digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Despite Showing Up in Person Mitt Romney loses NV Straw Poll to Ron Paul

firstread.msnbc.msn.com — Ron Paul won the GOP presidential straw poll conducted by organizers at the Conservative Leadership Conference held at the Nugget Casino this weekend “by a large margin,” according to an organizer. Mitt Romney Shows Up In Person and Comes in 4th overall.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • johndoenumber2, on 10/29/2007, -32/+173Kind of funny that Mitt Romney shows up in person and still loses to Ron Paul in this conservative leadership conference straw poll.
    • Xuvious, on 10/20/2007, -8/+77I guess these conservatives "get it" regarding Ron Paul.
      • LeeSoong, on 10/19/2007, -1/+12After spending $2 Trillion on Iraq, what right minded businessman, banker, or investor would want to spend another $5 Trillion or more on the occupation of Iran ?

        Conservatives have towed the line far enough, the policies of the USA threaten profitability and undermine business development.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/20/2007, -4/+63At this point he'll pull higher numbers if he doesn't show up at all.

      But let him blow off all his money on his own candidacy if he feels like it.
    • DeviantDragon, on 10/22/2007, -8/+47Well yes, that's why this article was submitted...
      • jeffchuck, on 10/15/2007, -5/+16Did you notice that you were replying to the submitter?
        • frozenpxl, on 11/07/2007, -0/+7Zing?
        • DeviantDragon, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1I thought I checked, but I did overlook that fact. Still, my general point about redundancy still stands. I don't know why he made that comment when the title or article by itself stated it just fine. Or he could've mentioned it in the summary or something.
    • ttfadia, on 10/20/2007, -5/+26Revised title: "After Showing Up in Person Mitt Romney loses NV Straw Poll". He's an ass, http://digg.com/videos/people/Romney_confronted_on ...
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/20/2007, -1/+8I read that story a week or so ago and was going to reference it here but you beat me to it, I can really see that blow-off hurting him in the long run. Especially how he handled it.

        I wonder if he even realizes how horrible he actually looked acting like that. Good thing we have the internet and our own cameras to spread the word about this kind of crap these days. 20 years ago something like this might have been swept under the rug.
      • cfulp, on 10/20/2007, -0/+4Wow, thanks for that link. I check digg everyday, but somehow missed that. Can't believe he acted like that.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/22/2007, -4/+39Wow, thanks for that summary. In case people missed the title and the summary of the article.
    • allenu, on 10/15/2007, -2/+14Ha, you're right. Perhaps you should submit that info to digg!
    • barktwiggs, on 10/16/2007, -19/+3Who has ever heard of the CLC straw poll? Romney has already won the one straw poll that counts: Ames. He won that poll 31.6% compared to Ron Paul's respectable but 5th place finish of 9.1%. Romney is better positioned due to the Iowa caucus being the first event of the primary season.
      • Hallucinogenic, on 10/16/2007, -6/+1I didn't think any of the straw polls counted... oh yeah, they don't.
      • painted82, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3That straw poll used diebold machines. And they conveniently had some kind of malfunctions. *rolls eyes* Media said RP didn't win even though he had the most supporters because many of them came from other states. As if the candidate that can get thousands of people from other states can't get people from Iowa itself. *rolls eyes some more*
        • barktwiggs, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1What good does it do bringing out-of-state supporters to an intra-state straw poll available only to Iowa residents? Sure, they can hand out pamphletes, but they can't vote in it. Seems like the Ron Paul echo chamber is making you think that the support is greater than it actually is.
    • j0keR, on 10/20/2007, -1/+27I truly believe Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that has any chance at getting elected if nominated by his party. If they make the mistake of nominating anybody else, I expect we'll see a landslide victory for whomever the Democrats pick. And if they do nominate Ron Paul? We'll see a landslide victory for Paul and we'll also see a dramatic shift in US politics. An all-libertarian cabinet. Republicans lose either way. Just deserts.
    • pdxuser, on 10/20/2007, -0/+26I have to confess I'm not a Ron Paul fan (or a Republican), but I'm starting to like seeing him tweak the GOP establishment. I went to the Oregon GOP's website and their top news story is Ron Paul winning their straw poll, too.
      http://www.orgop.org/
      • shelbygt33, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3There were only 115 votes cast for the Oregon Straw Poll? 115??!!! That's insanely low, I would think. Sad to see nobody turn out at all for these type of things.
      • Coslenchip, on 10/16/2007, -1/+0I would think that a lot of people who traditionally vote democrat would want to vote in the republican primary this year (and not the democrat) for Ron Paul. Maybe I'm crazy here, but wouldn't that be a win for people that are anti-big business. That way, either RP wins the final election (my hope) or some democrat which is who they wanted anyway.
    • cphelps, on 10/20/2007, -3/+15I wonder if it has anything to do with Mitt Romney being a large stinking sack of ***** that has no brain?
      • LadyKofNYC, on 10/20/2007, -1/+15I think it might have a lot to do with that.
    • soma4theMasses, on 10/21/2007, -0/+16I love that Ron Paul wins and the whole ***** article, including the title, is about Mitt Romney.
    • Herostratus, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5Its all the Ron Paul supporters spamming the Poll.... um I mean... no its the... ummmmmmmmm...

      /sarc
  • Glaser, on 10/29/2007, -11/+255I have a question...
    Who actually likes Mitt Romney?
    I don't mean this as a "raise your hand if you like Mitt Romney" kind of thing. I mean why would anybody vote for him? He's not interesting in any way. He has no positions on any of the issues - I don't mean he has no good positions; I mean he has no poisitions. He's not a particularly expressive speaker. He's an awful lot like the Republican John Edwards, only instead of the rags-to-riches story he has the always-obscenely-rich-for-no-apparent-reason story.
    You can tell how uninteresting he is when the media insists on supporting Thompson or Giuliani instead - neither of whom have particularly terrific histories or odds of success - just because nobody can really imagine Romney being President.
    • V3n0M, on 10/20/2007, -5/+86Good question. I've spoken to a lot of folks, and I have never met a Romney supporter in real life.
    • lordtyros, on 10/20/2007, -9/+107Mormons.
      • jon30041, on 10/15/2007, -12/+3That means... About half the people I know (but don't necessarily talk to very often as I am currently inactive).

        You guys never meet any? I've met TONS. Nice folks, just not very understanding of the world.
        • smackywentz, on 10/15/2007, -7/+15My sister's mormon. They're very ignorant of the world. She likes Kucinich by the way.
      • caferrell, on 10/16/2007, -2/+26Mormons and Private Equity Fund Managers
      • nicksauce, on 10/15/2007, -22/+7Ever notice how mormon is a suspiciously similar word to moron?i
        • jasonj75, on 10/15/2007, -1/+7Wow...You thought up that all on your own?

          Gold Star!
      • LeeSoong, on 10/20/2007, -1/+7Funny everybody picks on Mitt Romney for being Mormon,
        but it is Rudy Giuliani that has had three wives, just not all at once.

        http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/03/2008 ...
      • CrazyRedHatter, on 10/20/2007, -0/+4
        Even Mormon's can't stand him.
      • stoanhart, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2True. I have a Mormon friend, and he support Mittens...

        But we live in Canada
      • 0zzy, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1That made me laugh. The only Romney supporter I know is a mormon who doesn't follow politics but thinks Romney is a "good family man" who "knows what is best" for America. roflroflrofl.
    • Xuvious, on 10/20/2007, -7/+87Romney likes Romney.

      Remember, if it weren't for the 8.5 million dollars from his own pocket he would be BROKE!
      • NapaSales150, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1He has loaned his campaign $17.5 million
    • wonderboy, on 10/19/2007, -4/+77Don't forget the fact that he needs to talk to his attorneys before going to war.
    • zman14321, on 10/19/2007, -4/+62I think stupid people, he "looks" presidential, I laugh every time I see him I feel as if he's an actor playing a presidential candidate. He looks a a president you'd see on a television show.
      • Kinkistyle, on 10/22/2007, -2/+26And the funny thing is he isn't even the official "actor" candidate! This is what passes for Republican presidential candidates.
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4Kinda like "Dave" minus the personality.
      • LeeSoong, on 10/21/2007, -0/+8Mitt Romney looks more like the weather man for your local UHF TV station to me.

        If he works hard, I'm sure he could work his way up as an nightly news man on Fox.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 10/19/2007, -9/+27He's an *****.
      From what I've seen (*coughthisadministrationcough*), the country favors assholes.
    • dietcokedude, on 10/18/2007, -3/+24He's got one hell of a jawbone!
    • cramtod, on 10/19/2007, -5/+14Good question. His only foreign policy experience is deciding what to put int he grab bags at the 2002 Winter Olympics.
    • stillasleep00, on 10/15/2007, -5/+14My parents.... but they're Mormon....
    • adamruth, on 10/21/2007, -5/+35I know one person, but she's a Mormon, too. Though she says it's not about that. Riiiiight.
    • rootnik, on 10/20/2007, -5/+23I liked him early on, especially his position on illegal immagration amnesty. I was planning on voting for him until I learned more about Paul and what he was about. No, I am not a mormon.

      I feel like I can trust Romney and Paul more than the other Republican candidates. As an added bonus, they both do a great job of making Giuliani look like a jackass during the debates.
      • senatorpjt, on 10/20/2007, -2/+15You trust Romney? I wouldn't buy a used car from him.
      • LuaPron, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4I'd drop my vote on a third party before even considering a candidate who wants to either perpetuate or perpetrate a war of aggression.

        ***** romney.
    • zweben, on 10/21/2007, -3/+46Don't worry, he does have a position on something.

      He's stated that he would double the size of Guantanamo.
      • LeeSoong, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3So that is what the Neo-Con men are planning to do with Hillary after the election...
      • V3n0M, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3I wouldn't say he's got a position on something... I'd say he has 2 positions on everything!
        • PeppermintPig, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1He's like John Kerry in Red... It's like that song, lady in red... lol
    • NSResponder, on 10/19/2007, -23/+7"Who actually likes Mitt Romney?"

      I can only go as far as saying he's better than any of the democrats.

      -jcr
      • StarlessKnight, on 10/16/2007, -1/+14Thank you. I think we're all convinced, now.
    • barktwiggs, on 10/15/2007, -2/+4http://www.evangelicalsformitt.com
      There's someone other than mormons for you.
    • uziko, on 10/15/2007, -0/+13He's highly popular in Utah.
    • lazyfisherman, on 10/19/2007, -1/+16He's just so damn good-looking. Seriously though, he supposedly has the business skills to run Bain, so that's good. But he really sucked as governor of Massachusetts. He didn't seem to really give a damn about the state, just trying to look like he was a good leader so he could run for President. He was a disappointment as governor and has flip-flopped a lot on issues so it's hard to know what he really thinks about anything. Even with these flaws, however, he's still a far better choice than Giuliani. If Ron Paul can't break out of the shadows, I hope Romney will be able to sink the President of 9/11.
    • tidejwe, on 10/19/2007, -2/+21I sadly have to agree with other comments about "Mormons" liking him. Firstly, let me say that I live in Utah, and am "Mormon" (though a very non-traditional Mormon), but I HATE Romney for SOOO many reasons. Most Mormons I know don't know ANYTHING about Romney or his political stances, they simply support him because he is LDS. One of my friends called me trying to get me to donate to Romney's campaign and I had to go off on her as to WHY I hate Romney and how I was going to donate to Ron Paul because he's the only candidate with any integrity, etc.

      Romney used to have one stance on Homosexual marriage/abortion, then he meets with Mormon Apostle "Elder Oaks" and suddenly flip flops his entire stance on many things. Who would trust a man that seems like he can be controlled like that? Remember when the Pope threatened to excommunicate Kenedy or John Kerry for their stances? It SEEMS like Romney is easily swayed and could become a pawn through threat of his "Salvation" or something.

      Truthfully, I think there are a lot of people here in Utah who would be able to be persuaded to support Ron Paul if Romney would just get out of the picture. I actually know hundreds of Mormons who support Ron Paul over Romney...sadly it's not enough.
      • somelifeguard, on 10/16/2007, -6/+5are you a fu|cking idiot? homosexuallity and abortion are both seen as MORAL issues. This isn't something like building freeway's or getting rid of a board of education. It's an issue that religions have beliefs. I agree that the war and all these other things are also moral issues, but the church does not have an official standpoint on it, or taxes, or any of that stuff. but every church has one on abortion and gay rights. and now, your surprised that Oaks talked to him, one of his highest religious leaders, as mormons sustain their appostles as prophets, seers, and revelators, and he changed his mind? wow, someone took MORAL advice from their MORAL leader? WTFBBQ!?!?!?!? although I may not agree with everything he says I would hope that the candidate puts his religion before his public image. Why??? Because every religion has some sort of view based on etternity, wheather it is beaming a God, reincarnation. becaming a slave, going to heaven,, or whatever it is that happens. now I don't care how ridiculous it sounds, but if romney honestly believes in his religion and all it stands for, and in his mind (wheather its right or wrong) believes in Heaven and all that stuff, he would be an idiot to not change his morral viewpoints. (realize that allthough you may think he is an idiot for being mormon, it is all relative, if thats in his head thats what he should go by. you act as if he would destroy the world because the Mormons told him to, but wait a second, your a mormon, and you know that is not realistic.

        I would not want a president who is willing to risk not receiving their potential rewards whether it be heaven or 70 virgins to look good in the public eye.

        People base their entire lives towards religion, it creates wars, hatred, feelings of happiness, and hope. religion affects people more then anything in the world, so the fact that someone was convinced by their religous leader does not turn me off. So don't give me that easily convinced *****.

        I am a fan of Ron Paul, and he has my vote, but you digggers find every reason to destroy romney no matter how ridiculous it is. develop a brain for gods sake.
        and digg is sooooo liberal lol.

        RP 200*!!!
      • kete00, on 10/16/2007, -5/+2When you say that you're a "very non-traditional Mormon", does that mean that you're a polygamist?
        • senatorpjt, on 10/15/2007, -1/+7I thought the polygamists were more traditional... that being their tradition and all.
          • LeeSoong, on 10/21/2007, -2/+4Separation of Church and State - where does the government think it can tell you who to marry, or how many? As long as it is all willingly participative consenting adults, plural marriage should be legal.

            With more and more states supporting gay marriage, when two men can marry each other and two women can marry each other, why not a guy and two ladies, or a woman and three guys?

            What if your religion demands you have five wives and procreation is a requirement to get into 'heaven'?

            Religion, Marriage, and Reproduction is about as personal a matter as you can get, keep the government bureaucrats out of it. It's just more of the same totalitarian fascism telling women what they can and can not do.
    • smacksaw, on 10/15/2007, -1/+7Slowpoke here ---

      A better question is "Who likes _________?"

      Romney, Giuliani, Clinton, McCain, so on and so forth.

      The only people that are actually LIKED, not "electable-in-a-Sunday-morning-political-hack-show-sort-of-way" are Paul, Obama, Thompson and Kucinich. That's it. Those are the only ones people actually like. What kind of democracy do we even have when we have 2 choices, neither of which we actually like?

      I almost think we should just be able to vote for whoever we want and let the people drop out instead of being nominated and forcing people out.
      • JacksonBlack, on 10/19/2007, -2/+15"Paul, Obama, Thompson and Kucinich."

        You're neglecting Mike Gravel. And Obama is a bit of a stretch...people "like" him because he's somewhat less abominable than Hillary. It's more of a lesser of two evils thing, and that people think he's the best electable candidate rather than the best candidate. I'm sure there are some people who like him, but there are some people who like Giuliani for Pete's sake.
        • obelisky, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2thank you.
        • Syric, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2Obama is easily the most charismatic and eloquent of the Democratic candidates, which counts a lot for "likability". I mean Clinton's something of an icy bitch, and Edwards is just kinda boring. On top of that, I agree with about 85% of his positions, especially foreign policy. So I like him plenty, personally and politically.
      • JacksonBlack, on 10/20/2007, -6/+2"Paul, Obama, Thompson and Kucinich."

        You're neglecting Mike Gravel. And Obama is a bit of a stretch...people "like" him because he's somewhat less abominable than Hillary. It's more of a lesser of two evils thing, and that people think he's the best electable candidate rather than the best candidate. I'm sure there are some people who like him, but really, there are some people who like Giuliani for Pete's sake.
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/15/2007, -0/+7Thompson? Does the media count as "people?"
      • wtfpwned98, on 10/16/2007, -1/+10Seriously, Thompson?
      • LeeSoong, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3Ron, Paul, Dr. Ron Paul !
    • harksaw, on 10/15/2007, -0/+8I like his idea of eliminating taxes on investment income for people making less than $200k a year. Other than that, not so much.
      • flygirl62, on 10/15/2007, -0/+5Yah... sounds a bit like "Read my lips. No new taxes."
        Sorry, I don't have much faith that that would be a fulfilled promise.
    • j10s, on 10/16/2007, -5/+2I hate to say it, but he could really help the economy.
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/19/2007, -9/+7I'm a huge supporter of Mitt Romney (no, I haven't donated to his campaign or campaigned for him, I just agree with him on a lot of positions). I don't care if he or any other politician appears to change his/her mind on issues (as a Republican I never supported the whole Kerry "Flip-flop" mantra) - that shows that they are willing to listen to other sides of issues and be flexible. I believe you should take a strong stand on issues but still be willing to change.
      You may not agree with me but this is why I like Mitt Romney:
      1) I agree with his anti-abortion stance (again, I don't care what he said in the past; people change)
      2) I think he could do a fabulous job for the economy. He has a record of turning unsuccessful business/organizations around and making them successful.
      3) Supports a marriage amendment.
      4) Supports English immersion classes. (I don't know a lot about his education policies though)
      5) Supports nuclear power and alternative fuels (while decreasing foreign dependence on oil until we can replace it with something else).
      6) Supports the military
      7) Wants stronger families
      8) Wants to spread democracy without starting wars (i.e., build positive relationships with leaders of other nations)
      9) Supports line-item veto
      10) Takes a hard stance on immigration
      11) Supports lower taxes

      I disagree on a number of issues (gun control and some of the Patriot Act stuff) but overall I agree with his stance on most of the issues. I do like Ron Paul and would vote for him too but right now I think that Mitt Romney would do a better job as president.
      There are my reasons for supporting Mitt Romney. Again, you may disagree with the issues but I was just answering the question.
      • LuaPron, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5Its fashionable to "want" to use diplomacy. "Double Guantanamo" doesn't help much. Talking about a military strike on Iran also doesn't help much.
      • marspidey, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5How could he fix the failing economy, I have heard very little that might actually work come from his mouth.
        Line-Item veto is unconstitutional, that's not debatable.
        Lower taxes? Why? Ron Paul would remove the IRS meaning the money you make is the money you keep.
        Would he not also continue the war, Guns and Butter doesn't last.
        How can you shrug you sholders about the 'PATRIOT' ACT? That lets the government spy on you without your knowledge and more importantly without any oversight. If you are going to vote for anybody you should make sure that they at least have most of the values you would want.
        • LuaPron, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2People ignore things like the patriot act because they assume the power will never be used to thwart a legitimate and good political agenda. Ignoring, of course, all the horrible things people in governments (including our own) do under the veil of secrecy.

          Terrorism is also a highly effective bogey-man for imposing this ***** on us. Its harder to object to a program that has a positive impact on a hypothetical situation, even when there is no precedent that would necessitate such laws.
      • Syric, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Those sound like good enough reasons to support Romney (not that I agree with them, but you justified yourself well enough). Dugg up. But to give Digg something to read, here's why I disagree with some of those.

        1) I happen to be pro-choice. It doesn't bother me that he flip-flopped a bit; I just disagree with his current stance.
        2) This I don't dispute, really. But for me, civil rights > economy. And I get the impression that Romney would attempt to simply decrease welfare, income tax, social security, etc., without trying to make the systems work better.
        3) Being the civil rights type that I am, I strongly disagree with this.
        4) I don't know enough about this issue really. It actually sounds fine to me.
        5) This is good, actually.
        6) I'm something of a pacifist by nature. I happen not to want the military to be so strong.
        7) Well, who doesn't? But it's not an important issue at all to me; I really couldn't care less.
        8) This is good... but Obama (for example) does it better.
        9) This is something I happen to think is wrong, and abusive of executive power.
        10) I'm a back-and forth immigrant/emigrant myself. Personally, I feel like America should be the world's most open country, not the most closed one. Not that it actually is the latter, but it's trying to be.
        11) Well every citizen wants this. But Romney would probably cut the funding for the federal programs that I want, and put it into the military. I don't particularly mind per se a tax increase, or keeping the same amount of tax.

        Romney: not a terrible person, just not my candidate.
        • LuaPron, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1" All options are on the table" turns any attempt at diplomacy into a death threat.

          We have no moral ground for that kind of threat against the Iranians, not with history taken into account.

          This is every front runner in both parties, not just the republicans.
      • Glaser, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1All right, that's fair. I disagree with a lot of what you've said about his positions - both that I disagree with what you said his positions are and that I disagree that those are his positions - but it's obvious that you're not looking to get into a loud, angry argument about that.
      • scott715, on 10/16/2007, -1/+22) I think he could do a fabulous job for the economy. He has a record of turning unsuccessful business/organizations around and making them successful.

        Repeat after me: THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS.

        3) Supports a marriage amendment.

        Fascist. Stay out of people's private agreements.

        4) Supports English immersion classes.

        Not the federal government's business

        5) Supports nuclear power and alternative fuels (while decreasing foreign dependence on oil until we can replace it with something else).

        Not the government's business to "support" industries.

        6) Supports the military

        Who doesn't? He might as well say "I'm for babies. And pretty flowers.".

        7) Wants stronger families

        I want him to stay the ***** away from my family.

        8) Wants to spread democracy without starting wars (i.e., build positive relationships with leaders of other nations)

        He's lying.

        9) Supports line-item veto

        Line-item veto is TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

        10) Takes a hard stance on immigration

        OK.

        11) Supports lower taxes

        What. You mean lower from 35% to 33%, or whatever? How about lower income taxes to 0%? No, too conservative for big spender Mitt.
    • Coslenchip, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2When I looked up candidates, I found that of the "top rated" GOPs, Romney was the least offensive to me. Of course, RP would be 10-100 times the president Romney would, but if it was between him, McCain, and Gulianni, I'd take Romney hands down.
    • LeeSoong, on 10/19/2007, -0/+43) Supports a marriage amendment.

      Do we really need to waste tax money on telling people who to sleep with?
  • Lyrl, on 10/29/2007, -10/+204Wow, a major media outlet reporting on a straw poll won by Ron Paul! This gets more exciting every day.
    • JonFugeEveryone, on 10/22/2007, -3/+35Of course they left his name out of the title...
      • SiNN4R, on 10/19/2007, -1/+33Its the media's job to decide for us. Damn it I'm tired of people thinking that they have a right to choose for themselves. Its the media's job as our betters to pick and choose what we see and hear. You bastards that keep talking about this "democracy" stuff are ruining this country.
        • fantasyflamz, on 10/15/2007, -2/+9 I like the sarcasm, it's a nice touch (not sarcasm here)
      • LuaPron, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2In other words, "The article in question, by the facts presented, favors my candidate, however, it is not sufficiently Ron".
    • senatorpjt, on 10/19/2007, -1/+6Yeah, and I didn't see anything in the article about "cheating" or "hacking" or "He still has no chance" either.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Don't get too excited, 80% of it was about Romney.
  • HugoNaught, on 10/29/2007, -7/+309I have a question - Why didn't they discuss the winner, Ron Paul, at all in this story? That's the real news of the poll, but as usually they gloss over Ron Paul's victory in favor of gossip over that nobody Romney.
    • KMye, on 10/15/2007, -26/+5Because it was a story about the conference/straw poll and Ron Paul wasn't there. Real news stories can have focus, and discuss real events, as opposed to just lauding a certain candidate.
      • reaganluver, on 10/15/2007, -2/+18Is that why they covered Guliani and Mcain at the Ames strawpoll?
      • madcat033, on 10/15/2007, -2/+13Uhh... Ron Paul won?
      • KMye, on 10/15/2007, -3/+2They reported on Romney's actions at the straw poll, and the fact that he still lost despite being there. What else were they supposed to report about Paul other than the fact he won the poll that would have been related to this conference/story?
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 10/15/2007, -2/+2You've got it on NBC
    • slackerjack, on 10/15/2007, -3/+17The first thing I thought was 'why didn't they talk about Ron Paul?'. Once again they tell us something minor about Paul but really only cover the stupid 'news' of their candidates. Pathetic.
    • CannedMango, on 10/19/2007, -1/+24Even the headline of the story was that Romey lost, not that Ron Paul won. The media displays its bias yet again.
      • senatorpjt, on 10/15/2007, -0/+6Yeah, because Ron Paul winning a straw poll isn't news anymore.
    • omegaant, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2It might be just as well that Dr. Paul is "hidden" by the press. As long as the establishment doesn't take him seriously, he gets to live. Then, when Americans get "mad as hell" and elect him, maybe things will truly change!
    • praveens, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Incontrovertible proof that the media is biased and warped...Chuck Todd is a joke.. It just baffles me...you have a winner of a straw poll..a poll for which the column was written and the winner's name is mentioned twice...it just totally infuriates me... this is blatant..
    • praveens, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Incontrovertible proof that the media is biased and warped...Chuck Todd is a joke.. It just baffles me...you have a winner of a straw poll..a poll for which the column was written and the winner's name is mentioned twice...it just totally infuriates me... this is blatant..
    • WayneCA, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Isn't it clearly obvious that Ron Paul supporters hacked the straw poll? Just like they've hacked all of the post debate polls. Wait.. you can't hack a straw poll? Just keep lying, America won't notice.
  • johndoenumber2, on 10/20/2007, -6/+70They open the story with the Ron Paul win but I guess they spend the bulk of the story on Mitt Romney because he is the only so called front runner to showed up and spoke to the conference membership so to the media that is the meat of the story.
  • thewump, on 11/09/2007, -12/+275It's such *****. A story about Mitt Romney loosing - not Ron Paul winning. Why the ***** to we tolerate this from our media?
    • alvinrod, on 10/19/2007, -5/+53Because the media would much rather push Rudy or Fred and pointing to Romney losing makes him seem more distant and less electable. They'd rather not mention Paul at all since they don't want him to win and since neither of their golden boys came in first, it's easier to just point to Romney losing.
    • reed311, on 10/16/2007, -14/+19Because straw polls are absolutely meaningless.
      • LadyKofNYC, on 10/15/2007, -12/+24Not nearly as meaningless as so called "scientific" polls.
        • Tiak, on 10/15/2007, -14/+3Actually, they are just as meaningless as scientific plls, if not more... Nobody knows thes straw polls exist, which is a bit worse than getting a sample of everybody who has a landline.
        • polymyxin, on 10/16/2007, -6/+4LadyKofNYC - Please explain your objections to scientific opinion polling. There is decades of research behind the methods used in scientific opinion polling, and I would like to hear what your objections are to the methodology used in modern opinion polling.
          • tacojohn48, on 10/15/2007, -1/+12First thing as pointed out by Tiak, scientific polls only include landlines. Which means people who only have cell phones are excluded and as an increasing number of people are switching to cell only it will make these polls even more inaccurate. The polls also favor people who don't have caller id. Most people with caller id probably just let it ring when they see that number come up. Another thing is that most people hang up on polls. So this representative scientific poll only includes people who are bored enough to answer the poll.

            What we are left with is a sample that is far from representative of the population.
          • aywwts4, on 10/15/2007, -1/+9They use phones.

            Right there already makes the polls skews the polls non-scientifically, perhaps 20 years ago land lines were fine, everyone had one, but now it cuts out a substantial portions of students, young people, poor people, and the everyone who use voip at home. I don't know anyone under the age of thirty who has anything other than a cell phone. Unless you are in it for the DSL, who would bother paying more in taxes and bogus fees to ATT then you would on a cheap cell phone plan.

            According to pew research roughly 13 percent of people can not be reached in a scientific poll, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/515/polling-cell-only- ...
          • polymyxin, on 10/15/2007, -3/+2aywwts4 -- From your link: "But the good news is that none of the measures would change by more than 2 percentage points when the cell-only respondents were blended into the landline sample. Thus, although cell-only respondents are different from landline respondents in important ways, they were neither numerous enough nor different enough on the questions we examined to produce a significant change in overall general population survey estimates when included with the landline samples and weighted according to U.S. Census parameters on basic demographic characteristics."

            Also, the table included with that study shows that when the cell-only results were added in to the landline results, the mean change was just 0.7%.

            tacojohn48 -- Click aywwts4's link. It's a study showing that the mean change when cell-only adults are polled is just 0.7%. Slate's "Explainer" specifically addressed the cell phone problem as it relates to Ron Paul and found little reason to believe cell-only adults are biasing results against Ron Paul: http://slate.com/id/2169026/

            It's easy to look at the number of cell-only adults and think that it might impact polling, but actual research shows that the effect is minimal.

            As for your other points, on caller ID and hang-ups, I'd like to see the evidence behind those claims. You cited the growing number of cell-only adults to defend the "cell phone problem" point, but if the rest is just pure speculation on your part, it's just not worth responding to.
          • barktwiggs, on 10/16/2007, -3/+2Keep in mind also that those with landlines are more likely to vote versus general population with only cell phones who tend to skew young.
          • flygirl62, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Usually true... though, in this election, since a LOT (but *far* from all) enthusiastic RP supporters are young, and VERY enthusiastic, their turnout on this election could (might not, but could) turn the proverbial tide.
            It might just come down to "who's supporters, who don't often, decide to turn out this time. Remember that the majority of people usually *don't* vote. If ANYONE can get a high percentage of their supporters to turn out, that can make the difference.
          • Corrosionx, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Historically, they have been used more as a a tool to manipulate public opinion than a true reflection of the people's thoughts.
        • SiNN4R, on 10/16/2007, -4/+8People put decades of research into the bible. Doesn't mean Jesus can walk on water.
      • Corrosionx, on 10/16/2007, -3/+49Candidates used to care about the straw polls because it was a show of their leadership, their electability and of their supporter's strenght, but since Ron Paul started winning them, they find they don't want to give these polls credibility because they are made to look like fools when they lose to a supposedly "fringe" candidate like Ron Paul.
        • MJG2007, on 10/15/2007, -14/+8I seem to recall Howard Dean winning straw polls largely on the fact that the Deaniacs (much like the Paulians) are doing now show up en masse at the straw polls.

          It RARELY translates into a victory.

          And REAL scientific polls (every single one in fact) show Ron Paul at 1-3 percent.

          • vawksel, on 10/15/2007, -1/+12Yes they do. The real scientific polls are scientific, but also severely out of date in their measurement technique. It's popular to have either only a cell phone, or an internet phone (vonage, skype, etc) for most young voters.

            More young voters are interested in voting now than any other time in history.

            When fox debates polled via text-messaging on national television, Ron Paul won by 34%. Text messaging catering to voters most likely 30 or younger.

            I'm really excited for the primaries for Ron Paul. I think all you non-believers and Gallup-poll enthusiasts are in for a shock.

            See ya at the primaries.
          • barktwiggs, on 10/15/2007, -5/+1Too bad the election is not being held via SMS. The difference between cell-phone only and landlines isn't great enough to be significantly under-representative. For more info:
            http://slate.com/id/2169026/
        • reaganluver, on 10/15/2007, -0/+12Is that why Dean won New Hampshire? ............. I really doubt Ron Paul will yell bbbbyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
          • MacEnvy, on 10/15/2007, -2/+7That wasn't why Dean lost, though it is a convenient place to pinpoint his downfall. If you want to know why Dean really lost, read "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" by Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager. He makes no bones about the total collapse of the campaign after New Hampshire.
          • barktwiggs, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4I thought Dean's yell was more of a "Blyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
        • StarlessKnight, on 10/15/2007, -0/+5Something along the lines of, say, Exit Polls? "What's this? The polls aren't favoring us? Um, er, bluhuhuh... it's because they're flawed! Unquestionably flawed! A joke, really. The fact we ever listened to them is only because...well, because we didn't see how flawed they were! *Aside* And because they supported us when we won."
      • iofthestorm, on 10/15/2007, -11/+5Seriously, straw polls are totally unscientific and don't mean anything. When will people learn this?
        • vawksel, on 10/15/2007, -0/+14What's not scientific about a straw poll? It shows the level of support among a candidates followers, does it not? Mitt Romney's supporters were not interested in supporting him, and thus they didn't show up.

          Pretty basic to me.
          • jjesusfreak01, on 10/15/2007, -0/+7Seems to be representative of the people who actually care about what happens to the country, who, were it left up to me, would be the only ones allowed to vote. Also, it may be representative of definite voters, rather than possible ones. Who is to say that everyone called in a phone poll is going to vote in the primaries. You know everyone who goes to one of these events will be voting in the primaries.
          • iofthestorm, on 10/15/2007, -2/+2It's not random, for one thing? It may well be accurate, but it certainly isn't scientific. Those are different things, don't try to act smart when you have no idea what you're talking about.
          • barktwiggs, on 10/15/2007, -2/+1Oh wow. So does it cost money to vote on election day or in your state primary? Because, that would be a great way of seperating out the serious supporters of candidates from the weak free-loading ones who wouldn't even bother to pay to go to a straw poll.
            Straw Polls =/= Scientific
        • diggrim, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"
      • SlimFastForYou, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3Absolutes are absolutely meaningless.
    • KMye, on 10/15/2007, -5/+3Because it was a story about the conference/straw poll and Ron Paul wasn't there. Anyway, the coverage of Romney was fairly negative...
    • stealth210, on 10/16/2007, -4/+3Give it time, it's working (the change).
    • ScottoGato, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3The only thing MSNBC is good for is pointing out the flaws in the Bush Administration and the Neo-Conservatives.
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 10/15/2007, -3/+1All polls are meaningless because people don't know what they want. It has been proved before.
      • TomWestbrook, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1All polls are meaningless, because in the end votes are counted on Diebold machines :)
    • fuckedupworld, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Would be nice if they said Giuliani AND Romney got their asses handed too them by Paul, but that would be like, actual reporting.
    • TomWestbrook, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1We don't. Which is why the media is going down in flames and loosing viewers by the day.
  • conceptkid, on 10/19/2007, -15/+78I can just tell the Mainstream media dies a little inside when their favorite candidates get shut down by the people. Lets keep it up folks, dont listen to these MSM neo cons. Their business is in Television, not deciding what the country should do next.
    • diggn_it, on 10/15/2007, -3/+5MSNBC is the most liberal new channel there is, what the hell are you talking about when you say romney is their favorite candidate? I agree most of the corporate media do favor republicans, but lets at least fact check our rabble rousing.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/15/2007, -0/+10NBC is owned by GE, a major US defense contractor. They *definitely* have a vested interest in the outcome of the elections, and Paul would not be aligned with them.
      • Corrosionx, on 10/15/2007, -0/+7If MSNBC wants Hillary (or any democrat but come on) to win, they have a vested interest in making sure the Republicans nominate someone with no chance at all (like Romney, Thompson or Giuliani)
  • readthis, on 10/29/2007, -7/+110The messages where hear from Ron Paul about limited government, following the constitution, reduction of government spending, and no nation building are the same messages millions have defended, fought and died for. No wonder Ron Paul wins every poll.
  • Xuvious, on 10/29/2007, -4/+69Romney lost by a w-i-d-e margin but the article was still Romney said this and Romney said that.

    Did Paul just not answer his phone or did they bother to contact him? (hint: someone always answers the phone for media)
    • stealth210, on 10/15/2007, -4/+5Don't worry. The MSM(yes, I will now agree this is an acronym) will use every facet to demonize(sic) anyone not fitting or benefiting the same mold filling robots. The change is near. It's really happening. Keep pushing!
  • maz2331, on 10/17/2007, -4/+75Romney lost by a wider margin than Sen. Craig's stance.
  • NightVortez, on 10/16/2007, -7/+34Here is the funny part, even though he lost, the media still reports him over the winner.

    Remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
  • kraka40, on 10/20/2007, -9/+34Oh come on .. A Mormon coming in 4th in Vegas and a Libertarian coming in 1st! .. give me a break people, how can anyone be surprised by that! We are talking Vegas!
    • Anth, on 10/19/2007, -3/+20The Nugget Casino is in RENO, not Las Vegas. The Golden Nugget is in LV.

      But yea, Nevada is high on libertarian values and always has been. The government needs to GTFO of our lives. Or most people around here think. Just mind your business and do your job.
    • vawksel, on 10/15/2007, -4/+6I won't be surprised either when Ron Paul takes office. Come on people, how can anyone be surprised by that!
    • stillasleep00, on 10/15/2007, -1/+13Nevada actually does have a comparatively high percentage of Mormons, too. Something like 10% of Vegas is Mormon.
    • NSResponder, on 10/19/2007, -2/+11Dude, there are a lot of Mormons in Vegas. Howard Hughes brought a bunch of them in to manage his casinos, and they're still there.

      -jcr
      • fearlessfx, on 10/15/2007, -1/+6mormons or oompa loompas?
      • jasonj75, on 10/15/2007, -2/+1There are a lot of Mormon in Vegas because Hughes brought them along when he moved there? I'd love to know what four tards dugg you up for that comment.

        There are a lot of Mormons in Vegas because they helped found the city.
    • lvp1138, on 10/15/2007, -0/+5You might be mistaken about what Las Vegas is... it's 95% non natives from all over the country. It's a mixture of everything.
    • LeeSoong, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3Well, the global warfare has hurt the USA's popularity in some places,
      and if America continues aggression against Iran, that will cut into the international tourist trade,
      and high rollers from over seas spend big bucks in Nevada, so -
      Ron Paul is the best President for Nevada.

      Ron Paul's reduction of war spending and increasing the USA's world popularity would be a great boost for the tourism and gambling in Las Vegas and Reno.

      Once again, Ron Paul is good for the economy, good for the people, and good for America.
  • reaganluver, on 10/17/2007, -12/+3Yeah, a hypocritical state.
  • scudiac, on 10/29/2007, -8/+107Ron Paul wins without even being there, Mitt shows up and doesn't even register! I love it! I guess it was the spammers who turned out for this poll.
    • rickbauls, on 10/16/2007, -5/+44The spammers will be there for the election in 08 too
      • HappyScrappy, on 10/16/2007, -15/+9Unlikely. Young people just plain don't vote. They say they will, and they don't.

        In the actual election, the old folks will show up in droves outnumber the Ron Paul spammers by a mile.
        • smackywentz, on 10/15/2007, -3/+12http://www.seniorsforpaul.com

          • LucianSolaris, on 10/15/2007, -1/+8Get it right ***** http://www.seniorsforronpaul.com/
          • LeeSoong, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Seniors ? They are losing their homes in droves, higher taxes and health care costs are driving the 'greatest generation' into the streets. The total number of homeless elderly is growing faster year by year.

            The USA will Spend $2 Trillion on killing Iraqi's but doesn't give a damn for the people who built up America during the most difficult times of the world...
    • betterth, on 10/16/2007, -2/+23Now all we need is the spammer to show up for the primaries. That's what they'll say, right? Spammers spammed the polls and it was unfair because Ron Paul's not a real candidate with real followers. Just those weird internet guys who obviously cheated.

      Lol.
      • vawksel, on 10/16/2007, -5/+1Yeah, all 280 million internet guys (and gals), the number of "people" on the internet.
  • punx777, on 10/29/2007, -4/+52It's really funny how people's comments say the exact same thing as the title!

    Over the past week or two, I am really gaining confidence that Ron Paul will be our president. It seems that his name is really getting out there, and thats all he needs to get supporters. I believe the only reason Guliani is winning support is because people recognize his name.
    • jetboyterp, on 10/16/2007, -25/+6There's such a thing as "over-exposure" ya know...And btw, Ron Paul has absolutely ZERO chance of becoming President. He won't make it past the first pimaries. No suprise for a guy who, in legitimate polls, barely registers.
      • vawksel, on 10/15/2007, -4/+12Get ready for a wake up call.
      • smacksaw, on 10/15/2007, -1/+7If by "legitimate" you mean "totally flawed" you are right. What rock do you live under? It's already been established that these telephone polls are hardly scientific since they fail to take into account other methods of diversifying the demographic they need to sample.

        But whatever. You keep believing whatever lets you sleep at night. The tooth fairy is coming, be ready.
    • suriyou, on 10/15/2007, -4/+3What really worries me is the electoral college.
      I'm in a political science class now, and we went over how presidents are elected.
      It's really ***** weird, but even if Paul won the popular vote, there is always a chance he could lose in the general election, hell, his opponent could lose, too, the electoral college doesn't have to vote for the people racing, they can, in theory, vote for whoever they want.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/21/2007, -1/+5Maybe next semester is when they go over primaries?
  • sunburner, on 10/15/2007, -3/+21pwned
  • jetboyterp, on 10/22/2007, -37/+10yeah, and again...What is the Paul Patrol gonna say when the elections are over, and Ron Paul only gets 2 or 3 percent of the vote?

    Oh wait...."It's a conspiracy!" is what they'll say.



    • coldkodiak, on 10/15/2007, -8/+9they'll dig you down, and call for a revote to be done on the internet.
      • jetboyterp, on 10/15/2007, -9/+3yeah....It's too hard to spam a voting booth.
    • wiggles, on 10/15/2007, -4/+6Hey, let us have our delusions while we can.
    • Xuvious, on 10/15/2007, -9/+10What are you gonna say when he makes you look like an idiot?
      • jetboyterp, on 10/15/2007, -11/+11I don't know...He's already made people like YOU look like an idiot, so you tell me.
        • smackywentz, on 10/15/2007, -4/+3I know you are but what am I?
        • Xuvious, on 10/15/2007, -5/+6The lottery is coming up this Wednesday. What are the winning numbers?
        • jetboyterp, on 10/15/2007, -8/+4@xuvious

          I don't know what the winning lotto numbers will be, but I'm pretty sure they won't all be the same number. Go ahead, and bet on a dead horse. Keep the faith!
    • NightVortez, on 10/15/2007, -3/+12What do you suggest? Give up and support someone who is popular rather then someone we agree with? George Stephanopoulos is that you again?
      • jetboyterp, on 10/16/2007, -13/+3Hey, support whomever you want...but for anyone to suggest that Paul has even an icebergs chance in hell of winning is absurd. Ron Paul has made some pretty assinine statements, like 9/11 is America's fault, and disbanding the CIA, FBI, IRS, etc...totally absurd. But you guys keep on inflating Pauls support numbers...all that overexposure is sure to woo so many more people to your guy.
        • NightVortez, on 10/15/2007, -1/+8We are inflating numbers by voting? Disagree on his political positions if you want, but what gives him any less of a chance of winning then any other candidate out there? We are doing nothing but spreading his message, if people agree with it, they will vote for him, if not then you have nothing to worry about.
        • cphelps, on 10/15/2007, -0/+5You are totally taking the 9/11 is America's fault comment out of context. I'd bother to correct you but you'll just plug your ears and hum so you can't hear me like a child.
          • jasonj75, on 10/16/2007, -2/+1Doesn't matter...That is exactly how it will play in the MSM and Paul will get KILLED.

            I would vote for Paul but I'll never get a chance...My state's primary is too late in the game and he'll be a dead stick by the time it's my turn.
      • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0Sorry, but if you can't see that people are mad at the US for a reason, and not just for the hell of it, and if you don't even realize that all that federal bureaucracy is unnecessary, then you really need to start studying history and paying attention. Look, federal income tax is unnecessary, Washington DC was built before the IRS existed! There are many forms of tax that are constitutional, that we can use to sustain a limited, non-imperial government. Don't just accept what the establishment says, they tell you that you need to give them your money for a reason.
  • srodolff, on 10/22/2007, -29/+13Let me say this once more.......STRAW POLLS ARE WORTHLESS!!!!!!!!!!
    • schroeder, on 10/15/2007, -4/+21Regardless, it does show there is growing support for Paul. "Don't bury the dog 'till it's dead."
    • smackywentz, on 10/15/2007, -4/+24If he'd have lost, you guys would be saying, "Uh-oh this doesn't look good. Just like his polling numbers." You just spin ***** to fit your view, so kindly shut the ***** up.
      • LucianSolaris, on 10/15/2007, -16/+2Burried, Reported, Blocked.
        • smacksaw, on 10/15/2007, -0/+7Nothing says "I am inadequate as a man" like telling a total stranger on a free internet forum that you blocked them. Be a man, block them and shut up about it. There needs to be a Digg rule about people like you. I'm not impressed you blocked him. If anything I think you're a jittery little whiner because you think you have some power over him. It's nice to know he affected your life so greatly that you can't ignore him, you have to go beyond digging him down...you report him AND block him.

          I bet on Usenet you used "killfile" as a verb in alt.tv.* forums. "I'M GONNA KILLFILE YOU BLAH BLAH"...you're a big man. Go ahead, block, report, killfile and everything else to me. It only makes you funnier to me and everyone else laughing at you for being such a wuss.
        • k3ano, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1pwned
    • SouthsideIrish, on 10/15/2007, -3/+7And primaries are worthless too! The winner of the state is declared at the state convention in backroom deals. Dr. Paul could win in all fifty states and still not win for the presidency.
    • cphelps, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1I suppose they are only worthless when Paul wins though according to the "masses". If your candidate won you'd be dancing in the streets.
    • cranium, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Then why did Romney show up?? Hhhhmmmm?
    • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0That's why no one holds straw polls, and also the reason why no candidates spend money bussing in voters for straw polls.. cough Mitt Romney cough... They're just worthless to you because your guy isn't winning them, but maybe if you scream a little louder, maybe even jump up and down, you can give him that boost he will need when the Ron Paul revolution REALLY gets going.
  • wtbuser, on 10/15/2007, -4/+13lol @ romney. gj Paul
  • metric7, on 10/15/2007, -4/+7"He called the Democrats pessimists and said his optimism could go a long way for the Republicans"
    /***** idiot
  • cavergeek, on 10/22/2007, -30/+6Wow, the only comment that's below my threshold is the comment speaking the truth about Ron Paul. The Ron Paul spam group that's so prevalent here on Digg doesn't realize the zero chance Paul has of gaining the nomination. The conservatives are going to nominate a candidate who represents all of their values. A candidate with libertarian leanings has no chance.
    • metric7, on 10/15/2007, -3/+8What is this truth?
    • Difranco1911, on 10/15/2007, -2/+7I know hard core "Republicans" that support Paul's positions.
    • craigm01, on 10/15/2007, -0/+12Even if he has no chance in hell of winning, his message is important. If we believe in his message and his ideas, the more coverage, the more exposure, the better. There is nothing to be lost in spreading a pro Constitution idea.
    • fantasyflamz, on 10/15/2007, -0/+11I'm a conservative and I"m voting for Ron Paul. He represents all of my values, just like you stated ("the conservatives are going to nominate a candidate who represents all of their values").

      If not Ron Paul, then who does american conservatives agree with values-wise because Ron Paul makes all the greater sense to me than any of the other candidates.
  • Lynxplus, on 10/19/2007, -2/+46RP08.
  • TantrooM, on 10/19/2007, -6/+28Dang, Jersey's population has more then 30% bots? Someone needs to get the national guards, the bots are bleeding into IRL!!
    • crobathias, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5i'm sure 90% of people don't get that, but I love it
  • ZenFountain, on 11/09/2007, -8/+16RON PAUL, WOOO, YEAAAAAAA!!!11111
  • locitman, on 10/22/2007, -19/+8Ron Paul got me out of credit card debt and made me a millionaire!!
  • EllsworthT, on 10/16/2007, -6/+20Straw polls are fun, but ultimately meaningless. (Quick, who won the South Carolina straw poll? That's right--who cares.) If you want Ron Paul to win, help him spread his message and send a donation to his campaign. https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/ Go one day without lunch this week if you must. Then find your favorite YouTube video of Ron Paul and forward the link to at least one like-minded friend or family member. Ask that person what he or she thinks of the clip.
  • Emrtr4, on 10/16/2007, -37/+13Why do you all like Ron Paul so much?
    As an a conservative libertarian I do like what he stands for, but lets face the truth; the internet is filled with liberals and if you understood what he really called for none of you would support him.
    Sure he is against the war in Iraq, but:

    he would get rid of social security
    there would be no federal or state health care
    no government subsidies
    no FCC
    no IRS
    no redistribution of wealth.

    I believe in a lot of these things, but while many people like the fact that he would legalize pot and get us out of Iraq, you all need to realize he would dismantle the socialist system that you have all come to rely on. Tucker Carlson is 100% right when he says, “can we all please pretend to stop loving Ron Paul.” I would imagine at least 90% of the people on Digg want a federal government program to help pay for their healthcare, that they want good public schools for their children, and of course internet fanatics want the federal government to ensure net neutrality by keeping ISP’s from controlling the internet. I hate to say this, but if Ron Paul was president he would allow Microsoft to have a monopoly over all software and his administration would permit ISPs to do as they wish with the internet.

    • conceptkid, on 10/16/2007, -1/+11This will answer all of your questions.
      http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_PBS ...
      • ivandir, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2GJ. The guy above you is as clueless as he is a scared human being. I guess he also wants the government to create a program to help him hold his dick while he is pissing.

        Clueless idiot.
    • craigm01, on 10/15/2007, -0/+21first off.. he would not get rid of Social Security. Please, at least bother to visit his website before you make youself look like a jackass..
      "Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security." -Ron paul

      You should look into his message more before spouting off..
    • davrobi, on 10/15/2007, -0/+19You really do not understand Dr. Pauls platform.
      States would be free and more able to keep their money to run their own state health programs.
      Empowering the states, communities and individuals is what the good doctor has in store for us.
    • dragonDC, on 10/15/2007, -1/+15I'm a liberal, and I love Ron Paul. I look at it like this, the man has very realistic attainable goals that I am very interested in, a foreign policy that doesn't involve aggressive wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, and the repeal of the patriot act. Your list brings up important issues, but just by becoming president RP doesn't erase all those programs. There needs to be congressional approval for that. And if RP can convince congress and the country for those initiatives, you can imagine he'll have good reasons for it. that stuff won't happen over night or perhaps even at all. keep your eye on whats really important right now, war and civil liberties.
    • HoodCrowd, on 10/15/2007, -0/+10I voted you up so folks can see he is against that crap....so am I.

      Ron Paul 2008
    • geekanarchy, on 10/16/2007, -0/+15Redistribution of wealth?! Who the ***** gave the government permission to take my money and give it to you? That's exactly why we revolted against the British. I work to earn money to spend how I choose, not so there can be federal subsidies.
    • n8glenn, on 10/16/2007, -0/+12Yes, we rely on socialist programs, but why? Could it be because all our lives the government takes 30% of our wages off the top, then taxes the rest in the form of sales tax, gas tax, inheritance tax, property tax, ad nauseum, ad infinitum? We don't have anything left to invest, or put back in savings, then when we finally retire, we can get some measley check from the government to buy dog food with, instead of raking in the money from our own savings and investments? No thanks, I prefer Ron Paul's method.
    • p5yph3r, on 10/15/2007, -0/+8Ron Paul's position on Social Security is plainly stated on his website, and it makes no suggestion that he plans on doing anything with it other than making sure that it's only used to pay benefits to people who've paid into it. As far as no federal or state health care goes, I believe Paul's reasoning behind this is to eliminate big government regulation and force the free market to offer affordable health care to everyone, instead of the current tax-funded free lunch health care that low/no income families and illegal immigrants are cashing in on. All the parents I've ever spoken with wanted good public schools for their children, but why should the federal government get involved in something that the individual states are perfectly capable of managing on their own? The only reason I see is another excuse to waste our tax dollars, while having little to no positive effect on education. I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from with the Microsoft comment, but I believe you're right; if you asked Dr. Paul about those issues, he'd probably tell you that Microsoft can do whatever it chooses to do, and so can ISP's. Reason: the federal government has no right to dictate what businesses in a free market economy can and can't do, so long as their actions don't conflict with existing laws.
    • NightVortez, on 10/16/2007, -0/+14He wants to get rid of Socialism in this country? We have to rely on ourselves instead of the government now? So now the government can go back to what it was originally meant for, which is preserve our natural rights? Oh no!
    • stillasleep00, on 10/15/2007, -0/+8He also never said that he wants to get rid of public education, just to dismantle the department of education. Nothing good has ever come from the federal government sticking their fingers into our school systems. As a student, son of a teacher, and prospective teacher myself, I can attest to how badly No Child Left behind has hurt our education system.
      • maz2331, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5Dept of Education is all about politcal correctness, not about helping educate children.
    • Pureeviljester, on 10/16/2007, -0/+6Cause we wouldn't need that ***** if our economy wasn't ***** up!
    • smacksaw, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4This is gold. Educate yourself:

      A Ron Paul presidency does nothing to stop socialism. It simply puts it - AS WITH ALL OTHER THINGS - in the hands of the state. In fact, being a libertarian and non-interventionist in states' rights, if Vermont wanted to become communists he would and could not do anything to stop it unless they were somehow violating the constitution.
  • occa, on 10/22/2007, -34/+12Do you actually know what Paul believes? He wants to completely eliminate the IRS. I agree that no one likes paying taxes but we need taxes in order to have a functioning government. We need to control spending not eliminate taxes.
    He wants to eliminate most government agencies including the Dept. of Education. He does not believe in national education standards.
    He does not believe in mandatory vaccinations for children.
    Not sure why he calls himself a republican when he's a libertarian.
    Everyone is entitled to vote for whomever they wish for but I don't think people truly know what he stands for.
    • conceptkid, on 10/15/2007, -2/+14Read this entire article please, you might learn something.
      http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_PBS ...
    • dragonDC, on 10/16/2007, -2/+16Occa, sure the government needs taxes to function, but can you not envision an america that functions without an income tax? All you have to do is read the history books before 1913, we did quite well w/o an income tax. Especially if you enact RP's foreign policy. He would bring trillions of dollars back home by stopping not only costly interventions in Iraq, and Afghanistan, but also future war with Iran and occupied territories like South Korea.

      furthermore, education has plummeted since the implementation of the dept. of education, no vaccine should ever be mandatory, and his libertarian views bring him more in common with the traditional republican platform than any neo-conservative.

      please, do a little more research about Ron Paul, you may just find that he is very worthy of your vote!
    • davrobi, on 10/16/2007, -1/+14As Ronald Reagan has written in his memoirs "libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism". The GOP was libertarian in philosophy until the "Scoop Jackson Democrats" or neocons with their big government, Pax Americana, world view invaded the GOP. We are witness to a fight of control of the GOP between the Taft/Goldwater/libertarian wing, who Reagan was very much apart of and the Rockefeller/Neocon/big government wing. The Christian right is really just mule in this equation.
      • Phyltre, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Thanks for giving people the big picture, I think too many miss it these days.
      • Gavagai80, on 10/15/2007, -2/+3It was Reagan who gave us insane defense spending, senseless little wars, a national debt we'll never be able to pay off and popularized the whole republican theory of fiscal insanity. Reagan showed the neocons how the republican party could become big government while giving lip service to small government.
    • RIMberry, on 10/15/2007, -1/+10Do you believe in our Dept. of Education? That sure doesn't help your case, our public schools suck ass.
    • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4Come on, state and local taxes pay for our roads and schools, tariffs and sales taxes and many other types of taxes fund the federal government, and income tax goes directly to pay the federal reserve for things we don't even need. How do you think our government operated before 1913? Most of what you see in Washington DC was built before the IRS even existed. Think about it, income tax just isn't necessary, and when you see all the waste and fraud that is occurring in Iraq that should be abundantly clear. If they needed all that money, then why are they flushing it down the toilet in foreign countries?
    • Feep, on 10/15/2007, -0/+5What's wrong with not believing in national education standards? Education in this country is a mess. Each state has a great incentive to improve their own education system, or they risk people leaving and weakening their local economy. It's standard capitalist competition...a good thing.

      As for mandatory vaccinations, I'm all for letting the stupid people die out.

      As for other stuff, I'll let someone more knowledgeable than I take the reins.
    • geekanarchy, on 10/15/2007, -0/+6No, we don't need taxes to have a functioning government. The first U.S. income tax was to fund the civil war, but it went away after it was finished. It has only become a mainstay in 1913, after the U.S. survived just fine without it for over a hundred years. And the DoE should be renamed the "Department of Education Hindrance"; eliminating it would be the best thing to happen to our schools in decades. Vaccines should be parents choice, and lastly, he calls himself a republican so he could get elected; a necessity for our antiquated winner-takes-all system.
    • lazyfisherman, on 10/15/2007, -0/+5At least let Ron try to dismantle the IRS. The U.S. was fine without the income tax, it all just goes to pay the Federal Reserve debt (and into the pockets of the shareholders and members of that private corporation) anyway. There's plenty of other taxes and surcharges to raise money. Now, if you're not just an employee taking a salary, there are some neat tricks you can do with taxes and business which actually make the IRS somewhat interesting to have around but... give Ron a chance.
    • smacksaw, on 10/15/2007, -0/+5Why do I need the IRS to take care of my own local issues in my state, city and county? Why do I need to send my money to Washington DC to get a police department in my city when we incorporate? What does Washington DC do for me as far as health care that Group Health Cooperative and Washington DSHS doesn't do?

      If you like socialism so much, why can't I have it locally where I have a say in it? Why do you think someone who has no idea what our local issues are should take my money?
  • Blandanomics, on 10/15/2007, -5/+8If hunter came in third, I cant really get excited about this poll.
  • PissyMan, on 10/22/2007, -14/+4Ron Paul cured my moustache!
  • iTorrey, on 10/29/2007, -4/+41Mitt is one of the many reasons why the campaign finance reform of McCain/Feingold is a crock. Take an average person like me. I've already donated the max I can to Ron Paul. I can't give any more money all I can do is go out there and spread the word. I donated a whopping $2,500.

    Mitt Romney has donated MILLIONS to himself! How is it that Mitt can donate millions to his campaign but I can't donate more than $2,500. How is this getting the big money out of politics.

    Let's paint a quick scenario where big corporations and lobbyists can still get their money into the system. Right now the special interest pick some candidates for 2012. They hire them as consultants or whatever they do and they pay them large sums of money for whatever they want. Then in 2012 those people start campaigns for president and donate that big money to their campaigns. And yet once again, the little guy is on the sidelines.
    • dragonDC, on 10/15/2007, -1/+10well said dude
    • dragonDC, on 10/16/2007, -5/+3well said dude
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3You can always buy airtime or website placements for Paul's ads... or buy some of the guy's merchandise. There might even be some Paul PACs you might be able to contribute more to... (this one maybe: http://www.libertypac.net/ )
      • iTorrey, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2I'll look into the PACs but you actually can't buy his official merchandise because that also counts as a contribution! Seriously! I'm quite annoyed that I have to get my merch elsewhere now.
    • sgglynn, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2You can't buy the presidency anyway, you only buy the media and their attention. Ron paul is going to win simply because he will get votes. His people care enough about him to actually take that big step on election day and vote. That's something no one can manipulate...except if you're from florida. BTW, thanx for ***** us in 2001 florida, you still are NOT forgiven
      • Navicerts, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1.
      • Navicerts, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1True, you should not be able to buy an election. But so far raising money is the ONLY thing that RP has been recognized by major media on a broad scale.
    • ddrekins, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Also, keep in mind that media persons can donate millions of dollars in advertisement (such as Oprah for Obama's sake.) Compare this to the wealthy software developer that would've (before the campaign cash reform) contributed $10,000 to someone. The reform made the system even less balanced. We went from having all of the rich donating tons to only the rich with connection donating tons.
  • ninjasteeve, on 10/16/2007, -25/+3Ron Paul ate my balls
  • davrobi, on 10/16/2007, -2/+13This poll was in the Reagan/ Goldwater part of the country.
    Romney, Giuliani and Thompson are Rockefeller republicans and will have a hard time doing well here if the MSM doesn't blackout Ron Paul.
    We are witness to a fight of control of the GOP between the Taft/Goldwater/libertarian wing, who Reagan was very much apart of and the Rockefeller/Neocon/big government wing. The Christian right is really just mule in this equation.
    • curtisag, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Let the battle begin. If we have to lose elections for the next 20 years before the battle is won, so be it. Republicans will be republicans again, maybe not this election, but someday.
  • RIMberry, on 10/15/2007, -6/+1I can't find this page anymore when searching through digg, wtf?
    EDIT: Nevermind, digg hiccup?
  • bingobongony, on 10/16/2007, -20/+9Yeah, because straw polls matter.

    Get this through your head delusional RonPaulians...polls wher you CHOOSE to be part o the poll, and pay to be in it are not accurate. Why not? Because those who support the ones that have a real chance don't feel the need to waste their time and money doing so. Pathetic losers who are trying to prove something do.
    • Phyltre, on 10/15/2007, -0/+9"Pathetic losers"? Since when is supporting a candidate being a pathetic loser?
    • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -0/+9Nice try. Of course straw polls don't matter, and I'm sure they matter even less to you since your candidates are obviously getting their butts handed to them on a silver platter by Dr Paul. However, Straw Polls do have a point, otherwise, why would they even exist? The point of straw polls is to gauge the support of the various candidates so that candidates have some feel for their actual chances and can adjust their strategies accordingly. Ron Paul is cleaning up, because more people who support Ron Paul are willing to actually show up and vote. And guess what? When election time rolls around, it will be the same thing all over again. Even a tiny group, which is passionate and votes for their candidate, can be decisive in an election when the other candidates have scores of supporters who really just don't care, who only know that their candidate is the lesser of two evils, and who probably will not take the time and effort to vote. Your grade school taunts are not impressive. We are not pathetic, we are happy to have a candidate we actually believe in, and we are not losers, we have already won, because we have freed our minds, and we will elect our candidate. We'll make sure Ron Paul is our next president, you can just sit back and relax on the sidelines and talk about what you know and how it's gonna be. We're gonna make this happen.
    • Gavagai80, on 10/15/2007, -0/+6Same goes for voting on election day... only people who choose to vote, and have nothing better to waste time on, do so. Many stay home.

      As for all of the political polls which show us who's leading... only people who are crazy enough to want to spend 20 minutes on the phone with a pollster get counted in the statistics. I get the calls, and as soon as they say it's a survey I hang up.
    • NightVortez, on 10/15/2007, -0/+6Yes, damn those people who chose to support their candidate rather then sitting at home watching Nascar and drinking beer, those pathetic losers.

      Anyone that cares enough to express their position on politics attends these things, those are the same people who attend the primaries and become delegates.
    • senatorpjt, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3You could also say they're more accurate, because that's exactly how voting works.
  • rationalist, on 10/16/2007, -20/+6Still think we can afford to ignore this theocratic authoritarian wolf in libertarian sheep's clothing?
    Shades of the 1930's.
    • rationalist, on 10/15/2007, -11/+2I wonder how may of those digging me up realize I was referring to Ron Paul.
      • smacksaw, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4I wonder if you can conceptualise that there is higher intelligence than your own. That even though you are only smart enough to conceive of intelligence as you personally know it, there are actually people smarter than you out there. They do know you mean Ron Paul and they didn't Digg you up, but down.

        If we were as dumb as you think you're smart you'd have more Diggs.
    • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -0/+10Right, he is the exact opposite of everything he says, and his entire voting record, over twenty years, is all an elaborate ruse to make us believe he's a libertarian! Is this theory based on something or did this come from a dream, or did you just make it up on the fly? I really would like to know.
    • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4That's right, just digg me down and pretend that I didn't just ask a question that you can't answer, cannot answer, not if you had a million years and a million keyboards, you just will never answer that one.
    • NightVortez, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4You want to just keep calling names or do you want to explain your position?
    • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -2/+0Ha! Weak... So weak...
    • Bilabrin, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2I understand skepticism in this day and age but one only need look at the Dr.'s record to see where he stands.
    • rationalist, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I've posted numerous links numerous times to everything from the current H.R. 2597 to 2003's H.R. 3133. It doesn't matter because few of you blind supporters have basic knowledge of our political and judicial system to understand the implications of the bills Paul introduces into the House on a regular basis.
      Nor have you ever read any of the speeches he has given on the floor or to supporters during the years before this campaign.
      Nor are you aware of the hypocritical port barrel he cranks out for his district out of the federal taxpayer-funded till - to the tune of over $400 million for over 65 earmarks during the first half of this year alone.
      As the Wall Street Journal noted in August,
      "These include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research. When we called Mr. Paul's office for an explanation, his spokesperson offered up something worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd: "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending..."
      No, you are just being played for the rubes that you are by a cleverly manipulative campaign that hires amateur YouTube actresses, like the one from NY whose prior claim to fame was uploading a video of her brushing her teeth in her panties and bra, to create faux-amateur campaign videos for Paul. This for a guy who continuously pushes passage of bills he introduces each year, including this year, that would make abortion murder which is a federal crime, and would prohibit citizens from having their petitions heard by the Supreme Court on matters involving, among other things, federal blanket bans on abortion - and who wasn't shy about using the clout of Congress to bar gay couples in Washington D.C. from adoption children.
      Yeah, one only need look at the Dr.'s record to see where he stands.
      Unfortunately, few are looking at his record, everyone is hypnotized by his rhetoric.
  • barktwiggs, on 10/15/2007, -10/+3Given a choice between winning a non-representative straw poll and having more than 2% state wide support in Nevada, I would choose the latter. Can you guess who has on average 30% support in Nevada? http://www.pollster.com/08-NV-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
    • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3Sure, and what percentage of those people they called up on landlines will actually turn up and vote for Mitt Romney or Giuliani? 40%? 20%? 10%? Now what percentage of Ron Paul supporters do you think will show up and vote? 100%? maybe 99%?
      • barktwiggs, on 10/15/2007, -3/+2By my calculations, Romney supporters would have to have a 94% no-show rate to be beat by a 100% Ron Paul turnout. Ron Paul fans better pray for one hell of an outlier come primary day.
        • Bilabrin, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Lemme guess, you're using the results from random landline polling?
          • barktwiggs, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Well, short of doing a census or waiting for the actual primary, what would be better indicator?
      • Bilabrin, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Landline polls underrepresent those under 30.
        Online polls underepresent those over 30.
        Straw polls favor those who are mobile and passionate.

        For the most accurate (not that the 'most accurate' is close to the real value) picture I feel we should look at post debate text message polls. They favor the young a little in that they are text messages but they are also broadcast on TV which is overrepresenative of the older crowd.

        re-run your calculations with these numbers from May 15th before many had even heard of the Dr.

        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html


        • barktwiggs, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Voluntary response in a poll automatically negates accuracy. It is a vocal minority fallacy.
          • Bilabrin, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Yes but is not the primary and general election a voluntary response? What better way to judge?
          • barktwiggs, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1So, what good does it do to try to infer and predict an election if you have to wait for the election to happen first? You are logically just spinning your tires round and round. A census is the most accurate, most expensive method of polling. A scientifically rigorous, randomized survey is the next best thing, balancing time/money/accuracy to a very feasible 90-95% likelihood. No single sampling of the general population is likely to show the true support for individual candidates, but it is likely to be within a few standard deviations of the true average. Repeated sampling and analysis will show a clearer picture of the population you are inferring from. A much clearer picture than can ever be gained from Internet / dial-in / text msg / straw polls. Ask any stats prof, pollster, or AP Stats high school student and they will agree with me
          • Bilabrin, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1I'm not so sure. I find there is a key demo not sampled by these methods and I have to think this demo who will vote pushes the results out of the 3 sigma range. Time willl tell. I'll leave it at that.
    • barktwiggs, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Yes, please digg these inconvenient facts and scientific polls as much as you want if it makes you feel beter. Unfortunately for you, come primary and election day, you can not digg down other people's votes. Enjoy it while it lasts.
    • senatorpjt, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Guess what an election is? A self-selecting nonscientific poll.
      • barktwiggs, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1I like to think of it as a census of people who actively care about their government. Straw Polls are usually fundraisers with a popularity contest attached to it. Over 760,000 people voted in Nevada for the 2004 election. The 500 or so odd people attending the CLC straw poll are not indicative of the population as a whole.
        • Bilabrin, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Neither are poeple who vote. I find that the poeple at the CLC straw poll are more represenative of those who will attend the republican primary voting than any other group you could name.
          • barktwiggs, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1So you're saying that the 30% of Ron Paul supporters who paid their way to go to the Conservative Leadership Conference represent 30% of the likely Republican primary votersin Nevada. Yet somehow very few of them have landline phones allowing them to be contacted by pollers during the past 6 months. A highly unlikely scenario.
  • homer4199, on 10/15/2007, -3/+17"Romney was in the lower numbers because people came out for his event but they just didn't vote for him," according to organizer and McCain operative Paul Jackson."

    That makes me giggle.
  • rat2, on 11/09/2007, -3/+20I'd like to see how you can say spammers did this one. I think its time for the media to wake up and smell the coffee. Its not just crazy people who think he's awesome.
  • yoda17, on 10/16/2007, -2/+8So was this an article about Romney? I'm confused.
  • FashionLad, on 11/09/2007, -2/+31I have noticed that the media is very anti- Ron Paul. So, instead of telling us about his victory, they tell us that Mitt Romney lost. I hope Mitt Rmoney continues to lose. I've had it with every politician giving us the same tired answers. If they were out to change the world, they would've tried while they were in Congress or Mayor of their state or what have you.
    • stillasleep00, on 10/15/2007, -0/+7What answers has Mitt Romney ever even given us?
    • macman2k, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3And on Nov 8, 2008 they will all tell us about how Hillary lost the election and what a surprise it is.... and only mention as an aside that "Ron Paul won the election".
  • opticwind, on 10/16/2007, -11/+2Um...so?
  • cyberflas, on 10/19/2007, -28/+2ron pual is a tranny
    • n8glenn, on 10/15/2007, -0/+10So what you're saying is, you don't like Ron Paul, plus you're an idiot?
  • dmadzak, on 10/15/2007, -11/+4WTF is a tranny. I hate the grammer and spelling nazis but I can't even figure out what the hell you are trying to say.

    Acording to wikipedia a tranny is:

    * Transformer (electrical)
    * Transistor radio
    * Shortwave radio (not necessarily a transistor model), like the Zenith Trans-Oceanic Shortwave Radio
    * Transmission on an automobile
    * A term for a transgender person.
    * A nickname for the Ford Transit (usually as Tranny van)
    * A transparency, either a photographic slide or for an overhead projector.
    * A Rock band based out of Tulsa, OK.
    * In skateboarding its slang tranny means transition

    Are you saying he is a transgender person?
    • NightVortez, on 10/15/2007, -0/+11Transvestite, although I think he had Paul confused with Giuliani.
    • maz2331, on 10/15/2007, -0/+6There's a juvinile bunch around here who keep on trying to call him "RuPaul" -- a not so famous transvestite performer. It's seriously unfunny.
      • senatorpjt, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1I'd bet that RuPaul still has better name recognition.
      • sgglynn, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1I agree that it isn't extremely funny, but RuPaul was more than a not-so-famous transvestite. He was at least slightly famous, wasn't he on MTV for a bunch of ***** all the time?
  • PricklySponge, on 10/16/2007, -12/+3I bet Ron Paul gets so much poon
    • fearlessfx, on 10/15/2007, -0/+7Dude... he is an obstetrician. The only people who get more poon are gynecologists and myself.
    • Bilabrin, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Yeah, he get's lots from hit wife of 50 years!