Ron Paul leads in U S NEWS AND WORLD REPORT POLL

You just know the establishment hates that.

http://www.usnews.com/polls/who-is-your-pick-for-the-gop-2012-nomination/results.html

 

The problem with Paul and Polling is that it's all over the place.
The reason he usually gets high numbers is because of Alex
Jones and his group.Jones has a following on the internet and he openly
insists for his fans and daily/hourly listener base to do stuff like
flood the phone lines or Internet polling sites.
Whenever Rush Limabugh pulls that he also gets huge results.
Jones does it to either crash a site,test out that site or in Pauls
case make sure Ron Wins.Ron Paul is nowhere near as popular
as polled.It's merely this small base of his.Imagine if Paul has a base
of core enthusiasts so driven to pile on for their guy what would happen
if elected.It would be like a 3Rd Reich.We don't need that sort of thing in this
Country.Alex Jones doesn't possess common sense.He's ALL PUSH/PULL
like some crazed Dungeons & Dragons Video nut.

 

There may an element of what you describe, but you can't dispute the Bloomberg polls last week from Iowa and New Hampshire.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are in a dead heat as the top choices for Iowans likely to attend the Jan. 3 Republican presidential caucuses.

A Bloomberg News poll shows Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...y-republican-dead-heat-in-iowa-caucuses.html#

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Romney, 64, is the preferred choice of 40 percent of likely New Hampshire primary voters in a Bloomberg News poll conducted Nov. 10-12. Paul places second at 17 percent, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is at 11 percent. All the other candidates are below 10 percent.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-16/romney-holds-commanding-lead-in-new-hampshire.html#

 

This is obviously another web poll. I support Ron Paul, but such polls are not meaningful. I don't even know why they have them. The Bloomberg poll showing him within reach of winning Iowa is much more significant.

 

Wierd i have listened to Jones before and i dont recall him *telling* people to flood the poles.

He does have Paul on frequently.

I'm not surprised this is coming from you though.

 

They don't report on this on every single poll. Ron Paul Supporters are more organized and fanatic than other supporters are and they flood the polls skewing the results.

 

I think it is the other way around. I think that Paul is much more popular than most polls show. He is ignored, misrepresented, and even sometimes removed if doing well. Elections in this country are rigged, just another of your rights gone to hell. So defend them and reap what you sow.

 

Then he would've won the last election. When people are forced to vote only once, and on an even playing field Ron Paul always looses. It's only when they can skew the results, like a poll that only a limited subscription or reader base normally replies to suddenly being voted on by every Ron Paul supporter, even if they aren't a a regular previewer of that site, because they were told to on a forum.

 

Here is a world wide online poll from the last election. It's a pretty interesting poll, votes are broken down by country and candidate. It even has a page demonstrating who was lying when they selected their country (based upon analyzing IP address). All candidates had voters "lying" for them, BUT Ron Paul absolutely destroyed the poll with 69,552 votes, with 2,356 "fraudulent" votes. Obama came in second with 26,665 votes, and 2,006 fraudulent votes.

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

It's interesting to see which countries selected which candidates.

 

true enough.thats a good point.as i have said before,I dont expect paul to get elected,the establishment will make sure of that.there is a book out that everybody here at this site should read that documents how elections are rigged called VOTESCAM.He wont because the american sheepie only care about how their favorite team in the NFL is doing and just sit back and watch them destroy america in the process.

 

Coming from him,it doesnt surprise me either.

 

amen to that brother.as I said,everybody should pick up that book called VOTESCAM and read it.they would understand that we dont elect these people,that they are carefully SELECTED by the establishment to serve their agenda of a new world order which is what Hitler spoke of in his speechs.Dont think they have a new world order planned for us? think again.Both Bushwacker and his long time pal and Buddy Clinton the reprocrats and depublicans,loyal puppets for the establishment just like Obama is,are here are talking about just that.clean out your ears and listen folks.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1etgsNU46s4"]Clinton New World Order - YouTube[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g"]George Bush New World Order - YouTube[/ame]

 

If that's the case, then why is he leading in Iowa, second in New Hampshire, and climbing rapidly in South Carolina?

 

Because people who don't live in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina are voting for him in those polls due to the fact that they were told to by their Ron Paul masters.

 

Lmfao!

......................

 

Wow. Okay...

/backs away slowly

 

If he would just run as a 3rd party Candidate and quit pretending he is a Republican then I think he would have a better chance. Republicans would still support him over Obama, Independents would support him over Obama, or that voting block would at least be closely split. SOME Liberals would support him for his views on Social issues.

As a Republican though he wont even win the primaries.

Thats my 2 cents.

 

There are no debates for 3rd parties. The media would ignore him even more ~

 

What about Ross Perot??

Ron Paul has a die hard base. His supporters love him. IMO he would have been smart enough to get his name out there.

With as many cable news channels that there are out there, and the popularity he received for being one of the few Republicans who opposed the Iraq war, I think he still would have gotten plenty of publicity.

Or at least after 2008 he should have run as a Libertarian THIS election.

Im not a RP supporter, at least not from a fiscal standpoint. I love his social views. But I honestly think running as a 3rd party candidate would have worked out better for him this time around. Win the Independents, yes he would split the Republican vote, but say Romney wins the Repub nomination, Paul would probably have had the support of half the Repubs out there, and then you bring in a fair amount of liberals as well who arent turned off by his attachment to the Republican label that is on him.

 

Then he would steal enough votes from the Republicans to make it so that Obama wins re-election and that would be disastrous.

 

Meh. A Democrat that acts like Obama is less of a disaster than a Republican that acts like Obama.

 

Actually that would be funny and awesome.

But I was being serious actually. I think he would get enough Republican votes, I think he would dominate the Independents, and I think enough liberals would vote for him that he could win.

But when you have the tag of "Republican" next to your name, Liberals wont vote for you and most Independents wont either. Or at least a large chunk of them.

That is why I dont give Ron Paul a chance. He isnt a Republican but he runs as one and to some they cant remove the stigma of it.

 

Most of Ron Pauls supporters would not vote for the establishment Republican candidtate even IF Paul did not run as a 3rd party candidate.

 

Maybe you haven't heard about this?

http://www.bluerepublican.org/

 

Oh of course I have. Thats why I used the word "most". Meaning many but not all.