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



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.)
Posted by: Jeff Webster | December 19, 2007 at 10:37 PM
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
Posted by: Pete N | December 19, 2007 at 10:37 PM
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/
Posted by: Karl | December 19, 2007 at 10:37 PM
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.
Posted by: Adam S, Chicago USA | December 19, 2007 at 10:43 PM
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!
Posted by: Hussein | December 19, 2007 at 10:44 PM
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...
Posted by: Outside Observer, Canada | December 19, 2007 at 10:46 PM
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.
Posted by: Justin | December 19, 2007 at 10:47 PM
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.
Posted by: Ron | December 19, 2007 at 10:48 PM
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.
Posted by: kpratt84 | December 19, 2007 at 10:49 PM
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.
Posted by: Zach | December 19, 2007 at 10:52 PM
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.
Posted by: Alex | December 19, 2007 at 10:55 PM
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.
Posted by: bgodley | December 19, 2007 at 10:56 PM
time will tell now ... won't it ?
VOTE PEOPLE !!!
PRESIDENT RON PAUL
Posted by: andrew malcolm | December 19, 2007 at 10:59 PM
RON PAUL WILL WIN IN 2008!!!
Posted by: James | December 19, 2007 at 11:03 PM
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
Posted by: Dave | December 19, 2007 at 11:04 PM
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.
Posted by: akak | December 19, 2007 at 11:05 PM
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
Posted by: john | December 19, 2007 at 11:05 PM
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
Posted by: jeff clemmer | December 19, 2007 at 11:08 PM
So people just send Ron Paul money because they fell sorry for him.
Posted by: Roger The Peaceful Vet and the Okcitykid | December 19, 2007 at 11:12 PM
So people just send Ron Paul money because they fell sorry for him. Somehow I don't think so.
Posted by: Roger The Peaceful Vet and the Okcitykid | December 19, 2007 at 11:14 PM
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.
Posted by: Andrew | December 19, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Polls, by design, packaged and payed for by the **** ****** Campain.
RON PAUL FOR THE WIN :)
POll this..........hahaha
Posted by: jason | December 19, 2007 at 11:20 PM
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.
Posted by: Michael | December 19, 2007 at 11:23 PM
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.
Posted by: laukev7 | December 19, 2007 at 11:23 PM
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...
Posted by: TheOneLaw | December 19, 2007 at 11:24 PM