Why is Ron Paul still only at 5%????

Right, and the Rasmussen Reports proves my point that NOT enough people KNOW about Ron Paul to make a judgement call. So your argument about libertarianism and changing your tune about blaming the media is wrong. The media constantly fabricates stories about who they want to the point where its a reality show and you know everything about that candidate.


Poll Matching Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul Tells A Lot About Clinton, Little About Paul
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Advertisment
A recent Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey featuring a match-up between Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul highlights one of the perils that comes from overanalyzing poll results between candidates with different levels of name recognition.

In that survey, Clinton held a fairly modest 48% to 38% lead. But, a careful look at the results tells us a lot about the public’s opinion of Hillary Clinton and virtually nothing about their opinion of Ron Paul.

Why? First, because just about everyone in the United States has an opinion of Hillary Clinton. She has been a major player on the national and international stage for 15 years. Half the country has a favorable opinion of her and half holds the opposite view, but all have an opinion. Our most recent survey results show that nearly 60% of voters have a strongly held opinion about the New York Senator and former First Lady.

As for Ron Paul, 42% don’t know enough about him to have an opinion one way or the other. He’s one of 435 Congressman whose life is way below the radar screen for most Americans. Still, his presence in the GOP Presidential Debates has raised his profile a bit--26% now offer a favorable opinion and 32% say the opposite. But, only 16% have a strongly held opinion about Paul (7% Very Favorable, 9% Very Unfavorable).

A look at the crosstabs demonstrates that it is attitudes towards Clinton that are driving the numbers in this polling match-up. Among all voters, Clinton attracts 48% support. Among the voters who have never heard of Ron Paul or don’t know enough to have an opinion, guess what. Clinton attracts the exact same total--48% of the vote. So whether or not people have heard of Ron Paul as the challenger, support for Clinton doesn’t change.

Among the 51% who have heard of Ron Paul but don’t have a Very Favorable opinion of him, Clinton attracts 49% of the vote.

The only noticeable difference to be found is among that very small slice of the electorate that has a Very Favorable opinion of Paul. Seven percent (7%) of the nation’s voters fit this description and they prefer the Texas Congressman over the Democratic frontrunner by a 70% to 27% margin.

So, outside of a small group of avid Ron Paul fans, support for Senator Clinton is unchanged whether or not the survey respondent has ever heard of Ron Paul.

Looking at other recent match-ups confirms the sense that what we’re seeing is primarily a reflection of attitudes about the Democratic frontrunner. In the latest Rasmussen Reports polling, Clinton gets 47% against Fred Thompson, 48% against Mitt Romney, 48% against Mike Huckabee, 44% against Rudy Giuliani, and 44% against John McCain.

If you average the last three polls for Senator Clinton against each of these top five Republican hopefuls, Clinton’s support averages out at 48%. Using this three-poll average, Clinton attracts between 46% and 49% support no matter which Republican candidate is named in the survey.

A separate survey shows that nearly half the nation’s voters will definitely vote against Hillary Clinton if she is on the ballot in 2008. But, five of the top seven candidates for the White House also have more than 40% of the nation committed to voting against them at this time.

Clinton is the clear and dominant frontrunner in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. There is no clear frontrunner for the GOP nomination. Ron Paul has yet to top the 4% level of support in the daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

Send to a friend | Download PDF of this article TOP STORIES
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Just 8% Have Favorable Opinion of Pastor Jeremiah Wright

Electoral College: New Hampshire Changes from Likely to Leans Democratic

Pennsylvania: Clinton 51% Obama 38%

Final New Hampshire Poll: Obama 37% Clinton 30%

Hillary Sends Ferraro After the Race Card: By Dick Morris

Colorado Senate: Udall 46% Schaffer 43%

Super Delegates Lining Up for Barack Obama: By Dick Morris

Florida: McCain Leads Obama by Four, Clinton by Seven

Generic Ballot: Democrats 44% Republicans 40%


Advertisment
 
mczerone said:
You, madam, are in the wrong here. j650, while being slightly inflammatory with the OP, who was just as inflammatory back. But you come out of nowhere shouting 'troll', which is a very "it takes one to call one" term, and claiming that j650 added nothing, when he wanted clarification and had numerous lengthy, meaningful posts.

j650: It's about when you turn on the nightly news, and catch the "Election Coverage", to see stories about Rudy, Mitt's 5 sons, Bill Clinton, McCain's Media Relations advisor, Obama's Pastor, and a singular mention of Huckabee as an also-ran. It's that Jon Stewart nearly championed Ron when he was on his show, then David Frum went on and whispered into Stewart's ear that Paul's racist. Stewart hasn't mentioned Ron Paul since Frum's appearance.

This was all pre-super Tuesday. The Major Media outlets would not accept surrogates, nor would they run any fluff pieces where Paul was a co-feature. They had him on, a couple of times, just so people can be persuaded that their was 'fair' coverage, because he had appearances on any given show.

There are coverage monitoring groups, and it was MagicMan's responsibility to give some proof to his specific claim of "1%", or at least that the coverage was significantly less than even the most modest poll numbers showed as his support.
Click to expand...

It Wasn't out of the blue, dear. Readers have been complaining about this shill for awhile now. Where have YOU been?
 
PaulineDisciple said:
Although I believe that voter fraud may have something to do will Ron Paul's low numbers, I think that it has more to do with how uneducated the populace are. The government has used the mandatory government youth propaganda camps (public schools) to achieve what they could have never achieved without these camps. So much of the blame goes on the parents that handed their children over to the state to raise them up in the nurture and admonition of the state. If you can't see this fact, you will never be able to solve this problem long term. This is why my main focus is on abolishing the public school system because a government controlled education system is the biggest and best weapon against a free people and the first weapon that needs to be removed from a tyrannical government's hands.
Click to expand...

I agree that government controlled schools are a big part of the problem, however we're not going to get anywhere by advocating "abolishing the public school system". Instead I think we should focus on incremental solutions that actually have a chance of succeeding, like vouchers and fewer restrictions on homeschooling.

Overall, we need to push for local control of local schools. The real danger is when Washington is exporting the curriculum.
 
crazyfingers said:
I agree that government controlled schools are a big part of the problem, however we're not going to get anywhere by advocating "abolishing the public school system". Instead I think we should focus on incremental solutions that actually have a chance of succeeding, like vouchers and fewer restrictions on homeschooling.

Overall, we need to push for local control of local schools. The real danger is when Washington is exporting the curriculum.
Click to expand...


+1!
 
j650, if you believe that Ron got unfair media coverage only because he couldn't prove his popularity through poll numbers, you are seriously living on Fantasy Island.

How do you explain Huckabee's "meteoric rise" in MSM coverage? For ratings? Because he's cute and funny? Riiiight. They plastered his face for weeks straight on the major networks in order to make him the Christian Conservative candidate. I watched the media say his name 50:1 against Ron's. Fred Thompson got the same treatment before he even announced. He was nothing special and far from cute and funny. Why would they give him coverage? All the while Ron was "mastering the Internet".

Speaking of "mastering the Internet" let's talk about Howard Dean. He was a media darling and got tons of coverage. He masted the Internet and online fundraising, got tons of coverage, then was destroyed by the Dean Scream. Ron mastered the internet and showed potential for massive online fundraising. Yet no coverage. Explain that.

When I say "coverage" I don't mean appearances on major shows. I mean everyday, syndicated news. Like when Hannity would mention Thompson, Huckabee, McCain and Rudy in the same sentence but not Paul. This kind of coverage is worth far more than Daily Show appearances as it acquaints potential voters with the name of a new candidate. When they did say his name, it was with dismissal and usually had Libertarian in the same sentence. This kind of coverage is where RP was rejected.

Do you seriously believe that the MSM is not aware of its power to influence elections? CNN, MSNBC, and FOX are broadcast to every home in America with cable and their local affiliates are broadcast to every home without cable. The same stories are passed down. Newspapers are very similar. Much of the political news comes from the AP in local papers.

So you say MSM determines their coverage through ratings and polls. Wouldn't it also be a somewhat correct assumption that the MSM influences polls? If they are basing coverage on something they manipulate in the first place........ I'll let you figure it out.

You've been here since July. I find it hard to believe your perception of how elections are won haven't changed. You're arguing with other Paul supporters who've been saddened by watching their candidate, with so much potential, get marginalized. Therefore I question your entire reason for being here. As do others.
 
Last edited:
The top 6 people in all those graphs are the people who finished 1-2-3 in Iowa and New Hampshire. Why wouldn't they get the most coverage? You see Thompson fall towards the bottom as he became irrelevant and Giuliani fall down until a little bump going into Florida where he was leading the polls for a while. As Paul continued to finish 5th and 6th and not go anywhere in any state or national polls, he became irrelevant. I don't really see how this is a surprise to anyone. Huckabee fell all the way down to the bottom after his Iowa win fizzled as well. Why wouldn't the media cover the people who finish 1-2-3 in the first two states the most?
 
amonasro said:
j650, if you believe that Ron got unfair media coverage only because he couldn't prove his popularity through poll numbers, you are seriously living on Fantasy Island.

How do you explain Huckabee's "meteoric rise" in MSM coverage? For ratings? Because he's cute and funny? Riiiight. They plastered his face for weeks straight on the major networks in order to make him the Christian Conservative candidate. I watched the media say his name 50:1 against Ron's. Fred Thompson got the same treatment before he even announced. He was nothing special and far from cute and funny. Why would they give him coverage? All the while Ron was "mastering the Internet".

Speaking of "mastering the Internet" let's talk about Howard Dean. He was a media darling and got tons of coverage. He masted the Internet and online fundraising, got tons of coverage, then was destroyed by the Dean Scream. Ron mastered the internet and showed potential for massive online fundraising. Yet no coverage. Explain that.

When I say "coverage" I don't mean appearances on major shows. I mean everyday, syndicated news. Like when Hannity would mention Thompson, Huckabee, McCain and Rudy in the same sentence but not Paul. This kind of coverage is worth far more than Daily Show appearances as it acquaints potential voters with the name of a new candidate. When they did say his name, it was with dismissal and usually had Libertarian in the same sentence. This kind of coverage is where RP was rejected.

Do you seriously believe that the MSM is not aware of its power to influence elections? CNN, MSNBC, and FOX are broadcast to every home in America with cable and their local affiliates are broadcast to every home without cable. The same stories are passed down. Newspapers are very similar. Much of the political news comes from the AP in local papers.

So if MSM determines their coverage through ratings and polls, wouldn't it be a somewhat correct assumption that the MSM influences polls? If they are basing coverage on something they manipulate in the first place........ I'll let you figure it out.

You've been here since July. I find it hard to believe your perception of how elections are won haven't changed. You're arguing with other Paul supporters who've been saddened by watching their candidate, with so much potential, get marginalized. Therefore I question your entire reason for being here. As do others.
Click to expand...


Check that stats page. The MSM gave Bill Richardson more coverage then Ron Paul, LOL.

Now despite the poll numbers which were always used as a tool to bring him down because the MSM always had the power to manipulate that aspect don't you think that Paul had many more tremendous successes then Richardson and deserved that right at the very least?
 
j650 said:
I can only tell you that he was on basically every political show out there- Meet the Press, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Kudlow and Company, The Situation Room, Tucker, Hardball, The O'Reilly Factor, Fox and Friends, Real World with Neil Cavuto, This Week, Face the Nation, Bill Moyer's Journal, Good Morning America, The Tonight Show twice, Real Time with Bill Maher, Mad Money, Morning Joe, and on and on and on. There wasn't a fucking blackout so stop saying that there was! A blackout would mean a complete banning of Ron Paul. How was he on all of these shows if there was a blackout? He had a good opportunity to sell his message and couldn't do it effectively. Now where's your damn proof of the 1% coverage?
Click to expand...


I recall the blackout officially starting when Dr. Paul got 2nd place in Nevada with the looming possibility of him actually winning Louisiana. After that I believe is when the media quickly pulled the plug on him because he was rapidly gaining popularity.
 
Magicman said:
Check that stats page. The MSM gave Bill Richardson more coverage then Ron Paul, LOL.

Now despite the poll numbers which were always used as a tool to bring him down because the MSM always had the power to manipulate that aspect don't you think that Paul had many more tremendous successes then Richardson and deserved that right at the very least?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. First and foremost being a powerful grassroots community that was miles ahead of what Dean had, 6 million raised in one day, a blimp, huge rallies etc.... We did our best but the media had their ears closed.

It's like all the candidates are in some club except for Ron and Kucinich. They also got the least amount of coverage. Interesting. What club could that be?

Makes those old, rusty wheels start spinning again :)
 
Amon, remember all the results and how the media would play games. Sometimes, you would see first, second and third as winners. Sometimes you would see first, second, third and fourth.

Notice everytime Paul got within that bracket they would exclude him and put the other finishes conveniently at every caucus. It would be so blatant when they would namely mention who came in up to third if he wasn't on that list. So the other candidates would be listed even if their not in first place. That's fair enough..

Yet, If Paul was third or second they would always just announce who was ahead of him and exclude him from the list.

This was done intentionally to thwart any traction and make him look unviable as a candidate and continue to use the poll number fabrication to not give him any edge among the voters. Basically to squash his chance of winning....

I guess the sheep don't pay attention to things like that.
 
Last edited:
Join The Paul Side said:
I recall the blackout officially starting when Dr. Paul got 2nd place in Nevada with the looming possibility of him actually winning Louisiana. After that I believe is when the media quickly pulled the plug on him because he was rapidly gaining popularity.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the Media's involvement, this is when the GOP made sure Romney wasn't getting in the way, so there could be a 'front-runner', and Huckabee and Paul would have to walk away.
 
Magicman said:
Amon, remember all the results and how the media would play games. Sometimes, you would see first, second and third as winners. Sometimes you would see first, second, third and fourth.

Notice everytime Paul got within that bracket they would exclude him and put the other finishes conveniently at every caucus. It would be so blatant when they would namely mention who came in up to third if he wasn't on that list. So the other candidates would be listed even if their not in first place. That's fair enough..

Yet, If Paul was third or second they would always just announce who was ahead of him and exclude him from the list.

This was done intentionally to thwart any traction and make him look unviable as a candidate and continue to use the poll number fabrication to not give him any edge among the voters. Basically to squash his chance of winning....

I guess the sheep don't pay attention to things like that.
Click to expand...

Yeah my favorite was when he got 2nd in Nevada, FOX news had a nice little graphic with McCain, Romney and Huckabee. No Ron. Why would they do something like that? Hmmm.... Listen to how many times they say the names.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsoSX_b4lSo
 
mczerone said:
Regardless of the Media's involvement, this is when the GOP made sure Romney wasn't getting in the way, so there could be a 'front-runner', and Huckabee and Paul would have to walk away.
Click to expand...

I also think that the media had a lot to do with Mccain's success as his campaign was in shambles. He was practically broke and if you remember had all those scandals so his non-stop coverage throughout the primaries gave in to this.

The media literally catapulted both Huckabee and him from drowning water. It's like they declared Mccain a winner a week prior to the New Hampshire caucus.

The fact that he got the majority of the media coverage and the GOP pressure played the majority of his role.

If this was a fair election Mccain would have been screwed and not gotten anywhere because of bad management.
 
amonasro said:
Yeah my favorite was when he got 2nd in Nevada, FOX news had a nice little graphic with McCain, Romney and Huckabee. No Ron. Why would they do something like that? Hmmm.... Listen to how many times they say the names.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsoSX_b4lSo
Click to expand...

Who knows if these national polls are even truthful or accurate. People receiving the phone call got this message which DIDNT even include Ron Paul on the list to select from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSYiUAaBd1U&feature=related
 
Huckabee's Campaign spent all their Campaign money on: CNN, MSNBC, FAUX. fox

Join The Paul Side said:
With all of the other candidates that dropped out and the conservatives bitching about Juan McCain, why is it that Ron Paul has gain no ground percentage point wise in these states having caucuses and primaries? I would think he'd at least gain a little ground and a few percentage points, but nooooo! Still at the 5% range. WTF is going on out there????? :mad:
Click to expand...

The CRAPPIEST PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN STAFF... COMPLETE AMATEURS

more importantly: The Campaign DID NOT PAY the major networks and advertise like the other candidates.

Notice how CNN continued to cover the Preachin Pandering Silver Tongued Devil: Mike Huckabee?

Huckabee's Campaign spent all their Campaign money on: CNN, MSNBC, FAUX.

You have to play some of "THE GAME" to get notice... RP CAMPAIGN Staff totally failed to recognize this for a YEAR!
 
Join The Paul Side said:
With all of the other candidates that dropped out and the conservatives bitching about Juan McCain, why is it that Ron Paul has gain no ground percentage point wise in these states having caucuses and primaries? I would think he'd at least gain a little ground and a few percentage points, but nooooo! Still at the 5% range. WTF is going on out there????? :mad:
Click to expand...

In the Mississippi primary it was reported that Huckabee got 12% even though he had already dropped out

The AOL straw poll is your best indication now

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/straw-poll/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Why Property Tax Is Illegal
Replies
12
Views
4K
Snowball
Snowball
jmdrake
New Poll Shows Harris Lead Cut From 10% to 5% In Tim Waltz State Of MN
Replies
2
Views
691
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
PAF
Hartung: Can Trump Still Be a Peace President?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Anti Federalist
2024 New Hampshire primary polling
4 5 6
Replies
114
Views
9K
spudea
S
M
Libertarianism and you
Replies
0
Views
385
Max Stirner II
M
Back
Top