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

[Landon]

The "Arlen, knower of everything" was posted by Landon, not Arlen.

[Arlen]

No, I don't vote in those polls- they're meaningless and for entertainment purposes only as I've said before.

Landon, and others who think that online polls are an accurate representation of the truth, allow me to refer you to the disclaimer that MSNBC has on their website (CNN and others have similar disclaimers).

"One week in the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, more than 200,000 people took part in an MSNBC Live Vote that asked whether President Clinton should leave office. Seventy-three percent said yes. That same week, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 34 percent of about 2,000 people who were surveyed thought so."

On scientific telephone polls, MSNBC notes:
"In the NBC-WSJ survey, pollsters first randomly selected a number of geographic areas and then telephone numbers were generated in a way that allowed all numbers in those areas (both listed and unlisted) an equal chance to be called. Only one adult in each household was then selected to answer the poll."

On internet polls, MSNBC notes:
"To begin with, the people who respond choose to do so — they are not randomly selected and asked to participate, but instead make the choice to read a story about a certain topic and then vote on a related question. There is thus no guarantee that the votes would reflect anything close to a statistical sample, even of MSNBC.com users: The participants in a Sports Live Vote and a Politics Live Vote may overlap, but each group is likely to be dominated by people with an interest in each particular area. In addition, while MSNBC.com’s Live Votes are designed to allow only one vote per user, someone who wants to vote more than once could simply use another computer or another Internet account."

As I have said before: those who actually think Ron Paul has substantial support will be in for a shock when the primaries are conducted.

[Erick]

Landon -

I'm smarter than you. I have two BAs (in Advertising and in Public Relations) and a minor in Chinese. Okay, I was one credit short of the minor, but STILL.

That said, I agree with you, so this was a moot comment. Just lightening the discourse. :-)

[The Mexican]

Anyone who has taken even basic courses in Elementary Statistics knows most of these polls aren't well managed. People calling in to vote or using the internet to vote are not representative of the entire population at large. And that's what stats tries to produce actual statistics representative of the projected population. And that's where the law of larger numbers comes in, where the larger amount of response, the more accurate the results seem to be.

But, I still love Ron Paul, even though most his views are anathema to what I believe. I still stand by him for the Republicans, and over some Dems, but not all Dems.

[Sigkim]

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.
Really? Never ever? here ya go.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEWlKT9obPY
I bid you adue.
Sig

[Arlen]

Let me rephrase then: serious print news. Television news is infotainment and not serious.

[Sigkim]

To Sigkim. No real news organizations report on online polls-- ever.
I must concede you may have a point.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXE45ncH1a8
If anybody else had won this poll they would be trumpeting his success all night.
Ron was finally overcome by one of the other candidates but at the Fox news site to this day....you will not read on who the second place guy is....can ya guess who it is?
The third debate didn't cover their own poll at cnn.com to my knowledge but can ya guess who won?
One can argue the legitimacy of these polls till thebluestate turns red but the fact is the MSN is all about the status quo and that's a damn shame for America!
With that I bid EVERYBODY a very good night.
Sig

[George]

The point about Paul is that he proves that we progressives are not slave to any political ideology but to rational, honest and thoughtful debate of significant issues that affect the world, not just a small segment of the US population.

I dont know what Paul thinks about gays in the military and i dont know what he thinks about the religion but I dont care because I know he THINKS.

McCain no longer thinks for himself. Tancredo is a close-minded racist. Romney is too busy proving he's Christian-like. Guiliani is obsessed with pretending to be tough on something that doesnt really exist in the manner he claims. And all the other candidates are jokers.

[Sigkim]

Let me rephrase then: serious print news. Television news is infotainment and not serious.
As a former member of the gciu(graphic communications international union I know a smidge about the print industry due to my time with the Arizona Daily Star and have done just a little dabbling in what it's all about. They are whores also.
So I will use a juvenile tactic Rudy Giuliani style...there are no takebacks sir!
I'm kidding of course but isn't all this bickering about this and that just a waste of precious thebluestate.com real estate?
I almost feel like the mother in law who's been at the inlaws too long for participating in the Ron Paul thread but the site owners did bring it up and they did place Ron Paul in second place in their initial post debate ratings which was the point of my original post.
With that I really really have to get to bed.
Nighty night.
Sig

[Arlen]

George: Are you saying Paul is a progressive? You don't seem to understand what progressivism is. It IS an ideology. That is exctly what it is, and all it is. Look it up in a dictionary or Wikipedia.

Sigkim: Find me a serious print journalism source (like say the National Journal) that cites your entertainment-only unscientific online polls as a valuable source of information which is related to how somebody will do at the ballot box and I'll give you 1 million dollars.

[granny]

Oh good Grief! What a hubbub! Arlen, you clearly need to go get the burr out and simmer down. The original story said: this guy gets me motivated about politics in this country" ...and "Ron Paul is winning in the internet polls from Tuesday's Republican Presidential Debate. Seriously. No, really. He won the debate."

What the heck has got your rear on fire, Arlen?

Anybody with half a wit would be entitled to feel raised from the dead to hear anything out of any of these candidates, Democrat or Republican, that sounded like an independent thought.

Nobody said the guy was going to win.

Nobody gauranteed the poll.

Just a posting expressing some good feeling surrounding current events.

Your dialogue certainly wasn't designed to contribute to that. What was it you really wanted to say?

As for you, Kyle, watch what kind of dismissive characterizations you make.

[Andrew]

["I never said that Ron Paul lies (he may), I said that he doesn't tell the truth... Quick example... if you say that policies like getting rid of food stamps are going to help poor people -- that's not telling the truth."]

First, stating an opinion, especially one that is supported by evidence, can never be untruthful. Of course, someone might say, "It's my opinion that the Sun revolves around the Earth" but that's not an opinion, it's a factually incorrect statement. For whatever statement you're referring to not be the truth, that would mean the truth is known and provable. I'd have to see the statement you're referring to because Ron Paul always makes sure to explain in a concise manner why he feels the way he does which would further confirm why he believe what he says. Regardless, his statement is in no way "not telling the truth" (pardon the double negative). Besides, based on the Constitution, the federal government doesn't have the authority to create any food stamp programs (or any other corporate or social welfare). That's a state issue so it wouldn't matter what the president thought about it. That's why I always wondered why liberals don't like the federalist system provided in the Constitution. It would be a hell of a lot easier to get your progressive ideas passed at state level than at a national level. It shouldn't bother you if someone in another state doesn't agree with you.

["I said he supports ultra-free markets, and you agree. You have no point here."]

My comment was not disagreeing with the free markets, it was disagreeing with "libertarian positions that corporations would absolutely love" because that was the faulty part of you statement. Corporations like the system we have now. A system where they can lobby the government (both parties) to use their unconstitutional powers to put up barriers to entry, force us to rely on their products and numerous other abuses.

["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."]

This is absurd. Name one thing Bush wanted to privatize and make sure you research before you post. You probably want to say social security and, if so, you need to either read a summary of the actual plan or learn some basic economics. Bush (and all the corporatists) like to include private entities in their schemes but that is not privatization. In fact, it's easy to tell. If the government is still involved in any way then it hasn't been privatized. The same goes for regulations. If any regulations exist on an industry then it hasn't been deregulated. Your "normal" comment is idiotic. Many of my friends are liberals and none of them are so stupid they think Bush is "as pro-privatization as they get". Unless, to you, "normal" means "stupid", in which case, your sentence makes perfect sense.

You are correct that the online polls are unscientific and can't be used to really gauge interest. However, the same is also true for phone polling. That doesn't mean Ron Paul isn't receiving a following. If you check his meetup groups, you'll see real people who support him. We don't even mind if non-Paul supporters attend to find out more about him so feel free to come to one near you and check if his supporters are real people. And when you look at posts like this and this, it's hard for me to believe that a few people are posting hundreds and hundreds of messages under different names, using different writing styles just to make it appear Paul has support. His campaign has also said that after the first debate their contributions quadrupled (public figures for the quarter will be available at the end of this month). Fake support doesn't usually raise money.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Maybe I'm speaking for a few of us when I say that it would be nice if we toned down the ad hominem attacks please. I read all of your comments, and it is true that online polls are not 100% scientific. However, the fact that Ron Paul is sweeping all these online polls is a testament to how organized his campaign is on the internet. Welcome to the new age. The last few years have shown that highly organized online organizations make a difference during the primaries (Dean, Lamont). This poll that Erick cited is HIGHLY relevant because sophisticated online outreach efforts, such as Ron Paul for president, have extremely positive potential.

Ron Paul is the real deal. Think about it this way. In September, MAINSTREAM REPUBLICANS -- like Lindsey Graham, Norm Coleman, John Warner, among others -- are going to drop their support for the war. Like Barack Obama is to the Democrats, Ron Paul has been right about Iraq from the very beginning. By November, most Republicans will share his position on the war. That will increase Ron Paul's potential for January. At the same time, he is a fiscal conservative and preaches traditional Republican values. Ron Paul has much more potential than people like Hunter, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson and that former Virginia Governor.

I am not convinced that Ron Paul will win the GOP nomination. But I'm glad Erick wrote this column because online polls are great indicators of potential. They measure excitement, enthusiasm and the willingness of citizens to mobilize and donate to that candidate.

[Arlen]

"By November, most Republicans will share his position on the war."

Come September 30th, Todd, we'll see if polls show that A) a majority of Republicans believe that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, B) a majority of Republicans beleive Bush led the country into war under false pretenses, C) a majority of Republicans will support fast withdrawal from Iraq, not linked to progress in Iraqi security circumstances, D) 9/11 happened because of American intervention in the middle east, specifically Iraq. Now, you might agree with these things, and they are certainly Ron Paul's positions, but I do not expect the majority of Republicans either in Congress or in the public will have these positions on Iraq in September.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

I'm talking about Republican voters, Arlen. During my work as a community organizer in rural western Washington, the majority of the people that I spoke to were conservatives. I was supposed to talk to them about health care and helping them pressure members of the Washington Legislature to pass preventative care into the budget. But so many of them wanted to talk about Iraq instead. The vast majority of conservatives that I spoke with told me that they are fed up with Bush. yes, they will definitely vote Republican in 2008. But they want our troops out because over-extending ourselves on foreign soil is the least-bit fiscally conservative. More than 70% of the country disapproves of Bush's job on the war....that is cutting into a huge chunk of the Republican electorate.

Do I think ALL Republicans will come around? Of course not. I'd say -- and I speak with Tony about this all the time -- that Bush's floor is 23%. In other words, around 23% or 24% of the country will support Bush NO MATTER WHAT...even if he nuked the hell out of everything. Bush's approval rating cannot go any lower than 23%. It's at 28% right now. Still, that's a HUGE chunk of the GOP not supporting Bush, and not supporting this war.

From what Republicans told me in March and April, they are running out of patience. The conservatives are coming around. The Republican politicians, however, have yet to come around. And when they do (probably September or October), then people like Ron Paul will benefit. Again, I can't see him winning the Republican nomination. But I could see him getting around 10% of the vote because he was right on the war from the very beginning.

[Arlen]

Todd, you may want to think about your math here for a second.

If Bush has a 23% floor of the general population that won't ever agree with Ron Paul, then for a majority of Republicans to agree with Paul, the country would have to be at least 47% Republican (23 23= 46 so you need 27 for a majority).

In reality, about a third of the country is Democratic, more than a third is independent, and less than a third is Republican however, if you look at polls which ask what party people affiliate themselves with. It's been like this for years.

[Arlen]

"(23 23= 46 so you need 27 for a majority)."

Typo- the 27 should be a 47, but you knew what I meant.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Arlen, I'm not talking about registered Republicans. I'm talking about likely Republican voters.

[granny]

Chief Editor, Todd, gets the prize for the voice of reason and moderation. After all the rumpus is said and done, he kept the Blog on the course he invited us all here to help him steer:

- to maintain a forum for news, ideas, elaborations, and thoughtful dialogue, in diasagreement as well as agreement.

Well Done, Todd. You're a gentleman and a scholar: an old term, but it holds up well. You work hard to give us all this opportunity, and I for one apologize for adding to the less than embracing tone. ... After all, the point is that we can come here and express our thought in the hope of expanding our own & others' knowledge through participation and sharing. "Whacking" is definitely not in order among ourselves.

I promise to do better ~ :)

[Tony]

The "Floor" which Todd spoke of is evident right here in these comments. There were views and opinions from both sides of the isle that were objective and open minded. With all the intelligent and educated information thrown out there, it seems "the floor" held it's ground. Unyielding to a single piece of opinion or fact.

The "Floor" (in my opinion) consists mainly of conservative radio listening, Fox news watching, single newspaper reading individuals. If you listen to Mike Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh etc...you WILL believe that every and anything the the right wing and the administration does, is "what's best for the country". There is no objectiveness or open mindedness within this group

Forrest Gump: Now for some reason I fit in the army like one of them round pegs. It's not really hard.
You just make your bed real neat and remember to stand up straight and always answer every question with "Yes, drill sergeant."

And that's all I got to say about that.... aisle 

[Tony]

Typo above -"isle" Aisle (before I'm told to use spell check)

[Erick]

Yay for big discussions. World, I give you my post. My gift to you. :-p

[John Morgan]

Ron Paul is a dangerous extremist. He's against the Iraq War because of his anti-semitism, he thinks we're fighting a proxy war for Israel. He's out of the patriot/militia/white supremacist movement as documented at Orcinus and Kos. When I wrote about this on my blog yesterday his trolls came out of the closet with their hysteria and profanity. This man is serious bad news.

[granny]

John Morgan says: "...Orcinus and Kos. When I wrote about this on my blog"

How about some web addresses then, John Morgan?