Comments (34)

• mike

  How does a dedicated cadre of online poll spammers help this cause any? Has this brought anything but ridicule upon the libertarian movement? Such infantile prankery gives the media powers that be an easy way out of addressing the substantive issues raised by Mr Paul (albeit clumsily) by dismissing any apparent public support he receives as deceptive noise generated by a small but persistent group of wreckers.

  Published: June 6, 2007 8:33 AM

• jeffrey

  Mike, I don't see how winning online polls is proof of spamming. These are just people expressing their views. Are they not supposed to do this?

  "Oh I would love to vote in this online poll but as person who believes in liberty, I had better refrain from voting for fear that too many others will do the same and then my choice would prevail and elicit suspicions of spamming."

  Is that what you suggest?

  Published: June 6, 2007 8:38 AM

• andy

  About the spamming accusations:

  Are the other candidate's supporters too stupid to spam? Are they too honest?

  Or maybe you should contemplate the hypothesis that RP has a lot of support among the young and web-savvy.

  Published: June 6, 2007 8:41 AM

• Chris Rhoades

  I voted...once. Maybe...just maybe...other's are fed up with the fed and are voting for liberty's sake.

  Thomas Jefferson
  1820 - letter to William Charles Jarvis

  I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
  Reference: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition, Lipscomb and Bergh, eds., vol. 15 (278)
  

  Published: June 6, 2007 8:46 AM

• Jordan

  The MSM loves to dismiss this type of stuff, but they never answer the question of why Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has this kind of support.

  I agree that these things don't predict the way the actual voting will go (MSM says he barely registers in the polls, I believe his true number to be around 5% right now), but that doesn't mean that these don't mean anything. If anything, this shows how strong the support for Ron Paul is among his supporters. The chance of him losing support is probably less than any other candidate and the chance of him gaining support is high.

  I was in Manchester last night at the post-debate gathering where Ron Paul made an appearance, and the support shown was amazing--there were probably 100-200 people in this small pub. I read that the owner said there were more people (and more energy among the people) there that night then two nights ago for Obama. That kind of support is real, whether the media will recognize it or not is another issue.
  

  Published: June 6, 2007 10:11 AM

• David C

  To me the message is even greater. The message is: a non state manipulated media has a strong libertarian bias. The implications for the information age and the future of the USA in general are are huge. The libertarian movement might actually get the democratic mob on its side for once.

  Published: June 6, 2007 10:27 AM

• Matt P

  I suppose that I should preface this statement by saying that I am a centrist liberal and there is not a snow ball's chance in hell that I would vote for Ron Paul. That said, I can not tell you how much respect I have for the man, or at least what I have seen of him.
  I recently had a discussion with a group of friends that are much more to the left than I, and all of us had the same feeling about him. I believe that he is honest, that he actually believes in the message that he is saying. You know exactly where he stands on an issue because he tells you where he stands. How refreshing. Granted I don't agree with him on pretty much everything but if by some miracle he were elected president I would be comforted by knowing that I would never be lied to again.
  I would like to make a proposal... I think we should left Dennis Kucinich (the democratic idealist) and Ron Paul (The republican dreamer) go head to head in a two man debate. I would pay to see that, thats for sure.

  Published: June 6, 2007 10:43 AM

• jj

  Matt P., thank you for your comment.

  Published: June 6, 2007 10:56 AM

• Carl Marks

  Am I the only one here who felt that Paul did rather poorly? Paul seems to be turning into a single issue candidate, always focusing on foreign policy, that while important, is not the only issue in the country today. And even on foreign policy Paul still was not able to phrase himself well, he did not seem to engage other candidates and call them out for their positions.

  Mike Huckabee and Giuliani seems to have the best responses last night on everything except foreign policy. I could find little complaint even with their remarks on health care.

  This debate sealed the door on Paul continuing to be revelent in the primaries.

  Published: June 6, 2007 11:38 AM

• Chris Rhoades

  Personally, I think he missed a slam dunk applause line on regarding high gas/oil prices. He could have quickly quipped that we could not tax it and save .40 a gallon (applause) and then bring up subsidizing etc.

  Published: June 6, 2007 11:53 AM

• mike

  jeffrey: when online polls (more subject to manipulation) vary from telephone or personal surveys (much less subject to manipulation) by substantial degrees, as is the case with Mr Paul, the online polls are being spammed. It is no defense to say everyone else is doing it. Moreover, everyone else does not have the extreme variance Mr Paul has.

  Go ahead and paricipate in the online poll. My concern is addressed more to those who are doing the spamming: You are not helping this cause. You are undermining the actual support Mr Paul is receiving by making it appear to be nothing but a part of a poll spamming.

  Published: June 6, 2007 11:54 AM

• jeffrey

  Mike, I suppose that I'm questioning your assumption that spamming is going on, the only evidence for which that you seem to cite is that the pro-Paul votes are high. The software allows one IP to vote once. Maybe there is a work around to this restriction but where is the evidence that it is being employed? It seems like the real explanation is more obvious: lots of people are voting for Ron, and the reason that they are doing so is because Ron inspires certain passions in people.

  Published: June 6, 2007 11:58 AM

• TGGP

  Spamming and getting an unrepresentative sample are two very different things.

  Published: June 6, 2007 12:11 PM

• Dennis

  In my opinion, the major hurdle facing Ron Paul's presidential candidacy is that his overwhelmingly limited government/Libertarian positions do not resonate with most Americans. This makes it harder for him to be effective in a debate format. The vast majority of Americans are quite satisfied in principle with the entitlement/warfare state. What opposition they have comes from not wanting to pay for it; let someone else, usually "the rich", pay the bill.

  And regarding foreign policy, many Americans negatively react to the constant interventionism and imperialism when things do not go well, as currently exemplified in Iraq. In contrast, what percentage of Americans rejects this country's interventionist and imperialistic foreign policy on moral grounds? I believe it is a very small percentage. Maybe an additional small percentage oppose our foreign policy for pragmatic reasons in that it is too expensive and/or the money would be better spent on our vast network of statist entitlement programs.

  Ron Paul has my respect and admiration for challenging not only a hostile intelligencia and media, but also a largely unsupportive citizenry. From a number of perspectives, he is fighting an uphill, but noble, battle.
  

  Published: June 6, 2007 12:17 PM

• lester

  maybe we won't win this election, but a movement is forming. one that i can get behind much more comfortably than the democrats or republicans, who are geared toward the general election and plugged in to the beltway.

  I thuoght tom tancredo did the best last night. I'm from the east coast and am not all that cognitive of the immigration issue, but I am observant enough to know it is THE issue with the republican base. listen to talk radio, it's all they talk abuot. and he's the man on that issue. he makes the rest of them look weak, which they are!

  also, while I admire the honesty of sam brownback and Mike Huckabee regarding their faith, it's not what I am looking for in a commander in chief. It was heart warming and even kinf od "progressive" in a weird way, but again, running the government is a diferent sort of business.

  I think ron pauls supporters should take heart. the media can't ignore them for long. I'm sure their ratings are taking a hit already. no one wants to hear about mormonism or books about hillary.

  Published: June 6, 2007 12:27 PM

• George Gaskell

  The vast majority of Americans are quite satisfied in principle with the entitlement/warfare state.

  Welcome to democracy.

  Democracy devolves into socialism, as Hoppe has described. Even a monarchy is better suited to economic liberty than democracy, in which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else, as Bastiat observed 150 years ago.

  Published: June 6, 2007 1:05 PM

• Lecter

  Ron Paul's internet popularity is genuine.
  
  
  http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/05/prweb529315.htm
  

  Published: June 6, 2007 1:42 PM

• kurt

  I don't think supporters are spamming the polls. Internet proxies should be easily detected. What does happen I think is that many libertarian web sites provide links to polls. I think the next FEC reports will give indications that Paul's campaign is indeed growing, and that he is the only 2nd tier candidate who obtained enough funds to stay in the race.

  Published: June 6, 2007 1:47 PM

• Chris

  I agree with kurt, I look forward to the articles detailing how Paul received millions in campaign contributions over the internet without even trying. That's something they can't wave off as simple poll spamming.

  Published: June 6, 2007 1:56 PM

• Chris

  More evidence his support is real: http://doesitmatteryet.blogspot.com/2007/06/gop-candidate-youtube-stats-charts.html

  Published: June 6, 2007 2:00 PM

• John Delano

  Maybe Rudy is learning about blowback, as his attack has caused Paul's support to rise.

  I think Paul's supporters are more likely to bother with these online polls and are probably more interested in the coverage and debates than the supporters of the other candidates.

  Published: June 6, 2007 3:13 PM

• Garth

  "maybe we won't win this election, but a movement is forming."

  If I had a nickel for every time I heard that,... I'd probably become a Republican.

  Published: June 6, 2007 4:54 PM

• Jordan

  A poor one, if he's referring to this blog.

  Published: June 6, 2007 5:17 PM

• Skye

  
  For anyone who has seen all the debates, one will remember that a usual line from Paul, was that we use to be fighting Vietnam, but now we're trading with them. In the last debate, Guiliani used the exact example in response to a question. Cheap shot, probably for Paul's book recommendations.

  Also, I think Paul is far more popular on the net simply because for years that is were you had to go to hear anything he had to say. And to read about the issues he talks about, you also are better off searching the net rather than flipping through channels.

  Published: June 6, 2007 6:56 PM

• lester

  if people are spamming polls, shouldn't they find out why? what would drive people to do such a thing? are they getting paid?

  they certainly investigate less substantial thing in their 24 hour news cycles.

  Published: June 6, 2007 6:59 PM

• chuck

  If we wanted to "spam" the polls, there are those amongst us who could do so. In fact, it's tempting to go ahead and do this, to show the folks accusing us of "spamming" what it would really look like.

  As for this: "jeffrey: when online polls (more subject to manipulation) vary from telephone or personal surveys (much less subject to manipulation) by substantial degrees, as is the case with Mr Paul, the online polls are being spammed. It is no defense to say everyone else is doing it. Moreover, everyone else does not have the extreme variance Mr Paul has."

  Manipulation? Manipulation? Your naivete is showing. Ever been polled? Do you understand how to "spam" a "legitimate", "scientific" poll? Hint: the trick is to be the one asking the questions. Polling is all about framing those questions and picking your sample.

  Statistics is a relative science, itself easily "spammed". I've worked in businesses (pharmaceuticals... FDA studies) in which this was a routine practice. So please, keep the spewage about "science" to a minimum on this subject.

  Do you think it's *possible* that the same media establishment that is guided by a profound statist bias is engaged in a certain amount of "spamming" of their own?

  Wake up.

  Published: June 7, 2007 2:12 AM

• averros

  If we wanted to "spam" the polls, there are those amongst us who could do so.

  Oh, definitely.

  But for network and software engineers like me the truth is more important than the politics. That's why I'm here in the first place.

  Published: June 8, 2007 8:23 PM

• josh m

  Regarding the accusations of 'spamming', let's not forget who won 1st place in Fox's text-message poll following the May 15 GOP debate: it was one of the members of the rudymcromney triumvirate--while it was Ron who came in 2nd.

  Of course, the problem that the detractors have in this instance is in trying to explain why Paul's support in this poll was the result of dedicated 'spammers', while the 1st place winner's support (Romney) was bona fide.

  Published: June 9, 2007 1:29 AM

• Tom

  Unfortunately cable news coverage abroad (CSNBC and BBC) gave no attention to Paul.

  Published: June 9, 2007 3:06 AM

• John Delano

  "Regarding the accusations of 'spamming', let's not forget who won 1st place in Fox's text-message poll following the May 15 GOP debate: it was one of the members of the rudymcromney triumvirate--while it was Ron who came in 2nd."

  
  While watching the percentages reported on that text message poll, I noticed that Paul was well in the lead for 1st place, but Hannity kept reminding people to vote, and Mitt (I look presidential) Romney eventually gained a few ponts over Paul.

  Published: June 10, 2007 2:47 AM

• M-la-maudite

  -Matt, thanks a lot for your post,

  It is truly great to see some respect from someone who has different ideals!

  I'd also like to see a debate between genuinely authentic candidates on both sides of the political line, instead of the usual hypocritical circus...

  -Hi George,

  I guess, i'd have to agree with you that majoritarian democracy ends up with more non-libertarian results than your average monarch-rule, sad as it may be...

  Well, concerning the spamming issue, i guess, that people who are spending a lot of time online (and thus are most likely to vote for online rather than conventional polls) are more libertarian than your average citizen. That might also explain why the smallest political quizz always gets so many more people qualifying as libertarians than they really are out there. In fact, the vast majority of libertarian people i know in Europe are linked to the IT milieu. This might help explain.

  This being said, good luck guys; it would be so great to have an honest and liberty-friendly head-of-state somewhere, even if it's unthinkable home...

  Cheers, M-
  

  Published: June 10, 2007 9:18 AM

• Tristian Spier

  Hi, I'm a newbie here. I don't spam the polls (vote once) - I just learned about Ron Paul through Digg.com (ironically enough, it was a Mike Gravel story).

  I think the message is attractive, but more than that - Ron Paul is the real deal. I am tired of having politicians blow smoke up my ass as I give them my only power (vote) on election day and the rest of the time have to beg, plead, write letters, etcetera for them to act in my best interests instead of their corporate overlords. I think a lot of other people feel the same way I do.

  Published: June 12, 2007 2:15 AM

• christian

  
  first let me say that i have every intention of communicating in a civil way and i think it is necessary to establish a rule when dealing with with people like mike (1'st poster) comments it is important to note

  1 there tactics,
  2how to deal with them,
  3 and most importantly how to remain focused on your goals, and not pay any unnecessary lip sevice to them (it makes them repeat there little lies until they are so frustrated that no one is taking the bait and then they go away and try other tactics)

  1. it is important for people with agenda's to first instill an *IDEA* to create the perception filters of people in accordance with a beleif/attitude they wish people to hold

  the idea is that ron paul is winning because of spammers (which besides being ridiculous when thought about critically (which most people wont' due)) it helps frame the conversation negatively toward paul and draw a level of suspision that ron paul is winning because of spammers and that those that talk exceedingly that "ron paul is not winning because of spammers" still pay lip service to the orignal idea.

  a good idea in my mind to people such is this is NOT waste time providing there idea lip service by stating overwhelming evidence in a rationale way, because the people you are dealing with are not thinking rationale they are playing dirty.

  so a better idea is to provide a bit of evidence and then cast

  the *IDEA* that what is there evidence that american's as a whole are not fed up with the same old political dog and pony show and that the votes for paul are the american people's voice against the say one thing do the other or nothing politics that have been running away with the show, and accusatioin against this movement are feeble attempts to sway people on the fence or gaining more intrest in the subject.

  every time they cry spamming ask them that following question and you will hear the sound of a pin dropping
  

  Published: June 12, 2007 10:44 AM

• republican111

  there's a clip that shows how Ron Paul is being censored even by Google http://www.metacafe.com/watch/656334/is_google_censoring_ron_paul/

  Published: June 16, 2007 1:40 PM