Ron Paul is going to win Iowa!

I've been predicting this for maybe a month now, but new polling confirms it: Ron Paul is leading in Iowa. In late December! There are two weeks until the Iowa caucuses, and between these great poll numbers, his kickass advertising campaign, and his huge statewide organization, Paul is going to glide into a major win there. I'm predicting at least 25%, maybe 30%. We'll see how that holds up.

Gary Johnson is BACK baby!

It was just announced today that Gary Johnson will be in Thursday's Fox/Google Republican presidential debate. I'm thrilled. Of course the chattering class is spouting off about how "oh no less time for other candidates" except of course for Rick Perry and Mitt Romney who get infinite unlimited rebuttals on tap. I hope he cuts into those two phonies' times, and Ron Paul still gets plenty of time to talk as well. It's a one-two punch for liberty! I don't know if Johnson has a chance, but having two people saying very similar libertarian-flavored things will help to demarginalize both of them even more. The more people talking about it, the better. Here's hoping Johnson eclipses his poor performance in May, and is able to continue being included in future debates. Maybe Santorum or Huntsman will drop out soon and free up more real estate.

Ron Paul independent campaign in 2012

Public Policy Polling has a really interesting poll up right now. It's a bunch what-if scenarios with various people running an independent or third party campaign in the general election. It looks like Democrats would be in total lock step for Obama, with few exceptions, while the GOP looks ready to split in two. Ron Paul would get 15% in a three way race with Obama and Romney, which is pretty impressive, considering that's without any full campaign to sort things out. I'd say 15% is a great starting point.

Still, I sincerely doubt Paul would go third party or independent, for two major reasons. He already tried once for the Libertarian Party, and it was a very tough road to hoe. Also, the GOP would be pissed if he split the vote like that, barring some amazing thing in which he was able to siphon a ton of liberal votes, or get basically all the independents and win, or if the Republicans realized his fans were not going to give in and voted for him to avoid Obama getting another term. I actually think that could be a good campaign slogan: "A vote for Romney (or whomever) is a vote for Obama." But still, if the GOP got their Ron Paul hate on even more, he's sabotage his son Rand's potential 2016 or 2020 run, which I think is a sure bet. So, a fun fantasy, but probably not going to happen.

New Gallup Poll shows Ron Paul in 3rd overall, leading amongst the kids

Okay, Gallup just released their August poll results for the GOP primary contest, and Ron Paul came in a solid third place with 13% of the vote. This lines up with a few other polls that are now showing him in the low teens.

But what is, to me, astonishing about this poll is how well Ron Paul is doing in the 18-29 age bracket. He's got a whopping 29% of the vote in that age range! That is amazing! He really incredibly popular with the college set, but I had no idea it was that extreme. The bad part, however, is that he is only polling at 4% in the 65+ age group, and those are the ones who are most likely to vote in both the primaries and the general election. So it's quite frustrating. It's just the old people are traditionalists, set in their ways and unwilling to even consider alternatives.

Still, this bodes well for the libertarian movement; if the youngest voters don't change their beliefs and turn into standard issue crusty conservatives, we could potentially see a generational shift in the Republican party, or even better, a strong third party. Only time will tell. For now, I'm glad to see Ron Paul proving the media wrong, and appearing as a clear top tier candidate.

Ron Paul birthday money bomb brings in $1.6 million, media completely ignores it

Wow, things are getting ridiculous. Ron Paul's ability to bring in at least a million dollars on any given day, which used to be newsworthy, is now being ignored just like his straw poll victory in Ames. I've been keeping an eye on Google News, and so far there have only been a handful of reports on his birthday money bomb, of all them by minor blogs. Not a single mention has been made in any major news site. Amazing. Even better, hackers temporarily took down his campaign site in the middle of the donation drive, and even that fact is not enough to merit mention, apparently.

So, yeah, things are getting pretty damn blatant these days. I just keep crossing my fingers hoping Paul can come in a solid second in a poll somewhere. I'm not quite ready to hope for first, but if he could place second it would be hard to ignore him. I do think Bachmann is already fading with the arrival of Rick Perry. We need a new poll to see how the aftermath of the Iowa straw poll is playing out.

Ron Paul ignored by media

I've been reading up on this whole debacle heavily ever since the Ames Straw Poll, and have been incredibly irritated and frustrated by the pure disrespect given to Ron Paul by a multitude of media outlets. It became so blatant that even Jon Stewart did a segment on it on Monday's Daily Show.

So, today, the big news was, hey, the media is ignoring Ron Paul, and the argument became whether or not he deserved to be ignored. Arguments in favor included his poll, his strong fundraising, the difference in the level of professionalism between 2011 and 2007, and the fact that he has been right about the economy over and over.

The arguments against him basically amount to: he doesn't have a chance no matter what. And that's it. The most obnoxious piece I saw was probably one that claimed the media was actually doing its proper job, namely filtering the news. Since when was that the appropriate mission of the media??? I thought they were supposed to be unbiased. But seriously, a large majority of the pieces talking about Paul being ignored slipped in subtle little digs about him even in the midst of discussing the media blackout.

Something else I think I've figured out now, however, is that a lot of people are actually discussing this issue because they know they'll get a ton of hits from Ron Paul supporters. They don't even really care about him one way or the other. I was going to suggest ignoring the negative pieces, but I don't think I can do that in good conscience, since I think it is important for readers to see that Paul does have a lot of support.

Instead, I have a few suggestions for my fellow Paulistas when commenting on these pieces. First, make sure you get your facts straight. I read one comment in which someone claimed Ronald Reagan endorses Ron Paul in 1988. That's obviously nonsense, since George Bush, Reagan's own VP, was running for president that year. Second, try not to be too rude. :) I know it can be frustrating, but it's important to present a good face to the public, as we don't want to drive potential supporters away. And finally, maybe it would be better to figure out who is just fishing for hits, and ignore them, but keep an eye on the major sites.

Tim Pawlenty -- Good riddance

I'm already completely sick and tired of all these stupid articles about Tim Pawlenty. As I said yesterday, his campaign was doomed after placing a distant third in the Ames Straw Poll. And of course, today, he dropped out in humiliated defeat. But there are a million articles about it, many claiming his exit "changes the landscape" of the race for the GOP nomination. The guy was polling 2-3% nationally! His entire campaign was a creation of the media, who desperately wanted a phony-baloney, principle free candidate to ascend to prominence.

The simple fact is, the clown has absolutely zero to offer, and thankfully, voters saw through his say anything to get elected facade. So he drops out, and his tiny percentage of the vote gets absorbed into the margin of error. He meant nothing, and his exit means nothing.