Lots of good data in that CNN Poll.

60% of Paul's votes were from the 100,000$ or less income range
52% were from the $50,000 or less income range.

Interesting that 41% of Obama's voters were in the $100,000 or more range.

An article worth reading by a guy with some real life experiences most of us don't have.

If you like the status quo.. just bend over and vote for a DLC candidate.

Monkeywrenching the System
Ron Paul's Revolution
By STAN GOFF
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/05/18470149.php

Ron Paul has a message and even though I might see him a bit off and goofy all rudy has is 9/11 tourettes as someone has said....

Something that hasn't been made clear: Paul received more than a quarter of the votes cast in Iowa my non-Republicans. (29%)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IAREP

In most states, you have to be a registered Republican (or Democrat) to vote in the primaries. Paul didn't beat Rudy by that much if you only count REPUBLICANS.

According to CNN Paul received 7% of the Republican vote.

It will prove very hard to win, gathering less than 1 in 14 of your own party's voters.

At the same time, Obama received 44% of the vote among Republicans crossing lines, and 41% of independents.

If he wins the Democratic nod, that will make him formidable.

Once upon a time American wondered if Giuliani could withstand the Clinton machine.

He couldn't even withstand the Ron Paul machine.

Good riddance.

Ron Paul is facing two big contradictions between is Libertarian and states' rights agenda.

Firstly, our political system already favors states, and within the states, small states. Nebraska has a disproportionate number of Senators and electors. Iowa plays a disporportionate role in the primaries.

Small rural states are therefore large beneficiaries of government. They are unresponsive to the Libertarian aspect of the RP agenda.

Secondly, the proliferation of governmental units prevents economies of scale in government from taking full effect. At the local level, there is widespread duplication of services, as noted by advocates of regionalization. Every tiny suburb has the full infrastructure of government. "Decentralization" and the privileges of states and localities are a recipe for inefficent government.

I'll admit, at first I was annoyed. That may have been the point. Next I thought maybe someone just needs a hug, but I'm less sure of that now. But then what reasons are left?

Does this sh*t go down at Salon.com? No. I checked... at least the recent Ron Paul related posts. There's an increase in quality there, either in commenters or moderators, maybe both. Somehow there are no examples of cutting and pasting the same poorly sourced, poorly interpreted and otherwise unsubstantiated tripe. It's evidently either not done or not tolerated.

That's more of a side observation, what I'm getting at is:

What is the point of negative campaigning, either substantive like you see attached to official campaign ads, or smear tactics like you see posted here and every other Ron Paul thread at Huff post by one remarkable individual?

Thinking back to some paper writing I did when I was a student, when negative campaigning works in elections, it works by suppressing your opponent's turnout. To use a recent example, if Mitt understood the game, he would have expected his negative campaign ads to suppress Huck's turnout.

It wasn't a bad game plan, and here's why: Mitt observed that when his poll numbers went down last month, Huck's poll numbers went up. He made a reasonable assumption that his loss was Huck's gain. Mitt could have decided to try to boost his turnout, but instead he decided to try to cripple Huck's. It didn't work out exactly to plan, maybe because Iowans really don't like negative campaigning. Maybe Mitt's ads were just bad.

The key thing here is the expectation that these people swayed by negative ads will stay home. And when you're down to two candidates in a race, which has been the historical norm in this country in the latter stages of most general presidential campaigns, that's the only sensible choice. If you suspect your chosen candidate is in fact a bum thanks to negative ads by his/her opponent, you don't often run to the other side. You usually decide they're both worthless, and you stay home.

Now, what we have here is different. We haven't had one primary, yet someone here is posting like it's the last two weeks of October in the Paul vs Edwards race.

If someone truly wanted Edwards to win, would someone not be better served at this point by pumping up Edwards on every Edwards related thread at Huff Post? Of course. Turning people away from Ron Paul--and I'm pretty sure that's not what's happening in spite of the obvious enthusiasm being exhibited--will not by any stretch necessarily lead to gains in the Edwards numbers. There are just too many alternatives out there.

So what's at work here then? A misunderstanding of the tactic of negative campaigning? Simple trolling for fun? Or is it personal? Was someone once cut off in traffic by Ron Paul speeding by in the sensible vehicle I imagine the Dr. owning? Maybe it's an ideological hang-up and the argument is made personal because that's the most obvious way to strike a blow? Defeat the main proponent of the ideology you hate and set it back a few years?

I don't know the answer. What I will say is I am impressed. The Huff Post, easily one of the smallest outposts in all media, is being defended against the Paulian threat by one person as if it was CNN. At one point I counted 50 posts on Ron Paul threads in the space of 5 hours and 40 minutes. That breaks down to about 10 an hour, one every six minutes. It's an astonishing output for a workday, at least for me. If I was producing material at that rate, I would hope to be getting paid because when you take the physical demands of trolling into account--move mouse, type "Ron Paul" into search field, enter, read, consider, reply--I just don't think I'd have much time left for other paid work. To be fair, copy and paste is employed a lot here in reality, and that does save time even if it repels people looking for something new.

I apologize for posting off topic, but I feel whatever the topic is, it is so often usurped that maybe the spotlight should be shown here for a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EKLPNnZqhI

Dr. Paul on Bill Moyer's Tonite.

...and to the Dennis Kucinich Fans, he was on there

as well.

"You and Dennis Kucinich are usually said to be the winners of those debates.."-Bill M

"Yeah and yet..some people I guess, they don"t want to hear our message"-Ron P

Ron Paul AND Dennis Kucinich on Bill Moyers Journal tonight on PBS.
9pm CT.

Ron Paul on Bill Moyers Journal Fri 1/4 9pm ET.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

This is Bills interview with John Nickols (nation magazine and Bruce Fein (Ron Pauls Chief campaign legal council)
ON IMPEACHMENT

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

Amy Goodman had a show a few days ago on Democracy Now that spelled out ALL the TOP TIER candidates legal advisor's.
I WAS SHOCKED TO KNOW WHO IS BEHIND THESE CAMPAIGNS!
Ive listed a few in the past, such as Cofer Black (Romey), Mark Penn (Hillary).
BUT WAIT TILL YOU HEAR THIS GUY TELL AMY WHO ELSE IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR!
CAN WE SAY: "EVERYONE", EXCEPT RP?

From Shillary to Rude-ity and Dead Thompson to Obomba.
Really, REALLY disgusting.
Its good watching/learning if you can find the episode.
It shows how Washington Military War Mongers click and stick together.
I couldnt find it or I would have posted the link.

Found it!
Watch this!

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us

Just incredible, I tell you!

There were two ways for Ron Paul to win in Iowa:

1) Steamroll the competition. Win by 20, 30%.
Didn't happen. No one expected it.

2) Place comfortably in the middle with no one running away with it.
Done.

Tanning Giuliani's hide is just a bonus.

Iowa was Huckabee's home court. Onward to New Hampshire.

Looking at the results via mapped by precinct there are only three names that actually won a precinct... ...That would be Rommel, Huckasmuck, and Ron Paul. Thompson, McCain, and Rudy won zero precincts.

Not necessarily signficant but considering that he is against farm subsidies for ethanol/corn and 60% of the Iowa vote was evangelical (the true kooks of the country) I am surprised he would even get 5% of the vote. I more surprised that the huckacrite didnt get 99% of the vote.

the biggest news is Ron Paul was only a couple of hundred votes behind McCain which was 3rd. But the media doesn't thinks so. Giuliani was slaughtered by Ron Paul, another victory beyond believe 6 month's ago. I hope Obamha enjoys his 15 minutes of fame because this country is not going to elect a black President. Most people can't stand each other if they are even of different religion, let alone a different race. I personally don't care what color they are, but that's just me. I for the man who's ready to dump the BS in this country.