Re: Strange poll results on DU, ie supporting Ron Paul

[Colorado Progressive]

How simple would it be for a Libertarian or Freeper to open an account on DU and only pop in for polls like this? There is no way to tell who voted for who. I don't know if Free Republic has polls but theoretically we could do the same over there, right? But my suspicion is that the Ron Paul Cult are organized enough to infiltrate and skew polls because that's how they are trained. They do it on polls all over the MSM.

I really dont think anyone who is left/liberal/socialist/democrat or anywhere on the left side of the fence would vote for him, with his anti-choice stance and racist reputation. Frankly he reminds me of a Nazi doctor. But hey, if I'm wrong, or missed some valid point, please share.

[Warpy]

1. There are Democratic conservatives and Paul appeals to them

Conservatives are wrong no matter which party they belong to, but there you have it. The polls aren't being Freeped. Conservatives are just voting for a libertarian GOP because they like what he stands for.

Why they hang around here is beyond me, though. My guess is that it has more to do with disgust for Stupid's abandonment of their own party's principles than any fascination with ours.

[Colorado Progressive]

4. So why cant they get their own forum?

x(

[book_worm]

37. I'm not sure they are conservatives--some of our progressive friends have looked

beyond his entire record and seem to be paying attention to only one thing--his anti-war rhetoric.

[Mythsaje]

2. I'd gladly support Ron Paul

as an independent drawing away Repug votes in the primaries.

:evilgrin:

But any liberal or progressive who'd support him, regardless of his position on the war, is a fool.

[Colorado Progressive]

6. Yes, in the primaries, that would make sense. nt

[musette_sf]

8. would you also support

whoever James "Show Your Son Your Giant Wang And Let Him Know Who's Boss" Dobson puts up, as the "evangelical" candidate?

i mean, it would split the Repug vote further.....

edited to add today's NYT editorial by Pastor Daddy Giant Wang on why he needs an extra special candidate just for the forced birthers and woman haters:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/04dobson.html?ref=opinion

[Mythsaje]

11. Oh, that would be lovely...LOL n/t

[spanone]

21. pastor daddy giant wang....that's great

bet they run that tony perkins guy

[musette_sf]

23. that guy Perkins is another tea room foot-tapper

like Ralph Reid, ya know?

[TahitiNut]

13. So, which Democratic candidate is ideologically closest to Ron Paul?

:evilgrin:

[Horse with no Name]

15. Oh what a magnificent bastid you are!

:evilgrin:

[Mythsaje]

18. On social issues I don't think she is...

He's a freak. She's just a... an opportunist.

[TahitiNut]

27. Actually, if we're to accept the metric, he is.

Indeed, it's on the social scale that they're damned near twins. It's on the economic scale that Ron Paul shows his CORPORATIST biases. So does Hillary ... just not enough to quite be a GOPher. But close ... and far more than any other candidate.

I find it interesting that her more vocal supporters are nearly exclusive in their regard for social isues and not much at all on the economic. I think that's dangerous, quite frankly. HOWEVER, if that's all that's important to the voter, then it's conceivable that that voter (even as a "liberal") would prefer Ron Paul.

Now, the metrics of that survey ARE a net of several assessments of values which individually may, in fact, be quite different. All that need be indicated is the same NET (aggregate) positions, while those positions may be very dissimilar. Allow me to explain.

Let's say that there are five questions which indicate a socially authoritarian vs. libertarian attitude. While one might assume that there'd be some tendency to answer ALL of them in a somewhat similar fashion, we should be familiar enough with the "hot button" (divisive) topics to know that politicians find wiggle room (parsed postures) to appear attractive to an (assumedly) broader or partisan constituency. So, assigning the values -3, -1, +1 and +3 to the answers "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" (ignoring the negatives) we might see how two nearly identical scores doesn't necessarily indicate congruent positions.

........... Q1 .... Q2 .... Q3 .... Q4 .... Q5 .... NET
Clinton .... -2 .... +1 .... -1 .... -1 .... +2 .... -1
Paul ....... +1 .... -1 .... -1 .... +2 .... -2 .... -1

As we can see, only one answer was identical, some were VERY different, but the two are 'scored' the same.

That's what makes it all interesting. That's also what leads to phrases like "the muddled middle." :silly:

It also helps understand why I'd strongly support Kucinich on virtually all his stances ... but be VERY leery of Mike Gravel. Gravel has some disturbing economic stances.

Now, this is an exaggeration, of course, but it can explain how they can be regarded as EQUALLY liberal on a social scale but different on issues that matter (to the voter).

[Colorado Progressive]

28. Well did you have to scare us all silly Tahiti Nut?

At least the blue dots think women are real people with real civil rights. But I see your point.

[zonmoy]

32. not everybody loves the center right authoritarian candidates that we have to vote for

in the democratic party. I myself figure paul is better than most of the democrats because of his more libertarian views. Kucinich and gravel are much better but I doubt that they are going to stand against the right wingers in the democratic party when one of them is selected by the big money interests. right now those are the only three options that don't make me want to run to the bathroom to barf. at least until the greens or any better libertarian left parties announce their candidates.

[Mythsaje]

35. There's no way a "state's rights" racist, misogynist, candidate

is better than someone who has a proven track record for supporting civil rights for women and minorities.

I may not like her corporate stances or her triangulation, but Right-Libertarians are inherently fucking nutso. They don't share much at all with left-libertarians. Nothing worth mentioning, anyway.

[zonmoy]

38. I know both left and right libertarians.

and I know authoritarians. the fact is that I would support a libertarian of either right or left before I would trust the authoritarian mindset. I honestly prefer left libertarians but I will vote for a right libertarian if there are no better choices.

[Mythsaje]

39. I'm a left libertarian

and I'm married to someone who leans toward right-libertarianism. I love her, but I sure as hell wouldn't vote for her.

[Gormy Cuss]

3. DU polls are inherently biased.

In other words, the results aren't representative of DU unless a very high percentage of active posters vote.

[musette_sf]

5. i think most *progressive* DUers

simply dislike Dr. Paul because he stands for dismantling the social safety net as strongly as Grover "Bathtub Drowner" Norquist.

and i think most feminist DUers also dislike Dr. Paul because he thinks of women as second-class citizens, not fully human or equal to men.

but some of the "libertarian" bent use the "But he'll end the war in Iraq" strawman.

yeah, it'll be just great when Ron Paul ends the war in Iraq and all the money we're throwing away there can be given to the more worthy, i.e. corporations. :sarcasm:

[TheUniverse]

7. I've voted for Ron Paul in some of the polls.

Why? Because it was Ron Paul V Hillary Clinton.


Ron Paul is a psychopath. His economic policy is horrible. So is his healthcare policy. So is his idea of wanting to build a wall. So is his abortion extremist policies. So is his idea of getting rid of every government agency.


So why would I vote for him over Hillary CLinton if that is what the general election was (Which it wont be as Ron Paul wont win the nomination)

Because the War in Iraq is a disaster and 1 million have died. When hundreds of thousands of people each year are dying because of actions our government is taking, solving this problem supercedes eveything. If those were the two choices (Which again I know they wont be) I would vote for Ron Paul because I know he would end the Iraq, and hope the Democratic congress gives him zero support in his domestic policies. Hillary Clinton has done nothing to show me she will end the mass slaughter in Iraq.

[musette_sf]

10. i don't like Hillary as the candidate either

but there is NO WAY i would vote for Ron Paul over her. i would just have to hold my nose and get over it.

Ron Paul has done nothing to show me that he will battle the extremist SCOTUS to preserve Roe v. Wade. in fact, he's made it very clear that he'd do everything he could against Roe v. Wade.

[TheUniverse]

17. I wouldn't be happy for Ron Paul or Hillary.

I consider them both horrible candidates, so I dont want people thinking I support Ron Paul. You're right his positions on many issues including abortion are horrible. Infact I will never vote for him because he wont win the Republican nomination. I hope someone wins the Democratic Nomination who actually supports ending the Iraq slaughter and supports progressive values (AKA I want Hillary beat.) But if this election comes down to Hillary V Rudy, I will vote for Hillary because with her, there is at least somewhat of a chance we will leave Iraq. But I will not be happy voting for her.

[musette_sf]

19. i honestly don't think Hillary will get the nom

just a gut feeling

[Colorado Progressive]

30. I agree. I hope Edwards gets it. nt

[still_one]

16. He would allow a persons civil rights to be decided at the state level

I could understand you not voting for either candidate, and respect that, but to vote for someone who would effectively allow a state to refuse service to a person in a public place is what the civil rights movement was all about

His views are no different than the Federalist Socieyt judges in the mold of Scalia, Bork, and others, who had no problem if a barber refused to give a haircut to someone because of the color of their skin

[TheUniverse]

22. I do not like Ron Paul at all.

The only reason I would vote for him if won the nomination (which he won't so we are arguing about nothing) is if I felt the Democratic nominee would continue the war, which is very important as 1 million have died. Dont get me wrong Ron Paul's domestic policies are horrible, but he wouldnt be able to get anything passed in a Democratic Congress, so there would be minimal damage domestically.

[still_one]

25. Since he won't get the nomination, probably not a good idea to setup such a hypothetical

If you are looking for a vote to send a message, there are plenty of anti-war progressives out their running

[still_one]

9. Paul has a position on states rights that would effectively move civil rights

a woman's right to choose, education, environment, and almost any issue that should be handled at the Federal level to the state level

Just because he is against the Iraq war, doesn't mean that it would put civil rights back hundred years with his views

[musette_sf]

12. are you aware at all

of the issues women face in several states when they seek reproductive health care?

ONE clinic for the entire state... ridiculous "waiting periods"... these states enact STATE laws that effectively prevent women from exercising their constitutional right to reproductive health care...

there are quite a few states that would outlaw reproductive choice, if only the glorious days of States' Rights would return...

reproductive health care and reproductive choice MUST remain at the Federal level.

[still_one]

24. Yes, and we haven't even touched on civil rights. The Federalist Society

would love to overturn the civil rights act of the sixties

Estelle Griswold (Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut) and Dr. C. Lee Buxton (a physician and professor at the Yale School of Medicine) opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, in order to test the contraception law once again. Shortly after the clinic was opened, Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined $100 each. The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, and by the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors. Griswold then appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down a Texas state law that prohibited certain forms of intimate sexual contact between members of the same sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

People should realize it was the Supreme Court in Brown V Board of Education, NOT Congress that actually opened the door to civil rights in the twentieth century. Not that long ago

[illinoisprogressive]

14. I have not seen support for him. I did post something about his fundraising but,

that was just to say it was great people were making choices and not just being robots for the media spin.
But, that is not like supporting or liking the guy.

[cali]

20. I think quite a few of those who said they'd vote for Paul over Clinton

self-identify as liberals/progressives. And though it's only a hunch, I bet a strong majority of them were men.

[still_one]

26. I could understand not voting for either, but anyone who understands what Ron Paul would bring

would never vote for him

It would be like bringing segregation, and state sanctioned discrimination back

[Mythsaje]

29. My wife might...

If the stakes weren't so high. She'll vote Dem this time around, just like last time. Mostly because she takes my lead on stuff like this. She might actually agree with him more than I'd like, if she had the time and energy to research this stuff herself.

Ugh. There are Ron Paul signs all over town. She looked at me and asked "who is he?"

I said "He's a right-wing Libertarian type loon."

On edit: Of course, once she realized that he'd screw up abortion rights and equal rights for women, she might reconsider.

She's a former MENSA member, has a tested IQ of over 150 (at least 20 pts higher than mine), and is actually more socially adept (at least she understands social conventions, where most of them just confuse me), but she just doesn't get a lot of the political stuff. We argue about privitization far too often. I just can't get her to realize that 99.9% of the time, it's insanity.

[Colorado Progressive]

31. I absolutely agree with you! nt

[TahitiNut]

33. I'm reminded of Carlos ... and how he 'explained' why DUers didn't like Lieberman.

"You only dislike him because he's Jewish."

Yeah ... I guess it's convenient to see gender bias in disagreement. Saves thinking.

:shrug:

When do we hear about "a strong majority of" people who don't like Obama being white? :eyes:


(I predicted this level of discourse MANY weeks ago.)

[cali]

34. Sorry, I don't think it's the same thing at all, and in fact

there have been several articles written about Paul's strong support from white males. It's not even remotely close to your Lieberman example.

[TahitiNut]

36. Of course not.

:eyes:

[Mythsaje]

40. I don't know...

I still maintain it's not prejudiced to dislike assholes because no one was ever BORN an asshole.

And I think Leiberman's an asshole.

[TahitiNut]

41. You mean ...

... it's NOT because he's Jewish?? :wow:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Mythsaje]

42. Oddly enough, no. n/t