Ron Paul Recieves 91% in first straw-poll: Not Spammers

[Zaknafien]

Ron Paul Gets 91% in Straw Poll; Not the Work of Spammers

Tue May 29, 3:01 AM ET

Popular online web site dedicated to election polls proves that the online support of Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) is legitimate and not the work of spammers.
ADVERTISEMENT
YAHOO NEWS


Washington D.C. (PRWEB) May 29, 2007 -- USAElectionPolls.com ran its first ever straw poll on May 27, 2007. The poll read as follows "Who's Your Republican of Choice?" and the possible choices were Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain (news, bio, voting record), and Mitt Romney.

Of the 342 that participated in the straw poll, Ron Paul received 310 votes (91%).

The authors of USAElectionPolls.com admit that because this is an unscientific poll, there is no correlation between these results and the true feelings of voters in America as a whole.

David Terr of USAElectionPolls.com did want to disprove the commonly held belief that the reason Ron Paul does well in Internet polls is the result of spammers. He says "the users voting in these polls come from all across the United States. Fox News tried to suggest that Ron Paul's popularity was confined to a group of friends in a dorm room who just click on every poll. It could not be further from the truth."

The users of USAElectionPolls.com will be resetting their polls on a daily basis. It is expected that once the whole electorate becomes interested in the 2008 election, Ron Paul will drop in these online straw polls.

For more information on the web traffic statistics, go to http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-fox-news.html

To see how well Ron Paul is doing in the scientific polls, go to http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html

###

[Odin]

If Ron Paul can do what Ross Perot did in 92 I will be a very happy man. The republican party needs some new ideas and if they could adopt a few of his (more protection of the US market, Non interventionist foreign policy) I'd be a happy semi libertarian.

[Tribesman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

[Xiahou]

Maybe it's not spammers, but it's certainly by no means a valid survey. Paul is barely a blip on the more scientific polls.

Odin, I assume your "more protectionism" comment accounts for the semi of you semi-libertarian label? The last thing our economy needs is protectionism. We didn't become the economic power we are today by constructing barriers to trade.

[Pindar]

Rasmussen has released its weekly poll numbers for the GOP candidates. They are:

Republicans

Giuliani 25%
Romney 16%
McCain 15%
Thompson 12%
Gingrich 9%

This is the Rasmussen site: Rasmussen Reports (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary)


Ron Paul is not a factor nor will he be.

[Zaknafien]

his name is simply unknown thus far. the internet is the sleeping giant in american political voice, hopefully we can awaken it and Paul will make an impact.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

his name is simply unknown thus far. the internet is the sleeping giant in american political voice, hopefully we can awaken it and Paul will make an impact.

Awaken it? The current crop of political junkies and policy wonks are already well aware of it -- and this poll shows you their preferences (nice to see them wipe out the spamming issue, adds at least some value in assessing that focus group).

However, if you think it is likely that more than 2% of the "unwashed" are going to google their way to Ron Paul as opposed to a youtube, music downloads or porn site, you are doomed to be an unrequited optimist.

[Zaknafien]

well, good thing Ron Paul has twice as many YouTube subscribers as all other GOP candidates combined.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Zak':

Ron has gotten a lot of exposure. He's frequently mentioned on the Boortz radio program and VERY frequently mentioned on my local talk radio show in the Hampton Roads.

Libertarianism, as currently defined/embodied, simply does not "grab" enough of the voters to get them out of their comfortable rut of two vote choices.

That Ron let Rudy cast him as a whck-job tinfoil hatter in the debate (and I'll stipulate that Rudy took advantage of Ron's phrasing more than it was Ron declaring that the USA are the bad guys) only confirms the "I'm comfortable with the two party system" types in their belief. Most US voters are pretty happy to let one party control the legislature while putting the other in the executive so that they get little out of either -- lets them gripe about the whole show while mostly ignoring it.

Ron Paul is not going to gin up the support to make a Perot-style effort possible.

[Zaknafien]

I disagree, Paul made Guiliani look like an idiot at the debate, and in the days since (giving him "reading assignments" and such). Since the debate, Paul's exposure has exploded, and a majority of it is positive exposure. The best thing Rudy did was take him on, because it elevates him. Now Rudy's probably regretting that, since now Paul is challenging him to debates and such, which only benefits Paul by getting his name out there.

[Tart]

I disagree, Paul made Guiliani look like an idiot at the debate
He did, but did you see the audience reaction to Rudy's soundbite answer? That was a tad worrying. Giuliani pretty much asked him to retract a (in my opinion) truthful statement and got a whole load of applause for it.


Since the debate, Paul's exposure has exploded, and a majority of it is positive exposure. The best thing Rudy did was take him on, because it elevates him.
Absolutely. It was great to see him on Bill Maher's show last week, and mad to see the crowd reaction to him there. In any case, it's refreshing to hear someone talk sense for the GOP. I'm guessing Romney will be on the ticket, though it's well early for that sort of talk, but that's my gut feeling at the moment. Still, there's a long way to go yet!

[Zaknafien]

i dont know about Romney I doubt Americans are ready to elect a crazy Mormon.. besides he just strikes many people as too polished.. fake-ish.

I'd say McCain or Gingrich will end up with the GOP nomination, but here's to hoping Paul smashes them about soundly in the lead-up and brings light to the poor state our Republic's fallen to.

[Xiahou]

i dont know about Romney I doubt Americans are ready to elect a crazy Mormon.. besides he just strikes many people as too polished.. fake-ish. Actually, Romney has a double digit lead over his closest competitor in Iowa according to the latest poll (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070519/NEWS/70519027/1001/NEWS11) I've seen. Unsurprisingly, Paul doesn't even rate a 1%.

[Zaknafien]

I mean in as a candidate in general. He won't win the nomination.

[Odin]

Odin, I assume your "more protectionism" comment accounts for the semi of you semi-libertarian label? The last thing our economy needs is protectionism. We didn't become the economic power we are today by constructing barriers to trade.

The first thing we need is protectionism, right now China is in the U.S. threatening congress not to impose sanctions on thier goods. One only needs to look at thier deflated currency, restrictions on U.S. goods and the overall defict in trade we have to make the argument for "more protectionism"

We could also chit chat about the EU (france is the driver) demanding that the U.S. cut subsidies to our farmers, but on the other the hand they will not. Now we cut subsidies and then we get killed by the south american producers.

What this country needs, more then anything is for someone to act in our intrest first, when it comes to trade and economics. The economic power we are today is largerly driven by a fading manufacturing base, a highly competitive priduce sector, cheap imports, and a multi billion dollar defense industry that is largely incestual in its dispursements.

[ShadeHonestus]

Even with everything going on here and suffering an eye infection I could smell something rotten. Maybe it's that deal where one sense diminishes and the others are heightened.


his name is simply unknown thus far. the internet is the sleeping giant in american political voice, hopefully we can awaken it and Paul will make an impact.

Yes the last great bastion for unsupported fact and conspiracy nutjobs. It used to be that you had to get published for people to read drivel and if you couldn't gain the cred necessary you could find a rich man to sleep with, gain esoteric value by declaring yourself gay, and get sugardaddied a toilet paper rag in Greenwich entitled "the truth" or something else inherent in oxymorons. However, now the masses are subjected to it...well...en masse by the self perpetuating mass of ignorance. This is the same group that when they find themselves in college are shocked and outraged when you don't credit all their internet sources for collegiate level papers. They then drop out and sign up for some freesite to self publish their nonsense and when finding a like minded or rather a like absent-minded individual or individuals offering financial assistance in the form of a mocha latte cutback they gain hosting fees so they can continue to be counted among the prophets inherent in any fast food drive through. Ron Paul now enters the political stage and by summing his views in a rather misinformed fashion there are now thousands of little mocha latte starved drop outs typing that they've been validated.

No offense to fast food employees intended.




We could also chit chat about the EU (france is the driver) demanding that the U.S. cut subsidies to our farmers, but on the other the hand they will not. Now we cut subsidies and then we get killed by the south american producers.

Their is a lot to be discussed when it comes to subsidies and although I realize the point of your post was not to delve into their substance, this is an oversimplification of the issue. I do have to say thanks for bringing up the topic. Although they have their time and place the reality is that every president in the last 25 years has wanted to reinvent or eliminate farm subsidies, but they quickly find that they cannot politically. During the farm crisis there had to be help for the individual farmer, but it came way too little too late. Now what has evolved is a form of corporate welfare practically unrivaled, not to mention it flies in the face of its original purpose. Generally speaking the landowner gets paid a subsidy for each acre of producing land. The ignored fact is that it takes the same overhead in equipment, labor, etc to produce on 5000 acres as it does 1000. Naturally the evolved state is now that which pays millions to large corporate farms without a scaling reduction for total acres. The last bastion for the little guy to expand is rent farming and unfortunately here, the producer isn't given the subsidy but rather the landlord and rarely is it factored into the rent price. The problem needs to be addressed with new markets for existing crops, especially ethanol (ethanol refineries popping up every 25 miles here) emerging the market has the opportunity to correct itself and turn more profitable for every farmer. Keeping our political wits about us and not selling out to South America being key.

For fairness I should state that I own a considerable portion of a sizable corporate farm...although it was only incorporated to take advantage of liability/tax breaks to save the family farm during the crisis, 90% of my former neighbors weren't that lucky.

-I now return to my previously scheduled onset of blindness

[Odin]

Their is a lot to be discussed when it comes to subsidies and although I realize the point of your post was not to delve into their substance, this is an oversimplification of the issue. I do have to say thanks for bringing up the topic. Although they have their time and place the reality is that every president in the last 25 years has wanted to reinvent or eliminate farm subsidies, but they quickly find that they cannot politically. During the farm crisis there had to be help for the individual farmer, but it came way too little too late. Now what has evolved is a form of corporate welfare practically unrivaled, not to mention it flies in the face of its original purpose. Generally speaking the landowner gets paid a subsidy for each acre of producing land. The ignored fact is that it takes the same overhead in equipment, labor, etc to produce on 5000 acres as it does 1000. Naturally the evolved state is now that which pays millions to large corporate farms without a scaling reduction for total acres. The last bastion for the little guy to expand is rent farming and unfortunately here, the producer isn't given the subsidy but rather the landlord and rarely is it factored into the rent price. The problem needs to be addressed with new markets for existing crops, especially ethanol (ethanol refineries popping up every 25 miles here) emerging the market has the opportunity to correct itself and turn more profitable for every farmer. Keeping our political wits about us and not selling out to South America being key.

For fairness I should state that I own a considerable portion of a sizable corporate farm...although it was only incorporated to take advantage of liability/tax breaks to save the family farm during the crisis, 90% of my former neighbors weren't that lucky.

-I now return to my previously scheduled onset of blindness

While I wont claim to know the entire story of aid to farmers, I do understand the necessity of it now, regardless of the cause the global factors involved now prolclude us from eliminating them.

"protectionism" is a sexy term used for all sorts of situations. In itself its an over simplification of several smaller dynamic issues (your post as an example). The point is very simply that protecting american intrests, no matter the vein should be a domestic priority first, an international one second.

[Goofball]

Odin, I assume your "more protectionism" comment accounts for the semi of you semi-libertarian label? The last thing our economy needs is protectionism. We didn't become the economic power we are today by constructing barriers to trade.

Amen, brutha.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I didn't think Ron Paul was protectionist.

Still, I think I'll vote for the only man in Congress against increasing government waste...

[doc_bean]

Yes the last great bastion for unsupported fact and conspiracy nutjobs. It used to be that you had to get published for people to read drivel and if you couldn't gain the cred necessary you could find a rich man to sleep with, gain esoteric value by declaring yourself gay, and get sugardaddied a toilet paper rag in Greenwich entitled "the truth" or something else inherent in oxymorons. However, now the masses are subjected to it...well...en masse by the self perpetuating mass of ignorance. This is the same group that when they find themselves in college are shocked and outraged when you don't credit all their internet sources for collegiate level papers. They then drop out and sign up for some freesite to self publish their nonsense and when finding a like minded or rather a like absent-minded individual or individuals offering financial assistance in the form of a mocha latte cutback they gain hosting fees so they can continue to be counted among the prophets inherent in any fast food drive through. Ron Paul now enters the political stage and by summing his views in a rather misinformed fashion there are now thousands of little mocha latte starved drop outs typing that they've been validated.

No offense to fast food employees intended.



While I'd disagree with your assessment of Ron paul based on my limited knowledge of him and what he stands for, this was hilarious :2thumbsup:

[Devastatin Dave]

his name is simply unknown thus far. the internet is the sleeping giant in american political voice, hopefully we can awaken it and Paul will make an impact.
Yup, that worked out well for Kerry, like the "youth vote" factor.:laugh4:

[Xiahou]

The first thing we need is protectionism, right now China is in the U.S. threatening congress not to impose sanctions on thier goods. One only needs to look at thier deflated currency, restrictions on U.S. goods and the overall defict in trade we have to make the argument for "more protectionism"

We could also chit chat about the EU (france is the driver) demanding that the U.S. cut subsidies to our farmers, but on the other the hand they will not. Now we cut subsidies and then we get killed by the south american producers.

What this country needs, more then anything is for someone to act in our intrest first, when it comes to trade and economics. The economic power we are today is largerly driven by a fading manufacturing base, a highly competitive priduce sector, cheap imports, and a multi billion dollar defense industry that is largely incestual in its dispursements.
Actually, almost 3/4 of the US GDP and labor force comes from the service/commercial industry. As a proportion, manufacturing comes in around 12-14%. That's as it should be in a mature economy. Manufacturing is mainly limited to high-tech, high-skill goods- even still, our manufacturing output still far outpaces any other country in terms of value produced. It's really tough to argue with results- increased free trade has grown our economy and made America more prosperous.

Yes, we need politicians who are concerned about our economy. Sadly, too many try to frighten us with the Japanese, or more recently the Chinese/Indians and tell us how they're taking our jobs and ruining the economy. The facts never seem to bear this out, but they keeps scare mongering anyway. The truth is that China and other countries are primarily taking low-skill jobs and, in turn, providing us with cheap goods. It's good for them, and it's good for us.


Amen, brutha.:bow:

[Odin]

Actually, almost 3/4 of the US GDP and labor force comes from the service/commercial industry. As a proportion, manufacturing comes in around 12-14%. That's as it should be in a mature economy.

Okay but your statement was along the lines of "the economic power we are today" Up until the last 25 years, a great deal of the source of that power is manufacturing based.


Manufacturing is mainly limited to high-tech, high-skill goods- even still, our manufacturing output still far outpaces any other country in terms of value produced. It's really tough to argue with results- increased free trade has grown our economy and made America more prosperous.

A lot of this is subjective, particularly terms like "value" and "prosperous". Yep corporate profits are through the roof, all that cheap labor oversea's, and wonderful environmental laws make it a no brainer.

Of course I buy american, My toyota was put together in alabama :shame:


Yes, we need politicians who are concerned about our economy. Sadly, too many try to frighten us with the Japanese, or more recently the Chinese/Indians and tell us how they're taking our jobs and ruining the economy. The facts never seem to bear this out, but they keeps scare mongering anyway. The truth is that China and other countries are primarily taking low-skill jobs and, in turn, providing us with cheap goods. It's good for them, and it's good for us.

So they are fightening us by saying they are taking jobs, but later its only "low skill jobs". Wonderful Xiahou ! I thought this new immigration amnesty was BS anyway. So we dont need them here either, unless they are just going to take more low skill jobs?

The facts do bare out that jobs are being lost in some form (indirectly state by your own comments) sure we can banter about americans wont do them yadda yadda, but if we didnt have such an open market for others to fill the "low skill" and "cheap goods" market forces might actually make it possible for someone to make a good wage making key chains.

I.m all for joe shmoe in Bejing for having a good job, but lets allow the market to determine the value. Thats not how it works though is it? Right off the bat the american worker is at a disadvantage because he is in competition with a country who controls the wage via currency controls.

Without the same control, or counter measure he dosent have a chance, and then you become dependent on that control to maintain the goods at the same price level. To many variables that allow others access/input into the republic.

No thanks