Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ron Paul is Leading in the Polls...
...in the 49th state. According to the newest survey by Anchorage's Channel 2:
Which Republican presidential candidate will you support in Alaska's caucus?
Ron Paul - 29
Mike Huckabee - 22
Rudy Giuliani - 14
Fred Thompson - 12
John McCain - 9
Mitt Romney - 9
Other - 6
Alaska is an odd state—married to federal money, distrustful of Democrats, and very warm to insurgent candidates. Thirty years ago Dick Randolph won a state House seat and became the first elected LP legislator. Twenty years ago, Jesse Jackson won the state's caucuses. And Alaska holds a caucus that's 1)poorly attended (4,330 showed up in 2000) and 2)early in the process (Feb. 5). We're looking at a situation where Ron Paul could win more states than John McCain and Fred Thompson.
Of course, the TV station says what it thinks about the poll in its headline... [UPDATE: When I posted this story the headline read "Alaska May Nominate Fringe Candidate," and that was changed literally minutes later. Should have taken a screenshot.]
|12.12.07 @ 6:30PM|#
Upon pondering the Permanent Fund Dividend, I am wondering if
this is a libertarian-acceptable subsidy.
According to the Wiki on
this, this particular payout has some very strong market
elements.
Read the article and discuss, if you please, but to some it up,
Alaska basically said "we're providing a cornucopia of vital
resources, and to get those resources, we need people here to get
them. So federal government, pay what you owe."
Oh, and does it surprise anyone that the r3VOLution is beginning in
a state than nearly legalized the cheeba?
Ron Paul in 2008, baby!
Larry|12.12.07 @ 6:35PM|#
I went looking for the margin of error and found:
All polls conducted by Channel 2 News and KTUU.com are
unscientific.
Hmmmph.
|12.12.07 @ 6:36PM|#
Disclaimer at the bottom of the article...
All polls conducted by Channel 2 News and KTUU.com are
unscientific.
|12.12.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Speaking of which, if the poll is unscientific, why is it even
"news?"
Things must be slow in Alaska... well, they actually probably
are.
|12.12.07 @ 6:39PM|#
They need to get all those lazy eskimos off the government dole. THey are nothiong more that alcholics and neer-do-wells.
Click \'n\' Learn|12.12.07 @ 6:49PM|#
NH is a nice state, but not as nice as VT, and neither is as
nice as ME. But, nice as they are, none of the three are fully
deserving of the libertarian movement.
Therefore, I suggest making AK home to the FreeState Project. Think
of it: wide open expanses where the libertarian mind can roam free,
very few voters so the libertarian philosophy can get a full grip,
and moose to boot!
Mith|12.12.07 @ 6:53PM|#
"Of course, the TV station says what it thinks about the poll in
its headline... "
I found this funny, since when I looked at the article, the
headline was:
"Alaskans may nominate Texas congressman"
Now that's uh... wait no, that's completely neutral.
|12.12.07 @ 6:58PM|#
People in Alaska usually just want to be left alone to work and enjoy their beautiful surroundings. They can grow pot in their home for personal use and get paid oil revenues by the state. If you can deal with the weather, it's actually a pretty sweet deal. I wish more Americans could get up there and see the awesomeness with their own eyes. Alaska has Ron Paul victory written all over it. Sewards Folly turned out to be one of the best deals ever made. Who mocked it? The media, of course.
|12.12.07 @ 7:06PM|#
Yeah, they must have changed it. It seems likely that some Alaskan "fringe voters" sent them some angry emails.
|12.12.07 @ 7:13PM|#
On a related note:
Paul's supposedly the President of the Internet, and Internet polls
that cost nothing but a click of a mouse consistently favour Paul.
But even if he has been trending up, he's only in the single digits
in regular polls.
If there's this huge constituency for Paul that regular polls don't
track well (or, worse, that the Cabal don't want you to know
about!), why is it that election markets such as Intrade have never
given him more than one chance in ten (on a very good day) of
getting the nomination, never mind the presidency? After all,
traders on Internet based election markets don't have any excuse
for not having heard the Internet buzz about Ron Paul!
Answer: Net polls probably really are much more biased towards Paul
than phone polls are biased against him. Intraders know that and
are betting accordingly--and election markets tend to be the least
biased predictors of election outcomes out there.
That's not to say Paul won't do somewhat better than polls
suggest--his supporters will turn out, that's for sure--but I'll
believe 29% poll numbers in Alaska--never mind Iowa--when I see
them on caucus night.
|12.12.07 @ 7:26PM|#
As a resident of "Seward's Folly" I can say that Alaska is
indeed an odd mix of folks. Almost every person here is, well, not
FROM here. A state population of 600k folks, half of which live in
one city and the majority of which were not born in the state.
Makes for a very odd mix of voting/values ideas.
Alaska as a state votes overwhelmingly Republican (you'd have to go
back to the 1964
Goldwater/Johnson election to see a Dem Pres), except when
they don't.
Alaska residents usually subscribe to the "leave me alone"
attitude, except when it comes to federal tax dollars then it's
"we'll do what you want for the cash".
Alas, politicians here are just like scum sucking politicians
everywhere, some
even moving here just to take advantage of the political
landscape.
|12.12.07 @ 7:30PM|#
How about "Alaskans may nominate fringe Texas Congressman, who
has raised $19.6 million this year -- no wait, is he really a
fringe candidate?"
I wonder if the LP presidential candidate could win Alaska, if he
or she actually visited the state, and said Alaskan independence
should be up to the people of Alaska.
BakedPenguin|12.12.07 @ 7:33PM|#
Ottawa Reader - while I think there's some truth to what you're
saying, if Paul does better in NH than the current polls show, it
could have a cascade effect, as more and more voters see him as
"viable". While I don't understand the whole "gotta vote for
someone who can win" idea, it does seem to be a fairly common
one.
Also Paul's support is committed. I've pointed out on a
couple other threads that if there's bad January weather for some
of the primaries, it will really benefit Paul. I mean, who the hell
would drive through a snowstorm to vote for Giuliani?
It's been pointed out elsewhere, but Alaska's governor
is the best looking in the nation.
OT for Ottawa Reader: advice to American neocons -Invade
Canada!
|12.12.07 @ 7:34PM|#
What is the over/under on states that Ron Paul will win?
It sounds like he's doing well in Alaska and West Virginia, and I
don't see any reason why he couldn't win the low-turnout events in
Wyoming and Nevada, if his massive volunteer base works hard
enough.
Other possibilities, judging from where his donations are coming
from:
Montana
Washington
Oregon
California
|12.12.07 @ 7:35PM|#
All polls conducted by Channel 2 News and KTUU.com are
unscientific.
This disclaimer should be standard on every poll ever done since
the invention of the telephone. All polls are plagued by the
problems of self-selecting respondents, poor phrasing, and good ol'
fashioned human error. Yet we as a society still treat their
predictions with credulance, even something to be studied in
scholarship.
Besides which, statistics is less a science than a branch of
alchemy.
Kolohe|12.12.07 @ 7:37PM|#
Alaskans may nominate fringe candidate.
When I first read this, I thought it said "Fridge" candidate as in
William Perry.
|12.12.07 @ 7:37PM|#
If only 4,000 non Paul supporters vote in the Alaska caucus, Paul will win handily. Alaska is a leading per capita Paul supporting state.
BakedPenguin|12.12.07 @ 7:51PM|#
ed - She's better than the average female pol, but I really don't like short hair on women.
|12.12.07 @ 7:53PM|#
They can grow pot in their home for personal use and get
paid oil revenues by the state. If you can deal with the weather,
it's actually a pretty sweet deal.
Well, they actually recriminalized it back in around 1990 - the
year I moved up there. Up until then, you could have up to four
ounces of kick-ass kind for personal use.
The dividend is a sweet deal, but IMO not a good enough reason to
stick around. Cost of living and all. And if you're in the
Municipality of Anchorage you're getting soaked for property taxes.
OTOH there's no city in the country better equipped for snow
removal, and if you ski or snowboard it's heaven.
The thing I really could not stand is what's happening right now -
around 20 hours of darkness each day. It can drive a man to
drink.
Big Nanny|12.12.07 @ 7:57PM|#
'While I don't understand the whole "gotta vote for someone who
can win" idea, it does seem to be a fairly common one.'
I don't get that either. It is like people have decided that they
are not gonna get what they want, in advance.
BakedPenguin|12.12.07 @ 8:10PM|#
Big Nanny - exactly. If you're voting for someone who doesn't represent what you believe in, you lose. I think people are so committed to the lesser-of-two-evils idea, they've given up on actually getting someone good.
BakedPenguin|12.12.07 @ 8:21PM|#
sage - You'd probably hear it from all the Gore fans who are still bitter about Nader & 2000.
|12.12.07 @ 8:24PM|#
Craig, seeing as you asked: Intrade puts the chances of "Field"
(read: Paul) in Iowa at 4.5% and in NH at no higher than 8%.
BakedPenguin:
I don't doubt high turnout will help Paul, but will it be enough to
at least get him the PR to start really getting somewhere? My point
was that an investment in Ron Paul is still highly speculative--we
won't know until election night how well he'll do, but a big win
for him's not a sure thing, at all, wishful thinking by some to the
contrary.
I mean, let's face it--if we have to pray for snow so Ron Paul can
win, he's still a long-shot. ^_^;
You're right on at least one thing, though--Gov. Palin is
good-looking. I"d be sorely tempted.
(Seriously, ed--Granholm? XD)
|12.12.07 @ 8:49PM|#
Re: lesser of two evils, I think that is a valid consideration
in some circumstances. I mean, if there were a Republican candidate
whom I didn't like as much as Dr Paul, but who had a better chance
of winning and was still acceptable on most issues I care about, I
might consider voting for that person instead, just to avoid having
Giuliani win.
This cycle, though, all the top-tier candidates are unacceptable to
me, so I'm voting Ron Paul all the way.
|12.12.07 @ 8:52PM|#
statistics is less a science than a branch of
alchemy.
...which is why so many corporations are willing to throw
wheelbarrow-fulls of cash at anyone with advanced statistical
training?
When statistics is done right, it's at least as useful a discipline
as any other. When it's done sloppily, it's no worse than sloppy
physics or sloppy chemistry.
miche|12.12.07 @ 9:12PM|#
I really hate to do this because I'm not a blog spammer, but
since this is a Ron Paul thread I want to pimp out the Hotties4RonPaul calendar.
Juliet Annerino put it together as a fundraiser for Ron Paul
and while I'm much too old to do these things, I'm Ms. March. A
"for fun" shot was taken and put on the web
here.
It's NSFW (Fark doesn't own that yet, right?)and this pic isn't in
the calendar, but we thought it would be funny to do the shot as a
gag considering the whole stripper thingie. The calendar is
actually PG13.
Untermensch|12.12.07 @ 9:20PM|#
"Alaskans may nominate Texas congressman"
Now that's uh... wait no, that's completely neutral.
Actually, no, in Alaska Texas is an insult. (Seriously, they tell
Texas jokes in Alaska: I certainly heard enough of them growing up
there.) So they must really like Ron Paul to get past the fact that
he's from Texas and therefore categorically unfit...
|12.12.07 @ 9:26PM|#
I lived in Alaska for over 20 years, and I will say the people
are awesome, and so is the State. They are more likely to vote for
Ron Paul because of the leave me alone attitude. Alaska is one
state that continues to thrive. I don't want to tell people that
because they may decide to move there and destroy it.
My vote will be for Ron Paul, and I know he has a huge following up
there. I was not surprised to see the outcome of this poll. Another
poll win for Ron Paul, he is awesome and so are his
supporters.
Tess, California
|12.12.07 @ 9:32PM|#
Wow, miche. You're pretty damn hot. And when someone on an anonymous blog comment tells you that, it's true.
robc|12.12.07 @ 9:35PM|#
GILMORE,
Ive been meaning to ask...In a previous post you said "primaries".
Are you also including "caucuses"? Before I take a piece of the
action, I want some terms well defined. :)
miche|12.12.07 @ 9:53PM|#
Thank you, sage, but I've learned not to trust everything people
say just because a blog is anonymous. For example, over at Hammer
of Truth, some weirdo named Dondero said that I am a terrorist
loving idiot because I said it was wrong to invade Iraq.
BTW, the calendar is officially for sale on the 16th, but they are
taking orders now. They cost $8 (to cover costs) + a receipt
documenting a minimum $10 donation to the Ron Paul campaign. See
the site for details.
BakedPenguin|12.12.07 @ 10:10PM|#
Ottawa Reader - I actually think a low (overall) turnout would
help Paul - because his supporters are a lot more fervent, they'll
show up hell or high water. I don't believe Paul's chances are
great, merely that they shouldn't be discounted.
...lesser of two evils, I think that is a valid consideration in some circumstances.
True. However, I voted for Harry Browne in 2000. Had I voted for a
lesser-of-two-evils candidate, it would have been George Bush. As
moronic as that sounds now, I thought he was better than Gore in
2000. Having said that, if Richardson or Dodd were challenging HRC
or Edwards in an open primary state, or Thompson challenging any of
the Republicans (except Paul), I would be tempted to vote for
them.
Miche, it's a Ron Paul thread, there was a threadjack about good
looking women in politics, and you're a semi-regular poster here.
"Spamming" does not apply to your post.
BTW, are you running for governor?
|12.12.07 @ 10:16PM|#
Yes, they changed the headline, it originally said "fringe candidate". Someone must have sent them an email or phoned...
|12.12.07 @ 10:22PM|#
The Ron Paul sticker on my car doesn't look nearly as good as the one on Miche. Must be the ink on the one on my car has faded from the sunlight, yeah? ;)
|12.12.07 @ 10:29PM|#
I can sorta see the "lesser of two evils" voting thing when one of the evils is much more evil than the other, and there's just those two, plus someone good with less than 1% support. But when it's the "lesser of eight evils, or one great person", and the great person has over a third of the roughly 20% support needed to win, and is picking up momentum ... well, no excuse for not voting your conscience in that situation.
miche|12.12.07 @ 10:36PM|#
BTW, are you running for governor?
Ha! I wouldn't run for city council with the skeletons in my
closet. That Tucker Carlson stripper segment could have given my
mother in law a heart attack. Fortunately, she doesn't watch MSNBC
(or hasn't mentioned it if she does) and I only like to press my
luck in Vegas.
miche|12.12.07 @ 10:40PM|#
Besides, I live in TX where hair is more important than tits. Perry and his ilk have me beaten.
|12.12.07 @ 10:53PM|#
Besides, I live in TX where hair is more important than
tits. Perry and his ilk have me beaten.
Yeah, we got lots of boobs in politics in Texas. ;-)
miche|12.12.07 @ 11:05PM|#
Yeah, we got lots of boobs in politics in Texas. ;-)
I was thinking the same this morning.
paulie|12.13.07 @ 1:21AM|#
So who all else is in the calendar besides you and Liv?
I'm thinking of doing interviews for the blogs.
My
post about it got picked up by redd.it and is the biggest spike
yet on my blog.
Looks like it will pass
Steve Kubby endorses Ron Paul in hits within a few hours at the
current rate.
And that's not even counting Last Free Voice traffic!
Derrick|12.13.07 @ 1:49AM|#
The Ron Paul Blimp actually exists. Here are photos of it in the
hangar, with artwork applied to one side:
http://libertariansrising.com/2007/12/12/photo-of-the-ron-paul-blimp-with-artwork/
Alaskan Here|12.13.07 @ 6:03AM|#
I was raised in Alaska. Very libertarian Republican state. The
pork barrel spending is a convenience, but they'd rather just kick
the federal government out altogether.
Permanent Fund Divident: It's not a subsidy. It's the only tax in
the state...that is, it's the tax citizens impose on the government
for having the privilege of legislating. Doesn't get more
libertarian than that.
|12.13.07 @ 6:23AM|#
Ron Paul is the greatest candidate I've ever seen. Consistent
for 30 years. No flip flops. We are done with WAR, we want a real
currency, we want peace, we want the welfare-state for the military
industrial complex to END, we want to fix America and stop policing
the world and to stop the authoritarian oppression here NOW.
Who is Ron PAUL!? Ask google, because the main stream media s
CRIMINALLY SUPPRESSING RON!
|12.13.07 @ 7:27AM|#
Really Mr Russom?
Criminally? Do you mean they are shooting reporters who
bring up his name? Kidnapping witnesses? Disrupting his rallies
through fraudulent pamphleteering?
Please, let's ease off on the hyperbole shall we? The media might
have ignored Paul at first, and it might be frustrating, or even
stupid of them. But criminal? Tell Ron Paul that the media has
committed a crime in the way they are covering him, and he'd laugh
in your face and explain what freedom of the press really
means.
Actually, he wouldn't laugh at you. He seems to be a very patient
teacher when confronted by people who don't grasp the concept of
liberty to well.
BakedPenguin|12.13.07 @ 8:48AM|#
On the blimp: "Who is Ron Paul?"... I wouldn't call that optimistic
I think that's a play on "Who is John Galt?" If you don't get that
reference, Google "Atlas Shrugged"
Elemenope|12.13.07 @ 8:50AM|#
Not criminally, per se, but definitely faithlessly. Interestingly, I saw an ad for a NOW on PBS special segment on Ron Paul, his campaign, fundraising, and why he doesn't get MSM attention. Don't know when it will broadcast, but it is soon...
|12.13.07 @ 9:58AM|#
"The lesser of two evils is still evil!"
But still better than the alternative!
|12.13.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Apart from the Channel 2 poll being "unscientific" (and I echo
other posters here -- why bother to report the results?), we get
these two gems from the brief article:
"A slim majority of respondents support Ron Paul...
"Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who's surging in national
polls as well as Iowa caucus polls, came in a close second."
Paul got 29% of the vote, Huckabee 22%. Paul got almost 1/3,
Huckabee didn't make 1/4. Neither man was close to a "majority,"
slim or otherwise. Paul got a pretty good plurality for a multi-way
race, however, as did Huckabee. Numbers only half that good were
more than enough to put the fear of God into the pols-as-usual in
Wisconsin, when Ed Thompson ran for governor as a Libertarian
there.
Since the difference between the two men's vote counts was about
25% of the winner's total vote and 33% of the other guy's total
vote, I think it is disingenuous to describe the latter as being "a
close second." I think the difference quits being "close" after the
absolute percentage difference (of total votes cast) exceeds 5%,
and the relative differences exceed around 20-25%.
It really worries me, to see how much the annointed,
government-licensed guardians of broadcast information flow can
distort the "news" they purport to deliver, through simple mis-use
of language even in so short a space as a paragraph or two. This
one was easy to pick apart; but what about the next time, when it
may not be so straightforward to determine the divergence between
reality and "journalistic" description?
|12.13.07 @ 12:40PM|#
Let's say New Hampshire gets fourteen inches of snow on primary
day. Who's going to go to the polls - Paul voters, or Romney
voters?
I suspect there will be a lot more cars with blimps tied to the
roofrack than dog carriers.
|12.13.07 @ 3:59PM|#
Okay, I'm intrigued by the "Hotties for Ron Paul" calendar, but I think I need to see another free pic or two before I can decide for sure whether I'm going to buy it.
|12.13.07 @ 4:53PM|#
"""Consistent for 30 years. No flip flops. We are done with WAR,
we want a real currency, we want peace, we want the welfare-state
for the military industrial complex to END, we want to fix America
and stop policing the world and to stop the authoritarian
oppression here NOW."""
Pretty much explains why he's NOT popular with the Republicans.
|12.13.07 @ 6:03PM|#
Very subtle bias there: 'Alaskans may nominate fringe
candidate'. How can he be a fringe candidate if he wins the
poll?
Who was it in Alice in Wonderland that said it means that because
we SAY it means that? Dr Paul is a fringe candidate because we the
corporate media SAY he's a fringe candidate. LOL
Geotpf|12.13.07 @ 8:02PM|#
The most libertarian state in the nation is Alaska. Ed Clark, the Libertarian Party's nominee in 1980, got 11.66% of the vote there, finishing ahead of John Anderson for third (and Carter only got about twice as many votes). So, ignoring the bullshit spamable nonscientific nature of this internet poll, the results are almost believable.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245