why Ron Paul really has problems with the polls

[atilla]

Ron Paul's problem with the polls is freedom is not popular. let's face it, most people in this country or elsewhere, really want to be told what to do and to be taken care of. now they may complain about their taxes being too high, or they may complain about the pigs arresting them for smoking the ganga. but when it comes right down to it, they don't want to depend on themselves.

maybe i'm overly sensitive because i have so many scumbag relatives always with a handout, always wanting help, but i see it everywhere. that is the fundamental root of ron paul, you take responsibility for yourself. you succeed you fail you prosper you starve and it's all on you. no government to bail you out, no one to make sure you don't do something stupid. you are on your own. if you run out of gas for the 15th time and are stranded in bumfuck eqypt with no money, good luck because no one is riding to your rescue.

i don't want to be dependent on anyone. i don't want any help. i know no matter what happens i have the intelligence and physical strength to survive. but that is not the american people, they are on average, average or below. they want their betters to take care of them. they think they deserve it.

for those who think, well what about the founders, wasn't freedom popular then, and if so why couldn't it be so today. well, women couldn't vote and if you look back you'll see much of the growth in government came after women got the vote. women in an anthropological sense have the desire to be taken care of and protected. that is why the institution of marriage developed, women demanded security. what we have today in george w and guilianni is the epitome of the feminization of america. everyone safe warm and cozy, just like women are programed by nature to desire.

the second case is of course in early america only landowning white men where allowed to vote. and practically that did not include dirt farmers homesteading on the frontier either. the voters where the elite white males, men confident they could take care of themselves. men with enough resources to not have to worry about their future. today only a small minority of voters fit in that class.

if ron paul were a demagogue he could possibly win new hampshire, but he will never compromise his principles enough to win the nomination.

the people who support ron paul do so passionately and with money, but the elite is by definition a small minority.

i wish ron paul could be president, but the common man doesn't want to be free, the comman woman wants to be taken care of. dissagree if you like, but you reading this are by and large an elite. if you are not an elite person and are support ron paul, you just don't get it.

i'm going back to "freedom in an unfree world" mode even though that weasel harry browne ran for president. see you after the revolution.

[Elwar]

This helps Ron Paul get elected how?

[Ron Paul Fan]

Tucker, is that you?

[kylejack]

Atilla, you speak the truth. Now let's get out there and change minds and smash broken ideologies.

[RonPaulFever]

boo-urns

[Bradley in DC]

First of all, the juxtaposition of your avatar and name freaks me out...

More to the point, the polls reflect that few people follow politics and fewer know who Dr. Paul is much less that we need him to save our country.

[kylejack]

First of all, the juxtaposition of your avatar and name freaks me out...

More to the point, the polls reflect that few people follow politics and fewer know who Dr. Paul is much less that we need him to save our country.

Those who do follow politics generally have much more of a big government perspective than Ron Paul, I think you must admit.

[paulitics]

No the message is popular. Look at what happens after each debate, a huge spike in support suggesting more and more people are enthusiastic about limited govt. A year ago I would have agreed with you , and so likely would Ron Paul himself. Things have changed, and the movement is real.

However the real reason we are low in the polls, is the phone poll in most cases does not reach the untapped independent market or even the libertarian base. Its no conspiracy, just common sense based on how the polling companies work.

Our problem is that we are neglecting the early primary states (with the exception of the grassrooters who live in those states). Mitt Romney is only 7% or less in alot of states, yet he may win the election because he is the frontrunner in the early states. If we adopted the same strategy, with the message as unique and popualr as it is, we could beat him. We should not be running a campaign like Giuliani who has millions and the establishment behind him.

[JPFromTally]

How dare you call Harry Browne a weasel. He was 1,000 times the man you are.

[Bradley in DC]

However the real reason we are low in the polls, is the phone poll in most cases does not reach the untapped independent market or even the libertarian base. Its no conspiracy, just common sense based on how the polling companies work.

You're right it's no conspiracy, but I disagree with your sense (though it is common). The polling companies match demographics with their samples. There is no "untapped" market. Members of this forum with no land line have participated in these polls.

[walt]

You're right it's no conspiracy, but I disagree with your sense (though it is common). The polling companies match demographics with their samples. There is no "untapped" market. Members of this forum with no land line have participated in these polls.

uhm, they leave him off the questionaire, they are paid for by the media, the circle continues.

[dude58677]

You are completely mistating Ron Paul's positions. First Ron Paul has made it clear that government dependency is a State and local issue. Second, he is supportive of helping the lower and middle class by having sound money.

[paulitics]

also only bout 10% of people really know and understand who Ron Paul is, therefore to be at 4% in the polls further suggests that RP has a high closing ratio. The only 2 candidates running at 100% familiarity are Giuliani and Clinton.
Most people don't know who Huckabee is, and maybe half the people even know who Mitt Romney is. 60% of Americans don't vote.
Half the people in this country don't know basic things like who the vice president is, that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 911, etc. So it is ignorance and manipulation of the media that is responsible. People deep down inside have an innate desire to be free. Governments have to lie and deceive people to enslave them, which they have been quite succesful at. No truly ignorant people can be a free people.

[steph3n]

uhm, they leave him off the questionaire, they are paid for by the media, the circle continues.

this is propaganda, it may have been so 6 months back, but he is on the questions now, I have answered them for zogby (no other official one yet)

[dude58677]

I watched the video and it was obvious to me that Tucker was bashing Paul, he even went on to say we are going to have 8 years of Hilliary. I think he was patronizing us from the beginning. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[RevolutionSD]

Or it might have SOMETHING to do with the fact that around 77% of Ron Paul's supporters DID NOT vote in the 2004 Republican primaries, therefore eliminating the possibility of being called in a so-called "scientific" poll.

Occam's Razor people- it's not that difficut to see why Ron Paul is "low in the polls but popular on the internet". While Romney and Giuliani's phone poll numbers may be indicative of the votes they will likely get, Ron Paul's are not, simply because they are not calling us.

[mconder]

I think the message is popular, but most people haven't heard it and don't know they need it...that is until they hear Ron Paul for the first time.

[steph3n]

this is much more on target than the other issues, because many times they used the state's party affiliation list to get their "potential voters" to poll.


Or it might have SOMETHING to do with the fact that around 77% of Ron Paul's supporters DID NOT vote in the 2004 Republican primaries, therefore eliminating the possibility of being called in a so-called "scientific" poll.

Occam's Razor people- it's not that difficut to see why Ron Paul is "low in the polls but popular on the internet". While Romney and Giuliani's phone poll numbers may be indicative of the votes they will likely get, Ron Paul's are not, simply because they are not calling us.

[paulitics]

You're right it's no conspiracy, but I disagree with your sense (though it is common). The polling companies match demographics with their samples. There is no "untapped" market. Members of this forum with no land line have participated in these polls.

What do you mean there is no untapped market? They would have to make exceptions to Ron Paul and include the other 70% + of us who do not fit the criteria of likely republican voters. Its like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.

Ron paul is at 4% of the likely republican voters, just like Fred thompson is at 20%. Where do they add into the equation the vast majority of us who do not fit the criteria. Based on what I have read from the polling techniques, we are treated the same as Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney or am I missing something?

[rp4prez]

I read the subject and skimmed your post and just from that I actually disagree with your opinion about why RP is doing poorly in the polls. My personal opinion is that the polls are not conducted correctly. I'm almost positive that if a true poll was done where everyone was polled and not just based on the rules of the company doing the polling RP would be doing a ton better. I would even ponder a guess of around 10% instead of the 2-4% he's getting with the pollsters.

Therefore, I think freedom is popular! Just not with the ignorant group that is getting polled. :)

[kylejack]

I watched the video and it was obvious to me that Tucker was bashing Paul, he even went on to say we are going to have 8 years of Hilliary. I think he was patronizing us from the beginning. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Insufficient. Only more :mad: faces can stop Tucker. Try to include at least 12 in every post.

[Sematary]

The polls are unimportant at this point. What IS important is spreading the word of Liberty and Freedom and talking up Ron Paul. After my workout this morning I'm going to hand out slimjims. I hope some of you will also be out there!

[alicegardener]

Back to the original post. Its seems you are blaming women for the growth in big government.

A woman who marries a guy for security, only to find a bum running her life from his couch, will soon dump him. Tell women voters our government has turned out to be a bossy parasite.

[Sematary]

Insufficient. Only more :mad: faces can stop Tucker. Try to include at least 12 in every post.

Who cares about Tucker? Spread the message of Freedom and Liberty and an end to the Iraq war!

[kylejack]

Who cares about Tucker? Spread the message of Freedom and Liberty and an end to the Iraq war!

I was kidding. :)

[Thunderbolt]

I have yet to meet a stranger who knows who Ron Paul is. I ask everyone I meet every day. That is why his poll numbers are low.

[Original_Intent]

To the OP I mostly agree with your post except in regards to women.

Yes many women may want to be taken care of, but I think more importantly, women are by nature more nurturing and compassionate than men.

The impact of this on politics since women have gotten the right to vote is that women vote to take care of people (they are not voting to have themselves taken care of, as you assert, they see suffering and vote to "fix it")

I agree with the gist of your post though. Not sure what we do about it, and some of our most ardent freedom fighters are women. Once they "get it" they are far more implacable than most of us men in fighting for liberty.

[wbbgjr]

I don't disagree with the poster entirely. however, I don't think most people fully realize government handouts aren't really free. Try to point out the obvious...

that these things aren't free. Either we keep our money and we have the freedom to spend as we wish or we give it to the govt and they spend our money as they wish..

Another thing to counter the argument that we need to "do it for the children" is to point out that the u.s. government is in debt and anything we spend now future generations will have to pay for it.

[Bradley in DC]

uhm, they leave him off the questionaire, they are paid for by the media, the circle continues.

A poll not including Dr. Paul does not claim to represent Dr. Paul's support. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Again, people who don't understand this profession should leave their misperceptions behind and try to understand it before spouting idiotic crap.

[Bradley in DC]

What do you mean there is no untapped market? They would have to make exceptions to Ron Paul and include the other 70% + of us who do not fit the criteria of likely republican voters. Its like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.

Ron paul is at 4% of the likely republican voters, just like Fred thompson is at 20%. Where do they add into the equation the vast majority of us who do not fit the criteria. Based on what I have read from the polling techniques, we are treated the same as Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney or am I missing something?

The premise of your questions shows you don't understand the profession. They are trying to find 4% of Paul supporters to match some preconceived idea of likely Republican voters. They are looking for likely Republican voters based on their criteria. Our Meetup group is doing the same thing: identifying "supervoters" who are most likely to turn out in our primary, ie, those Republicans (we have a closed primary here) who usually vote. The round peg is your misperception, the square hole is reality, you should be able to figure out which one needs to adjust. ;)

We are going to win the Republican primary here because we have a core of volunteers using their professional experience in politics, polling, database, statistics, etc. We're not whining about the fact no one is doing ANY polls for ANY Republicans in DC (there are very few of us).

[rodent]

Bottom Line: No one gets taken care of if the dollar collapses.


Ron Paul's problem with the polls is freedom is not popular. let's face it, most people in this country or elsewhere, really want to be told what to do and to be taken care of. now they may complain about their taxes being too high, or they may complain about the pigs arresting them for smoking the ganga. but when it comes right down to it, they don't want to depend on themselves.

maybe i'm overly sensitive because i have so many scumbag relatives always with a handout, always wanting help, but i see it everywhere. that is the fundamental root of ron paul, you take responsibility for yourself. you succeed you fail you prosper you starve and it's all on you. no government to bail you out, no one to make sure you don't do something stupid. you are on your own. if you run out of gas for the 15th time and are stranded in bumfuck eqypt with no money, good luck because no one is riding to your rescue.

i don't want to be dependent on anyone. i don't want any help. i know no matter what happens i have the intelligence and physical strength to survive. but that is not the american people, they are on average, average or below. they want their betters to take care of them. they think they deserve it.

for those who think, well what about the founders, wasn't freedom popular then, and if so why couldn't it be so today. well, women couldn't vote and if you look back you'll see much of the growth in government came after women got the vote. women in an anthropological sense have the desire to be taken care of and protected. that is why the institution of marriage developed, women demanded security. what we have today in george w and guilianni is the epitome of the feminization of america. everyone safe warm and cozy, just like women are programed by nature to desire.

the second case is of course in early america only landowning white men where allowed to vote. and practically that did not include dirt farmers homesteading on the frontier either. the voters where the elite white males, men confident they could take care of themselves. men with enough resources to not have to worry about their future. today only a small minority of voters fit in that class.

if ron paul were a demagogue he could possibly win new hampshire, but he will never compromise his principles enough to win the nomination.

the people who support ron paul do so passionately and with money, but the elite is by definition a small minority.

i wish ron paul could be president, but the common man doesn't want to be free, the comman woman wants to be taken care of. dissagree if you like, but you reading this are by and large an elite. if you are not an elite person and are support ron paul, you just don't get it.

i'm going back to "freedom in an unfree world" mode even though that weasel harry browne ran for president. see you after the revolution.

[EvoPro]

I have answered them for zogby (no other official one yet)

You have been called? Please elaborate. Thanks.

[spivey378]

spoke with my uncle about paul yesterday, i guess he heard about him the day before. most likely because of the donors :)

[fj45lvr]

I still must assert that instead of TALK about "scientific" polls....why don't 40 of us talk to 5 complete strangers at random that will vote Republican and ask who their #1 guy is and report back....these "polls" aren't what you would think....this method could give a better representation without any "BIAS".

Anyone??

[robatsu]

Anyone who thinks that some number wildly at variance with current scientific polling of 2 to 4%, like 10 or 15% of the people out there support RP is divorced from reality.

That's not to say that a much larger percentage of the people that currently profess support would if informed/engaged, which is our job. It also doesn't say that RP won't do much better in the election polls than he does in the scientific polls. Election polls take more effort, and RP supporters have that on their side.

Me, my experience sitting in booths and canvassing strangers is that it seems like the support for RP is a little higher than than scientific polls, but not grossly so.

[fj45lvr]

.

Me, my experience sitting in booths and canvassing strangers is that it seems like the support for RP is a little higher than than scientific polls, but not grossly so.

I would wager a bet to say that if we polled 200 people across the country randomly that at least half would not even have heard of Paul...and I would bet that he would have about 15 supporters of 200....

I guess we never will really know til election day (and potentially even that might not be accurate either).

[robatsu]

I would wager a bet to say that if we polled 200 people across the country randomly that at least half would not even have heard of Paul...and I would bet that he would have about 15 supporters of 200....

That has been my experience. Anyone who thinks that some huge percentage of Americans support (rather than would support if informed) RP is spending too much time at the keyboard and not canvassing people.

[paulitics]

The premise of your questions shows you don't understand the profession. They are trying to find 4% of Paul supporters to match some preconceived idea of likely Republican voters. They are looking for likely Republican voters based on their criteria. Our Meetup group is doing the same thing: identifying "supervoters" who are most likely to turn out in our primary, ie, those Republicans (we have a closed primary here) who usually vote. The round peg is your misperception, the square hole is reality, you should be able to figure out which one needs to adjust. ;)

We are going to win the Republican primary here because we have a core of volunteers using their professional experience in politics, polling, database, statistics, etc. We're not whining about the fact no one is doing ANY polls for ANY Republicans in DC (there are very few of us).

The criteria of likely to vote republican that are being called upon are those who are registered republican or have voted in republican primaries. From what I read and what I understand, the pollsters are not calling a RANDOM list of people (with all past political affiliaitions included) and asking "will you vote in the 2006 republican primary?" and including these people in the poll. The two samples are completely different, and will yield dramtically different results. The first will include crossover voters, the second will not. 70% of us are not republican.

Now if this is wrong, you can clearly elaborate their methods (with a source if possible ) that shows their sample is at first randomly selected, instead of a prescreened list of republicans, OR if they are using a ratio to compensate for the varience.

If you think a sample of prescreened list of republicans would yield the same results that include libertarian, democrats, and independents, than actually explain how this is logically possible.

[robatsu]

Well, I guess I'm contending that any random sampling of just about any group other than ron paul supporters or something narrow like gold bugs, isn't going to somehow offer up a sample of 30% support for Paul. Anyone who thinks this is not true should just go around and ask people or man a booth, hand out slim jims to random people.

But keep in mind that just because Paul gets 4%, that doesn't mean 96% of the people oppose him. It just means they haven't heard of him, for the most part.

Me, I'm positive even if the polls were held tomorrow, Paul would stun the establishment, even if he didn't win, by getting a far greater tally than scientific polls. Thats because the polls don't normalize for the extreme, off the chart passion of RP that will result in nearly 100% turnout of his supporters. Last cycle, repub primaries only attracted around 20% or so of those eligible.

So there are plenty of things that are wrong about saying scientific polls=election poll results. But when they say 4% among random schmoes called, its probably right within a factor of 2 as anyone walking down sidewalk with slimjims can attest. The bad assumption is that RP supporters will have the same yield rate as the random schmoes for Romney, whoever.

[paulitics]

I think that 4% of random schmoes is too high, because random schmoes are like 300 million people , thats 12 million people.

But I think that of the 10 million or so that will vote in the republican primaries, more than 4% will vote for Paul based on crossover alone.

I am not an optimist however, I still think we are facing a huge uphill battle, and can't run a national campaign like Giuliani and expect to win. We can have a much greater effect locally in the early primary states.

[robatsu]

I think that 4% of random schmoes is too high, because random schmoes are like 300 million people , thats 12 million people.

But I think that of the 10 million or so that will vote in the republican primaries, more than 4% will vote for Paul based on crossover alone.

I am not an optimist however, I still think we are facing a huge uphill battle, and can't run a national campaign like Giuliani and expect to win. We can have a much greater effect locally in the early primary states.

I agree with this except for the part about a national campaign. This may be true of the official campaign, but obviously the unofficial campaign, which no other candidate enjoys, is national in scope.

The tactic of bunching the primaries, meant to prevent lesser candidates against gaining momentum in a slog through spaced out polling, and don't have the money to campaign simultaneously in many elections, was crafted with traditional campaigns in mind. Although the chore is still daunting, this tactic is somewhat less effective against the non-traditional unofficial Paul campaign. I'm pretty sure there will be Paul activities in every state leading up to their primaries, at least on a scope by that which could be purchased by a "first tier" candidate. Heck, we're seeing that now (I already see a lot more Paul signs than any other candidate, Dem or Repub), although we're grappling with media bias, which is and will probably remain one of the greatest obstacles.

[Bradley in DC]

The criteria of likely to vote republican that are being called upon are those who are registered republican or have voted in republican primaries. From what I read and what I understand, the pollsters are not calling a RANDOM list of people (with all past political affiliaitions included) and asking "will you vote in the 2006 republican primary?" and including these people in the poll. The two samples are completely different, and will yield dramtically different results. The first will include crossover voters, the second will not. 70% of us are not republican.

Now if this is wrong, you can clearly elaborate their methods (with a source if possible ) that shows their sample is at first randomly selected, instead of a prescreened list of republicans, OR if they are using a ratio to compensate for the varience.

If you think a sample of prescreened list of republicans would yield the same results that include libertarian, democrats, and independents, than actually explain how this is logically possible.

You're right in that surveys of "likely Republican voters" are not surveys of the general population. Do a data request at your local Board of Elections (I'm on my second one since this summer). It will show a voting history, and it's easy to identify those "supervoters" who routinely vote in the primary.

Different polling samples will give different results, but each poll represents only what it claims to represent. People need to take a deep breathe about all of this. If a poll doesn't include Dr. Paul, it doesn't claim to represent how much support he has. If it samples one population, they only claim it represents that population; nothing more, nothing less.

Trying to claim THEY CLAIM things different than they do is the source of most of the misundertandings. If they say that they have a 95% confidence that the the results of what they claim to survey are within the margin of error, plus or minus, it's probably true. How relevant different surveys are (and none very much so this early) are open to honest interpretations.

[max]

i agree and disagree....

what the polls reflect is that the herd votes for who the media tells them to vote for.

If Ron Paul were to get the degree of positive media attention that Rudy-Romney-Hillary-Obama get...he'd be leading.

Many people STILL havent heard about him!

That being said, there is a substantial element of our society that wants government to wipe their asses for them, but they are democrats.

the problem we face in GOP primary is lack of media covereage and republicans who equate warmongering with "patriotism".

I also agree that women's suffrage was a disaster. Emotion, weakness, and illogic have no place in governing a nation. No disrespect to our female RP supporters, but they should undersatnd that logic-based liberty loving women will always be a majority of the female population.

Voting should be restricted to males 21 and older with IQ's in the top 30%...who are willing to pay a small poll tax ($30 or so) Had that been the case all along, our Constitution would never have been undermined as it has and socialism would not even gain a foothold.

[kylejack]

i agree and disagree....

what the polls reflect is that the herd votes for who the media tells them to vote for.

If Ron Paul were to get the degree of positive media attention that Rudy-Romney-Hillary-Obama get...he'd be leading.

Many people STILL havent heard about him!

That being said, there is a substantial element of our society that wants government to wipe their asses for them, but they are democrats.

the problem we face in GOP primary is lack of media covereage and republicans who equate warmongering with "patriotism".

I also agree that women's suffrage was a disaster. Emotion, weakness, and illogic have no place in governing a nation. No disrespect to our female RP supporters, but they should undersatnd that logic-based liberty loving women will always be a majority of the female population.

Voting should be restricted to males 21 and older with IQ's in the top 30%...who are willing to pay a small poll tax ($30 or so) Had that been the case all along, our Constitution would never have been undermined as it has and socialism would not even gain a foothold.
Uh, no. Our Constitution had blacks worth 3/5 of a person also. That's ridiculous.

[xerxesdarius]

I also agree that women's suffrage was a disaster. Emotion, weakness, and illogic have no place in governing a nation. No disrespect to our female RP supporters, but they should undersatnd that logic-based liberty loving women will always be a majority of the female population.

Voting should be restricted to males 21 and older with IQ's in the top 30%...who are willing to pay a small poll tax ($30 or so) Had that been the case all along, our Constitution would never have been undermined as it has and socialism would not even gain a foothold.

By that measure, you would not be eligible to vote. Anyone that seriously believes that men and women can be generalized in that fashion is seriously stupid. :p

[max]

Uh, no. Our Constitution had blacks worth 3/5 of a person also. That's ridiculous.

The 3/5ths rule is misunderstood. That was set up to limit the infleunce of southern states who wanted to count their slave population in order to increase their number of House seats....

If slaves were counted as "wholes"...the slave states would have had far more seats

[kylejack]

The 3/5ths rule is misunderstood. That was set up to limit the infleunce of southern states who wanted to count their slave population in order to increase their number of House seats....

If slaves were counted as "wholes"...the slave states would have had far more seats

Right, but the point is that they were not considered people. Old enough to go to war is old enough to vote, and women deserve equal rights to men, and a poll tax is antithetical to a free society.

[max]

By that measure, you would not be eligible to vote. Anyone that seriously believes that men and women can be generalized in that fashion is seriously stupid. :p

its not a generality...


go to any movie with a sad ending and take note of how many women are tearing vs the men.

I love women for the softness they bring into this world to ease our burdens.....but this admirable trait in a woman is not suitable for making serious decisions such as choosing our leaders.

A Lot of chicks will vote for Romney over Ron because he's tall, handsome, and has a deep voice. Is that any way to preserve a civilization?

[max]

Right, but the point is that they were not considered people. Old enough to go to war is old enough to vote, and women deserve equal rights to men, and a poll tax is antithetical to a free society.

Voting is not a "right"...It's a privilege that should be reseved for those who have some basic intelligence.

The poll tax keeps the hordes of mooching dregs - who would take us all down - away from the voting machines...

If liberty is your goal....you must defend her against ilogical and unintelliegent fools who will vote us all into serfdom...

Rule by the mob is the twin of rule by a despot...the two are opposite ends of the same pincer movement

[briatx]

A Lot of chicks will vote for Romney over Ron because he's tall, handsome, and has a deep voice.

A lot of PEOPLE will do that, men and women. Just ask the experts on who looks/sounds the most presidential.

[paulitics]

I don't know Max, sounds like an aristocracy to me: only the elite can vote. Because man is self interested, those that could not vote, minorities, women, poor, would lose their rights in favor for the so called elite. Every human being should be allowed to vote and is entitled to fair representation of their elected officials.

[max]

A lot of PEOPLE will do that, men and women. Just ask the experts on who looks/sounds the most presidential.

of course, there are guys who just as superficial....there's no perfect way of doing this...but...IN GENERAL...women voting serves the interest of demogogues and socialists

[Wilkero]

I'm not sure I agree with the OP with regard to most Americans wanting a handout. My own experience leads me to believe that a very large portion of Americans are not very well educated about civics. I teach business law, business ethics and economics at a small university. Many of my students are adults returning to school in order to earn a bachelor's degree (usually they're working on their first bachelor's). They've usually been out of school and working for several years, and they decided to get a degree in order to increase their upward mobility.

In my business law classes, a very significant number of these adults students do not have any basic understanding of what the federal government is or is not allowed to do under the Constitution. And they have almost no concept of federalism and states rights. They believe Congress has the power to enact any law. They don't understand why FEMA simply can't go into a state before the state invites them. As far as I can tell, they were simply never exposed to these ideas. If one of these students does understand these ideas, they almost always have a college degree already and are working on their second.

There is general amazement and bewilderment in my classes when I start explaining these ideas and how they affect us. After finishing my course, many of my students tell me that they are much more aware of what the federal government does and how it affects them. They also tell me that they have a much greater appreciation for civil rights and why we need to protect them. Here's the thing -- we only spend ONE CLASS MEETING talking about this. While I'm certainly happy that they take this away from my course, I don't understand why they haven't been exposed to it before.

From what I can tell, high schools simply do not teach civics, or if they do, they do not teach it correctly. I'm not criticizing high school teachers, because I do not know exactly how high schools function and what the curriculum covers. However, I think that everyone who is a citizen should understand these ideas. You can bet that my son will know about federalism, civil rights, states rights, etc., even if he never learns it in school. My wife and I will make sure that he understands it.

I don't understand why so few people have a decent understanding of the concept of federalism and how our government works. I am dumbfounded by the idea that people go to the polls and vote, but yet they are not cognizant of the implications of their vote. However, I think that Ron Paul is gaining popularity because many people who are not familiar with these concepts are starting to learn about them through his campaign. And if my experience teaching these concepts is accurate, the more people learn about him and what it means to be a constitutionalist, the more they will support him. From my point of view, education is the key. I don't think people are lazy or want a hand out, I think that they just don't understand the importance of what Ron Paul is saying. The more they understand, the more supporters he will gain.

[max]

I don't know Max, sounds like an aristocracy to me: only the elite can vote. Because man is self interested, those that could not vote, minorities, women, poor, would lose their rights in favor for the so called elite. Every human being should be allowed to vote and is entitled to fair representation of their elected officials.


i didnt say only elite...

i'm talkin top 30% intelligence

if 51% of the sheep exercise their "right" to vote and take away your liberty and your money...is that a free society.

WE HAVE AN ARISTOCRACY TODAY BECAUSE OF THAT VERY REASON

[paulitics]

I don't understand why so few people have a decent understanding of the concept of federalism and how our government works. I am dumbfounded by the idea that people go to the polls and vote, but yet they are not cognizant of the implications of their vote. However, I think that Ron Paul is gaining popularity because many people who are not familiar with these concepts are starting to learn about them through his campaign. And if my experience teaching these concepts is accurate, the more people learn about him and what it means to be a constitutionalist, the more they will support him. From my point of view, education is the key. I don't think people are lazy or want a hand out, I think that they just don't understand the importance of what Ron Paul is saying. The more they understand, the more supporters he will gain.

Brainwashing. The public has been dumbed down by the education system and media , completely indoctrinated to accept govt control. Home schooled children are free thinkers, and are less prone to this. I'm a much freer thinker than I was even in college, when I was supposed to be broadening my horizens. At some point, things click, but it takes time and real education, preferably self study.

[kylejack]

Paul's at 5% in Arizona.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

[gtjwkq]

I've seen the sexist argument before, about femininity being related to socialism. My brother actually thinks like that. He also says that many men, to get women's attention, lean towards socialist ideals.

What I don't like about the sexist argument is that it relates subconscious inclinations (nurturing instincts) to politics. You don't need that to make a point, you can argue politics with reason alone.

Besides, the female instincts have proven very useful to us in terms of evolution. Socialism, on the other hand, can be discarded completely.

Relate femininity to socialism, and people will use it to give credibility to socialism. You'll also offend a lot of libertarian women.

[kaleidoscope eyes]

Back to the original post. Its seems you are blaming women for the growth in big government.

A woman who marries a guy for security, only to find a bum running her life from his couch, will soon dump him. Tell women voters our government has turned out to be a bossy parasite.
yes, blaming women for the state of government today, sounds like Ann Coultergiest... bleh

[robatsu]

The 3/5ths rule is misunderstood. That was set up to limit the infleunce of southern states who wanted to count their slave population in order to increase their number of House seats....

If slaves were counted as "wholes"...the slave states would have had far more seats

Sort of the way illegal immigrants count now for congressional seats, and gives voters from illegal immigrant friendly districts greater weight than others, one of the many reasons we can't get our hands around this problem.

[robatsu]

I've seen the sexist argument before, about femininity being related to socialism.

I don't know if I buy it, but there is certainly a fairly high correlation between woman's suffragism and the rise of socialist/collectivist policies. But sorting out which is the chicken, which is the egg.....

[kylejack]

I don't know if I buy it, but there is certainly a fairly high correlation between woman's suffragism and the rise of socialist/collectivist policies. But sorting out which is the chicken, which is the egg.....

Or if there's even any causation between the two at all...