Ron Paul a Fraud? Skeptics Need To Wake Up
Before starting, this is not a post for or against Ron Paul. Rather, I am trying to point out a few things about demographics, something any web publisher and marketer should understand & study.
There has been a general representation, not only in the mainstream press, but also web sites such as Digg that Ron Paul has a very tiny, core group of supporters. These supporters are spamming polls, online and offline to give the illusion that he has a huge backing.
Judging by the comments I have read on various forums & blogs, as well as by statements I have seen on television, there is a perception that Ron Paul’s supporters are imaginary. More than a few bloggers feel that comments supporting Ron Paul are “auto-generated.” Earlier this year there were stories about Ron Paul supporters gaming Digg. Today Wired reported that someone was e-mail spamming messages in support of Ron Paul.
The reason why this appears to be “a Ron Paul fraud” is because the Republican polls are polling registered Republicans. Additionally, the groups polled are samples as tiny as 500 people. The most recent Zogby poll puts Ron Paul far behind at 3%. Thats not the 30%+ number we saw at the end of the last Republican debate.
Lets take a look at what groups can & do include Ron Paul supporters:
-Anti-War. None of the Republican candidates express any views but escalation.
-Pro-Small Government. Again, no other Republican candidates express interest in this, yet the Republican party pushed the concept very hard in the preceding decade.
-Libertarians. This group alone represents probably 2-3% of US voters, they would not be reflected in Republican polls.
-Democrats. Watch a debate. Ron Paul reflects the anti-war position as strongly as the further left Democratic candidates. Democrats watching a Republican debate will either vote for Ron Paul or no one at all.
-Crazy People. People who believe they don’t have to pay taxes, conspiracy theorists, etc. This group is showing support for Ron Paul.
-The Disillusioned & Non-voting. This group can include all of the previous groups. Only about half of Americans who can vote do.
Add all these groups together, and you have a very significant audience. This is far from an illusion fraud created by a tiny, core group of supporters. Certainly you will have rogue individuals too stupid to understand their attempts at gaining influence will actually destroy themselves and damage the candidates they allegedly support.
No matter what market you are involved in, do not buy into the distracting noise and well worn theories. Unlike politics, being #2,#,#4, or even #15 can net you a fortune. Go after the under-represented niches, no matter how loony or lazy they may appear (you may well find that this is a bonus, not a detraction.)
Politics makes for a great study in the dark arts of social engineering and human manipulation. Everything you want to learn about building a fanatical group of followers can be found here — if your not too busy buying in to the stories yourself.
Only 1 Republican candidate favors small government?
Ummkay…. Thats just crazy talk.
All republican candidates favor escalation in Iraq?
Huh?
I’ve not seen a single candidate from either party say they want to increase presence in Iraq, most Democrats say they want to draw down troops immediately regardless of what it does to the region, most Republicans say they want to draw troops down more slowly so as to not create a security vacuum and create a situation where we’d only have to come back. But both want draw downs, not escalations, only the timeframes differ.
I don’t know where you get your info, but I expect you’ve been drinking someone’s koolaid.
Comment by Chris Beasley — November 2, 2007 @ 9:07 am
The problem is that many people who are anti-war are not small government. Anti-war supporters have plenty of candidates to choose from.
And Ron Paul is not the only Republican who is in favor of small government. In fact, you might be surprised to learn just how small government Rudy Giuliani is.
That only leaves Ron Paul with some very small groups of people to support him. Heck, I’ve visited Paul’s website to see what all the fuss is about. Only to learn it was all for not-so-much.
Moreover, online traffic does not equal votes. At least, not yet. We’re coming up on elections where we may see correlations between traffic and votes, but we haven’t yet. Any statement to the opposite is purely speculative.
Also, Britney Spears gets a lot of traffic and a lot of attention - but that doesn’t mean people like how she’s leading her life.
Comment by Nathania Johnson — November 2, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Giuliani:
Like all Americans, Rudy Giuliani prays for the success of our troops in Iraq and their safe return home. But he believes setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal from Iraq now would be a terrible mistake, because it would only embolden our enemies. Iraq is only one front in the larger war on terror, and failure there would lead to a broader and bloodier regional conflict in the near future. Building an accountable Iraq will assist in reducing the threat of terrorism.
Romney:
The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights.
McCain:
A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America’s ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.
All from the candidate’s websites. “A greater military commitment” I interpret no other way than escalation. Giuliani’s statement is carefully worded, but it makes it clear that failure in Iraq is not an option. May be I am misinterpreting this, but I understand that as we are going to do anything it takes; anything it takes generally means more not less. Romney — “An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions…”; again, that means a continued war effort if necessary for victory.
If someone believes that things are going great in Iraq, then these statements can be viewed as a slow pullback. Thats how the best political statements work, the candidates carefully word answers so that the listener feels the statement mirror’s his or her own belief.
I haven’t seen a any of the Democrat’s debates, but I have yet to see any of them issue strong anti-war statements. What I have seen is a lot of anti-Bush statements.
In terms of small government, the debates I saw were of Republicans giving answers of how the government would solve problems X, Y, & Z. In the debates, next to Ron Paul, they do not sound like they support small government in the least.
Again, I didn’t want to write this post for political reasons, either in support of Ron Paul or against him. He could very well make the worst President in US history, I don’t know. (No matter who wins, the next 4 years could be very rough.)
There is a damn good reason why I try to completely avoid bringing up political topics! It just seemed apparent to me why there were so many Ron Paul online, not just some tiny group of spammers annoying every blogger and political forum owner.
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Ron Paul has received over $5 million in donations in the last 3 months alone. Each donor is limited to a max donation of $2300, and the majority donate much less than that. This alone is proof that he has a large number of real supporters. I don’t see how anyone can realistically claim otherwise.
Comment by John — November 2, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
No, there aren’t many anti-war candidates to choose from. Every candidate except Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel is leaving the idea of a nuclear strike against Iran on the table. The leading Democrats won’t promise out of Iraq till at least 2013. That is not anti-war.
Also, I WOULD be surprised at Giuliani being a small-government type. He’s for more war spending when we are in 9 trillion dollars of debt. That’s absolutely insane. That goes for any candidate on both sides that possibly thinks we HAVE money to spend! We borrow from China every single day. Doesn’t that raise a red flag? Doesn’t that mean anything? We can not have anymore unbalanced budgets and we can’t keep spending with money we DON’T have. It’s going to eventually lead to economic ruin as we spread ourselves thin. All great empires fall. Now, concerning Giuliani as a small-government socially, that’s also ludicrous. He’s for the government taking away civil liberties like those found in the Patriot Act.
It’s not hard to understand that you can’t be a small-government type and still support tremendous spending overseas as well as suspension of civil liberties at home.
Comment by Stephen — November 2, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
More proof of REAL support for Ron Paul is here:
http://www.infiniteronpaul.com/meetupmaps/
Comment by JKHutz — November 2, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
by “crazy people” you mean people who don’t like giving their hard earned money to a corrupt and unconstitutional counterfeiter “Federal Reserve” ? We had no income tax before 1913! This is documented FACT, not conspiracy.
Or do you mean people who think the constitution should be followed?
Or people who think the patriot Act is unpatriotic?
OR people who think that the war on terror is a scam?
Sorry, you just insulted many people here with this slur, and linking to Alex Jones as if that proves something. Alex Jones is a Patriot and not crazy!
He can be obnoxious to neocons, who dismiss him as crazy because they can’t refute his facts. Our corrupt Mainstream Media has its gatekeepers shutting out discussions that are inconvenient.
Maybe you should really investigate some of his stuff… the CFRs plan for the NAU for instance is FACT. the Bilderbergers are FACT.
You stated this is not a post for or against Ron Paul but you call his supporters “crazy?”
Comment by Paul — November 4, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
(THE ONLY THING WORSE THEN BEING TALKED ABOUT,IS NOT BEING TALKED ABOUT!!!)…I GUESS (ANDREW) DOESNT HAVE A LAST NAME OR CONTACT INFO. SO SOME “CRAZY” RON PAUL SUPPORTERS COULD TEAR HIM A NEW ASSHOLE FOR BEING SO UN AMERICAN AND SPREADING THESE LIE’….”THESE POLE’S ARE SET UP FOR RON PAUL TO LOOK BAD”,WHAT PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE TRUTH HURTS.CHECK HIS FUND RAISEING DRIVE AND COUNT HOW MANY PEOPLE DONATE TO HIS CAMPAIGE…STOP BEING A NE-OCON AND START BEING AN AMERICAN!!!!
Comment by Eric V. — November 15, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
The fight for our freedom and liberty is on folks. Ron Paul may not win the election but he is damn sure helping to wake alot of people up in this country. I for one, hope he does win. Oh and Alex Jones is a good man. Yes he can be a bit over the top sometimes, but he just feels stongly about the survival of our children and our nation. Happy Thanksgiving Everyone.
Comment by Steve — November 22, 2007 @ 2:35 am