WaPo Poll: Ron Paul Weakest Among College Grads & Weekly Churchgoers

[CaptUSA]

Good point--END RPF NOW since it is Collectivist and we are a group

Come on... Not at all what I was saying.

In fact, by reading these forums, it is easy to tell that everyone is here for a different reason and we have many disagreements. One thing that most of us agree with is that we want our individual liberty and rights returned to us. While that is a unifying goal, the reasons each individual in this group share that goal are not the same.

My point of my earlier post was that if you view people in certain groups as homogeneous, you will lose opportunities.

 

[amabala]

For some reason, this poll reminds me of this song.

That's a great song and it's true as well.

 

[bobbyw24]

Come on... Not at all what I was saying.

In fact, by reading these forums, it is easy to tell that everyone is here for a different reason and we have many disagreements. One thing that most of us agree with is that we want our individual liberty and rights returned to us. While that is a unifying goal, the reasons each individual in this group share that goal are not the same.

My point of my earlier post was that if you view people in certain groups as homogeneous, you will lose opportunities.

I know--I wish we had more rational thinking people like you here on this site.

 

[Chrysamere]

Folks, I can't express enough how we need to get beyond this.

It is a serious mistake to group people into a collective for the purposes of identifying weaknesses and opportunities. This campaign is about individuals. You must open the eyes of every individual regardless of what characteristics they have. Don't be fooled into believing that since a person has some of these characteristics (College grad, senior, churchgoer) that they will be less likely to support the principles of liberty. Conversely, you can't believe that because someone is in one of the groups with which Paul does well, that they will be more open to our ideas.

This is the game of the collectivists. A campaign for liberty will not work with a collectivist approach. If you are trying to determine reasons why certain groups support Paul more or less, it probably has to do with access. Simply, nobody has approached these individuals with the proper arguments or enlightenment to wake them up.

Please try not to see people as groups. I keep reading posts about assumptions pertaining to the reasons why certain groups want certain things in a candidate and that's why they don't support Paul. I reject that premise. Groups don't have wants, they don't have needs, and they can't vote. If we try to appeal to a group with a message of liberty, we will lose.

Please read this post before responding.

Thanks.

 

[sanssq]

I wish they would have broken it down into what sources people use for information. Those that rely on the lamestream media are more unlikely to support Paul because of the 24/7/365 propaganda from the statists/bankster/welfare/warfare/security apparatchiks .

 

[moostraks]

Come on... Not at all what I was saying.

In fact, by reading these forums, it is easy to tell that everyone is here for a different reason and we have many disagreements. One thing that most of us agree with is that we want our individual liberty and rights returned to us. While that is a unifying goal, the reasons each individual in this group share that goal are not the same.

My point of my earlier post was that if you view people in certain groups as homogeneous, you will lose opportunities.

But people do tend to have certain similar attributes in subsegments of society (such as typical rpf folks are, generally speaking, against preemptive wars) that when analyzed what is unifying maybe a better approach could be crafted so the message is tailored for the audience. So if you are striving to reach a number of rpf members with a message you would exploit angles that give you the best traction. If you don't identify where the message is not as popular you can't go after the voters that aren't already behind him.

 

[CaptUSA]

But people do tend to have certain similar attributes in subsegments of society (such as typical rpf folks are, generally speaking, against preemptive wars) that when analyzed what is unifying maybe a better approach could be crafted so the message is tailored for the audience. So if you are striving to reach a number of rpf members with a message you would exploit angles that give you the best traction. If you don't identify where the message is not as popular you can't go after the voters that aren't already behind him.

I fully understand this.

What I'm saying is that I don't believe it is any similar attributes or wants among these individuals that are keeping them from supporting Paul. I believe it is access or exposure to what he stands for. If we work to increase exposure to these people, I believe you will see a dramatic improvement in their support. I don't think it's that the individuals are not open to the message, I believe it is that the message has not been properly delivered. Obviously, the traditional media is at fault here. They purposefully lie about the message or misrepresent it. In fact, I would venture to say that most people on this forum are here because they got the message in a non-traditional way.

 

[Esoteric]

those with a high school education or less (23 percent),
attend church less than weekly (22 percent),
those under age 50 (20 percent).

Non-Religious College Students FTW!

 

[jolynna]

I wish the pollers had asked the people interviewed questions like, "What is the definition of quantitative easing?" or "Who is Germany's chancellor?" or "What is NDAA?" or even what is the "10th ammendment".

NONE of my college educated friends, which include a chemical engineer, an attorney or C.P.A. could answer those. You have got to be aware of basic facts and world events to realize threats of economic collapse and an assault on our liberties even EXISTS.

Unless people check facts, examine voting records and do some homework, their world reality is limited towhatever you've been told by new's reporters. For most, who don't have a clue what is going on in the world, one candidate is as good as another and so they go with the one who represents your "team" (party). Political debates are entertaining--like the Jerry Springer show--they evoke the same base emotions and like Springer's show end up demonstrating NOTHING about the viability of any candidate to be our nation's leader.

The most BASIC political strategy, (since always) is to minimize the complex, large problems at home while maximizing threats from abroad. Slogans like "we KILL our enemies" and demonizing words like "jihadists" served up with lots of gushyness and flag waving, go over better with most voters than discussing "fundamental change" and boring economic strategies.

I agree with Capt.USA that people need access to information and exposure. My experience has been that once they KNOW the situation, people are much more open to Dr. Paul's message.

 

[moostraks]

I fully understand this.

What I'm saying is that I don't believe it is any similar attributes or wants among these individuals that are keeping them from supporting Paul. I believe it is access or exposure to what he stands for. If we work to increase exposure to these people, I believe you will see a dramatic improvement in their support. I don't think it's that the individuals are not open to the message, I believe it is that the message has not been properly delivered. Obviously, the traditional media is at fault here. They purposefully lie about the message or misrepresent it. In fact, I would venture to say that most people on this forum are here because they got the message in a non-traditional way.

I think I will disagree with you, in part, because I believe there might be a correlation to the authoritarianism that both of these subgroups are exposed to and willingly cooperated within. I also think that there might be a stigma issue with those who consider themselves educated and not wanting to hitch their wagon to someone who is constantly called a kook on msm. Many churches have an us against them mentality.(One of the reasons why my family is not affiliated with a church was the constant berating of other faiths and constant state of victimhood that many church sermons I experienced seem to embrace) The war propaganda (us against them) plays strongly in the aversion to a non-interventionist foreign policy. Numerous churches embrace ME intervention as a holy war battle for lost souls. So my opinion is that there are similar character traits that the opposition is exploiting and drawing forth. Our message should be tailored to address their fears when we seek their support.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I am a weekly churchgoer AND a college graduate, and I've strongly supported Ron Paul for over 5 years! (Just sayin'.)

 

[mconder]

I was dating a girl with a PhD in from Harvard. Not to many of those people leave that school with anything but a hardcore statist outlook.

 

[Dsylexic]

I was dating a girl with a PhD in from Harvard. Not to many of those people leave that school with anything but a hardcore statist outlook.

essentially because the ones with the longest string of degrees imagine that THEY will be part of the magical state apparatus thru which they will improve the world. it has a lot to do with hubris

 

[Sullivan*]

The overwhelming majority of weekly churchgoers I know are military officers, contractors, or direct employees of the state.
See sig line.

I have to say... Your signature perfectly describes the political choices in our country today.