Before the Ron Paul Party

[john_anderson_ii]

Which party did you belong to?

I'm asking because I see a lot of people, myself included sometimes, who refer to the GOP as they, them, the Republicans, etc.

We really need to start thinking in terms of us, we, and our party. For republicans, it's true that the 'ol GOP ain't what she used to be. However, it's our party, it's been taken hostage, and we need to rescue it.

For those who've joined the GOP to give a voice for Ron Paul, come on board the party and stop looking from the outside in. Even if its only for 8 years, I think a huge injection of Libertarians and Constitution Party input is exactly the prescription the GOP needs to rid itself of the neocon infection.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Libertarian...

[LibertyEagle]

Libertarian...

Really? With your name, I would have never known. :p

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Really? With your name, I would have never known. :p

ha ha... just representin'

I am a very hardcore libertarian.

[BillyBeer]

Maybe Ron is John Anderson II and runs as a third party candidate again. Only this time he gets a decent share of the vote.

[john_anderson_ii]

Maybe Ron is John Anderson II and runs as a third party candidate again. Only this time he gets a decent share of the vote.

I can assure you I'm not Ron. If I were I'd be posting this from prison because I'd have lost my cool and starting offing neocon mouthpieces long ago. :D

[DanConway]

I was an independent.

This is a small sample size, and it's probably not a representative sample of Ron Paul supporters for some reason, but if it's anywhere close this says very good things about how he'll do, compared to how the phone polls (which poll only people who voted in Republican primaries in the past) say he's doing.

[Abobo]

Libertarian.... But, I would actually call myself a Rothbardian.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Libertarian.... But, I would actually call myself a Rothbardian.

ancap?

[BarryDonegan]

michael badnarik was my dawg for 04.

im a vote thrower awayer.

[Abobo]

ancap?

Yup.

[CasualApathy]

I believed in Anarchism to the greatest extent possible (some state, and laws cannot be avoided)

[Lord Xar]

really good poll

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I believed in Anarchism to the greatest extent possible (some state, and laws cannot be avoided)

I like voluntaryism. Ever hear of that? It's pretty much anarchism...

[CasualApathy]

I believed in Anarchism to the greatest extent possible (some state, and laws cannot be avoided)

Oh well, it worked in spain for a short time.

EDIT: for some reason i copied in stead of edit.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I believed in Anarchism to the greatest extent possible (some state, and laws cannot be avoided)

Oh well, it worked in spain for a short time.

Anarcho-syndicalism was about tried in Spain. Is that what you used to be? An anarcho-syndicalist? That's what Noam Chomsky is. I think the ideal would be much broader than that... voluntaryism - you do what you want, join voluntary societies, join organizations. Everything is all voluntary, all the interaction among individuals is completely voluntary.

Voluntary Social Interaction

we would all essentially become our own nations.

[CasualApathy]

I like voluntaryism. Ever hear of that? It's pretty much anarchism...

Ah yes, it is where you voulenteer taxes right?

[CasualApathy]

Anarcho-syndicalism was about tried in Spain. Is that what you used to be? An anarcho-syndicalist? That's what Noam Chomsky is. I think the ideal would be much broader than that... voluntaryism - you do what you want, join voluntary societies, join organizations. Everything is all voluntary, all the interaction among individuals is completely voluntary.

Voluntary Social Interaction

we would all essentially become our own nations.

It was not perfect for sure, and i do not know the finer destinctions, the point is that it proved that such a society could actually work.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It was not perfect for sure, and i do not know the finer destinctions, the point is that it proved that such a society could actually work.

uh no lol.. it's when you do whatever you want to do. Voluntary societies...voluntary organizations....voluntary everything.

[speciallyblend]

michael badnarik was my dawg for 04.

im a vote thrower awayer.

ony a vote for change RON PAUL 2008

[Brasil Branco]

Aww.... no love from the Greens :D

[wgadget]

I was an independent.

This is a small sample size, and it's probably not a representative sample of Ron Paul supporters for some reason, but if it's anywhere close this says very good things about how he'll do, compared to how the phone polls (which poll only people who voted in Republican primaries in the past) say he's doing.

It's also a pretty good tool to tell us who we should be aiming at in NH.

[nexalacer]

Accidentally clicked other... I was NONE before Ron Paul. I would have been Libertarian because I liked Ayn Rand when I was younger (still do) but I couldn't quite wrap my head around her whole philosophy... It seemed to have too many holes.

But Ron Paul led me to the sources that cleared up the holes... I'm very ancap now... so a Rothbardian-Libertarian.

Funny though, as far as I can remember, I've hated the state.... used to be hardcore anarchist.... don't what kind though.. just punk anarchist, heh.

[glts]

I voted none although I usually voted Republican. I have since come to realize it doesn't make a difference between Rep. and Dem. except for one exception RON Paul!

[Joey Wahoo]

In the past I've been a registered Democrat, Republican and Libertarian. Right now I'm registered Independent, but that will change before the primary.

[BuddyRey]

Like Bernie Sanders, I was an Independent who "caucused" with the Democrats. Though I always like to stay unaffiliated as a matter of principle (I vote for individual candidates, not parties!) I was a de facto Democrat pretty much right down the line.

I sent in my "affiliation change" application yesterday and felt a little queasy. :(

[Omnis]

Anarcho-syndicalism was about tried in Spain. Is that what you used to be? An anarcho-syndicalist? That's what Noam Chomsky is. I think the ideal would be much broader than that... voluntaryism - you do what you want, join voluntary societies, join organizations. Everything is all voluntary, all the interaction among individuals is completely voluntary.

Voluntary Social Interaction

we would all essentially become our own nations.

Wouldn't that kind of morph into some faction-war at some point?


Anyway, I was technically nothing (because I'm 18), but my family was more or less republican, with the exception of my grandma who was a "take care of me" socialist. I think my mom voted for Badnarik in 2004, though.

Regardless, I have my entire family on the Ron Paul boat.

[Hamburglar]

I was registered independent.

[paulitics]

so far any survey I've seen done with at least 100 or more polled shows that registered republicans make up about 25% of us. The wording of the poll question makes a difference as well. To get a sense of how big we are, we would imagine most libertarians support Paul, but only make up about 1% of the population as a whole. Therefore if libertarians are 1/6 of us, than we can surmise that maybe our polling numbers are around 6%. However, people may interpret the question differently, and may choose libertarian because they identify themselves with libertarian ideals, but are not actaully registered as libertarians.

[pcosmar]

I was Independent, though I leaned toward republican. Before 2003 I got all my news and information from the MSM.
In 2003 I got my first computer and going online opened up a lot of information.
I feel that I can make a more informed choice now.
That would be Ron Paul.

[Green Mountain Boy]

I've always been unaffiliated and I don't think that's going to change.

[FrankRep]

I voted for Bush. Sorry.

:-(

Party: Republican.

[Brasil Branco]

So I guess this might explain Ron Paul's low polling numbers... Maybe we can try to get as large a sample as possible?

[FrankRep]

So I guess this might explain Ron Paul's low polling numbers... Maybe we can try to get as large a sample as possible?

What explains the low polling numbers?

[Hurricane Bruiser]

Republican with libertarian mindset

[Captain Shays]

I registered as a Green in 2000 and voted for Nader. Then I continued my education about American history and the Constitution and realized I was more of a libertarian. Since then, here in New Jersey, I voted for Bednarik for president, Elizabeth Macron (L) for Senate, Bret Schundler (R) for Senate against Jon Corzine and voted Republican again against Corzine for governor.

There are more conservative minded Greens than one would believe and I was one of them, though I was always at odds with the socialist Greens I came in contact with. They pretty much dominate the Green Party today and I want nothing to do with them now. But one needs to consider the many cross-over issues (L)libertarians have with Greens.

We both believe in decentralization in many circumstances. Energy production/distribution, grass roots control of local issues and politics, water production and distribution and food production and distribution.

We also hold in common the support of Instant Runoff Voting and a disdain for diobold machines and electronic voting.

We're both anti-corporate welfare though the Greens are a little hypocritical on this because at the end of the day, they would support corporate welfare when its for solar or wind energy.

We're both for ballot access equality for third party candidates.

We're both against our involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.

We're both for legalization of marijuana and Hemp production and medical marijuana and at least with the Greens, though they are not for total decriminalization at the Ferderal level for ALL drugs, they are open to the discussion.



On most if not all of these issues the Democrats and Republicans are nearly identical and closer to eachother than they are different from either Greens or Libertarians.

So if you talk to Greens try to point these common issues out.

[Captain Shays]

I just want to ad that I have never voted for a Democrat.

[Brasil Branco]

Bump.

[Brasil Branco]

What explains the low polling numbers?

The fact that Republicans only account for 30% of Paul's base.

[mdh]

Really? With your name, I would have never known. :p

His avatar is straight out of the LNC logo too. :P

[mdh]

Which party did you belong to?

I'm asking because I see a lot of people, myself included sometimes, who refer to the GOP as they, them, the Republicans, etc.

We really need to start thinking in terms of us, we, and our party. For republicans, it's true that the 'ol GOP ain't what she used to be. However, it's our party, it's been taken hostage, and we need to rescue it.

For those who've joined the GOP to give a voice for Ron Paul, come on board the party and stop looking from the outside in. Even if its only for 8 years, I think a huge injection of Libertarians and Constitution Party input is exactly the prescription the GOP needs to rid itself of the neocon infection.

One thing is for sure - if the GOP fails to nominate Dr. Paul, it's not going to secure the presidency in 2008, and it's dead to us for good.

[paulitics]

One thing is for sure - if the GOP fails to nominate Dr. Paul, it's not going to secure the presidency in 2008, and it's dead to us for good.

Actually no, they can still win with an authoritative democrat like Giuliani. Hillary is polarizing and is the weakest democrat when matched up next to Giuliani. Obama and Edwards actually fair better in a national election, but just can't win the primary. The stupid neocon sheeple will put in a gun grabbing fascist against a gun grabbing marxist and think they really won. If Fred wins, then Hillary will win quite easily because Fred is Bush2.

[mdh]

Actually no, they can still win with an authoritative democrat like Giuliani. Hillary is polarizing and is the weakest democrat when matched up next to Giuliani. Obama and Edwards actually fair better in a national election, but just can't win the primary. The stupid neocon sheeple will put in a gun grabbing fascist against a gun grabbing marxist and think they really won. If Fred wins, then Hillary will win quite easily because Fred is Bush2.

You're wrong, and I'll tell you why. People perceive Hillary as being anti-war... the majority of people want the war to end. The Democrats have gone to great lengths to basically say "every Dem will end the war, every Rep will keep it going." It's become their party line, and is why any Dem will beat any Rep other than Ron Paul.

[JaylieWoW]

I am in the "None" category. I am one of the MILLIONS of citizens in this country who has never voted! I never really cared before because I thought things were just fine. There were some llaws I didn't like a whole lot and I've never liked paying taxes on my personal income, but it didn't seem like anything was too out of whack. What an eye opening I had coming to me!!!

Now I can't get enough of politics and political musings. I certainly NEVER donated to any candidate before and as of now I've donated $225 to the Ron Paul war chest. I sure wish I had more, I'd be contributing the maximum amount per quarter if I did.

[wgadget]

How about a commercial (TV and/or radio) directed SPECIFICALLY to people who have never voted??

Might be difficult for us due to our political junkie perspective, but could be VERY efficient at winning the nomination.

Hmmm. WHERE do you find politically apathetic people?

[JaylieWoW]

You're wrong, and I'll tell you why. People perceive Hillary as being anti-war... the majority of people want the war to end. The Democrats have gone to great lengths to basically say "every Dem will end the war, every Rep will keep it going." It's become their party line, and is why any Dem will beat any Rep other than Ron Paul.

I Ditto that!

The Republican support for this war under the guise of "honor" is the most dishonest and despicable thing I think I've ever seen in my life. At least a robber is honest enough to say/show they are going to rob you for their own personal gratification and enrichment!! What I find completely amazing is how stupid supporters of this war are to not realize it!

Tell me, how it is "honorable" to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians? Further, I don't see how bringing our troops home lends itself to being dishonorable. Our troops are over there doing their best to "win" against impossible odds. Why would anyone say their effort, win or lose, is without honor?

Hogwash I say!! I admire the courage our troops have displayed. What I don't admire is: the willingness of our politicians to continue to put them in harms way, their lack of an exit strategy, and their ego-headed refusal to accept and admit THEY WERE F#@%*&^ WRONG to go into Iraq!!!

No, they'd rather throw more HONORABLE and COURAGEOUS men and women's lives away in an attempt to accomplish... what is it they are trying to accomplish? I want to know dammit, WHAT THE HELL DO THEY WANT??!!

Do they honestly believe that by doing exactly what the terrorists want us to do we're accomplishing anything? Don't answer that, I already know the answer, I just wish they'd be less "political" and be more "honest" with themselves and, more importantly, "we the people". Deep down inside they know Ron Paul is right, but to admit it would mean they diminish their importance, reliability, and electability. The latter however is because they operate under the assumption that we the people are too stupid to see through all their talk of honor and jingoistic rhetoric. No, we're too stupid to see what's really going on.

[jumpyg1258]

I was registered as Independent before finding out about Ron Paul. I have never voted in a presidential election, but I will now. In 06, most of the politicians I voted for were democrats.

[Craig_R]

Libertarian by default, considered the constitution party but have a hard time with the "god" thing. the LP has made a pretty dramatic shift in its message and I'm not too happy with it, they're now coming off as fiscally responsible liberals instead of champions of Maximum liberty.

I dont meet alot of Libertarians who agree with open borders and usually end up in long arguments with those I do come across.

The GOP tent got too big, and they strayed from thier original stances (aside from Paul and a few others)

we really need to undo all the election laws that hinder third party participation.

[mdh]

I'm kind of surprised there are more Greens that Constitution Party folks.

[mdh]

Libertarian by default, considered the constitution party but have a hard time with the "god" thing. the LP has made a pretty dramatic shift in its message and I'm not too happy with it, they're now coming off as fiscally responsible liberals instead of champions of Maximum liberty.

Woah, what do you mean by 'liberals'? The LP has always been about "classical liberalism" as well as "paleoconservativism" (which mean about the same thing as libertarianism - the socialists stole liberal, neocons stole conservative... doh.)

As far as a drastic shift in message, I'm not sure what you mean. If you're referring to the platform changes in 2006, I'm not sure how it's really changed the message or the substance of the LP at all. The candidates the LP puts forth are still the same human beings they always were.

As far as the Constitution Party, they seem to want to basically be the LP for hardcore Christians... and they are very good folks from what I can tell... I'm just not a hardcore Christian, personally. There is certainly a base of "evangelical atheists" within the ranks of the LP, which personally tends to annoy me, because those people should've been welcomed into the ranks of the LP and probably weren't. Nyeh. I digress.

Please do elaborate. :)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Wouldn't that kind of morph into some faction-war at some point?


Anyway, I was technically nothing (because I'm 18), but my family was more or less republican, with the exception of my grandma who was a "take care of me" socialist. I think my mom voted for Badnarik in 2004, though.

Regardless, I have my entire family on the Ron Paul boat.

All the members would have an agreement to fight tyranny. What is tyranny? People that decidedly choose to rule over people against their will. A mentality has to be changed before you can implement this sort of system. There's two forms IMO. One form that revolves around a nation state of individuals and one that engulfs the entire world. What kind of societies would there be? Anything under the sky. All voluntary though. Free associations and the ability to opt out. Would there be a central government? It's a matter of opinion. I think that there's a possibility of an individual government where each citizen would have a "seat." It wouldn't be an organization to legislate people, it would be a a government that legislates itself, is completely voluntary, and sort of creates a "Mutual Defense Pact" among all members. It would fight against tyranny, it could oust tyrants from the organization, but this organization is optional in itself, you could implement voluntaryism in a variety of other ways as well. I guess the simplest way to explain is that each individual would be their own mobile sovereign nation.

[paulitics]

You're wrong, and I'll tell you why. People perceive Hillary as being anti-war... the majority of people want the war to end. The Democrats have gone to great lengths to basically say "every Dem will end the war, every Rep will keep it going." It's become their party line, and is why any Dem will beat any Rep other than Ron Paul.

Most polls that pit Giuliani vs Hillary have it dead even or Giuliani winning slightly. That is a more important indicator than anything we say. Any other democrat would probably beat Giuliani in a landslide, but due to the polarizing nature of Billary and her ambiguous stance on Iran and Iraq, it becomes more grey. Obama would actually be the shoe in for the democrats, not Hillary. When it comes down to it, Giuliani is not much different than Hillary on most issues, and he may be a little more charasmatic and photogenic than Hillary. Also, democrats don't show up to vote as much on election day, so even though less people support the war, it does not guarantee victory.

[RevolutionSD]

These results are VERY good news and show how inaccurate the so-called scientific polls will have been proven to be come the elections. MOST (more than half) of Ron Paul's support is coming from OUTSIDE the Republican party, meaning, most of us would not be called in an "official" poll.

[john_anderson_ii]

These results are awesome! We do come from a diverse political background.

That is why any democrat won't stand a chance against the revolution, should the republicans wise up and nominate Ron Paul.

[Delaware]

I consider myself a traditional conservative, and before hearing about Ron Paul i was going to register with the Constitution Party, being only 18 and politically active.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I consider myself a traditional conservative, and before hearing about Ron Paul i was going to register with the Constitution Party, being only 18 and politically active.

The CP is a bit too far on the right for me lol

[RP4ME]

These results are VERY good news and show how inaccurate the so-called scientific polls will have been proven to be come the elections. MOST (more than half) of Ron Paul's support is coming from OUTSIDE the Republican party, meaning, most of us would not be called in an "official" poll.

Yes but how to translate that into a Nomination by the GOP?? I hope THEY look at that number too.....

In my state we dont have primaries - selected GOP delgates cast their vot. Pat Roberston is a delegate in our state ( who seems to support a police state and chipping peopel if you watch his show, which if you are a Christain you should find shoking)- so Im sure its quite political to get selected. It makes it frustrating to understand how we can effcet change where it counts. it great RP has popular support but teh reality is that wont necessarily get him teh Nom unless we figure out thsi process and how to do that. Any ideas in states that dont have primaries??? How many are there liek ours?

[paulitics]

Yes but how to translate that into a Nomination by the GOP?? I hope THEY look at that number too.....

In my state we dont have primaries - selected GOP delgates cast their vot. Pat Roberston is a delegate in our state ( who seems to support a police state and chipping peopel if you watch his show, which if you are a Christain you should find shoking)- so Im sure its quite political to get selected. It makes it frustrating to understand how we can effcet change where it counts. it great RP has popular support but teh reality is that wont necessarily get him teh Nom unless we figure out thsi process and how to do that. Any ideas in states that dont have primaries??? How many are there liek ours?


Are you kidding me about the chip? This is forbidden in the Bible? lol He is really an agent of the Devil if he makes it a point to tell his sheeple to get the mark of the beast.

What state are you in that doesn't have a primary?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Pat Roberston is an asshole. I watched this movie where he called a caller that disagreed with him a homosexual.. then was laughing about it.

[amonasro]

I was a Neocon who listened to Hannity, Rush, and Savage. I still do, but with a completely different ear. It took about an hour of watching RP to convert to his camp :)

[SeanEdwards]

Decline to state.

Bitches.

:D

[SeanEdwards]

What explains the low polling numbers?

The 'scientific' polls generally only poll people who were registered republican in the previous election cycle. They call it 'likely republican voters'. It's a bunch of crap. One of my favorite sayings is:

"70% of all statistics are wrong"

;)

Mark Twain's comment was classic too:

"There's lies, damn lies, and statistics."

[Ozwest]

If scientific polls are arriving at a figure of 3% support for Dr. Paul based on calling previously registered Republicans the figures indicated in our little poll have staggering implications. His REAL support would be about 10% if we accept the data coming from this threads poll. The importance of GETTING PEOPLE REGISTERED AS REPUBLICANS in States where it is a requirement to vote in their primaries is crucial!

[paulitics]

If scientific polls are arriving at a figure of 3% support for Dr. Paul based on calling previously registered Republicans the figures indicated in our little poll have staggering implications. His REAL support would be about 10% if we accept the data coming from this threads poll. The importance of GETTING PEOPLE REGISTERED AS REPUBLICANS in States where it is a requirement to vote in their primaries is crucial!

exactly. Especially NH and Iowa.

[Danny Molina]

Democrat.

If Ron Paul doesn't win (which he will) then i'm voting for Hillary.

[Paulitician]

Democrat.

If Ron Paul doesn't win (which he will) then i'm voting for Hillary.
Why not just stay home? I mean, Hillary? She's no better than the neo-cons.

By the way, I've never voted because I was never old enough to vote. Now I am. Last year, before I knew of Ron Paul, I was thinking that if I'd ever vote (I had my doubts back then) then it'd most likely be for a Democrat. I'm now very disullisioned, and will never waste my vote on anyone but a true, patriotic statesmen such as Ron Paul (has to be someone with a libertarian/conservative slant when it comes to government & economics though). If that means I'll never vote again, then so be it.

[MikeStanart]

My family has always been die-hard Neo-cons. It took a while for me to wise up and realize the neo-cons are full of themselves; so I took the less-traveled path and proclaimed myself a libertarian.

However; I still felt something was missing. Then Ron Paul showed up, and showed me how a REAL Republican is suppose to be.

Now i'm a Ron Paul Republican. AKA: Constitutional Republican.

[Danny Molina]

Why not just stay home? I mean, Hillary? She's no better than the neo-cons.

By the way, I've never voted because I was never old enough to vote. Now I am. Last year, before I knew of Ron Paul, I was thinking that if I'd ever vote (I had my doubts back then) then it'd most likely be for a Democrat. I'm now very disullisioned, and will never waste my vote on anyone but a true, patriotic statesmen such as Ron Paul (has to be someone with a libertarian/conservative slant when it comes to government & economics though). If that means I'll never vote again, then so be it.

I liked the Clinton's atleast things were stable durring Bill's administration. Another reason why is i'm very liberal when it comes to social issues.

--------------

Even if you don't like any of the candidates not voting is rediculous. You could atleast go to vote on the propisitions and local officials.

[john_anderson_ii]

I liked the Clinton's atleast things were stable durring Bill's administration. Another reason why is i'm very liberal when it comes to social issues.

--------------

Even if you don't like any of the candidates not voting is rediculous. You could atleast go to vote on the propisitions and local officials.

That would be nice if the liberals were liberal on social issues. They try to give people freedom to do as they please, but at the same feel they must nanny people.

You should be safe and secure in your home, but you can't have a gun.
You are free to travel and see the world, but you must wear a helmet or seat belt.
You can dive into the free market and become entrepreneurial, but we'll take your money and give it to "those less fortunate".
You can become a mogul of an industry, until that industry gets big enough to warrant "management" and regulation.

Too many contradictions. I'll go libertarian for the rest of my life if the we republicans are too stupid to nominate Ron Paul. If they blow this, the neocon republican party can rot.

[john_anderson_ii]

BTW, someone who has a blog that people besides Ron Paul supporters actually read should blog this poll after we get a few more unique responses, I think 250 politically active Ron Paul supporters would qualify as "representative" of the whole.

You really can't spin these numbers. We all support Ron Paul, yet we come from different political parties. They call that a "fusion candidate".

[ghemminger]

Amazing

[ghemminger]

so many nones

[Sematary]

I wish there were a national poll on this question.

I'd also like to know what percentage of Republicans are NEW Republicans who switched over ONLY for Ron Paul (like myself).

[Sematary]

so many nones

I answered none, even though I always vote libertarian. I've never BEEN a Libertarian, though. I've always been an independent.

[quickmike]

Republican, but voted for Badnarik in 04, George "dickhole" Bush in 00, Buchanan in 96(actually didnt vote in 96, but supported him)


Its Ron Paul for me all the way. Otherwise, im gonna cast my vote for Hillary in the general if he doesnt get the "nod"(i hate that expression) and drive this country down the f--ckin tubes just that much quicker. I know thats mean, but hey, people get what they deserve, so if they dont want Ron, they should recieve exactly that.

[Ozwest]

This poll was a great idea! Another way of using the resources this forum provides.

[john_anderson_ii]

Bump!

Want to make sure everyone is represented.

[wgadget]

I hope all the "nones" are registering Republican if need be.

[JoshLowry]

bump for more votes!

[robatsu]

Repub, although I tended to register as independent since I'm against the government recognizing any political party in law. To me, its a private association.

[ThePieSwindler]

Democrat.

If Ron Paul doesn't win (which he will) then i'm voting for Hillary.

...

[UCFGavin]

pretty surprising to see libertarian so low and republican and none so high. i know a lot of support comes from republicans, but the internet tends to be more populated with libertarians.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

look at the nones lol