Tops in straw polls. Tops in "who won the debate" polls. Tops in drawing crowds. Tops in website and YouTube traffic by a mile. An increasingly major player in fund-raising.
2-4% in the polls.
How is it that Ron Paul can be so dominant and so obscure at the same time? Clearly, there are tens of thousands of activists who have been waiting decades for someone like Paul to emerge. After holding their nose in the voting booth, or working through what they knew to be futile third-party campaigns, they are energized because they finally feel they can make a difference. This determined and enthusiastic minority will create a disproportionate impact. For instance, debates they had skipped in years past, they are now watching because Paul is in them. And they are excited enough to call in and vote for the winner. "Spamming" has nothing to do with it.
Still, you would think at least one of the "top tier" Republican candidates could drum up Paul-like buzz, or at least Obama- or Hilary-like support. The lethargy in their campaigns will lead to disaster in the general election.
James Leroy Wilson's one-man magazine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The "scientific" polls are manipulated intentionally to undercount Ron Paul's support.
ReplyDeleteThey have many ways of doing this, here's one:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Rasmussen_Polls_Rigged_against_Ron_Paul_unbelievable
The "scientific" polls are the establishment's last line of defense. They can't control the flow of money to a candidate since now the internet lets grassroots, non-establishment candidates organize. They can't control straw polls, or online polls, or the size of crowds.
They can control (to some degree, but it's slipping) MSM coverage and the "scientific" polls. But more and more people are starting to wonder, like you are: Ron Paul seems to be doing a lot better than 3%, what's up with these polls?