I love how for conservatives, wild conjecture is mathematical proof.

This Is Bold Text: I love how for conservatives, wild conjecture is mathematical proof.

Are you saying you trust the polls that are regurgitated by the talking heads on CNN/MSNBC/Fox?

Personally I think that article was pure BS, but I DO believe that Paul's support is much wider than the polls show.

Well then, Obama will have no problem.

Link (new window)

"Yet those figures only scratch the surface of Obama's strength. His campaign says - and other camps don't dispute - that its total number of donors as of June 30 was 258,000.

Ryan2065: Well then, Obama will have no problem.

Link (new window)

"Yet those figures only scratch the surface of Obama's strength. His campaign says - and other camps don't dispute - that its total number of donors as of June 30 was 258,000.

Using the same logic as in the article, Obama has 117,272,727 supporters, which is ~39% of the U.S. population. Considering as of 2004 there were 215,694,000 in America of voting age, that's 54% of the voting population that are being represented by donations to Obama.

benlonghair: This Is Bold Text: I love how for conservatives, wild conjecture is mathematical proof.

Are you saying you trust the polls that are regurgitated by the talking heads on CNN/MSNBC/Fox?

Personally I think that article was pure BS, but I DO believe that Paul's support is much wider than the polls show.

I know. They all said that Alan Keyes wasn't going to win a single state back in 1996, and they were-

Oh.

http://www.whodoyouwantforpresident.com/index.php

Look, Ron Paul has twice as much support as all other candidates combined.

I'm still waiting for the onion article that says that 350% of people support Ron Paul in an online poll.

Car_Ramrod: Using the same logic as in the article, Obama has 117,272,727 supporters, which is ~39% of the U.S. population. Considering as of 2004 there were 215,694,000 in America of voting age, that's 54% of the voting population that are being represented by donations to Obama.

So, who would win in a head to head match between Obama and Paul? Where are the statistics there?

/hate statistics

ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul

SphericalTime: So, who would win in a head to head match between Obama and Paul? Where are the statistics there?

/hate statistics

The flawed logic of the article says Paul has 56,338,786 supporters and using that same logic Obama has 117,272,727 supporters (from Car_Ramrod's post). So Obama wins.

Car_Ramrod: Using the same logic as in the article, Obama has 117,272,727 supporters, which is ~39% of the U.S. population. Considering as of 2004 there were 215,694,000 in America of voting age, that's 54% of the voting population that are being represented by donations to Obama.

Using the same flawed logic, Tom Tancredo had 1,000,000 supporters. Of course, we all know he really only had 37.

I, too, believe that Ron Paul will get 112.5% of the vote come Super Tuesday.

HAHA! yeah right (new window)

FTFA: If you consider that 50% of the population falls in the democratic party, this represents 38% of the republican party

You're doing it wrong. (pops)

It appears that Truth Mason, who's goal is to "present the truth, whatever it may be" seems to only be interested in "truths" regarding how awesome Ron Paul's baby batter tastes.

how many blimps does he have? one of them flew over my house yesterday.

This guy says:



"He's catching on, I'm tellin' ya!"

/slinks quietly back under bridge...

Recipe for greenlight:

1. Write headline mentioning Ron Paul; connect to anything crazy or irrational.
2. Link headline to anything; bonus for connection to something written by crazier supporters.
3. Submit.

Larofeticus



/It's a conspiracy!

I read this article yesterday and took it for what it was. It is by no means proof, but it is worth considering. Paul MAY be drawing a lot of Is to the Rep. primary.

Charming_Man: I read this article yesterday and took it for what it was. It is by no means proof, but it is worth considering. Paul MAY be drawing a lot of Is to the Rep. primary.

This article is worthless without comparing them to current numbers. He would have a point if he compared donations between all the current canidates but the way he computes his numbers is worthless. More people are making donations this election than last election and his math doesn't account for that.

no idea what tfa was all about, but he used the words 'data' and 'derived' right at the beginning, so, he obviously knows what he's talking about and it must be true

Ryan2065: This article is worthless without comparing them to current numbers. He would have a point if he compared donations between all the current canidates but the way he computes his numbers is worthless. More people are making donations this election than last election and his math doesn't account for that.

How much are they paying you to say things like this, Ryan?

21-7-b: no idea what tfa was all about, but he used the words 'data' and 'derived' right at the beginning, so, he obviously knows what he's talking about and it must be true

This.

If we adjust Ron Paul's numbers for inflation, then he's sitting at 3400%.

House of Tards: FTFA: If you consider that 50% of the population falls in the democratic party, this represents 38% of the republican party

You're doing it wrong. (pops)

You know that data is 4 years old. I trying very hard to not call you names during the holiday season but you're really asking for it.

/dipshiat

/couldn't resist

coma: You know that data is 4 years old. I trying very hard to not call you names during the holiday season but you're really asking for it.

I'd hazard a guess that if party affiliations changed significantly since 2004, they changed to be more in favor of the Democratic party; if you read the link, you'd note that Republicans registered gains against Democrats following September 11, 2001, and that that parity continued until late 2003 or early 2004, when, at the end of the time surveyed, the trend was for Democratic gains.

Car_Ramrod: Ryan2065: Well then, Obama will have no problem.

Link (new window)

"Yet those figures only scratch the surface of Obama's strength. His campaign says - and other camps don't dispute - that its total number of donors as of June 30 was 258,000.

Using the same logic as in the article, Obama has 117,272,727 supporters, which is ~39% of the U.S. population. Considering as of 2004 there were 215,694,000 in America of voting age, that's 54% of the voting population that are being represented by donations to Obama.

No, no. Those are the June 30th numbers. Obama has 458,140 donors now. So, by the article's math, he has the support of 210,286,260 voters. Which, given the people under the age of 18, should be more than the number of eligible voters in the entire country.

Ron Paul's supporters are unusually diverse and unusually committed. Here is why:


This is a representation of those in Congress -- red is Republican, and blue is Democrat. Paul is the red dot at the top. People in that quadrant have relatively few options for President, while those farther down are more likely to split supporters. Comparing dollars to votes might work when supporters are relatively equal in their commitment to the candidate, but it's clearly skewed in this respect.

In other words, his support is not as strong as most of his followers hope, but if there is a snowstorm or other event, his voters are less likely to stay home.

there's maps as well

apparently "When you consider the electoral college map and count only the states that are more green than brown (such as CA, TX, and FL) you end up with 223 electoral college votes."

Given that the GOP will win the general election if the Dems put in either a woman or a brother (which is looking better and better by the day), which Republican politician would you rather see in this office?

1. The Jesus Freak?
2. A Mormon?
3. The guy who happened to be in charge on 911?
4. Ron Paul

You know the answer as well as I.

well see how things turn out.

for americas sake i hope pauls support is extremely underestimated.

i wouldnt mind if obama won but America is in need of more of a reboot than obama is offering..

Better estimate than polling people who only showed up at the primaries to show support for farking Bush.

I want to know who is going to clean up these.



They're all over sign posts, telephone poles, overpasses, all over the place. That's a lot of noise for a guy that won't get over 3% of anything. Even if he runs as a third party choice.

Those friggin signs will be all over the place for years to come. Long after Ron Paul has retired to Jonestown.

The real issue is that 100% of Ron Paul supporters actually care about their country, and will all show up to vote, whereas none of the other candidates' supporters care about anything but their regular television programming and aisles 2-5 in the grocery store, and only a tiny percentage of them will be bothered to vote, mainly because they can't read a map to get to the voting booth, can't remember which of the bullshiat candidates they decided has the nicest hair, and can't get up off the couch with their bowl of potato chips when American Idol is on.

Coolboy55: The real issue is that 100% of Ron Paul supporters actually care about their country, and will all show up to vote, whereas none of the other candidates' supporters care about anything but their regular television programming and aisles 2-5 in the grocery store, and only a tiny percentage of them will be bothered to vote, mainly because they can't read a map to get to the voting booth, can't remember which of the bullshiat candidates they decided has the nicest hair, and can't get up off the couch with their bowl of potato chips when American Idol is on.

That's a long sentence...

Snarfangel,

Thats an awesome chart!
I would love to know who is the blue dot on the line between Libertarian and Right-Conservative. (and, for that matter, who is the red dot on the line between Centrist and Left-Liberal)?

/My dot would probably be on the line between Left-Liberal and Libertarian
//Left-Liberal
///With a slight Libertarian twist
////and a slight Lemon twist

bacccc: Given that the GOP will win the general election...

I lol'd.

JohanW: Better estimate than polling people who only showed up at the primaries to show support for farking Bush.

Huh huh.
Huh huh huh huh.

coma:

You know that data is 4 years old. I trying very hard to not call you names during the holiday season but you're really asking for it.

/dipshiat

Clearly both of us can read, but apparently only one of us can comprehend. In fact some of the data is much *older* than 4 years (that's how some graphs work, if you didn't know). However the trendlines do not show a trend toward absolute party affiliation. Hell, Ron Paul supporters tend to argue that independents and disaffected democrats are why his supports is undercounted.

So are you alleging that in the past 4 years the voting population has trended less towards independents and more toward party affiliation? In the past 4 years we have moved close to a 50/50 split as the author alleges? I have no reason to believe that both political parties have seen gains of that size, and yeah, I've seen newer polls that show support roughly where it is on the graphs I linked. I just happened to be posting to Fark, not writing a treatise on the poor assumptions of a blogger, and didn't feel like searching an hour for similar data.

Your newer data that proves your point. Show it to me.

Or we can just continue namecalling. It's a Ron Paul thread, it's gonna happen anyway.

/Save your faux apologies, you overeager prat.

CokeBear: Thats an awesome chart!
I would love to know who is the blue dot on the line between Libertarian and Right-Conservative. (and, for that matter, who is the red dot on the line between Centrist and Left-Liberal)?

I've got the feeling that the red dot is Chris Shays.

House of Tards: coma:

You know that data is 4 years old. I trying very hard to not call you names during the holiday season but you're really asking for it.

/dipshiat

Clearly both of us can read, but apparently only one of us can comprehend. In fact some of the data is much *older* than 4 years (that's how some graphs work, if you didn't know). However the trendlines do not show a trend toward absolute party affiliation. Hell, Ron Paul supporters tend to argue that independents and disaffected democrats are why his supports is undercounted.

So are you alleging that in the past 4 years the voting population has trended less towards independents and more toward party affiliation? In the past 4 years we have moved close to a 50/50 split as the author alleges? I have no reason to believe that both political parties have seen gains of that size, and yeah, I've seen newer polls that show support roughly where it is on the graphs I linked. I just happened to be posting to Fark, not writing a treatise on the poor assumptions of a blogger, and didn't feel like searching an hour for similar data.

Your newer data that proves your point. Show it to me.

Or we can just continue namecalling. It's a Ron Paul thread, it's gonna happen anyway.

/Save your faux apologies, you overeager prat.

Hahaha coma, learn your role, shut your mouth when the men are talking. Wow, you got served hard.

Pfft. Shoot. The word about his bi-racial illegitimate child won't even hit the Enquirer until next September....

Ron Paul supporters are like a single guy trying to convince his friends that his girlfriend is pretty. If she is pretty you don't even need to say anything.

CokeBear
Thats an awesome chart!
I would love to know who is the blue dot on the line between Libertarian and Right-Conservative. (and, for that matter, who is the red dot on the line between Centrist and Left-Liberal)?

The chart came from the website freedomdemocrats.org, and it said

The two red dots in the libertarian quadrant are Ron Paul of Texas and Jeff Flake of Arizona. Democrat Melissa Bean of Illinois is just along the edge of the libertarian quadrant. Other notable members are Republicans Walter Jones of North Carolina and John Duncan of Tennessee, occupying the corner where Centrists, Libertarians, and Conservatives meet, and Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee, who is just south of the line between Centrists and Libertarians. The green dot is Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The dark blue square is the average for the Democratic Party and the dark red square is the average for the Republican Party.

I wish it had been extended out to include all the candidates for President, and maybe give a name when you mouseover a dot, but no such luck. Perhaps it is elsewhere on the site, or they have more info that can be requested, though I haven't tried e-mailing them.

So wait. Is it pretty much the consensus that that article was not satire? Well that pretty much sucks the fun right out of reading it, doesn't it?

Snarfangel: Comparing dollars to votes might work when supporters are relatively equal in their commitment to the candidate, but it's clearly skewed in this respect.

There are probably many other biases, though you're obviously right. Aside from Paul supporters being more committed (which is probably right), they're probably also more likely to be of somewhat higher income, since Paul advocates lower taxes and lower government aid--policies which are good for people who are financially self-sufficient and bad for those who receive government support. On the other hand, Paul might have received significantly fewer large donations from corporate PACs and the like due to the view that he'd not be favorable to some industries or corporations or the view that he's a super long shot.

So, yes, I think the differences between candidates directly bias the likelihood of supporters to both turn out and to donate money, making this comparison completely useless.

your guy voted to go to war.

I took a poll of the thirty three people I got registered to vote and we're all going to vote for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is my choice for president.