Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

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 () | Archives (433)

The comments to this entry are closed.

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.)

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

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:

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.

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!

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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




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!



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.

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. have a nice day, and vote Paul for president in '08

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

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

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

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.

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


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

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.


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:

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.

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.

Back to your regularly scheduled commentary...

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.

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.

Whatever. Ron Paul 2008.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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!

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.

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!

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

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

GO RON PAUL!!!!! 2008

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.

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. .

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

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.

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.

Meh, we'll see.

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

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!

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.)

« | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | »


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: