Ron Paul Leads Republicans in Web Traffic by a Whopping 45%

Ron Paul Leads Republicans in Web Traffic by a Whopping 45%

infowars.com

If web traffic has any relevance in determining which candidate becomes the next US President, Ron Paul has just won....by a long shot.

A recent review by ClickZ.com has the Texas Republican representative with 45.38% of the overall market share, followed by Mitt Romney at a distant 13.93%. Ron Paul gained 6 percentage points over the previous week. Both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain lost around 4 percentage points.

(visit the link for the full news article)

More great news for Ron Paul. I'm getting tired of people saying he has no chance, the man is obviously getting some well deserved attention. Ron Paul also recieves more web searches than Barrack Obama. It could just be that a younger generation is favoring Paul over other candidates, but it seems like the more people research his positions on todays current affairs, the more they like Ron Paul.


infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Unfortunately, web stats mean nothing. I doubt even if he passes up all of the other candidates ten-fold, he'll get the GOP nomination. He needs much more mainstream media coverage.

I just noticed a poll over at Drudge..He's in second place right now..

I do believe the polls are still open over there..

ok it's been 5 minutes since my last look at that poll..He's moving ahead now.

[edit on 5-8-2007 by spacedoubt]

he's a flash-in-the-pan

recall the internet craze for Dean ! last go-around, with all those 'meet-ups' ?

sure Paul is a anti-establishment type...
but so was Pat Paulson....
look where both Dean & Paulson ended up....as non candidates! bottom line!

i hear your passion

I was about to say, remember Dean? The problem is the internet is hardly a random sample of Americans, let alone voting Americans.

The Internet really is'nt that reliable in these kinds of situations since more than just
voting Americans are actually interested in American politics.


Personally I greatly dislike Ron Paul, in fact I tried to think of one thing that I liked
about him, and I could'nt.

I really don't think the majority of Americans agree with his position either,
he really only appeals to Libertarians, some old school Republicans and those that
just don't like the Democratic or Republican parties.

Originally posted by iori_komei


I really don't think the majority of Americans agree with his position either,
he really only appeals to Libertarians, some old school Republicans and those that
just don't like the Democratic or Republican parties.

Could that not be a large number of voters?
I think a lot of folks are disgusted with both parties.
I know that I am..

It's become TOO socialistic on the new left side,
And too Liberal on the former right side.

In all honesty, it's hard to guage the impact Ron Paul is actually making on the electorate. There are so many emerging dynamics at play. Things are different now than they were even in 2004 (the emergence of the powerhouse netroots). How will his ginormous support online translate into actual votes? That is the question.

The national polls, at this point, are dubious at best. You have to consider who they are actually polling. Databanks full of registered voters (who possess landlines). Most people today, under 40, have cellphones; so, none of them are being polled. How will gen X and below vote?

There are dynamics at work here that havn't really been in play previously; or at least not since the 60s.

One thing the punditocracy overlooks is that youth vote. Its been on the climb in a big since 2004 and the internet has grown far powerful in that small window of time. 60-something percent of young(er) people are now following the '08 race. That's the highest that number's been in decades. The establishment should really be looking at that.

The old guard also likes to dismiss the folks online. That should piss everyone off, by the way. We're all a bunch of ignorant kooks out here, y'all. We don't vote and we don't matter. (officially speaking).

I personally don't believe that at all and my editor at work and I fight all the time about this revolution that's happening.

I actually believe, due to the shifting independent, pissed off Republican voters, Ron Paul could do much better than anyone thinks in the Iowa Straw poll coming up. The people seem to be migrating toward his candidacy. Young people like him. Democrats like him. Independents like him.... when they see and hear him. I can say this, if the mainstream media covered him the way they do Romney or Clinton, he'd be way ahead of that tired-a-double-s pack of so-called Republicans.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
And too Liberal on the former right side.

Oh man, thanks I needed a laugh.

The side that wants to outlaw abortion, make same-sex marriage constitutionally
illegal and limit freedoms in the name of security, liberal that's not.

Giulliani is the only person on the Right who could be considered to be liberal,
of the mainstream atleast.

They all spend like their off their bloody rockers in growing a nanny state and that US nanny state is creating more government jobs than in the private sectorones. So who's a fiscal conservative on the right? Ron Paul is about the only one with a fiscal game plan, and the rest are just into spend till you drop lunatic mode.

Party differences mean little to nada when the economy tanks and commodity prices sky rocket , where as food is already up 30% for this year.

The all swung into perverted liberal spend mode,
and as Bubba would say, "it's the economy stupid!'

[edit on 6-8-2007 by Regenmacher]

Iori, what don't you like about Ron Paul?

Seeing as how the Republicans are not well-liked by the majority of citizens, the Repubs are going to need to run someome who is very popular with the American people. I think the majority also wants someone who is not a part of the good=old-boy network, someone not owned by corporations, and not a neocon. That would be Ron Paul. The Republicans may end up having to run Paul, even though they don't like him much, just to keep the presidency. I think that America is at a major turning point, and that this next election will determine our direction for some time to come.

Originally posted by forestlady
Iori, what don't you like about Ron Paul?

I could'nt find the original post I had made stating everything I did'nt like about him, so I had to go back and look again.

Anyways, as to why I don't like him;

He's an much of an isolationists who does'nt believe in mutual protection treaties or
international organizations.

He does'nt believe in intervention in humanitarian crisis's like Darfur.

He wants to abolish the income tax (it does need some reform, but it has a use).

He believes in complete market freedom, which would eventually lead to monopolies
and unfair practices.

He basically wants to privatize everything and make the government as small as possible,
which are two things I'm against (I believe in medium government).

He is far to much of a statist and looks at states like they had the same status as
EU member states have in the European Union.He voted against a net neutrality bill.

He wants to revoke the 17th amendment, which would mean that the legislatures
of the states vote for the Senators instead of the people.

He supports the electoral college.

He voted no on awarding both Mother Teresa and Rosa Parks the Congressional
Medal of Honor because they were "to expensive".

He constantly votes no on expanding stem cell research.

He supports the militaries 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy.

He wants to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy.

Voted in favor of allowing off-shore oil drilling.

Voted against a national AMBER alert system.

He voted to refrain from paying the UN back payments just to basically blackmail them
into restoring Americas seat on the Human Rights Council seat.

He believes that foreign aid is harmful.

He's voted against NAFTA, CAFTA and free-trade agreements with Australia,
Singapore and Chile.

He voted against requiring lobbyists to disclose bundled donations.

He's voted against giving Washington DC a vote in congress (they're not represented).

He does'nt believe in campaign contribution ceilings, basically meaning a company
could give a candidate billions if it wanted to.

He supports the archaic part of the Constitution that requires you be born on American
soil to be president (even if you've lived here all but the first few months of your life).

He voted to build the border fence, which is both an ignorant idea, but extremely costly
and further tarnishes are international representation.

He voted against increasing the minimum wage.

He basically wants to get rid of as many taxes as he can.

He wants to get rid of the national Welfare system, and leave it to the states to
decide if they want to have one, and how far it would go, which is a horrible idea
since some states would get rid of it or make it incredibly weak.



Basically he's a Conservative Libertarian Statist, which is almost the polar opposite
of what I am.

[edit on 8/7/2007 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by spacedoubt
And too Liberal on the former right side.

Oh man, thanks I needed a laugh.

The side that wants to outlaw abortion, make same-sex marriage constitutionally
illegal and limit freedoms in the name of security, liberal that's not.

Giulliani is the only person on the Right who could be considered to be liberal,
of the mainstream atleast.

Maybe the specific credo is not liberal, but the method certainly is.
Legislate to babysit the masses.

Well, reports on webstats may still be enough to help Dr. Paul get some better elbow room into mainstream media, despite the mainstream's efforts to keep him elbowed out of widespread public view.

Earlier tonight, I'd just finished watching a taped movie on my VCR and, as is my normal habit, I turn down the volume before I stop the VCR at the end of the movie...Just as I turned off the VCR to start rewinding the tape, I caught Ron Paul's name displayed on the 10PM TV News. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the sound turned back up in time to hear anything they were saying about him...
My guess though is that it most likely had something to do with the Straw Polls coming up in my area.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

Like everyone else said, the web traffic on Ron Paul really doesn't mean much of anything. Most people are focused on Clinton and Obama. The republicans aren't even talked about on the news. I suppose they are trying to get us to vote for Hillary, or at least thats how it seems. I don't really know enough about any of the candidates to be able to decide which one I would want as a President as of yet. Though, the way votes are tampered w/, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference who I vote for.

The media seems hellbent on getting Hillary elected. Luckily, in this day and age we have the internet so the media doesn't have as big of an influence it used to. The fact that RP is getting a lot of web searches just goes to show that the internet generation has heard of him and may very well vote for him. (I know I will)

Most people I've talked to concerning our next Prez haven't even heard of RP.

And yes he's definitely more libertarian than most republicans. He simply has a better chance of getting elected as a republican.

Why are we still talking about Rue Paul as I think of him.

He's a joke, nothing more than a Ross Perot out there to suck out votes that would have gone to Candidates who actually had a chance at winning.