It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul Support is a Conspiracy, claims National Media

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Ron Paul Support is a Conspiracy, claims National Media


www.micahnelson.com

t has been revealed that fourteen percent of republican presidential campaign donors in the second quarter, donated to Ron Paul. He has placed first and second in many national online polls with respondents numbering into the tens of thousands. He has more money on hand than John McCain. His grassroots campaign boasts twenty thousand members and he has over 20,000 videos dedicated to him on YouTube.Com, dwarfing all other republican candidates.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Let me begin by saying that I actually like what Ron Paul stands for, for the most part. And the more I read, the more I understand what he is saying and, I think, the more I like it. But what I wish would happen in America is often distressingly different from what will actually happen.

I disagree with a number of statements that the author here has made, and I think he does Ron Paul a disservice by making such claims. If Paul's campaign embraces a distorted version of the truth, he will be unable to craft an ultimately effective strategy.

The first statement is that 14% of donors donated to Ron Paul. This is a substantial number, but the author conflates the action of donating with the action of donating. One has the ability to donate to multiple candidates. Second, 14% of the donors does not mean 14% of the donors, because donors make up less than 1% of the electorate and the mentality of donors is different from regular voters: donors are often more informed and active.

Second is his placement in online polls. The main problem with online polls is that you cannot control who is actually voting in those forums, and therefore you cannot draw conclusions about the rest of the country based on those polls. Only random polls with 1000 people can allow you to draw relatively accurate conclusions about the rest of the country.

Third, whereas his grassroots campaign sports over 20,000 people, support for other candidates is probably measured in the hundreds of thousands.

Fourth, 20,000 videos on YouTube is a lot, but the only conclusion that one can draw from this is that is that his support is more active and technically savvy than that of other candidates. The author mistakenly concludes that if 75% of videos are for Ron Paul, then Paul must have 75% support. There is no proof of this, and is offset by the fact that Paul's support comes largely from young people, who are generally more technically savvy.

Again, selling out rallies is good, but without acutal numbers in-hand, I can draw no conclusions about his wider support.

While he is correct in pointing out that national polls are the only accurate way to measure national sentiment, he is wrong when he dismisses polling's accuracy with the same fervency that Fundamentalists dismiss other natural phenomena when it interferes with their dogma. The national polls being conducted now that have N=1000 are mostly accurate within 3% of the actual number.

But he is correct when he points out that we are still over 5 months from the primary: polls are merely snapshots in time. But there is strong evidence that Paul's real support among the people who will vote is approximately 2%. A better strategy on Paul's part might chip support away from the other maverick, McCain.

Lastly, his statement that pollsters only poll landlines is correct, but he draws a fuzzy, unsupported conclusion. Indeed, many young people own only cell phones. I am one of them. However, he fails to point out that this effect has not been shown in polling yet, primarily because young people do not vote.

The unfortunate conclusion that I have to draw is that Paul's support is much like Dean's: youth-focused, vocal, but ultimately ephemeral. History shows that such campaigns do not work in the end, because the young people supporting the candidate do not turn out to the voting booth.

www.micahnelson.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
Third, whereas his grassroots campaign sports over 20,000 people, support for other candidates is probably measured in the hundreds of thousands.

Well, I think this is because the other "hopefuls" are really scared by Ron Paul. Think about it for a second...He's the only candidate that has stuck by the Constitution during his whole career, the others only "jumping on the wagon" later in their campaigns...Ron Paul was a Constitutionalist when is wasn't cool to be; His voting record & the way he's handled his Congressional Office shows this. He also doesn't take corporate donations because he feels it's his job to serve the People, not business.

In a place like ATS, you see a lot of CT's...Usually triggered by the major differences between the mainstream & alternate medias. The general consensus (between those media differences) seems to indicate the thought that the other candidates & corporate campaign-funders (that can't get Ron into their pockets) that Ron Paul should be swept under the rug because he's the only Conservative that preserves the Constitution...Which is something that all Conservatives should be doing.


Originally posted by Togetic
There is no proof of this, and is offset by the fact that Paul's support comes largely from young people, who are generally more technically savvy.

Ron Paul is drawing a lot of attraction from the younger voters because he talks straight & wants to get Government out of corporate pockets...He also wants to reduce the size of Government so that it doesn't take as much tax-money to keep it going. That's an extrememly fresh breath of air to the young & old alike.


Originally posted by Togetic
A better strategy on Paul's part might chip support away from the other maverick, McCain.

IMO, McCain lost his support all on his own...For one thing, how much confidence can people keep in a candidate who overspends his own campaign allowance? Best not have someone like that in the Oval Office, huh?



Originally posted by Togetic
However, he fails to point out that this effect has not been shown in polling yet, primarily because young people do not vote.

That's a very general statement that can easily backfire. Dr. Paul has been getting positive feedback from a lot of younger people. If, generally speaking, younger people don't vote, maybe if they like hearing the truth & common sense from a candidate (for a change of pace), they'll be more likely to vote this time around. So you can't count on a general statement to be the same as absolute truth.
For example, I started voting when I turned voting age & I've been voting for nearly 30 years. I myself am an exception to that general statement.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
It's interesting. Ron Paul shows up on an internet poll (littlegreenfootballs.com... puts him on every poll since the owner gets flooded with complaints if Ron Paul is not an option), and he makes either an incredible showing or wins the internet poll hands down. Yet, when anyone does a poll of people personally, either via phone call or random folks on the street, Ron Paul typically doesn't get a single supporter.

As I see it, there are two possibilities.

1) All of his supporters, that is, those people who would vote for him over any other Republican, Democratic or other candidate, never leave their homes and just surf the web day in and day out looking for Ron Paul polls. If this is the case, no one has anything to worry about because they're probably not going to leave their caves to vote.

2) Ron Paul has a team working for his campaign that hacks/cheats on any internet poll where he is mentioned. If this is the case, no one really has much to worry about, either, as no one would support Ron Paul over a Democratic or Libertarian candidate.

EDIT TO ADD: I suppose that if the second option is true, and Paul somehow became president (maybe they hacked the electronic voting machines...Ha, wonder if anyone would have a problem with every state using electronic voting being carried by Ron Paul, and every other state going to either Hillary or Rudy), it would be great news for ATS, because there would more than likely be conspiracies galore to be uncovered by us...Assuming he doesn't have us removed from this physical existence.

[edit on 7/25/07/25 by junglejake]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake


As I see it, there are two possibilities.

1) All of his supporters, that is, those people who would vote for him over any other Republican, Democratic or other candidate, never leave their homes and just surf the web day in and day out looking for Ron Paul polls. If this is the case, no one has anything to worry about because they're probably not going to leave their caves to vote.



Yes, Yes, Yes! Someone gets it!

Ron Paul is a Republican in Name Only. If he was such a straight up guy he would be running as a Libertarian. There is a reason Ron Paul only does well in "online" polls, and it is because of Democrats that have no intention of voting for him, want to make Republicans look bad.

At least the media is smart enough to realize this!



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Ron Paul is a Republican in Name Only. If he was such a straight up guy he would be running as a Libertarian.


Hey, you said that as if it was a bad thing. If this guy wanted to make positive changes for his country what chances would he have running in a third party?


There is a reason Ron Paul only does well in "online" polls, and it is because of Democrats that have no intention of voting for him, want to make Republicans look bad.


I still can't figure this statement out. The Dems want to bolster a Rep candidate?


BTW, neither party needs any help to make them look bad, they do that all by themselves.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Hey, you said that as if it was a bad thing. If this guy wanted to make positive changes for his country what chances would he have running in a third party?

At this point, a third party candidate has no chance of winning the presidency. But Paul can't win the Rep nomination either; he's not a "player".




I still can't figure this statement out. The Dems want to bolster a Rep candidate?


I think that what is meant is, they promote a marginal candidate in order to siphon votes away from the established candidates, thus giving the Dems a better chance to win it all.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Alot of good observations here. One aspect that is uncharted and remains unknown is the internet. The level of internet availability in the U.S. is historically unprecedented. There has never been a mainstream media that is essentially free. This very well may level the playing field in a huge way. Unlike MSM, the 'net can't be bought-and-sold by the wealthy and powerful. Who knows what that effect will be?

Also, don't count-out younger voters. True, they may have shown themselves as apathetic in the past but that can change in a heartbeat. And the internet could very well prove to be the vehicle to do it.

As was mentioned in an earlier post, I think Dr. Paul is making a mistake (and doing himself and us all a disservice) running as a Republican. I, for one, would like to see hium run as an Independent. Any other affiliation is going to backfire for him IMHO.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I still can't figure this statement out. The Dems want to bolster a Rep candidate?


My aunt is a hard line Democrat politician (mayor) in Michigan, and she tells everyone she talks to who toes the party line as well to declare yourself a republican and vote in the primary for the weakest candidate. The mentality is, if we can't win fairly, try to make the other party as unappealing to those who are in it so they either don't vote, don't campaign for their candidate, or vote democrat.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Ron Paul is a Republican in Name Only. If he was such a straight up guy he would be running as a Libertarian.

According to his own website, Dr. Paul runs as a Conservative because he's serious about conserving the Constitution...Like the other Conservatives should have been doing all along. Ron has run into a lot of diagreement with other Republicans because he believes that they're all "conserving" the wrong values, for their own benefit instead of for benefiting the Nation.


Originally posted by jtma508
As was mentioned in an earlier post, I think Dr. Paul is making a mistake (and doing himself and us all a disservice) running as a Republican. I, for one, would like to see hium run as an Independent. Any other affiliation is going to backfire for him IMHO.

If' I'm not mistaken, he did run as Independent in the past...But being a "third-party" candidate is what backfired on him then.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join