Flutterby™! : Ron Paul Graphs 2007-10-18 17:14:17.524109+00

Ron Paul Graphs

2007-10-18 17:14:17.524109+00 by Dan Lyke 29 comments

http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/ (Via, which also has some interesting notes on geographic distribution of Ron Paul supporters).

#Comment Re: made: 2007-10-19 00:46:48.029052+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

Way cool graphs. Interesting that the donations are steadily increasing in spite of the fact that he has a small chance of winning.

ronpaul.com 303000 hits hillaryclinton.com 149000 hits joinrudy2008.com 112000 hits BarackObama.com 345000 hits

I went to a Ron Paul meetup Saturday (disguised as a Libertarian Party meeting) and they were all enthusiastic, making signs and plastering them all over, knowing they will be taken down, but they laughed as they talked about it. These people love Ron Paul.

This week was the 50th anniversary of Atlas Shrugged. The ARI has sent out millions of free books to high schools all over if the teacher asks for them they are used for book reports and the annual essay contest.

I wonder is there any correlation between all the younger (defining younger here is not clear to me though) , maybe more high tech crowd, that has read Atlas, and the high energy exhibited on the internet and online polling, for Ron Pauls message of limited government? Is Ayn Rand the quiet common denominator?

This guy doesn't like her or the result but ponders whether she is affecting the present:

"I don't suggest that the new tycoons are all Randians or that successful businessmen are all self-centered adolescents. But with 400,000 copies being shipped to the smartest most impressionable kids in the country every year, her turgid romance novel has so infected society that many people have internalized her tales of heroic capitalism through an adolescent haze of sexual awakening which they have never properly sorted out."

Currently: google "ayn rand" 2,170,000 hits google Objectivism 1,720,000 hits google Ron Paul 12,000,000 hits (!)

No, Ron Paul people are not Objectivists, but thats ok for now. Rock on Ron! Freedom is popular! As they say "the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls" (Simon and Garfunkle) Ron Paul RLovelution

Watching the MSM and the other candidates block him at each turn (like trying to stop him from the debates) makes me root for him as the underdog, even though I do not agree with a few of his policies it makes me feel better to have him continuing. The country is decaying from within and he gives me some hope.

Flash - this very morning (Oct 18 2007) I just found what appears to be news that Paul is gaining respect in the media:

"Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has broken through to the top tier of Republican candidates running for president. He knows it, GOP voters know it, and as previously reported; media outlets are grudgingly admitting it.

Fox News, to their credit, has already started giving Paul more air coverage than before. Paul was a guest on Fox Business News yesterday.

Ron Paul commented on the issue in a message to supporters, The blackout is ending; our campaign is starting to get mainstream media attention, thanks to growing donations and volunteers."

Finally Mad Men the AMC tv series has two great comments about Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged - they mention her name and the book twice. Further in the last show of the series they mention the name Ayn Rand twice. nuff said.

"A whopping 83% of donors were men, 14.5% were women, and 2.5% I couldn't determine from the name."

This would match, or even under-report, what I've experienced. In fact, I have yet to meet a woman who claims to support Paul, although I've met numerous men who claim to. Hmm, let's think, why would this be...?

#Comment Re: made: 2007-10-19 05:37:34.465444+00 by: crasch [edit history]

Diane - Are you implying that Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance is the reason for his low support among women? While Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance probably doesn't endear him to women in the Bay Area, I think the gender breakdown is more reflective of his libertarian base. Go to any libertarian event, and you will likely see gender ratios similar to the demographics of Paul's financial supporters, even though libertarians as a whole are pro-choice.

If an anti-abortion stance were the primary reason for the gender disparity, we would expect to see similar ratios for other pro-life Republican candidates. However, in the 2004 election "...Overall, women voted 51 percent Democratic to 48 percent Republican in the 2004 presidential election..."

#Comment Re: graphs n' such made: 2007-10-19 05:46:53.815786+00 by: shell

#Comment Re: Paul support made: 2007-10-19 10:57:27.754473+00 by: BC

Actually, I am saddened when I see some dismiss Paul as a viable candidate due to abortion. He is a pediatrician, folks. After bringing 1000s of babies in to this world it is not surprising he takes this stance.

But the more important issue is that abortion is and has been the classic non-issue issue. I personally am in favor of one having the choice. I feel strongly about that but I also know, even though Roberts is at the helm, it is extremely unlikely The Supreme Court would or can overturn Roe v. Wade. Even if they did try to take us back to The Stone Age, you can bet Congress would pass legislation to thwart this.

Don't let abortion take your eye off the ball. Paul is the man. No one else comes close. You can take what he says to the bank. Now, whether that means he could get much of his agenda through is another story. It is a virtual impossibility with Congress minding the store but, that said, you can darn well bet Paul would make it very difficult and uncomfortable for the Neocons and lobbyists to operate "business as usual." He will not compromise on this and that is the key to a Paul presidency.

#Comment Re: As to Rand... made: 2007-10-19 11:15:18.439526+00 by: BC

Though the message is right, it was certainly not "hers." And, as to her writing style, it probably drove more away from free, unfettered capitalism than to it. She is perhaps the poorest widely-read writer I ever read. Yes, I agonized through the 40 page (?) soliloquy. Abject torture. Galt could have said it in a page but she kept beating us over the head with it, page after page. And then Roark in FH taking Daphne (name?-not sure) from the rock quarry, with no words exchanged. Pure Hollywood. Rand ain't the messenger on this message.

#Comment On women and Libertarianism made: 2007-10-19 13:36:24.026977+00 by: Dan Lyke

I'll stay clear of the Objectivism discussion for the moment and stick to Diane's gender question. Assuming that it's not the abortion stance, and getting dangerously close to the rationalizations of evolutionary biology...

Objectivism specifically, and Libertarian philosophies more generally, at some point demand a certain level of self-sacrifice. There comes a time in the tales of the lifeboat when a person can't provide for themselves and thus, if they are to remain true to the philosophy, must voluntarily starve (for instance) rather than steal.

Men, in general, only do this sort of thinking for one person: ourselves. Women do this thinking for multiple people, that old warning about getting in between a mother bear and her cubs isn't just limited to the ursine.

So when it comes time to do something like pit intellectual principles of minimizing violence or the threat of violence in our culture in a somewhat abstract sense versus making sure that those offspring make it to adulthood, I'd guess that that's a good portion of what makes women choose the pragmatic in this particular instance.

Dan: I disagree - we don't live in life boats actually. Life boat means 'emergency'. In an emergency individual rights are not applicable. Rights imply the ability to choose. A true emergency may require a violation of what would be considered individual rights in normal times. So stealing to save a life might be justified, in an emergency. And the theft would have to be made good after the emergency was over. Also I do not agree men vs women bears. Maybe a man bear looks at things differently, and maybe the same conceptually for people, that a man sees rights as best for all in the long run and a women sees only the short term. The longer vision is better, in the long run. For example the sole vote against WWII was from a woman. Was it better we stopped them using violence or should we have continued to negotiate?

#Comment Re: made: 2007-10-19 21:54:21.405178+00 by: fizzle [edit history]

BC: I have to agree with your review of "poorest widely-read writer I ever read" with one exception - that other piece of crappy writing known as "The Bible".

You've gotta be kidding!!! That's the most chauvanistic thing I think I've ever heard! A female bear is only looking out for the short term by protecting her offspring?

You seem to forget that women make up over 50% of Humanity. That means a society modeled on Feminist values is at least, if not more, significant than a Patriarchal model. It's only through brute force that the patriarchy has been maintained this long.

Fizzle, I believe that the whole "matriarchal/patriarchal" thing is a false dichotomy that blinds us to the benefits and pitfalls of a system and hides the motivations that would help us figure out how to motivate change. It's easy to make cracks about "the patriarchy", it's harder if you look at it in terms of a system that traded freedom of choice for security, and it allows us to see that the victims lie on both sides.

Ziffle, I believe that the difference between a life boat and a cruise ship is one of scale: the size mitigates the immediacy of the consequences, but not the principles behind the actions. In my youthful idealism I was willing to believe that Objectivism could scale to such things, even though Rand disputed that. Nowadays I've lost my absolutes and think in terms of minimization,

Fizzle and BC, gotta admit I like Rand's writing style. I understand the intellectualism that rags on the styles of popular authors, but she came from the discipline of screenwriting and popular culture, and to dismiss her writing style is to dismiss the style that dominates the fiction best sellers. "Litrachoor" ain't nuthin' but another genre.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-10-20 00:27:51.225782+00 by: topspin [edit history]

Rand's just a pompous, self-absorbed, overgrown adolescent....who deceives herself (and some others) into thinking she has something to say.

Tori Amos is intense too ya know.....but just because they have a cult following them doesn't make them legends.

A female bear with cubs will kill you. Nothing political, just a statement of fact.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-10-20 10:54:30.189484+00 by: jeff [edit history]

I find it intriguing how this thread has segued from "Ron Paul Graphs" to a discussion about Ayn Rand's writing style? :^)

#Comment Re: made: 2007-10-20 15:21:53.964547+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

Dan: Rereading your post I might want to rewrite my response as maybe I am not sure what you are saying. We do live on Cruise ships not life boats, so if you could clarify what you are saying I might be more able to understand it.

The essence of Objectivism is that we must learn to 'ask' not 'tell' each other what we want. I wonder how many here can agree with that? All social programs require force to enact. Only Objectivism requires that we not initiate of the use of force. Both Momma Bear and Poppa Bear would respond if their children bears were in trouble.

Ziffle: Male Bears have absolutely nothing to do with raising the young. In fact, it's not uncommon for a male bear to kill and eat young bears, even it's own.

And the essence of Objectivism, standing on one foot, doesn't seem to address asking and telling each other what we want. That appears to be your elaboration - but I have to agree it's an interesting interpretation that ultimately highlights its failing as a social construct. It assumes that the individual feel able to honestly express their needs and wants.

For instance, if one of Ron Paul's children became pregnant in an unwanted manner, she would feel incapable of expressing her needs to her father.

Ok. Maybe that's a bad example - it assumes Ron Paul holds similar Objectivist values...

How about this example: we make all schools private. A young person is brought into the world by abusive parents. These parents don't send their child to school. Without that schooling, it might be possible that the young person will never be able to express his or her needs or wants.

Objectivism would work well in a homogenized society, where everyone shares identical values. That sure would make sociology easy - but it would be quite boring, in my opinion.

Ziffle, my opinion is that if the ethical system doesn't scale from lifeboats to cruise ships then the system is flawed, because the only thing that changes is how many people are affected. It's only when we can view things as a simple system that we can wrap our heads around what it really is on a larger scale, and sometimes that's acknowledging that in order to prevent evil someone dies.

Eric, I think the point of any ethical structure is that it needs to be a set of values that people can hold in common. And I agree with you that the problem is, in your private school example, that there are always people who are willing to shirk their responsibilities.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-10-22 11:39:46.104322+00 by: jeff [edit history]

What I find perhaps most profound about Ron Paul is that he's probably garnered far more posts than any other candidate on Flutterby.

I assume you mean when you say lifeboat, 'an emergency situation'. is that correct?

And when you say Cruise ship you mean 'non emergency situation', is that correct?

Dan, your statement "there are always people who are willing to shirk their responsibilities" ties directly into my argument. In the private school example, Objectivism and Libertarianism focus on how the parents are bad people but fail to address what to do with the kid. It's as though the kid isn't a real person.

The world, unfortunately, is filled with the by-products of irresponsible behavior. In fact, I'd bet that the world contains more of these irresponsible by-products than otherwise.

Not the most robust sampling method - but easy. Get the result count from Googling: "candidate name site:flutterby.com".

Ziffle, my belief is that the only difference between emergency and non-emergency situations is time frame; making different rules for the emergency just means that the definition of emergency will be used to justify anything.

Eric, I agree that dealing with the children while addressing the larger cultural shift to a feeling of entitlement by negligent parents is a huge problem.

my opinion is that if the ethical system doesn't scale from lifeboats to cruise ships then the system is flawed, because the only thing that changes is how many people are affected

This is probably my fundamental beef with libertarianism as I see it promoted on the internets -- the lack of acknowledgement of the fact that, say, governing for a group of 300 is not the same as governing for a group of 300 million.

One of the reasons I'm gradually settling into some sort of pragmatism over principle is that I believe that locality changes morality, not scale.

So, judging from Flutterby candidate popularity alone, we see Ron Paul defeating Hillary Clinton in the presidential election? <grin>

I was going to suggest that names almost seemed to be in reverse order there, I'm becoming, for instance, more impressed with Christopher Dodd, but the relative positions of Richard Nixon and George Washington kinda kill that.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-10-22 17:52:23.979582+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Still, at a basic level (for better or worse), it does tend to separate Ron Paul from the rest of the pack (declared candidates).

We've not seen (m)any threads/posts highlighting other candidates, probably because they all simply represent differently spun visions of "business as usual." Paul is refreshingly DIFFERENT from most of the pack.

Just out of curiosity, how does Christopher Dodd separate himself from the other candidates?

Renouncing the FISA bill is a good start on Dodd's part. I wonder if he will fully buy into Ron Paul's recently proposed legislation:

Yes, but scale does change implementation, which I suspect may have been Medley's point.