Ron Paul supporters: Do NOT read this. Please!

READERS' WARNING: Supporters of Ron Paul should not read this item. Perusing the following paragraphs may cause dizziness, nausea, vomiting, disappointment and renewed anger at political polls, the mainstream media, all institutions holding financial power and anyone not terribly concerned about that mysterious planned highway across Texas that somehow threatens national security.

O.K., now that they're gone to their chatrooms or one of their impressive 1,200 meet-up groups, for the rest of you some background: The Ron Paul Conspiracy has received more news coverage and made quite an impression online in recent months for its followers' persistence, pervasiveness and, to put it politely, outspokenness in favor of their Republican candidate, the 72-year-old, 10-term Texas congressman with the libertarian ideals and the numerous books. He's even been on the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" and this Sunday is scheduled for an hour-long grilling by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press."

With fundraising persistence, dedication to "Dr. Paul" and admirable political energy in recent days their growing numbers made a huge name for themselves by raising more than $6 million online (more than $18 million for the quarter, they say), a new one-day political record.

Yet these Paulites have always dismissed polls, hated them, even despised them. They have many reasons besides the fact that no polls have given Paul much chance of winning anything. Polls, some suggest, are fictitious summaries of the mainstream media designed to suppress the Ron Paul Revolution. Polls are fake because no Paulite can remember ever being phoned for a survey. Many Paul supporters are new to the political process, so not on voter rolls to be polled. And they mostly use cellphones, not landlines. So they'd be somehow under-represented.

They maintained this stand even when Ron Paul's polling numbers in New Hampshire, for instance, increased geometrically from 2% to 4% to 8%, twice the support of better-known Fred Thompson.

Now, here's the news that would drive Paul supporters berserk if any had kept reading down to here, which they haven't: Ron Paul's polling numbers are now plummeting. Yup, going down, down. Once, he got the money to afford TV advertising in the Granite State, his support as measured by these no-doubt fraudulent polls began crumbling.

The new CNN/WMUR New Hampshire Primary Poll out today shows Paul's support falling from its high of 8% in early November to 7% at the start of December and 5% last weekend, when he had his big fundraising success. (The phone survey of 411 random, likely Republican primary voters was between Dec. 13 and 17.)

Of course, if Paul supporters believed in polls, they would point out that....

with a margin of error of +/- 5%, Paul could theoretically be at 10%. That also means, naturally, he could be at 0% too.

Belief in Paul's ability to handle terrorism held steady at 3%, to handle the economy fell from 7% to 3% and to handle taxes from 9% to 5%. His support for handling illegal immigration was steady at 4%, to handle abortion up from 4% to 5% and his ability to address the Iraq war (he's the only GOP candidate who favors withdrawal) was steady at 5%.

Now, in case anyone cares about the non-Paul candidates who have a chance of winning, Mitt Romney's percentage jumped from 32% to 34% from the beginning to middle of December, with the endorsement of the Manchester Union-Leader and Boston Globe John McCain increased from 19% to 22%, Rudy Giuliani fell from 19% to 16% and Mike Huckabee went from 9% to 10%.

Thompson and Tom Tancredo, who will announce the end of his candidacy Thursday, according to an Associated Press report tonight, held steady at 1% support while California's Congressman Duncan Hunter went from 0% to 1%.

On the poll's Democratic side, 469 likely primary voters produced a margin of error of 5%. After some troubled weeks when her support faded from a high of 43% in September to 31% at the start of December, Hillary Clinton's numbers surged back to 38%, while Barack Obama's slipped somewhat from 30% to 26% and John Edwards from 16% to 14%.

Bill Richardson went from 7% to 8%, Dennis Kucinich from 3% to 2%, Joe Biden from 1% to 2% and Chris Dodd from 1% to 0%.

If they were still reading down to here which, of course, they're not because they don't believe in polls, Paul supporters would say that none of this matters because only real votes count come Jan. 8. And, you know what, on that they would be 100% right.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[K*Leister]

So what you're saying is, pay attention to polls so you can vote for the likely winner?

Whatever happened to "vote for the person who best represents your ideals"?

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

I'll put my vote where it belongs -- where I think the good of the country belongs. And if there's any revolution to be had, it should be that people think for themselves and vote with their conscience.

[John]

You know if you say not to do something, we're going to do it.

Now I'm mad at the mainstream media again.

I did my own poll.... .0000037% of Ron Paul supporters have been polled. 99.32% of the others have been polled 80 times. This means that, with sample data usually about 500 people, all the others have about 1200 supporters total with Paul's numbers being somewhere in the billions.

[Shohadaku]

Polls? No Polls? HOW ABOUT THE STRAW POLLS! In history proven the most accurate of ANY! Ron Paul has won the majority of straw polls over every other candidate.
We are the majority. Even if your fake little "scientific poll" is the ONLY poll Ron Don't do well in.
Wake up America and stop allowing your media to lie to you.

[jeffrey]

I was all excited that you looked at the Washington Post/ABC poll and saw that he's tracking at third place in Iowa and just behind Huck in NH. But then it wouldn't have been, um, uh "funny?" At least you didn't call him a racist like everyone else who read the first line of the AP story. Adorable writing though. Exactly what I'd expect from a Los Angeles "newspaper." Hopefully Paris or Lindsey will drive into something before Christmas.

[cyclopsebunny]

I knew I should have stopped reading.

The great thing about consistancy (Ron is very consistant) is that when you are right, you are right no matter who else is jumping off a bridge beside you.

I didn't care about the polls on the way up, I don't care about them on the way down. If I wanted to know what people were told to think, I would go back to the Faux News channel and get it from the source.

See you at the primaries, Rain, snow or Shine and we will settle this like Americans.

[Bo]

The only poll that counts is on election day.

[K. Zawacki]

I thought or assumed that the LA Times was in the business of Journalism. This piece seems very biased and sarcastic. Why are you so defensive and bothered by other people's opinions?

[Mitt Romney]

I support Ron Paul, and He will get a great voter turn out, and the rest will have to eat their words

[Roberto Maduro]

I am not a Paul supporter but I must say the way you wrote this article even if it includes facts, it is so hateful towards real Americans

What are you going to do to get paul suporters to join any candidate who has constantly attack them

Crazy or not, you gotto give it to them for creativity and motivation

and not just that, two record breaking money bombs and another one in the works

(It is amazing and impressive, the money but also the dedication, which is why Dr. Paul is attracting so much more attention these days.)

[John Paul]

HAHA the LA times needs a history lesson...

Dec. 17th, 2003 John Kerry was polling at 4% nationally and won the nomination....

Historically POLLS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN INACCURATE...ALWAYS

[Tim]

"Paul supporters would say that none of this matters because only real votes count come Jan. 8. And, you know what, on that they would be 100% right."

That was the best part. You know you want to join the Revolution, why fight it.?

[Max Power]

Yawn, nothing to see here people, move along

[mike]

Ok, Let's see the poll questions, let's see the list of folks they called and if they are of the same sample they called previous, where are they located? See the problem with all these reports on polls is rarely do we know anything about them. Just blind information in which people are expected to believe as gospel. Here is something to put in your pipe and smoke: Where is the mention of the effort of supporters who come out to win straw polls for their man? Or that 57000 people donated their hard earned money - in one day? Or that in all these different cities you see people tirelessly waive their RP signs in support of their man because he barely gets a mention in the MSM, other than when he sets new fundraising records. And on top of that, our boy only gets mentioned in blogs???? I mean really, what gives??

[mketcher]

People are flocking to Ron Paul because they're sick-and-tired of the same old song-and-dance from all the other politicians. See this hilarious YouTube music video from the international award-winning feature film, "Song of the Dead," a zombie-musical and political satire. The video stars horror movie icon Reggie Bannister and is a great satire on the president, the MSM, and the war on terror. The filmmaker, Chip Gubera, is donating a share of his profits from the film to the Ron Paul campaign. Go to:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw

[Dan]

Andrew,
Do you resent us that much?
I hope you felt better writing the article than
I did reading it,... nevertheless we will go the
distance with Ron Paul with hopes of a better tomorrow.
Wish us luck Andrew

(Good luck! Dr. Paul is a good story, but his followers are even better. As the item says, the dedication is admirable.)

[Robert]

Polls are only useful for making uninformed people try to pick a winner, like it's a sports game.

[Corey]

Andrew thanks for the rant. You conveniently left out or even altered some elements I am my fellow "Paulites" would consider wrong. Firstly you denigrate Dr. Paul by calling him "Dr. Paul." Why the quotations? I think a better example of using the quotations around someone's vocation would be, I don't really know, how about calling you a "journalist." Just in case you were not clear the quotations around your supposed vocation are there because you are a sad excuse of a journalist. You are correct I wasted my time reading this garbage. All I can say is that I hope people look up the facts for themselves. Take the initiate to research and discover that the only connoisseur of truth is Dr. Paul and the rest of these "candidates" are at best liars guilty of blatant careerism (example, Rudy and 9/11).

(The quotes are there to show that is what his followers call him specifically. It doesn't say "Dr." Paul, making fun of the Dr. part. It says, "Dr. Paul." Relax a little.)

[David]

You sure like to generalize don't you? I'm a Paul supporter and I generally trust the scientific polls taken as a whole. The Paul supporters you're talking about are just the Paul supporters see Paul winning straw polls but aren't versed in statistics to realize those kinds of polls are unreliable. I think those are minority of Paul supporters. You're only hearing from the loudmouth supporters who are posting to blogs and what not. These are generally kids on the internet, so they're not going to be the most educated people in the world. So be careful about generalizing.

(Point taken. Thanks for reading.)

[James Adams]

So far the national polls haven't proved very representive of the public at large. Now these latest ones don't know the details, but most have been focused on the old pro Bush GOP bloc. At best a fading breed with delusions of grandeaur. Poll points or not, I'm voting for who the best canidate, in my researched opinion Dr. Paul. Now if everyone can bring themselves to look into the record, the ideals, and the vision of the canidates. And vote for what their gut says is right, rather than what media or the polls say. Then we can have a real election again, rather than another dog n pony show.

[Jim McD.]

This must be a joke? Complete garbage. Good luck getting a paycheck when old media dies.

Regards,
New Media

(Let's see, old media=newspaper. New media=online. And this is....online! Thanks for reading.)

[Jill]

I thought it might be appropriate to point out that this is not a competition about who is right or who is wrong about what the polls show and who will be the next president. This is about the saving the future of this country and choosing the candidate who can best protect our freedoms. The reason Paul supporters do not care about the polls is that they are committed to doing everything in their power to make sure this country stays free for future generations. If that means fighting the odds to get the best man elected, so be it. The passion felt by Ron Paul supporters is not irrational!

[Steve from Texas]

Right... 411 people. Very scientific. I am supposed to be worried by this?

Please.

(You were warned not to read it.)

[Sarem]

Funny you would point out polls, its amazing how much you exclude the recent polls (Rasmussen, Zogby) and include those polls which fit your argument? I thought objectivity was always a sought after policy for all supposed "respected" columnists.

Also, you have to look deeper into the issues. Simply looking at the polls like a brain dead zombie isn't going to convince a vast majority of the Americans that one candidate is more "electable" then the other. You forget complexities such as "first time voters", "inaccuracies within polls", "cell phone customers", and the most important - "demographics".

Perhaps a sophisticated, intellectual outlook on all issues outstanding is beyond the grasp of "reputable" magazines such as LA times. I don't blame you, with the glamor and allure of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears junk, the cracks are beginning to be a little more obvious. Clean up your act please.

[Zak]

What a pretentiously written article. I didn't even know it was possible to act pretentious when your only pillar is your steadfast belief in polls! This guy probably just wanted to use Ron Paul's name a million times so his lame article would get attention from the many Ron Paul supporters he knows are out there. Well it worked.

[T]

I'm a Paul supporter and don't care if he loses. My donation was to help get libertarian ideas into mainstream politics, which will hopefully impact future elections.

[paul Ron]

Who Cares ? Untill the electoral college is disbanded no-one has a vote that matters. Because while they are encouraged to vote with the electorate, the ellectors can, at their discretion, vote contrary to the people they are supposed to represent.

Untill this country switches to a straight up popular vote, no-one has a vote that matters.....except the members of the electoral college.

[PVK]

Something tells me they took your disclamer with a grain of salt.

[Paul]

*yawn*

[Scott]

Why would you equate these polls to getting votes more than the collection of many mass individual donations. If I'm willing to put up money then you better believe I'm going to vote no matter what. It doesn't seem logical to keep trumpeting these polls when we know they have problems. Follow the money. It works both ways. Mass donations from individuals and mass corporate donations that contribute to campaign machines which greatly increase their likelihood of being given more coverage from the MSM. Many people worked together outside any campaign to send a message. One that the Democrats didn't listen to. I look forward to seeing how you describe these upcoming primaries.

[James Christian]

I do believe in polls but most of the people I talk to that are Ron Paul supporters are Independents, Democrats and new young Republicans. Among the Democrats the young black males love Dr Paul, they even write Rap songs about him. I heard that in a recent Democratic straw poll that Ron Paul beat both Hillary and Obama. I am bringing a slew of voter registrations to the jail this week. It is a shame that the jails are full of non violent drug possessors. The Black on Black crime is a by product of the failed War on Drugs. No one addresses that with a solution except Ron Paul who believes that drug use is a medical problem, not a crime. The Democratic voter appeal for Ron Paul is because the party has failed miserably at protecting civil liberties and have just taken the black vote for granted. PS about that Highway, you must have missed the news lately, your the ONLY one who does not realize that the plans does exist, just ask the President of Mexico, Bush and the Canadian Prime Minister who had a big meeting about it. By the way, we are planing our next fundraiser in the honor of the great freedom fighter, Dr. Martin Luther King, care to join us?

[Zachariah]

Actually, I couldn't care less what the polls for any candidate are. These number are insignificant because voting isn't about following the majority into the voting booth - it is about making an informed decision.

Even if it is true that only 3% of the US "trusts" Ron Paul on his ability to handle terrorism - this isn't an actual statement on his actual ability to handle terrorism. This is just the opinion of the public - a public which I personally believe remains sheltered from truly educating themselves on the issues and making and informed decision.

So what is my responsibility? For one, it is certainly not to jump off a "sinking ship" because someone I support isn't popular. My job is to spread the word and start talking to people in depth and showing them why the ideas of the candidate I support are actually better. I already spend a great deal of time investigating and coming to an understanding of these issues.

Most Americans know about the issues what the most charismatic and well-covered politicians tells them to know about the issues. You won't see those Americans online because they're not wasting their time online reading about politics - they aren't wasting their time doing anything to find out about politics. Too bad they let politicians do their thinking for them, but oh well - all I can do is fight it and hope to teach more people to think for themselves.

In the end, it would be a complete violation of my integrity to not vote for the candidate whom I thought was the best candidate - no matter who else was voting along with me. That is true liberty, my friend.

[Doug]

Yes, Ron Paul's support is evaporating before our eyes! That explains why 25,000 new donors signed up to send him money this past weekend. That explains why he now has over 85,000 volunteers signed up nationwide, and why hundreds of them are descending on New Hampshire and Iowa.

The polls? You're kidding right? The last poll I saw actually came out and admitted that 60% of the voters hadn't really made up their minds yet, so it doesn't matter how "accurate" they are, they could change completely by next week. Or on election day, when those who are truly supporting a candidate turn out.

Do you think Ron Paul supporters will show up?

AND WHY IS THIS CONSIDERED SPAM BY YOUR FILTERS? GOOD GRIEF.

(Probably because you sent it so many times. But here you go.)

[Michael K]

Congratulations on your success! Despite your obvious lack of respect for a journalist's obligation to be neutral, you are still being paid!

(No obligation to be neutral on a blog. None.)

[j]

Congratulations andrew!
Your Stupid!!!!!!
Ha Ha Ha

Your like bill oreily,mainstream media and the reason we went into Iraq, all rolled into ONE!!!

Super!!!

Ron Paul 2008........VOte

[Gary Schor]

You publication must be purposely censoring post. I put in the right code and my comment was not spam. You and your elk are despicable!

[Tony L]

This article is meant to provoke. People are supposed to read the article and then read the comments and see the high number of comments as proving the article correct.

What I want to know is: how many people that answer that they are 'likely to vote' actually go out there and vote? Where could I go to read comments about people that are passionate about Giuliani? Why don't his supporters search the internet and comment in droves on every article posted about him? It is not at all unreasonable to think that Paul supporters are more likely to vote. The money didn't come from a conspiracy of spammers. People like someone bold enough to say what everyone knows but is afraid to admit.

The fact is that none of the other candidates are actually 'agents of change.' This country is headed in the same direction the Soviet Union went. We are spread too thin, we are seen as an empire, we are spending ourselves into oblivion. We are literally selling ourselves out. And yet we are using policies that do nothing but create enemies and isolate America from the world. I believe that a contract between a people and a government is a legitimate way to establish authority. But that contract, our constitution, is not what is being followed anymore. This isn't an exaggeration either. This country no longer runs on traditional American principles. We are not much different than the British that opposed our independence. We have become what we always hated. There are very few candidates that are even willing to tackle fundamental issues, but Ron Paul is one of them. Nobody is talking about monetary policy and the constitution, they are talking about making small adjustments to an already flawed system.

I believe that whether or not you believe the system is fundamentally flawed, it must be taken as a fair point to consider. We must challenge ourselves, as it is our duty as voters to fix our government's mistakes. The more people write mind-numbing articles like this, the more transparent they appear. Ron Paul rekindles the freedom-versus-tyranny debate, allowing him to unite people that previously considered themselves enemies. His supporters are often angry and passionate.

There is no reason to rule out the possibility that his supporters are more likely to vote than the supporters of others. The polls are based on if someone is likely to vote. Only time will tell who actually goes out there and votes. But to call political support and questioning polls a 'conspiracy' seems to me to be a form of propaganda. It's as emotionally charged and angry as any statement endorsing Paul. So far there are a handful of anti-Ron Paul strategies: writing under the premise that voting for him is a waste, discrediting his views based on the views of his supporters, talking of spam and conspiracies and trying to preemptively discredit reader comments, and criticizing the ideal libertarian world. They never, however, delve into what Ron Paul could actually accomplish as commander-in-chief, it's the ideal world horror story and the loony supporters they are after. These articles are a waste of time and a charade and attempt to be bold and get hits on a blog. How about being realistic for a change?

You've got to be kidding me, these poll numbers havent really changed even before the election season started. The Status quo anointed these clowns 9 months ago before even hearing there positions on the issues.

I guess this is how they do things in LA, give the public there opinion then reinforce the opinion given by just repeating the catch phrases over and over.

The Ron Paul candidacy isnt about Ron Paul its about the message as stated in the constitution, freedom for everyone. No slicing and dicing of groups think or amnesty for illegals, corporatism, militarism, welfare. People are getting screwed here, and finally there getting tired of it.

Keep trying LA, if the so called "top tier" hadnt been taking advantage of the public for decades this might have worked, but to even the novice political observer knows something is amiss and its needs to be corrected.

31 year consistent voting record, has been proven right on almost everything from the war in Iraq to the economy. You cant't fool the thinking American anymore.

[Moobi]

I think James Adams hit the nail on the head. The key to understanding the poll numbers is to understand the term "likely Republican voters". Typically, this refers to the (I believe it was) 6.6% of the Republican party that voted in the 2004 primary when Bush was the incumbent. This means that they are polling people who were showing support specifically for Bush and especially his policies. When you consider that Paul's policies are pretty much 180 degrees from Bush's, it's actually pretty amazing that he's getting the numbers he is.

So, folks, the moral of the story is to know the context of the polls you are being fed - Who is being asked, Who are the choices, How many are polled, What is being asked?

[rich]

What nonesense!

Going on with this gibberish about the polls rather have a thoughtful article on the issues. Our economy is in shambles, the dollar is plummeting, our sovereignty is being shipped to China and all you care to write about is the polls.

Maybe if you make an effort to educate the people of this country on the real issues, people would see that this country has no choice but to vote for Dr. Paul.

I challenge you to do some extensive research before spewing out the latest headlines repackaged in a sarcastic format. You might graduate into becoming a journalist worth reading. Please take this as constructive criticism because the shallowness of your reporting and others is hitting all-time lows every day. Or better yet, check out these two youtube videos and tell me why AlJazeera of all stations can put out a professional report such as this and none of our stations or media outlets can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54MUm2P1jOU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdrNbhdl7uU

[TJ]

I think polls are a good way to gauge the general public's understanding and application of the US Constitution, Natural Law, and Positivists Law in our society. And it's unfortunately apparant that they have no clue. Year after year, election after election, and poll after poll, we continue to have one side believing that the "Democratic" agenda can save us and the other side believing that the "Republican" agenda can save us. That is proof of the claim I'm making. We're a very very uninformed country.

If the general public knew and understood the constitution like they are supposed to it wouldn't matter if Lucifer himself were our president and congress were made up of hordes of demons b/c their jurisdiction would be bound by the people's enforcement of the constitution. But since the public is ignorant the federal government is pretty much allowed to do what they damn well please. I mean, we have the federal government regulating professional baseball now for Christ's sake! Where do they get all this authority? They don't have it. They just do it b/c the public and media are asleep at the wheel. There's a reason we have a 10th Amendment.

When picking a candidate or congressman ALWAYS see if they're abiding strictly to their oath of office. Check to see if what they're claiming they're wanting to do is authorized in the constitution. Then ask yourself how this policy is to be paid for b/c the tax payer is gonna pick up the bill.

Huckabee said, for instance, that he wants the taxpayer to keep paying for all these expensive NASA programs. Now, where the hell does he or congress get the authority to take money from me and fund something I may or may not support? I love NASA, but I don't have the right to make you pay for it if you don't want to if it's not authorized by the constitution.

Hillary and the gang want National Healthcare. Sounds great. But where do they get the authority and how is it to be paid for?

If they want to fund NASA and National Healthcare then the Constituion has to be amended first. Otherwise it's completely unconstitutional.

This is the purpose of even having a constitution. It's to be followed if it's to be a check on power. Since it's been ignored and since the public and media are ignorant the government does, again, whatever they want. The federal government is, and has been, WAY outside it's jurisdiction for a long time.

Shame on all of us.

[zeljko]

Obviously, Ron Paul's massive support is coming from places other than "more than likely republican primary voters"(those who voted for bush in 2004 when he went unchallenged).

Fact of the matter is, Ron Paul's support is coming from "ex" democrats, independents, republiucans more than likely not to vote in a primary, (especially bush in 2004), and liberatarians etc...

These are the facts, and on primary day, these facts will become more apparent.

Till then

Keep on keeping on with the wishful thinking.

[Tim]

My take on your polls,

The Republican primary is a horse race - and you don't want to be first until the end.

In this game they shoot at the front runner - See Huck duck.

I think Ron Paul is just where we want him:

In first place with the majority - Us!

...and in fifth place with the minority - The people who get polled.

[Nancy Edwards]

I do not agree with all of Ron Paul's views. He is the only one for whom I will cast my vote.

[Josh]

Paul's % remained within the margin of error during a sampling of 400 people somewhere.

Stop the presses.

I can't decide who just wasted more time and energy, the authors or me for typing this in response.

[cindi andrews]

Obviously, Ron Paul's massive support is coming from places other than "more than likely republican primary voters"(those who voted for bush in 2004 when he went unchallenged).

Fact of the matter is, Ron Paul's support is coming from "ex" democrats, independents, republiucans more than likely not to vote in a primary, (especially bush in 2004), and liberatarians etc...

These are the facts, and on primary day, these facts will become more apparent.

Till then

Keep on keeping on with the wishful thinking.

(THIS IS NOT SPAM)

(No, but the other 6 copies were.)

[Matt]

so the optimal Ron Paul situation is at 10% and Rudy at around 12% (Ron up hte max, Rudy down the max). Yeah ... polls makes a lot of sense. How did they determine the sample size as one being significant? I'm sure they did somehow, but that doesn't make the selection process any more random, especially when considering Ron Pauls support doesn't come from.

BTW -- Cheers Andrew ... on the best use of a blog/headline to lure Ron Paul people to your blog. Yeah for Andrew.

[Justin]

guys. lighten up. he is pointing out how ridiculous polling is. did you real the last line of the article? cuts these guys some slack from time to time!

[Justin]

Excellent article on the upcoming generational war and Ron Paul that all should read...

http://wisdomknowledgehappiness.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-ron-paul-in-generational-war.html

[Adam S, Chicago USA]

Sorry for the obnoxious posts, but you have to admit, with your tone you were kind of asking for it.

I wonder if you've actually taken the time to examine the ideas behind the Ron Paul's campaign. The reason why so many of his supporters are so angry at the MSM is that Dr. Paul was ignored until he started making headway, then the media started ridiculing him. Your remarks at the beginning of the blog fit the stereotype, but aren't as bad as some others.

I think you should seriously consider whether the US should be the global policeman; whether spreading democracy by force is really the best path; whether our far flung bases and our war in Iraq (2 trillion dollars) are really necessary or if the money could be better spent at home; whether it's the job of the government to take care of everyone or should it get out of the way; whether warrantless searches, suspensions of habeus corpus and other assaults on civil liberties are really justified; whether international institutions like NAFTA or GATT are end runs by large corporations around local democratic institutions.

I could go on. Pick an issue, any issue of Ron Paul's, and there's a serious philosophical underpinning to his position. Maybe it's not the 'common sense' approach, but then again, maybe the common sense approach is what got us into trouble in the first place. Why not try to have an intelligent discussion about the role of America in the world in your next post? Or the role of government in people's lives? Or the role of religion in government?

If, on the other hand, you're after heat rather than light, then keep the snarky comments coming, Ron Paul's supporters are legion and I'm sure they'll be happy to fight fire with fire.

(Thanks for your good comment. And for reading.)

[Nancy Edwards , Pinellas Park , FL 33781]

Dr. Paul is the only candidate who will recieve my vote. I know nothing of polls . I do know this country will not survive if we do not elect someone who is not catering to special interests. I do not agree with all of Dr. Pauls views.
As I told my friends flying the blimp , explain to confused ; there is NO PAC.
This is a wolf PACK of new gray ghosts. Find our our ancestors in the library of congress. They signed those documents. The ones we intend to reinstate.
We want our country back.

[Jeff Webster]

It is always interesting to read both sides of a story that carries with it great passion. I, as just one RP supporter, appreciate seeing the opposition, or at least the negative views even if they do not represent true opposition.

Andrew, I also appreciate your final clause. It is true that the only vote that matters is the final one. However, as one other person said, it is the duty of Americans to stand firm by those principles in which they believe. In any movement, political or otherwise, there are fringes and extremists that do not represent the whole. So I would say that a blog full of disparaging remarks, based on the rants of a few, about the whole of a group is remarkably unfair.

Polls schmolls... maybe some of us hate polls because we are afraid of something that might be inevitable. Maybe we hate them for a more noble reason: their inaccuracies, inconsistency, and biases. Maybe a combination of both. But this isn't about polls. It's about performing our duties as citizens. It's about making our voices heard. It's about trying to protect our hard won freedoms. And despite bloggers' best efforts to quell our enthusiasm (for whatever reason), we will continue to do those things to the best of our ability.

(Very well put. Thanks for taking the to read and comment.)

[Pete N]

Andy - why the animosity? I support Ron Paul and I'm not angry. Might I make a friendly suggestion? Chill out, be objective, and open your mind. Your article was not objective, and I don't think the multitude of negative responses from other RP supporters justifies your bitterness. It only suggests that if you were one of us, you'd be an angry one like them, and not a reasonable one like me. Join the side of rationality, my friend. ~PJN

[Karl]

Why has the main stream media dismissed the STRAW POLLS they so touted in previous elections....? OH! that's right because Ron Paul is winning the majority of them. Hmm so let see...I know! We will call our MSM polls scientific and doctor them with bogus stats! Yeah!
Real Ron Paul News here:
http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/

[Adam S, Chicago USA]

Sorry for the obnoxious posts, but you have to admit, with your tone you were kind of asking for it.

I wonder if you've actually taken the time to examine the ideas behind the Ron Paul's campaign. The reason why so many of his supporters are so angry at the MSM is that Dr. Paul was ignored until he started making headway, then the media started ridiculing him. Your remarks at the beginning of the blog fit the stereotype, but aren't as bad as some others.

I think you should seriously consider whether the US should be the global policeman; whether spreading democracy by force is really the best path; whether our far flung bases and our war in Iraq (2 trillion dollars) are really necessary or if the money could be better spent at home; whether it's the job of the government to take care of everyone or should it get out of the way; whether warrantless searches, suspensions of habeus corpus and other assaults on civil liberties are really justified; whether international institutions like NAFTA or GATT are end runs by large corporations around local democratic institutions.

I could go on. Pick an issue, any issue of Ron Paul's, and there's a serious philosophical underpinning to his position. Maybe it's not the 'common sense' approach, but then again, maybe the common sense approach is what got us into trouble in the first place. Why not try to have an intelligent discussion about the role of America in the world in your next post? Or the role of government in people's lives? Or the role of religion in government?

If, on the other hand, you're after heat rather than light, then keep the snarky comments coming, Ron Paul's supporters are legion and I'm sure they'll be happy to fight fire with fire.

[Hussein]

Helloooo! Have you heard of cell phones? It is a new gadget they use that does not involve curly cables. And you can talk in them too!

[Outside Observer, Canada]

As an outside observer from north of the border, I can tell you this. Dr. Ron Paul seems to be the most intelligent and principled of all the candidates, Democrat or Republican.

I know that these things don't mean much in your Federal elections, but there it is...

[Justin]

The one thing that will not help downplay the Ron Paul people would be to say there isn't a chance. The Revolution began not because a 'chance' was there. It came from Americans who were fed up with where the Republican party, politics, and our current administration has been headed for the last couple decades.

Whatever happens on election day, I hope this grassroots movement continues to get under the skin of America. We need people questioning why things are done instead of the normal complacency and blind loyalty we've come to get used to.

[Ron]

An election should not be a popularity contest. You should vote for the person who is the most aligned with you on the issues you deem most important. Ideally, your candidate should have a logical reasoned strategy for problem solving while adhering the rule of law -- in our case the Constitution.

I decided a long time ago to not be succored into the argument of "You should vote for the lesser of two evils," when you realize that the two party system is part of what is destroying freedom and true representative democracy in this country. The reason Dr. Paul does not want to run in the Libertarian Party is not because he's not libertarian, but because he knows that the system is set up against any third parties or independents winning. Just ask Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik and many others who have tried and failed.

But regardless of this, (and by the way, I happen to think the polls are inaccurate as well for many of the reasons stated here as well), I will vote my conscience and vote for who I believe to be the best candidate, regardless of the outcome! At the very least we send a strong statement and hopefully influence the other so called "1st tier" candidates.

RP 2008.

[kpratt84]

All right. I apologize on behalf of the (numerous) calm, easygoing Paul supporters for some of these posts. But you do gloss over some important points.

"Polls are fake".....not because I personally never received a annoying recorded telephone poll call at dinnertime. Instead, please shine the light on who exactly these pollsters consider "likely Republican primary voters".

This is a very small subset of the Republican Party. Only those who cast votes for George W. Bush in the 2004 Republican primary - where he ran unopposed - are called.

I'll say that again: The pollsters only call those people who took time out of their busy day to vote for George W. Bush as he ran unopposed in the Republican primary of 2004! These are the hardest-core Bush supporters. I will be amazed if Paul ever breaks 10% in this group.

Instead, consider the formerly inactive voters and the newly-registered Republican converts Paul has brought to his camp. Consider the zeal of his supporters and the fact that it WILL translate to voter turnout.

I personally voted Democratic in 2004, and have since switched my registration to Republican. I will vote for Paul in the California primary even if it rains alligators.

[Zach]

You should know better, Mr. Malcolm. We don't dismiss polls because they show our candidate as loosing. We laugh at them because you media people treat them like Gospel, when, in truth, nobody cares about them.

What's your goal by marginalizing Ron Paul? You say he has no chance of winning... you seem to say that no matter how much new support he seems to get. You're saying that no matter how much he is changing politics. What are you so afraid of Mr. Malcolm?
Surely, you can't be that comfortable with the status quo? Do you enjoy stagnation in Washington, and a spiraling economy? Because that's all I ever hear anyone (besides Paul) promising these days.

And yes, this may "only" be a blog, but you said in another comment, that you have no obligation to be neutral. But since when does "non-neutrality" equal petty ad hom attacks? Because that's what you are using against the Paul supporters...

Now I understand, you are probably just trying to rile up some Paulites, in attempt to get people to visit your pathetic excuse for a blog... I bet the paper loves the revenue they get from the advertisers.

Will you deny these charges, or will you ignore me, like Paul supporters allegedly ignore polls?

Either way, I no longer think you have a spine.

[Alex]

You realize that the underlying statistics in polling only works if there isn't a correlatable difference among different respondant groups, right? uh, you realize that right? Well, his support is (1) younger on average (2) draws from Republicans, Democrats, and others, (ie intro question of "are you a republican or a ...." and (3) pulls more new voters ALL to a much larger degree than any other candidate.

Zogby himself said Paul's numbers may be underrepresented by up to 200%.

I'm guessing you'll just ignore evidence like this rather than confront it. Prove me wrong.

[bgodley]

Well, your post about his poll data if factually misleading. True there are some polls that show some percentage drop in NH but his polling is highest ever in Iowa at 8% and in South Carolina he is in double digits at 11%. A recent poll in Alaska has him leading the field. In Florida he has also risen.

Please check all the facts before taking one isolated piece of information and make it a general statement for Paul's campaign. A bit shabby on the research.

[andrew malcolm]

time will tell now ... won't it ?

VOTE PEOPLE !!!

PRESIDENT RON PAUL

[James]

RON PAUL WILL WIN IN 2008!!!

[Dave]

I can't wait to see the faces of everyone that do believe in these polls.

They're nothing but a distraction and meant to lead the public in a particular direction...

Kinda like a sheep herder!

-Dave
-Michigan

[akak]

Andrew,

For somebody who seems convinced that Ron Paul is irrelevant, a "kook" and his supporters just an fleeting annoyance, you sure do seem to be wasting a lot of time trying to convince yourself (and us) of it.

OK, given your obsession with polls (an obsessionthat the corporate media shares to the point of addiction), let me pose this question: Just what is the track record of pre-primary polls? If you investigate it, you will find that a Magic 8-Ball would have been just as prescient --- and a lot less expsensive.

If you in the media would spend a third the time discussing the candidates' positions and issues that actually mattered, the American public would be astoundingly well-informed. But that's not what you seem to want.

[john]

Mr Malcom, I'm sure you can find a nice job at the Chicago Tribune, home of the equally famous last words DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman have a nice day, and vote Paul for president in '08

[jeff clemmer]

you're boring... blah blah blah... it looks like you copied and pasted the text to your article into your CMS from everywhere else on the internet that denounces anyone and anything... it's the denounce anyone and anything template. they should just start building those into CMS's. wow! feature convenience! then you could denounce everything!!! EASILY!!! ALL THE TIME!!! EVERYDAY! well anyways, sir, i denounce you... ha ha ha... heck i don't even know you and i'm denouncing you!!! SWEET! this is fun... wait, you already know this. gosh i can't wait to be an old man so i can teach the "ways" of, ahem, i don't know... but something though... PEACE

[Roger The Peaceful Vet and the Okcitykid]

So people just send Ron Paul money because they fell sorry for him.

[Roger The Peaceful Vet and the Okcitykid]

So people just send Ron Paul money because they fell sorry for him. Somehow I don't think so.

[Andrew]

Well, you did get one thing right in your sarcasm. A lot of Ron Paul supporters will read your post and comment. And why is that? Because there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters. I dare you to create an open poll on your site. Oh wait, that's right, the real voters don't use this crazy new fangled internet thing. Only the Ron Paul wackos are connected to the internet.

[jason]

Polls, by design, packaged and payed for by the **** ****** Campain.

RON PAUL FOR THE WIN :)

POll this..........hahaha

[Michael]

I agree with K*Leister.

I'm absolutely ecstatic that I can finally vote for a candidate who represents true Republican beliefs. This has never happened for me and I'm shocked their aren't more "Ron Paul" style candidates. His common sense and truthful views have reinvigorated my desire to vote.

[laukev7]

Andrew,

There is evidence right here that polls are being rigged against Ron Paul. This recording shows at least one opinion poll where Ron Paul was deliberately excluded:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSYiUAaBd1U

There was widespread vote fraud during the 2004 election, as the state secretary of Ohio recently admitted. Vote fraud was also present during the 2000 elections. In 2004 there were many discrepancies between the exit polls and the official results. This has been given little to no coverage by the US mainstream media, despite the implications. The same media has also been coy about Ron Paul's fundraising success, in a similar way that it was complicit with the Bush administration on war in Iraq.

Those facts give good reason to suspect that poll rigging is not only possible, but likely. There are many other countries than the United States where fraudulent elections, rigged polls, exclusion and pre-selection of candidates, and media manipulation are commonplace.

[TheOneLaw]

Hi Andrew, interesting points for our digest tracts.

Don't read any further unless you go shields up and promise not to get roiled up or begin to hallucinate that anyone is stalking you or that the Ron Paul r3VOLution is some form of carefully choreographed conspiracy being orchestrated by a shadowy clandestine network stealthily distributed throughout an unsuspecting Ron Paul Meetup population using Mike Huckleberry's campaign as a Red Herring to secretly distract the 'OTHER' GOP campaigns..{(;^)
-----------------------------------------------------
><-------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
So the 6 or so newly-discovered Neocons who replaced nearly 6 Ron Paul converts in the polling lists made the difference in the drop from 8% to 5% representing a groundswell of support?

That's similar to what happened on the day of the teaparty when 3 guys in a closet got all the media time for their decision on coming out to endorse McCain and Clinton.
Flushed under the carpet was the nearly 25000 voters who endorsed Ron Paul that very same day, in hand with another 33000 donors.
Like we are expected to consider 3 guys blowing smoke in a closet more relevant than a nationwide spectrum of 25000 people who gave real cash to the campaign that day?

If so, your perceptions, priorities and standards deserve more careful reconsideration.

---------------------------x
Back to your regularly scheduled commentary...

[FBoerner]

I am a Ron Paul supporter, I do not need a poll to tell me who I should or should not vote for.. But I am going to cancel my subscription to both the daily and weekend issue's of L.A. times, of which I have subscribed to for 8 years, and I suggest every Ron Paul supporter to do the same, and encourage other's to as well.
You mainstream are scared, and are about to be exposed, whether Ron Paul is elected President or not.

[Brad from College Station, TX]

Haha! This opinion article cracked me up. Such stuff is only written when the establishment feels threatened. I am not worried. My candidate is Dr. Ron Paul

A Congressman from Texas serving his 10th term in the House, Dr. Paul has a proven and consistent voting record. Dr. Paul is an Ob/Gyn who has delivered over 4,000 babies, and also served 5 years in the Air Force as a flight surgeon. In 1988, he was the Libertarian party candidate for President. He was one of the earliest and most devout supporters of Ronald Reagan.

Other candidates have a few, and sometimes many, big rich supporters; Ron Paul has many, and a fast-growing number, of small-time grass roots supporters.

The entire political system in the United States is a false left/right paradigm. There is a greater agenda at work that depends on the two major parties to divide the populous into two camps so that a steady stream of change in a predetermined direction is enacted in the form of bigger government.

That’s why the media hasn’t endorsed or given air time to Ron Paul. He is a threat to the establishment, because the media, just like the lobbyists, are paid by big corporations. Ron Paul is against that sort of corruption, and his track record proves it. It’s easy and superficial to attack the supporters of Dr. Paul’s message. I get frustrated by people who blindly defend one party or another and don’t talk about policies, or issues, or ideas. They are the ones who are abducted by this false left/right paradigm.

I am proud of Ron Paul. I used to be apathetic towards politics. At best, I felt content to jump on the biggest bandwagon and ride it blindly. But no more! Dr. Paul cured my apathy, and not just about my role in government. Rather, when I found him and listened to his message, I realized he was speaking my message, my beliefs, and my values. He vocalized what I felt and what I did not know how to communicate, and his actions reflect that belief system.

Dr. Paul has a growing number of supporters because his message is being heard. It is resonating not because it is new or different, but because is it in our collective memory. His message is a reminder of the values and principles upon which our Republic was founded. And his message is one of Hope.

[gao xia en]

Whatever. Ron Paul 2008.

[Steve]

I read an interesting prediction today on the Huffington post which focused on Iowa and how all the candidates seemed to be doing based on support and organization. They predicted that Huckabee would win Iowa, Romney would place second, and Ron Paul would surprise everyone and place 3rd. Why? The Paul supporters are very well organized and seem to be reaching somewhat of an audience. One which is not necessarily a republican base.

I will do one better. It seems to me that no matter how much Romney gets promoted, he still comes across as a gameshow host. Not to mention between old dirt that gets dug up specifically flip flops on abortion, immigration and the second amendment. Combined with his inability to place his religious beliefs in a positive light which critics and the undecided can find acceptable, leads me to view him as somewhat stagnating.

Huckabee is losing a little steam, the controversy about his christmas ad has angered some people but in the long run not enough to matter, discoveries about his records in Arkansas will do worse for him in the long run. But I agree he will win.

Not to mention I thought Dr. Paul handled the interview with Cavuto about his donation from the stormfront webmaster to perfection. I think it would hurt him much more if he gave the donation back. In my opinion that would mean he was a hypocrite towards the constitution. Now thats a true libertarian. Someone who will fight for anyones right to freedom of speech, no matter how much he disagrees. I don't think this news will hurt him in the least, and I strongly recomend to everyone who has doubts about this to watch his interview with Neil Cavuto about it.

My prediction for Iowa. Huckabee wins, Paul, not Romney finishes second, and regardless of your "scientific poll" carries this momentum with him to New Hampshire.

[atv]

Hey... Why not do a story... just one story on the fundraising abilities of Mr. Huck or any of the others..

Maybe.. from whom that money comes... maybe a story on why McCain.. who is supposed to be climbing in the polls... is taking federal money to keep his campaign going...

Why not ask... for all this support in the polls???? Where is the support from the WALLET??

Maybe you can help your "guys that can win" raise some money...

Or MAYBE you will just get Dr. Paul ..... SOME NEW SUPPORTERS!!!

(You know, if you were a regular reader, you would know that we cover all kinds of stories like that especially including how successful Dr. Paul has been. Check out all the links in the item you''re copmplaining about. Lots of stuff.)

[Chris Schuler]

The problem is not what the polls say. The problem is that people report on the polls instead of reporting on the candidates and their positions. Polls are useful tools for political strategists, but shouldn't be used as an argument for who to vote for (especially in an 8-way primary race, where the "spoiler" factor does not even come into play).

This is what pisses off Ron Paul supporters so much about polls. It's not the polls themselves so much as the way they are used by the media to influence public opinion. Does the fact that Huckabee leads in Iowa polls mean I should vote for him? If anything, it means the opposite. Spend more time talking about why Huckabee or Romney would make a GOOD president . . . or, if you are so inclined, talk about why Ron Paul’s policies would make him a BAD president.

Talk about policy, not popularity.

It's about POLICY, stupid.

[R. Rubin]

I can't believe Andrew Malcolm still alive. I thought he was dead. He's certainly been senile for a long time now. And his nearly incoherent rambling is a testament to that fact.

But should it be any surprise to anyone that old queen like Andrew Malcolm would write a piece on Ron Paul.?

He's has been a desperate to revive his career has been for many years now.

Personally I think it's time for Mr. Malcolm to end his career before he really puts together a string of articles like this one that only reflect poorly on the LA Times.

[Artus Register]

Oddly enough this article didn't mention that Jimmy Carter was polling at 1% in 1975 and he won the nomination and the presidency. Also absent is the fact that Bill Clinton was polling around 2%. You can't have it both ways. The polls are either a great indicator of the ultimate direction of the political wind, or they scarcely matter.

Straw polls are a much better indicator of the intent of those who are actually going to vote in the primaries, and Dr. Paul has done extremely well in those polls.

The fact that the media has--until recently--completely ignored the Paul campaign should be obvious to anyone with the ability to read. Opinion polls routinely excluded Paul while including Fred Thompson who was many months away from announcing.

It is also curious that so much is made of Huckabee's "surging" poll numbers yet this legion of supporters refuses to give the man a dime. Do you so-called journalists actually believe that someone telling a pollster they will vote for Huckabee holds more water than the defacto promise made with a cash donation?

[Christopher]

Is there a rationale that can convince me this is anything other than smearing? The Ron Paul smear campaign has launched and it's heavy. A search of Ron Paul on any news site will let you make up your own mind on my prediction. This article is not news. News would equal something news worthy for everyone's knowlede. This article is out to convince Ron Paul supporters that support is futile. Anyone watching knows that the government is beside themselves with this organization Ron Paul is providing the common ground for, and now they have their foot soldiers out in full force to nip this in the bud. I'm sickened by American media. Whether or not Ron Paul passes through the primaries or not, I sincerely hope his supporters don't give up the organization his campaign has given everyone.

[Tony L]

This article is meant to provoke. People are supposed to read the article and then read the comments and see the high number of comments as proving the article correct.

What I want to know is: how many people that answer that they are 'likely to vote' actually go out there and vote? Where could I go to read comments about people that are passionate about Giuliani? Why don't his supporters search the internet and comment in droves on every article posted about him? It is not at all unreasonable to think that Paul supporters are more likely to vote. The money didn't come from a conspiracy of spammers. People like someone bold enough to say what everyone knows but is afraid to admit.

The fact is that none of the other candidates are actually 'agents of change.' This country is headed in the same direction the Soviet Union went. We are spread too thin, we are seen as an empire, we are spending ourselves into oblivion. We are literally selling ourselves out. And yet we are using policies that do nothing but create enemies and isolate America from the world. I believe that a contract between a people and a government is a legitimate way to establish authority. But that contract, our constitution, is not what is being followed anymore. This isn't an exaggeration either. This country no longer runs on traditional American principles. We are not much different than the British that opposed our independence. We have become what we always hated. There are very few candidates that are even willing to tackle fundamental issues, but Ron Paul is one of them. Nobody is talking about monetary policy and the constitution, they are talking about making small adjustments to an already flawed system.

I believe that whether or not you believe the system is fundamentally flawed, it must be taken as a fair point to consider. We must challenge ourselves, as it is our duty as voters to fix our government's mistakes. The more people write mind-numbing articles like this, the more transparent they appear. Ron Paul rekindles the freedom-versus-tyranny debate, allowing him to unite people that previously considered themselves enemies. His supporters are often angry and passionate.

There is no reason to rule out the possibility that his supporters are more likely to vote than the supporters of others. The polls are based on if someone is likely to vote. Only time will tell who actually goes out there and votes. But to call political support and questioning polls a 'conspiracy' seems to me to be a form of propaganda. It's as emotionally charged and angry as any statement endorsing Paul. So far there are a handful of anti-Ron Paul strategies: writing under the premise that voting for him is a waste, discrediting his views based on the views of his supporters, talking of spam and conspiracies and trying to preemptively discredit reader comments, and criticizing the ideal libertarian world. They never, however, delve into what Ron Paul could actually accomplish as commander-in-chief, it's the ideal world horror story and the loony supporters they are after. These articles are a waste of time and a charade and attempt to be bold and get hits on a blog. How about being realistic for a change?

[Peter]

Andy,
for crying out loud. This is just like my brother's way of thinking. This is why I recently became a Ron Paul supporter. My brother's exact words are:
"I don't want to waste my vote on anyone that isn't going to win."
My response: " Dear brother, this isn't a horse race! It's an election. You're suppose to vote for whoever best represents your ideas. If you vote for someone only because they might win, THAT is a wasted vote."

And one last thing,...... Andy? Do I detect a little frustration in your tone of voice? Perhaps even a little anger? Why in the world would anyone be so upset or even concerned about a skinny little family doctor that runs last in the polls and will never become president? Don't worry, it's just another boring old election. And if Ron Paul should actually become president the worse thing that can happen is that we will have to start all over again. We'll all have to go back to that damn pesky little thing called The Constitution".

Let us pray.

[4liberty]

Mr. Malcolm...are you trying to veer me away from Dr. Paul?

It is important to remember that this poll reflects current levels of support and that the race could change dramatically in
the coming weeks. Only 22% of likely Republican primary voters say they have definitely decided who they will vote for,
33% say they are leaning toward a candidate, and 45% say they are still trying to decide who to support.

(You are absolutely correct! Nothing in here says anything about predicting the outcome. The poll results are each tied to a certain calendar period nowhere near Jan. 8.)

[OneifbyLand-LA]

To All Ron Paul Supporters:

The once great Los Angeles Times is an open border
illegal alien advocate of the worst stripe with circulation
dropping continually and is vilified by most of the 50 % of the city that are still legal citizens! In other words they no longer
matter outside of the illegal alien bubble/sanctuary city that is today's Los Angeles!

[Sam]

what did you have to gain from this? i didn't read every single comment, but it seems as though the vast majority of your readers are ripping you apart. you KNEW Ron Paul supporters were asking people to "Google Ron Paul," and until your ridiculous, groundless and pathetic excuse for an article/blog was posted, it was a great way to spread Ron Paul's message with confidence.

and come on! a whopping 411 people on some 'random' phone poll?!! what a joke! this is completely unsubstantiated and it does not in any way provide proof that Ron Paul's support is 'falling.' we demonstrated how it's growing at incredible rates by raising 6 MILLION DOLLARS IN 24 HOURS IN SMALL DONATIONS FROM EVERYDAY AMERICANS!

thanks for putting a record-breaking movement in a negative light just for the hell of it. i guess we outspoken avid Ron Paul supporters took the bait, and you probably just gained a few thousand Andrew Malcolm haters.

[Tom deSabla]

Many good points have been made here, but really again, when you speak of polls, you kinda have to speak of straw polls, and then you have to point out that, not only has Paul won a whole bunch, more than any other candidate, but Republicans are literally shutting straw votes down to keep him from winning.

Yeah, it happened in San Francisco, some woman named Gail Veira actually canceled the straw vote because so many Paul supporters showed up. Obviously there is so much unexpected support for him that some folks are literally panicking. There's your real news, along with the 6 million dollar day, neither of which made the front page of any paper, and few outlets even mentioned the San Fran straw vote cancelation story.

Don't you think these developments add quite a bit of doubt as to how accurately mainstream media polls have assessed his support? Let me tell you something anyway - if he gets 10 freaking percent anywhere in any state, that means that libertarian ideas have been hugely underrepresented and underexposed, and are going to be undergoing quite a resurgence.

Yes, that much is refreshingly clear...quite a resurgence indeed.

Go Ron Paul!

[Outside Observer, Canada]

Good luck, Paulites!

By the way, (like this pundit) I too am skeptical that you have a chance because even though it's called The Ron Paul Revolution, sniping on keyboards and cell phones at the mainstream media is not really that Revolutionary...

In the end, someone else controls the message in America about what the people will hear about Ron Paul, and you are simply reacting to it...

If you want to win in this dirty game, you actually have to play in it.

Whatever happens -- I still think that Dr. Ron Paul is the most intelligent and principled of the candidates on offer

[de]

Conspiracy, I love conspiracy, and a good soap opera, " As Government Turns".

GO RON PAUL!!!!! 2008

[Peter Wilson]

So is this news, or a blog?

I take my news with a grain of salt. I take my blogs with salt, pepper, sauce and anything else on the table. I don't take blogs seriously - just news.

[Greg]

Hey, he's still polling #1 in Alaska. Of course, they say that isn't a scientific poll, but it wasn't internet based. It was pollsters calling people. Being an Alaskan, I find that perfectly plausible.

Alaska is also the only state to tax its own government for the privilege of governing. .

[deniose]

conspiracy, you fools, where is the conspiracy? How upsetting--

[4Liberty]

Mr. Malcolm,

You must be kidding! Do you think we won't check your link. This poll like all others means the same thing...nothing! Why did you write this article other than to push your anti-Ron Paul agenda. Hmmm I don't think it pushed me off the the liberty train. This newly registered Republican in California is voting Ron Paul in 2008.

[Debu]

Poll or No poll, Dr. Paul has my full support. I wish American's had little bit more common sense to understand where our country is going to end up with the present administration. Ron Paul is th eonly one who has truly the interest of Free America in heart, unlike others who are puppets fielded by special interest groups.

[unloud]

Meh, we'll see.

BTW; you made me vomit. That's not very nice. :-P

[Orual]

Andrew, thanks for your analysis. I don't know what's going to happen during the primary election, though I doubt the polls are a good indicator. However, I know that if Ron Paul loses, America does too. In a democracy, the people get the candidate they deserve. We don't deserve Ron Paul, because voters are not willing to educate themselves on government, economics, and our history to really have a good grasp of the problems we are facing. Even many Ron Paul supporters, though I ultimately agree with their choice of candidate, are typically dull when it comes to any real understanding. I don't have all the answers, and neither does Dr. Paul, but that's generally the point of his whole campaign: the hard decisions should not be left to government.

Thanks for the Ron Paul mention, and good luck!

[Kate]

Ron Paul has won more strawpolls than any candidate. Did this awful propaganda filled newspaper report any of these? No, would be my answer. The L.A. Times is not a reputable newspaper, but rather on the tabloid style more possibly compared to the national enquirer. Believe me folks, the attacks would not be so fierce if Ron Paul werenot the major contender. I will be voting for Ron Paul in 2008 .

(Good for you. That 's your right. P.S. This is not a newspaper.)

[Idaho]

Elections, those are polls aren't they?
Of course they are unscientific polls- kind of like strawpolls.
People actually must motivate themselves to go vote, as they are voluntary.
So if I were a candidate, I would want to swarm that poll with a bunch of motivate people- tilt the count unfairly in my favor.
It would make quite an impression, make my campaign appear to have popular backing. Most importantly it would be declared a win by landslide in the mainstream press the next day.

[Darren D.]

Hi Andrew,

Please point out where my logic is flawed.

The pollsters are polling registered Republicans who are likely to vote in the primaries....correct?

The way they get this list of potential voters is through the state GOP list of Republicans who voted in the last primary or caucus in that state...correct?

In 2004, incumbent President George Bush ran unopposed...correct?

Turn out for primaries and caucuses on the Republican side amounted to about 6% of registered Republicans...correct?

So pollsters are calling a narrow group of Republicans who are hard core enough Bush fans to go vote for him in a primary when he is running unopposed...correct?

94% of registered republicans are never polled...correct?

Ron Paul is receiving 4x the money ($18.5 mil vs. $4.5 mil) than the supposed current front runner Mike Huckabee...correct?

Ron Paul gatherings draw 5x as many supporters than any of the other candidates...correct?

Is it possible that a lot of the 94% of registered Republicans that did not vote in the primaries last time might vote for Dr. Paul?

Is it probable that the 6% of hard core Bush primary voters who support the war, would not support Dr. Paul?

Could this be the reason that the ONLY indicator that is not showing Dr. Paul as the favorite are polls where his supporters are not allowed to participate?

Let's do a Ben Franklin Spread Sheet:

Indicators proving Ron Paul is winning:
- # 1 in Straw Polls winning 25 out of 48
- # 1 in On-line Polls usually winning with more than 50%
- # 1 in campaign signs in front of houses
- # 1 in supporters showing up to events
- # 1 in Meet-up groups
- # 1 on Facebook
- # 1 googled term "Ron Paul"
- # 1 on YouTube
- # 1 Internationally with meetup groups and websites in 20+ countries

Indicators showing Ron Paul is losing
- # 6 in narrow telephone polling of previous cylce primary voters

Ben Franklin would say Dr. Paul is winning.

Where is my logic wrong?

(Who could argue with your logic? But when I've been polled, they've asked me to identify my party myself and whether I was certain, likely or unlikely to vote.)

[xtrabiggg]

Andrew. You Plagiarized that headline partially from an old 'Abdominizer' Advertisement. But I'll forgive you for that. What is not unforgiveable is the miopic obsession that you and most reporters seem to have with polling and poll numbers. I worked in communications for years and used poll numbers, surveys and other data to make million-dollar decisions regarding media buying, ad placement and strength of message within specific demographic groups.

I found that over the years, the data was getting less and less accurate, as the companies I relied on failed to keep up with technological advances and demographic trends. Land-line telephone polls are among the worst offenders in this regard. The pollsters seem to rely on a methodology that still clings to 20th-century ideas about demographics and sampling groups. In particular, regarding Presidential Politics, with the advances in communications, both interpersonal and mass media (including internet) the choices of media and equipment and sources for information have become so vast and decentralized that any poll relying on such a small sample as most 'scientific' polls (200-1000 people) will inherently contain a much wider margin of error than the pollsters are willing to admit (generally +/- 5%).

In addition, the polls increasingly seem to be unable to shield themselves from self-bias, as their bread and butter comes from major media corporations and large political groups that 'expect' certain results. Digging into the metrics of the polls and the questions actually asked, this becomes more obvious. The Ron Paul campaign has complained about being excluded from even being included in some polls (other than in the 'other' category). It has also been pointed out how 'compound' or 'bundled' national polls don't just rely on raw data, but apply 'formulae' to add or subtract points based on performance in previous polls- a clear violation of the statistical model which says you should NOT manipulate the data using sources outside of the original data set.

Lastly, the sampling group, in particular regarding Ron paul's numbers, seems to be biased from the outset, yet this fact is hidden by the misleading use of the term. 'Likely Republican Primary Voters' for the sample group. This is a vague description of what specifically is (according to the surveys' own disclosure data) voters who voted in the last Republican Primary. Taken on the face of it, you are relying on a sample of people based on a set of data that is FOUR YEARS OLD!. In addition, this sample does not accurately reflect the dynamics of the present set of 'likely voters', as this year's electorate is much more fluid than in many, many years. In addition, four years ago in the Republican primary, voters had only one choice in an uncontested primary- the Incumbent president. All statistics show that a large number of voters do not vote in a primary election when there is no challenger. Therefore, your sampling pool for this election consists primarily of ardent supporters of President Bush who voted for him in 2004. Is that an accurate representation of the fluid and growing pool of voters who are likely to vote in the 2008 primary? There is no way you can logically or truthfully say that is so.

One final note. in the last three presidential elections, the polls were increasingly divergent with the actual voter tallies, with the networks scrambling to cover their butts as their 'projections' from shortly before the election were wa-a-a-a-y off. DO you really want to continue to rely so much on what is essentially 20th-century technology and metrics in measureing a 21st century election?

xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++++++++=

(Partial plagiarizing? Is that like being sort of pregnant?)

[James Bowery]

Polls are fake because no Paulite can remember ever being phoned for a survey.

Is that why?

Gee, and I thought it was because Old Media reports results of polls that measure mainly what Old Media reports -- your know -- sort of like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[James Bowery]

And now for the actual New Hampshire poll numbers for Ron Paul averaged across all polling organizations by usaelectionpolls.com:

July 1.3
August 3.0
September 3.7
October 4.8
November 6.3
December 6.6

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html

Not to disabuse you of your lies. Its always comforting to see the Old Media buying its own material.

[John]

Andrew,

I think I speak for the majority of Ron Paul fan's when I say I'm not angry with specific 'journalists' such as you, for writing bits critical of Ron Paul (as long as they're reasonably fair)
What I do take issue with is the notion that polling data is the single factor in determining the simple mention of a candidate. With the level of support Paul's campaign does have, and the money his supporters have raised, would it hurt to mention him along with Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Huck. It's just four more letters: P-A-U-L. That's it; that's all we ask. Throw him in mix. It's not that Paul deserves 'attention,' so much as respect. Media don't have to single him out and do stories, just throw him in the mix. That's what we want. To see our guy respected. Especially when, with 8% in Iowa and 7% in NH (plus unregistered, registered Dem., formerly apathetic and disheartened R's) Paul's looking very good. Just drop his name in there once and awhile.

Is that too much?

[Troy]

The author of this article appears to be suggesting that people should vote based on what the LA Times says the popular thing is.

It's quite common in America for people to blindly follow the "popular" thing since they're constantly told what to think by the mainstream news.

Another dumb smear attempt. They're forgetting that us Ron Paul supporters will be at the Primaries/Caucuses to put the only candidate that will actually follow their oath of office into the Presidency:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

(Thanks for reading, Troy. I cannot find in here anything that says polls order or require people to vote any way at all. They are a snapshot in time of what those 400 people say. That's all. Shouldn't threaten you with your thousands of peers and millions of dollars. So relax a little, save your energy for the canvassing.)

[dusty]

Paul can't lose supporters. Once you go Paul you never go back.

[John Armstrong]

Andy,

I like your columns about Ron Paul. They provide humor. I wonder if the reason some of my fellow Paultards take things so seriously is because our candidate does. Just a thought.

[Scott Stalker]

So, actually you're saying I should believe the polls over the voice of my conscience? Or how about the voices of the American people who aren't polled? Don't They Have A Voice? My voice is on streets. Please poll me thnx. I am voting for Ron Paul's message. He will tell you what that message is. It's all over the net too if you aren't aware already.