So, us old guys don't have cell phones?

THE RON PAUL BOOM....Is libertarian, um, provocateur — yeah, that's the word — Ron Paul actually more popular than polls indicate?

No. Who cares? He's just a sideshow.

I doubt his real support is even 1%.

But I wouldn't bet the farm on that, pollsters being a more clever lot than Andrew and Josh Claybourne give them credit for.

Maybe someone can clarify, but I don't know of any pollsters that have cell-only correction in their results.

Of course, the young are also much more comfortable with ironic posing, so any support for Ron Paul they express could just be an elaborate meta-comment on the insanity of the political system, not reflective of anything else. So the whole cell phone thing would balance out, wouldn't it?

So I was at a parade here in sunny Seattle last weekend; I saw a bunch of dudes with fancy, yet incoherent "REPENT!" and "JEEBUS IS AFTER YOU!" signs, a bunch of 9/11 TRUTH!!?1! morons, a posse of Ron Paul fans, and a hundred or so naked, body-painted bicyclists.

So there you have it.

But, what are the pollsters doing about cell phone bias?

Seriously.

A great many people only have a cellphone. How do pollsters reach them?

But, what are the pollsters doing about cell phone bias?

Seriously.

A great many people only have a cellphone. How do pollsters reach them?

Who IS Ron Paul? Do your own homework.
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.

www.ronpaulaudio.com

Can we go ahead and declare the cell phone analogy to be the 21st century equivalent of the old "well, the polls said Dewey was going to beat Truman" chestnut that failing campaigns tend to trot out when their situation looks hopeless? I remember reams of number-juggling during the '04 campaign (at MyDD and elsewhere) trying to argue that Kerry was actually running several points higher than the polls indicated because of the young-person-cell-phone thing, only to have him end up with pretty much what the polls predicted.

Even if Sullivan is right (*snort*), and Ron Paul's support is drastically underrepresented, then what's the big deal? He's actually at 4%, instead of the 1-2% he shows in most polls? Ohhhh, that changes everything! The whole GOP race is about to be turned on its ear!

It's too bad that Ron Paul isn't polling better. A few of us on the left (Max Sawicky was the 1st to blog on this that I know of) like his style. OK, we would not want him to become President - but then how bad can a politician really be if he really means what he says?!

Random digit dialing (based on a specific locality's three digit prefixes) contacts cell phone users just as much as land line users, I would guess.

Ron Paul: roughly as crazy as the three Republican front-runners, which is really saying something, albeit in different ways; his natural constituency is the six self-identified libertarians who think Bush sucks but also are strongly pro-life; his presidential campaign rocketed up to one percent approval because in the Republican primary debates he was the only guy who agrees with the general public about the Iraq war; his opinions apparently do, in fact, take into account information that has been public since 2001. And he's principled!

Seriously, good for Mr. Paul, but you know, bad for the other 28 Republican candidates, the Republican primary voters, the media, and America.

i was on a tour bus in seattle when we passed a rally on behalf of ron paul. there were at least three people there with signs.

I just got called by a poll worker yesterday, and when I informed them that I was not in my residence because I was on a cell phone, they said kthx bye.

So there's your confirmation of polling bias right there, anecdotally, from Atlanta, Georgia.

That great libbertarian Ron Paul supported by other well-known libertarians like David Duke . . .

To the phone bias people - pollsters weight results. How do you know they don't account for this cell phone phenomenon by over-weighting the cohorts that are likelier to be cellphone only?

Americans love their covert communist government. They voted for Bush in 2004. Hey, let them have it, with all the trimmings, in full glory -- Mickey Mouse individual rights, Mickey Mouse democracy, Mickey Mouse standard of living, and the Mickey Mouse "disappearing" of anyone who threatens the megalomaniacs. If you folks with money or power think you are immune from the evils of communism, you're next on the hit list, right after they rape the middle class with the crash of the US dollar. Such is the definition of communism run by megalomaniacs. An Empire built on mistrust is an empire doomed from the beginning -- why bother?

FMguru has it right. Even if cell phone toting young'uns support Paul overwhelmingly, who cares? They don't vote much and they don't make large contributions. Who needs 'em?

John Kerry's 2004 campaign spent quite a bit of time and money pursuing hard evidence that Gallup, Harrison and other polling offices were skewed beyong belief. They found lots of evidence. Enough to warrant ignoring any election poll that's made available.

I am a statistical analyst and I can tell you, based on my own experience, that none of these polls are very accurate. For every poll that says X, you can find another that says Y.

The only reason polls appear in the media is to flaunt communist-style methods over democracy, to manipulate public opinion.

All of this talk is nonsense, however. It's clear the 2008 election has already been pre-determined. The hard part now is to get the American people to believe it has not.

You folks posting here against Ron Paul scare me. Some of you are obviously paid and I hope you can live with yourselves, when it's all said and done.

Zealots are always the most visible supporters. But one shouldn't turn away because zealots are whacky. Most movements of substance start with a fringe of zealotry.

I am a very conservative Ron Paul supporter, because he represents truly American ideals.

I guess we are the 1% until the day comes to show and prove.

As for the rest of us Republicans, I state, "A vote against Ron Paul is a vote for Hillary Clinton."

I never heard of this guy until this week.

I must lead a sheltered life.

Funny post.

The most interesting thing about Ron Paul is that when people taunt him in the comments section on YouTube, he taunts back quite unpresidentially. That may or may not be a good thing.

Well, okay, but the "the reason" is never "because."

Can we go ahead and declare the cell phone analogy to be the 21st century equivalent of the old "well, the polls said Dewey was going to beat Truman" chestnut that failing campaigns tend to trot out when their situation looks hopeless?

Yeah, we can say the cell phone bias is probably overrated, but I still want to geekily point out that the polls really were off with Truman and Dewey. They polled phone customers and left out non-phone customers who at that time represented a huge chunk of rural and suburban America.

That great libbertarian Ron Paul supported by other well-known libertarians like David Duke . . .

I see this smear most often leveled by GWB-worshipping pro-war wingnuts who view Paul as an GOP infidel.

They always neglect to add that David Duke supported GWB too.

Show me the last president that has acted "presidentially," and you will need to reach back 30 years. Jimmy and Ronnie, perhaps. "Presidential" attitude these days means "macho" and if you are really into that, you should spend more time Mexico. They're much better at "machismo" than we are up here. Mexico's PRI party perfected "macho" some time ago.

Let's say there is a cell phone bias. What's that mean, instead of 1% he's really got 2%? Wow, a veritable avalanche of support.

If you use sites like reddit or digg, you can see the effects of Ron Paul spammers, they're maniacs who post over and over and over. They're trying to make it look like there's more support than there actually is.

But if you want a realistic look at Ron Paul, I suggest reading David Niewert's expose, he does a fairly good job of connecting Ron Paul to various fringe nutcases like John Birchers and tax resisters

As for cell phones and polls, I thought that in 2004 that Zogby was the only major pollster accounting for them. Has this changed at all?

Clearly, the Ron Paul supporters who are diving in here are going to be every bit as fucking annoying as Nader's people were. Kill us now.

I think what the Howard Dean campaign showed us was that Internet support leads mainstream support. Dean was big on the net first before he ever polled well in real life.

Ron Paul's Internet support really started taking off only about a month ago as shown by this alexa traffic graph.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=ronpaul2008.com&site1=mittromney.com&site2=joinrudy2008.com&site3=JohnMcCain.com&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=400&w=700&range=7d&size=Large&url=ronpaul2008.com

We all know things move faster on the web and I'd give it more time to see if the web support moves to the real world.

I accept that Internet users lean libertarian, but in a soon to be 12 way race, with only one Anti-War candidate against 11 Pro-War candidates, it may not take big numbers to win the nomination.

Newt Gingrich is correct when he points out that the only way Republicans can win in 08 is to distance themselves from Bush. Who can do this better than Ron Paul?

Re: "maybe he's actually at 4% support...that changes everything!"

Love the snark.

I'm a 42 year old businessman who has never registered to vote because I always saw the candidates as a pack of lying bastards.

In Ron Paul I feel I've found some one who can turn this country around. He's the first politician I know of who doesn't seem to be a sellout. I'll be voting for the first time in my life this election- voting for Dr. Paul.

I prefer Mrs. Paul. Love her fish.

John Campbell: We all know things move faster on the web and I'd give it more time to see if the web support moves to the real world.

Today 1%, tomorrow 2%!

This is simply a fact that polls are designed to shape elections. If I were going to design a poll I would make it such that you could actually get meaningful information from it. As we have it we end up with a very nebulous figure. When the polls indicate that Ron Paul is 1% it could just as much indicate that too few people even know about Ron Paul yet. But, instead of the media taking this as an indication it needs to give him more coverage they are using this as a reason to marginalize him and push him off the stage. To me this is simply anti-democratic.

Polls might be scientific but they are being used destructively instead of constructively when it comes to candidates who are trying to get some recognition and coverage that don't have the help of the media.

Fortunately we have the internet and I think it will become more and more obvious that the media is going to find their pants at their ankles about Ron Paul.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution!

On July 15th the Q2 fundraising numbers will be released.

There's going to be some surprised people here.

You anti Ron Paul guys are in denial. Among Republican Candidates Ron Paul is:

1st on YouTube (Subscribers and Downloads)
http://www.techpresident.com/youtube

2nd (soon to be first) on Myspace
http://www.techpresident.com/scrape_plot/myspace

2nd (soon to be first) on Facebook
http://www.techpresident.com/scrape_plot/facebook
And on Meetup there is no contest: http://ronpaul.meetup.com/about/

Ron Paul 14,381 members in 345 Meetup groups.
Rudy 28 members in 1 Meetup group.
Romney 18 members in 1 Meetup group.
McCain 3 members in 1 Meetup group.

These are real people volunteering their time and effort to show up at meetings in person and work for the campaign. Not computer geeks trolling the blogs from the parents' basement.

I'm a 42 year old businessman who has never registered to vote because I always saw the candidates as a pack of lying bastards.

In Ron Paul I feel I've found some one who can turn this country around. He's the first politician I know of who doesn't seem to be a sellout. I'll be voting for the first time in my life this election- voting for Dr. Paul.

Thanks for sharing your personal story, Chris! We feel like you're speaking totally off the cuff--speaking just to us!

"I'm a 42 year old businessman who has never registered to vote because I always saw the candidates as a pack of lying bastards."

So instead of a bastard who will lie about fucking over the country and destroying every government apparatus he can get his hands on until we live in a state of fantasy land libertarian Social Darwinism, at least Ron Paul will tell you the truth about it?

Fortunately we have the internet and I think it will become more and more obvious that the media is going to find their pants at their ankles about Ron Paul.

Could be! But I last heard this statement from Alan Keyes supporters up to and until the day Barack Obama beat him 70-something to 20-something.

Wow. I didn't realize how much Kevin Drum's readers hate Ron Paul, in spite of the fact that he is the war's most vocal critic among elected Republicans. (One deranged individual even characterized him as David Duke!)

One criticism of the Left made by the right that I have been reluctant to accept is that they do not really care (at least on the establishment level) about Iraq, which is why the neoconservatives, in spite of the full force campaign of evil that they have engaged in over the last few years, are still welcome in the pages of the New York Times and other high end media outlets, whereas the anti-war right represented by Ron Paul is shut out of the conversation. This is because the Left is far more hostile to the antiwar right's condemnation of the Left's politically correct superstate than it is to something as insignificant as a little war founded on deception. Well, I was skeptical...not so much now.

Why this amount of contempt shown towards the most principled and decent candidate running is beyond me. What a liberal ghetto this blog seems to be!

Well, the Ron Paul inet trolls certainly are well organized.

dead BC: the reason Ron Paul is moved in these parts is he is one of those Libertarian True Believers who apparently doesn't think we need a federal government at all except in the very barest sense. Sorry, but someone who wants to abolish the Department of Education (among just about everything else) deserves the derision they get. I don't care if he's right on ONE issue, he's wrong on just about every other issue.

oops meant "dear BC:" not "dead". SOrry.

I guess I've been censored. My first comment went right up, but my second comment was held for review. Now I see more recent comments than mine.

I provided evidence of growing Ron Paul support both on and off the Internet, with sources to back it up.

I guess, you guys consider that spamming. Have fun talking to yourselves.

[Nothing so conspiratorial as all that. Comments with more than two links are pro forma held for approval. It's how we got rid of the link spam. If you were a regular here you would know that.]

(One deranged individual even characterized him as David Duke!)

Shall we assume that your woeful reading comprehension and/or eagerness to fabricate someone else's position (equating "supported by David Duke" with "characterizes him as David Duke) is at the back of your support of Mr. Paul?

I know I sound like a broken record but go to intrade and see what the real money market looks like. Intrade has a record far better than any poll.

I have never traded on intrade. I own no stock or anything to do with intrade.

As of last night, Ron Paul was way down in the pack. Fred, Rudy, Mitt, John are all way ahead of Ron Paul, the guy with 2 1st names.

They thought the same with Kerry in '04 and it turned out to be wrong. Also, I only have a cell phone and have been called for polls numerous times by now.

We didn't even have a Department of Education until 1980. How did we survive as a nation for 204 years without it?

I pay 14,000 per year in property taxes on my home and another 9,000 per year on commercial property, most of which goes to Education. Yet my daughter attends public shool IN A TRAILER.

Guess I need more of my Federal taxes spent on education as well.

Why don't you just home-school her, John? Thought you were leaving, by the way...?

Home schooling wouldn't save me any money. The government would still confiscate and waste my tax dollars.

But she wouldn't be in a trailer. Or would she?

BC: I didn't realize how much Kevin Drum's readers hate Ron Paul

We'll take Ron Paul seriously when someone starts taking Dennis Kucinich seriously.

One criticism of the Left made by the right

Why is "Left" capitalized and "right" isn't? Next up: women vs. males.

that they do not really care ... about Iraq

Oh, I care about Iraq, but I care about Turkmenistan more.

Please spare me the humanitarian concern for the freedom (oops, I meant Freedom) loving Iraqi people. The only plausible argument for concern is (as Colin Powell put it) Pottery Barn rules. It would have been nice to avoid this problem by not indulging in the stupidity of invading Iraq in the first place (GHWB had it right years ago).

Why this amount of contempt shown towards the most principled and decent candidate running is beyond me.

When do worship services start?

He may be principled and he may be decent, but he's a libertopian dreamer. The anarchist and communist dreamers seem to have largely disappeared, why can't the libertarians follow suit?

What a liberal ghetto this blog seems to be!

Yeah, but at least the neighborhood has a low crime rate.

But she wouldn't be in a trailer. Or would she?

That's some nice snark.

This is because the Left is far more hostile to the antiwar right's condemnation of the Left's politically correct superstate than it is to something as insignificant as a little war founded on deception. Well, I was skeptical...not so much now.
Why this amount of contempt shown towards the most principled and decent candidate running is beyond me. What a liberal ghetto this blog seems to be!
Posted by: BC on June 22, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

BC, stop staring into the mirror or you'll die of starvation, forever fixated on the beauty of your moral righteousness and perfection.

Your thesis of left wing shallowness is ass backwards. The reason I distain Ron Paul is because I take him seriously. His anti war stance is noble, and for that I applaud him. His desire to return America to a 1928 economic legal and social status is horrific, and all the more so in that Mr. Paul holds his social economic beliefs fervently.

Sorry, I'd rather cast my vote for a candidate and a party who aren't going to convulse America into a social revolution as violent as the military bloodbath we created in Iraq. If you believe the libertarian canon and faith then power to you, but don't place yourself above us because we don't.

After all, aren't libertarians about 'free' choice?

Btw, speaking of snark, I would like to thank BC for reminding all us lefties in the most condescending way possible that the only issue we care about is the Iraq war. Good to see that people of such depth, intellect, and social skills are flocking to Paul.

Are you guys old enough to remember what life was like before airline and telephone deregulation. Airfare is cheaper now than in the 70's despite 30 years of inflation. Same for long distance. And you had to pay extra every month for each phone in your house.

Yet we continue to insist on government run education and we are moving toward government run healthcare. I understand the Community Effect arguments in favor of government education, but I object to the government monopoly.

Another example is FedEx. Would the USPS ever have offered overnight delivery if not for competition from FedEx?

Yeah, counter arguments can be SO annoying.

OK! So these two post-debate polls are utterly meaningless. Yeah, you right!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/
>38,700 responding - Ron Paul 69%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/gop.debate/results.html
>25,250 responding - Ron Paul 60%

Higher samplings than any single fone poll.

70% of Americans want to get out Iraq and here are 2 polls that reflect that sentiment. It's so annoying!

Ron Paul is drawing support from across the political label spectrum. Many are no longer hung up on labels, especially with the growing realization that R & D are merely flip sides of the same coin anymore. People are responding to Paul's freedom message and are voting the man & the message, not his affiliation. Peruse the petition sites and listen to the call-ins when Ron is interviewed, I read or hear a lot of people ID themselves as Dems crossing over or Repubs returning to the fold.

Yup, paradigm shifts are SO annoying...

[This is the last post with multiple links I am going to post. We have a link limit to eliminate the spam, and I have more than one thread to moderate. I realize libertarians don't much care for rules, but we have a couple of them here, and from now on, if you post so many links that the comment is held, it will not appear.]

Dear alex,

I've read your comments before, and you seem reasonable. (I seem to have touched a nerve!)

By "care about Iraq" I meant "care about the Iraq issue or Iraq War", not about the hopeless canard about Iraqi democracy.

My point was that the establishment Left (I capitalized "Left" precisely because I was talking about an establishment) is perfectly willing to accept a few foreign wars based on deceit if that means it can block real conservatives (who do not need to be s "extreme" as Ron Paul, but who are at least serious about reducing the scale of gov. and restoring traditional values in a way that the neocons aint. That's why the Left still prefers a neoconservative "loyal opposition" to seriously engaging the real right.

I was skeptical, again, not so much now.

John Campbell: Are you guys old enough to remember what life was like before airline and telephone deregulation.

Yeah, it was bad. Thank God for Jimmy Carter.

Another example is FedEx. Would the USPS ever have offered overnight delivery if not for competition from FedEx?

Probably not, which may explain the wise policy we've always had of not prohibiting that sort of competition with the USPS.

In fact, this sort of gov't vs. private industry competition is precisely what some pinkos like Dean Baker suggest. By contrast, libertarians think that the gov't doing anything is inherently evil.

If libertarians actually had to live in a world run by their ideology, they'd all turn Democrat.

You have assets so great that you pay over 23 grand a year in property taxes alone and your child is in public school? Pardon my incredulity, but I am having a hard time believing that claim.

As to whining about paying taxes - some of us are trying to have a civilization here, and that's the entry fee.

If you think no government is the best government, hell, Somalia circa 1993 must strike you lot as paradise.

Libertarians just don't pay taxes on their cell phone use.

Oh, good f-ing lawd, Campbell. Crack open an econ 101 textbook sometime and read up on the diff between public and private goods. The invisible hand is a metaphor, not a deity.

Are these the kind of remedial nutters we're going to have to put up with for the next 12 months? It's going to be one long hard slog.

I understand the Community Effect arguments in favor of government education...

Clearly, you don't understand the community effect arguments in favor of anything (including getting out of Iraq, which you and Ron Paul oppose solely because of the high cost and an isolationist foreign policy). If you did, you would not be trolling a liberal blog trying to sell us on Paul by discussing freaking airline deregulation and the competitive power of FedEx instead of, OH, SAY, the rampant Constitutional abuses of this administration and its mushrooming executive power.

For Pete's sake, take two minutes to learn what makes your audience tick instead of assuming that everyone is motivated solely by your visceral hatred of taxes.

In 2004, the cellphone bias was not significant. Another study showed a 2% difference.

You folks posting here against Ron Paul scare me…. Richard Doherty at 1:42 PM

….more of my Federal taxes spent on education …. John Campbell at 2:56 PM

Are these the kind of remedial nutters we're going to have to put up with for the next 12 months? It's going to be one long hard slog.

I told y'all they were going to be as annoying as the Naderites. I was wrong. They're going to be 20 times worse. At least the Naderites had the right problem, wrong solution.

"You have assets so great that you pay over 23 grand a year in property taxes alone and your child is in public school? Pardon my incredulity, but I am having a hard time believing that claim."

You're applying Red State logic there Blue Girl.

I hate to say it but many of us Blue Staters who comparatively speaking do much better pay-wise than our Red State counterparts are forced to pay property taxes like that commonly. It sucks big time. and then to top it all off, we get nailed by the good old AMT. "But I pay all this money in property, local and state taxes! Too bad," the IRS replies, "Uncle Same needs to get his too."

It is unfortunately, the single greatest downside to making a decent living in affluent but wholey blue states.

But she wouldn't be in a trailer. Or would she?

Shortstop, that has to be one of the greatest lines in the history of the Calpundit/Political Animal comment threads.

Seriously, though, dude's paying $23,000+ in property taxes, he's marked what economic class he belongs to. That's the real Ron Paul base - people who want to do away with the federal government because they figure they have the means to survive without it, not snarky kids with cell phones.

There is no equivalent to American-style libertarianism anywhere else in the world, mostly because Americans are the only people who can afford to be libertarians.

Complain to your governor.

He would. But it's a 300-mile drive over a dusty dirt road, which incidentally is the only thing our Federal taxes should prolly be going toward, to get to the state capital.

http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=2116

Dear Jason,

The Department of Education?! WOW! I would advise you to set the bar higher for your sacred cows. I can understand building a shrine to the New Deal, since we learn that in public school, but the DoE is a Carter boondoggle which symbolizes the decline in American education over the course of it's existence. (The last two points might be related.)

Shortstop:

[E]quating "supported by David Duke" with "characterizes him as David Duke is at the back of your support of Mr. Paul..."

Now what is the difference between saying that David Duke supports RP, rather than say, Felix Johnson or John Doe? Could it be the implication of sympathy between Paul's views and Duke's? I'm trying to think of another purpose it could serve....

And no, I am not a foot soldier of the Paul Campaign, just some dude speaking his mind in a conversation.

And no, I am not a foot soldier of the Paul Campaign, just some dude speaking his mind in a conversation...

...who just happened to show up simultaneously with four or five other Paul-supporting dudes to share their casual thoughts with the liberals, minutes after Drum makes his first-ever Ron Paul post. Gee, what are the odds?! Thanks for stopping by, BC!

Thanks, dr. sardonicus and Disputo.

BC: I've read your comments before, and you seem reasonable.

Well, here in NY that's not considered a nice thing to say, but I'll make allowance for regional differences.

By "care about Iraq" I meant "care about the Iraq issue or Iraq War", not about the hopeless canard about Iraqi democracy.

How exactly are they supposed to show they care? At this point the only reasonable course of action is to leave. The time for any other concern to be of any practical value is long past.

I capitalized "Left" precisely because I was talking about an establishment

That may be, but capitalizing Left is a common practice of the Right. Simply referring to the "establishment left" makes the point.

is perfectly willing to accept a few foreign wars based on deceit if that means it can block real conservatives

No, I think that the "establishment left" (by which I mean the mainstream of the Democratic party) is perfectly willing to accept a few foreign wars based on deceit because those assholes thought it was politically expedient.

I'm cynical about the motives of those who voted for the war, but think that their concern was to avoid being demonized by the mainstream (whatever that currently means) of the Republican party. They're the most formidable opponents in a political sense.

I doubt that there's any real concern on the part of mainstream Dems about what you call the "real right", as they're not in a powerful position.

You can argue that Ron Paul would be a great president, and you might even be right, but he's not what worries the Dems, or even the "real left".

$23,000 PER YEAR IN PROPERTY TAXES?

I pay roughly $37,000 in property taxes each year. Ugh. But I own several homes. And, they're not "trailers."

It is unfortunately, the single greatest downside to making a decent living in affluent but wholey(sic) blue states.

Even though, politically, I love where Mississippi and Alabama are, there's virtually no amount of money that could convince me to live in a swamp near rednecks. I don't like a lot of gunfire. I certainly don't need pick-em up trucks driving through my yard in the middle of the night while two good ole boys holler and throw beer cans about the property. I don't think New Hampshire counts as a wholly blue state. Connecticut, yes, that's a blue state and that's where the other house is located. My wife will not pay taxes and she will not allow me access to the proper paperwork where I could change some of the use of the property over to some bogus charity or wetlands use (there is a pond) and get some relief. She thinks it is one just and proper that I suffer. Woe is me, I guess.

Look, the confiscatory taxes of the Clintonista years are going to make a comeback. I may have to sell property in order to keep above my comfort line. I may have to move my money and my assets to a comfortable offshore location. I'm thinking of some island in the Bahamas or something. I don't know which one. It's late afternoon and I am dead dog tired from sitting on my deck and doing nothing.

I said:

Good to see that people of such depth, intellect, and social skills are flocking to Paul.

BC adds:

And no, I am not a foot soldier of the Paul Campaign, just some dude speaking his mind in a conversation.

I forgot to add "honesty" to the list of traits of Paul supporters. My bad.

Gee Kevin did you feel that way about Howard Dean four years ago?

The answer is we won't know until the first votes are counted how much support Ron Paul really has. Any political consulant worth his salt knows these national polls are nothing but name recognition and that states poll are the same way until six weeks before their primary or caucus date. But its also clear in terms of intensity of support, especially online, he more than outclasses the rest of the GOP field and has the poential to draw from a variety of voter groups. If Fred Thompson is so popular outside of a group Beltway conservatives, where are all his meetup.com groups? Hmmm?

I think its safe to say Ron Paul has more support outside the party than in it so if you are a libertarian and you want to switch your registration to Republican to vote for Ron Paul this year, you're not going to get picked up by the pollsters either.

Oh by the way, guess who was also at the same level of support at this time before the primaries began? Jimmy Carter and George McGovern.

It's taken you a while (and maybe you had to force yourself to write this blog entry) but thanks Kevin for noticing the Ron Paul Revolution.

using as much real data as Sully does, I think I can totally refute this. First off, people with mobiles and no landlines are going to be overwhelmingly young, as he says. They are also going to be overwhelmingly either urban and professional or urban and poor. neither one of these is a Paul fan group.

wait, did the unabomber have a cell phone?

Sean Scallon: the Ron Paul Revolution

2008: Ron Paul vs. Dennis Kucinich. It oughta be interesting.

I don't know which made me snerk louder--this:

It's late afternoon and I am dead dog tired from sitting on my deck and doing nothing.

or this:

I forgot to add "honesty" to the list of traits of Paul supporters. My bad.

Oh, forget it.

The libernutties are bad enough, but if I have to hold the hands of Pon Raul supporters and explain the difference between a self-selecting sample and a random sample, I'd rather shoot myself.

No wonder these nuts hate the public schools -- it's easier than hating their own stupidity.

With real estate prices what they are $23,000 is the tax bill on a 3000 square foot home and one investment property in Los Angeles. That doesn't make you rich in my opinion.

Y'all gotta get a new tagline to replace the Ron Paul Revolution. It totally sounds like you're hawking home gym equipment or one-piece business suits or something.

I love all the whining about Ron Paul "nutters" and "spammers" and etc etc. This is totally like an MMO.

OMG RON PAUL GUILD IS ZERG AGAIN LOL LOL WTF

Gimme a break. There's a lot of us, for a reason: government continues to get an F for effort. It's time to change. Rolling back to "1928" is not what RP wants to do; he'd like to go back to 1912 ... I applaud it, because life is not any better now than it was then. When will we learn?

A smart person would pass the property tax bill for his investment property onto his renters, but I guess that would prevent him from claiming it as money out of his pocket then, wouldn't it?

Good thing I add "honesty" to the list....

he'd like to go back to 1912 ... I applaud it, because life is not any better now than it was then.

For whom, white boy?

he'd like to go back to 1912 ... I applaud it, because life is not any better now than it was then.

Now I get it. Pon Raul supporters hate indoor plumbing.

Come on, Kevin -- there's an awful lot of time for the polls to shift as people learn more about the candidates.

1) we're still 7 months from the Iowa Caucus
2) Ron Paul doesn't have the name recognition yet of Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or Thompson
3) Paul's campaign has spent only around $500,000 thus far, compared to between 6-12 million for Romney, McCain and Giuliani
4) Early polls tend to measure name recognition
5) We still have six debates coming up
6) As I mentioned upthread, Paul's Q2 fundraising numbers are going to instantly put him in the top tier on July 15th (he'll have more cash on hand than McCain)
7) Paul has gotten very little MSM coverage, it's only now starting to happen

So I think it's a wee tad early for "give it up" pronouncements, Kevin.

6) As I mentioned upthread, Paul's Q2 fundraising numbers are going to instantly put him in the top tier on July 15th (he'll have more cash on hand than McCain)

Would you care to place a side bet on that, Mr. Klingon?

Hey shortstop, In the very same post you said:

"OH, SAY, the rampant Constitutional abuses of this administration and its mushrooming executive power."

AND

"For Pete's sake, take two minutes to learn what makes your audience tick..."

Ron Paul is the single biggest advocate in the entire Congress for a return of government includeing the executive branch to its constitional limits.

Ron Paul was one of only 3 Republican members of Congress to vote against the Patriot act when it was extremely unpopular to do so and he regularly criticises the Bush admininstration for trying to grab power for the executive branch.

Also check out his congressional speeches and articles on the Military Commisions Act and NSPD 51.

You folks posting here against Ron Paul scare me. Some of you are obviously paid and I hope you can live with yourselves, when it's all said and done.

My God, when I think that but for us liberal posters here, Ron Paul might well become the next President of the United States, I'm simply overcome with guilt.

Sometimes, the twisted pleasure I get out of tearing down the last bastions of civilization and democracy can't really manage to distract me from the shame I feel over what I've done.

Why, God, oh why did you make me a liberal? I'm addicted to a drug called Depravity!

But, John, I had to hold your hand and lead you to get you to talk about checking executive abuses of power. You were too fired up about FedEx's creation of healthy competition and your own high property taxes to even stop to think what you should be saying to a liberal audience.

Do you see the problem here? I shouldn't have to explain to you how to market your candidate for whom I won't be voting. You guys are hopeless. It's the self-absorbed blinders of libertarianism at work again.

Btw, just as a general question to you anti-war libertarians:

Where the F have you been the last 7 years?

Sure, Disputo! Even money or do you want odds ;)

Disclosure, I gave Ron Paul $2,300. And I am a Ron Paul addict!

How about if McCain has more cash on hand than Paul when the numbers come out in mid-July, then I'll donate $50 to the campaign of your choice, and if Paul has more you donate $50 to his campaign?

Someone tell us if this wager is illegal?!

Whaddya say, Disputo? We're all gentlemen here, let's have some fun.

It is so weird that with so many discrete Ron Paul supporters here, they never accidentally talk over each other or post at the same time. Each one waits five or so minutes from the previous one's post before proffering his own comments. That's some libertarian courtesy for you.

True, the real right is not in a powerful position, and the establishment left keeps them out of sight precisely because they would like to keep it that way. I don't know about the popular left. I would hope they hate Michael Ledeen and other warmongers as much as or worse than Ron Paul, who at least hasn't killed anyone.

Our current establishment is probably post-left post-right, and selects standard bearers of both labels who will do it's bidding. This is probably more the case than who is keeping whom out and who is afraid of whom.

Nobody wants us out of Iraq more than I.

I don't know what RP would do if he were to win, which he virtually certainly will not. If I though he would dismantle the welfare state completely in one fell swoop, it would scare me to death; but if I thought he would take steps to progressively shrink our government, he would be my man. I'm a small government Constitutional conservative, not a libertarian idealogue. I think RP is of the same mind.

These days, of course, following the Constitution is considered maniacally extreme.

shortstop, You are obviously too concerned with snappy answers to carry on a meaningful exchange.

I brought up FedEx, competition, and property taxes in response to a previous post regarding abolishing the Dept of Education. It was relevent to the discussion.

If you want to change the subject to talk about executive power that's fine with me.

By the way, you never responded to my point, which is that you lumped Ron Paul in with all the other Republicans who want to grab executive power without doing your homework.

Instead of a money payoff, I was thinking more along the lines that would you just promise to take yourself and all your fellow Paulists elsewhere. In return, I promise to stop posting on Ron Paul boards.

True, the real right is not in a powerful position, and the establishment left keeps them out of sight precisely because they would like to keep it that way.

Yep. Those evil Lefties, always keeping down the Right.

Which dimension are you from again?

Yo shortstop,

Paul supporters actually read Kevin Drum, and thus, when he posts about Paul, pick up on the thread!

Amazing but true.

And I'm more Paul-symp than pro-Paul anyway.

With real estate prices what they are $23,000 is the tax bill on a 3000 square foot home and one investment property in Los Angeles. That doesn't make you rich in my opinion.

Only one investment property? I'm in tears for you.

Hey, where'd my italics go? Frickin frackum...

Could it be the implication of sympathy between Paul's views and Duke's?

Very perceptive of you--that's exactly what I meant, and it's true. Why do you think Paul bought Duke's mailing list?

Paul is a racist nutjob:

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

By the way, you never responded to my point, which is that you lumped Ron Paul in with all the other Republicans who want to grab executive power without doing your homework.

I had to read that sentence three times to figure out what it meant (why should Republicans want to do my homework?). I think you should spend some time with your daughter in that trailer--just as an English brush-up, of course.

John, you're doing it again--projecting your own interests onto us, that is. You really have to start trying to think like the people you're trying to convince. This is easier, of course, when one doesn't find it difficult, as so many libertarians do, to put yourself in the shoes of other human beings.

Obviously you're under the impression that this blog's audience is looking for ways to distinguish Paul from other Republicans. Actually, that's an interest you have, most libertarians probably have and Republicans might have. Why do you think distinguishing Paul from the rest of the Republican lineup is of significant interest to us?

Listen to Ron Paul on NPR here: mms://realserver.bu.edu:554/w/b/wbur/onpoint/2007/06/op_0621a.wma

Of the people who call into the radio show, young and old alike, what do they have in common? THEY ALL SUPPORT RON PAUL

Mainstream media, get over yourselves. You have become obsolete, and are not handling it gracefully.

Not only do those polls ask leading questions, designed to illicit the answers they desire, they are only polling the segment of the total population that will give them the answers they desire.

If you genuinely want to learn more about Ron Paul, check out Youtube. There are plenty of vids of him addressing Congress in the past, as well as everything else.

Ron Paul registers low in the "mainstream" polls for one reason and one reason ONLY. He has virtually no name recognition among the average couch potato audience that pollsters use.
Virtually every time Ron Paul appears on TV, there's a flurry of activity at his headquarters - donations flood in, the phones are swamped and the email messages jam the servers with messages like "Where has this guy been hiding? He says what I've been thinking for years. How come the news media don't show us more?"
Whenever Ron Paul is able to get his message to the people, the people respond.
That's why, in virtually every corner of the country, real live people are signing up and attending "MeetUps." Ron Paul has more members in his meetup groups than all other candidates COMBINED! That is real world support that is not reflected in the polls. Right now there is an army of about 15,000 activists out there campaigning for Ron Paul, and the number grows every day.
The Revolution WILL NOT be televised - it will be YouTubed.

It's like cockroaches.

Gotta go finish a project. Lots of fun--thanks, all, for the entertainment!

Of the people who call into the radio show, young and old alike, what do they have in common? THEY ALL SUPPORT RON PAUL

Yes. We get it. As this thread shows, a small number of Paul Ron supporters are well organized enough to flood any open access forum where your deity is being discussed. Big deal.

Ron Paul registers low in the "mainstream" polls for one reason and one reason ONLY. He has virtually no name recognition among the average couch potato audience that pollsters use.

You shills are repeating yourself. That has got to be the dozenth time one of you blamed Pon Far's low polls on no one having heard of him. However, you have as yet not bothered to make a single argument as to why anyone should support him once they do hear of him. And this constant theme amongst you members of the PaulBorg of insulting your target audience certainly does not bode well for Ru Paul's electoral chances.

Disputo, you're no fun! What kind of a wager is that, where the "prize" is cutting off debate, no matter which one of us wins?

I thought the point was to have more debate, not less! Let's do the $50 thing, c'mon...I can't wait to see you donate to Dr. No! :)

Really though guys, the Paul phenomenon is real. If you look at meetup.com you'll see Pual has 15,000 meetup members, which is 3 times as many as the next highest candidate in either party (Obama).

And, Paul's meetup.com numbers are increasing exponentially whereas the others are mostly stagnant -- Paul was only at about 8,000 members just 10 days ago. It's really amazing.

Ron Paul is the new Lyndon Larouche. I think its great that all you Ron Paul supporters are out there campaigning instead of forming militias.

"Yes. We get it. As this thread shows, a small number of Paul Ron supporters are well organized enough to flood any open access forum where your deity is being discussed. Big deal."

Oh please.
Listen to the callers on the interview. Do you really think the 80+ year old lady and the truck driver are part of some well organized conspiracy?
Talk about a conspiracy theorist whacko.

Disputo sez:

"...a small number of Paul Ron supporters..."

Small but growing! The meetup.com numbers are hard to call small, and if Paul brings in, say, $5 million in the second quarter, I don't think his popularity will be able to be written off with the "small group of supporters" idea.

"However, you have as yet not bothered to make a single argument as to why anyone should support him once they do hear of him."

Oh, there are many reasons!

1) against the war in Iraq (from the start)
2) against the coming war in Iran
3) for the protection of civil liberties
4) against government waste, fraud and corruption (with the voting record to back it up)
5) against big government "solutions" to social problems that only make those problems worse
6) for sound monetary policy

etc etc. There is plenty of there there. I truly believe Paul will win this nomination.

Well, since Prop 13 limits taxes to 1% of assessed value, then you live in a home that is worth 1.4 million dollars. That is not middle class. Even in LA.

,b>bret: "Rolling back to '1928' is not what RP wants to do; he'd like to go back to 1912 ... I applaud it, because life is not any better now than it was then. When will we learn?"

Well, it's high time somebody stood up for:

* An average life span of 45 years; high child mortality;

* The 75-hour work week;

* Legalized usury;

* International imperialism and the universal subjugation of people of color; and

* Denying women the right to vote.

Oh yeah, my grandmother would probably appreciate your nostalgia for the 1918 worldwide flu pandemic that killed not one - not two - but three of her sisters in just a little over one week's time, the repeated outbreaks of cholera, typhoid and the occasional bubonic plague, and all the horse manure and assorted organic waste products (including dead animals) left to rot in urban streets for days at a time.

And of course, no trip down Memory Lane would suffice for Grandma without your fond reminiscence of polio, which in 1940 left her youngest son partially crippled for life.

In short -- don't be an ass.

Ron Paul is the single biggest advocate in the entire Congress for a return of government including the executive branch to its constitional limits.

I disagree. Note Ron Paul’s deal with the devil (or devils). Back in the very recent days when Republicans controlled the House, Ron Paul cut a deal with Hastert and DeLay to vote with Republicans on procedural votes, including cloture, (called previous question in the House). This was very valuable, because you need 60% for cloture. The Republicans got what the wanted from Paul. They did not need his vote to reach a simple majority. Paul voted with Republicans time and again, including in favor of the most ridiculously undemocratic House rules ever adopted in the history of the U. S. Thus, he was a lackey for the Bush Administration on the big issues.

Ron Paul was one of only 3 Republican members of Congress to vote against the Patriot act when it was extremely unpopular to do so and he regularly criticizes the Bush administration for trying to grab power for the executive branch.

This is a prime example of what I am talking about. The Republicans did not need Paul’s vote to pass the Homeland Security Act. They did need his vote to cut off debate. He gave it to them. Then later when Democrats and a few Republicans were trying to correct some the worst aspects of the bill, Paul again voted to cut off debate. Thanks Ron. You were a very loyal Republican.

After the Democrats won the House, how to you think Ron Paul voted on the appropriations bill that would have gotten us out of Iraq? I’ll give you a hint: not like the big majority of the regular readers of this blog wanted him to vote.

Do you really think the 80+ year old lady and the truck driver are part of some well organized conspiracy?

Good point. It's inconceivable that an octogenarian and a truck driver could be on the same email list.... Boggles the mind, in fact....

Look, you shills better start getting your stories straight -- is there "an army of about 15,000 activists out there campaigning for Ron Paul" as Michael Wagner insists or are Ron Paul supporters as wholly unorganized as you suggest?

Btw, good luck on continuing to foster support for Pon Far by insulting your target audience. Let me know how that goes for ya.

the Ron Paul supporters who are diving in here are going to be every bit as fucking annoying as Nader's people were

Did blogs exist in 2000?

I applaud it, because life is not any better now than it was then. When will we learn?"

What a bother that we have lifesaving antibiotics and transplants. That we have a relative degree of food safety. That child labor is outlawed. That there is a federal minimum wage law.

And someone really should do something about us uppity wimmin voting and what-not.

Disputo sez:

"Look, you shills better start getting your stories straight -- is there "an army of about 15,000 activists out there campaigning for Ron Paul" as Michael Wagner insists or are Ron Paul supporters as wholly unorganized as you suggest?"

Disputo, one interesting thing about Paul's campaign is how it mirrors his libertarian governing philosophy, it's not top-down but bottom-up, so people organize themselves with little official instruction from the campaign. And it works pretty well.

So I wouldn't call Paul supporters "unorganized," but I would say we are not "centrally organized."

And come on Disputo, let's do that wager. I wanna see you make a check out to Dr. No! :)

BC sez:

"If I though he would dismantle the welfare state completely in one fell swoop, it would scare me to death; but if I thought he would take steps to progressively shrink our government, he would be my man."

Paul has stated on several occasions that I've seen that there has to be a transition period, the bureaucracy took decades to build up to its current level and will take a couple of decades to pare down to a better size.

Even the targets he feels most strongly about (like eliminating the Federal Reserve) I have seen him make statements showing that he does not want to end these things in one day or even one year. So it's more of a "phase out" philosophy than "off with their heads".

How has no one mentioned the Colbert bump?

Very interesting that this thread has already generated 110 comments, and not all of them from unrecognized commenters.

And, easily, the funniest comment so far was the one declaring Paul was unacceptable because he wanted to get rid of the Department of Education. If I didn't know better, I would think that one was parody.

the establishment Left...is perfectly willing to accept a few foreign wars based on deceit

I beleive you mean moderates. The Paul people are so far right they think Clinton is a Leftist.

Oops, that was me Klingon # 53 on the last post. I forgot to indicate my Klingonian numeric suffix.

I am a little surprised at the hostility towards Ron Paul on this board, I have to say. I understand if you don't want to support him, but he does have a lot more in common with mainstream liberals than some on this board are giving him credit for.