT

•  They accuse the Texas Republicans of rigging

  last week's straw poll against Paul. Is it all about rigging of one type or another? This doesn't seem healthy.

  by ticket punch on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:06:57 PM PDT

•  Oh Yes

  Using the internet to spread information about online polls is OBVIOUSLY cheating.

  PLEASE.  Give it up.

  I do not get this obsession with Ron Paul at Daily Kos.  Half the site seems to love him unconditionally because of his anti-war views.  The other half seems hell-bent on proving that his supporters are a bunch of cheats.

  His supporters aren't cheats.  He has not only done well on online polls and cell phone polls, but a number of straw polls as well.  He has a very, very, very committed base of support and they are very able to overwhelm the committed activists in multiple events.  That doesn't mean he's cheating.  It just goes to show you that online polls, cell phone polls, and straw polls ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC.

  by FreedomDemocrat on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:09:35 PM PDT

  •  Not all Republicans agree with GWB on Iraq

    IMO somewhere between 20% and 30% of Republicans have defected on Iraq. Where else can they go but to Paul?

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:19:28 PM PDT

  •  he's my congressman

    and I can't stand the guy.

    I could probably stomach him if he were truly the anti-war Libertarian he proclaims that he is (or at least, used to proclaim, until he decided to be a Rethug).

    Sorry, Ron, true Libertarians don't vote like this:

    • Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
    • Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
    • Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
    • Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
    • Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:20:42 PM PDT

    •  His stand on Iraq is better than all the

      so called top tier Democrats.

      But how can a doctor want to get rid of medicare?

      by penguinsong on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:26:44 PM PDT

      •  because he's a whacked out psycho?

        I have no idea, really.

        As for his stance on Iraq, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

        by Dem in the heart of Texas on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:36:03 PM PDT

        •  Ronnie is sincerely fighting for something

          it may be wacked; but it's not spin and it's not polished.

          by 123Mary123 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:44:15 PM PDT

        •  On Iraq he's been right 24/7. PATRIOT too.

          Credit where due. Say what you want about the rest.

          by ben masel on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:46:22 PM PDT

      •  He's a libertarian idealist

        He believes that the government shouldn't answer all societies problems. In his idealistic world, the weak will find a way to survive.... their families will take care of them like what happened before medicare and people's lifespans won't be as long either:-) He is very libertarian; but the fact that people love what he says is a reaction to the pendulum swinging too far in one direction.

        by 123Mary123 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:41:51 PM PDT

      •  Because he's a Libertarian and does not

        believe in any federal program other than defense. That's a true Libertarian's reading of the Constitution and Bill  of Rights.

        It's all states rights with these people. The Fed is to have minimal control over our lives. No federal taxes for anything but defense. And even taxes are a problem as they believe there may be other ways to acquire funds to run a very limited government.

        by auapplemac on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:08:14 AM PDT

  •  I agree with you

    and really... I just wanted to see proof for myself that these kind of things really were happening. The point here wasn't to wring my hands and say "I knew it they're lying and cheating!!" The point was to see it for myself. I'm a scientist, and usually skeptical until I see proof. I'm pro-Ron Paul, only because of the obvious schism he'll create in the Republican party.

    But another thing, if you watch him on the YouTube clips, when he discusses his pro-life views with Hannity, you can see that even he doesn't completely agree with his own stance. Well, I guess he might be pro-life, but not for a "Libertarian" reason. I just get this feeling that even he thinks his reason is iffy.

    At any rate, the point here was to provide information.

    by jamesia on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:02:55 PM PDT

•  Living in a Ron Paul as president world

  would be something out of a science fiction horror movie; but I respect him for telling Rudy that their party needs to wake up. He's right and they all know it. They're trying to use the wingnut "Values Voters" and neocon control freaks to hold on; but Ronnie is right. Unless dems make the same mistake again(which polls say they intend to do) they will be in the same position only they don't have to be. That isn't all they have to hold on to.

  I think democrats are afraid that the ideals the party claims it stands for aren't good enough to win general elections. I think they believe they need to be more republican to win. Dems need to stop being so scared to lead the party back towards what it's supposed to be... a party of the people by the people. A party that stands for people and not the corporate monster that republicans pray to. If there is no line drawn, no defining of that major difference, BOTH parties stand to lose more than just this election. The pathetic thing is, the democrats are holding the winning lottery ticket(paraphrase of another kos poster's perfect analogy).. they're just too scared to stand up and show it.

  by 123Mary123 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:30:38 PM PDT

  •  With what Congress?

    scary if it's in Republican control, more interesting if he has to work with a solidly Democratic Congress.

    by ben masel on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:49:06 PM PDT

•  Ron Paul is a sideshow ...

  Though if he does an LP run next year he might pull about 2-3 percent, mostly from the GOP column.

  by al Fubar on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:51:25 PM PDT

•  Ron Paul is stupid.

  Even some of his reasons for not staying in ME were stupid (don't be there because OBL doesn't like it !).

  There is definitely some anti-war libertarian sentiment among rethugs. They are too whacky (probably religious whackos too ?) to come to the Dem fold - so they support a whacko.

  It is interesting though, that an old time conservative with anti-occupation ideas has not shown up. That shows Republican party has gone completely wingnutty ...

  by nataraj on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:56:46 PM PDT

•  I like him a lot...

  even though I disagree completely with his economics.

  Why do I like him?   Because he said this:

  Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of preemptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.   - Ron Paul

  by acquittal on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:04:37 PM PDT

•  Paul gets all the votes of Democrats and liberals

  in these polls, thats why he does so well.

  Just take the cell phone poll from the FoxNews debate. You know alot of democrats voted, so who would they have voted for? Ron Paul, obviously.

  He gets all the Dem votes while the other Rep candidates split all the Republican ones.

  by DigDug on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:30:59 PM PDT

•  If Ron Paul became President, and Congress

  enacted all of what he wanted, I predict 95% of the members of dailykos would be in the streets - armed and fighting back.

  This guy is more dangerous to democracy before lunch than Bush ever was in the 6 years he's had.

  by shpilk on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 10:54:37 PM PDT

•  Voters rigging polls to favor their candidate?

  That is not acceptable, that is called democracy!

  by Opinionated Ed on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 04:31:11 AM PDT