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.