He got 65% of the vote in the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers straw poll over the weekend. Granted, that's not an actual poll, but I get the impression that it's the type of people who would vote in a primary.

That's the equivalent of polling an NRA convention on who they would have voted for in 2004 Bush or Kerry and then trying to pass it off as the voting public's opinion.

 

ALL state wide opinion polls of likely republican primary voters have him ranging from a 0 - 2 %. And his campaign had the same buzz two months ago so I don't by he's picking up. He's running the same campaign as Dean, his just isn't getting off the ground like Dean already was.

Knowing what I do about polling (it's briefly mentioned in the article I wrote that's linked above), looking solely at that subset of voters is very flawed when it comes to this campaign in particular. By the metrics they use to determine likely Republican primary voters, many Paul voters are going to be overlooked. Don't discount the fact that there are a lot of disaffected Republicans, or voters in general, who are specifically energized by Paul's message. They haven't voted much in prior elections. They may be independents switching affiliations to vote in the primary. You described the typical Paul supporter as being a young person. The Pew Research Center said that 25% of people under 30 only have a cell phone. They will never be polled. (They're also more likely to be excluded in a likely voter poll even if they do have a landline.) 0-2% is a lowball estimate for his support. I think it's closer to 5%. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't think so.

 

edit: For the record, though I think he has more support than is commonly believed, I don't really know how much of a chance he has. It's tough to win a primary when upwards of 70% in your party disagree with your position on probably the most important issue of the day. But I don't see him dropping out of the race at all before the nomination--he'll have enough money to carry him all the way through--and he's going to have enough people behind him to make things uncomfortable for the other guys.

The neo-conservatives did not come from the Democratic party. They have always been associated with the GOP, for some reason.

 

this is incorrect on many, many counts.

 

while i abhor using wikipedia as a source and believe that anyone who does so in any sense of academia should be slapped in the face (*slaps self*) i am feeling particularly lazy and have many other things to do other than going through textbooks and citing the pages to make my point, so i'll cop out and use wikipedia for a simplistic, lazy application to the origins of the neoconservative movement. while wiki does not give a totally comprehensive history, the premise is accurate.

 

ultimately, of course, it doesn't matter where the movement started and if you are into "blaming" one party for neoconservatism's emergence you are a moron. but in the interest of accuracy here is some reading material from a less than stellar source...

 

Good reading material. And, you're right about the neoconservative movement not being forever associated with the GOP. In my opinion, the roots of the neoconservative movement lie in an odd mixture of conservative and liberal ideologies. Foreign policy analyst Walter Russell Mead writes about four distinct schools of American foreign policy in his book "Special Providence." He lists them as: Jacksonian, Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, and Wilsonian. They kind of divide in a two by two matrix divided among policies favoring the furthering of American values or American interests and those focused abroad and those focused on home. Hamiltonian is basically your CEO, pro-globalization policy of handling foreign affairs via free trade. (Interest + Abroad). Jacksonianism is more isolationist but advocates policies which exclusively serve the interest of American and says force can be used (Interests + Home). Jeffersonian is about policies favoring equality and liberty, but believes in a policy where America works on being an example to follow rather than an active agent in other nations' affairs. (Values + Home) Lastly, Wilsonian is about seeing the export of American values as our duty. (Values + Abroad)

 

If you look at this, neoconservatism falls in a very odd mix because most of the foreign policies we've followed as a country fall into one of those schools of thought. However, neoconservatism isn't a really clean classification. If anything, it's primarily Wilsonian with an odd mix of Jacksonian traits. Jacksonians are typically Republicans while Wilsonians are typically Democrats. So it is safe to say that the neocon movement, as a theory, appeals to different aspects of both liberals and conservatives. In fact, I think it can be argued that President Bush's foreign policy mirrors Woodrow Wilson's (see Wilson's Latin America policy) alot more than any Republican presidents of recent memory.

 

I'm not saying that most of the early neocons didn't consider themselves Republicans. Strauss and all of his proteges certainly carry that label. However, there are definitely liberal influences in the overlying theory. Some would go so far as to argue that there isn't anything really "conservative" about neoconservatism.

It's still early yet, Ron Paul has won some straw polls, and he has the third most cash on hand. Serious politicos Joe Scarborough, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, and Pat Buchanan are starting to say the Paul is a very serious candidate. So he's not big in the polls yet, but look at the following:

 

"At this point in the cycle, national polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters' views of the candidates."In early 1975, Carter was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Presidency).

 

"In early 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Democratic nomination).

 

"In early 1991, Clinton was at 2% (he went on to win the Presidency).

 

"In the spring of 1999, John McCain was polling at 3% (he went on to win the NH primary).

 

"In early 2003, Joe Lieberman was leading the field for the Democratic presidential nomination (he failed to win any primary).""

 

 

Paul has more meetup members (activists that meet person to person) than any other campaign, and when word comes this September that the military build up in Iraq has failed, Republicans are going to be forced to turn tail and look like hypocrites or stick to a losing issue. When Republicans vote in the primary and see only one candidate opposes the war and is very conservative on other issues, we're looking at a Paul victory in New Hampshire (a very libertarian-leaning state that Buchanan won in 1996).

 

It may cause a domino effect. I my opinion, the race is between Paul, the mobster himself, Fred Thompson, and Newt if he jumps in. Romney and McCain are already faltering. So, one should not discount Paul because "he won't win." You don't know the future. As a voter in the primary, just vote for the guy you like most. Vote for the lesser of two evils, if you must, later.

The neo-conservatives did not come from the Democratic party. They have always been associated with the GOP, for some reason.

 

this is incorrect on many, many counts.

 

while i abhor using wikipedia as a source and believe that anyone who does so in any sense of academia should be slapped in the face (*slaps self*) i am feeling particularly lazy and have many other things to do other than going through textbooks and citing the pages to make my point, so i'll cop out and use wikipedia for a simplistic, lazy application to the origins of the neoconservative movement. while wiki does not give a totally comprehensive history, the premise is accurate.

 

ultimately, of course, it doesn't matter where the movement started and if you are into "blaming" one party for neoconservatism's emergence you are a moron. but in the interest of accuracy here is some reading material from a less than stellar source...

 

Good reading material. And, you're right about the neoconservative movement not being forever associated with the GOP. In my opinion, the roots of the neoconservative movement lie in an odd mixture of conservative and liberal ideologies. Foreign policy analyst Walter Russell Mead writes about four distinct schools of American foreign policy in his book "Special Providence." He lists them as: Jacksonian, Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, and Wilsonian. They kind of divide in a two by two matrix divided among policies favoring the furthering of American values or American interests and those focused abroad and those focused on home. Hamiltonian is basically your CEO, pro-globalization policy of handling foreign affairs via free trade. (Interest + Abroad). Jacksonianism is more isolationist but advocates policies which exclusively serve the interest of American and says force can be used (Interests + Home). Jeffersonian is about policies favoring equality and liberty, but believes in a policy where America works on being an example to follow rather than an active agent in other nations' affairs. (Values + Home) Lastly, Wilsonian is about seeing the export of American values as our duty. (Values + Abroad)

 

If you look at this, neoconservatism falls in a very odd mix because most of the foreign policies we've followed as a country fall into one of those schools of thought. However, neoconservatism isn't a really clean classification. If anything, it's primarily Wilsonian with an odd mix of Jacksonian traits. Jacksonians are typically Republicans while Wilsonians are typically Democrats. So it is safe to say that the neocon movement, as a theory, appeals to different aspects of both liberals and conservatives. In fact, I think it can be argued that President Bush's foreign policy mirrors Woodrow Wilson's (see Wilson's Latin America policy) alot more than any Republican presidents of recent memory.

 

I'm not saying that most of the early neocons didn't consider themselves Republicans. Strauss and all of his proteges certainly carry that label. However, there are definitely liberal influences in the overlying theory. Some would go so far as to argue that there isn't anything really "conservative" about neoconservatism.

 

I hadn;t signed on here in a few days, but wanks and yourself have pretty much taken the words out of my mouth.

I will push aside internet support. YouTube views, MySpace, and Facebook friends seriously don't mean sh*t. I can't believe that is actually being used as a reason why he has a chance.

 

How many more times are people going to push this Generation X vote as if it is actually going to mean something on election day?

Yes, but 20,000 meet-up members equals 20,000 real live people who meet up, make posters, and do other sorts of scheming. That is a spectacularly large grass-roots support--especially considering that's more than any other candidate in the country.

Ok, we know his poll numbers are not great right now but many of you have said just wait. So how about this if Ron Paul can average 8% in two polls that are either national, or part of the big three(NH, Nevada, Iowa) in the next 45 days I will make a 10$ donation to the Ron Paul for President campaign(I know it's small but I am so very poor). For instance two polls from Iowa can come out one with him polling at 10, an another say a week later at 6. My only condition you can not mix and match, they have to come from the same category.

 

Now if he fails to do this, whoever takes me up makes a 10$ dollar donation to the Bill Richardson for President fund.

 

 

So after polling 9% in the Iowa straw poll, he just needs 7% in NH, Nevada or nationally right? :thumbup

 

 

I thought you posted it before, but which website are you using to get the national poll numbers?

No matter how 'good' his ideas may be, we aren't gonna have Elmer Fudd for President.

The straw poll is hardly what I was talking about given you know the fact that of the four leading canidates only one showed up. But hey, no one actually took the bet but if someone does I'll even allow them to use the straw poll as their one source but they would then need to use a real poll as their second option.

whoever said it before....

 

 

the comparision to the paul momentum at this point can be seen almost as a direct paralell to that of howard dean in 2003, just not as great at this point.

 

 

I'm not sold on the Paul pheonomenia yet, but good luck to him.