Stephen, that's a fair enough challenge. I was a delegate to the Presidency IV event and debate last weekend in Orlando. The Rudy and Romney campaigns are slick and they have a lot of dough to bankroll impressive campaigns. However, we in the Paul camp are confident that substance will trump style.

With an uncompromising message, Ron Paul is bringing out people who never considered voting before or those who gave up on politicians long ago.

Thanks for the article.

Tom Walls
Lake Worth, Fla.

Paul is still an unknown candidate to the general public and does have room to grow in the poll, unlike Hillary who is well-known and more and more disliked as Dr. Paul gains momentum. This is what promises he is the only candidate that can beat Clinton.

As the history books recount, the British Crown treated our founders with the same arrogant disrespect, taunts, marginalization, and censorship. I believe it was the Spanish philosopher George Santayana who said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I have to agree with Mr. Dinan on this one. Another poll also showed that 47% said there's NO way they'd vote for Paul. I have been following the Paul Campaign since May, and they've always been careful not to make such drastic proclimations. I do agree, as Paul himself has been saying of late, that if you line up the issues and the American people vote on the issues, Paul would win. His main problem is breaking through the misconceptions about his intentions. He does NOT want to just cut off Socical Security on the seniors out there. He does NOT want to just end Medi-Care. He does NOT want to get rid of the entire CIA and FBI, only streamline them and make them more effecient. He does NOT plan to end the Federal Reserve, rather he wants to allow gold and silver to be a competing currency to the dollar. As people hear is true ideas and logic, the majority gravitate towards him. Paul has tapped a vein in America. So many people, myself included, are beginning to feel like our biggest threat is our own federal government, not Bin Laden. My liberties are being taken away faster than ever now, and I agree with Benjamin Franklin - If we sacrafice liberty for security, we will end with and deserve neither. Our founders were genius, way more so than those leading us today. Their views are not outdated. Liberty is new, tyranny is what's outdated. Paul makes sense, but too many people in media seem to dismiss him as "quirky" or "crazy". To me, the statement (uttered by Bush, Rudy, and most of the others): "They (terrorists) come here and attack us for our freedom" is crazy.

The one difference between the rest of the GOP front-runners and Ron Paul is that he is still virtually unknown. He's only now starting to run ads, and as his visibility grows, his numbers nationally will start to reflect his position in early states. He was at 10% amongst independent voters in New Hampshire last month. He's over 5% in a number of states. His national numbers are lagging behind because of name recognition issues.

Nobody else can outflank her from the left while maintaining the true conservative values that Republicans have long claimed they desire. I really hope that an irrational fear of Muslims or loss of access to easy money doesn't supercede logic and reason when all is said and done. Thank you for the post. Have a great day.

The biggest issue of this campaign is the war in Iraq (soon Iran). 70% of Americans believe the war was a mistake and want us to come home.

Hillary voted -for- the war and has stated that she's not willing to bring the troops home until after her first term in office, 2013.

Ron Paul voted against the war from the beginning and has stated that he will bring the troops home as soon as safely possible for our troops.

Hillary will lose a huge chunk of her base for supporting the war more than Ron Paul and Ron Paul will keep the Republican voters who don't want the socialism of Mrs. Clinton.

The reason Ron Paul is the only candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton is that 70% of the American people oppose the war in Iraq. Clinton is in favor of the permanent occupation of Iraq, but in contrast to militant thirst for violence expressed by the other Republican candidates, she seems to be the anti-war candidate. Against Ron Paul, however, no one will be fooled about who the peace candidate is.

The answer to why Ron Paul is the only candidate able to beat Hillary is simple - The American people overwhelmingly want a withdrawal from Iraq and he is the only candidate who can outflank her to the left on this issue. She voted FOR the Iraq War and has stated that she will keep troops there until at least 2013, he has opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. The peace candidate ALWAYS wins.

I think one of the primary reasons Paul will defeat Clinton in a match-up is the "war" in Iraq. Ron Paul will stop the US military from having to do policeman's jobs over there and bring them home NOW. Hillary Clinton voted FOR authorization for the "war", and also now says she can't promise the "war" will be over before her term end in 2013. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Ron Paul is the modern Thomas Jefferson. Could TJ beat Hillary? I would bet my bottom dollar that he could. It's funny and sad how our political arena has painted Dr. Paul as a lunatic fringe for wanting to restore the constitution, yet they paint Hillary as the next President because she wants to bankrupt us.
5K for every kid born? Free Healthcare for everyone, including illegals? War in Iran, and continued war in Iraq? Come on people, don't let the fear mongering cloud your vision of a True Patriot.

Ron Paul's campaign just spent $400,000 in radio adds for NH, IA, SC, and NV. They have also just recently purchased 1.1 million dollars worth of tv ads in the same states. With Ron Paul it's about name recognition. Once the people hear Ron's message it will be interesting to see how many committ to him. If it's anything like the internet hold it's going to be a wild ride!

I wouldn't look at the polls for any kind of accurate prediction, at this point. Common sense says Ron Paul is the Republican with the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton.

Ron Paul is the only Republican against the war, so he's the only one who won't start out with 70 percent of the people against him on the single biggest issue.

Ron Paul's campaign is attracting about an equal number of Republicans and independents, along with a lot of Democrats and Libertarians. None of the other Republican candidates show any sort of cross-over appeal.

I've never been involved in the political process before, but with the country 9 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt, I have to do something. I looked at all the candidates and only 1 stands out. Ron Paul gets my vote and my financial support. Everybody else is bent on spending money we dont have. Remember the 5th of November!

This country is not going to elect another pro-war Republican. Ain't gonna happen, period. 70%+ want out of Iraq. Even Hillary won't commit to accomplishing anything in 8 years.

If this does not bode well for Paul, somebody, somewhere, is lieing.

I saw this poll. It shows Paul as the only GOP candidate winning a demographic in a head-to-head contest with Hillary, although not by much. None of the others beat her in ANY demographic. That's probably the victory they're touting.

If his attacks on Hillary are making a mark, it could be all for naught if he can't beat his fellow Republicans in the primaries. As you stated, Paul doesn't show as well in polls among probable GOP primary voters.

I agree... If Paul is going to make a move in the primary polls, he'll have to start his attack, soon. He'll also need a boost in the key demographic of senior voters, even if he wins the nomination. According to the poll, that's where he's lacking.

Ron Paul still trails behind in name recognition the most. The GOP and Hillary would like to see that trend continue.

Forget the polls. Follow the money. That gives a broader understanding of Paul's support.

Um...It's not hard to figure out why he's the only one who could beat Hillary.

Everyone is currently disenfranchised with the Republican party in general. Just because this or that percent of Republicans are voting for the "first tier" candidates doesn't mean those candidates will be able to stand up to Clinton, where the voting extends beyond party lines.

Paul is the only primary hopeful that is different enough from the current administration to draw a significant vote from many groups, including the disenfranchised Republicans, Libertarians and many Democrats.

Thanks for the article on Ron Paul. I would like to add that the poll of Paul vs. Clinton is obviously a poll of people who know about Ron Paul and the other polls you referred to contains people who've never even heard of him. That should change soon as his campaign JUST began spending money on ads in key states.

His campaign is on fire and is growing in supporters and funraising week over week. Quote me on this "Ron Paul will either take New Hampshire or be in the top three."

My question is: once Paul moves up in the polls, will mainstream media continue to ignore him? Now there's a great subject for an article!

The american people sent a message last election cycle when many encumbant Republicans were thrown out of their jobs. Polls show that over 70% of the american people think the war was a mistake, want out, and believe that our presence their is what al Quaeda wanted all along.

They are bankrupting us and have easy access to kill us, all without much effort on their part! These were ALL stated goals by the terrorists.

If you have a pro-war(less) Dem. Hillary and pro-war(more) any but Paul in the Republican field. What do you think that 70% will vote for?

He has been gaining against Hillary in all of those polls as his name gets known and people discover what he believes in. The other Reps have been sliding down.

But if you have an anti-war Rep Paul and and pro-war Dem Hillary, who do YOU think the people will vote for? In addition, he was right from the beginning, he gave many speeches and interviews about the war and what would happen BEFORE it happened. He voted against it, and all the vileness that Bush has put forward like the Patriot Act. He has been right all along, Hillary doesn't stand a chance.

Not to mention his immaculate record as a Congressman living up to his oath to defend the constitution. A family man, with no scandals. Once again, who do YOU think will win?

And it is a given, everyone had resigned themselves to a Dem win in 2008 --- UNTIL RON PAUL.

If Paul is going to make a move in the polls, the pollsters are going to have to being including him in the polling questions, rather than asking about only Rudy, Romney, Fred and McCain.

If foreign policy is the issue, only Ron Paul can beat her. Her position on the war is the same as all the other Republican candidates. Only Ron Paul spoke out against the war before it started, and is still fighting to end it ASAP, as well as prevent the next one.

If economics is the issue, Hillary is ignorant and unwise about economics, as are most politicians. Politicians are people-pleasers and have no concept about money, and how it works, except to take it from some to give to others. Only Ron Paul, of all the candidates on both sides, has any education in economics and advocates the position that we have earned the right to keep the fruits of our labor, if we want to. He knows it leads to prosperity for all.

If freedom and civil rights are the issue, only Ron Paul advocates more freedom. Hillary wants more government control, more power for her.

Besides Ron Paul, there is so little difference between the candidates of either party on these issues, that for many of us, there is only one choice: Ron Paul.

This is a pivot point in history for this country and the world. Hillary is a bureaucrat. Only a statesman can beat her.

A large part of the problem with Paul's campaign, is the blatant news blackout regarding him.
Some would call it censorship.
Case in point. This is only one example;

The NY post had an article yesterday regarding the recent Family Research Council's Straw Poll. The focus of the article was on the terrible results achieved by Rudy Guiliani. The article includes a list of the results, and neglects to include Ron Paul's 3rd place finish, as if he was not even there! Here is a image of the table as it appears in the hardcopy of yesterday's NY Post:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212007/photos/news004b.jpg

Here are the official results directly from Family Research Council's website:

http://www.frcblog.com/2007/10/washington_briefing_straw_poll.html

This 'omission' generated a lot of angry emails to the NYpost. It now appears that they have removed the false graphic from their 'story'.
Here is the story as of today, SANS graphic:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212007/news/nationalnews/rudy_is_easy_pray_at_confab.htm

Why doesn't the Wash. Times report this? Or have you, and I missed it?
Censorship?

See a pattern?

Simple matter of common sense.

- Democratic party voters are currently laboring under the delusion that a democratic president will take us out of Iraq and have some radically different, more sensible foreign policy. This, of course, isnt the case at all. To say nothing of the fact that Hillary, Obama, etc. are all CFR members, they are all currently backing away from their former position of "just get out" of Iraq.

- Ron Paul has CONSISTENTLY held the exact same position on Iraq. He argues that it was a mistake to ever go in the first place and voted against it. He has vowed to scale back military exapnsion overseas and pull troops out of not only Iraq, but Korea, Germany, etc. On this, and MANY other issues, Ron Paul has one big thing going for him if nothing else; he does exactly what he says he will do and tells the truth.

By contrast, Hillary has capitalized on the anti-war sentiment currently held by over 70% of the country...even though she voted for the Iraq war and now says we cant leave until 2013.

Frankly Im not interested in what the landline polls say because all things considered, I think its a wildly inaccurate and silly way to do polling. Nor am I one of those who believes Ron Paul will necessarily win anything, even the nomination. But Im also not sheepishly buying the idea that a flip-flopping serial-liar like Romney or Giuliani who are both running on Bush's same foreign policy (one of the most politically disastrous and unpopular policies in recent history) will somehow avoid getting absolutely CRUSHED by Hillary next year.

On actual policy positions and pure substance (not hairstyle, speaking skills, or a "presidential jawline"), Ron Paul really is the only candidate who has Hillary beat solid in terms of the War and illegal immigration, and his domestic/social policy views (end the drug war, increased private property rights, end coporate welfare, industrialize hemp, etc) could easily be argued as more liberal and hands-off than Hillary.

The other very important part of this is that Ron Paul's name recognition has a lot of room for improvement. The numbers are very impressive for that reason alone. If he were to be nominated, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he wins in a landslide, especially considering Clinton's pro-war attitude when compared to Ron Paul's position on the issue.

Thank you for you fair article. It's nice to see a reporter who states facts and asks good honest questions. I am tired of bias attacks from all sides and I simply ignore them from where ever they come even from Ron Paul supporters like myself. If your other articles are like this one you are a fine reporter and hope the best for you and your family. Stay unbias and you will go far. Best wishes, David Monk

When you report these polls, you have to take into consideration Paul's name recognition, on a lot of those polls Ron is not even an option to pick. Some sources have his recognition out there at about 30% of the population knows he actually exists right now. Where Hillary is at almost 100% name recognition. So Ron trailing by 10% with only 30% name recognition is saying alot, and it is definitely something to pay attention to when you report on these events in the future.

I can see by your last statement that you only support candidates who spend money with your publisher. Once Paul begins to advertise in the Washington Times, you will suddently support him as a credible candidate ? That being said, thank for writing a story about Dr. Ron Paul.

I think a lot of the "Ron Paul can beat Hillary" idea comes from assumptions about voters and Iraq, rather than any polls. Polls that often don't include Ron Paul as an option and target only past Primary voters with landlines.

While most Republicans seem to support GWB rather than traditional Republican values, most general voters (70%+) oppose the "war" in Iraq. A lot of people also hate Hillary Clinton.

I think the wish is someone like Paul can attract the people who oppose the War as well as those who hate Hillary but would still vote for Hillary if the only alternative is a Neo-con. To a lot of people the policies of most of the leading republicans are a lot more similar to Hillary Clinton than they would admit. We have a very likely matchup of 2 big-government socialist candidates who differ slightly in their enthusiasm for the War.

I believe his low polling numbers can be attributed proportionally to his supression in the media. Even in the presidential election the media only allows a two party debate.

I feel strongly Ron Paul can defeat Hillary Clinton in a Presidential bid. Paul has solid experience and a proven track record. He has never flip flopped on issues as Clinton is now doing with the Iraq war. Paul is for border security whereas Clinton is for letting anyone in that will vote for her.

The other republican candidates will fall on their faces against Clinton. They are all from the same flip-flopping mold of dishonesty and corruption as she is.

I plan to contribute to Ron Paul's campaine myself on November 5th. This will be the first candidate I've contributed money to.

I think America needs to not lose sight of our constitution. The constitution that has made our nation so very great. We've lost sight and have well overexpanded our military and are on the verge of bankrupcy. (I see depression 2010-2013)

I'm a Republican and always have been. Careful of the "Trilateral Commission" agenda of puppeting our Repubican party. Wiki Trilateral commission if you don't know it.

"Give me liberty or give me death, Vote for Ron Paul"

Jason Tilllberg

You simply cant understand whats going on with Pauls campaign by sitting behind a desk looking at poll numbers. GO OUTSIDE! Look at whats going on Youtube. Look at the things that have materialized in response - Caps, homemade signs, Tshirts, Private internet forums, Internet radio station, grassroots newpaper ads and TV commercials separate from the official campaign, he outdraws everyone at rallies, wins most post debate polls at msnbc, abc and fox cell phone polling. The list goes on and on.

There is something that does not match up with the corporate polling, this is certain. My question is - Why is corporate polling the pinnacle of credibility? Clearly we need to re-assess that opinion.

Your post is already out of date. :)

"and he has yet to top 3% in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll."

From:Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
"and Ron Paul has moved up to the 4% level"

It's just a percentage point, but Ron Paul has been slowly but steadily increasing in the polls. From N/A to 1 to 2, etc.

It was a nice way of saying that the millions of us who love Liberty over government will not vote for any Republican except Ron Paul.
We will no longer settle for the lesser of two evils.
Ron Paul is the only choice this season.

Ron Paul Republicans stand for ending undeclared-illegal wars.
We stand for sound money.
We stand for personal liberty.
We stand for the constitution.
We will not stand for more of the same.

Republicans ought to look closely at the Republican candidates. None of them are anywhere near as conservative as Ron Paul, who is the most conservative member of Congress in regards to acting to cut spending and cut taxes. Ron Paul also is more conservative than all the other candidates in regards to illegal immigration, gun control, and US soveriegnty and independence. Finally, Ron Paul is the only candidate running on either party who has integrity, does not flip-flop, does not pander, and who has consistently defended the Constitution and Bill of Rights for over 30 years.

Ron Paul stands up to scrutiny as the true conservative, the true Constitutionalist, and the only man who can save this Republic from ever growing debts, massive violations of the Constitution, and a move towards authoritarianism, totalitariasm, and the destruction of our Constitution.

One on one against Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul would clean her clock. He would be able to call Hillary Clinton out on her complete disrespect of the Constitution.

Finally, of all the Republican candidates, ONLY Ron Paul sides with the majority of Americans, 70%, who want the Iraq War finished - Americans have had enough of this war and will not elect a pro-war Republican.

Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican who can beat the Hillary/Obama/Edwards in 2008.

Go to Meetup.com and search for "Bay Area Republicans for Ron Paul", then click "Files" and then click "Republican Voterguide" for more facts about Ron Paul's conservative Constitutional record.

It's only Rasmussen. They are still stuck in last century. This is the Google/YouTube/Internet Era and its first election. Therefore they really don't have much of a clue what's going on, in both realspace and cyberspace.

Where's the signs and rallies for other cnadidates? Haven't seen it? Maybe because it isn't there?

Fact is, all these so-called scientific (read: rigged) polls prove is name recognition. When Dr. Paul's name isn't recognized from media censorship, of course he'll poll low on those polls. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: they won't report on him because he polls low, but he polls low because they won't report on him. That's why he kicks behind on the Web, the end-around the Old Media, and it drives them nuts, because their censorship is now being exposed and being made ineffective.

This is why straw polls are more accurate: they reflect actual boots on the ground support of the people who show up and get involved.

Now, let's have Rasmussen do a poll differently: call up all Republicans in a specific district and ask them who'd they vote for, and list all of the candidates, then tally the results for that district. Lather rinse and repeat 434 more times, then crunch the numbers. Then you've got a real poll with real sample spaces and a truly accurate view of what is really going on. These selectively rigged polls just don't cut it.

One poll claims that 47% percent say that Ron Paul is the one candidate they would never support, while another claims that only 30% have even heard of him? Why would 17% go out of their way to single out for rejection a candidate they've never even heard of? Smell the lies yet?

The invasion of Iraq has brought much hardship upon us: the death of our brave men and women, the awful injuries so many of them sustained on the battlefield, the enormous cost of the war, the division among us about the legitimacy of the war, the decline of our currency, the impact on our standard of living as reflected in the high cost of gasoline and many other incidental issues.

However, consider the hardships that our ill-advised actions have brought upon the Iraqis: the deaths of more than 700,000 civilians, the injuries to untold thousands, especially little children, more than 2 million refugees, the destruction of infrastructure, the collapse of the economy, the hatred this stirred up among the nations in the Middle East, the general decline in America's reputation among those in the free world. How will we ever restore our image? How will we redeem ourselves, that is, those of us who have a conscience?

There is a way and that is to vote for the only candidate who had opposed the war, when it was still only an item on the White House agenda, long before 9/11. In fact, Clinton had regime change in Iraq on his agenda. If the nation rallies behind Ron Paul, it will send a bold message to the world, that as Americans we are willing to acknowledge that our actions in the Middle East have been the work of a neo-con faction of the Republican Party that hoodwinked us all. In hindsight, we want to correct the wrong. We have thrown our support behind the one politician among all the sorry lot whose integrity takes one's breath away.

We will be able to hold our heads high again and the world will honor us for our stance. The killing will stop and the peace process will bring normality back to our country and the Middle East. There will still be sporadic attacks from terrorists, but fighting a $12 billion a month war to contain a couple of thousand bandits is like using a sledgehammer to crush a mosquito. It's not worth the costs and hardships outlined above.

We have a window of opportunity: put a doctor in the White House. Everything else is speculation and amounts to little. Rather concentrate on the facts before us and make rational choices. Ron Paul is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate.

Wow! What support for Ron Paul! Maybe we're not doomed after all. Just wait until Joe Sixpack starts hearing about Ron Paul. The media can't keep his messege muzzled forever. Everyone is sooooo tired of the same old crap from the "dark suit" politicians who serve big money. It's gotten too obvious with internet coverage (uncensored, I might add).

May the Grace of our Good Lord shine on Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is low in the polls because he only has 11% name recognition. People don't know who he is yet, and as such he has much room for growth. Even so, he is defying the odds, the media blackout on his campaign, and raising tons of money to boot. If the media mentioned his name as much as they do the other candidates, he would be winning by now. All that free advertising is hard to overcome.

I support Ron Paul and I also will donate on 5 November. I urge others who are supporting RP to do so on that date as well. Strength and respect in the world begins at home. The USA can keep borrowing trillions from the Chinese, Japanese, Saudis and Europeans to maintain an unneeded imperial army - and then have their own "Fed" to print bills to pay it back, but it has got to end sometime in future (I fear sooner than later) and on the out-of-control spending course we are on the end will not be pretty. (Think McDonalds not accepting worthless paper (infaltion tax will wreck the economy in time - it always does.)) RP is the only candidate who offers real change - I read somewhere that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over whilst knowing it is wrong. For once, let's try something new - real belief in our constitution - not just lip service - that will lead our nation into a new, bold and strengthened position in the world. If we don't go back to the constituition we might as well scrap it and start new - one way or the other, but no more swearing on a bible to defend it, and then contrivene it at every turn! Please everyone, "Google Ron Paul". Reality reading list: Chalmers Johnson's trilogy on the American empire...

Don't forget, this is only among REGISTERED REPUBLICANS and doesn't include the vast number of independents such as we have here in NH (44% in fact) and then you have the Libertarians and Democrats. So if the GOP wants to do what they did in '96 we will get Hillary and it will be THEIR FAULT.

In order to have a majority against Hillary, we need ALL GOPers like myself, then all the rest of the disaffected GOPers, the I's, and L's.

There's interesting information coming out about Hillary's Chinese campaign contributions. I like to think of her as the 'Manchurian Candidate'.

I've known about Ron Paul since at least 1985, and I totally agreee with Anonymous Dave: "...We will no longer settle for the lesser of two evils.
Ron Paul is the only choice this season.

Ron Paul Republicans stand for ending undeclared-illegal wars.
We stand for sound money.
We stand for personal liberty.
We stand for the constitution.
We will not stand for more of the same."

In my opinion, Republicans should nominate Paul simply to get the message out about the constitution. Once through the primaries, let America side with either the Founding Fathers or Lenin(Democrats). Whats the point of giving the people another soft-socialist vs hard-socialist decision, when the end is always world government?

Please pass this on!

1 Million Ron Paul supporters + $12 each =VICTORY

Everyone donates $12, even if you've given before, to the Ron Paul HQ at www.ronpaul2008.com
Ron Paul's HQ will post our info online. Our Name / State we reside in / Our pledge to vote in our State Republican primary. This will prove that our campaign has the largest grassroots support of any candidate!

If we can't raise enough money and get enough people to commit, Ron Paul won't win, no matter how popular he is on the net

If we are going to do it we need to keep the donations up. There's a HUGE event on november 5th and you don't have to leave your computer. Thisnovember5th.com
We can do it!

A recent poll showed that 72% of Republican Primary voters either do not recognize the name Ron Paul, or do not know his position well enough to say whether or not they would vote for him. The numbers among Democrats and Independents are likely even lower.

The vast majority Mr. Paul's support against Clinton in these polls consists of simply anti-Hillary voters.

As he gains name recognition, he has nowhere to go but up, and could very easily top 50%.

The other top tier Republicans are just as well known as Hillary. The results (i.e. Hillary beating all of them) will probably stay about the same through election day.

To say that he is the only Rep with a chance to beat Hillary is not just plausible, it is an inevitable conclusion to any serious political analyst, absent some sort of news bomb that damages Hillary.

The truth is, the other candidates can't stand the transparency of the internet age.
Youtube, podcast and all the resources are there, they don't lie, you get what you see, all the candidates, except Ron Paul, doesn't pass the acid test.

Thanks for a fair article. I wish someone would do a piece on why the Paulites are so full of passion; it is because 1. The Constitution hangs by a thread, 2. We are ready to invade our third country which has not attacked us (Iran). 3. Executive orders that take away our rights to own handguns.
Only after Paulites start going door to door in their voting districts will Ron get above 4%.
May the Sprit of The Lord keep brooding over the hearts of Americans to awaken them to a sense of urgency and the drama.

After weeks of reading, I am still waiting for someone to explain why I should believe that the polls that Ron Paul doesn't win are somehow "scientific" and "real" and all the polls, including all the straw polls where he does win are, somehow, not "scientific" and not "real". This stinks of the big lie - repeated endlessly for the entrapment of fools.

I will continue to donate to Ron's campaign, not for what he will do, but for what he has already done for the cause of liberty, property, and peace. I look forward to November 5th.

Thanks for the article. These phone polls target "those likely to vote in a Republican primary," ie, those who voted in the 2004 Republican primary (about 6% of registered Republicans), when GW Bush ran UNOPPOSED. Thus, these pollsters are sampling the pro-Bush crowd. Those that loved freedom had no Republican candidate to vote for. Also, a large percentage of Ron Paul's support is from youth who were not of age to vote in 2004.

The real reason that Ron Paul is the only Republican that can beat Hillary is because the rest of the GOP candidates are Hillary lite or Hillary is a warmonger lite. Depending on how you look at it.

Why doesn't everyone just chill out. Evaluate the candidates for yourselves, realize that Ron Paul is the only guy with any shred of credibility, realize that he champions Article I Section 8's enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment, and make your decision when it comes time to vote.

All this nonsense about how 47% of some poll says that people wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul is meaningless. I know dozens of people who don't have landlines, who have never been included in any sort of political poll, and who have never voted before who plan to turn out for Ron Paul.

If he doesn't get the nomination, we're screwed and we'll have to look into breaking away from the federal union, but that will be the fault of the foolish American public.

Go out, make your own decisions, don't worry about what others are going to do, and let the chips fall where they may.

Why do mainstream media always stress the anecdotally — almost mythically — scientific land-line polls while ignoring the imperically superior straw polls?

Ron Paul is winning, and placing in the top-3 of, more straws than any other candidate.

OK, someone needs to answer this.

If most of America has no clue who Ron Paul is, and this is true, then how in God's name is 47% of the country against him? Sorry, but something is VERY wrong there.

There's lies, damned lies and then there's statistics.

The establishment is running scared. I think it's fair to say Ron Paul is in third place among Republicans...

http://www.truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm

I am an interested observer in South Africa.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is unwavering in his love of the US constitution. Ask yourself: Which Republican or Democratic candidate would most likely get the vote of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson or the remaining Founding Fathers? Surely Ron Paul?

The world needs a prosperous, peaceful and free United States, not the bankrupt, war-mongering, totalitatian empire currently run by neocons and their acolytes. Viva Ron Paul!

Hillary's natural constituancy is people that have a government paycheck, or people that want a government paycheck. She does not have the taxpayers who are paying for all those.

Ron's natural constituancy is people that think logically and reason about the issues. I used to think the numbers on the thinkers work out to less than 5% of the electrate, but the war has brought about a surge (pun intended) of thinkers. It is going to be a real horse race if we have an honest Republican primary (a big leap of faith is required here).

Like the neo-con she is, Hillary won't renounce pre-emptive war, nor will she renounce pre-emptive nuclear war. This would have scared the pants off of voters once, and still does to a large extent. Time works for Ron and against Hillary.

Ron's honest reasoning wins the day over the packaged candidates. He leaves them in the dust. It is funny to watch the latest Republican debates. The other candidates look like they are taking notes when Ron speaks. The voters may not be taking notes, but they are taking note.

I am a Democrat and this story is correct. I shall prefer any other Democrat over Hillary, but I shall vote for Hillary over any Republican, except Ron Paul.

If it is a match up between Ron Paul, vs. Hillary, I vote Paul.

If it is Hillary vs. any Republican besides Paul, I vote Hillary.

If it is Obama vs. Paul, I vote Obama.

I know my views are not mainstream. But, I have a hard time believing that the Republicans 'actually' want to win in '08. Seriously, Hillary has the money. She has the Military industrial complex money! Obama does too! Ruppert Murdoch's empire is behind Hillary and he owns FOX news! Ron Paul's message scares these people! Oops, forgot to take my Prozac this morning. Ignore my ramblings...

From the beginning its been obvious to those that have supported Mr Paul that he is a strong contender on the major issues facing the candidates this time around.
Foreign and monetary policies are dire issues and in conjuction with immigration, the political scene becomes very urgent. It is not surprising to see this race as heated as it is.
I think Mr Paul has really been a savior for the voice of conservatism and the republic itself. Watching the Republican Debates has been both awful and amusing. I agree completely with Paul Jensen in the comment above about the other candidates taking notes on Paul's very principled position. If Mr Paul wasn't onstage to counter most of the very generic responses given, the conservative message would be lost on many listeners and critics. Consequently more war and bigger government would be the only option, beyond not voting.
Please urge and convince these delegates within the party to nominate this man. We know where he stands, now it's time for us to do our part to restore some value in the dollar and put our money on the constitution. Because if we don't the rule of law will become so arbitrary and unheded that confusion and violence will take hold more than it already has. People believe in liberty, let them be free to excercise it.

Hey Wash Times - How about some increased coverage of Dr. Paul? Just take a look at all the postings...Well thought out educated responses in SUPPORT of Dr. Paul. Not emotion filled trite you see in support of the other candidates. What are you and the rest of the MSM afraid of?

I want Ron Paul to win, but the Demicans and the Republicrats will probably team up to beat him. After all, if he were to win, many of their beloved programs would be drastically cut back or eliminated and much of their public financing and pork would be lost. Neither of the parties has any substantive differences that matter to normal people. The Republicans want a big government warfare state and the Democrats want a big government welfare state, with plenty of bleed-over between the two. Either way, it means more taxes, regulation, and bloodshed for regular people. I'm hoping for the best, but planning for the worst.

Ron Paul can beat Hilary Clinton in '08, but only in a three way race, particularly with Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee. If the country is confronted with a choice between two New York pro-war liberals, there will be an opening as wide as a barn door for someone to step forward to represent middle America and middle American values on such issues as fiscal responsibility, social morality and foreign military adventures. Personally, I think Chuck Hagel is the person best equipped to fill the vacuum. He is younger than the septugenarian doctor, and he doesn't carry the baggage of some of Paul's purist positions. But Congressman Paul is the one who has bothered to make the race and is proving his ability to raise grass-roots money and support. If he headed a truly bipartisan Unity '08 ticket, we might see a race unlike any the country has seen since 1912.

I have given money to both Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. We owe Tom a debt of gratitude for taking the lead in the fight against illegal immigration. However, all my spare money from now on is going Ron Paul because he is more closely aligned with me and can win this election. I wouldn't consider a vote for any other Republican.

If Ron Paul is not on the ballot, I won't vote. People like me are why only Ron can beat Hillary.

The frightened and misled mob is crazy, not Ron Paul. Read and understand the law of the land, and then tell us he's crazy. Remember government class? Do you feel like what you were taught is still true today? Please go to www.ronpaul2008.com, watch a video or two, and tell me where he contradicts your understanding. How is he crazy?

Many of us believe "terrorists" attack because we tyrannize them on their soil with our foreign policy, not because we have "freedom." We say we want to "spread democracy," but our modern foreign policy exerts our will on others to further our prosperity (greed). How do you free people through force? You can't, and you never will. How do you empower people by picking their pockets? People have to find freedom by their own means. Only through example and fair trade can we spread freedom.

And for you terrorist conspiracy theorists out there, we believe Ron Paul would protect our country like a president should. "Talk softly and carry a big stick" - Theodore Roosevelt. I believe Ron Paul fits that mold.

The more people get to know Rudy, Romney, Thompson and McCain, the less they like them. Paul and Huckabee are the only candidates gaining ground. The value voter and Tavis Smiley-moderated debate no-shows did damage to their own campaigns. This is not a snob contest. Or is it? Least snobby wins?

The one thing I am very sure of. The next time I cast my vote, I will not have to do it with my fingers crossed and saying a silent prayer. I'll be voting for Ron Paul. The way that the corporate media has treated this fair and true man is pitiful. He is an honored Doctor and a 10 term Congressman with an impeccable record and you folks treat him like a piece of dirt. It's disgusting and people have noticed.

Interesting that a previous post said that 47% of Americans would not vote for Ron Paul - very interesting indeed since Ron Paul only has 13% name recognition nationally. In fact, nearly 42% of voting Americans have never heard of any of the Republican candidates running. Only Hillary Clinton has nearly full name recognition by the American voter. If Ron Paul was paraded in front of the American people like Hillary - he would be crushing her. Here is what really is vital in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - Volunteers and a network, and only Ron Paul has that. Look out he will win this thing.

Thanks for the article. I've supported Ron Paul financially to the max because only he clearly takes policy directions that are not destructive.
If he doesn't win, it will be sad for all of us, at home and internationally -- excepting of course for discontents who feed on conflict and self-serving political games.

In office he would conduct himself effectively, moderately, honestly. I've listened carefully to all the other candidates -- I've really tried -- and I shudder at how out of touch they are with knowing how to serve. In the past I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians, depending on the candidates. In this election I would only vote for Dr. Paul. In any case I will actively support policies he articulates following the election.

I'm a left leaning independent and had given up on the election. Hillary looked unstoppable and her stance on the war was pretty much the same as Republicans. I have only learned of Ron Paul in the past 4 days and have spent a lot of my time since listening to his message on youtube. This is the first time I have ever heard a politician give clear concise reasons for what he believes and his message makes sense. He is well educated and Dr No has been consistent in his message for his 10 terms of service.

I have already donated and plan to do so again with the Nov 5 money bomb (would have waited till Nov 5 but oh well). I have never voted Republican in my life but I am voting for Ron Paul. If Ron Paul is what Republican's used to be and if the Republican Party will be like they used to be then I would permanently become a Republican.

With the influx of money coming from new converts like me and with the grass roots efforts of volunteers (first local meet up later today. Yeah!), Ran Paul will be able to reach more people who as to yet have not heard of him. It is a revolution. I feel so patriotic. =D

The belief that Ron Paul will become the candidate and win the election is wishful thinking, at this late date in the political struggle.

Consider the problems and their solutions:

Nearly half of the American People would never vote for him; because, either they never heard of him, or many of his goals seem radical and more ideological than practical. His supporters are mostly in the 30-49 age group, but only the well-informed minority of them. What about the 18-29 age group; and, the 50-90 age group?

His American Reformation primarily includes ending America's military intervention everywhere in the World, Constitutional government, less govenmental regulation, restored religious freedom, lower taxes, internet freedom, immigration law reforms, and deportation of all of the illegal immigrants.

What about American energy independence, protection of natural environments, affordable college education , worker competitiveness, affordable medical care, fool-proof social security, compelling alternatives for mothers to stop killing their children, tax incentives for raising children, pervasive dangerous addictive drugs, defense against growing Chinese military power, and a vice-president who is wise and passionate enough to carry on his American Reformation.

What is clearly needed is both more publicity and much greater poll gains per donation. A poll of 4%, just among the registered Republicans is is not nearly enough for a Ron Paul victory. A national poll of over 60% is easily achievable with the full range of issues. The selective polls, taken among mostly Ron Paul supporters create dangerous optimism.

To solve these complex problems, Ron Paul certainly needs to immmediately start working with America's scientific and engineering leaders. There is nothing that American can not do by wisely re-deploying its existing human and economic resources.

African-American Presidential Candidate Albert Howard asks Ron Paul the Big Race Card ? in this exclusive rare TV interview taped in Concord, New Hampshire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjJThkuaNBw

Ron Paul is trailing in the national poll. But in the polls taken after the debates show Paul with tremendous support. I personally trust a poll that is impossible to be voted on twice by anyone who wants to vote over a poll that is made up of phone calls to whoever these mega corporations choose. Mega corporations own the Washington Times and is precisely the reason this comment wont stay online very long if at all.

Post debate polls involve the people paying attention to the candidates and I would assume that they make up a better group to poll as they seem more like voters than non debate viewers.