He just won both Iowa straw polls with 82% of people choosing him
Could this mean he has a better chance than we think?
He absolutely had 82%
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/29/ron-paul-wins-both-tallies-at-gop-pres-straw-poll-in-iowa/
darrin b
Favorite Answer
No, because straw polls are actually meaningless when it comes down to who truly votes.
M M
Straw polls dont mean much BUT, neither do the online polls from CNN, fox or anyone else. Fox just out and out takes polls down if Paul wins. The number of people saying I am registering as a republican to vote for him are what counts and there are LOTS of them. Paul has never been out of the mix, He will do very well in the primaries this time. Just my prediction. Ive been wrong before, but i really dont think I am this time and I hope Im not.
Angie Kelso
Yes I do believe so. Once you are a Ron Paul supporter, it just doesn't matter to you how well he does on the debates anymore. You will not decide to suddenly support another candidate because during another debate, someone else did a great '' performance''.
It is not about how eloquent of a speaker someone is. It is about what a candidate stands for.
Ron Paul is different than any other candidate. And once you understand the difference, there's just no changing your mind.
Ron Paul is gaining more and more support . And once he gains new support... they don't change their minds... because people know that if they voted for someone else, they are going to get more of the same... no matter if you vote Republican OR Democrat.
Ron Paul is spreading his message and it is the most exciting message I have heard in my lifetime. And I am 64 years old.
DR
He certainly will be if people would take my advice: Voters don't have to wait for anyone to change the campaign finance system. Just refuse to vote for any candidate backed by big money. That denies power to the source of that money.
Usually this would require voting for neither Democrats nor Republicans. Other parties' candidates still appear on ballots. It does not matter which candidate, because that candidate will not win the election. It's OK to vote for a goofball or weirdo.
If more people start voting for those outside party weirdos you see on ballots, the more likely it becomes that sensible independent candidates will emerge in various elections. Then we can vote for those people. Also, that will pressure the two main political parties to adapt to voter preferences more than big campaign donors would like.
Besides, it's satisfying to deny your consent to the existing system by voting that way.
There are some politicians who take very little money from any sources except individuals. Ron Paul is the most famous current example that I know of. If you must vote within the two party system, then candidates like that are a good choice.
Even he has benefitted from some money from PACs/lobbyists; it would be wise to check which ones he got campaign help from.
I blame lack of change on everyone who votes either Democrat or Republican. Why do we just jump back and forth, voting one or the other into office? By now it's clear that that won't change anything.
Why should we forget about the past harm they've done? It's not like that harm was accidental; it was the result of both responding to lobbying and acting based on party ideology. We should assume that politicians of both parties will repeat some of their past harmful actions.
Voters should stop focusing only on candidates who are visible in debates and TV ads. Unless a candidate is extremely wealthy, to be visible he/she has to work within the two parties' systems and to take campaign contributions from powerful interests.
It's weird that enough people voted for Republicans in 2010 to give them a House majority, while we were still suffering from the consequences of Republican policies. Though voting for Democrats in 2008 did not make much more sense.
Voters were naive enough to be seduced by Obama's charisma and to not insist that he offer real solutions before voting for him. They were kind of like the voters who elected George W. Bush in spite of his indifference to facts and policy.
Even worse were the fools who voted for Bush in 2004 after he had launched the Iraq war based on the false pretense of stopping a weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
And now, fools have voted more Republicans into Congress, even though we got rid of them only two years ago. What about Republicans has changed in two years, that we should trust them? Nothing. Their bad deeds merit their permanent banishment from public office.
But that's not a complete solution. There still is the problem of people going back and forth between jobs as politicians/regulators and jobs as lobbyists or corporate executives. It might be worth it to forbid any decision-maker in government from ever taking an executive/lobbyist job outside government, and vice-versa.
PC
He has a better chance than you would think if you listen to the lamestream media. They are trying to hush up talk of Ron Paul, because they don't want anyone who will actually change anything in Washington.