Ron Paul

Oh Hey Look—Ron Paul Down Just Two Percentage Points to Barack Obama

|

Courtesy of Gallup, here's something to put in your "unelectable" pipe and smoke:

Well, lookee that!

Those are just amazing numbers, considering where Ron Paul was four years ago. Speaking of which, the chart below is Exhibit A for why I continue to say that it's WAAAAY too early to be making confident assertions about the very fluid GOP race, and that if you must annoint a "top tier" it had better include a certain doctor-congressman who performed well in 2008 and has only gathered strength since:

There's something, I dunno, MISSING from this chart

Missed it by that much, Fred Thompson!

The above is from polls aggregated by Real Clear Politics, who have a bookmark-worthy feature showing where polls had the race exactly four years ago on any given day.

Over at The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf makes what I think is a shrewd point about the pathologies behind disporportionate media preference for the heretical John Huntsman over the heretical Ron Paul (and Gary Johnson):

Huntsman is challenging orthodoxies of thought that afflict the GOP alone, and taking positions that reflect the conventional wisdom in the media: evolution is a fact, so is climate change, and the debt ceiling had to be raised. In contrast, Johnson and Paul are challenging orthodoxies of thought that are bi-partisan in nature and implicate much of the political and media establishment.

And he is the Light?

There is a strong case to be made that their libertarian voices are more vital. The debt ceiling was already raised. Embracing evolution has some political costs in a GOP primary, but matters very little when it comes to the vital policy questions that the next president is going to face. Huntsman nonetheless wins praise for those stances. For questioning America's aggressive, interventionist foreign policy and its failed War on Drugs, policies that are tremendously costly, consequential, and executed in ways that are immoral and demonstrably damaging to our civil liberties, Paul and Johnson aren't given points for speaking uncomfortable truths, shining light on evasions, or affecting the political conversation for the better.

They're ignored, and the excuse given is that they can't win. […]

In the twisted thought process of the political press, one's party is always the point of reference, bucking it is the ultimate act of bravery, and the proper object of a "protest candidacy" is encouraging one's party to embrace the bipartisan consensus of the moment.

I had some similar thoughts here. Reason's meaty Ron Paul archive here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Federal Government Encourages Health Providers to Coordinate, Then Sues Them For Doing So

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.

  1. Goddammit, I have to feel optimism again. Shit.

    1. Don’t get too optimistic.

      By now, I think Gaddafi would only trail Obama by 3 points.

      1. I’m a Cubs fan. You can’t fool me.

        1. Isn’t being a Cubs fan considered equivalent to being a victim of a pedophile?

          1. They’re the most persecuted minority in the United States. And they deserve every bit of it.

          2. Actually, I think Cubs fans are actually victims of a goat.

          3. Its more like battered spouse syndrome. Sure your daddy probably inflicted it on you at first, but at some point you’re a grown up capable of doing something different.

          4. No. The pedo victim has less emotional scaring.

          5. where do you hink pedobear came from?

        2. Relegation and Promotion.

          In the long runs, playing in AA would help the Cubs organization (it worked for Man City).

          Maybe.

          But at least the rest of us wouldnt have to hear about it for a few years.

          1. 3 division championships and 6 winning seasons in the past decade. Better than most teams in MLB, jerkface.

            1. Call us when you win a pennant. What’s it been now? 65 years?

              1. Way to move the foul poles.

                1. Nineteen Oh eight. I havent moved anything. That is the standard.

            2. 6 winning seasons in the past decade

              Congratulations for not sucking more than 50% of the time!

              1. Most teams have losing records most seasons.

                1. That’s unpossible

      2. Was he born in the US? If so, he mests the requirements AND he has more executive leadership than Obama AND he’s killed fewer people.

    2. No you don’t. We saw this same stuff last election and it didn’t amount to jack shit.

      1. Horrible, horrible optimitis.

    3. No worries – the primary voters will chicken out at the last minute like they did with Howard “Yeeeeeeaaaah!” Dean.

    4. For the racist bircher?

      You people are retarded.

      1. Excellent, Edward’s back. How was the banning?

      2. “He’ll Always be Edward”
        (to the tune of Billy Joel’s “She’s Always a Woman”)

        He can kill with some bile,
        He can wound with his guise.
        He can ruin your faith with his casual lies.
        And he only reveals what he wants you to see.
        He hides like a child,
        But he’ll always be Edward to me.

        He can goad you to wrath,
        He can take you or leave you.
        He can ask for the truth,
        But he’ll never believe you.
        And he’ll take what you give him,
        As long as it’s free.
        Yeah, he steals like a thief,
        But he’ll always be Edward to me.

        CHORUS:
        Oh–he takes care of himself.
        He can bate if he wants,
        He’s shed of all shame.
        Oh–and he never gives out,
        And he never gives in.
        He just changes his name.

        And he’ll promise you more
        Than ten times that he’s leavin’.
        Then he’ll carelessly cut you,
        And laugh while you’re bleedin’.
        But he’ll bring out your jest
        And the worst you can be.
        Blame it all on yourself,
        ‘Cause he’ll always be Edward to me.
        –Mhmm–

        CHORUS:
        Oh–he takes care of himself.
        He can bate if he wants,
        He’s shed of all shame.
        Oh–and he never gives out,
        And he never gives in.
        He just changes his name.

        He is frequently kind,
        And he’s suddenly cruel.
        He can do as he pleases,
        He’s everyone’s fool.
        And he can’t be convinced,
        His dogma’s too deep.
        And the most he will do
        Is throw shadows at you,
        But he’ll always be Edward to me.
        –Mhmm–

      3. Arf! Arf! Arf!

        Shhht!! Shut it, Max! Go git yourself out and do your mess outside. Go, git!

  2. Admit it, Matt, you got that chart from the Libertarian Republican.

    1. DONDERRROOOOOOOOOOOOO

  3. Paul within 2?

    Please excuse me while I go treat my swimtrunk area like an amusement park.

  4. Clutching at straws polls.

    1. I think that’s what Masturbatin’ Pete is doing, yes.

  5. Am I the only one depressed that 46-48% of registered voters would vote for Obama? Of course I’m also depressed that 48% of registered voters would vote for Romney, so what the hell.
    -K

    1. …apparently not.

  6. Hey, what happened to Rick Santorum?

    1. He met a frothy end, with any luck.

    2. Chris Wallace talked him up as one of the winners of the straw poll.

      1. Chris Wallace is a tool.

    3. So, I flip on the radio randomly in my car the other day, some guy I dont recognize is talking race (it was talk radio, so he was a republican) and talking about how there werent just 3 candidates in the race, that while Perry/Romney/Backmann were clearly in the top tier, that a 4th candidate should also be considered in the top tier. Im getting happy…and then he names candidate 4: Santorum.

      1. *sigh*

        Could it be more blatant? Santorum is a standard issue far right SoCon, so he’s easy to talk about.

        1. Ron Paul is a far right SoCon too!

          1. yes, because calling for an end to the war on drugs is a hard right position.

            oh, and also ending foreign adventureism.

            just because abortions for all is not his baileywick doesn’t make him a socon.

            1. William F Buckley and Milton Friedman weren’t “hard right”? (anti-WoDs)

              Pat Buchanan isn’t “hard right”? (anti-foreign wars)

              1. Ron Paul is the most conservative member of Congress since at least the 1930s.

                #2 is the late Larry McDonald(D-GA) of the John Birch Society.
                (Aaahhhh, the good old days when the most right wing Congressman could be a “Democrat”)

              2. Ummm, no, not given current definitions.

    4. Dan Savage has now redefined “Rick” to mean licking up post-anal Santorum.

  7. The sickening thing I’m drawing from this poll listing is that, despite the collossal fuckedupness of our current situation, Obama is not behind any of the major GOP candidates other than Romney in any of these polls. And he’s only losing to Romney among registered voters, not among adults in general (ie, registered voters after ACORN does its magic).

    1. I think this poll needs a “control” group for reference. Like, Obama vs. a chimp wearing a button with an elephant logo on it.

      1. DON’T MAKE ME COME OVER THERE

      2. Obama does much worse against Generic Unnamed Republican.

        Chimp wearing a button with an elephant logo might do better than any actual politician.

        1. OO. OOOO AAH AHAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

          I’ll repeal obamacare, you fucking humans.

        2. Maybe John Thune should have run after all. He’s by far the most generic Republican I can think of.

    2. “not among adults in general (ie, registered voters after ACORN does its magic).”

      You mean, registering them?

      Consent of the governed, how does it work?

      1. Doing God’s work………..

      2. Eat shit, MNG. For years I watched the ACORN canvasers downtown walk along streets where people were waiting for the bus and THE ONLY PEOPLE THEY REGISTERED were black folk.

        They walked past every white, Hispanic and Asian. Every single year.

        To reiterate, eat shit, MNG, rat shit.

        1. Black people registered to vote! I see why it was so traumatic for you now Pippie.

          1. What a dumb fuck. Registration that deliberately and calculatingly excludes specific races is not good for full-enfranchisement / democracy.

            1. They don’t have enough money to bribe everyone Pip. Cut’em some slack.

    3. The nonexistent ACORN voter fraud will be more than outmatched by the very real neo-poll tax laws going into effect all over the country.

      1. Let’s hope so.

        1. Yep, those who work to suppress the votes of the young, old, poor, and minorities have usually been so correct on policy that it hasn’t mattered much.

          1. Excellent! It’s all going to plan!

            1. Can you pass the literacy test?

      2. Can you say “Nevada”, Tony?

        http://www.newsmax.com/US/Vote…../id/392057

        “Wisconsin”?

        http://watchdog.org/6946/acorn…..wisconsin/

        1. Don’t feed the sockpuppet. And do not stand so close to his cage, because he has a tendency to fling…

        2. Whoop de do.

          Is it a proportional response to force college students to fly home to vote, or should we just check to make sure the voter is registered Republican before he’s allowed in the booth?

          1. Just finished college. Never flew home to vote. It’s called an absentee ballot.

            1. College students can barely remember to set their alarm clocks properly, let alone file a request for an absentee ballot on time.

              But that’s good — the fewer irresponsible people voting, the better.

              1. Did you mean that to sound ironic? (Voting being the relevant hallmark of responsibility with respect to democratic participation.) Anyway if christianists can vote based on who would usher in the apocalypse the fastest, then I think college students should be able to vote for whatever reason they choose.

                1. Of course, anybody should be able to vote for any reason they want…so long as they comply with the extremely lax requirements necessary to minimize the potential for fraud.

                  And democratic participation is about a shitload more than voting, of course. Not that statist shitmongers like you want people to do anything more than rattle their chains every two years to give you a sense of legitimacy.

                  1. These measures are not meant to prevent fraud, which as Tony points out is just not frequent, they are meant to supress the vote of certain populations.

                    1. Right, because those “certain populations” don’t have access to mailboxes or DMV offices.

                      If anybody has a hard time getting an ID to show at the polling places, it’s people in rural areas where the govt offices are few and far between. You know — red state country.

                    2. These laws wouldn’t be passed if their effect wasn’t suppressing Democratic votes. Period. Justify it for them however you want, that’s the reality.

                    3. Yes, but the question is whether they primarily suppress legitimate Democratic votes or fraudulent ones.

                    4. Where I live they do not require an ID, or even your voter registration card to vote. You just show up at the polling place, and tell them your name. Last November when I showed up to vote, my name was already checked off, and they accused me of trying to vote twice. After talking to the supervisor, I was allowed to cast a provisional ballot. Either the poll workers are so incompetent that they checked off the wrong name, or somebody else claimed to be me and cast my ballot. If it was the latter, then my provisional ballot wasn’t even counted. After that experience I think that ID should be required to vote.

                    5. Did they at least make you sign the registry book and then verify that it matched the signature from your voter registration? That’s all they did when I was in NYS.

                      Here in PA they wisely require ID.

                    6. These measures are not meant to prevent fraud, which as Tony points out is just not frequent, they are meant to supress the vote of certain populations.

                      A certain population who is likely not as affected by the results of their overwhelmingly left-leaning voting habits as the actual, full-time population of the place where they think they’re entitled to vote.

          2. Don’t feed the sockpuppet. And do not stand so close to his cage, because he has a tendency to fling…
            reply to this
            Tony|8.22.11 @ 4:23PM|#

            Whoop de do.

            most awesome mash-up EVER!!!

          3. All a college student has to do is take up permanent residence in the district. Pay rent or buy property and quit living in the dorms. Of course that cuts down on the fun filled summers back in mom’s basement.

  8. You know, my greatest fear about Ron Paul’s apparent popularity is that it will likely wane as we get deeper and deeper into the primaries and we see just how far the libertarian ideas of the Republican party go…I’m just a pessimistic guy.

    But what if the news did give Ron Paul more coverage? What if Paul connected with a larger audience than was ever expected? Fuck, even if he didn’t win the nomination, they guy could easily influence the Republican debate.

    Unfortunately, it seems that our overlords would rather have a standard 2004-style “dumb Republican vs. socialist Democrat” election…YAWN!

    1. He can only fall so far while he’s raising $1.6M/36hrs whenever he decides to. That’s real cheese and keeps him in through at least SC (or whoever goes after IA and NE. Seems like FL passed a law to vote the day after NE or something and only because they knew they’d be having primaries on the first tuesday after inauguration day if they tried to outbid IA and NH.)

      1. The final tally was $1.8 million.

      2. If he can just raise $1.6M into his war chest whenever he wants, why doesn’t he just make every day a moneybomb? I think you know the answer to that: he can’t do it whenever he wants.

        The purpose of the moneybomb back in Nov 2007 was to try to get media coverage, and it worked for a brief while. It’s not going to work any more; they need to be focusing on constant streams of funds rather than moneybombs. BTW, those were much bigger hauls ($4.3M on 11/05/2007, $6M on 12/16/2007) and we all remember how well that worked out for RP’s campaign.

        1. I imagine he’ll raise about the same emount in the end. Most people don’t donate all $2000 in one go, but slip it in during the periodic moneybombs. Remember, he’s raising money from average joes, not george soros or rupert murdoch.

    2. Ron Paul has already influenced the Republican debate. I argue that he’s the only Republican presidential candidate who won in 2008.

      I’m still waiting for the mainstream media’s fawning coverage for Ron Paul of the sort they gave Ross Perot when he launched his first independent run. Larry King gave him a friendly national interview to announce on, and 60 Minutes followed up by basically calling him a cross between Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne.

      Even if they don’t like Ron Paul, the media should be covering him far more. It’s a newsworthy story — how did this completely unknown Congressman finish 4th in a 12-man race in 2008, when we wrote him off as a quixotic longshot? How did he predict the housing bubble and the economic collapse, when all those top economists couldn’t? Why is he motivating formerly apathetic young people to get involved in grassroots politics?

      1. They asked the wrong “top” economists, i.e., Keynesian idiots. One these Keynesian “economists”, Paul Krugman, said that we ought to have a world wide defense build up to protect against non-existent outer space alien attacks… I kid you not!! THIS is the guy who is whispering in the President’s ear about the economy!!

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyW-o-Pr92M

        1. Krugman to Obama… From one Nobel Prize winner to another, I suppose…. Maybe they need a new selection committee.

  9. For now, it might actually help Paul’s campaign to not be in the spotlight so much. I know there is no such thing as bad press, but at least now he controls his message, instead of having to field stupid questions about masturbation or evolution.

    1. My guess is that a 76 year old has plenty to say about masturbation.

      1. Campaign Advisor (opening door): Doctor Paul, you’re on in five minutes. Also, the latest numbers are – dear God!

        RP: GET OUT!

        1. He’s internet savvy, the correct response is:
          GO ‘WAY, BATIN’!

          1. Not savvy enough to lock the door, apparently!

    2. Considering some of his awful answers at the debates (the Iranian nukes one for starters), it’s definitely better for him not to be getting attention from people who already don’t like him.

      1. You’d rather start a sixth war to preemptively disarm Iran, or did you just not like his answer?

        1. I agree with what I think his point was, but his answer was terrible. He basically said that since China and India have nukes, it would be perfectly fine for Iran to get them.

          1. He savaged Santorum. RP asseverated and relied upon facts; Santorum, the neocon narrative, which, per usual, is short on facts.

            RP’s answers were grounded in fact, common sense and reason. What part of it don’t you get?

            FACTS:

            1. The US is the only nation to unleash atomic weapons upon civilians resulting in the mass murder of several hundred thousand japanese infants, tykes, toddlers, youth, women and elderly.

            2. The US has interfered in the internal governance of Iran.

            3. The US has staged a coup of Iran’s democratically elected leaders.

            4. The US advised, financed and trained the Shah’s secret police, Savak and approved of the murder of thousands of persian dissidents.

            5. Iran is surrounded by nations with nuclear arms, including the socialist cesspool and apartheid regime, Israel. Let’s not forget India, Pakistan, Russia, etc.

            6. Iran does not have the history of human rights abuses which the US enjoys.

            7. The US has started wars with Iran’s neighbors; we currently have substantial forces in close proximity.

            1. Yes, yes, and yes. I’m with you hardcore on not attacking Iran.

              That’s not what Paul said, though. He could have communicated the message better by saying that, while he does not want maniacal dictators to get nukes and such, the biggest change we can make to dissuade dictators from getting WMDs is to stop invading their countries over internal bullshit.

              Either his advisors are idiots, or they are lazy, or he doesn’t listen to them, or he’s too scatterbrained to remember their advice. Whichever one of those possibilities is the reality, his campaign is a trainwreck, albeit one I wish weren’t a trainwreck.

              1. Yes, I agree with you to the extent that RP does not always carry the oratorical day. But, even on his worst day, he is / was far superior to his 1988 presidential opponents, GHWB and Mr. Personlity himself, Mike Dukakis.

                ALthough his public speaking was better in 1988, it still left some to be desired.

              2. Yes its a shame Paul might never communicate his common sense ideas to the general public. I’ll still vote for him however. Bad oration /= bad ideas.

                1. It’s not even a matter of oration, he’s the same way in one-on-one interviews.

                  If you can’t express your ideas in a coherent fashion, it won’t matter how good they are unless someone else is willing to interpret for you to the public. RP ain’t going to get that helping hand from the MSM like Obama does.

                  1. He’s alot better in one-on-one interviews, but interviewers can’t wrap their heads around the logic, so either he’s going to have to treat them like school children and break it down to basic principles or count on the fact that some grown-ups might be watching.

          2. Re: Tulpa,

            I agree with what I think his point was, but his answer was terrible. He basically said that since China and India have nukes, it would be perfectly fine for Iran to get them.

            You missed the point, Tulpa. Not only India and China; he indicated that Iran is surrounded by many nuclear-weapon-possessing countries like: Pakistan, India, China, Russia and Israel, with Afghanistan and Iraq invaded and controlled by another nuclear-weapon wielding country: The US. If my neighbors are all armed with firearms, I would sure get myself at least a hand grenade, just to take them Phillistines out a la Samson.

            1. Like I said, I probably agree with what he was trying to say.

              The problem is…he didn’t say what he was trying to say. He said something absurd and brain-shutting-off.

              1. Ps. Uh, if you want someone who is well scripted, polished and can smooth 360 degrees around a question; never answer it, but make promises out his ass he will never deliver on, consider Romney or Obama.

                1. Why can’t we have both a decent speaker and an honest one?

                  I indicated above a much better answer he could have given that would enable him to say he does NOT want Iran to get nukes while also connecting the issue to his non-interventionist foreign policy, without having to take a detour into 1950s Middle East history that 95% of the American people don’t care about. This is the kind of answer his advisors should be coaching him on, as it’s not like Iran was a surprise topic for a Fox News GOP debate.

                  Now, I don’t know whether he just doesn’t pay attention because he wants to do his own thing, or whether his advisors are just morons or lazy people, but something’s going wrong in the preparation. Good ideas or honesty are no excuse for poor presentation.

              2. Re: Tulpa,

                The problem is…he didn’t say what he was trying to say.

                You’re being blockheaded, Tulpa. I indicated almost verbatim what Paul said during the last debate. You can watch the video if you wish and verify this. You cannot thus argue that Paul failed to make his point, because that is obviously not true.

                1. Why would he want to do that OM? It goes against his argument.

                2. Indeed. And the message that comes through to people who, unlike you and I, haven’t carefully sifted through Dr Paul’s positions and figured out what the hell he’s talking about, is that he’s OK with Iran getting nukes. John Q Public doesn’t give a shit what Iran’s motivations for pursuing nukes are, except perhaps as an indication of how to stop them (as I proposed above).

                  If YOU watch the video, you’ll see Wallace give RP extra time to confirm his opinion that he’d be OK with Iran getting nukes and he semi-dodged and semi-confirmed. The only policy statement that he made was that he would not attack militarily; he didn’t offer any proposal of how he would prevent Iran from getting nukes. Which means, as far as policy goes, that he doesn’t care about Iran getting nukes.

                  1. The “indeed” was directed towards OM’s statement, “I indicated almost verbatim what Paul said during the last debate.”

          3. Maybe you could have appreciated his answer more if you had listened to all of it. If that is all you heard, then maybe you should see your doctor about ADD. He said much more than that! Go back and look at the video….do your poorly informed brain a favor.

            1. Point me to the policy proposal Dr Paul would follow to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability.

              If he didn’t propose such a policy, it means he doesn’t care in any meaningful way whether Iran gets nukes.

  10. In other news, Huntsman’s leading Obama by a wide margin . . . for the Democratic nomination.

    1. Huntsman is such a shithead. And he looks like a little boy that high on speed when he talks.

      1. Do you live in a glass house?

        1. No. But it’s huge. And wasn’t expensive, either, since I live in a half-decent state. What are you, Chicagoan?

      2. Re: Res Publica Americana,

        Huntsman is such a shithead [with a really hot wife. Damn him!]

        At least that’s how I would feel about the H.

        1. Huntsman is such a shithead [with a really hot wife. Damn him!]

          aka “the Kucinich effect”

          1. If it makes you feel any better she’s probably fucking the gardener.

            Not sure why that would make you feel any better, unless you’re the gardener.

              1. I’m assuming that’s NSFW.

                1. Depends on where you work. I haven’t seen any nudity there. OTOH, if you have to ask…

  11. Ron Paul’s numbers are the only ones that get better as you go from registered voters to the general population.

    1. Reflective of his strength among Independents and people who ordinarily don’t care about politics.

      1. Appealing to independents makes one unelectable though, right 😉

    2. Let’s hope it all eventually amounts to his acquisition of the nomination.

    3. Ron Paul’s numbers are the only ones that get better as you go from registered voters to the general population.

      Kochtopian HQ, Monday 22hd of August, 3:34 PM EST

      “And this will not do! Let’s do something, like… Uhm, I don’t know… Throwing a monkey wrench on the Paul works? How about over-supporting that guy, whatshisname… Johnson! Yeah!”

      1. The Koch brothers’ PAC is only backing Bachmann (last I checked).

  12. So. You’ll be firing Katie Mangu-Ward then?

      1. http://images.wikia.com/reason…..r_Girl.jpg

        Click on the link and embrace forgiveness.

  13. Romney. Bah!

    Romney reassures medical mj patient synthetic drugs will be better for him… or else!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..ata_player

    1. So Romney’s pushing K2 now?

      I guess an android would be all over the synthetic drugs . . . .

  14. The media love to ignore the opinions of the well informed early deciders, as evidenced by grass roots support, straw polls, and donations (by number of donors, not just dollars). They love to lean heavily on the “scientific” polls of comparatively uninformed potential voters with a high probability of changing their minds later on.

    The “top tier” descriptor, if used at all, should at least be an objective comparison of scientific polls (nationally and in key early states), fundraising, and grassroots activity. By any of those measures, Ron Paul is and was a top tier candidate, and Tim Pawlenty was not.

    The media seem to want to use the “top tier” descriptor for candidates they think fit the traditional model of the major party eventual nominees, and hence have a good “chance to win”. But if 9 candidates fit the traditional model, 6 or 7 of them are going to end up in a far lower tier than the 1 or 2 non-traditional candidates, especially if the objective evidence points to their having widespread and growing support, as it does.

  15. That is really amazing. Romney and Perry are neck-to-neck with the Big O, but Paul following just by 2 points? That fills my heart with hope… and change!

  16. A funny Mercedes Comercial via Ad Week.

    http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/…..igs-133401

  17. Obama matches up well with all the GOPers, and this is with most people not knowing much about the GOPers. Wow.

    That shows how f*cked up the GOP field is imo.

    This shows me two things:

    1. A lot of people are not blaming the crappy economy on Obama and/or
    2. KultureWar is still pretty big

    1. Re: MNG,

      Obama matches up well with all the GOPers,

      So well in fact that even the so-called fringe candidate is about to catch up with him.

      Yeah, that well. Head-in-Sand award nominee!

    2. ummm, an incumbant with even polling numbers against relative lesser knowns (aside from romney) and you’re optimistic? Methinks this is not a great sign for obama. Either he’s pissed people off to the point they’ll vote for a dead dog before him or they’re getting engaged this year alot earlier. Neither of which is helpful to him.

  18. How does a guy who polls at less than 40% approval manage to get nearly 50% of the vote?

    If I’m a Republican, I’m not excited by these numbers. A billion dollars of character assassinating negative heads are coming at whoever gets nominated, and are sure to drive his support down at least a few percentage points.

    1. heads, ads, whatever.

      1. You think the MSM’s going to stick with the Chocolate Jesus throughout?

        1. You think the MSM’s going to stick with the Chocolate Jesus throughout?

          Not only yes, but hell yes.

      2. Is the RNC catapulting bags of severed heads at him? Because that’s not a bad strategy.

        1. Hmm, whose heads?

        2. I’m thinking the reverse – Obama’s going to be catapulting the severed head of bin Laden at the RNC.

          Over and over and over

    2. “How does a guy who polls at less than 40% approval manage to get nearly 50% of the vote?”

      It means you disapprove of the other guy more…

    3. I was wondering that myself. My guess is that despite what they say in opinion polls, “independents” are really still much more attached to the party they lean towards than they let on.

      They may not vote straight-ticket as much anymore, but I think a lot of people round these parts may be over-stating the degree to which people will step out of the Red vs. Blue dynamic.

    4. Hardcore liberals. They “dont approve” but you can bet your ass theyll still queue up to swallow his load. These are the trash that think teh won compromises too much.

    5. It’s probably a combination of the Wilder effect, frustration with the failure of the GOP victors in 2010 to actually have an impact, and obscurity of the GOP candidates.

      You know something’s fishy when the undecideds are only 6-7% more than a year before the election.

      1. Basically, the indies swung to the GOP last time around, and things got worse afterwards. So now they’ll swing toward the Dems. Post hock ergo propter hock may be a fallacy but that’s what the indies are all about.

        1. Post hock ergo propter hock

          After the US pawned its stuff, therefore because the US pawned its stuff?

  19. Jeeze, thanks Matt! It is so nice to see optimism and hope in here with respect to Dr. Paul’s campaign. I am a “Paultard” but the fact is, I would become a “tard” for ANY candidate who promotes liberty and is genuinely libertarian. I like Gary Johnson and certainly he is head and shoulders above the likes of Romney and Bachman and Perry and the rest of them. Unfortunately, he does not truly accept the idea of self ownership. If he did he would have no qualms about declaring ALL substance prohibition as wrong and anti-liberty and anti-self ownership. Please, can we all try to pull together this time. Believe me I would support any Reason supported candidate so long as that candidate were truly libertarian and does not wave on fundamental principle.

    1. Nice. But your apparent ethical support of Paul’s ideas clashes with libertarians’ inherent cynicism/pragmatism.

    2. I don’t see why Paul is more principled than Johnson when Paul routinely uses earmarks and believes individual states have the right to violate constitutional fundamental rights.

      1. …[Paul] believes individual states have the right to violate constitutional fundamental rights.

        Citation, please?

        1. Paul believes Kelo should never have made it to the Supreme Court, because he thinks due process only applies to the federal government and not the states. The result is that property rights are not absolute depending on what state you live in.

          http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html

          Paul also doesn’t believe in a right to privacy and thinks Lawrence v. Texas was wrongfully decided. While he openly admits sodomy laws are stupid, his position would have allowed Texas to ban sodomy, which restricts the constitutional right to privacy and the natural right of self ownership.

          http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

          I understand his position and I’m not saying he doesn’t believe what these states did was wrong, but I just don’t find a position that allows fundamental and constitutional rights to change depending on what state you live in to be a principled position from a natural rights stand point.

          Further, I’ll admit that Ron Paul is one of the most principled representatives in congress, but I just don’t buy this narrative that Paul is the pure libertarian moralist while Johnson is the pragmatic utilitarian.

      2. Johnson doesn’t believe in equal protection for murder victims.

      3. Good God, do we really have to go over this “earmark” horseshit/red herring again? Earmarks simply designate where money ALREADY spent is directed and it is the job of representatives to try to redirect some of their constituents tax dollars back to them and for their benefit. Earmarks add NOTHING to the debt.

    3. in choosing between Johnson and Paul, I’d vote for both if I could

      1. in choosing between Johnson and Paul

        Too bad Paulson isn’t running.

        [rim shot]

  20. This:

    In the twisted thought process of the political press, one’s party is always the point of reference, bucking it is the ultimate act of bravery, and the proper object of a “protest candidacy” is encouraging one’s party to embrace the bipartisan consensus of the moment.

    is really only half true. IF you are talking about a Republican/Rightie who bucks “The Party”, it’s a big, hairy deal. If, on the other hand, you are talking about a Democrat/Leftie, then he or she is an apostate who should be sent to the 9th circle of hell.

  21. The concerning part is how well Mitt Romney shows. I guess Americans must like the new healthcare plan.

  22. You guys at Reason hurt your rep really bad amongst folk when that lady representing Reason magazine went on CNN saying Ron Paul cant get elected.

    1. Reason, being staffed by “libertarians,” i.e. people who can’t agree on anything, does not (necessarily) endorse, concur with, or support the opinions of its own editors, and they have said as much.

      1. The Kochtopus made them do it.

      2. don’t run a business then.. nobody cares about your fucking ‘individualistic’ opinion.. who is paying for your platform in the first place, answer that question first. this country’s got a few years at best in its economic condition and we’re playing a team game with this country’s fate on the balance.. can’t take the heat then get the fuck out of the kitchen.. you’ve got such a tiny support customer base and you can’t even figure out what they want.. never seen a business that has clients that you can count by fingers and still manage to piss them off by hiring unqualified editors.. an editor that doesn’t even know who she’s “editing” for.. free speech my ass. retardation is more likely.

        1. Don’t hold back. Tell us what’s on your mind.

          1. try to figure out what’s going on around you and don’t coincidentally feed into the establishment’s play as you express your ‘free speech’. try using your brain. ain’t hard.

    2. She’s not wrong. Ron Paul is not likely win the GOP nomination.

      Voluntary reduction of the nation’s (prestigious) military and space programs, lifting restrictions on outsourcing and tarriffs on foreign imports, expanding privileges on illegal aliens, and a brazen “the world hates us because we are wrong” attitude, even if true – These are enormously unpopular ideas all over the world. You won’t inspire the popular support from (the often nationalist) citizens with that kind of platform. Not in Korea, not in Japan, not in most of Europe, etc.

      The Christine O’Donnell debacle could not have come at a worst time for Ron Paul. I think the T party and its sympathizers will think twice about blindly supprting ideological purity. Obama’s media lapdogs will exploit every angle to make Ron Paul look like a nihilist who wants to close down anything “government” and Big O will eat him alive in the general elections.

      1. Obama’s not eating anyone alive in the general. He’ll lose and lose big. This economy is an incumbent-killer. Not to mention that Obama is an incumbent-killer without the bad economy.

        The bad news is that one of these GOP idiots is going to be president. There’s an outside chance that Paul could win, but he’s definitely got an uphill battle.

      2. That’s not why. The why is that the guy is a sloppy, dirty, unprofessional clown. He shows up in his poorly fitted suit and then does some sort of Grandpa Simpson routine. He is the Ralph Nader of TEAM RED.

        1. No no these polls clearly show that RP can win. I say he can win even as a 3rd party. Pay no attention to the Ralph Nader phenomenon, and even less to the Ross Perot analogue. RP should definitely either win the nod or run 3rd party.

          I am totally prepared to be proved wrong that 3rd party candidacies are counterproductive.

          1. I think this is the second time I’ve agreed with Tony, but I suspect he’s being sarcastic or trying to get us to back Ron Paul as an independent candidate, based on wishful thinking that an anti-war, fiscal conservative, pro-liberty candidate will draw more votes from the Red Team than from the Blue Team.

            1. You know if Paul or Johnson run as 3rd Party candidates, they will likely focus heavily on Obama’s foreign policy failures, expansion of executive powers, the war on drugs and abuse of the Patriot Act. They would need to make a concerted effort to win large swaths of Obama’s base by continually tying Obama to Bush.

              Frankly, I think Johnson could manage this better because his comparable obscurity enables him to create his own message, where Paul would more likely split the Republican vote between the Tea Party and the establishment.

            2. He’s referring to the phenomenon where most Democratic presidents win with less than 50% of the vote, due to third party candidates.

              He’s love to have Obama reelected due to Paul siphoning off enough r-leaning votes as the LP candidate.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..ote_margin

      3. She may or may not be wrong with respect to whether or not Ron will be nominated/elected. Where she was wrong was in saying that he doesn’t deserve the same coverage as the other candidates – most of whom, also, can not be elected. I happen to believe that Ron Paul could and would be elected if he can get past the ass hats who control the nomination process.

    3. im sure she’d be happy to be proved wrong. Then again, it was KMW

  23. I swear, the Oakland Raiders might be the worst franchise in all of sports.

    They took Pryor in the third round, when they probably could have gotten him a lot lower. What a bunch of dumbshits.

    1. Excuse me, this thread is about four morons who have no chance of winning, not the Raiders quarterback corps.

      1. Well at least it wasn’t Tampa Bay. Now that’s a QB kiss of death.

        1. Historically, mostly, but that’s not really true with Freeman.

          1. Rex Grossman was good for a year, too.

            1. They should have traded for Tebow.

            2. Rex Grossman never played in Tampa.

              1. Actually he did, though he was playing for the Bears at the time. My point was that one year of good QB play, particularly against the creampuff schedule TB and the rest of the NFCS had last year, means very little in the long run.

                Last year they had 4 games against the weak AFCW; 4 games against the worst division in NFL history, the NFCW; 2 games against Carolina; 1 game each against last-place teams in NFCN and NFCE; and finally 2 games each against their fellow overrated NFCS rivals that were embarrassed in their first playoff games.

      2. Nicely done, Tulpa.

    2. You should take Pryor for your fantasy team.

      It would be huge improvement for your roster.

      🙂

      1. I’m sure you meant to direct this at Tulpa. That fuck is going down in 3 weeks.

        1. How late are the pharmacies open in Cali? Better get that thorazine prescription refilled cause you’re in the midst of one hell of a delusion.

  24. Go Raiders, Go! Go somewhere else!

    1. LA in a couple of years. Bank it.

      1. Why? They’ve tried that. IOW, are you thinking after ole Al’s demise?

        1. Al Davis has been dead for a decade. The Crypt Keeper has been running that team since then.

    2. If there was any poetic justice in the world, the Raiders would play in D.C.

      1. Fuck that we already have one retarded owner…we don’t need another. GO REDSKINS.

        1. Raiders…D.C. politicians…

          Never mind.

  25. “disporportionate media preference for the heretical John Huntsman”

    Just so long as Huntsman doesn’t go hunting for votes on Sunday:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chasseur_maudit_(Franck)

  26. Matt Welch needs to be fired for not saying Ron Paul is “The One” – presumably he’s being paid off by the Bilderbergers to undermine RP’s campaign.

  27. Before you all Lynch a certain Mrs Ward-Mangu….might i remind you all that she did give us Lobster Girl.

    http://images.wikia.com/reason…..r_Girl.jpg

    If that is not a get out of jail free card, like forever, i don’t know what is.

    1. Is that KMW? You’re right, she gets a free pass for the RP comments.

      1. No its Old Mex’s wife…but KMW was the one who posted a picture of her on Hit and Run.

        1. If KM-W wasn’t already the ONE True MILF-y libertarian* Goddess she would get a pass just for making Ann Althouse cry and have a near-nervous breakdown
          (citation is KM-W herself in the comments of Bailey’s post on said incident)

          *perhaps the only one on the editorial staff.

    2. Lobster Girl is too “obvious” for my tastes. The thinking man is more taken by the Pot Girlz of Cavanaugh.

  28. Not for nuthin’, and with all due respect, but those RP “The One” ads are just plain weird, have a real L. Ron Hubbard feel to them.

    Just sayin’ (it IS ok to offer some crit of a libertarian w/out being kicked out of the gang, yes?)

  29. AAAHHHH! The optimism, it burns!

  30. L. Ron Hubbard isn’t “plain weird” – he is “The One.”

    Wait a minute, Ron Paul is now “The One.” Maybe I should worship him instead.

    1. F
      Unoriginal and boring

  31. Just another bought and paid for Politician!

    http://www.web-anon.at.tc

  32. Looking forward to vote Ron Paul in 2012!

  33. Hey, I’d just like to remind you all Ron Paul will bring all our soldiers home starting the day he takes office. If you are a rational person, it is your duty to save others if it is possible to do so without harming yourself. With your single vote, you could save thousands of Americans and a million or more foreigners. Aren’t they worth your time? Myself, if I don’t do my best for Dr. Paul I will feel complicit in the murders if I do not try to stop them.

    Of course, that being said – the double digit growth we”ll experience with that kind of bottom-up stimulus doesn’t hurt either. And getting my freedom back when the Patriot Act is repealed – well that’s just the icing on the cake.

    Vote Vertebrate – Ron Paul 2012!

  34. My take….

    Right now we see 15-20% of the active GOP moving in behind Paul…. or this is what what we’re being told. A vastly higher percentage can be deduced when one simply observes polling formed outside of the manipulator’s control. In the last debate, 78,000 people signed up and voted the issues on Fox’s site. During the debates, it was quite telling that Ron Paul’s approval was in the mid to high-60’s% overall, and often in the high 70’s on specific issues. The hesitation of consensus on some issues was fun to watch as people sometimes had to really think about their answer! The “front-runners” were seeing 15-25% approval ratings almost across the board.

    So, WTF? Were was the MSM on reporting this phenomenon? Nowhere. They appear to be dancing to the tune of unknown composers and more than complicit in political subterfuge when they produce any prose that in any way paints Paul with some brush of un-electability.

    Some in the media arena might be innocently trapped in the meme, thinking that Ron Paul hasn’t a chance with 15-20% of the GOP behind him…given that all of the “experts” are singing the same song in unison, and assuming that we can even come close to accepting these numbers as being representative of the truth. I hardly think perpetual gullibility is to blame for all of the media’s culpability in our demise, or even for a majority of them, given the immensity of the underlying story that anyone can see but isn’t being told, much less whispered. And that story is the one that is staring everyone in the face like the proverbial 800lb. Gorilla in the room. This is the story that says that the GOP will NEVER win a presidential contest again, having lost forever the block that backs Ron Paul.

    For the Paul crowd, gone are the days of voting for the lesser of two evils. They’ll never accept the status quo again. Their new found understanding, an understanding that ripped them from their couches, an understanding that enabled them to burn their red (and blue) jerseys, has forever formed a rift in the electorate that will never be filled in by the existing party philosophies. And it’s the media’s constant prevarication and obfuscation that contributed most to this paradigm shift by and through their silence, allowing the corruption and underhandedness in government to build to such proportions that every family in America will be detrimentally affected in a few short years, if they have not been affected already. Their obfuscation is now continuing and by trying to hide the gorilla in plain sight they are bringing many more “converts” to the ranks of the Ron Paul crowd. For who can continue to follow any party when one realizes that the party has installed a ring in their nose and has tethered them to a slaughterhouse bound cart? Change has truly come to America…albeit in its ethereal form…but substance is forming quickly and I believe that a force has been unleashed that will clasp many, many more Americans to its breast and its tenets will become ubiquitous…be sure of that. We are in the beginning of a massive shift.

    What those on the outside of the Ron Paul “thing”, or those with just their toes in the liberty water do not YET understand is that, once adopted, the liberty philosophy takes one with a fully sweeping wind. Upon introduction, one tends to first get a bit bewildered as the red or blue backdrop doesn’t fit with the picture being super-imposed over it. Then, in processing all of the ideas one’s been told we’re “wacky” one undergoes a real soul-searching process in examining what one’s own beliefs have consisted of, and what information the individual has used to arrive at those beliefs as they are put up next to Dr. Paul’s. This is not something we as voters are used to, and it is why so many, who have not undergone this investigation/self-examination process, misunderstand Dr. Paul’s positions and reasoning’s…or never act to truly examine Ron Paul in depth and forgo the opinions of others until one arrives at one’s own.

    We who are now committed come at this from every walk of American political life, Neo-Cons, Religious Righters, Progressives, Liberals and all points in between and we find unanimous agreement on what Dr. Paul, as president, can affect on his own. Which we all must admit is limited but important. And we are confident that the Bully Pulpit will be used to educate the American public to other possibilities and methodologies that he espouses but would need a sea change in Congress to affect. It will be the people’s over-all acceptance of those principals as evidenced by the presence of Ron Paul in the Whitehouse that will sweep Congress clean in a few short years as those that stand against the tide will be drowned by it.

    We who have made our decision, have simply found that our own personal sticking points with Ron’s plank are hardly enough to cause us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In short, we love him…or at least we trust him with our welfare and that of our fellow citizens and know he will not turn his back on us.

    For the vast majority of us, this has amounted to a religious conversion, and one which we are willing to fight for..which is, to anyone paying attention, a statement in redundancy. What the MSM doesn’t understand is that we will NEVER go away. And given that Paul just won the NH Young Republican’s Straw Poll with 45%, I’d say the unrepentant Neo-Cons and Progressives that blabber in our faces each day better get used to the idea that their mesmerizing hold on the populace is quickly nearing its end. A paradigm shift has occurred. Technology supplied by the very forces that seek to dumb us down and oppress us, is now enabling us to subvert their control and regain dominion of our country through the political process. A perpetual monkey-wrench has been forged and it is being jammed in the gears of the machine as we speak.

    Ron Paul is the man…the path is set…and we will never return…to assume the position…so don’t expect much compromise moving forward. Our prospective candidates will be under a thick magnifying glass and we will look for history and substance in our representatives. So should you.

    1. Exactly what I was going to say.

  35. The main reason media types aren’t confronting Paul’s thought is that they have no idea what he’s talking about. I’m not being facetious: they simply cannot process what he’s suggesting. He is speaking in Wingdings to them.

    And remember: most TV anchors are not journalists, they’re just pretty people who gave up on acting. They’re all following each other’s lead, groping for anything familiar, and Ron Paul does not fit their grip. If he got elected, they’d probably describe the post as vacant.

    “For the first time in history, no one has won the Presidency”

    Have they even tried explaining his platform to people? Any famous roundtables on that?

  36. Oh hey look – Reason magazine is taking a break from attacking Ron Paul or going on TV to talk about how he will never win.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.