Paultards Spam a Livejournal Post

Somewhere on the internet, a math teach with an obscure livejournal account wrote up the following post:

That was actually the best part for me -- getting to make fun of Ron Paul and getting all the students to join in. Didn't even have to attack his assinine policies, just showed him on the bottom of the GOP opinion polls month after month, and every time I added a new month's worth of Data and talked about the other candidates rising or falling, and extending the lines on their graphs, I'd end with "and Ron Paul stayed flat" and add another segment to his straight line near the zero marker. The kids loved the running gag. They started to join in, chorusing "and Ron Paul stayed flat!" Some of them even got a little impatient as I talked about the rest of the candidates: "and what about Ron Paul?" "He stayed flat." Cheers. :-D "And Fred Thompson dropped out of the race, dropping his numbers to zero, so Ron Paul finally got ahead of someone." Laughter. It was sweet.

Not surprisingly, the Paultards respond with their typical legion of spam. "Oh, how dare he discuss real world applications of graphs and statistics in a math class!!! This is what's wrong with America, dammit!" As though it's somehow the math teacher's fault that Ron Paul is a complete failure at life. One Paultard even goes a bit further:

We are thinking of making up some T-shirts with this picture on the front, with the the words "PREACHING HIS POLITICAL OPINIONS TO YOUR CHILDREN" on the back, and "GREGORY EARTOFF" under the picture in the front.
We will then mail them to all the residents in the area of your school.

What do you think? Good idea? You see Greg, some lessons in life are tough, especially when you become the example for others. We are crazy you say? Ok then, maybe we will act it then.
Your crazy for fucking with us, asshole. Welcome to the shitlist.

Others have resorted to digging up personal information. Gee, I wonder why no one takes them seriously. You crazy motherfuckers.

Ron Paul Bounces Back, Wins Another Online Poll

Looks like we're in trouble, guys. A Newsday Online Poll asks the following question, and gets the following response:Because if there's one thing that we learned from Paultards these past several months, it's that online polls are far more accurate than random sampling, since they're not influenced by the mainstream media conspiracy.

Post Tuesday Fallot

All I can say is, karma is a bitch. After watching the Paultards spend months and months ruining the internet and vandalizing our schools, they now get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. My one regret is that I didn't start this website sooner, but oh well. Next time a Ron Paul appears, the internet will be ready. I remember once reading about how before the iPod came out, everyone was speculating on what would be the "next walkman," and after the iPod came out, everyone speculated on the next "iPod killer." When Ron Paul began his candidacy, people started wondering if Ron Paul would be the next Ross Perot. But I think that Ron Paul has officially taken his place in loser dome. At least Ross Perot managed to get actual votes.

Ron Paul placed 4th place in nearly every state yesterday, averaging roughly 4-5% of the popular vote. In Alaska, he managed to place as high as 3rd place, with 17% of the vote. I guess that people who love the bridge to nowhere would also love Ron Paul. In California, Ron Paul managed to place 5th place, with 4% of the vote. Fifth place out of the four republicans still running.

The guy who runs the Ron Paul Tumblelog has been hunting around for the Paultard reaction. Here's what he found:

Ron Paul Flatlines

From James Joyner of Outside the Beltway:

Ron Paul’s numbers are flatlined. He’s the only one of the remaining quartet that isn’t up substantially from six months ago. Despite the field winnowing from ten candidates to four, Paul continues to appeal to no more than 5-6 percent of Republicans.

With most candidates, the obvious explanation would be that their support has shifted to one of the frontrunners in a strategic move to avoid “wasting” their vote. Given the depth of Paul’s support, though, that strikes me as incredibly unlikely. The hard-core libertarians who back Paul are mostly dead-enders who would rather write in Paul’s name than deign to compromise for one of the Establishment candidates.

Could it be that hard-core libertarians are just a relatively small group? That, despite being organized and enthusiastic, there aren’t enough of them to elect a president? Barring a better explanation, I’m leaning in that direction.

Hah!

(h/t to the Ron Paul Tumblelog)

Ron Paul Scores Second in Nevada

So it looks like the the online Paultard-ary will be renewed for another two months. Ron Paul scored second place in Nevada, which will likely fuel another round of conspiracy theories, delusions, and accusations of media censorship.

• Although Ron Paul managed to score second, it's the least impressive second place in the entire race, but in terms of raw percentage, and in terms of the difference between first and second place. Mitt Romney earned nearly four times as many votes as Ron Paul, so it's not as though Ron is nipping at his heels.
  
• Turnout was low. Really low. To put it into perspective, Mitt Romney barely earned more votes in Nevada than what Dennis Kucinich earned in Michigan. Ron Paul received half as many votes in Nevada compared to what Bill Richardson earned in Nevada. Which just goes to show, Paultards tend to do better in the races where other people don't catch up, because those are the ones that are the easiest to spam.
• Because of the predicted low turnout, the other candidates didn't bother to make an effort. Ron Paul had radio and TV advertisements almost entirely to himself.
• In terms of raw percentage, 13% isn't that much of an improvement compared to how well Ron Paul has done in other races.

Anyway, none of this will shut the Paultards up, who desperately need something, anything that they can cling to. Remember, these people are conspiracy theorists, they'll take what they can get. My suggestion is to reply with a snarky remark, like "Gee, that's really impressive. It would be even more impressive if anyone actually bothered to show up." If you have your own suggestions, feel free to put them in the comments.

Ron Paul: Where 6% is a victory

So for months, the Paultards have been telling us that Ron Paul's results among republicans didn't matter, because he would steal so many votes from the democrats and the republicans. In Michigan, they got to put that idea to the test, since Michigan didn't have any delegates for the democrats, Obama and Edwards didn't participate, and people were allowed to cross party lines. How did Ron Paul fare? Not so well. Stick a fork in him, Jim.

On a different note, here's a question I've been having for a while: A lot of Paultards will defend Ron Paul's opposition to the Rosa Parks medal, because it's unconstitutional. But what, specifically make a congressional medal constitutional? I mean, would military medals be unconstitutional as well? After looking into the matter, it turns out that the first congressional medal was awarded in 1776 to George Washington, and they've been given out ever since. But for some reason, Ron Paul is apparently the first man in American history to find this unconstitutional. Thank you, Ron Paul, for displaying that your strict adherence to the constitution is more rigid than the founding fathers themselves.

It's also weird, when you consider that just last month, Ron Paul was on TV saying that the civil war was unnecessary, and that Lincoln should have compensated slave owners in exchange for freeing the slaves. Where in the constitution does it allow for that? Where in America has there been a precedent for that? So rewarding slave owners with hard cash because they enslaved people is okay, but rewarding Rosa Park with a gold medal for her role in the civil rights movement is not? WTF? I guess that in Ron Paul's world, Rosa Parks deserves to be treated worse than a slave owner. Great. And people wonder why Ron Paul is called a racist.

Update: Here's a copy of the bill. The part about using taxpayer money? Wrong. The medal was paid for by the sale of replicas.

Paultards on the Attack

Some of you may have heard about the conspiracy theories involving "voter fraud" in New Hampshire. Basically, an election worker makes a simple mistake, and the Paultards freak out. It's amazing how they can easily forgive Ron Paul for decades of racist newsletter articles, but one volunteer worker makes an inconsequential mistake about Ron Paul, and suddenly there's hell to pay. The Concord Monitor reports the story:

The assault picked up after lunch. Paul supporters phoning Call claimed to be from the media. Others just yelled, saying she had committed treason, fraud. One person said she should be shot. She received as many as 40 calls that day.

"One person said he was on a nationally syndicated radio station," Call said, "and he has given out my phone number and they need to call the town of Sutton to find out why there's voter fraud."

The voices came from everywhere. California. Ohio. Florida. Michigan. Very few were from New Hampshire.

A man from Texas e-mailed that he was "contacting, by certified mail, the Attorney General of New Hampshire . . . and requesting a complete investigation and prosecution of any and all parties involved."

A police dispatcher in New London said yesterday she'd received inquiries about the clerk's office phone.

Call got a handful of calls that night at home, refusing to pick up whenever an out-of-state number appeared on her screen.

Although some of the posters at ronpaulforums are apologetic, others are not:

this really only begs one question, If Jennifer Call didn't write the wrong vote down, then:
WHO WROTE DOWN THE WRONG VOTE?

gimmie a name
Until she fesses up who forged the wrong tally for Paul, then she deserves every single little damn bit of hell she receives. Give her Hell till she Confesses who it was that forged the wrong tally. Dont dare let her weasel out with a plea for pity!

And later...

what kinda idiots do they have running the voting there if they cant properly record a number from one peice of paper to another. i mean a 7 year old could do that. = clearly indicates fraud, and they thought they could slide with it. Look to the person that Actually wrote the Zero vote down for Paul. THAT guy is the criminal here.

Irony, thy name is Ron Paul.

Paultards R Smarter than U11111

In another attempt to explain their crushing defeat, the Paultards have reverted to a new strategy: Insist that no one understands them because they're just too damned intelligent. Yes, a group of people who can't even grasp the concept of random sampling are much smarter than you are. How do they know this? Because someone found a chart showing that some people have higher IQs than other people, so we can safely conclude that the people with higher IQs must be Ron Paul supporters. It's the sort perfectly sound logic you would come to expect from an intellectually superior individual.

Of course, the Paultards can't help but gush over their "discovery," and using that to rationalize their unhappiness and misery. It doesn't dawn on most of them that the bell curve is symmetrical and therefore goes both ways, that measuring IQ isn't the same thing as measuring an adherence to a specific ideology, and that bragging about your penis size IQ score doesn't hold much weight when you do it online.

Defeated Paultards Turn to Steve Buscemi for Inspiration

Whenever libertarians talk to me about taxes and charity, I always think back to the opening scene from Reservoir Dogs, when Steve Buscemi tries to explain why he doesn't tip the waitress. Steve tries to take a principled stand on how he doesn't tip because society says he has to, but what it really boils down to is this: Steve Buscemi is a cheap bastard, who doesn't like to give his money to other people. At one point, one of the characters points out that the waitresses has to pay taxes on the tips, and Steve Buscemi answers back with, "Show me a paper that says the government shouldn't do that, I'll sign it. I'll vote for it. But what I won't do is play ball."

Ladies and gentleman, I now present you with the latest Paultard strategy to win votes after their humiliating defeat in New Hampshire, No Taxes on Tips. After watching all of their other efforts fail, this is what they're hoping that it will all come down to. Because yeah, Ron Paul might be crazy. He might be incompetent, he might be racist, he might deny evolution and attract the crazy vote. On the other hand, Ron Paul will make it so that you can stiff your waitress, completely guilt free. So I think it's worth it.

In an unsurprising turn of events, the Paultards are once again proving themselves to be sore losers. Some blogs have expressed disbelief over the fact that Ron Paul's performance in New Hampshire could be worse than his performance in Iowa, and are now crying foul. It turns out that New Hampshire had over twice the turnout that Iowa did, and it's a lot harder to spam elections when other people actually show up.

Another Crushing Defeat for Ron Paul

Well, the results for New Hampshire are out. Ron Paul once again takes 5th place, and falls back into single digits. This defeat is even more crushing when you consider the fact that New Hampshire is generally considered to be the most libertarian state in the nation, home of the failed Free State Project. This proves what we knew all along: A small group of dedicated spammers and trolls do not speak for the entire nation.

Exit polls provide further data on Ron Paul's loss. Some basic findings:

• Ron Paul receives votes from 11% of men, but only 4% of women.
  
• Most Ron Paul voters are young.
  
• Republicans are generally split on whether they approve of Bush.
• Ron Paul voters are less likely to have a college degree than the average republican.
• Ron Paul has the highest unfavorable rating of any other republican (57%). Second place goes to Mike Huckabee (44%). This refutes the argument of "The more people hear about Ron Paul, the more they like him."
• Only 24% of republicans who believe that Iraq is most important issue. Of those, McCain supporters outnumber Paul supporters 6:1. Romney supporters outnumber Paul supporters 3:1. That's bad, since this is Ron Paul's main selling point.
  
• In general, republicans favor reducing the deficit over cutting taxes by a margin of 54% to 44%.
• 81% of republicans are worried about terrorism, the remaining 18% are not.
• Generally, the more recently the voter made up their mind, the less likely they will have voted for Ron Paul. This, again, suggests that Ron Paul has tapped out most of his available base.
  

Pretty enlightening.

Ron Paul's Polling Firm Involved in Recent Scandal

Hat tip to Will Thomas of the Huffington Post.

The New Hampshire Attorney General has determined that anti-Mormon push polls employed earlier this fall were organized by the polling firm Moore-Information, Inc.

Read the press release.

Moore Information has not yet confirmed the sponsor of the poll, but the firm lists presidential candidate Ron Paul as one of its clients. Paul is the only presidential client listed on Moore's website.

See Moore Information's client list here.

However, as much as I dislike Ron Paul, I can't help but be skeptical of this story. After all, push polling is done over the phone, and we all know that Paultards don't use landlines.

More analysis on Iowa Results

There were 356,000 votes cast in the Iowa caucas. We know how the candidates did within their own respective parties, but how well did the candidates do among the general turnout? Groupnewsblog provides the estimates:

24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

Based on these numbers, Ron Paul may have broken double digits among republicans, but he only scored 3.3% of the general public (Based on how many votes he earned relative to Huckabee.). This is even worth when you consider the fact that Ron Paul supporters tend to be more enthusiastic and evangelytical than other supporters, and would therefore be far more likely to show up. In a real election, the Paultards would be drowned out even further.

During the Iowa straw poll, where he only earned 9.1% among republic voters. That was back in August. Five months later, despite massive efforts to fund raise and spam the heck out of the internet, and Ron Paul isn't faring much better. This confirms what I have already suspected all along: Anyone who would vote for Ron Paul has probably already heard of him. Meanwhile, the rest of us are only starting to get annoyed.

Ron Paul ranks fifth place in Iowa, still ranks first place in Crazytown

And in a stunning turn of events, Iowa proves once again that being popular on the internet doesn't mean jack shit in the real world. The Paultards spent months and months trying to cheat every poll they could, only to learn that they were really cheating themselves.

As usual, the response from Paultards ranges from being delusional to being paranoid. Some of them will insist that fifth place proves that Ron Paul is a viable candidate, while others are going with the traditional conspiracy theories. A few of them are looking for ways to use the delegate system to subvert the popular vote. One member writes, "Delegate system is BS. But... I won't argue against it much if it's working in our favor for once =P". Way to stick to your principles, guys!

Ron Paul supporters go from being shameless to shameful

For some reason, the Ron Paul Supporters just love to rig polls in their attempt to declare an early victory. It's pretty simple. The RPS enjoy polls that are easy to manipulate, like straw polls and online polls, and they resent polls that are hard to manipulate, scientific random sampling. Their attempts to dismiss more traditional polls are dubious at best. For instance, they'll often rationalize that modern phone polls don't account for cell phones (they do), that cell phone users represent a huge segment of the population (they don't), and that the political views of cell phone users are different enough to represent a sound victory for Ron Paul (they aren't).

Last October, the RPS cried media conspiracy when CNBC took down an online poll, insisting that CNBC was doing their best to silence the majority. In response, Allen Wastler, Managing Editor, explained that their webmasters aren't idiots, and that poll manipulation can be proven by examining the survey logs. Surprisingly, it turns out that the vast majority of people who participated in their polls were linked there directly via a Ron Paul spam site.

It appears that RPS are finally starting to cover their tracts. A blog post by LGF shows that the RPS are now replying on using broken links, which can't be traced. (I don't really enjoy link to LFG, but it appears that the Ron Paul Forums have since modified their initial post in response to being outted). In fact, the Ron Paul supporters have even created an official database of online polls, which now launders their links through "anonymz.com." To a website manager, that's roughly the equivalent of trying to conceal a package of Steve Martin's All-Natural Penis Cream by shipping it in a plain brown wrapper with the words "Not Penis Cream" stamped all over it in big red letters.

Guys, the problem people have is that you rig polls, and not that you get caught rigging polls. The solution here isn't to be more sneaky about it, the solution is that you stop doing it altogether.