In defense of voting for Ron Paul

[archerships]

In response to An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful, I wrote the following

Dear Mr. Wastler,

Thanks for letting us know why you took down your straw poll. You write:

“In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question….But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest “show of hands” — it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum.”

How much effort does it take to participate in a straw poll? A few clicks of a mouse. Assuming that scientific polls are correct, had they bothered to vote, the supporters of the so-called frontrunners could’ve easily overwhelmed the Ron Paul supporters.

But they didn’t.

I’m not sure what you want Ron Paul supporters to do. You ask for a show of hands, and we raised our hands. Is it our fault that the support for the so-called frontrunners is so tepid and unenthusiastic? Should we sit on our hands when the call for votes is made?

Almost 2500 Paul supporters showed up at a rally -in person- after the debates. Is it so implausible that 7,000 would vote for him online?

You write:

“When a well-organized and committed “few” can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of “the many,” I get a little worried.”

I worry about this too. Take a look at these numbers:

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-silenced-at-cnbc-debate-transcript.html

Paul is well ahead of Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, or Brownback in terms of fundraising, and online support. He raised as much money as McCain last quarter. He polls about the same as Huckabee in scientific polls. Yet the moderators at the CNBC gave Paul less airtime than any other candidate.

As the gatekeeper to the television screens of millions of voters across the nation, the few at CNBC have an enormous influence on the election. Does it seem fair to you that Paul was given so little time compared to the other candidates?

Rather than pull the poll when you get unexpected results, may I suggest that a better strategy would be to explore why Paul arouses such enthusiasm among his supporters.

Thanks for your time.

Chris

Original: craschworks - comments

Comments

[rinku.livejournal.com]

2500? Just last week the record for a Rally was 1500 in Nashville. Now the NYC one tomorrow will have to pass Michigan D:

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

At the only poll that matters, enthusiasm doesn't count. Someone who shows up at the polling booth and punches the card at random has as much impact on the election as you. It's breadth of support that matters, not depth. In going out of their way to prove the depth of their support for Ron Paul, his promoters are missing the point, and proving that he's not really a viable candidate.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're right, Paul supporters need to broaden the base of his support in order to win the primary.

Paul's currently trading at $7.0 vs. $5.4 against McCain to win the primary. That's up from less than $1.00 in May. So the people betting real money on the outcome think Paul is more viable than McCain. Unlike McCain, however, Paul's still relatively unknown, so he has a lot more room for growth.

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what the fascination with McCain is. McCain has worked hard to torpedo his own campaign. Comparisons to him instead of the front runners tell me that Ron Paul really isn't in it to win, just to make some noise. Which is fine. We need noisemaker candidates too, and that's the reason I support Ron Paul. But he really wants to win, there's only one candidate he should be concerned about beating, and that's the guy in the #2 spot.

*applauds*

[greendalek.livejournal.com]

Well said.