Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Study: Americans Always Think Their Candidate Is Most Popular

February 27, 2012 by  

Study: Americans Always Think Their Candidate Is Most Popular

A new study from Northwestern University finds that because of a phenomenon called the false consensus effect, most voters believe that their preferred candidate will win in an election despite what polls say.

Using data from the American Life Panel researchers studied survey responses and results from the 2008 U.S. Presidential election and 2010 senatorial and gubernatorial State elections. Regardless of race, gender or level of schooling, voters believed that their chosen candidate was the most popular — no matter what results from polls said.

For example, someone who strongly supported a Democrat candidate over a Republican would have given a 20 to 30 percent higher chance, on average, that the Democrat would win the election than would someone who strongly supports the Republican.

“People thought their preferred candidate had a higher chance of winning, in every election, no matter in which state they live, no matter who was running, no matter which political party,” said Charles F. Manski, co-author of the paper. “This is one of the strongest empirical regularities I’ve ever seen.”

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Study: Americans Always Think Their Candidate Is Most Popular”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    I can’t agree on this one, Sam. Is Northwestern in bed with UPI?
    A landslide would seem to give some credence to the premise. In a primary, I don’t see how this idea can have any basis. A general election would be different, but that’s mainly due to groups/parties having “united,” so to speak, in an attempt to go for the gold [W H, in this case].

  • TIME

    ” Ignorance can be cured, but saddly, Stupidity is fostered.”

    Peace and Love

    • Warrior

      How about a little humor?

      A doctor from France says: “In France, the medicine is so advanced that we cut off a man’s testicles; we put them into another man, and in 6 weeks he is looking for work.”

      The German doctor comments: “That’s nothing, in Germany we take part of the brain out of a person; we put it into another person’s head, and in 4 weeks he is looking for work.”

      A Russian doctor says: “That’s nothing either. In Russia we take out half of the heart from a person; we put it into another person’s chest, and in 2 weeks he is looking for work.”

      The U.S. doctor answers immediately: “That’s nothing my colleagues, you are way behind us. In the USA, about 2 years ago, we grabbed a person from Kenya with no brains, no heart, no balls and we made him President of the United States, and now the whole damn country is looking for work!

      • Joe H

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! AND HAHAHAHA AGAIN!!!!! Very funny and very true!!

      • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

        lmao!

        I’m gonna tell my wife that one.

  • Deerinwater

    While these findings are true for the most part, ~ it’s nothing new but something some of us have know quite a while.

    When you fly around with a bunch of Turkeys, it’s becomes easy enough to be mistaking for one.

    I’ve always been the odd man out of sorts, rarely in agreement with the general consensus or prevailing notions and I have lost many battles, not because I was wrong but simply out numbered. While as time moves forward only to be proven correct. Yea me! LOL! I’ve learned to moved beyond my ego. ( no doubt, some would differ)

    I call it the “center of the universe syndrome” a by product of “self awareness” created by Ego. ~ It’s purpose is to make you feel good about yourself, as it offers you a sense of value and “comfort” in self worth and the illusion of being “connected”

    Now who would want to interfere with a Lynch Mob is the performance of it’s sworn duty?

  • FreedomFighter

    This is probably true, but

    Ron Paul is the most popular,/b>

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • Blue

      You notice he didn’t explain how there were -16,000 votes in Florida. I thought that the Diebold machines only counted positive votes. My guess is…those votes went to RP. I also read an article where the machine was opened in another state and there were votes in there from the previous presidential election. Did you also notice that Iowa threw their results out and the dead were voting? Maine had counties of up to 15,000 in population that showed a vote tally of “0″. Mainstream media is now saying that RP most likely won Maine. Smells likes voter fraud to me that will continue on. I also believe that the GOP wants Romney as the candidate to go up against Obama. Why is that? Because they know Obama will clean Romney’s clock and he will be in for another 4 years. Actually, I predict that Obama will win (by crook or hook) and that he will be the last elected president of the USA.

      • Joe H

        Blue,
        Yes, wasn’t it Maine that the whole of waldo county was MISSING??? Probably all Ron Paul votes!!

  • Deerinwater

    Let’s face it, ~ some people don’t think clearly, can’t assimilate information and process thought but on the most basic level.

    It’s hard to recognize qualities and assign a value to them when they are complete alien to you.

    For an example; How many people actually have a sound working understand of the duties of a sitting President? What he or she is responsible for? To do or to not do?

    To go, to stay. to met to ignore, to consult, to question, to demand , to accept, to refuse, to honor, . ~ Presidents sit down and met with some of the brightest minds today world has to offer. They met with people in high place and hold very powerful positions.

    Who in their right minds would ever thing someone like Sara Palin worthy consideration for such a job?

    WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? They are people that find something to like in Sara beside Moose Meat Chile or that she see can see Russia for her house. They admire something about her and somehow think this “admiration” is going to instill or engender some kind of positive results if she held the highest and most powerful elected position known to modern man.

    Well, we managed to doge that bullet!

    • DaveR

      Integrity and common sense (which is a misnomer as it is not common today in USA) would go a long way to fulfillment of the responsibilities of the position of president of USA.

      Obama has neither.

      • Deerinwater

        I think that it takes much more then that,~ that doesn’t even come close to being enough. You under estimate the complexity of the position. A cobbler has common sense, a plumber has common sense, while integrity is largely in the eye of the beholder.

        You want the integrity of a dog or the integrity of a hells fire and brimstone Evangelist on a Wednesday night tent revival?

    • Joe H

      Deer,
      What’s so crazy about people that thought Palin was equal to the job?? I mean, YOU THOUGHT ODUMBERER WAS FIT!!!!! THERE’S the CRAZY thought!!!

      • Deerinwater

        That you would make such a comment, tells me several things about you Joe.

        1. whatever I might offer you, will roll off of you like water off of a ducks back, not one drop will remain.

        2. You will openly denying the current administration any respect or consideration for what negative effects it prevented from happening or any good that has happened during it’s tenure for some personal purpose that I don’t believe that even you fully understand.

        3. You actually think that Mrs. Palin has the stuff to match wits with some of the most clearly brightest minds today has to offer. That she possess the Brinkmanship to impose the will of the United States of America with only “words” and positional play.

        4. You have never been exposed to truly exceptional minds and don’t have one single clue as to what I’m even talking about. ( not to suggest you or your friend are dumb, because i know they are not) you simply have not the exposure.

        5. You and persons like you comprise somewhere in the tune of about 30% of the voting Americans. ( a bunch! ) and exactly the reason why, normally bright politicians are acting so stupid just to get your vote as they put on this show of clowns for you. They lose you in a “shell game” of trivia and nonsense, killing babies! and taking your guns and stealing your money and attacking God. Anything that fosters your greatest fears!

  • factnotrhetoric

    Americans can’t believe the polls. Just like the debates, the polls say what that News Media wants them to say.

    Americans can’t even trust our voting machines and our elections. America now has a high number of dead people voting.

    American voting machines, and State’s Mainframes, have been hacked, given viruses, and 80% of the states are using old Microsoft Operating System Voting Machines and Mainframes without any virus protection at all. It’s no wonder we can’t trust the voting or the polls.

    Now Americans are being told who won our elections by a Madrid Spain company called Scytl/SOE. Scytl/SOE wants to sell America their voting machines. This is so a Madrid Spain company can tell Americans who won our elections.

    So, I’m just like most Americans, I choose to believe what I see around me, more than manipulated polls or manipulated voting machines.

    I believe Ron Paul won every state so far. :-)

    • Tina

      I believe this also. They just don’t want him in there.

    • Mark

      I wouldn’t be surprised if he had. I know I intend to vote for him but I substitute teach in the inner city and spend a lot of time on Craigslist Rants and Raves. I’ve learned there are an awful lot of incredibly stupid people out there.

    • eddie47d

      Aren’t you all proving Sam Rolley’s headline?

    • http://gravatar.com/ambassadorsyedahsani ambassadorsyedahsani

      Vote for Congressman Ron paul (R-TX) in Primaries and Presidential.
      Register as voter as Republican.He got more votes than other candidates combined
      Access Ron Paul for President-Issue Agenda
      Ambassador Syed Ahsani
      News
      Where the GOP candidates stand on the issues
      Published: Thursday, February 09, 2012

      By CALVIN WOODWARD,
      Associated Press
      WASHINGTON (AP) — A look at where the 2012 Republican presidential candidates stand on a selection of issues.

      They are former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

      ABORTION:

      Gingrich: Platform calls for conservative judges and no subsidies for abortion but not a constitutional abortion ban.

      Paul: Says federal government should have no authority either to legalize or ban abortion.

      Romney: Says Roe v. Wade should be reversed by a future Supreme Court and states should decide their own abortion laws.

      Santorum: Favors constitutional abortion ban and opposes abortion, including in cases of rape.

      DEBT:

      Gingrich: As House speaker in 1990s, engineered passage of a seven-year balanced-budget plan. It was vetoed but helped form a bipartisan balanced budget later.

      Paul: Would eviscerate federal government, slashing nearly half its spending, shut five Cabinet-level agencies, end spending on existing conflicts and on foreign aid
      Romney: Defended financial sector bailout, criticized GM and Chrysler bailout. Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP.

      Santorum: Freeze social and military spending for five years to cut $5 trillion from federal budgets.

      ECONOMY:

      Gingrich: Repeal the financial industry regulations that followed the Wall Street meltdown. Restrict the Fed’s power to set interest rates artificially low.

      Paul: Return to the gold standard, eliminate the Federal Reserve, eliminate most federal regulations.

      Romney: Lower taxes, less regulation, balanced budget, more trade deals to spur growth. Replace jobless benefits with unemployment savings accounts. Repeal new financial-industry regulations.

      Santorum: Eliminate corporate taxes for manufacturers, drill for more oil and gas, and slash regulations.

      EDUCATION:

      Gingrich: Shrink Education Department. But supported Obama administration’s $4 billion Race to the Top grant competition for states.

      Paul: Abolish the Education Department and end the federal role in education
      Romney: Supported No Child Left Behind law. Once favored shutting Education Department, later saw its value in “holding down the interests of the teachers’ unions.”

      Santorum: Voted for No Child Left Behind law, now regrets vote. Wants “significantly” smaller Education Department but not its elimination.

      ENERGY:

      Gingrich: Let oil and natural gas industries drill offshore reserves now blocked from development, end restrictions on Western oil shale development.

      Paul: Remove restrictions on drilling, coal and nuclear power, eliminate gasoline tax, provide tax credits for alternative fuel technology.

      Romney: Supports drilling in the Gulf, the outer continental shelves, Western lands, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore Alaska; and exploitation of shale oil deposits.

      Santorum: Favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, scaling back “oppressive regulation” hindering drilling elsewhere, and eliminating energy subsidies in four years.

      ENVIRONMENT:

      Gingrich: Convert EPA into “environmental solutions agency” devoted to research and “more energy, more jobs and a better environment simultaneously.” Once backed tougher environmental regulation.

      Paul: Previously said human activity “probably does” contribute to global warming; now calls such science a “hoax.” Says emission standards should be set by states or regions.

      Romney: Acknowledged that humans contribute to global warming, but later said “we don’t know what’s causing climate change.” Cap and trade would “rocket energy prices.”

      Santorum: The science establishing human activity as a likely contributor to global warming is “patently absurd” and “junk science.”

      GAY MARRIAGE:

      Gingrich: If the Defense of Marriage Act fails, “you have no choice except a constitutional amendment” to ban gay marriage.

      Paul: Decisions on legalizing or prohibiting gay marriage should be left to states.

      Romney: Favors constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, says policy should be set federally, not by states.

      Santorum: Supports constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, not leaving decision to states. “We can’t have 50 marriage laws.”

      HEALTH CARE:

      All would seek repeal of Obama’s health care law.

      Gingrich: Prohibit insurers from cancelling or charging hefty increases to insurance holders who get sick. Offer “generous” tax credit to help buy insurance. Previously supported mandatory coverage.

      Paul: Opposes compulsory insurance and all federal subsidies for coverage.

      Romney: Opposes federal mandate to obtain coverage; introduced mandate in Massachusetts. Proposes “generous” subsidies to help future retirees buy private insurance instead of going on Medicare.

      Santorum: Would seek to starve Obama’s health care law of money needed to implement it. Supported Bush administration’s prescription drug program for the elderly, now regrets doing so.

      IMMIGRATION:

      Gingrich: In contrast to most rivals, supports option of giving legal status to illegal immigrants with deep roots in the U.S. and who have lived otherwise lawfully. Supports path to citizenship for illegal immigrants’ children who perform U.S. military service. Make English the official language. Divert more Homeland Security assets to at Mexican border.

      Paul: Do “whatever it takes” to secure the border, end right to citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, no social services for illegal immigrants, aggressive deportation.

      Romney: Would veto legislation that seeks to award legal status to some young illegal immigrants who attend college or serve in the armed forces. Favors complete U.S.-Mexico border fence, opposes education benefits to illegal immigrants.

      Santorum: Supports complete border fence, opposes education benefits to illegal immigrants.

      SOCIAL SECURITY:

      Gingrich: Give younger workers the option of diverting Social Security taxes to private retirement accounts.

      Paul: Says younger workers should be able to opt out of Social Security taxes and retirement benefits; benefits for today’s retirees should be protected.

      Romney: Starting with workers now under 55, raise age to qualify for full benefits, and limit inflation increases for wealthier beneficiaries. Protect status quo for people 55 and older.

      Santorum: Proposes immediate steps to lower benefits for wealthier retirees, raise the age to qualify for full benefits and restrict inflation increases in benefits, both for current and future retirees. Supports option of private retirement accounts.

      TAXES:

      All support eliminating the estate tax and keeping Bush-era tax cuts.

      Gingrich: Choice of filing under current system or paying a 15 percent tax, preserving mortgage interest and charitable deductions. Cut corporate tax to 12.5 percent.

      Paul: Eliminate the federal income tax and the IRS, and defund close to half the government.

      Romney: No one with adjusted gross income under $200,000 should be taxed on interest, dividends or capital gains. Cut corporate tax rate to 25 percent.

      Santorum: Triple the personal exemption for dependent children, reduce the number of tax brackets to two — 10 percent and 28 percent, exempt domestic manufacturers from the corporate tax and halve the top rate for other business.

      TERRORISM:

      Gingrich: Supports extending and strengthening investigative powers of Patriot Act. Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention for suspected terrorists. Supported creation of Homeland Security apparatus. In 2009, said of waterboarding: “It’s not something we should do.”

      Paul: Opposes Patriot Act as an infringement on liberty. Says terrorists would not be motivated to attack America if the U.S. ended its military presence abroad. Says: “Waterboarding is torture. And it’s illegal under international law and under our law. It’s also immoral.”

      Romney: No constitutional rights for foreign terrorism suspects. Campaign says he does not consider waterboarding to be torture.

      Santorum: Defends creation of Homeland Security Department. Voted to reauthorize Patriot Act. Says airport screeners should employ profiling; “Muslims would be someone you’d look at, absolutely.” Supports continued use of Guantanamo Bay detention but says Americans accused of being enemy combatants should have right to challenge indefinite detention in court. Says waterboarding has proved effective.

      WAR:

      Gingrich: Supported Iraq war and opposed early withdrawal. Said U.S. forces should not have been used in Libya campaign, after he had called for such intervention. Opposes “precipitous” pullout from Afghanistan.

      Paul: Bring most or all troops home from foreign posts “as quick as the ships could get there.” Opposed U.S. intervention in Libya. Cut Pentagon budget.

      Romney: Has not specified the troop numbers behind pledge to ensure the “force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully” in Afghanistan.

      Santorum: Says he would order bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities unless they were opened for international arms inspectors. Proposes freezing defense spending for five years.
      Your Choice: Ron Paul Or A Wheelbarrow?
      January 25, 2012 by John Myers

      PHOTOS.COM
      Unless Ron Paul becomes President, it might be safer to keep your money in a wheelbarrow.
      You might have good need for a wheelbarrow, especially if the Presidential election turns out the way I fear it will. After we know the victor, the smart thing to do will be to run out and buy wheelbarrows to replace our wallets, purses and even bank accounts.
      The United States is creating money to a degree that has happened only twice before in its history. It was initiated to overcome the Great Recession of 2008. On Seeking Alpha, contributor Jeremy Robson writes:
      The Federal Reserve balance sheet has expanded from $869 billion on August 8, 2008, to $2.929 trillion on December 28, 2011. This is an average increase per month of $55.1 billion or an annual increase of $661 billion.
      A similar situation is occurring in Europe. Greece, Ireland and other nations could quickly fall into default.
      Robson points out: “The rise in the balance sheets of the big 4 central banks over the 2008-12 period will amount to about 15 per cent [sic] of GDP, which is equivalent to over 50 per cent [sic] of the cumulative budget deficit of these countries over the same period.”
      One can legitimately argue that central banks are financing government deficits. This certainly sets up the possibility for hyperinflation in 2012 and beyond.

      Evidence of the underlying problem is in the graph above, the U.S. base money supply. Trillions of new dollars are being created by the Federal government’s computers and the rollout of ever greater Treasury debt. But this money is not being circulated through the economy, and that makes us vulnerable to hyperinflation.
      Only twice in American history has the Nation had to endure hyperinflation: 1779 and 1861-1865. Both occurred during wartime.
      Three generations of Americans have lived through good economic times. That is not to say there haven’t been some hardships in American life. The rolling recession of the early 1980s was tough on the Nation, and the Crash of 2008 scared most of us witless.
      America is not immune to economic catastrophe. Currently, a $1 trillion per year deficit is being backstopped by the Fed which is now buying more than 50 percent of all new Treasury debt. China holds more than $1 trillion in Treasury debt, and it may soon believe it is sitting on fool’s gold. More and more dollars are being created by a keystroke on the Fed’s computer. This means that every existing dollar holds less value.
      If China or other foreign investors start to sell off their Treasury bills, notes and bonds, it will create a flood of new money. Rampant Treasury liquidations could tip off a period of hyperinflation and that would drive an already shaky economy into oblivion.
      Who is going to stop it? Not President Barack Obama. He has done more to create catastrophe than any President since Herbert Hoover. Will Mitt Romney engineer a rescue for a Nation that has failed to deal with economic realities for the past three decades? How about Newt Gingrich, a consummate Washington insider? I doubt that any of these three have the will to take the draconian steps necessary to save the U.S. dollar and to save the United States.
      Gingrich talks a good game. Last month, he proclaimed that he is now running on a hard money platform. While campaigning in South Carolina, the candidate recommended a “commission on gold to look at the whole concept of how we get back to hard money.”
      I suggest that Gingrich’s promises to the Nation are as empty as the promises he made to his former wives.
      According to CNN Money:
      Gingrich would model his “gold commission” after one put in place after Ronald Reagan was elected, when the nation was battling double-digit inflation. But even then, the commission overwhelmingly rejected the idea of a return to the gold standard.
      One of only two members of the 17-member commission to endorse a return to the gold standard was Ron Paul.
      Jim Rogers, a hard-asset guru and billionaire who has hit big-market trends correctly over the past 25 years, believes that Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul can save America from an economic catastrophe.
      Rogers told Beacon Equity Research that he believes Paul understands the problems that are facing America.
      Rogers pointed out that unlike the other candidates for the Oval Office, Paul is willing to implement painful cuts to U.S. debt levels including severe budget cuts and the slashing of defense spending. That isn’t just a bitter pill for the Nation, it is major surgery. And let’s face it; the majority don’t like Paul’s prescription to make America well.
      The Huffington Post Canada pointed out this week:
      Both Democrats and Republicans seem to have this problem with Ron Paul, but Democrats tend to like the opposite 50 percent of what Ron Paul says from the 50 percent that Republicans like. Democrats tend to like the part about protecting civil liberties and reducing military spending, while the Republicans tend to like the 50 percent that’s about slashing social programs, but hate the part about withdrawing all our troops from around the globe. As Rick Santorum said, “The problem with Congressman Paul is, all the things that Republicans like about him he can’t accomplish and all the things they’re worried about, he’ll do day one.”
      That is, if Paul gets the chance.
      It is like millions of people who are told by the doctor every year to give up smoking or drinking. Most of us change our habits only after we get a terrible diagnosis, and then it is often too late.
      Paul is both a real doctor and a realist. He has given his diagnosis to the Nation. I bet few Americans have the courage to accept it.
      This will ensure old policies and overspending by Washington and the continued destruction of the U.S. dollar. Short of some miracle, now is probably a good time to buy a few additional ounces of silver and gold. Buying a wheelbarrow wouldn’t be a bad idea either.
      Yours in good times and bad,
      –John Myers
      Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report
      January 30, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink | Reply
      These famous people would have endorsed Ron Paul ……..
      “War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts, and taxes; and debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few… no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual war”… JAMES MADISON
      “In the recommendation to admit indiscriminately foreign emigrants of every description to the privileges of American citizens, on their first entrance into our country, there is an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character; and to let in the most powerful means of perverting and corrupting both the one and the other ”
      Alexander Hamilton 1802
      “The least government is the best government” Thomas Jefferson
      Debunking The Anti-Paul Messages
      December 26, 2011 by Bob Livingston

      UPI
      Ron Paul makes remarks at a town hall meeting in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, on Dec. 21.
      The Republican establishment has become apoplectic over Congressman Ron Paul’s growing strength in Iowa.
      Last week, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad attempted to delegitimize his own State’s vote when he said that if Paul wins the Iowa Caucus, it won’t matter. Of course, if Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney wins, he won’t say that. In fact, according to Branstad, a second- or third-place finish by Gingrich or Romney will be more important than a Paul win.
      “People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and other states,” Branstad reportedly said. What Branstad did not say was that he’s been offered a potential Vice President spot on a Romney ticket.
      Branstad and his elite bedfellows are trying to draw you into an alternate universe. Never mind that two out of the past three winners of the Iowa Caucus have gone on to win the Republican nomination, a Paul win will mean the Iowa vote is irrelevant.
      According to a new Iowa State University/Gazette/KCRG poll of likely Republican caucus-goers, Paul has moved into first place – the fifth candidate to hold that spot since the mid-August Iowa GOP Straw Poll. This is the second recent poll showing a Paul lead.
      In the ISU poll, Paul is the first choice for 27.5 percent of the registered Republicans and registered independents contacted. That’s up from 20.4 percent in November. Gingrich is the second choice with 25.3 percent, and Romney was third at 17.5 percent.
      For months, the Republican elites and corporate media have treated Paul like that cranky old uncle that continues to show up at family gatherings. They’ve tried ignoring him and they’ve tried dismissing him. They’ve been running a continuous communication loop that says, “Ron Paul can’t win.” Yet, here he is, on the cusp of an Iowa victory and showing remarkable strength in New Hampshire.
      A common refrain from Republicans is: “I like most of what Ron Paul says, but I can’t vote for him because of his ‘isolationist’ foreign policy.” When they say that, what are they saying?
      After all, many Republicans say they can easily vote for Gingrich even though they don’t agree on some of his positions: i.e. infidelity, national database of gun owners, support for the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that permits the indefinite detention of Americans upon the President’s order, support of cap-and-trade, support of individual mandates to purchase healthcare, support of TARP and bailouts, etc. And many Republicans say they can vote for Romney, the author – essentially — of Obamacare (through his Romneycare), who has flipped and flopped on core Republican issues like a fish in the bottom of a boat. And they say they can vote for Michele Bachmann, who voted for the USA Patriot Act and the NDAA.
      They are saying, simply, that they have been so terrorized by their government and the mainstream media they are willing to surrender all their freedom and wealth to the military industrial complex and big government so people in a foreign land can be bombed into submission and subjugation. Years of government propaganda and years of war have cemented in their minds the need for perpetual war.
      For my conservative friends who don’t like Paul because of his noninterventionist — because that’s what his policy is, and he describes what that means here — foreign policy, consider how long we have been at war in the Mideast.
      America and the CIA have been meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries for decades. Read The Secret History of The American Empire, by John Perkins. In 1990, after an American ambassador hinted to Saddam Hussein that the United States would not stand in his way were he to take over territory that was in dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush and the United Nations formed a coalition to bloody his nose. We have been in a shooting war in the region ever since.
      After 21 years of war in the region, are things any better? Apparently not, because the war has expanded from Iraq into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya, and it is about to expand into Syria and Iran. And American troops are in Central Africa in an “advisory” role. Yet Americans thirst for more war and the top Republican candidates, according to the elites, are advocating more.
      “But,” Republicans say, “Iran is about to get The Bomb. We can’t let Iran get The Bomb!” And how do we know that Iran is about to get The Bomb? From those same people who told us — inaccurately, it turns out — that Iraq was about to acquire nuclear weapons.
      Iran, which is OPEC’s second largest oil producer, can’t even refine enough gasoline for its own people. It has no reliable missile system. And we are to believe it’s technologically capable of producing a nuclear weapon?
      “But what about Israel?” Republicans then ask. Israel has a couple hundred, at least, nuclear weapons sitting at the ready and is perfectly capable of defending herself.
      Consider that there is much more at work here than meets the eye. To understand what is really going on, you must peel back the layers of conventional wisdom, like peeling an onion. There are nefarious maneuverings of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) at work. Few are able to escape their normalcy bias to see this.
      The plan for the takeover of the vast oil reserves and riches of the region have been in the works for a long time. NGOs have worked behind the scenes and in secret to shape the policy. But the Brookings Institute became so confident the policy had reached the point of no return that it released its blueprint in 2009.
      This is why Presidential candidates are vetted by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg group before receiving approval to run. They must sign on to the New World Order to receive the proper backing and financial support. And it’s why the knives will be out in full force in the coming weeks to destroy Paul and his candidacy. (Previously debunked claims of racism surfaced again last week.)
      Another question to ask yourself: If a potentially nuclear-armed Iran is such a danger to us, what about an actually nuclear-armed North Korea? Why are we the elites not cowering in fear that North Korea could launch a missile at any second? After all, North Korea actually has a missile that can reach our friends and fellow democracies in South Korea and Japan — and can probably reach portions of the U.S. West Coast.
      What about a nuclear-armed Pakistan, which likes us less and less with each drone strike and violation of their territorial integrity?
      What about Russia and China, who will be very offended if the United States leads an assault on Iran and Syria? Russia has already stationed warships near Syria, and China is unhappy with President Barack Obama’s military buildup in Australia and is responding by beefing up its military in the Indian Ocean. And you think this militarism is making the United States safer?
      Finally, my conservative friends, one last question for you to consider: If Paul’s foreign policy is “crazy,” as many of you say, why have members of the military given more to his campaign than to anyone else’s? Could it be they have seen the dark core that lies beneath?
      And before the “Ron Paul can’t beat Obama. We must elect someone who can defeat Obama,” chorus chimes in, a new CNN/ORC International Poll shows Paul faring the same against Obama in a head-to-head matchup as the “more electable” Romney. Gingrich fares far worse.
      Political Leaders on the Issues
      Click on a topic »

      International Issues Domestic Issues Economic Issues Social Issues
      Foreign Policy Gun Control Budget & Economy Education
      Homeland Security Crime Government Reform Health Care
      War & Peace Drugs Tax Reform Abortion
      Free Trade Civil Rights Social Security Families&Children
      Immigration Jobs Welfare & Poverty Corporations
      Energy & Oil Environment Technology & Infrastructure Principles & Values

      Debunking The Anti-Paul Messages
      December 26, 2011 by Bob Livingston
      UPI
      Ron Paul makes remarks at a town hall meeting in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, on Dec. 21.
      The Republican establishment has become apoplectic over Congressman Ron Paul’s growing strength in Iowa.
      Last week, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad attempted to delegitimize his own State’s vote when he said that if Paul wins the Iowa Caucus, it won’t matter. Of course, if Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney wins, he won’t say that. In fact, according to Branstad, a second- or third-place finish by Gingrich or Romney will be more important than a Paul win.
      “People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and other states,” Branstad reportedly said. What Branstad did not say was that he’s been offered a potential Vice President spot on a Romney ticket.
      Branstad and his elite bedfellows are trying to draw you into an alternate universe. Never mind that two out of the past three winners of the Iowa Caucus have gone on to win the Republican nomination, a Paul win will mean the Iowa vote is irrelevant.
      According to a new Iowa State University/Gazette/KCRG poll of likely Republican caucus-goers, Paul has moved into first place – the fifth candidate to hold that spot since the mid-August Iowa GOP Straw Poll. This is the second recent poll showing a Paul lead.
      In the ISU poll, Paul is the first choice for 27.5 percent of the registered Republicans and registered independents contacted. That’s up from 20.4 percent in November. Gingrich is the second choice with 25.3 percent, and Romney was third at 17.5 percent.
      For months, the Republican elites and corporate media have treated Paul like that cranky old uncle that continues to show up at family gatherings. They’ve tried ignoring him and they’ve tried dismissing him. They’ve been running a continuous communication loop that says, “Ron Paul can’t win.” Yet, here he is, on the cusp of an Iowa victory and showing remarkable strength in New Hampshire.
      A common refrain from Republicans is: “I like most of what Ron Paul says, but I can’t vote for him because of his ‘isolationist’ foreign policy.” When they say that, what are they saying?
      After all, many Republicans say they can easily vote for Gingrich even though they don’t agree on some of his positions: i.e. infidelity, national database of gun owners, support for the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that permits the indefinite detention of Americans upon the President’s order, support of cap-and-trade, support of individual mandates to purchase healthcare, support of TARP and bailouts, etc. And many Republicans say they can vote for Romney, the author – essentially — of Obamacare (through his Romneycare), who has flipped and flopped on core Republican issues like a fish in the bottom of a boat. And they say they can vote for Michele Bachmann, who voted for the USA Patriot Act and the NDAA.
      They are saying, simply, that they have been so terrorized by their government and the mainstream media they are willing to surrender all their freedom and wealth to the military industrial complex and big government so people in a foreign land can be bombed into submission and subjugation. Years of government propaganda and years of war have cemented in their minds the need for perpetual war.
      For my conservative friends who don’t like Paul because of his noninterventionist — because that’s what his policy is, and he describes what that means here — foreign policy, consider how long we have been at war in the Mideast.
      America and the CIA have been meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries for decades. Read The Secret History of The American Empire, by John Perkins. In 1990, after an American ambassador hinted to Saddam Hussein that the United States would not stand in his way were he to take over territory that was in dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush and the United Nations formed a coalition to bloody his nose. We have been in a shooting war in the region ever since.
      After 21 years of war in the region, are things any better? Apparently not, because the war has expanded from Iraq into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya, and it is about to expand into Syria and Iran. And American troops are in Central Africa in an “advisory” role. Yet Americans thirst for more war and the top Republican candidates, according to the elites, are advocating more.
      “But,” Republicans say, “Iran is about to get The Bomb. We can’t let Iran get The Bomb!” And how do we know that Iran is about to get The Bomb? From those same people who told us — inaccurately, it turns out — that Iraq was about to acquire nuclear weapons.
      Iran, which is OPEC’s second largest oil producer, can’t even refine enough gasoline for its own people. It has no reliable missile system. And we are to believe it’s technologically capable of producing a nuclear weapon?
      “But what about Israel?” Republicans then ask. Israel has a couple hundred, at least, nuclear weapons sitting at the ready and is perfectly capable of defending herself.
      Consider that there is much more at work here than meets the eye. To understand what is really going on, you must peel back the layers of conventional wisdom, like peeling an onion. There are nefarious maneuverings of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) at work. Few are able to escape their normalcy bias to see this.
      The plan for the takeover of the vast oil reserves and riches of the region have been in the works for a long time. NGOs have worked behind the scenes and in secret to shape the policy. But the Brookings Institute became so confident the policy had reached the point of no return that it released its blueprint in 2009.
      This is why Presidential candidates are vetted by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg group before receiving approval to run. They must sign on to the New World Order to receive the proper backing and financial support. And it’s why the knives will be out in full force in the coming weeks to destroy Paul and his candidacy. (Previously debunked claims of racism surfaced again last week.)
      Another question to ask yourself: If a potentially nuclear-armed Iran is such a danger to us, what about an actually nuclear-armed North Korea? Why are we the elites not cowering in fear that North Korea could launch a missile at any second? After all, North Korea actually has a missile that can reach our friends and fellow democracies in South Korea and Japan — and can probably reach portions of the U.S. West Coast.
      What about a nuclear-armed Pakistan, which likes us less and less with each drone strike and violation of their territorial integrity?
      What about Russia and China, who will be very offended if the United States leads an assault on Iran and Syria? Russia has already stationed warships near Syria, and China is unhappy with President Barack Obama’s military buildup in Australia and is responding by beefing up its military in the Indian Ocean. And you think this militarism is making the United States safer?
      Finally, my conservative friends, one last question for you to consider: If Paul’s foreign policy is “crazy,” as many of you say, why have members of the military given more to his campaign than to anyone else’s? Could it be they have seen the dark core that lies beneath?
      And before the “Ron Paul can’t beat Obama. We must elect someone who can defeat Obama,” chorus chimes in, a new CNN/ORC International Poll shows Paul faring the same against Obama in a head-to-head matchup as the “more electable” Romney. Gingrich fares far worse.
      Debunking The Anti-Paul Messages
      December 26, 2011 by Bob Livingston

      UPI
      Ron Paul makes remarks at a town hall meeting in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, on Dec. 21.
      The Republican establishment has become apoplectic over Congressman Ron Paul’s growing strength in Iowa.
      Last week, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad attempted to delegitimize his own State’s vote when he said that if Paul wins the Iowa Caucus, it won’t matter. Of course, if Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney wins, he won’t say that. In fact, according to Branstad, a second- or third-place finish by Gingrich or Romney will be more important than a Paul win.
      “People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and other states,” Branstad reportedly said. What Branstad did not say was that he’s been offered a potential Vice President spot on a Romney ticket.
      Branstad and his elite bedfellows are trying to draw you into an alternate universe. Never mind that two out of the past three winners of the Iowa Caucus have gone on to win the Republican nomination, a Paul win will mean the Iowa vote is irrelevant.
      According to a new Iowa State University/Gazette/KCRG poll of likely Republican caucus-goers, Paul has moved into first place – the fifth candidate to hold that spot since the mid-August Iowa GOP Straw Poll. This is the second recent poll showing a Paul lead.
      In the ISU poll, Paul is the first choice for 27.5 percent of the registered Republicans and registered independents contacted. That’s up from 20.4 percent in November. Gingrich is the second choice with 25.3 percent, and Romney was third at 17.5 percent.
      For months, the Republican elites and corporate media have treated Paul like that cranky old uncle that continues to show up at family gatherings. They’ve tried ignoring him and they’ve tried dismissing him. They’ve been running a continuous communication loop that says, “Ron Paul can’t win.” Yet, here he is, on the cusp of an Iowa victory and showing remarkable strength in New Hampshire.
      A common refrain from Republicans is: “I like most of what Ron Paul says, but I can’t vote for him because of his ‘isolationist’ foreign policy.” When they say that, what are they saying?
      After all, many Republicans say they can easily vote for Gingrich even though they don’t agree on some of his positions: i.e. infidelity, national database of gun owners, support for the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that permits the indefinite detention of Americans upon the President’s order, support of cap-and-trade, support of individual mandates to purchase healthcare, support of TARP and bailouts, etc. And many Republicans say they can vote for Romney, the author – essentially — of Obamacare (through his Romneycare), who has flipped and flopped on core Republican issues like a fish in the bottom of a boat. And they say they can vote for Michele Bachmann, who voted for the USA Patriot Act and the NDAA.
      They are saying, simply, that they have been so terrorized by their government and the mainstream media they are willing to surrender all their freedom and wealth to the military industrial complex and big government so people in a foreign land can be bombed into submission and subjugation. Years of government propaganda and years of war have cemented in their minds the need for perpetual war.
      For my conservative friends who don’t like Paul because of his noninterventionist — because that’s what his policy is, and he describes what that means here — foreign policy, consider how long we have been at war in the Mideast.
      America and the CIA have been meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries for decades. Read The Secret History of The American Empire, by John Perkins. In 1990, after an American ambassador hinted to Saddam Hussein that the United States would not stand in his way were he to take over territory that was in dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush and the United Nations formed a coalition to bloody his nose. We have been in a shooting war in the region ever since.
      After 21 years of war in the region, are things any better? Apparently not, because the war has expanded from Iraq into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya, and it is about to expand into Syria and Iran. And American troops are in Central Africa in an “advisory” role. Yet Americans thirst for more war and the top Republican candidates, according to the elites, are advocating more.
      “But,” Republicans say, “Iran is about to get The Bomb. We can’t let Iran get The Bomb!” And how do we know that Iran is about to get The Bomb? From those same people who told us — inaccurately, it turns out — that Iraq was about to acquire nuclear weapons.
      Iran, which is OPEC’s second largest oil producer, can’t even refine enough gasoline for its own people. It has no reliable missile system. And we are to believe it’s technologically capable of producing a nuclear weapon?
      “But what about Israel?” Republicans then ask. Israel has a couple hundred, at least, nuclear weapons sitting at the ready and is perfectly capable of defending herself.
      Consider that there is much more at work here than meets the eye. To understand what is really going on, you must peel back the layers of conventional wisdom, like peeling an onion. There are nefarious maneuverings of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) at work. Few are able to escape their normalcy bias to see this.
      The plan for the takeover of the vast oil reserves and riches of the region have been in the works for a long time. NGOs have worked behind the scenes and in secret to shape the policy. But the Brookings Institute became so confident the policy had reached the point of no return that it released its blueprint in 2009.
      This is why Presidential candidates are vetted by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg group before receiving approval to run. They must sign on to the New World Order to receive the proper backing and financial support. And it’s why the knives will be out in full force in the coming weeks to destroy Paul and his candidacy. (Previously debunked claims of racism surfaced again last week.)
      Another question to ask yourself: If a potentially nuclear-armed Iran is such a danger to us, what about an actually nuclear-armed North Korea? Why are we the elites not cowering in fear that North Korea could launch a missile at any second? After all, North Korea actually has a missile that can reach our friends and fellow democracies in South Korea and Japan — and can probably reach portions of the U.S. West Coast.
      What about a nuclear-armed Pakistan, which likes us less and less with each drone strike and violation of their territorial integrity?
      What about Russia and China, who will be very offended if the United States leads an assault on Iran and Syria? Russia has already stationed warships near Syria, and China is unhappy with President Barack Obama’s military buildup in Australia and is responding by beefing up its military in the Indian Ocean. And you think this militarism is making the United States safer?
      Finally, my conservative friends, one last question for you to consider: If Paul’s foreign policy is “crazy,” as many of you say, why have members of the military given more to his campaign than to anyone else’s? Could it be they have seen the dark core that lies beneath?
      And before the “Ron Paul can’t beat Obama. We must elect someone who can defeat Obama,” chorus chimes in, a new CNN/ORC International Poll shows Paul faring the same against Obama in a head-to-head matchup as the “more electable” Romney. Gingrich fares far worse.

    • Pat

      Follow the money trail on Scytl/SOE and it will probably lead back to George Soros..How much was his investment in that company? Why would they choose a Spanish company over an American company unless it was to pay back special favors for the owners/investors?

  • carrobin

    A friend of mine voted for Reagan because he didn’t want to vote for Carter, and he “knew Reagan had no chance of winning.” He’s never tried that again. Hey, if you don’t like either candidate, don’t vote! (I seldom vote because the state I live in always gives its electoral votes to the guy I’d vote for anyway.)

    • Mark

      If you don’t like either of the two candidates call the local board of elections BEFORE the election to find out who the write in candidates are and research them. I find it amazing
      that people will say I’m throwing my vote away by voting third party and then not vote at all!

    • Joe H

      Ron Paul all the way in 2012!! Andrew Napolitano As his running mate!!! I’LL write him in if I have to!! Nothing will change my mind, unless he isn’t around anymore!!

  • Freedom

    Polls can be set up to get the desired results that those polling want. I have had experience with setting up polls, so I k now that the questions, or the way a question is phrased, it done all the time to sway it in the direction that the pollster wants. I believe that in this election, many of the polls are going to be way off, because voters are looking harder at what candidates really represent, and will vote for who they feel is the best candidate, not following he phony polls that are put there to swing the vote a desired way.

  • Freedom

    The definition of STUPID, is doing something dumb. The definition of STUPIDITY, is a continuous pattern of STUPID. Stupidity seems to be what both polictical parties and their handlers and pollsters due on a regular basis. The American people are catching on to their stunts, and will reject the their crap more and more as time goes on.

  • Bob Marshall

    google the 2008 exit polls to see which groups in America voted for Obama. Too many vote for the candidate that promise more government handouts. We live in a country where the people work for the government instead of the government working for the people. The majority of Americans voted an immoral man into office and like Norah Webster said, if we do this ,we are traitors to our country. Would a president who believes in the Constitution say, “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. Still, he was voted into office.

  • willie

    I believe Ron Paul is our only chance to save the republic. Un fortunetly he hasn’t won even one primary. I know polls are somewhat rigged and there is some election fraud but if there was widespread support for him it would show in the results. Maybe Sherrif Joe’s posse will come thru and get Obummer off the ballot in enough states that the Dems will have to replace him and we all know that will be Hillary. Even iff by some miracle Ron Paul is the Republican candidate beating Hillary will take another miracle. Sorry to input such a depressing outlook but that’s the way I see it. I know there’s enough armed citizens to reclaim the republic but will they ever get enough outrage to do it.

    • Joe H

      willie,
      If that happens and we raise a big enough stink about the dems not properly vetting Odumberer, then even hellary would have a poor chance of winning!!

      • Thinking About

        What kind of a stink could you raise? None, there was an election, no requirement to vet a candidate. Have you properly vetted the candidate you have voted for in the past?

  • LarryH54

    I HOPE that America will wise up to the wiles of the MSM and the Authoritarians running both political Parties in time for the election. But I’m not so sure I believe it. ‘My’ candidates have seldom won throughout my voting career. And when they have, I’ve had reason to regret my choice. We NEED Ron Paul. But I fear we’re going to get 4 more years of Obummer. The ‘dinosaurs’ (Mittens, Gingie, Insanitorum and the Media) have our system pretty well sewn up.

    • Deerinwater

      “Mittens, Gingie, Insanitorum”

      Too funny ! More like Gingus

      Insanitorum is a purrfect title for this man !

      This man is so out of step with most Americans today. Hate of the other two has kept him afloat.

      and Mittens, is cute. Got that warm and fuzzy thAng going on. I enjoyed his Chicago trip, he told them that he just loved them up there. I’m certain that they were impressed.

      • Joe H

        Yeah deer, they’re just about as “cute” as Odumberer!!!

  • s c

    Sam, maybe you should reword some of this, as common sense demands that what one thinks can’t always be a reflection of reality [Obummer and others, for example]. Arrogance and delusion can’t replace reality, Sam. If life was so simple that I always got what I wanted based on my ‘preference,’ this would be a completely different world – and people like Obummer would be on another planet. And we wouldn’t have utopians or elected criminals making slaves of us.

    • eddie47d

      No SC you would just become the new slave master eliminating everyone you disagree with as your comments clearly define.

      • Joe H

        Yeah eddie, and if we keep the elites, they will always have clean boots with you licking them!!!!

  • Red Sam Rackham

    This is a false generalization although many voters do indeed delude themselves into believing that their lame choice will win when it’s not even possible. Sure, sometimes upsets happen but not when the poll is extremely lopsided.

  • ranger hall

    OH heck just leave it to the American People and WE will still have another Lousy 4 years, Then we can start our Complaining all over again.

    • Deerinwater

      I’ve seen some dark time, but never seen it to where it was impossible to get worse.

      The people that complain the most often are usually the ones that have it the best. They learned to get people hopping and jumping to tend to them.

      They have learned to complain and complain loud and often and correction and comfort will be provided for them. This skill is learned early as we soil ourselves and require servicing. Some people have less to do then other’s and make complaining into an art form.

      After my mother retired and finding less to do, she became the Block Police. She had her nose to to the front widows Lording over all that she could see. Mr. Johnson has set his trash cans out too early! Mrs. has her over filled and they won’t accept that! The Riddle’s has put sty-foam in his recycle bid, they won’t accept that! Who’s car is that?, It’s been parked there for two hours! I wish they’d park it in front of Donalds.

      And then she got busy, doing other things, helping dad with his failing health, taking his medication, cooking three squares a day, house work and the lawn and gardening. ~

      Then she seat in her chair at the back window, and it was the birds and squirrels , they were tearing things up, raiding her garden, She’d fuss and fret.

      People need to work! Work at something beside complaining. You mind turns to putty if you never get outside you comfort zone.

      Few posters on these forum actually work and put in a 40 hour week, I don’t doubt that they have at some point, but they are not doing it today.

      • Joe H

        Well, deer, you’ld lose that bet with me!! Between working on my house, in my shop, and a little more on the side, I probably work every bit as hard as you! My wife gripes all the time that I’m always too busy. See, unlike these union people we have here, I’ve never been afraid of hard work. I wouldn’t be here now if I was! I was raised by a man that survived the great depression, was the oldest of seventeen kids, and had a fifth grade education. with that education, he did jig and fixture work, R & D welding, tool & die work, even built a bulldozer from two old cars!

      • Joe H

        BTW, Deer,
        I also helped my wife raise three kids and one of them severely autistic! you don’t know hard work till you’ve done THAT!

      • Deerinwater

        Good for you Joe, stick tight and hang tough with your darling, and yes I do, while forgive for not envying you your lot.

        “fair” is not a quality that’s guaranteed with life,

        i work as well, ~ I like it! It keeps my troubles small and manageable.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.