Ron Paul Rising

Evidence from national polls on Ron Paul’s supporters

On Tuesday, Ron Paul shocked the nation with a strong second place finish in the New Hampshire primary.

Amidst the ephemeral rise and fall of most of the GOP field (Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum) Ron Paul has found a steady and consistent rise in the polls. In effect, the once-considered-fringe candidate has vaulted into the GOP top tier.

Data collected from Real Clear Politics demonstrates Paul’s steady rise in the polls from 2009 through 2011. By December 2011 there is a steep increase in support for Paul, likely as Iowa caucus polls showed him coming in first. Although Paul was a few percentage points shy of winning the Iowa caucus on Jan 2, Americans have begun to view Paul as an electable candidate.

 

Who Are Ron Paul Supporters?

A natural question is to ask who are Ron Paul’s supporters and what distinguishes them from other voters. Entrance/Exit poll data from the Iowa Caucuses, the New Hampshire primary, and data from two Reason-Rupe Polls help illuminate common characteristics of Paul supporters.

Iowa

Ron Paul overwhelming won the youth vote, and by youth I mean he received more votes from Iowa voters 40 years and younger than any other candidate. Fifty percent of 17-24 year olds, 45 percent of 25-29 year olds, and 34 percent of 30-39 year olds. (More on the youth vote here.) Problematically for the Paul campaign, voters under 40 years old made up only 25 percent of the Iowa vote, while voters 65 and older made up another 26 percent of the vote, and the plurality of those older voters went to Romney at 33 percent, Santorum at 20 percent, Gingrich at 17 percent, and to Paul at 11 percent.

Paul tied with Romney and Santorum for 25 percent each of college graduates, and Paul’s support is fairly evenly distributed among all educational levels. Paul won the vote among those making less than $50,000 a year, likely a product of his popularity among younger Americans.

Paul also tied with Romney for winning the urban vote, more than a quarter each respectively. Romney then largely won the suburban vote, and Santorum won the rural vote.

Paul won the vote among those who have never before attended a GOP caucus, in fact, a third of these new attendees cast their votes for Paul. In contrast, nearly a third of those who have previously attended the GOP caucuses voted for Romney.

Paul won the Independent vote by a wide margin, with 43 percent of Independents voting for Paul. Twenty nine percent and 27 percent of Republicans voted for Santorum and Romney, respectively, compared to 14 percent for Paul. Paul also won the moderate vote with 40 percent and Romney closely followed with 35 percent.

Despite assertions that Paul is the father of the modern day Tea Party movement, Tea Partiers in Iowa largely went for Santorum. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that Paul did not receive a significant share of Tea Party supporters: Roughly 20 percent of Tea Party supporters voted for Paul. This coincides with what my colleague David Kirby and I have found in our research of the Tea Party movement: There are both libertarian-leaning and socially conservative wings to the Tea Party.

Among those whose primary concern is the budget deficit, Paul won with 28 percent. Among those where abortion was the primary concern, Santorum won with 58 percent.

In terms of candidate qualities, Paul won among those who believe that the GOP candidate should be a true conservative with 37 percent. This is somewhat ironic, given that those who voted for Paul largely were Independents and moderates. This may suggest that those moderates and Independents don’t believe self-identified conservatives are really all that conservative.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • anon||

    Oh, this one will break 300. It's lunch time.

  • Reasonable Man||

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that is not a neocon (and by "neocon" I include Obama):

    http://in-other-news.com/2011/.....ablishment

    Let's hope Ron Paul can do it.

  • Max||

    Right-wing libertarian wet dream--wash the sheets!

  • ||

    Max, I'll give you it's still a long shot, but if he pulls it off, you won't be able to show your face here for a very long time.

  • .||

    It's not his face that Max shows around here, Frisco, but another part of his anatomy.

  • Bill||

    right-wing? makes no sense.

  • ||

    tl;dr

  • ||

    Some posts are long enough that it makes sense to split them to two pages.

  • ||

    Really sums up your intellect. A 3 page internet post is too long for you to read? Wow... You poor thing.

  • wareagle||

    when conservatives define themselves, as Santorum has, as believing that govt should control things like contraception, people listen to Paul's message. When conservatives define themselves, as Gingrich and Perry are, as being against free enterprise and capitalism, people listen to Paul's message.

    It's more than a little ironic when you think about it - this is theoretically the most free nation on the planet, Paul's message is based on liberty, and in 2012, some Americans are discovering the concept for the first time.

  • smartass||

    Somehow that's not the part I find ironic. Every generation has to learn for itself what the generation before knew.

    What's ironic is that in spite of a good century's worth of predominantly statist/environmentalist/socialist educational agenda, there's still enough Americans left who are even able to "discover" the RP message for themselves.

    And there's enough of them to put RP where he is now.

    That's almost enough to kill of some off my inner cynic. And if that happened then I'd probable end up much less a smartass.

    Well, let's no get too carried away here. If you think there's big inertia against RP the man, just wait until somebody tries to actually implement his vision. Hell hath no fury like 500 pissed of government agencies.

    Somebody better buy RP a copy of Machiavelli if he wins, and you better hope RP takes it seriously.

  • Ice Nine||

    ^^This. Getting him elected is about 1/10 of the battle.

  • k2000k||

    GI JOE!

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Sarcastic Machiavelli or real Machiavelli?

  • smartass||

    I was thinking the real thing.

  • Brandon||

    Sarcastic Machiavelli being "The Prince?"

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    I think part of what people imply when they say Ron Paul is not electable, is that MAYBE he can be elected buy he won't live long enough to do anything. People loved JFK, but that didn't stop some fuckheads from taking him out and he was ALL about government and bullshit. Can you imagine the Qaddafi-death-esque youtube video that is going to be posted when Union workers/Government Contractors/Bureaucrats murder the poor bastard en masse on inaguration day if he defied the odds?

    Maybe Ron should start renting the Pope-mobile.

  • CE||

    What they mean when they say he is unelectable is that they haven't actually checked the polls or where his support is coming from, and they just believe what they've heard on TV and radio and in major newspapers about him being a quixotic fringe long shot far outside the mainstream.

    Even though he has strong appeal to independent voters who decide elections, most Americans don't want another war, and most Americans want to balance the budget without raising taxes.

  • Brandon||

    This...seems oddly optimistic for H&R. New here?

  • ||

    Was thinking the same. Where's the NNNEEEEWWWWSSSLLLEEETTTEEERRR story?

  • ||

    Scroll Down.

  • ||

    I suspect this has a strong likelihood of occurring as well. I think it could be positive for the liberty movement - expose statists as the thugs they are. Also I would be very happy to meet Ron Paul in Vallhalla when I'm dead.

  • Devil Inchoate||

    Every generation has to learn for itself what the generation before knew.
    Then why does he do better among younger voters than older ones? Did the older generation forget what it once knew?

  • Robert Zimmerman||

    I was so much older then/I'm younger than that now

  • wareagle||

    yes, and not only did the older generation forget, it is among the prime beneficiaries of govt goodies. Among the young, it is an article of faith that the so-called entitlements will be gone by the time they are eligible.

  • ||

    It actually blows my mind how many people below 25 actually think they will be able to collect benefits from social security and/or medicare.

  • dope||

    Oh please, they will inflate their way out of this deficit problem, and we will all be millionaires!

  • ||

    And a million dollars will buy you a cup of coffee after that much inflation

  • ||

    yes, and not only did the older generation forget, it is among the prime beneficiaries of govt goodies.

    Do you think the younger generations will despise the Boomers when the shit finally hits the fan? Will they realize the cause was their parents and grandparents were on the tit at their expense?

  • ||

    We 'boomers' were paying into social security and medicare at the same time we were figuring out how to pay their way through school, buy their diapers and cleaning crap off the butts of the younger generation. Then some of us went the extra mile and raised their children for them. Don't hear you complaining about that...so now you can figure out how to buy our depends and clean the crap off our butts. You don't like it? So go vote for Ron Paul like a responsible adult who values what your parents did for you - at their expense.

  • RT||

    Maybe if your generation hadn't blindly looked the other way as the FED stole 97% of the value of our money, we wouldn't have to have both parents working to make ends meet. Must have been nice to actually receive real money for a day's work. Too bad I'll never know what that's like.

  • smartass||

    Good question, glad some others have at least partial answers. Maybe Brian D. could shed more light on it, that's out of my league.

  • CE||

    Because the older generation has no libertarian impulse whatsoever. They are not only financially dependent on a continuing chain of government handouts, they vote en masse to protect those handouts, and they have been conditioned to trust authority, to do, what they are told, and to continue forming their opinions based on what the CIA-media complex spoon feeds them, rather than thinking for themselves.

    So basically, Ron Paul has no shot in Florida.

  • Brandon||

    Florida is not all old people. There are entire old-people-based industries that are staffed by young people! And who do you think puts on those Disney costumes every day? It ain't Grandpa.

  • ||

    Oh, you so under-estimate the older generation - and how much more than we've already given our children and grandchildren - that we are willing to give so that 'they' can have a better life.

  • sasob||

    Every generation has to learn for itself what the generation before knew.
    Then why does he do better among younger voters than older ones? Did the older generation forget what it once knew?

    This member of the older generation hasn't forgotten. I think part of the problem is that there just were never that many of us who were actually libertarian. Most either leaned libral/progressive or social/fiscal/neo conservative.

  • ||

    I never considered myself anything but independent, meaning I'll decide who and what I'll support. And I told my children and grandchildren to never trust policemen or politicians (among a few others) and that the most important thing for them to learn in school is our Constitution for if you don't know your rights, if you're not willing to stand up for your rights, your rights will be taken from you. I think apathy has gotten us where we are now along with feelings of disempowerment, that what we think and believe as individuals makes no difference.

  • sasob||

    That's almost enough to kill of some off my inner cynic. And if that happened then I'd probable end up much less a smartass.

    That's because you're only a smartass instead of a smartass sob like I am. :-)

  • Fluffy||

    Paul at 20% in South Carolina, closing on Romney and Gingrich fast:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo.....ting-tight

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Shreds of hope...re-knitting themselves. Why, why do you give me hope? My inner cynic drowned my inner child years ago.

  • anon||

    Don't worry, your shreds will soon be burned when they decide to count the votes like Iowa.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Oh thank god you showed up anon. I was about to stop pointing this revolver at my temple. We can't have that.

  • anon||

    No problem.

    On a more serious note, I listen to a lot of talk radio, and -man- are they ramping up the attacks on Paul. Fortunately, the only thing they have left in their arsenal is "but we like war!"

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Rush has gone full lying jackass about Paul. What a fat friggin' douche.

  • ||

    What the idiot doesn't realize is that Paul is expanding the potential GOP voting base.

  • H man||

    From the transcript: A lot of his supporters are simply college kids who like his ideas on liberalizing drug laws. A lot of his supporters are young college kids who like his idea on gay rights. You know, they're the young idealists who have only their own personal interests here at stake, and he's out there representing it.

    Kids the word for the day is: Sanctimonious hypocrite

  • sasob||

    Kids the word for the day is: Sanctimonious hypocrite

    I can not think of a more apt description for Limbaugh himself, with the possible exception of windbag or blowhard.

  • ||

    Amen.

  • Justin Case||

    "A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for an Iranian nuke in NYC."

  • Ice Nine||

    Say what you guys will; wring your hands about the warmongers all you want but Paul's foreign policy position, especially his Iran views, are an election loser. If he's serious about trying to win this thing, he needs to realize this and at least try to avoid talking about it. Yeah, I know, that would be false and he's not afraid to propound his beliefs, blah,blah, blah...

  • anon||

    I know it's an election loser, because TEAM AMERICA never backs down from a good ole' war on (insert bullshit here). Never waste an opportunity to insert your head into someone elses ass!

    It really makes me a bit ill to look at Paul's foreign policy polling amongst "conservatives."

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Say what you guys will; wring your hands about the warmongers all you want but Paul's foreign policy position, especially his Iran views, are an election loser.

    Not from my viewpoint.

    We are a very war-weary nation. I think that if the Iranian war came, you would see millions in the streets with riots, soldiers burning uniforms and throwing back medals...the whole bit.

  • anon||

    We are a very war-weary nation political ideology.

    ftfy. Team Red/Blue still loves war.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    It isn't just libertarians.

  • anon||

    Speaking more to the politicians and media than individuals here.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Not to mention...winning the hearts and minds of the Iranian people (like neocons ever really give a shit about this) is/will be impossible once children start dieing and there are American troops within shooting distance. If Iraq was a "cakewalk", Iran could be Iron Chef with Japanese judges.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    oooooo....Keiko saying "I am not sure but i think this drone offensive is over done, it doesnt add to the war and leaves a displeasing taste in my mouth."

  • Ice Nine||

    Oh right, just like with the Vietnam War. Look, Vietnam didn't have nukes (and Islamic nut jobs to smuggle them into the country).

    Whether we at H&R believe there to be a threat there or not, millions (of voters) do.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Vietnam didn't have nukes

    The Soviet Union did. That's the context for the Viet Nam war. I should also note that Iran doesn't have them, either.

  • Ice Nine||

    The Soviet Union did. That's the context for the Viet Nam war.

    The VN War had to do with spheres of influence, not the Sovs nukes. But that is a digression. The war against the non-nuclear-threatening Vietnam was the context for the Vietnam War protests - the point of my comment.

  • jt||

    keep masquerading your positions to make them appear more 'mainstream' than they really are.. let's not even question their factuality for the moment.

  • Gojira||

    I think you're right about the war-weariness, but I don't think there will be riots or any such thing. People will just vote differently in the next election (ala 2006).

    Never underestimate how meek and compliant mainstream America has become. Besides...if you don't serve when you're nation is at risk, you're scum and a traitor.

  • anon||

    That's nice and all, but what's TMZ have to say about it?
    /sic

  • k2000k||

    If a war did come it would be in the style of Bosnia or Libya, nor Iraq and Afgahnistan. A war where no grounds troops involved meaning very low risk of US casualties. I am doubtful that Iran will try to close the straights, the last time they did the US hit them very hard.

  • smartass||

    Paul's foreign policy position, especially his Iran views, are an election loser

    Hey, you took my line!

  • ||

    lm'old'ao

  • ||

    lm'old'ao

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    I think they are hoping that Iran is going to do something bombastic and stupid, so they can just drum Paul out of the party, let alone the country. I'm not one to believe in conspiracy theories, but if Paul gets any more significant traction, don't be surprised when some shit goes down and Santorum gets a third wind.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Thank god the right-wing radio guys are eating Gingrich's lunch every day.

    Of all people, Glenn friggin' Beck was mocking this ad right out of the gate this morning.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Love the first comment by Robert Wong:

    "NWET ONLY SPEAKS THE LANGUAGE OF WHORES/SLUTS"

    Not only can we SEE the rage through his liberal use of CAPS, we can feel the speed of his ire through the, presumably typoed, "NWET." Either that, or this guy is some dumb socon.

    Either way, let the sharks kill each other. There's an ancient sea turtle in the back ready to shit on their corpses.

  • Fluffy||

    I am hoping for a Mitt/Newtpocalypse.

    Since Santorum appears to be disappearing back into oblivion, and Huntsman is nowhere, as Mitt and Newt consume each other Paul has to benefit.

    24 or 25% can WIN this state as things now stand.

    It's funny to me, though - when Santorum gained 7 points, he was "surging". When Huntsman gained 8 points, he was "surging".

    Does anyone think now that Paul has gained 11 points, the media will now breathlessly cover the story of how he is "surging" incessantly for the next week, the way they did with those other candidates?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    This pseudo-populist yokely stuff Newt is up to doesn't seem to be sitting too well with the Radio Guys. But then again, it could be red meat to South Carolinians.

    And how the hell is Perry surging? I don't think I've heard his voice in months.

  • anon||

    He's not Newt or Santorum.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Ah, so people have already forgotten why they brushed Perry aside in the first place. I always thought that he kinda got the shaft on that.

  • anon||

    Much like circular logic, this is a circular campaign season.

    Yeah, he did kinda get screwed on his debate performances. It's kinda relieving considering his views on Afghanistan.

    That being said, I'd prefer him over Santorum or Gingrich, if I were presented with the false conundrum.

  • anon||

    heh, now that I actually think about it, it's more like duck-duck-goose.

  • wareagle||

    my vote is that the media will respond the way they did when Cain surged - pull out some accusation that cannot be disproven in an effort to discredit him. As with Cain, there will be no substantive challenge to the ideas, just an assault on the individual. Expect every newsletter to be read, every accusation from "unnamed staffer" to be aired, every out-of-context or misinterpreted statement ot remain out of context and/or be further misinterpreted.

  • ||

    Give me a break - the very title of this article is:
    On Tuesday, Ron Paul shocked the nation with a strong second place finish in the New Hampshire

    No, the nation was shocked - only the lamestream media (the only good thing Palin ever said)

    The media cannot fathom a third color. MSM reporter: he's red cause he likes free enterprize...but, but, but, ...this is really bizarre...he's blue cause he likes staying out of war....what, what, what does that make him??? NO ONE CAN FIGURE IT OUT!!!

    Wolfie blitzen: Sorry to have to cut you off superflous satillite enabled correspondent - we'll have to come back to that later. Right now back to the debate between Mitt and Newt over everybody getting 130% of their taxes refunded.

  • ||

    Good grief - angry typing
    That should say "No, the nation was NOT shocked....."

  • dope||

    My angry reading compensated for your blunder which I did not notice until you pointed it out.

  • robc||

    Ron Paul and Rick Perry have posted impressive gains over the past week...Paul at 20 percent, Perry at 9 percent

  • Loki||

    I seem to remember Perry saying after Iowa that he would stay in the race until SC, which probably means he's going all in there like Huntsman did in NH.

    That and all the socons and neocons who have a single free enterprise bone in their bodies are probably running away from Newt/ Santorum over their attacks on Romney's "vulture capitalism".

  • H man||

    Perry is the one who used the term vulture capitalism.

  • ||

    Perry is going all out in SC. During the time of day when the Baby Boomers get their news (propaganda) from the idiot box, Perry commercials abound.

  • Daleks for Romney||

    YOUR PATHETIC DOCTOR CANNOT SAVE YOU!

  • Cliché Bandit||

    EXTERMINATE!

  • Tango Mike||

    What happened to "Seek" and "Locate"?

  • jt||

    10% edge women voters for romney over paul.. double strong government support, triple government support.. lol.. suspicion confirmed.

    asian leading all minorities in support for paul surprises me.. now i feel less bad about people sharing my skin color.

  • triple government *worker*||

    support.

  • np||

    those women like the oh-so-presidential pretty boy.

    as for the Asian for Ron Paul stat, not that surprising to me; it's a good match. What is surprising is their political participation in the first place

  • robc||

    Paul is getting double the self-employed support that Romney is getting.

  • Gojira||

    My wife is Chinese and we're a solidly Ron Paul household.

    My personal anecdote proves all!

  • jt||

    certainly squelches the perceived concern of asian political apathy by a minor degree

  • ||

    Hate to burst anyones bubble BUT the teaparty is not the movement that was started back in '07. Todays movement is filled with neocons, racist obama haters that were out supporting McCain last election. when Obama got into office then all of suden they were all for limited government and were fiscal conservatives.....all along they were the BIGGEST bush backers around. No, the tea party people are what we like to call tea-o-cons. They resemble NOTHING of the earlier movement. Most Paul supporters have nothing to do with todays so called tea party

  • wareagle||

    using the racist argument = epic fail.

  • anon||

    I literally stopped reading the comment at "racist."

  • ||

    "using the racist argument = epic fail" ...wareagle

    I question your math.

    Both Ron Paul the Tea Party have something akin to the Antaeus *syndrome* where mudslinging only increases their strength. Looking at the epic battle of Hercules v. Antaeus, is seems obvious that Hercules was predestined to fail, but cleverly learned from his mistake.

    Summary: don't sling mud against Anteous, Ron Paul or Tea Party, or you are predestined to fail

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antaeus

  • romulus augustus||

    Yep, that's why five of the eight local Tea Party leadership is on RP's side right now.

  • which localities?||

    the only sc tea party types that appear to be on paul's side are demint and tom davis(sc state leg). who are the others?

  • Tim||

    The day Ron Paul gets elected President is the same day a Star Trek movie wins best picture.

  • jt||

    yes pls stick with movies

  • CE||

    There's a new Star Trek sequel this November?

  • k2000k||

    *WIDE EYES* your right.....

  • ||

    I love that actor that plays
    Spock, they guy who played Sylar in Heroes (which I was addicted to)

  • ||

    lol that's not how you draw a trendline

  • Cliché Bandit||

    The REGION question is somewhat surprising. I guess Mittens being a northerner really does piss off the southerners. I wonder if Paul can bring in a first in SC.

    As an aside, I am in the process of making another bet. How many (if any) states will Ron Paul actually come in First?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    P.S. Show your work please.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Fluffy's notice that Paul stands at 20% in South Carolina means that I will make the admittedly outlandish prediction that Paul will win South Carolina. I mean, why the fuck not?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    YIKES, while i would like to believe, that is like saying the Broncos are going to beat New England tomorrow...wait, I put $10s on the Broncos for tomorrow...DONE, Paul wins SC. What y'all got else?

  • anon||

    What's the payout on $10? I'll take it if it's better than 1:5.

  • Mike M.||

    It is. In most of Vegas, the current money line on a Denver win is +550, staggering for a playoff game.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    My pre-season Broncos to win superbowl is +750.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I meant +7500

  • ||

    I live in SC and I don't think Dr. No wins here. Too many people dependent on the war machine, just like in TX. Ft. Jax, Shaw AFB, Beaufort Air Station, FN Manufacturing, Savannah Nuke Plant, Charleston AFB, Charleston Naval Base, Boeing, etc. I expect "I am the new W" Perry to do well here, maybe even beat Mittens. But, we can hope the weather is atrocious on Primary day...

  • hooha||

    I heard tell that some sort of procedural change in Virginia left only Romney and Paul on the ballot. If that's the case, Paul should get ALL the 'Not Romney' votes. I think Paul takes Virginia.

  • CE||

    How many states will Ron Paul win? Right now it's looking like zero, unless everyone else drops out and Republicans decide they really don't like Romney.

    Iowa was his best shot to win, a small state with a caucus where he could afford to advertise, and there was still a huge field of candidates so you could win with 30 percent (26 percent as it turned out).

    New Hampshire was another good chance, with independents voting and supposedly pro-freedom, except that it is Romney's summer home and Huntsman was trotted out to soak up Democratic votes.

  • pmains||

    In 2008, Paul took 24.5% of the Montana vote to Romney's 38.3%. Seeing how Paul has greatly increased his vote share from 2008 to 2012, what's to stop him from taking Montana this year?

  • #||

    If it stays kinda split he will do well in the wester caucus states

  • Loki||

    He may have a half way decent shot at CO. There's a lot of libertarian-ish types out here so the "leave us the fuck alone" argument tends to go over everywhere except The People's Republic of Boulder, People's Republic of Denver, and the Evangelical Theocracy of Colorado Springs.

    Although, come to think of it, those are the 3 biggest population centers of the state, so maybe not. It'll depend on how many disaffected anti-war, pro civil liberties Obama voters from 08 he can pull in Boulder and Denver, and if there's still any other "not Romneys" left.

  • k2000k||

    I think Paul stands a good chance of winning states like Montana, California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska.

    I think he has a realistic chance, depending on how many candidates there are in taking States like Idaho, Texas, Oklahoma, much of the midwest.

    States like Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona are more problematic given the closer proximity to Utah and the preponderance of retirees in the area.

  • k2000k||

    I live in Seattle and there are already a lot of Ron Paul 2012 signs that I have seen.

  • Tango Mike||

    I doubt it's the Northerner aspect that'll keep them from Mittens. I just cannot see the Southern Baptists et al voting for a devil-worshipping Mormon!

  • ||

    The Newsletters are not to be considered because they are old newsletters...and he didn't write them...or he did. And there were many times when he didn't edit them.

    We can review Ron Paul's Words to confirm this.
    Ron Paul’s words 1995: “I also do an investment letter” “I also put out a political type of business investment newsletter”

    Ron Paul’s words 2011 CNN “Walk Out” Interview: “I didn’t write them. didn’t read them at the time and I disavow them.”

    Ron Paul’s words WHO radio interview Dec. 2011 (just days after “I didn’t write them”) “And I wrote a certain portion of them…But there were many times when I didn’t edit the whole letter, and things got put in.”

    More recently, December 28, 2011, Ron Paul's campaign gleefully accepted the endorsement of a preacher man who wants to execute gay folks.
    “We welcome Rev. Kayser’s endorsement and the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs. We’re thankful for the thoughtfulness with which he makes his endorsement and hope his endorsement and others like it make a strong top-three showing in the caucus more likely,” said Ron Paul 2012 Iowa Chairman Drew Ivers.
    Reached by phone, Kayser confirmed to TPM that he believed in reinstating Biblical punishments for homosexuals — including the death penalty...
    http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.....ay-people/
    On a lighter note Paul does have the support of the worlds oldest profession...

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.....-ron-paul/

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    I'd give a shit...but I just saw how much money was taken out of my paycheck. Bullshit like this does not matter much compared to how much and how my money is being wasted by fucks I didn't elect.

  • anon||

    Attempting to give a shit... nope, not happening.

  • ||

    [Strains.]

    Nope. Not giving a shit, either.

  • Libertine||

    I tried so hard to give a shit that a little santorum eked its way out.

  • Tango Mike||

    Why was there lube in your anus?

  • ||

    The newsletters would help Ron Paul in South Carolina if they knew about them.

    This is the state where Bush/Rove crushed McCain in 2000 with the illegitimate black baby robocalls.

  • Martin Silenus||

    maccain was already trending down in the polls before the black baby robocalls.

  • The Arch Bastard||

    the illegitimate black baby robocalls.

    Was the baby's name Barry?

  • CE||

    Give it up. The newsletters clearly don't represent Ron Paul's views, and haven't hurt his chances. At worst they show that his laissez-faire attitude applied to one of his own business ventures, but we could use a more hands-off approach in DC for sure.

  • ||

    Do you think Ron Paul's campaign actually is having an effect on Obama?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml?hpid=z1

  • CE||

    Yes. He needs to hang on to the youth vote, or he's toast.

  • rhofulster||

    On Tuesday night, I didn't hear too much of the newsletters/crackpot talk on MSNBC. I also noticed a couple of references to the youth turnout for Paul.

  • mr simple||

    Just stop it. We all know Paul can't get the nomination and has no chance of winning the election. All the talking heads say so. It doesn't matter how many people vote for him. I don't know why you dead-enders keep pushing this.

    But seriously, why must you keep giving me hope?

  • ||

    There is monumental change happening within The GOP.

    Either the GOP embraces Paul's philosophy or they will become so small and represent so few people that they will be made insignificant.

    This is an inescapable fact. It's quite enjoyable watching republican leaders realize this one by one.

  • robc||

    The under 30 numbers make this clear. They can have a future or not.

  • Robert||

    What makes you think the under-30s don't change their minds as they become over-30s?

  • anon||

    If only more sane RP supporters called in to talk radio. I mean, some of the guys that call in make ME question supporting RP. They're bumbling whackjobs that only care about zionism and neocons. Talk about something of freaking substance already.

  • robc||

    Niven's Laws #16:

    There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.

  • robc||

    #18 also seems appropriate for Ron Paul:

    Not responsible for advice not taken.

  • robc||

    Reading thru the wikipedia page on Niven's Laws, I ran across this:

    There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot.' -- SM Stirling

  • anon||

    I know you're right, but the "guilt by association" aspect applies in polling.

  • robc||

    You are a poll?

    some of the guys that call in make ME question supporting RP

    If you know Im right, why are you questioning?

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Generally only the nuts have the time(retired?) and energy(unemployed, no work to drain them), to call into talk radio. They're part of the "coalition" and when/if the country collapses, they'll start running mini-dictatorships with their arsenal of machine guns. Better to not get on their shit-lists, I say.

  • Tonio||

    Also, you're assuming that the RP "supporters" are being honest about their support. RP Derangement Syndrome is pretty strong, and I can see progressives pretending to be supporters to discredit him.

  • ||

    I listen to Hannity on the drive home sometimes because I like to hear people who don't stray from talking points which are repeated 45 times per hour.

  • hooha||

    I drive a street sweeper and ride the 'stop Obama express' during my whole shift! It's almost amusing listening to him both dance around Paul's performance until a caller or guest mentions him, then pretend he gives the man a fair shake. Almost.

  • ||

    This is what I've been telling myself. I don't think the battle lines have been drawn like this within the party since the '64 Goldwater/Rockefeller divide. I see a viable third party coming out of this. Maybe not this election cycle. But there seems to be a divide which, on fundamental principals, cannot be bridged. the Soc-Cons and Libertarians should just have a Battle Royal. The under 30 numbers are very impressive

  • k2000k||

    I don't see a third party coming out of this, rather, much like the Goldwater candidacy, we will see a gradual shift in the Rebublican party. The primary goal of the party is survival, first and foremost. If it looks like it needs to adopt more libertarian platforms in the long run then it will. Third parties do not have a history of thriving in this country, and though it could change, given the increasing number of independents, I remain skeptical for now.

  • robc||

    The LP was founded by Goldwaterites who got disgusted with the GOP.

  • ||

    It is kinda fun to watch, isn't it?

  • CE||

    Among those whose primary concern is the budget deficit, Paul won with 28 percent.

    So for the other 72 percent, the budget deficit isn't really their primary concern.

  • Franco||

    That's kind of like the 68% or whatever who were voting Pro Life first went with Santorum in Iowa. Paul is a hardcore prolifer who also is a OBGNY!

  • guy in the back row||

    One factoid of the New Hampshire primary I haven’t seen written about is that Ron Paul came in second place in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. Obama got 82%, Paul got 4%. I don’t know if that ever happened before.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....mary,_2012

  • ||

    ...link not working? (Wikipedia)

  • guy in the back row||

    Sorry, this link should be working

  • guy in the back row||

    Sorry, this link should be working

  • ||

    I couldn't get the Wikipedia links to work but found this:

    http://www.democratsforronpaul.....c-primary/

  • ||

    Life is short,We always need passions!
    SeekCasual*COM, a place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship.And also for finding soul mates.Over 160000 honest members with real photos and detailed profiles.Sign up free and have a try!Nothing to lose!

  • ||

    "...factoid..." ...guy in the back row

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....mary,_2012

    ---from that article---
    There were 5,908 write-in votes, most of which was for three Republicans. 2,273 write-in votes (4% of the total votes) went to Ron Paul, giving him second place. (Paul also finished second in the Republican primary in New Hampshire, where he got 23% of the vote.)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement