GordonUnleashed

Ron Paul the big winner in the libertarian survey

July 12th, 2007 by Steve

New (and shorter) survey here. Please participate!

As expected, Ron Paul was the big winner in the survey we’ve been conducting - with a total of 1389 votes (69.62%) out of the 1995 people who responded to the survey. What’s interesting is that he got a slightly higher amount of votes from people who indicated they were members of the Libertarian Party than from the general libertarian community. Of the 1351 self-identified LP members, 976 (72.24%) chose Paul over the other candidates.

The complete baseline results of the survey are located here.

One of the interesting things about the survey is that we were able to determine which issues are the most important to members of the libertarian community. We asked survey participants to rank a long list of political issues relating to the presidential campaign from 1 to 10 (with 10 being the most important to them). Here are the issues, ranked in order, with their corresponding average response:

Civil liberties	9.33
Federal spending	9.12
Taxes	8.94
Foreign policy	8.91
Iraq War	8.47
Elimination of federal departments and agencies	8.41
Second Amendment	8.17
Federal deficit	8.12
States’ rights	7.99
Political corruption	7.92
Entitlement reform	7.68
Social security	7.27
Immigration	7.06
Medical marijuana	7.01
Drug legalization	7.01
International trade	6.97
Terrorism/Homeland security	6.83
Education reform	6.79
Inflation	6.79
Health care policy	6.77
Federal Reserve	6.77
Torture	6.45
United Nations	6.25
Gold standard/Hard money	6.11
Tort reform	5.98
Guantanamo Bay	5.55
Stem cell research	4.93
Gay rights	4.46
Abortion	4.35
Gasoline prices	3.98

The bottom line is that libertarians are a lot more mainstream than our opponents and the mainstream media make them out to be. According to these data, the image projected by the media of libertarians being a bunch of dope smoking tax haters is not very accurate. Neither is the image of some greedy gold standard advocate who only cares about cutting taxes and eliminating the Federal Reserve. Libertarians tended to care more about civil liberties than anything else, and prioritized cutting spending to cutting taxes.

If anything, Republicans and Democrats who spend so much time on issues like stem cell research are much more out of the mainstream than the typical libertarian.

I’m posting additional analyses of the survey data at FreeLiberal.com and LastFreeVoice.com.

Posted in National Politics, Libertarian Party, Libertarian Movement

39 Responses to “Ron Paul the big winner in the libertarian survey”

jeff wrote on 07/12/07 at 11:56 pm :

This presidential election cycle is a tough one for me. Ten years ago I learned of the libertarian party and was hooked. In 2000 I voted for Harry Brown, 2004 Mike Badnarik. I have often argued the fact with friends and family that my votes were not wasted on candidates that could not win. Now I have a dilemma. I want to support whoever is the parties nomination but……..I really believe that Ron Paul has a real chance of getting the republican nomination and that he actually has a chance to become the next president of the United States. I know my vote for the libertarian candidate is not a wasted vote, but I also believe that Ron Paul is going to need every vote he can get. I don’t want to disrespect my chosen party but I am having a hard time not supporting a candidate that has libertairian values at heart and mind.
disinter wrote on 07/13/07 at 1:11 am :

jeff - Ron Paul is doing more good for the libertarian cause than any candidate on the LP ticket ever has. Screw party affiliations, vote for freedom, vote for Ron Paul.
bret wrote on 07/13/07 at 7:21 am :

I agree. Vote for the person, not the party. Parties after all are part of the problem. They are therefore not the solution.

Ron Paul really does have a chance - so we’ve got to exploit this opportunity as best we can, to keep the Message out there for as long as possible. If he wins the Presidency, that’s 4 years of libertarian education for the masses. Imagine it.
Jon wrote on 07/13/07 at 7:49 am :

>What’s interesting is that he got a slightly higher amount
>of votes from people who indicated they were members of
>the Libertarian Party than from the general libertarian community.

Not surprising really. The “general libertarian community” will include a lot of people who won’t join and/or have left the LP precisely because it tends to lilt to the right — as evidenced by the overwhelming support among LP members of a homophobic, xenophobic abortion prohibitionist, and by the fact that Bill Richardson, the #4 and clearly the closest-to-libertarian Democrat in the race was not even included in the survey.
Seth Cohn wrote on 07/13/07 at 8:00 am :

Jon, Richardson was not left out on purpose. Despite a few drafts and some testers, we all just missed it until the survey was live (and thus unchangable). The next survey addresses this, as will future ones.

In fact, I was at an event when Richardson spoke just the other day, and videoed the entire thing (and will be posting it shortly).

Richardson is good, IMHO, perhaps the best of the bunch… but ‘closest-to-libertarian’ is a bit strong. Gravel might be a bit closer in some ways, Richardson in others, and among the Democratic field, talking about how libertarian they are is like talking about how tall a group of midgets/little people are: no matter what you say, they don’t really stack up - it’s just not their strong suit.
George Phillies wrote on 07/13/07 at 9:59 am :

Seth,

Gravel is in some ways a very interesting case, in particular that he is an antiConstitutionalist. He wants to add national referendum and initiative, with the statement that the national referendum is the sole supreme law of the land. Everything else, such as the Bill of Rights, can be overturned by his proposed referendum by a majority vote.

With respect to the other debate, the core issue incorrectly understood by some of the above people is very simple. In American politics, party is totally dominant. Almost all people decide which party they will vote for perhaps twice or three times in their whole lives, and many do not get up to twice. Voting for a person of some other party, because they happen to agree with you, is a sure recipe to ensure that your ideas will absolutely never have consistent political expression.

Loyalty to Party is why the Democrats and Republicans can get effective majorities. Disloyalty to party in favor of support for individuals is no recipe for success.

And to the Ron Paul supporters: What will you do if he loses?
Jon wrote on 07/13/07 at 10:16 am :

I’m not saying it was done on purpose, I’m saying that the fact that it could happen by accident is evidence that the LP pays little attention to the left flank; were that not the case such an oversight would be unthinkable.
Don Bangert wrote on 07/13/07 at 10:35 am :

George, all citizens have three boxes to choose from in order to initiate change. It is up to them which they choose to utilize:

1. The Soap Box
2. The Ballot Box
3. The Cartridge Box

What happens if Ron Paul loses? The answer will be found in one of those three boxes.

I, for one, will be utilizing #2 and will be voting for Ron Paul. Besides, I view Dr. Paul as our Libertarian Party ambassador in the land of Republicans. He’s libertarian and everyone, including members of the Republican Party, knows it.
Steve wrote on 07/13/07 at 11:51 am :

Mr. Gordon - thanks for your great work with the LP and its nice to be reading you on the blogosphere again. If you want to judge the effect of Ron Paul on the LP in 2008, the real survey you need to do is with all the people who have never supported (or heard of) the LP that are getting exicted about the ideas of liberty they hear from Paul and see how they’ll vote if we can’t get him the nomination. I’d bet alot of them will be looking for an alternative to whatever global warfare/global welfare Republicrat that Dondero tries to pass off as libertarian.

But you’re killing me with these last questions. Which government agency would I eliminate first? I wanted to get rid of them all, how could I pick just one?! I think I went with HUD or something just because it sounded like the most trival and useless. And which candidate do I dislike the most? I had to say Guliani because he’s such a self-righteous prick but I feel just as strongly about John Edwards.
Steve wrote on 07/13/07 at 11:56 am :

Oh, and Dr. Phillies, since you asked what us Paul supporters will do if he loses: I can only speak for myself but I’ll be voting for you. Hopefully alot of others will join me.
disinter wrote on 07/13/07 at 1:15 pm :

I agree with Steve. My vote will go to Phillies, or whomever the LP’s nominee will be, IF Ron Paul loses the Repug’s nomination.
Seth Cohn wrote on 07/13/07 at 1:17 pm :

George, I agree with you about Mike Gravel.

Jon, we also left off Brownback, arguably the most rightwing conservative of the Republicans… and both were thru sheer accident (Stephen was forced to reenter a few questions manually and somehow missed a few on the prez list as he was entering it, and nobody testing noticed it.), so I don’t attribute it to LP left-blindess at all.
Seth Cohn wrote on 07/13/07 at 1:20 pm :

Steve and disinter: except our survey results don’t seem to show that the majority of others currently backing Ron would go along with you and vote for the LP candidate (George or otherwise)… We’ll continue to ask questions in future surveys to see if that changes.
Rocketman wrote on 07/13/07 at 1:20 pm :

As a libertarian I support Ron Paul for the Republican nominee but I honestly don’t expect him to win the nomination. The Overlords of the Republican party are going to make sure that even if he “wins” that he “doesn’t win”.
The smartest thing that the Libertarian Party could possibly do would be to start a “draft Paul” movement and make him their nominee. Even if Paul didn’t win in November of ‘08′ it would set the stage for the Libertarian Party to become the third major party in this country and raise some serious hell with the Demopublican socialist swine.
Windy wrote on 07/13/07 at 1:22 pm :

I will vote for Ron Paul even if I have to write him in, in both the primary and the general elections. If everyone who wants to see a libertarian president were to do the same, he would win the popular vote hands down and that would send one huge message to all politicians. If Paul were to win the presidency, he would need a congress which was majority libertarian in order to have much effect. A lot of people with whom I correspond think if he were to win, the-powers-that-be (the ones in the shadows who truly rule the world) would either make sure he was ineffective (like Carter) or assassinated (like Kennedy), I would hope that were not the case.
Patrick O'Connor wrote on 07/13/07 at 3:08 pm :

There might not be much of a Libertarian party remaining in 2009.

On account of the libertarians’ll seize control of the Republican party at the convention in Minneapolis next year with a Ron Paul win.
disinter wrote on 07/13/07 at 3:34 pm :

Seth - I took the survey and I don’t recall that being an option/question.
Seth Cohn wrote on 07/13/07 at 3:49 pm :

disinter, we didn’t ask it directly, I’m basing that on the lack of support for LP candidates in general, combined with the general results fitting with the anecdotal evidence I’m hearing repeatedly. I just don’t see the support appearing to be there, and ’second place’ support is likely to be very weak, since the Ron Paul crowd is so focused on personality… like it or not, the Ron Paul crowd is about the man first and foremost.

The new survey moves closer to that question, I believe, and we’ll make sure a future survey asks that exact question… and see if the results differ.
wes benedict wrote on 07/13/07 at 4:23 pm :

I found the Iraq question particularly lacking:

Option 1:
We should have never gone to Iraq and should leave immediately, no matter what the consequences to our soldiers, Iraqi citizens and other non-combatants may be (1) 507 25.41%

Option 2:
We should have never gone to Iraq, and should leave as soon as we reasonably can (2) 968 48.52%

Even George Bush could claim he supported Option 2. You should have had an option between 1 & 2 along the lines of:

We should have never gone to Iraq and should leave as soon as can be done consistent with the safety of our soldiers: in 2 or 3 months, not 2 or 3 years.

Seth,

I don’t think your new survey clearly asked the question: If Ron Paul doesn’t win the Republican primary, will you vote for the eventual Libertarian Party nominee?

You asked something along those lines, but many people like me clicked “undecided” because I am “undecided” on which Libertarian Party presidential candidate I’ll support, not undecided about whether I’ll be voting for a Libertarian.
Kn@ppster wrote on 07/13/07 at 4:31 pm :

Survey says ……

The good news: This Space Intentionally Left Blank The bad news: - Ron Paul commands overwhelming support from the survey pool….
Hunter wrote on 07/13/07 at 6:13 pm :

I’ll support Ron Paul until he is elected or until he is no longer an option. And, I’ll support Steve Kubby if Paul is no longer an option.

What I will NEVER do is support George Phillies!

George PHillies is a blight upon the Libertarian Party. George has spent more time and energy undermining the LP than he has advancing it.
Tex MacRae wrote on 07/13/07 at 6:15 pm :

to seth @18, you say:

like it or not, the Ron Paul crowd is about the man first and foremost.

Where do you get that? My impression is that it has nothing to do with RP’s personality. It’s all the message.
adamson wrote on 07/13/07 at 9:48 pm :

Ron Paul is no libertarian. A libertarian wouldn’t have sponsored H.R. 776 , “The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005″, using the force of the federal goverment to declare that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception. He’s just another politician who wants to use his personal religious ideology to override our freedoms.
PreciousBodilyFluids wrote on 07/13/07 at 10:35 pm :

adamson,

You say; “A libertarian wouldn’t have sponsored H.R. 776 , “The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005?, using the force of the federal government to declare that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.”

RP wouldn’t have fed.gov involved at all with abortion, but since the supremes have usurped that power from the states it is his responsibility to try to stop it, and for all we know it could have been an attempt to get the issue before the court again in the hopes of getting Rowe overturned.
PreciousBodilyFluids wrote on 07/13/07 at 10:36 pm :

adamson,

You say; “A libertarian wouldn’t have sponsored H.R. 776 , “The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005?, using the force of the federal government to declare that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.”

RP wouldn’t have fed.gov involved at all with abortion, but since the supremes have usurped that power from the states it is his responsibility to try to stop it, and for all we know it could have been an attempt to get the issue before the court again in the hopes of getting Rowe overturned.
PreciousBodilyFluids wrote on 07/13/07 at 10:38 pm :

adamson,

You say; “A libertarian wouldn’t have sponsored H.R. 776, “The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005?, using the force of the federal government to declare that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.”

RP wouldn’t have fed.gov involved at all with abortion, but since the supremes have usurped that power from the states it is his responsibility to try to stop it, and for all we know it could have been an attempt to get the issue before the court again in the hopes of getting Rowe overturned.
PreciousBodilyFluids wrote on 07/13/07 at 10:38 pm :

adamson,

You say: A libertarian wouldn’t have sponsored H.R. 776, “The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005?, using the force of the federal government to declare that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

RP wouldn’t have fed.gov involved at all with abortion, but since the supremes have usurped that power from the states it is his responsibility to try to stop it, and for all we know it could have been an attempt to get the issue before the court again in the hopes of getting Rowe overturned.
PreciousBodilyFluids wrote on 07/13/07 at 10:40 pm :

adamson, You say: A libertarian wouldn’t have sponsored H.R. 776, “The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005?, using the force of the federal government to declare that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

RP wouldn’t have fed.gov involved at all with abortion, but since the supremes have usurped that power from the states it is his responsibility to try to stop it, and for all we know it could have been an attempt to get the issue before the court again in the hopes of getting Rowe overturned.
PreciousBodilyFluids wrote on 07/13/07 at 10:43 pm :

Sorry about the multiple posts but it just showed me a database error page. Can you delete the extras?
Bill Wood wrote on 07/14/07 at 7:49 am :

Ron Paul has said he will not run as a “Third Party” Candidate. He has said this more than once. I don’t think you’ll see the LP “Draft” Ron Paul, we don’t believe in the “Draft” (lol)Okay,we do believe in draft beer, and we don’t believe in forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do. We will know the Republicans Candidate by the middle of Feb.’08.
paul wrote on 07/15/07 at 10:52 am :

I don’t believe the Republican establishment will allow Ron Paul to be the Republican nominee, I don’t believe in drafting people who are not interested in the LP nomination (or that he is interested) or disqualified by sore loser laws from being on the ballot in several states, and I oppose NOTA (which would destroy ballot access and party organization) or any pro-war candidate for the nomination, or anyone who has just now suddenly become involved in the libertarian movement and immediately wants to run for President.

To any of the last type of candidates: welcome to the LP, and I hope you stick around. Please run for lower level office first, do some more reading, get active in your local party organization, and then run for President next time around.

George Phillies is becoming a better public speaker, is pretty solidly libertarian on the vast majority of issues (although we do disagree on some, such as immigration, trade, federal reserve, and tuition tax credits), and
has run for lower level office and been involved in local, state and national LP organizing for many years. So, he deserves our consideration.

Steve Kubby is my favorite candidate for the nomination. He has also been involved in the LP and the movement for many years, has run for office as a Libertarian before, and is solidly libertarian in ideology. He is the only presidential candidate in any party, so far as I know, who has played a major part in actually passing a law that increased freedom rather than decreasing it (California’s first in the nation medical marijuana law).

He has a very compelling personal story as a long time survivor of a type of cancer that has been 100% lethal in every other known case, and has literally put his life on the line and has gone to jail in the fight for freedom. I think he is more charismatic than George, and has spoken to crowds of up to 50,000 people at a time.

I hope that the Ron Paul supporters come back to the LP and bring more people with them, but I fear that they may crash the LP by focusing solely on a longshot campaign for another party’s nomination, depriving us of crucial early money and organization and relegating whoever the LP nominates, if anyone, to playing catch-up from a late start. This would be a huge lost opportunity in a year when the Democrats and Republicans are presenting a very weak field, and new technology makes it easier to bypass top-down media and get our message out to more people.

Additionally, I hope that whatever socially conservative migrant bashers might come in to the LP due to the Ron Paul campaign are balanced out by recruiting from left-libertarian ranks, such as the migrants right, antiwar and drug policy reform movements. We are already too far tilted to the right as it is; any more and we’ll topple and fall. On the bright side, Ron Paul is solidly antiwar and I’d rather have social conservatives than Boortzist warmongers, not that I much care for either.

Ron Paul is in fact doing some great things, such as standing up to Adolf Ghouliani in the Republican debates, but I hope his supporters also help the Libertarian party and its candidates - including presidential - so they will have a solid backup already in
place in the high likelihood possibility that Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee. Creating one from scratch next year will end us up far behind in votes and party building from where we could be if we start in earnest now. And that will have long term consequences.
G.E. Smith f/k/a undercover_anrachist wrote on 07/15/07 at 2:06 pm :

“vote for freedom, vote for Ron Paul”

Freedom? What of the freedom of the business owner who wants to hire labor regardless of national origin?

What of the freedom of the rape victim who wants to abort the rapist’s child?

What of the freedom of the homosexual who wants to serve in the military without fear of retribution should his “sin” be discovered?

Ron Paul is not for freedom for these individuals, and therefore, he can be for freedom for no one.
G.E. Smith f/k/a undercover_anrachist wrote on 07/15/07 at 2:09 pm :

“Bill Richardson, the #4 and clearly the closest-to-libertarian Democrat in the race was not even included in the survey.”

He received one write-in from me.

Yes. I have no reason to impugn the integrity of Mr. Gordon, whom I respect greatly. However, it is unprofessional to conduct a survey yourself, and then use the results to broadcast a previously held opinion — particuarly when one of the obvious choices (Richardson) wasn’t even included in the survey!
Ron Carcich wrote on 07/16/07 at 1:20 am :

Jeff, your first responder, said he has a problem in that he wants to support the Libertarian candidate but really believes his vote can help a viable libertarian-leaning alternative in the Republican Ron Paul. SImple solution: W.A. Root will obviously win the Libertarian nod. Jeff should vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary in his state. If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, Jeff can vote his conscience and pull the lever or punch the card for Mr. Root. Should Mr. Paul win the Republican nomination (sorry, but hardly likely despite some recent mini-surging) then Jeff can keep a clear conscience and vote pragmatically by choosing Ron Paul. I think the choice will be made easy, as Mr. Paul will not win the Republican nod. Now, if Mr. Paul goes independent, then Jeff has a real conundrum. Ron Carcich
Last Free Voice » Blog Archive » Some personal advice to the LP presidential wannabes wrote on 07/16/07 at 12:45 pm :

[…] update called “Let Freedom Grow” doesn’t help you in this regard. LP members found the following issues more important than drug-related issues: Civil liberties, federal spending, […]
paul wrote on 07/16/07 at 3:17 pm :

Wayne Root will not “obviously” win the LP nod.
What’s the reasoning behind this bizarre statement?
Libertarian presidential poll results « Capitalist Dove wrote on 07/16/07 at 10:04 pm :

[…] Right now, I’m too busy with “real” work. But the survey is being talked about on GordonUnleashed, Last Free Voice, and […]
GordonUnleashed » Blog Archive » Some stats highlighting differences between Ron Paul supporters and those supporting Libertarian Party candidates wrote on 07/19/07 at 5:35 pm :

[…] thought it might be fun to use the survey of libertarians we conducted to see if we could find differences between Ron Paul supporters and those supporting […]
Last Free Voice » Blog Archive » A look at the supporters of the 2008 LP presidential candidates wrote on 07/25/07 at 10:25 pm :

[…] interesting to take a look at who supports the various LP presidential candidates. Based on the first survey we administered, I compared Ron Paul supporters to the supporters of the mass of LP presidential […]

TrackBack URI

Rants, Opinions and Blogosphere Banter

Ron Paul the big winner in the libertarian survey

39 Responses to “Ron Paul the big winner in the libertarian survey”

Leave a Reply

About

Archives

Categories

Meta