Ron Paul Rules The Intertubes

David Weigel | May 10, 2007

Via the Reason Foundation's Lisa Snell comes this list on the home page of Technorati: Rep. Ron Paul inspires more patriotic denizens of the web to do blog searches than Paris Hilton, YouTube, or, uh, anything else in the universe. It's part of the ongoing D-story of the 2008 campaign: the libertarian/nerd convergence of support for Ron Paul.

We're probably not talking about hundreds of thousands of people finding out about Paul and growing a national movement. His campaign brags to reporters about Paul's status in online polls, crediting it to his many votes against internet regulation, but there's no sign of it translating to real world Obama-style momentum. (Obama can put out a call for rally volunteers on Facebook and get 200 fresh-scrubbed co-eds bouncing out of bed to help set up microphones.) It's just enough to piss off the online polling outfits. Pajamas Media might be ready to bounce Paul from its poll again after some fishy traffic from a single IP address.

We regret that Congressman Paul, a good and decent American with loyal motives and deeply held convictions, seems to have garnered among his supporters a small group for whom unethical conduct appears to be permissible if it gets him elected. We are certain he would disapprove of it.

Still, this behavior must stop immediately, as well as the rude and abusive messages we are receiving from these supporters. If they do not, Pajamas Media will have no choice but to remove Mr. Paul permanently from our poll. The choice is now in the hands of Mr. Paul’s supporters.

You see, the Paul surges are making the PJ polls - which currently show Mike Gravel beating Obama and Tommy Thompson whomping the GOP field - look illegitimate.

Comments

Anon|5.10.07 @ 10:18AM|#

Ahem, hat tip to Reason's Director of Education, Lisa Snell.

:-)

thoreau|5.10.07 @ 10:20AM|#

Doesn't this threat to boot him from the polls create an incentive for somebody who dislikes Paul to cheat?

Hey, maybe somebody who dislikes another candidate could cheat a poll...

Guy Montag|5.10.07 @ 10:22AM|#

Is Ron Paul going to learn how to scream like Howard Dean?

The Wine Commonsewer|5.10.07 @ 10:24AM|#

That guy who links to TWC, ah, you know, over at Poor & Stupid (having a CRS moment this AM) has three interesting bits on Ron Paul.

here, here, and here

Nice piece, Dave Weigel.

|5.10.07 @ 10:32AM|#

I just submitted this article to Reddit. Am I part of the problem?

Recently there was an ABC republican candidate poll that did not include Ron Paul. Abc not including Paul was all over Reddit and Digg, and the comments came pouring in. They deleted around a thousand comments before they gave in and included Paul. Ron Paul then absolutely trounced every other candidate in the poll.

Did it accomplish anything? Nah. Still, I think it is better to make a scene than to allow a candidate to be erased from ther debate like that.

Bhh|5.10.07 @ 10:33AM|#

I love it when some topdown org like PJM gets run over by the unruly internet. Very MSM of them to get snippy about it. Also amusing that the Mitt and Tancredo guys aren't smart enough to cheat.

|5.10.07 @ 10:34AM|#

Who knew there was a huge overlap in gold standard supporters and computer dorks? I wonder if William Jennings Bryant had the crystal set crowd jury rigging polls at medicine shows for him.

Derrick|5.10.07 @ 10:36AM|#

It's possible that this online support for Paul isn't showing up in meatspace polls because they are only polling registered Republicans. I think a lot of the enthusiasm for Paul is coming from younger people who are Democrat, independent, or unregistered.

|5.10.07 @ 10:42AM|#

Obama can put out a call for rally volunteers on Facebook and get 200 fresh-scrubbed co-eds bouncing out of bed to help set up microphones.

This gets my vote for the best sentence constructed by David Weigel.

FWIW - the Technorati is equally suspect. I have in the past ran a little bot on my PC to boost someone's Technorati ranking.

|5.10.07 @ 10:43AM|#

I think a lot of the enthusiasm for Paul is coming from younger people who are Democrat, independent, or unregistered.

Ding ding ding!

It was funny how everyone was trumpeting how Ron Paul was the only candidate with a net positive rating in MSNBC's online poll after the debate. It probably helped that the video clip that was displayed for him was his response to the question "why are the other candidates wrong about Iraq", which was bound to be popular with Dems and independents, but not so much with the people actually voting in the primary.

|5.10.07 @ 10:53AM|#

"FWIW - the Technorati is equally suspect. I have in the past ran a little bot on my PC to boost someone's Technorati ranking."

Technorati claims that they can detect such things, and they also claim that the RP interest is broadbased and legit.

Guy Montag|5.10.07 @ 10:54AM|#

It was funny how everyone was trumpeting how Ron Paul was the only candidate with a net positive rating in MSNBC's online poll after the debate. It probably helped that the video clip that was displayed for him was his response to the question "why are the other candidates wrong about Iraq", which was bound to be popular with Dems and independents, but not so much with the people actually voting in the primary.

Of course, if he loses the primary this will all be used as "evidence" that the Republican Machine unfairly blocked him out. Rove/Cheney/Thompson plots to follow.

|5.10.07 @ 11:05AM|#

"I love it when some topdown org like PJM gets run over by the unruly internet. Very MSM of them to get snippy about it. Also amusing that the Mitt and Tancredo guys aren't smart enough to cheat."

Apparently Mitt paid the way for hundreds of college republicans to go to CPAC, and I know for a fact that the Tancretins aren't above posting a link to a poll they want tilted in their favor.

Maybe the reason why Mitt and Tancredo aren't "cheating" better is because they don't have a base that's inspired enough to do much of anything.

Mitt has tried to buy the support of college republicans by promising them 10% of whatever funds they can raise for the campaign. Maybe it's worked as a fundraising tool, but it hasn't translated into internet supremacy.

The Eric Dolphy Memorial Barbe|5.10.07 @ 11:09AM|#

This reminds me of the early days of Jesse Ventura's (ultimately successful) run for Minnesota's governorship.

Hope springs eternal.

|5.10.07 @ 11:15AM|#

It's interesting how incredibly "Establishment" the media really is. If a candidate doesn't fit some pre-existing model, he's out. Paul is, after all, a Republican candidate, just as worthy of press as, say, a Kucinich or Nader were as Democrats, each of whom got plenty of attention. But there's media recognition of the Fringe Democratic (or Democratic-like) Candidate™ that simply doesn't exist for anyone proclaiming libertarian values.

I don't think the media has any particular antipathy against libertarians; rather, I think they tend to view libertarians as too small a force to be bothered with. That's one of the problems with conflating Libertarians with libertarians, in my book, but that's the way it is.

For the GOP faithful who dislike Paul because of his opposition to the war, let me just say that rejecting his ideas completely is disturbing. The sole redeeming feature of the GOP is the ever-shrinking limited-government, pro-free market wing. Either party can get aggressive on foreign policy, but it's what we do domestically that will matter the most in the long run. Vote against Paul all you want, but you should welcome the fact that he's bringing back some of the Goldwater/Reagan rhetoric that today's GOP is sorely lacking. Not that rhetoric equals change, but it beats nothing at all.

For the rest of us, don't write off Paul just yet. If a wrestler can win a governorship on a third-party ticket, a Congressman can win on a major party one. And don't argue charisma with me, given the current occupant of the White House!!

|5.10.07 @ 11:15AM|#

It's "teh intertubes", not "the intertubes".

Geez, get it right! :)

|5.10.07 @ 11:22AM|#

Why did a total unkown like William Jefferson Clinton get propelled to the presidency? The mainstream media promoted him as the 'annointed' one, directed by those who control our government.

Ron will never be 'annointed' and thus his supporters must spread the word as they can, and educate the public that those candidates being pushed in the media are not candidates looking out for their best interests but are being promoted by the very thing they are fighting.

This is the big red flag.

BY the way, Paul is second in fundraising in NH of all the GOPers... :-)

Guy Montag|5.10.07 @ 11:29AM|#

I must say, the Paul supporters are saying almost identical things as I did when I was a John Anderson supporter.

I suspect they will be saying the same things as I did after the election too.

|5.10.07 @ 11:37AM|#

The Clinton example is a good one. Without the disruptive force of Perot the first time around, no way, no how he even got close to winning. Not that Bush was popular. But the Clinton victory is definitely a case of the right factors coming into play at the right time. And, of course, he was a good campaigner. Strangely enough, so is the current White House resident. Too bad he's so bad at the actual job.

John Anderson. I always forget about him. He might've done better as an independent in a different election year.

Dave Weigel|5.10.07 @ 11:51AM|#

Without the disruptive force of Perot the first time around, no way, no how he even got close to winning.

That's not really true. Bush was trying to win re-election with a low approval rating, the perception of a lousy economy, a disgruntled GOP base and some GOP fatigue after 12 years of them controlling the White House. If Perot never entered the race it would have gone very differently - Bush wouldn't have wasted so much time trying to shore up Texas and Florida, for example - but all those external factors (the pre-election Iran-Contra indictments, too) would have aided Clinton.

Without Perot in the race Bush might have held on to Nevada, Montana, Colorado, Georgia, and New Hampshire. Maybe even Ohio. That still would have given Clinton 317 electoral votes.

Catron|5.10.07 @ 12:01PM|#

Sorry folks. Ron Paul isn't the great white hope. He's a transparent LINO. Just another D.C. trimmer.

Paul Rako|5.10.07 @ 12:10PM|#

This makes sense-- I was up at 3:00 AM the morning after the debates and Drudge Report had a poll up in the right hand column, top. Ron Paul was a solid third, way ahead of McCain, which causes me infinite joy. I was going to send a link to Reason but by 5 or 6:00 AM the poll had been taken down. Now that may look like a conspiracy but if some script-kiddie moron thinks he is helping us by gaming the system and 'botting phony votes, well that may be why it got taken down-- 1000 votes from one IP address. I still would like to believe that Ron is number three with a bullet.

|5.10.07 @ 12:15PM|#

Dave, I don't agree. Bush was hit much harder by the Perot campaign than Clinton was. I acknowledged earlier that there were other factors that aided Clinton--including Clinton's well-executed campaign--but I think the fact remains that a beleaguered Bush still beats an unknown and somewhat corruption-tainted Clinton without Perot.

Catron,

If you don't like Paul, then who do you like? I don't agree with him on everything, but he's hardly even remotely a typical Republican. How can anyone say so, given his voting record?

|5.10.07 @ 12:33PM|#

Dave, you got some analysis on which states might have been carried by Bush absent Perot?

I'm thinking something like: assume Perot voters broke 2:1 for Bush - what states change columns? That kind of thing.

|5.10.07 @ 12:46PM|#

That's cute that this site is named "Reason". I've seen more rational material coming from a dog who's foaming at the mouth.

Dave Weigel|5.10.07 @ 12:57PM|#

R C Dean - here's the 1992 map. If you give Bush 2/3 of the Perot vote and Clinton 1/3, the following states go to Bush from Clinton:

Nevada (54-46 Bush)
Montana (54-46 Bush)
New Hampshire (54-46)
Ohio (53-47 Bush)
New Jersey (52-48 Bush)
Colorado (52-48 Bush)
Georgia (52-48 Bush)
Kentucky (51-49 Bush)
Maine (51-49 Bush)

If you calculate the votes this way you turn Iowa and Wisconsin into 50-50 races, but since even Dukakis won those states I figure Clinton would have won them. And since Bush actually came third in Maine, hard to imagine he'd win there either. So in this fairly pro-Bush scenario, Clinton still wins.

|5.10.07 @ 1:06PM|#

That's cute that this site is named "Reason'.

Drink!

|5.10.07 @ 1:26PM|#

The reason Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are doing so well in the internet polls is that they dare to speak the truth. It is so abnormal for politicians to do so that people are actually inspired enough to vote for them. I don't even think it matters whether you agree with them or not, it is just so refreshing to hear pol's speak without worrying about what the polls will say but saying what they believe. Whether this translates to people actually getting out and voting is another matter.

|5.10.07 @ 1:38PM|#

You see, the Paul surges are making the PJ polls - which currently show Mike Gravel beating Obama and Tommy Thompson whomping the GOP field - look illegitimate.

You mean that a non-random, non-scientific poll could possibly be illegitimate? Oh shit! I guess MSN will have to retract all of those polls they do on crappy news articles.

Look, Ron Paul has a fantastic following on the Internet. PajamasMedia, after correcting for the folks gaming the system, has consistently listed the top two Republicans as Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, only one of which is even running. While some 80% of America may have access to the Internet, nowhere near that many are interested in hunting down online political polls and registering their opinions. In short, no online political polls should ever be counted as "legitimate", particularly if they allow just anybody to vote (eg. without logging in for vote tracking). Now, getting legitimate polling agencies like Harris Interactive and Gallup to insert Messrs. Paul and Gravel into their polling cold-calls is the real challenge.

|5.10.07 @ 1:48PM|#

But there's media recognition of the Fringe Democratic (or Democratic-like) Candidate™ that simply doesn't exist for anyone proclaiming libertarian values.

What!?!?!

You speak blasphemy...joe told me less then 6 months ago that MSM is heavily libertarian leaning..and i take it on good faith that Joe of all people would be honest to me and to himself on this issue.

|5.10.07 @ 1:54PM|#

Thanks, Dave. I hereby revoke the last, oh, say, five uncharitable thoughts I have had about you.

|5.10.07 @ 2:33PM|#

Cat | May 10, 2007, 12:46pm | #

That's cute that this site is named "Reason". I've seen more rational material coming from a dog who's foaming at the mouth.

Damn, this conversation is extremely tame. People really need to think before saying these things. It's only 11:30 AM here, and now I have to drink?

Nick

|5.10.07 @ 2:50PM|#

yeah, I mean, the online poll responses are likely from younger folk sitting in front of their TVs while simultaneously on their laptops chatting with their friends (or posting on blogs) while watching debates and such. While it is still encouraging to know that there is a large following of younger people out there for Ron Paul and other "alternative" candidates, I hardly think that if you called the average voter in Iowa and asked them what they though of Ron Paul that they would have any idea who you were talking about. Afterall, Rudy Giuliani did such a great job after 9/11, right? And John McCain is a political moderate, right?

Cactus|5.10.07 @ 3:35PM|#

As a former Republican in a "battleground state" I get pollsters calling me every week sometimes more than once. In Republican polls very rarely have I been given a choice of Ron Paul. I will always go ahead give Ron Paul as my choice anyway.

In Presidential and senate/house/state polls I'm never given an option of the Libertarian candidate.

|5.10.07 @ 4:45PM|#

What has Paris Hilton done recently to get her the number 5 spot?

It has been quite a while since her sex tape.

The Wine Commonsewer|5.10.07 @ 5:15PM|#

I used to date a chick named Cat (long blond hair). Never knew her real name. I figure she was married since she always was gone in the morning when I'd wake up.

Best part? She didn't foam at the mouth, like some of the namesake trolls around here.

Okay, that wasn't really the BEST part. Y'all know what that part was.

Urkobold®|5.10.07 @ 5:30PM|#

kwais,

URKOBOLD UNDERSTANDS THAT PARIS HILTON IS, IN FACT, MAKING A NEW TAPE. IT'S A PARTICULARLY PERVERTED SEXUAL ACT WITH A--GASP--PHYSICIST.

|5.10.07 @ 6:46PM|#

But how many are searching base on his new moniker?

Mr. Pickles has a better ring, really.

|5.10.07 @ 6:49PM|#

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/message_board.jhtml?c=v&t=13159

brady9696|5.17.07 @ 2:53PM|#

Ok, the threat to take him off your poll doesn't matter because your website doesn't matter. You are not yahoo, cnn, msnbc, cbs or Fox news... so with that said....SUCK IT UP! RON PAUL WON FAIR AND SQUARE...He makes more sense, has more historical knowledge of politics and has a better grasp on reality then ANY other republican running! Again, SUCK IT UP and accept that Ron Paul will be our next President! THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! I'm sure you'll be scared to post this!

Search Ron Paul|5.20.07 @ 5:41AM|#

Please allow me to suggest a website for Ron Paul supporters. It's a search engine where the owner contributes 50% of his site's monthly earnings to help elect Ron Paul President of the United States in 2008.

Ron Paul Fundraising

Thank you.