The_Bear

just going to post my two cents:
Polls really are meaningless in my opinion. Anyone can easily answer a 4 (strongly agree or support or a 1 (strongly disagree or support) and then the poll will be completely off. So, although by and large polls are accurate in their portrayl of who is going to win, there have been many times when the science behind polling is...suspect. the questions were phrased deceptively, there wasn't a high response rate, the polling wasn't as random as it could be, people could only be called on home phones and not cell phones, despite the fact that large amounts of people only use cell phones....etc.

What needs to be examined is the amount of institutional power that runs behind all of the candidates. When I speak of institutional power, I don't speak of any particular institution - I speak of the amount that people are willing to coalesce their time, work, and resources, behind a particular candidate.

Why is this a more accurate example of real power? Simply, because if someone really believed that guiliani was a worthwhile candidate, and a candidate that was worth their support, they would go out and help the campaign, or donate money, or join the guiliani PAC. Otherwise, if they support a person without really caring about that person in regards to the amount that they are willing to essentially "take up arms" for them...well, I can't really see that happening on a mass scale. Theres not enough people that are willing to just put aside their own feelings and go with the flow. Any candidate that thrives on the 'go with the flow' crowd will quickly be ideologically destroyed by one who doesn't.

Lastly, this is mostly directed at Colin. In America, I know that you are a Canadian, but there is a big amount of people that are against the elitist feel of Washington. Take a look at how much of america was founded - first the settlers came to the town, then the various social services (IE shop owners), and then finally, with sometimes a far time removed, came the government and its institutions. Contrast this to Canada, where it was often the case where the government went to an area first and the people there surrounded the institutions of government. This points to a difference in culture, and one that could potentially support the nomination of an 'anti elitist' candidate.

The ignorant ask "what is my effect on the world?"
The enlightened ask "What does the world know about itself?"

The Bear

I am The Bear
The Bear

Advertising

Defensor

What's wrong with the way Ron Paul raises money? The only difference between Paul and the other stooges is that Paul's money comes from real individuals across the country rather than from elite special interests.

Yeah, why get ordinary hardworking Americans involved when you can sit back and let the establishment take you for a ride to the White House?

Things don't just "happen." The establishment and elite media are just moving onto Plan C after Rudy McRomney, along with "dark horse" Fred Thompson, fizzled out. Obviously Ron Paul is considered a serious threat.

That's because he doesn't have to. People are genuinely excited about Ron Paul. That's the way any democratic society should function.

michaelr

Right and I believe that he has that.

You call the money bomb wacky so be it, I call taking millions from corporations corrupt.
His fans as you call them are his votes!

Colin

It's all a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy Defensor!

Colin

He didn't actually call the supporters "kooks", rather called some of Ron Paul's voting record "kooky" - with examples like voting against Vietnam returning US prisoners, condemning human rights abuses overseas and promoting the disbanding of public education.

For most people these are kooky, if not down right ridiculous voting positions.

Colin

I really think that's mostly the case.

Colin

Yes I agree. Ron Paul would probably be laughed off the stage in Canada, there are just political issues up here you don't touch: Namely universal health care, universal education, the existence of the welfare state and notions of parliamentary supremacy. Libertarian notions are confined almost exclusively to social issues (like gay marriage, abortion, freedom of speech etc) and business, talk of eliminating let alone dramatically reducing government benefits is just rejected by most voters outright.

There is an audience for his views in the United States (I believe its been estimated by a bunch of surveys that between 8-20% of the American voting public have libertarian leanings), and there is a distinct individualist and anti-elitist brand to "American culture" although I think some would exaggerate it. So yes, I think a difference between the two otherwise similar countries is illustrated by the viability of Ron Paul's candidacy. In Canada it would not exist, in the United States it can appeal to a vocal minority.

THOR

It has been said, " Paul supporters are generally more informed" The Bush worshipers
just vote out of habit. Paul's funds come from citizens NOT big business. It took lots and lots of people contributing small amounts of money to = his millions & millions of dollars. That's a lot of votes going to Paul. Also the media heavily favors the big name
hand picked CFR candidates. Paul will do well inspite of big business, big media, big PAC money. Once Joe six-pack wakes up out of his slumber of Bush worship, they will see Paul as a real candidate.