RLC straw poll results?

[FSP-Rebel]

In related news, Fox radio is mentioning that Ron won the SRLC straw poll in their news reel but also note that we bussed in supporters to do so.

 

[wgadget]

Unfortunately, our own guys' behavior 'united' many against Ron. We really have to get the word to our people about that, but I don't know how.

You mean their BOOING what they disapproved of? You mean like the "regular Republicans" did when they found out Ron Paul won the straw poll? Is that what you mean?

 

[Restore-America-NOW]

Ames is ours. They can discredit us all they want, but once we win the straw poll that has historically been the most prominent and telling as to how the GOP primary may shape up, it'll be all downhill.

 

[sailingaway]

Washington Times literally says the campaign PAID people to go and boo at other candidates and vote in the straw poll. I was seething. And I called another blogger a liar. I'm not googling for a while

 

[wgadget]

The story will probably be:
Ron Paul organized xx buses.
All the other candidates did nothing. - Of course, the opposite will be true
Conclusion: Don´t pay attention to the results, we - the media - know what´s good for you.

You're exactly right, and the point that rockandroll is missing is that the MSM (mainstream media) IS against us. Period.

And the occasion of Ron Paul winning this straw poll is an excellent example of it. Read the stories they're putting out. It's sickening.

 

[sailingaway]

Ames is ours. They can discredit us all they want, but once we win the straw poll that has historically been the most prominent and telling as to how the GOP primary may shape up, it'll be all downhill.

It will be hard to say that means nothing IF we win. People have had that be the big reported deal for so long, and itis even advertised as an expensive effort requiring lots of organization by campaigns.

 

[wgadget]

In related news, Fox radio is mentioning that Ron won the SRLC straw poll in their news reel but also note that we bussed in supporters to do so.

You're kidding, right?

I heard/read that it was Huntsman who was busing in supporters, not Ron.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

1. You're just plain wrong. You expect the media to give us anymore credence when Ron's polling at 7%? Hell, let's be honest, he's treated just like any other candidate. Romney is polling in the upper 30% range, Bachmann around 20%, and other candidates ahead of Ron.

If anything, the media gives Romney more crap than they do Paul. He's always being talked about for flip flopping or his health plan ordeal. Yea, they talk about him as the front-runner but he is the front runner.

There's really not some conspiracy. Yea, it might not be fair or perfect all of the time but Ron get's a lot of coverage and press for where he's polling, in my opinion.

Like it or not, the MSM is a business and they are trying to get ratings. Simply because Ron is polling poorly doesn't mean it's due to the media outlet. In fact, I will sooner blame the campaign and the unwillingness to address his glaring issues as the primary factor in the poor polling. If you're so willing to ignore that and skip right to blaming everyone else, I honestly think you're crazy.

2. This is an opportunity when the campaign needs to fire back at the misreporting of Ron's straw poll victory. Again, I don't think this victory holds water in the grand scheme of things but this is an opportunity for the campaign to set the record straight and hold strong. I will be surprised and disheartened if they let another slanderous debacle go untouched.

3. This victory is nothing in relation to winning Ames. How do you see any connection? I suppose the 5 reputable polls that came out putting us in the single digit range in relation to Romney's 30% and Bachmann's near 20% are all a conspiracy, inaccurate, and entirely wrong?

You're going to be sorely disappointed when you see the actual numbers. In fact, I expect to see us do worse than we're hoping just like last year. It hurts me to say that as I wish it weren't true, but I don't see a different approach being utilized by Ron or the campaign. Why should I expect different results?

You're exactly right, and the point that rockandroll is missing is that the MSM (mainstream media) IS against us. Period.

And the occasion of Ron Paul winning this straw poll is an excellent example of it. Read the stories they're putting out. It's sickening.

 

[Legend1104]

For all the people saying that the booing is good/ok, let me tell you what my experience has been. I used to be for it, but I was at the SRLC Friday during the Cain and Paul speech. I have been trying to woo my wife and mother-in-law towards Ron Paul for a while now. I have gotten them pretty close but when the supporters started booing, it was really embarrassing and a big turn off to my family. My mother-in-law actually, "Said I don't like Ron Paul now." All booing does is make people feel better and lose more support.

It is like what my father told me once. Never make one of your friend's parent made at you. If their child does something bad, it is ok because they will always love their child, but if you do something bad, they will remember it and like you less because of it. Even if they boo us it does not give us the right to boo them. They will forget that their people booed us but will always remember that we booed them. It is always bad.

 

[hard@work]

Even if they boo us it does not give us the right to boo them. They will forget that their people booed us but will always remember that we booed them. It is always bad.

Bingo.

 

[jake]

what would Ron do? not boo.

Suck it up!!

 

[Paul4Prez]

Booing won't win any new supporters, so don't do it.

When stories mistakenly say we bussed in supporters, just politely correct them in the comments, and ask why the other candidates couldn't find busloads of supporters to bring in, but Ron Paul's supporters came in on their own.

 

[Paul4Prez]

Why did Huntsman do so well?

Because he's declaring his candidacy next week and he wanted to win this straw poll to launch it with some good news, to change the narrative about his 2 percent poll standings. We "nipped it in the bud", so to speak.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

It's the official campaign's job to address this. And they best do it.

Booing won't win any new supporters, so don't do it.

When stories mistakenly say we bussed in supporters, just politely correct them in the comments, and ask why the other candidates couldn't find busloads of supporters to bring in, but Ron Paul's supporters came in on their own.

 

[king_nothing_]

1. You're just plain wrong. You expect the media to give us anymore credence when Ron's polling at 7%? Hell, let's be honest, he's treated just like any other candidate. Romney is polling in the upper 30% range, Bachmann around 20%, and other candidates ahead of Ron.

If anything, the media gives Romney more crap than they do Paul. He's always being talked about for flip flopping or his health plan ordeal. Yea, they talk about him as the front-runner but he is the front runner.

There's really not some conspiracy. Yea, it might not be fair or perfect all of the time but Ron get's a lot of coverage and press for where he's polling, in my opinion.

Like it or not, the MSM is a business and they are trying to get ratings. Simply because Ron is polling poorly doesn't mean it's due to the media outlet. In fact, I will sooner blame the campaign and the unwillingness to address his glaring issues as the primary factor in the poor polling. If you're so willing to ignore that and skip right to blaming everyone else, I honestly think you're crazy.

2. This is an opportunity when the campaign needs to fire back at the misreporting of Ron's straw poll victory. Again, I don't think this victory holds water in the grand scheme of things but this is an opportunity for the campaign to set the record straight and hold strong. I will be surprised and disheartened if they let another slanderous debacle go untouched.

3. This victory is nothing in relation to winning Ames. How do you see any connection? I suppose the 5 reputable polls that came out putting us in the single digit range in relation to Romney's 30% and Bachmann's near 20% are all a conspiracy, inaccurate, and entirely wrong?

You're going to be sorely disappointed when you see the actual numbers. In fact, I expect to see us do worse than we're hoping just like last year. It hurts me to say that as I wish it weren't true, but I don't see a different approach being utilized by Ron or the campaign. Why should I expect different results?

It doesn't have to be a grand conspiracy for it to be true that they don't treat him fairly. They personally believe he doesn't have a chance in hell, and they inject their subjectivity into how they cover him. If they were principled, professional journalists, that wouldn't happen. Objectivity is, for the most part, dead in the mainstream media.

Shouldn't the fact he's polling at 7% make this win an even bigger deal? If anyone else who was polling that low would have won it, wouldn't that be the top story? Yes. When Ron does it, though, it garners one sentence in an entire article from CNN (and not the headline), and plays a distant second fiddle to the guy who placed second by 15 percentage points. How do you explain this other than shitty, subjective journalism?

 

[mpdsapuser]

The real question is whether those polls placing Ron Paul at 7% are legitimate. I tend to think they are as credible as a Frank Luntz focus group. The establishment obviously does not want a Ron Paul presidency so they are going to do whatever it takes to influence the sheep, I mean the American public's opinions.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Judging by your join date you weren't around last election cycle. Heard the same exact excuse then up until the end. Turns out they were dead on every single time.

Would be nice if this was recognized and addressed rather than operating in blissful ignorance.

The real question is whether those polls placing Ron Paul at 7% are legitimate. I tend to think they are as credible as a Frank Luntz focus group. The establishment obviously does not want a Ron Paul presidency so they are going to do whatever it takes to influence the sheep, I mean the American public's opinions.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

We are engaged in a campaign that will, if successful, will demolish the status quo and in the process, hang a lot people that are dependent on that status quo out to dry.

That includes a whole mess of short thinking " limited government conservatives" that have some vested interest in that status quo.

Of course they hate us, they always will hate us and no amount of ass kissing is going to change that.

A win will come about only one way, bringing a whole slew of new voters on board who are just as sick of the status quo as we are.

If we're going to rely on the "old guard" GOP to win this, we're sunk before we even start.

While I agree that booing at other candidates is definitely not the way to go but I also agree that GOP status quo & the media have strong reasons to NOT like us & it's not going to change; our only chance is to get to the average GOP voters & try to wake'em up either thru grassroots or by Ron actually wording himself in a way to get the message across to the masses.

I agree that had Ron lost, the media story would have been "See! Ron Paul can't even win these straw polls!". But they act like we've been winning for years and years. when it's only been two consecutive years. It must feel like dog years to them, I guess, with the Ron Paul Revolution gaining traction day by day.

Ron Paul wins Iowa Straw Poll - MSM: "Oh my god, Herman Cain finished second!!! This is the real story!"
Ron Paul wins the Iowa Caucuses - MSM: "Oh my god! Michelle Bachman finished 5% short of second place! She has momentum!"
Ron Paul wins New Hampshire- MSM: "Mitt Romney's campaign is over. This is the perfect time for Rick Perry to sweep in!"
Ron Paul finishes 2nd in SC - MSM: "Ron Paul is TOAST! No one has not won SC and went on to win the nomination!"

It's infuriating, but we need to be prepared for this. Is there any way we could do an ad campaign with an empahsis placed on "Look for this story to happen from the MSM if this happens". Then when it does happen, people go "wait a minute... maybe those Ron Paul folks are onto something....".

While this example is a little hyperbolic, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually happened because again, the elite of the status quo have too much to lose if Ron wins so ought to get used to the negative media & stop worrying about it & focus on WHAT WE CAN DO to make things better for us.

It doesn't have to be a grand conspiracy for it to be true that they don't treat him fairly. They personally believe he doesn't have a chance in hell, and they inject their subjectivity into how they cover him. If they were principled, professional journalists, that wouldn't happen. Objectivity is, for the most part, dead in the mainstream media.

Shouldn't the fact he's polling at 7% make this win an even bigger deal? If anyone else who was polling that low would have won it, wouldn't that be the top story? Yes. When Ron does it, though, it garners one sentence in an entire article from CNN (and not the headline), and plays a distant second fiddle to the guy who placed second by 15 percentage points. How do you explain this other than shitty, subjective journalism?

Agreed, it doesn't've be a grand conspiracy, manifold social factors working together can produce complex behavioral social patterns that may resemble a design but it's not that everyone is "in" on it & yet because of such social patterns a lot of people can naturally be anti-RonPaul but of course, these patterns can be broken & it's visible in the way some of the reporters treat Ron NOW as opposed to 4 years ago but the fact is that these patterns mostly do exist & that's what hurts Ron a lot with the kind of negative response he generates from the media & that response IS real & not just a "coincidence".

The real question is whether those polls placing Ron Paul at 7% are legitimate. I tend to think they are as credible as a Frank Luntz focus group. The establishment obviously does not want a Ron Paul presidency so they are going to do whatever it takes to influence the sheep, I mean the American public's opinions.

As has been said before, this is what a lot of us believed last election but as it turned out, the polls were pretty accurate, we were about a couple of % in the polls & that's what we got in the actual elections. So we shouldn't underestimate the accuracy of the polls, they may be a point here or there at best but that's that. So we do have a lot of work to do still & so does Ron.

 

[speciallyblend]

the gop will elect obama!

 

[Anti Federalist]

the gop will elect obama!

Pretty much.

On the "big" issues: wars, Israel first, out of control spending, crony corporatist bailouts, increasing the police state, is there any appreciable difference between Bush and Obama?

There has to be a focus on getting new people into the "system", or bringing back people who left long ago in disgust, like myself.

People as disaffected and pissed off as most of us are, is what's going to turn this around.

That is where the some of focus of the campaign should be.

We'll all be in our graves waiting around for some of these party hacks to see the light.