Why this debate is a good sign for Ron Paul

[Ninja Homer]

Obviously this debate was a sham... the worst presidential debate I've ever seen. It was set up for failure from the start. But why?

Think about it...
Why would they schedule it for a Sunday morning, when most potential Republican viewers, especially Iowans, would be at church?
Why would they give Ron Paul so little time?
Why would they they delete online comments that are pro-Ron Paul?
All this in an Iowan republican debate just 6 days before the Iowan straw poll, the very poll that will supposedly make or break many candidates...

They are scared of Ron Paul!

Is it possible that they have a better idea of how much support Ron Paul has in Iowa than we do?

Think about this...
Ron Paul supporters have been accused of "spamming" online polls for quite a long time now. I admit it, I "spammed" the ABC post-debate poll today. It was actually very easy. I just clicked a link to the poll page. I picked the candidate I thought won the debate. Then I clicked a button to submit my vote, and it brought me to a results page. Lo and behold, the candidate I "spammed", Ron Paul, was far in the lead.

Surely the other candidates have had time to teach their supporters to "spam" these online polls... why haven't they done it?

I can think of 3 reasons:
1. They are just too stupid to figure it out (I feel sorry for those other candidates come election day).
2. They don't care enough about their candidate to take 5 seconds to vote for them (again... I feel sorry for those other candidates come election day. Although they might take the free time off from work and follow the other sheeple to vote, they obviously wouldn't take the time to vote for their candidate in a straw poll).
3. The other candidates just don't have that many supporters!

Do we really have a good reason to trust these "scientific poll" numbers they keep feeding us? What if the online polls are actually closer to reality then their "scientific polls"?

[MozoVote]

The online polls ARE a distortion. Lots of Democrats are probably voting for Paul online, and they can't do that in a primary. And yes, there are probably some geeks out there who can't resist sneaking in some extra votes. Hackers just do things to prove they can.

However, I do think the online polls show something about the depth of people's anger about being deceived in Iraq.

I'm sure the Republican establishment is deathly afraid of another "1912" or "1964" about to happen - a bitter fight for the soul of the party.

[wolv275]

I can agree with your comments. Numbers are very deceiving if done incorrectly, and we know 100% that polls are not accurate. So why trust any numbers out there.

I can agree with you because no other candidates rally ever get as much people so fast. That would be very expensive, so its better to do luncheons and fund raising.

i like the idea of seeing and believing, and so far Ron is the only one that delivers physical bodies in large numbers. And i love that.

[JPFromTally]

The Freedomworks poll required email registration. Who would register a ton of e-mail addresses. It doesn't make sense.

[ladyjade3]

telephone polls are passive. they are not an indication of the respondent actually getting off their duff and going to a voting booth. In fact, when you telephone poll and ask how excited people are about their choice (when its not yet Ron Paul) they aren't very excited, which translates into low turnout.

Politics belongs to those who show up, not those who just answer the phone.

[Wyurm]

The online polls ARE a distortion. Lots of Democrats are probably voting for Paul online, and they can't do that in a primary. And yes, there are probably some geeks out there who can't resist sneaking in some extra votes. Hackers just do things to prove they can.

However, I do think the online polls show something about the depth of people's anger about being deceived in Iraq.

I'm sure the Republican establishment is deathly afraid of another "1912" or "1964" about to happen - a bitter fight for the soul of the party.

Yep, and most importantly, you can't use this forum to win a Gallup poll. We see an online poll, and what's the first thing we do? spread the word to the forum and other areas online. That sort of organization doesnt work with "scientific" polls.

[MozoVote]

telephone polls are passive. they are not an indication of the respondent actually getting off their duff and going to a voting booth. In fact, when you telephone poll and ask how excited people are about their choice (when its not yet Ron Paul) they aren't very excited, which translates into low turnout.

Politics belongs to those who show up, not those who just answer the phone.

That is an excellent point. I have seen elections before at a local level where a small energized base trumps the lazy average voters.

The Ames straw poll is more like a city council race than a national election.

I have a feeling that the lack of enthusuasm most of the other candidiates face, will cause some surprises next week.

[Ninja Homer]

The online polls ARE a distortion. Lots of Democrats are probably voting for Paul online, and they can't do that in a primary. And yes, there are probably some geeks out there who can't resist sneaking in some extra votes. Hackers just do things to prove they can.

I agree they are somewhat distorted, but other candidate's supporters have the same opportunities that Ron Paul's supporters do. I don't think the online polls are any more distorted than the "scientific polls" that have Ron Paul at 2%. I guess we'll have a clearer answer after the straw poll in 6 days.

What I know for sure is that neocons are scared of Ron Paul, and Ron Paul has many more dedicated and passionate supporters than any other GOP candidate.

[MozoVote]

I pretty much agree on that. I mean, how hard would it be for Mitt Romney to organize a fat mailing list from his LDS bretheren and "spam" an online poll? I'm assuming that he is, frankly. For him to not win these polls is telling, that the passion is just not there.

[torchbearer]

Digg story about debate becoming popular, needs your vote to stay on front page!
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Blasts_Unconstitutional_Undeclared_Wars_a t_GOP_Debate

[Mesogen]

Obviously this debate was a sham... the worst presidential debate I've ever seen.

Haven't seen many have you?

The worst I remember seeing were the Democratic ones in 1992. So totally lame.
It was so obvious that no one cared and that Bill Clinton was the selectee the whole time.

Those were the lamest I can remember.

[Ninja Homer]

I turned 18 in '92, so no, I didn't catch that one.

I did, however, "rock the vote", and voted Libertarian. :D