Fox News Is Incompetent; Ron Paul's Online Success Is Not the Result of Spammers

[Zaknafien]

Fox News Is Incompetent; Ron Paul's Online Success Is Not the Result of Spammers

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008...-fox-news.html

We all saw the second Republican debate on Fox News Channel May 15, 2007 and are fully aware of the interchange that Giuliani and Paul had regarding the 9/11 attacks. Afterwards, Fox News had a text message poll in which Ron Paul was leading at the beginning.

Instead of discussing how Ron Paul's views were resonating well with those that watched the debate, they claimed that this was not important because the Paul supporters somehow mysteriously banded together and all voted.

We are an impartial web site so we cannot officially tell you how idiotic that statement was but let's look at the facts. Ron Paul is supposedly getting only 1% of the national vote. For him to get 26% of the people state that he won the debate means that the people voting for him were voting in 25 times larger proportion than their true support.

What Fox should have explained was that Ron Paul's message resonated well with Democrats who would have exclusively voted for Paul. They should have also explained how Paul's supporters are younger who are more likely to vote. Instead, they insinuated that the Paul supporters were spamming.

We ran a straw poll yesterday and Ron Paul won with 91% of the vote. We estimated that only about 12% of all the visitors to our website even voted in the straw poll to begin with but we found the distribution of the voters to be very diverse which proves that it is not the result of spammers.

Something else the news channels are reporting is that the supporters of Ron Paul online are set in stone and that the campaign will not grow in support. And this means that as more of the electorate goes online interested in the campaigns, Ron Paul's online support would dwindle in comparison.

[Don Corleone]

Here's one thing I don't get Zak. If you really believe Paul is the best candidate, good for you. But I suspect your support of him has more to do with handicapping the Republicans with a joke for a candidate. If you really believed that strongly in a non-interventionist foreign policy, why aren't you pulling equally hard for the Democrat that represents that position, Mike Gravel.

[Xiahou]

Apparently Paul supporters have a history of "spamming" non-scientific polls. I've seen it done before on many issues for these types of polls. A person finds out about a poll, and emails the info to other supporters or posts it on a website. Combine that with Paul's negligible support in all scientific polls and it's fair assume that yes, the results of a text messaging poll aren't legitimate.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

. Combine that with Paul's negligible support in all scientific polls and it's fair assume that yes, the results of a text messaging poll aren't legitimate.

So then who is the incompetent one here?

[doc_bean]

Here's one thing I don't get Zak. If you really believe Paul is the best candidate, good for you. But I suspect your support of him has more to do with handicapping the Republicans with a joke for a candidate. If you really believed that strongly in a non-interventionist foreign policy, why aren't you pulling equally hard for the Democrat that represents that position, Mike Gravel.

Why wouldn't swing voters vote for Ron Paul ?

The only reasons i can see not to vote for him at this point are:

1. You really support a hawkish foreign policy. Nearly none of the swing voters are going to be like this imo.
2. You believe he doesn't stand a chance of winning.
3. You're scared of change and fear that's what he'll bring

If he'd win the Republican primary that would negate the second point and he'd have a decent chance of scoring big with the swing voters imo. The only thing stopping him would be the third point since Americans seem to very scared of change as the 2004 elections showed. Still, I would think he'd appeal more to swing voters than anything the dems can come up with (even if they get the 'woman' or 'black' vote, which neither current republican candidate can take from them anyway).

[Don Corleone]

Ron Paul has called for a return to the gold standard for the American economy. That shows a fundamental lack of understanding of macro-economics. Should our GDP development be based on the existence of a material that is finite and cannot grow in volume along with our capacity to increase our economic engine?

He has also supports price controls on health care. Because price controls have worked so well in other areas....

He's also strongly pro-Life (that doesn't rule him in or out for me, but there are pro-choice Republicans that feel strongly about it).

While he claims to be in favor or free trade, his efforts against NAFTA, CAFTA and anything coming out of the G8 suggest that he's really more of a mercantilist than a capitalist.

While he's ardently anti-pollution, he's also anti-nuclear power. In fact, he seems dead set against any sort of power generation whatsoever. Yet, he's failed to make a proposal for how he would adequately supply the country's energy needs.

In short, I don't see any sort of cohesive logic to his arguments. I don't see a lot of foresight. He seems to take stabs at issues without considering the long term consequences.

But my point is, the one reason why Zak and others have espoused him is his isolationist views on foreign policy. If they feel that strongly about isolationism, I would imagine Mike Gravel would be an equally appealing candidate on the Democratic side. Yet I don't see the same groundswell for Mike Gravel here in the Backroom. This has led me to wonder if there might be something else about Ron Paul, such as his lack of electability, that makes him such an attractive candidate.

[Don Corleone]

Why wouldn't swing voters vote for Ron Paul ?

The only reasons i can see not to vote for him at this point are:

1. You really support a hawkish foreign policy. Nearly none of the swing voters are going to be like this imo.
2. You believe he doesn't stand a chance of winning.
3. You're scared of change and fear that's what he'll bring

If he'd win the Republican primary that would negate the second point and he'd have a decent chance of scoring big with the swing voters imo. The only thing stopping him would be the third point since Americans seem to very scared of change as the 2004 elections showed. Still, I would think he'd appeal more to swing voters than anything the dems can come up with (even if they get the 'woman' or 'black' vote, which neither current republican candidate can take from them anyway).

I want you to stop and think about #1 very carefully. Ron Paul is not advocating an end to a hawkish foreign policy. He's advocating an end to ANY foreign policy. Imagine the repercussions around the world if all US foreign aid ended (which, according to Ron Paul, it would in January, 2009).

As for #2, I think that's the prinicpal reason the people that back him ARE backing him.

As for #3, if fear of the hellish mess his shortsighted policies would make of our economy (he thinks the federal reserve is unconstitutional) qualifies as fear of change, then yes, call me a Luddite. Electing Lindsey Lohan would also create a lot of change. Are you advocating that she's a viable candidate in your book, because she'd bring change?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

1. You really support a hawkish foreign policy. Nearly none of the swing voters are going to be like this imo.
2. You believe he doesn't stand a chance of winning.
3. You're scared of change and fear that's what he'll bring.

This is a good short list, but the predominant issue is #2. Most of his "natural" voters are fed up with the "hawkish" foreign policy already, and a somewhat less interventionist stance is fairly popular, so #1 is not the obstacle. #3 is significant among the social welfare is wonderful end of the voting bloc, but Paul's not trying to appeal to them (at least at this stage) during the nomination process.

#2 is the dominant reason most US voters ignore candidates who aren't being tapped by the media as "upper echelon" -- they don't want to "waste" their vote. Note: I'm relating a fact here, I'll stipulate the arguments against the concept of a "wasted" vote and "how can any 3rd party succeed then?"

Should Paul actually win one of the events in the Iowa, NH, or the first big weekend, he might actually transform his candidacy as you suggest. His current support as evidenced in more traditional polls suggests that the task will be difficult at best.

[KafirChobee]

Isn't Zak's question more about Fox's coverage and attitude, as opposed to whom Zak supports?

Btw, maybe it is time for a dark horse candidate. Though Ron Paul ain't it.

[Don Corleone]

Well, KC, you have a point. If this thread is about the coverage on Ron Paul, not on the merits of Ron Paul, then perhaps I'm a little off base. It's just that this is what, the 5th? thread about him this week. Meanwhile, poor Mike Gravel couldn't get a headline if he burned down an orphanage.....

[doc_bean]

Well, KC, you have a point. If this thread is about the coverage on Ron Paul, not on the merits of Ron Paul, then perhaps I'm a little off base. It's just that this is what, the 5th? thread about him this week. Meanwhile, poor Mike Gravel couldn't get a headline if he burned down an orphanage.....

Republicans are generally more fun to talk about.

That was probably Bill's main merit, at least he was interesting.

[Xiahou]

Isn't Zak's question more about Fox's coverage and attitude, as opposed to whom Zak supports?

Like I said, it's more than fair and probably quite true to assume that these polls are totally unreliable, considering that they fly completely in the face of scientific polls that are carried out in a much more controlled manner. If you want to criticize FNC, do it for even running such a pointless poll in the first place- but they're not alone among news outlets in doing that.

If you believe the completely unscientific that are acknowledge by their creators to be unreliable, Paul will be the next president. However, if you look to the scientific polls, Paul is still around 1% or less.

For my part, Paul has some appealing claptrap positions for libertarian types (myself somewhat included), but when you look just a little deeper, as Don shows, Paul's ideas would be disastrous.

[Geoffrey S]

It's just that this is what, the 5th? thread about him this week.

Half makes one wonder if there really is a base for accusations of spamming by Paul supporters...

[KafirChobee]

Xiahou, I agree. Any poll similar to the way American Idol is conducted is bogus at best.

[Zaknafien]

I do support Paul strongly, on moral grounds and libertarian grounds. He is a true American, and is exactly what this country needs, a return to its Republican routes.

In regard to polls, the reason(s) he doesnt show up well in scientific polls is his support is largely among the youth, who are not polled, do not use land-lines, etc. Many for example are college students.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I do support Paul strongly, on moral grounds and libertarian grounds. He is a true American, and is exactly what this country needs, a return to its Republican routes.

OMG we agree

As too all the worry warts he couldnt get most of his policies through congress anyway. Its perfect and exactly what we need. The less government does the better off we are. Gimmee 8 years of boondogle.

[Zaknafien]

oh and these stories are coming from usaelectionpolls.com

Ron Paul Believes He Can Win in New Hampshire

May 25, 2007

Ron Paul who is polling at 3% among likely Republican voters is banking on success in New Hampshire to set the stage for a big upset in the Republican primaries.

But how can a person that is polling only at 3% believe that he can win?

Polls With Respect to Ron Paul May Be Inaccurate. Ron Paul supporters are younger than the average voter. Many of them have either been so disillusioned with the candidates that they have never voted before or were too young to vote before. Therefore these potential voters would never be polled.

New Hampshire Has An Open Primary. Democratic voters will be going to the polls to vote in their own primaries. And because of the open primary that New Hampshire holds, the Democrats can vote for a Republican. An overwhelming majority of Democrats are anti-war. And it would make sense that they vote for the only Republican candidate that is in staunch opposition to the war.

and from PRweb.com

Ron Paul Selected as the Underdog of the Election

Based on Ron Paul's recent surge in popularity, statistical analyst claims that Ron Paul is the underdog candidate of the 2008 election.

Washington D.C. (PRWEB) June 6, 2007 -- NFLSystems.com has critically broken down the 2008 election and has decided that of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the one that has the highest value.

The web site discredited latest polls showing Ron Paul with very little support as being unimportant at this stage. "The nominating process is still 7 months away and voters have not fully been exposed to the candidates," says the website. They further explain that "the voters that have seen and heard of Ron Paul like what they see." The Internet support for the candidate has grown astronomical as if it was a quantum leap in the past month and there is no sign of it slowing down. They explain that Ron Paul's support would ideally grow once the average voter goes online to learn about the candidates.

The other item the web site points out is that Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to oppose the war. The web site points out how Paul could win even if he was out of step with the rest of the party with a basketball analogy. It stated that if the two best players are on one team, the third best player would have a better scoring average better because points would be spread evenly across the two great players just as votes would be in a primary or caucus election.

It was also stated in the analysis that if voters' discontent with the war grows in the coming months before the Iowa caucuses, Ron Paul would be the only formidable Republican for these candidates to support.

For more information, go to http://www.nflsystems.com/2008-elect...dent-2008.html

###

[Kralizec]

Ron Paul on economy and Federal Reserve:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

Diplomacy:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
...
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Taken from:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

I don't know about him, some of his ideas are refreshing and some are pretty crazy. The part on his site under "American Independence and Sovereignty" read like the writings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

[Xiahou]

How to vote for Ron Paul after the debate tonight

This is the sort of thing I was talking about.

[drone]

OMG we agree

As too all the worry warts he couldnt get most of his policies through congress anyway. Its perfect and exactly what we need. The less government does the better off we are. Gimmee 8 years of boondogle.

Bullseye! We have a winner!

Vast changes to the system will not be possible, unless he gets really popular and can persuade Congress to rework the federal government (unlikely). But through appointments and policy he could reign in some of the abuse.

The polls may be skewed by who his supporters are. But what it will really comes down to is who can motivate the most people to vote in a primary. You could have a poll saying 80% would vote for Jon Stewart for the Democratic nomination, but if you can't get the stoned slackers off the couch when the primary rolls around, it just doesn't matter. Will all these "college students" vote for Paul in a primary? Heck, can they even vote in a primary (out of state, not registered properly, etc.)? Will Dems "spoil the vote" in open GOP primaries? Long way to go before we can tell.

Yeah, Paul has some wacky ideas, but at least he hasn't been bought out yet.

[Tristrem]

When I see Ron Paul talking, he reminds me of another canidate I saw almost 8 years ago, who has since then done a 180 on all policy issues. Paul is preaching the same message the George 'Dubya' put out in 2000. Lower taxes, enforce our civil liberty's, and reduce the size of the government. However, I see that Dr. Paul seems more genuine to his ideas. He seems to have the record to back up his message, and I hope he wins in the Primaries. It would be the first time since Reagan that there would be a Republican worth voting for.

[Don Corleone]

Does anybody here, other than me realize what returning to the gold standard would do to our economy?

[Zaknafien]

uh, yeah, it would make it soluble in the future and get rid of our reliance on worthless paper from a private bank.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Does anybody here, other than me realize what returning to the gold standard would do to our economy?

Does anybody here other than me think we were fools to get off it? Im sure I can count on Zak

But we can all thank FDR for making it pretty hard to do.

the confiscation of gold by FDR

Executive order: By virtue of the
authority vested in me by Section 5(B) of
The Act of Oct. 6,
1917, as amended by section 2 of
the Act of March 9, 1933, in which
Congress declared that
a serious emergency exists, I as
President, do declare that the national
emergency still exists;
That the continued private hoarding
of gold and silver by subjects of the United
States poses a
grave threat to the peace, equal
justice, and well-being of the United
States; and that appropriate
measures must be taken immediately
to protect the interests of our people.

"Therefore, pursuant to the above
authority, I herby proclaim that such gold
and silver holdings
are prohibited, and that all such
coin, bullion or other possessions of gold
and silver be tendered within fourteen days
to agents of the Government of the United
States for compensation at the
official price, in the legal tender of
the Government. All safe deposit boxes in
banks or financial
institutions have been sealed,
pending action in the due course of the
law. All sales or purchases
or movements of such gold and
silver within the borders of the United
States and its territories,
and all foreign exchange
transactions or movements of such metals
across the border are herby prohibited.

"Your possession of these
proscribed metals and/or your maintenance
of a safe-deposit box to
store them is known to the
Government from bank and insurance
records. Therefore, be advised
that your vault box must remain
sealed, and may only be opened in the
presence of an agent of
The Internal Revenue Service.

"By lawful Order given this day,
the President of the United States."

So in reality weve been off it for quite sometime

Libertarians and the gold standard

The gold standard, or maybe more specifically gold currency, is strongly endorsed in Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s huge 40,000 page novel. (I may have exaggerated the number of pages by a modest amount.)

Because libertarians and other free-thinking contrarians have great reverence for Ayn Rand, they tend to uncritically endorse her views, and there seems to be a strong trend of “return to the gold standard” thinking among libertarians. And there is also the bad karma associated with our current fiat currency system, because it began with socialist Franklin D. Roosevelt, by executive order, confiscating all private holdings of gold.

The main reason why some support a return to the gold standard is because they have a rightful distrust of government. With fiat currency, the government can expand or contract the money supply to aid whatever political group holds the power. Normally, the tendency is for over-expansion of the money supply resulting in unchecked inflation. This has been the demise of many a fiat currency monetary system.

However, the confiscation of gold by FDR shows that the gold standard doesn’t really give us a permanent protection from the “looters” (to use Ayn Rand’s terminology). Even if we returned to the gold standard, what would stop another FDR from being elected in the future and abolishing it once again? The only true guarantee of freedom is an electorate that values freedom combined with a Constitution that protects freedom from the tyranny of the majority (something that our own United States Constitution has only partially achieved).

At the moment, there just isn’t enough gold to back the U.S. dollar at the current gold price of $402.60/ounce. The U.S. would have to engage in a massive gold buying program which would cause the value of the dollar to fall and the price of gold to rise until the United States had sufficient gold reserves. Once the world knew why the U.S. was buying, the price of gold would rise pretty quickly. This would amount to a massive transfer of wealth from the United States to those who own gold. How does this benefit the nation? A massive transfer of wealth based on a political decision is exactly the kind of government activity that libertarians should be opposed to.

LINK

So I guess its another case of the cow has left the barn already and its too late to shut the door.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well Don, at this point it really seems like choosing which handbasket to go to hell in.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hey like I keep telling you that Ron Paul is by far the lesser of 3 evils Isnt anything better than either another Democrat or republican. I can think of 3 or 4 Orgrahs on either side of the political spectrum id rather vote for than what these parties offer up.

[Zaknafien]

what if Paul linked up with a democrat as his VP and they tried to appeal to the majority of moderates from both sides?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Why a democrat? There are no moderate republicans? Or do you think he already has them?

[Don Corleone]

Silly, silly me. I didn't realize we had a bunch of aristocrats that were posing as libertarians.

Backing dollars with gold has been touted as 'making the currency safe and stable'. It does not do this. If you trace the value of the US Treasury Note over the past 200 years versus the value of an ounce of gold, you will rapidly realize that the US Treasury Note is far more stable and more valuable on the world market place.

So what does gold actually do? It places a constraint on a bank's ability to generate wealth through the loaning of capital. Aaah, you all say. Good, let's limit lending. Okay, first of all, compare the GDP growth of countries on the gold standard (when they were) versus when they weren't. Oh, but GDP growth is a bad, bad thing. We want our economy to generate X dollars, and regardless of how large the population gets, it should never, ever ever go beyond X. This means that X/population will continuously decrease. In other words, the mean capital available on a per capita basis will necessarily decrease if you don't have GDP growth.

Okay, so even if we forget about GDP growth, gold standards are bad for two other reasons.

1) Rather than what you think it will do, break banking control, it will actually create large banking monopolies, much like what we had in 1900, when we were on the gold standard. Why? Because getting one's hands on specie (gold coin) is requisite for entering the banking industry. As banks swallow up specie, they gain an increasing hold in the money supply. Small banks go under or are bought out by larger ones. If you think Citibank and WellsFargo are big now, wait until you hand over the keys to the kingdom, the ability to determine wealth generation, to them.

2) Average people will no longer own homes, automobiles or other large expense items. Repeat after me, people who make the median income, a little more, or a little less, will have no access to capital. Why? Because these fewer and fewer banking houses, listed in category 1, have better places to invest their cash. When you walk into the bank, the bank will tell you that the interest for a primary mortgage is 25%. WHAT!? You say!? How can that be, that's usury. The loan officer simply tells you that's what it will cost to borrow money from them. WHy? Because they have better places to lend money. How can you, Zak, or you Gawain, compare your good faith and diligence to pay with Alcoa (aluminum manufacturer) or Catepillar (tractor and farm equipment) or Microsoft and their ability to repay debt? You can't. You are by definition, a much, much riskier prospect. In today's banking world, the Fderal Reserve controls money supply by buying and selling treasurey notes. But there's no inherent limit in the amount of currency in the system. In a gold standard system, there's only X dollars available. It's a zero-sum game. And for you to borrow 300K for a house is 300K Microsoft can't borrow to open a new sales office, or, as the case will be, vice-versa.

Okay, just to prove to me you actually know what you're talking about and not parroting a term you think sounds cool like "The gold standard" somebody explain to me what causes bank runs and why they are 10 times worse in a specie bankings system (gold standard or wampump standard) versus a fiat system. And by the way, the bank is perfectly within its rights to act the way they do during a bank run. They don't do anything illegal.

Seriously folks, the gold standard is right up there with private-property ownership restrictions in terms of ideas that have not stood the test of time. All it does is create an artificial scarcity that those with the ability to control the scarcity use to control their monopolistic hold over the rest of the economy. Getting off the gold standard was what ended robber-barons and is what allowed for the creation of a middle class. If you want to go back to 90% home rental (you would rent your home from the bank instead of owning it outright), then by all means, let Ron Paul sell you his magic beans.

[Don Corleone]

Look, I've read Ayn Rand, and to be honest, I think I understand Objectivism better than most. But she was flat out wrong on this point. Do you know why FDR outlawed owning gold (by the way, the Federal Reserve wasn't allowed to hold it either)?