Ron Paul is Ahead...Really.

I'm a Democrat, and I know Ron Paul isn't, but this guy gets me motivated about politics in this country, and I don't think I'm the only one.

Ron Paul is winning in the internet polls from Tuesday's Republican Presidential Debate.  Seriously.  No, really.  He won the debate.

CNN.com, "Who Won the [June 5, 2007 Republican Presidential] Debate?"

1. Ron Paul	55%
2. Rudy Giuliani	13%
3. John McCain	13%
4. Mitt Romney	11%
5. Mike Huckabee	4%
6. Tom Tancredo	2%
7. Sam Brownback	1%
8. Duncan Hunter	1%
9. Tommy Thompson	0%
10. Jim Gilmore	0%

MSNBC.com broke the debate down into categories.

Who stood out from the pack?
	Sam Brownback 1.1%		Jim Gilmore 0.6%
	Rudy Giuliani 9.1%		Mike Huckabee 3.6%
	Duncan Hunter 1.1%		John McCain 6.3%
	Ron Paul 64%		Mitt Romney 8.9%
	Tom Tancredo 2.8%		Tommy Thompson 2.3%

Who Shows the Most Leadership Qualities?

	Sam Brownback 1%		Jim Gilmore 0.9%
	Rudy Giuliani 10%		Mike Huckabee 2.7%
	Duncan Hunter 1.3%		John McCain 8.2%
	Ron Paul 62%		Mitt Romney 9.7%
	Tom Tancredo 2.1%		Tommy Thompson 2.1%

Who was the most convincing candidate?
	Sam Brownback 1.1%		Jim Gilmore 0.8%
	Rudy Giuliani 9%		Mike Huckabee 3.5%
	Duncan Hunter 1.2%		John McCain 6.6%
	Ron Paul 64%		Mitt Romney 9.3%
	Tom Tancredo 2.4%		Tommy Thompson 2.1%

Who had the best one-liner?
	Sam Brownback 1.6%		Jim Gilmore 1.3%
	Rudy Giuliani 15%		Mike Huckabee 6.7%
	Duncan Hunter 1.9%		John McCain 8.2%
	Ron Paul 47%		Mitt Romney 6%
	Tom Tancredo 7.1%		Tommy Thompson 5.8%

Vote.com has Ron Paul winning the debate at 77% (though you have to register at this site, so I don't have the exact numbers or comparisons).

The results are as of 5 p.m. EST and are percentages, naturally, may change. 

Go vote for yourself (CNN, MSNBC), let's see what happens.  These polls show a very interesting surge for Ron Paul, who as you recall was almost barred from attending Tuesday's debate.

Just for full disclosure, TheBlueState's editing team had McCain and Paul tied (2 votes apiece for first place), but the tiebreaker went to McCain.  We felt declaring Ron Paul the winner might show a little bias on our part!  Looks like our bias isn't so...biased.

Comments

[Arlen]

Ron Paul did not win the debate, he just has a big internet following that votes for him in these meaningless internet polls that you can vote several times in.

And how does a man who wants to get rid of social security and medicare make you inspired about politics?! Are you really a progressive?

[granny]

Well, Arlen... How about, by comparison to what the others have to say, about anything.

None of them are going to "do" any of what they promise. At least it's a relief to hear someone tell the truth.

[Arlen]

NONE of the Republicans tell the truth. Not even Ron Paul, who a lot of liberals who don't know much about him seem to be fascinated by. He's just as conservative as the rest of them and wants to gut social programs that help poor people, doesn't think Americans have the right to health care, and thinks Affirmative Action and anti-discrimination legislation protecting gay people is terrible.

Paul advocate free-market hyper-capitalist libertarian positions that corporations would absolutely love-- he'd privatize more than Bush has tried to.

[Jim Clark]

Hey Arlen, I am a Ron Paul supporter (the conservative kind, you know... the kind you probably hate). Except for the war, I'm sure there are a lot of "issues" that you don't agree with RP on. I'm curious though, in what way is socialism considered progressive? It seems kind of regressive to me.

I vote in the RP internet polls, but only once. It's not just the polls though, it's the massive blogging and blog comments that really show RP's support.

[Arlen]

1. I don't hate you for supporting Ron Paul. What I do hate is when people are ignorant about his true positions and support him because of a lack of facts.

2. I have not advocated socialism in any way, I don't know why you bring that up.

[P]

You cannot vote "several times" on these polls. 1 ip, 1 vote. Im sorry to burst your bubble but this is not spam!

[Arlen]

.... Sure you can vote as many times as you want. Just use a different browser: I just tried it on those polls linked to above and it works perfectly. You can have unlimited votes. And plenty of people do that when the freep polls. Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, P.

[Tony]

"What I do hate is when people are ignorant about his true positions and support him because of a lack of facts."

I guess the majority of the country is ignorant in that case.

Just for the record, I am a liberal and will vote that way. However, Ron's popularity is based on his honest way of speaking no matter how unpopular with his party.

[Raven]

Of course, you can always use proxy servers (Tor?) and vote under multiple IPs. But I doubt anyone would actually do that, anyone voting for Ron Paul should already know that Ron Paul does not need (and would probably condemn) artificial votes.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Wow!

[Erick]

Let me clarify something:

First, I never said this was a scientific, IP-tracked, one-vote-only poll. Then again, neither is American Idol.

Second, I never said I'd vote for Ron Paul or that I agreed with even a word of what he spoke. I did, however, say he inspired me. Not for a political view or an issue, but because he conveys what he thinks in an articulate, thoughtful, and consistent manner - something we saw none of in the other candidates last night, and something I wish we saw more of in our own candidates.

[Raven]

Of course, I agree with your second point as well.

[Mortikhi]

".... Sure you can vote as many times as you want. Just use a different browser:"
-Arlen

Spoken like a true know-nothing of the interwebz.

[Arlen]

To say that Ron Paul is "ahead" and then cite a bunch of totally unscientific online polls (polls that are easily manipulated: look up Free Republican on Wikipedia and see the section on poll manipulation) is to suggest that the surveys are somehow proof that Ron Paul is somehow "ahead" in the race.

He is not ahead in anything and will lose the nomination without more than a few percent of the vote, mark my words. He has zero chance.

Further, I wouldn't say that Paul is exactly thoughtful, consistent, or even consistently thoughtful... This is a man who hired a staffer to write his newsletter in the 1990s, who ended up filling it with totally racist propaganda about how African Americans were "terrorists" and criminals-- and then the staffer sent it out under Paul's name. How is paying somebody else to ghostwrite racist propaganda under your name being thoughtful?

How is paying somebody to write your newsletter under your name being thoughtful at all-- regardless of what they write in it?

To say that he is inspiring simply because he is consistent despite disagreeing with his beliefs-- or because you think he's consistent-- is a weak argument. One could say they were inspired by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's consistency, or President Nixon's consistency, despite disagreeing with his beliefs.

Do you really not find Democratic politicians who trying to ensure all Americans have health care, all children have decent schools, all elderly people are entitled to live in dignity and respect inspiring enough that you have to look to Republicans who don't think poor people have th eright to medical care, don't think poor children have the right to go to good schools, and don't think elderly people should have the right to live with basic human dignity for inspiration?

[Arlen]

I wrote:
".... Sure you can vote as many times as you want. Just use a different browser:"

Mortikhi wrote:
"Spoken like a true know-nothing of the interwebz."

Uhhhh... Go and try voting once in Firefox. Then try and vote again in Internet Explorer. You can vote as many times as you want. Try voting again in Firefox after clearing your cookies. Works perfectly. You can vote as many times as you want in these polls-- they're totally unscientific.

There's a reason why the REAL, scientific polls show that Ron Paul has almost no support, and the unscientific online polls show that he has lots of support.

[Sigkim]

It bears repeating, The Blue State's run down of the candidates yesterday was very fair and balanced (insert polite golf clap here) no matter who you folks picked as the winning "debater". The fact is you covered and actively participated out side your party shows integrity and should be a lesson to all. I may not have agreed with your pick but I sure as hell respect it and I can't emphasize that enough!
Besides the poll debate the fact is Paul is being ignored by the big 3 cable news networks. I've been watching all of them today and not one mention of Ron Paul and certainly not a mention of the CNN or MSNBC poll. Imagine if any of the other candidates were so far ahead, it would be non stop quoting of the results with an on camera interview for the winners reaction of at the least their campaign manager to say "see I told you they love him/hillary."
In your live chat yesterday was there an instance of "when is it Guilianis turn to speak or "how come McCain hasn't got a question yet. No sirs, the question was when will Ron Paul get a question...and then the question was "what the hell kind of question was that!"
That's all I have to comment on that.
As an aside, Very good call on the pardon time for Libby Chief Editor, as you stated in the chat yesterday the president can't pardon Libby so why isn't this a moot point in the main stream media?
A smile from across the isle from Sig:)

[The Mexican]

"I'm curious though, in what way is socialism considered progressive? It seems kind of regressive to me." - Jim Clark

Yeah, go ahead. Explain to me how regressive Socialism is. Nevermind workers' unions, equality of workers, equality of sexes, equality of wealth or wealth redistribution, attaining a higher state of being by helping others without trying to exploit (not part of the theory but leads towards it), universal healthcare, etc... Now, socialism is just an economic theory, but that's where it's been corrupted by the practices of leaders who have led by totalitarianistic policies, not by democracy.

[Andrew]

Arlen said ["NONE of the Republicans tell the truth. Not even Ron Paul..."]

Arlen, can you please point to one lie Ron Paul has told during his 10 terms in Congress? Heck, I'll even let you count flip-flopping on an issue as a lie. He has a very long record so if he's a liar like you say then you should have no problem backing up your statement. However, since I've been a Ron Paul supporter for more than a decade, I'm pretty sure you're just full of it.

Arlen said ["Paul advocate free-market hyper-capitalist libertarian positions that corporations would absolutely love-- he'd privatize more than Bush has tried to."]

Arlen, I hope you are fairly young. Otherwise, your lack of knowledge about free markets is very disturbing. First, George Bush in no way supports a free market nor capitalism. The only way you could believe this is if you took Bush's word over reality (and I wouldn't think any progressive would do this). If corporations would love a free market, why don't they support free market candidates? Why are all the big corps donating money to Rudy, McCain and Romney? In a free market (and you would have heard Paul talk about this in relation to the oil companies if you had actually watched the debate), no one can use government as a tool (or weapon). The big corporations (ie; Haliburton) would not even exist if it were not for government (read: would not exist in a free market). Government involvement in the economy does much more good for the corporations who have the money to lobby for (buy) the services (favors) of the government. If you want the federal government (states are a separate issue) to regulate business then you can't be mad when the government is used by those businesses for their own gain. In case you haven't followed history, once you give the feds the power to do something, you don't get to choose how it's used. That's why a free market economy is the only fair solution. No one can use the force of government against anyone else and corporations would have to abide by the same rules as any other business.

[ba]

Dear Arlen, you are a true interwebz idiot. Any poll worth anything will connect you to your IP. Using different browsers doesn't change your IP. Deleting cookies doesn't change your IP. Holding your breath, closing your eyes and visualizing Hillary naked doesn't change your IP. Proxy servers would change your IP, but that is not what you are saying.

For your likewise deluded socialist policies: I don't want to pay for any of it and I don't want to be forced to under threat of imprisonment.

[kyle]

"There's a reason why the REAL, scientific polls show that Ron Paul has almost no support"

Yeah. It's that they poll him using evening landline phone numbers. Who under 40 do you know that has a landline nearby in the evening? They poll grandmas! Grandmas = scared of the "moslems." Telephone polls are not scientific. For example, I give you Harry Truman. If you don't know what I am talking about, you are (thankfully) too stupid to work a polling booth.

[Landon]

I'm a college graduate w/ a B.S. If you have more than that, then you can call me dumb. Otherwise, from what I have read so far. The ONLY smart people (not motivated by big private business monetary gains, ie Haliburton) seem to support Ron Paul. They also seem like the kind of people who are passionate about their freedom, and that they would only vote once (maybe twice) in those online polls...even though they maybe could vote more. If supporters of the "Big 3" were smart or passionate at all, then why do they not vote for them online. The polls where I see Ron Paul winning all the time have a total of 7,000-25,000 votes on average. The "legitimate" polls that show Ron Paul at 1% (Straw Polls) base their results off of 400 something people. People need to wake up and pay attention to what their "leaders" are doing with their "above the law" power.

[Arlen]

1. To Sigkim: I don't think you understand the difference between unscientific online polls and real scientific polls. No real news organizations report on online polls-- ever. No matter who is winning. They're unscientific and for the entertainment of internet readers.

2. To Andrew: I never said that Ron Paul lies (he may), I said that he doesn't tell the truth. There's a difference. Quick example of the type of thing I'm talking about: if you say that policies like getting rid of food stamps are going to help poor people-- that's not telling the truth.

3. To Andrew again, on free markets: you aren't disagreeing with me on Congressman Paul. I said he supports ultra-free markets, and you agree. You have no point here. Maybe from your hyper-capitalist perspective, Bush is a socialist who doesn't believe in free markets, but to normal people, he's as pro-privatization as they get.

4. To ba: Why don't you actually GO to the polls cited in this post, and try voting twice or three times or five time or 100 times using the techniques I suggested. Before assuming that these polls block your IP, why don't you actually go and try to test the method and you'll see that they actually do not. And once again, I have not advocated socialism; I don't know where you're getting that from.

5. To Kyle: There are legitimate questions about current scientific polling techniques that use telephones. That said, citing an example from 50 years ago when polling was extremely rare and unperfected does not help your case. Further, there is no way that scientific polls among registered and likely voters are less accurate than scientific polls. I think you are in for a rude surprise when the first primary takes place if you think that Ron Paul has substantial support.

[Arlen]

Landon:

"If supporters of the "Big 3" were smart or passionate at all, then why do they not vote for them online."

...Uh, maybe because they know that internet polls are for entertainment purposes only and don't count for anything. It's what you do at the ballot box that counts. And as I said to Kyle, I think you'll be in for quite a surprise when the first primary is held and you discover that Ron Paul's support is very close to what the real scientific polls suggest.

[Landon]

Arlen, knower of everything: Then why does FOX and MSNBC and more host these polls, and then lie when the results turn opposite of what they want? FOX's poll was done by text-in, and they said they only counted one per phone number... please, enlighten me.

[Landon]

BTW, did you vote in these online polls? Please, tell the truth now! You do seem to cruise the internet quite a bit.