Ron Paul's candidacy

Dotini

Okay, straw polls, etc. are fake. Maybe even national polls have an element of fraud. Is there a better way to determine who should be a candidate or an elected official?

Paul's campaign claims military donations lead the Republican pack at a whopping 71% for Paul the peacenik. Is this also a misleading or meaningless statistic?

http://www.dailypaul.com/179080/if-a...thousand-words

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Galteeth

They aren't fake, and what you posted about isn't fraud. What you were referencing is that supporters of ron paul realised that with his passionate supporter base and the organization of the grassroots, they could do well at straw polls. Straw polls are not a neutral sample, but rather a sample of people who are politically enthusiastic. They may not be representative of the GOP elecorate, but they aren't fake. I don't know what you're talking about with regards to fraud. Encouraging people to attend and vote in polls isn't fraud. Fraud would be something illegal or in violation of the pol rules, i.e, manipulating voting machines or interfering with other candidates' votes.

lisab

Straw polls are not representative of the general population, i.e., they aren't statistically valid.

Definition -

Straw poll: an unofficial poll or vote taken to determine the opinion of a group or the public on some issue

DoggerDan

So it's "straw" only because it's unofficial?

ThomasT

I think the assumption is that polls which can be 'stacked' with the supporters of one candidate or another don't reliably predict the outcomes of the real elections. In other words, most voters don't vote in straw polls, so if an inordinately high percentage of the supporters of a particular candidate participate in a straw poll, then this can result in an outcome that is not reflective of the true relative support of that candidate wrt the general electorate.

Thus, the results of such polls can be misleading. And in Ron Paul's case, they are.

But I think the main reason why Paul doesn't have much support is because he has been deliberately marginalized by the mainstream (corporate) media in the US. That is, if they wanted to, they could make Paul a leading contender, and perhaps make him the nominee, and perhaps make him the president. But it seems clear that they don't want to do that, and I'm not sure why. It can't be because he doesn't have enough support, because they can change that. So it has to be for some other reason(s). Maybe it's because Paul is likely to buck the status quo wrt some very significant issues, whereas Romney isn't.

Evo

Aside from the phony straw poll results, just do a search.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...+paul+crackpot

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...l-liberty.html

fleem

@evo,

Thanks for explaining how to google for "Ron Paul' and 'Crackpot'. That is a far more scientific method of deciding whether I agree with Paul on the issues than my previous method of looking at his platform to see if it matches mine. I assume, of course, you've used that useful method for your candidate as well. Speaking of science, I notice the DailyBeast article you linked wisely replaces references to the clear correlation between prohibition of non-violent crime with violent crime in so many countries over the last 100 years (http://www.independent.org/publicati...type=full&id=2), with ubiquitous name calling. I now see the proper tone we are to use in physicsforum posts, and you are making me realize I was given a lot of misinformation on the scientific method and logical thinking during my school years.

Dotini

In legendary tortoise and hare fashion, Ron Paul is miraculously overtaking the staggering Republican field, according to this new report from the Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...-write-him-off
Consider these recent headlines:
“Ron Paul is for real in Iowa. Seriously.” (Washington Post)
“Niche Voters Giving Paul Momentum in Iowa Polls” (New York Times)
“Ron Paul’s 19 percent in Iowa may indicate a path to the nomination” (Daily Caller)
“GOP outsider Ron Paul gaining traction in Iowa” (Associated Press)
“Ron Paul And Libertarians Can't Be Discounted” (Forbes)


I'm 62, and I concede that the future belongs mainly to the youth, who are a large part of Ron Paul's following, along with presumably youthful military donors to the Paul campaign. Perhaps if the folks of the older generations don't vote, Paul will carry the day?

I understand how Paul frightens neo-cons and neo-liberals alike. I think I've passed through both these phases into some kind of libertarian.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

daveb

I was very impressed (and agree) with him last night in his remarks about the Patriot Act during the debate, though at times he seemed (to me) as if he knew he was tilting at windmills.

Proton Soup

and by windmills, i assume you mean neocon thinktanks itching for another war.

daveb

No, by windmills, the audience applause and almost unanimous view from the other candidates that the PATRIOT Act needed to be strengthened.

pergradus

Evo, I think you're discrediting Ron Paul because of an emotional resentment to his stance on abortion. Am I right that you're vehemently pro-choice?

Evo

I am pro choice, but all of the Republican candidates that I am aware of are anti-abortion, so your agument is nothing more than a red herring.

Proton Soup

there certainly seemed to be a lot of fascists in attendance, yes.

pergradus

And all would deny the existence of evolution (they all want to appeal to the Christian conservative vote), so that quote you linked is also a red herring. See how this works?

So far all you've managed to come up with against Ron Paul is "Straw polls don't count!".

Still waiting for some real arguments against his political stances.

Evo

I don't waste my time arguing against politicians I don't consider viable. I've given my reasons I agree with others that say he's not viable, and looney to boot, if you don't agree, I quite honestly don't care.

Astronuc

At least he's consistent.