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.

Do the polls matter? I don't think so. What matters is that a new movement has started that Ron Paul just happens to be in the center of.

More people are now more afraid of our growing government that the terrorists. Ron Paul is causing people to realize that we were attacked because of faulty foreign policy that has extended over Democrat and republican administrations.

This movement is revolutionizing the publics understanding of the mess in the middle east.

We don't want the government recording our phone calls without a warrant. We don't' want them triangulating our cellphones without probable cause. We don't want 170 bases over seas. We don't want the US to manipulate other countries elections. All of these things have happened over both parties administrations.

Go Ron Paul!

Thank you Andrew for writing something good. Never mind the typical behavior of the Ron Paulites who think that viral popularity on the Internet will erase the fact that he will not be a viable or electable candidate. It doesn't matter if they write bad things about you, insult mainstream media or cancel their LA Times subscription. These paulites in their so-called "reverse"-lution, are loony in their own right in the margin. By being cheerleaders on the Internet, they ignore the fact that polls are indicative of the trend that clearly show that the Paulites will fail.

I find it hilarious that you can quote a poll as being representative with a sample size of 411 participants. If you read the report regarding the methods, they say the data is "weighted" for a number of different categories, and yet give a +/- 5% margin of error. Also they don't mention what "groups or subgroups" that the participants were "randomly selected from". This is why nobody pays attention to these meaningless polls. The real-world polls, such as straw polls, are much more representative of how the voting process will actually go down. Stop shoveling this garbage, please.

(It must be so comforting to know so very much and still not be able to sign your own real name on a simple blog comment. And I took the quotes off from your word representative poll reference because the word representative is not in here.)

After the media passed on the lies about weapons of mass destruction that led us to Iraq.

After the same media repeated the lies that Hussein and binLaden were co-conspirators.

After the same media was talking breathlessly about the "New Economy" in 2000.

After the very same media was talking about the "Housing Miracle" and dismissing any suggestiong that it was a bubble in 2005.

Who believes the media any more?

I hate to say it, but the Internet is a more reliable source of information than any of this garbage I read from supposed experts. It didn't take me more than a few minutes to find out Scott Ritter's background when he was calling the Bush administration a pack of liars. It didn't take me long to discover that housing prices have always risen at the same rate of inflation for the last 100 years, and it didn't take me any time at all to find out that Hussein was killing religious leaders because he saw then as a threat to his power in Iraq.

Now, if I, an engineer, can find this information online, how can I reasonably conclude that the media can't? The media is supposed to be a group of professionals.

It's long been my conclusion that the mainstream media is more in the business of creating public opinion rather than reporting on it. Edward Bernays demonstrated that when he used this same media in the 1950s to drum up support for the overthrow of the Democracy in Guatemala to protect United Fruit Company.

I'd be foolish to trust the media at this point, and why should I believe that they're telling the truth about the polls, or that they are scientific and unbiased? Why would anybody?

January 8th.


You told me not to read it, Andrew. But like every other Dr. Paul supporter, I did. And do you know why? Not because we "scour the internet for any mention of Dr. Paul," but because we actually give a hoot. We are involved in politics. We know the issues. We know where all the candidates stand, not just Dr. Paul. We don't just follow the polls. We don't vote for whoever gets the most media coverage. We are the people that make a democracy work.

(And you have my admiration for such dedication, which everybody skipped over in the item.)


You sir are a disgrace to journalism. you obviously do not understand the crisis our country is in. Please educate yourself on the issues and free yourself from the mental smoke screen that the you and the savage business you take part of continually put up. The mass is slowly waking up, and your hypnosis is wearing.

If this is the best you got.....Bring the comedy.

Educate Yourselves.



Hats off to you again, sir. You must be the most-read blogger on the LA Times by now..... grabbing all of us and making your bosses proud! (I say this with respect - you know what you're doing!)

I have noticed recently that you're getting more and more comments to each post you make - and strangely, these comments are getting more and more articulate. If you're still weeding out the nutcases, leaving a very large amount of well written comments from a growing number of people... I wonder what that implies? ;-)

Lets say 411 people were called, 21 supported Paul and 390 didn't support Paul. Thats 5.1%. The standard deviation of this measurement is sqrt[411*5.1%*(100%-5.1%)]=4.5. See Wikipedia's entry for Binomial Distribution or any introduction to statistics book.

Your article should read "with a margin of error of +/- (4.5/411=1.1%), Paul could theoretically be at 6.2%. That also means, naturally, he could be at 4.0% too."

A good reason for not trusting polls is that the people who organize and report them are incapable of doing simple math.

Since when was the Los Angeles Times in the business of allowing the incredibly ignorant to write articles?

The author may want to take a course in introductory level statistics. The so-called "plummeting" he sees isn't statistically plummeting at all. All those numbers fall within the margin of error of the polls in question.

In statistical terms there is absolutely no difference between Paul being at 5% and beign at 10%.

Secondly, the polls have not progressed in quite so neetly a fashion as the idiot who wrote this might have us believe.

Rasmussen 12/18: 7%
CNN 12/17: 5%
Fox 12/13: 8%
Research 2000 12/12: 7%

Wow, is Paul really fluctuating that violently!?!! No, you idiot. It's the margin of error at play. Polls do not give a perfect reading of the true population proportion.

Go to any polling companies website an observe their trend lines (which you probably don't know what a trend line is either, but I'll let you figure that out for yourself). Paul is not plummeting in any sense, mathematically, politically, or otherwise.

I'm not a Paul supporter, but this article did make me nauseous... I've never read such a flagrant display of ignorance.

(You were fairly warned not to read it. Big type too. But, no, you had to go ahead and disregard the headline and then, of all things, you call the writer an idiot. That's a good one!)

I think it is time for Ron Paul supporters to stop saying that the Main Stream Media have blacked out Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has been on Glenn Beck (CNN), Tucker Carlson (CNN); John Stossel, sort of (ABC); PBS (NOW, who really did a great job; PBS is a national treasure- love them); the Colbert Report, John Stewart, Mad Money, Jay Leno (NBC), The View (ABC), Face the Nation, etc.

I think the only media that should be ashamed of themselve is Fox News. But how is that anything new? MSNBC is a little lacking too. CNN and PBS are re-affirming their status as the best news organizations. ABC ain't too shabby.

By the way, I am a Ron Paul suporter all the way.




As a journalist, you should be able to figure that out.

I should not have even bothered to read. Not surprised however, I mean this is the LA Times. We Ron Paul supporters are a determined bunch, and there are lots of us, and we certainly will vote --- and that will determine the next president. Not the polls, and not the LA Times.

Ron Paul 2008!!!

(You guys are a lot of fun to write about. Hundreds of comments objecting to being told how to vote and there's no such direction in the item. It's not there. Nada. Nothing. You just need a villain to push against. So today it's polls. Or a writer who's stupid because he doesn't say RONPAUL2008 in big letters. Or the evil MSM that really might die if you didn't keep pleading for it to pay attention to you. Or tomorrow some scary highway that's supposed to threaten national sovereignity. Oooh, four lanes of cement. Truly horrifying. That's the best one. It's a hoot. Enjoy the camaraderie while it lasts. And thanks for reading, despite the order not to.)

You know I will vote fro RP and didn't have any problem with what you said Your absolutly right I don't think polls matter. And we will all find out here in a little while.
Thanks fpr thr artical

Polls? what are polls? aren't those people from Poland?

I'm sooo tired of reading articles by journalists who whine because there is a large group of people who express opinions other than those most fashionable with the mainstream media. I've seen them called spammers, idealists, dreamers, revolutionaries (which if they are considered so, that is a sad American statement in and of itself).

(Well, you haven't seen them called that here. So why are you whining about the whining here?)

Why? Why are you annoyed by the truth? Why do you dislike the only real statesman this country has seen in 30-70 years (depends on your views). Why are you defensive? Why are you one of the sheep? Why are you afraid of change for the better? Why are you willing to promote an agenda of ignorance? Why is your site being bombarded by "kooks", "wierdos", "fringe elements", "long shots", "libertarians", "psychos", "internet only types", and just plain wack jobs that seem to number more than your actual readership?

Ya think it might be true that perhaps Ron Paul actually has real support that might translate into real votes?

Nah, forget it. They're just the same 4 teenage spammers posting on every website that mentions Paul's name. In fact the NPR site was particularly hard hit by over 3000 posts in less than 48 hours. Damn teenage internet geeks who claim to be of legal age! We need a new government agency to crack down on these jerks and arrest them! Ogre Bush is the only one that knows how to protect us from imagined threats. Go tyranny!

(Who's annoyed by your truth? Do you have the ability to read any of these items on Ron Paul? Did you stumble upon the numerous mentions of his growing ranks of supporters, thousands of fervent fans, more tha n 1,200 meet-up groups, millions of dollars in fundraising. In fact, you're the only one using words like "kook." Go ahead. We all know how important it is for you to have an evil conspiracy to fight. But you're fighting a straw target here. Makes your other arguments look kind of empty, which they shouldn't.)

This is all propaganda! like your psycolgy trick to make everyone read your article saying: DON READ THIS ! BLA BLA BLA ... Ron paul 2008

I am a Ron Paul supporter. I read your article, Andrew. It appears that many other Ron Paul supporters read your article also. If your predictions continue to follow this trend, I believe there may still be hope for Dr. Paul.

I have considered going into journalism, and have decided that I will apply for a job at the Los Angeles Times. I think it is really interesting that journalists writing for the Times can use such awesomely sweeping and unfounded statements as foundations for arguments. Articles such as these do a good job insulting the intelligence of your readers. Where has factual data gone? I believe your readers are intelligent. I believe a majority of your readers will make decisions for themselves. Do you think that by insulting such large groups of people, you can convince "fence-riders" that they too would be idiots for disagreeing with you?

Just thought it was interesting that your article is founded on the premise that those who read it already agree that Ron Paul is a 19th century blast from the past; someone whom we should, according to your article, avoid taking seriously. Is this article meant to inform, or is this really just entertainment for those who have bought Big Brother's package; those who perhaps liked the book 1984 a little too much?

Footnote: My wife and I do not have a land-line. We do not -- nor have we been asked to -- vote in any polls.

I know many people who are being brainwashed by watching the polls that is why they are slipping. Here's the real-life scenario happening everday.

You have people who like Ron Paul. They then look at the polls and think to themselves "Ron Paul has no chance!" they then look for another half-way decent candiate. They like this candiate, but not as much as Ron Paul so instead of vopting for Ron paul they are now vioting for this candidate.

I wonder what the numbers would be if we had no polls thus far and polled for the first time right now. Would we see different numbers I beleive so.

And it's sad The numbers for Ron Paul may be much higher, then again they may not be but, I beg to differ.

(Boy, I think you way underestimate American voters if you think they make their choice on a statistical snapshot weeks in advance.)

One of the leading pollsters in the Nation said this:

"On the Sean Hannity radio program, pollster John Zogby said that Texas Congressman Ron Paul could end up surprising the field - and "embarass a lot of the frontrunners" by wildly exceeding expectations taking 15 to 18 percent in the New Hampshire primary."

National Review Online - November 13th.

I think that this is in part because he knows firsthand what the real situation is concerning the popularity of Ron Paul's issues. Ron Paul won the National Zogby Blind Poll that Paul with 33%.

You can make up statistics to prove anything, . . . 14% of all people know this to be true.

Peace, Freedom, Liberty GO RON!!!!!

Thanks for the article. We are everywhere. Go Ron Paul baby!

RON PAUL 2008!!!

I have to assume this article is a satire - or written by a defeatist republican who has already conceded the presidency to the democrats. Or maybe it is simply propaganda from the left? I guess we will never know as this article is without any discernible point.

Put's in a title to make Ron Paul supporters read his article (and therefore put food on his table) then lamely falls back on "I told you not to read it" when he gets ripped for it. Hilarious. Go Ron Paul.

(Thanks for clicking again.)

I have been voting for the last 30 years and for all but one of those elections I voted Republican. I have always kept an open mind but felt that the republican philosophy was most in line with my beliefs. With all due respect I believe most of your article is skewed. The mainstream media has used every trick they can to turn the attention as far away from Dr. Paul as they can. He is left off of polls ,his supporters are denied access to straw polls, he is ignored on national news and I could go on and on. Despite all this he continues to increase his donations each quarter and his supporters are still there. You should reflect and ask yourself have you ever seen such a passionate group, a group who is willing to give so much of themselves. I have not. In the 30 years I've been voting ,the only one who came close was another Ron and they said he was just an actor. Dr. Paul has support not just in this nation but all over the world. Why do you think that is? We are passionate because we know our way of life is threatened and he is the only candidate who is telling us the truth. Why is the media so afraid to let the public hear? If you think he is so wrong in his views then let the public hear what he has to say and let them decide.

I just did a poll on you and 100% agree that your an idiot.


(And YOU'RE gonna believe a poll?)

Dismiss him at your peril. Go Ron Paul!

You're right. This article is terrible! But you know what else, Andrew? The only thing that matters ARE the results at the primaries. I love/hate this article. Anyway, quit with the funny business...You know you're voting for Ron Paul...

This just in from the Lemming Poll:

"92% of likely GOP primary voters approve additional spending on welfare and warfare in the face of $30,000 national debt for every person in the country. Beach probably not as far below as it looks."

Ron Paul tends to bring out the best in people. Go Ron Paul!


Thanks for your Twainian "statistics". Win or lose "Dr Paul" has never waivered on a position in 30 years of public life - basing his deep-rooted political philosophy on the US Constitution. The very docucument that each POTUS swears (or affirms) to uphold. Yet the media, desperately looking for a foil, (tin-hat variety) seems hell-bent on portraying him as a fringe fruitcake. As opposed to a canidate who, for instance, has faith (which "drives" his philosophy) in the belief that Native Americans (er, me!) are direct (modern)desendants of Israel and Africans have more skin pigment than whites because of Godly curse.

As the arresting officer in the Idaho senator's airport sex arrest said in response to Craig's bizarre denials and contorted rationales, "No wonder this country is going down the tubes".

Crow Wing

Hmmm... you said it yourself genius. A poll of "likely" voters. Ever notice how many people who support Ron Paul also say they are usually voting for Democrats, have never voted at all, or are independent? Guess not.

Oh, and one more thing... you love this stuff because it brings your viewership up. You've never enjoyed so much publicity with this silly little column. That's okay... just remember... if the oligarchy has its way you may not be able to do this kind of trash talking for too much longer.

Wake up you fool... Ron Paul supporters are everywhere... Why would any reasonable person dismiss this FACT because either you or polls say so? Exactly...

If Ron Paul is so inconsequential then why devote any of your time to him? I don’t remember seeing any articles about Tom Tancredo’s supporters......................... I trust your hits are up today because of your “Ron Paul Hate speak”. Your editor will be proud. Take your pat on the back. I hope he buys you a beer.
See you at the polls.
I will be Voting "Ron Paul"

(Gee, gotta correct you there. That's your paranoia speaking. Never said he's inconsequential. Far from it. He's very important--also has interesting following. Which is why we've done several dozen items on him. And why he's the only candidate to have his own subject category on our blog to search. And, warning coming, we'll continue to write about him and his bands of dedicated but angry followers despite the numerous attempts at intimidation because some RP followers don't like every word that appears.)

These articles are so funny. I have never met a Romney fan or any of the others. No one cares who of those guys wins. The only people I see are Ron Paul supporters everywhere. The Post Office, Church, Shopping. They are either Ron Paul or they don't care. Come on media guys we are not stupid. your telling me Ron Paul can't win. Better not waste my vote on someone who can't win anyways. So let me look at the other candidates... Oh wow, nevermind.


All that time and focus spent on a few measly percentage points, based on a poll of 411 people? FOUR HUNDRED AND ELEVEN? Think about this, folks. This is not statistically significant. Try doing a poll with a larger sample size, and MAYBE you'll have a chance at something remotely meaningful.

You do realize that we're turning off our televisions and putting down our corporate newspapers, don't you?

I'm a Paul supporter, and I haven't been polled.
None of my friends, the vast majority of whom are Paul supporters, have mentioned being polled.

The polls measure people who've voted recently and were registered Republicans at the time. Most Paul supporters don't fit one of those two criteria. And they have to be lonely or stupid enough to answer a call with a Caller ID that says "XYZ Poll". We're not.

(So you've polled your friends and they haven't been polled so you're drawing a conclusion from that 100%? Hmm. Interesting. Glad you're putting down the newspaper and spending time online clicking, especially here. Appreciate it.)

You know what Andrew Malcolm, it seems to me that the people who you are persuading to, needs to make their own decisions, NOT have a corporately paid, lethargic, and very under-educated "news" writer tell them what to think. If you had any clue as to what Doctor Ron Paul stood for, then you wouldn't dare challenge his supporters. You know, it's funny, you say he is down in the polls, but it seems to me, that every single poll that i vote for this Veteran, he is leading astronomically, sometimes surpassing other candidates by seventy percent. It only seems to be corporately controlled "news media" polls that show him having low counts, you must be getting your poll equipment from DieBold. Your fixed polls will never slow us down, but only make us stronger in the sense of giving us more coal for the fire, ah but I know what it is now, you corporate reporters are scared aren't you, that's right, you're scared that he might seriously have a chance at winning, because if you weren't, you wouldn't even mention his name, you would give him the cold shoulder but no, you have to persuade the loyal people who believe your garbage propaganda, that a Veteran of this Country, a ten term Congressman, a Doctor, a man who has been the leading advocate for freedom in this Country, is some type of long-shot, so that when DieBold stages the numbers in the computer polls, you won't have to cover up any National Popularity votes. And yeah, back to that word freedom, it means a Nation in which it's peoples are free, like being free from your nonsense, because when President Ron Paul is elected(and he will have a fair election, that we are sure of) we will be free from listening to your daily spray of slander, your ever-so desperate attempt to smear our campaign, or just your downright belligerence and utter stupidity, and hopefully the people that read this so called "news" paper get some sense in them will we're at it. So on a more personal level, screw you Andrew Malcolm, go back to your corporate paychecks and written scripts to further dumb the census of America.

(Well, you found us out. We're terrified, absolutely terrified. That's why we don't post comments that disagree with us. Cause they're toooo scary. Oh, the power!)

Polls are a joke.......

Buchanan was polling at 5% in NH when he won it in '96...

These posts are like the Energizer Bunny! They just keep going and going and going and......

I like you Andy. And I apologize for any brash remarks I may have made. Thanks for at least mentioning Ron Paul. Even the man himself would grin and tell you that you're doing more than most of the other journalists have done for him.

Merry Christmas bro!

(Same back atcha.)

The mass media must be investigated for their complicit role in covering up, falsifying, trashing, in summary, not doing its job as the fourth estate. People have been betrayed, the trust is deservably vanishing. If you want TRUTH, well the people already know where not to get it.


P.S. Heads must roll, people who were complicit with the Bush admin. must be punished. Democracy has been damaged because of intentional deception.

Wow, as a moderate weighing all candidates equally, both GOP and Dem., I truly haven't watched poll numbers because that's not what I base my decision on. That's what the Media uses to make broad "newsworthy" statements about the "race".

When you treat it like a race, you treat it like a sport. And all the statistical nerds go crazy crunching numbers, and it means as much as a Fantasy Football projection.

When you look at the REAL issues, and the candidates' view of the direction our country needs to go, then you have polital news.

This article really smacks of nothing more than blog-worthy pap that's more condescending than inciteful.


(Well, this item certainly did some inciting.)

By the time this campaign is over and Ron Paul is elected, you're going to love him. I think you secretly do now. He makes you so much money each time you write another story about him and your traffic soars.

Might as well just admit it. He's growing on you Andrew.

OMG. Check the littlegreenfootballs website. They got into Stormfront's computer last night. Lots of info I'm sure Stormfront didn't want made public. I saw many links and lots of damning evidence displaying that Mr. Paul has huge support among Nazi and White Supremist groups..... photos, videos, etc., of Ron Paul associating with these groups, signing autographs, etc.
Very disappointing.

Typical American fascist propaganda, this is way these rags are losing subscribers daily.

Americans keep looking for the truth!

Do not let blogs like this discourage us
They make this a top "news" story when you google Ron Paul.
They are clearly trying to intimidate us and keep us from trying
We need to be strong in our support for Ron Paul

See you at the polls

that article is written with such disdain...what a shame.
Ron Paul is waking people up, who knows if he wins or not..he has my vote. that's all that matters to me.

« | 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: