Rasmussen reports that:
Libertarian voters make up 4% of the nation’s likely voters and they favor Barack Obama over John McCain by a 53% to 38% margin. Three percent (3%) would vote for some other candidate and 5% are not sure.
Only 3% of libertarians said they would vote for a third party candidate? That’s a pretty sad performance for Bob Barr. Maybe he’s the one who should to be firing his campaign manager. Maybe Ron Paul wants the gig…
I think that Ron Paul supporters aren’t entirely clear on their level of political popularity:
[Bob] Barr also hopes to tap into the zealous grass-roots network of Rep. Ron Paul, who recently dropped his bid for the GOP presidential nomination and pledged to support “Libertarian-leaning Republicans.” Paul, a Texas Republican who ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988, drew hefty campaign contributions online, but did not win any primaries.
Paul supporters said they’re giving Barr a look. Some are skeptical.
“We’re waiting to see if he’s deliberately moving toward Ron Paul’s principles to be politically popular,” said Marlane O’Neill, a Paul supporter in Atlanta.
Gosh, as politically popular as Ron Paul turned out to be? I think if Bob Barr’s intentions are to lose in every state, than going for the Ron Paul vote could be a viable plan.
After CrazyMonk’s reports on the Nevada state Democratic Convention, it’s not all that surprising that the Republican convention was equally interesting. Ron Paul’s people, as usual, showed up en mass and overwhelmed the traditional republicans:
They seemed to make up more than half of the 1,300 or so state delegates to the convention. They won a key procedural vote on the rules, and their boisterous presence created significant delays, causing the convention chairman, Bob Beers, a state senator from Las Vegas, to recess the convention without selecting delegates to the national convention. The state convention is to resume at a later date.
Wherever Ron Paul goes, chaos follows. I like it.
Via Reddit.
If this ad was 30 seconds long, rather than one minute, it would be fantastic:
I assume the problem is that, during a competitive election, it would take too much time and too much money to make really creative ads, but I wish political campaigns did more innovative work. Not every ad has to be stock footage and people talking straight to the camera.
Here’s a remarkable uninteresting video on the making of this commercial.
Slate takes a quick jab at Ron Paul:
If you were designing the perfect candidate in a lab, you’d want John McCain’s personal courage, Mike Huckabee’s humor, and Hillary Clinton’s tenacity. The ingredient you’d want from Obama isn’t hope, which is, after all, hype. They all offer hope — even Ron Paul, in a creepy, Ayn Rand kind of way.
Ben Stein doesn’t believe in evolution. Previously: Ron Paul doesn’t believe in EVOLution. Thanks Lorelei.
In honor of today’s big primaries, here’s a quick snapshot of CNN’s Exit Polls from the recent Florida Republican primary:
| Vote by Race and Age | Giuliani | Huckabee | Hunter | McCain | Paul | Romney | Thompson | |
| Black 18-29 | (0%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Black 30-44 | (1%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Black 45-59 | (1%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Black 60+ | (1%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Notice a theme? Even Ron Paul couldn’t get above N/A. Where’s Alan Keyes when you need him?
In honor of Ron Paul receiving over 60,000 votes in today’s Republican Florida Primary, here are a two celebratory pictures:
Ron Paul doesn’t believe in Evolution.
Ron Paul is Revolting.
The Ron Paul masses will be here in 3, 2, 1…
Daniel Kells points to this 3 minute NPR clip in which people are asked to describe various presidential candidates in one word. I’d like to see this question incorporated into polls, it makes for an intriguing perspective on voters’ overall perceptions of a candidate.
Guess which candidate this was: Mayor, 9/11, 9/11, Tough…
I propose a new means of determining when a presidential candidate should be considered “serious” and be given access to debates and non-mocking media attention — when they poll better than someone who’s running for president sarcastically. Let’s call it The Sarcastic Line:
Last month, a national opinion poll found Bloomberg attracting 11% of the vote when matched against Clinton and Giuliani. That same poll showed Ron Paul earning 8% of the vote running as a libertarian. Comedian Stephen Colbert attracted 13% of the vote in a hypothetical match-up earlier this year.
Stephen Colbert was outpolling Ron Paul by 5% and hypothetical Bloomberg by 2%. It seems reasonable that if you can’t beat people who are running for office as an enormous joke, you don’t deserve to be taken any more seriously than they do. From now on, if you’re polling below a comedian (The Sarcastic Line), you’re going to be treated as a nothing more than a punchline.
PS. Ron Paul doesn’t help his case when people are scoring shots like this off of him: “At least part of his campaign makes sense: If Bush had Big Oil and Kerry had Big Labor, it stands to reason that Ron ‘Gold Standard’ Paul would be the puppet of Big Dirigible.”
The Ron Paul blimp actually raised enough money to get off the ground (hyuck, hyuck). They’ll be flying over Washington, D.C. on December 10th at 3pm. I’m there.
I’ve mentioned Ron Paul a lot, including my recent comparison of him to Snakes on a Plane, but I think I’ve finally pinned down a major Ron Paul problem, his unfavorables. Here are some results from the most recent Rasmussen poll in Iowa:
Among those likely to take part in the Iowa Republican caucuses, Romney is viewed favorably by 77%, Huckabee by 76%, Giuliani by 68%, and Thompson by 71%…
As for unfavorables, just 20% offer a negative assessment of Huckabee. Twenty-one percent (21%) have an unfavorable opinion of Romney, 24% say the same about Thompson, and 30% have a negative opinion of Giuliani.
McCain’s numbers have fallen since the previous Rasmussen Reports survey. Among Republicans likely to participate in the caucus, 54% have a favorable opinion of the Arizona Senator while 44% have an unfavorable view.
Ron Paul is viewed favorably by 39% and unfavorably by 52%.
Notice that bit at the end there? Ron Paul has an UNFAVORABLE rating above 50% That basically means that no matter what, more than 50% of Iowa Republican caucus voters will not vote for him. Money, media and message can do a lot to fix a public’s lack of knowledge about a candidate, but they can’t do much to fix a public’s established negative perceptions of a candidate.
A hundred November 5ths (or Tea Parties) won’t do Ron Paul any good if his unfavorables stay above 50%. And while those events raise a lot of money, they won’t do a lot to change negative perceptions. Of course, the commercials paid for by that money might help, but it hasn’t done so yet.
I’ve had it with this motherfucking Ron Paul in this motherfucking election.
Ron Paul’s supporters are everywhere. I recently spotted this one at the Griffith Observatory above Los Angeles:
There’s nothing particularly noteworthy about this car or its slogans, but it’s indicative of the dozens and dozens of small but loving Ron Paul support signs I’ve seen over the past year. I’ve seen more support for Ron Paul in real life than I have for all the other candidates combined (I’m not entirely clear why), and that’s not even counting his online phenomenon which completely blows the other candidates out of the water.
The problem is, Ron Paul is Snakes on a Plane.
During the run-up to Snakes on a Plane, everyone was shocked by the amount of excitement and support the film had garnered online. Running Snakes on a Blog, I had a unique perspective on the actual number of people involved and could have told you that the buzz was being created by a relatively small number of extremely vocal, web-savvy people. The media focused on the fact that there was excitement, not on the number of people who were creating it. When the movie was actually released, the ticket sales were disappointing. The people who were excited about the film all went to see it, but that didn’t lead to dramatically improved sales among the general population. A small, vocal community doesn’t always transfer into general, real world results.
Ron Paul’s support appears to be similar.
Ron Paul’s supporters are, like Snakes on a Plane supporters, very web savvy and very vocal. They also appear to be very few in number (also like Snakes on a Plane supporters). With the exception of a recent bump in a few states, his numbers over the last year have lingered in the one to three percent range across the country. His people can sure as hell draw attention to themselves, and they can make some noise, but they aren’t numerous. Ron Paul raised $5 million on a single day, but he’s still not causing a major stir in the polls… this has all the hallmarks of being another cause that is unable to transfer its online enthusiasm into real world results.
Like Snakes on a Plane supporters after its Hollywood premiere, I expect that there’s going to be a lot of disappointment among Ron Paul supporters after the first few primaries. The excitement online just doesn’t necessarily translate into real world success and there’s no indication that Ron Paul is going to shake Snakes on a Plane syndrome.
I’ve commented in the past that Ron Paul’s supporters, when they swarm, can be a little bit difficult to deal with. It seems that actual political sites have felt this effect much more strongly than I have. MSNBC asked the Ron Paul people to stop emailing them. RedState (like Kos for the right) has gone so far as to ban them from participating.
I like how a quasi-mainstream libertarian candidate can create havoc in a campaign.
The two candidates I’m most intrigued by, Ron Paul (libertarian, though potentially crazy) and Joe Biden (the only candidates who wants to split Iraq in three) are, unsurprisingly, at the bottom of the fundraising barrel.
This race needs more Bloomberg.
Via APNews.
Yet another 2008 candidate selector, this one is fairly quick. Here’s where I stand:
Ah, Ron Paul. Now that I’ve used your name I’m sure your minions will arrive to call me stupid… like last time.
Today Ron Paul wants out of the UN, the WTO and is anti-free trade. Ron Paul’s positions don’t always seem to line up with his libertarian heritage… every once in a while some populism seems to creep out. He’s a William Jennings Bryant libertarian.
As promised, here are a few of my favorite pictures from today’s anti-war protest in Washington, DC (you can also check out the full gallery for lots more). Click on any picture to see a clearer version.
I don’t get this one at all. A giant robotic NAZI Hillary Clinton? What message are they going for here? Also, who’s first choice at an anti-war protest is to attack Hillary? Sure, she voted for the war, but there’s clearly bigger fish to fry. It makes me wonder if this was a right-winger who mistakenly showed up at the anti-war protest thinking it was the pro-war protest.
There were a lot of 911 conspiracy people at the event today. It must be very discouraging to try to throw a real, legitimate, anti-war rally, only to have your message undercut and rationality brought into question by the conspiracy wing.
Finally, a group that everybody can get behind.
The Ron Paul people were extremely well organized at the event. They outnumbered any other candidate faction by an order of magnitude. They were pitching him as the only candidate who voted against the war and against the PATRIOT Act. I was forced to wonder, though, whether any of the people who were supporting him were registered Republicans and/or able to vote in the Republican primary? Drawing support at the anti-war protest isn’t going to do much for you during the primaries.
This one shocked me. I have to imagine this was a real minority opinion.
And finally, I have no idea what these signs are supposed to mean (that was actually a common theme at the protest), but I like them!
