Ron Paul's Chances: Seeing is Believing

Emergency request 1/1/12:  We just found out that the $225 due to us from a work source that we had been working for, has just informed us they do not intend to pay us until much later, if at all, which has me deeply concerned since we earned that money.  Bad way to start out a New Year, Unfortunately we paid bills by check on the 30th, which will begin clearing Tues and continue for the rest of the week.  WE ARE ASKING FOR DONATIONS AT THIS TIME TO HELP US MEET THIS MONTHS QUARTERLYS AND EXPENSES before those checks arrive at the merchants offices.  If we can raise this amount by Tues,  we will be fine, at least for this month.   Please do not put this plea  up for funds on any other blog as its quite embarrassing.  Please use the DONATION BUTTON  on the right hand side column of this blog near the top.   We are appealing to our regular readers who may benefit from our work, to help us this one time only,  and hopefully, no more.  If everyone who regularly visits our site donates $5 each, we will be more than able to meet this months emergency needs.  Thanks again for your support and all that you contribute.  We are still working on various projects like the newsletter and the RH neg blog,  and are at a standstill until we can resolve this dilemma before us. 

UPDATE: Wow, the powers that be have fallen on a brilliant strategy on how to stop Ron Paul's momentum.  Just got an email from someone whom I trust and know is a seeker of truth and previously had not condemned Ron Paul until she could learn more about him.  Well, she got a video produced by Webster Tarpley who is painting Ron Paul as a neocon insider and mole until now, so she is not going to vote for him.  Who the heck is Webster Tarpley?  I thought he was one of the good guys, but I guess we simply don't know anymore who they are. 

Vatic Note:  Once you read this, you will understand why I love this man as a contributor to our blog.  He does an excellent job of putting facts together and deducing the results and thus educating us as to how and why something can occur.  We just have to "know" that its possible.  He had done that very well.   I suspect the powers that be (khazars Rothschild bankers controlling our press)  are having some problem with holding Ron Paul back at this point since everyone else they put up is self destructing and soon Ron will be the only in tact candidate.  The rest are a super embarrassment to our nation since they are working for and supporting a foreign nation that is running our government and using it and its resources to advance their own agenda at our expense both in wealth and blood, which was recommended to do by Zbig Brzsinzki in his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard".   That is also why Israel took our foreign aid and gave it to Georgia to tweek Russia and garner control over the seaports bordering Russia.  That benefited Israel and not us.  It cost us over 1 billion dollars for Israels benefit for that to happen.  Now that Israel controls all the oil in the middle east and Russia is their biggest competitor.    It also cost us the lives of some of our soldiers who aided in the Georgia aggression against Russia, illegal aggression I might add.  


Ron Paul's Chances: Seeing is Believing
http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-pauls-chances-seeing-is-believing.html
by Dr. Jerry Mills, American Action Report,  Taiwan
December 30, 2011

     Supposedly, everybody "knows" that Ron Paul can't win, but nobody seems to know how he "knows," and we're not even supposed to question this assumption.  It's my experience that, when everybody "knows" something, and so forth, the assumption is the result of deliberate manipulation and is probably wrong.

      When was the last time you heard someone say, "I really like Herman Cain, but he can't win; so I'll vote for (name)"?  Oh, you never have?  Well, when was the last time you heard someone say that about Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Fred Karger, Andy Martin, Jimmy McMillan, Tom Miller, Buddy Roemer, Rick Santorum, Matt Snyder, or Vern Wuensche?  Oh, you never have?  

     Way back in 1979 and early 1980, I heard that all the time about Ronald Reagan: that we needed to vote for George H. W. Bush because Ronald Reagan didn't have a chance of beating Jimmy Carter.  Have you noticed that the only time you hear that canard at the national level is when a popular candidate poses a credible threat to one of the Establishment's hand-picked candidates?
  

     Now we're hearing it about Ron Paul.  To test whether there was any truth to this canard, I consulted Google Trends.  No, Google Trends is not by any means a national polling service.

     You see, polling services ask people who may or not be interested in voting that year just how they intend to vote.  At least a third of them aren't going to vote, over two thirds of them won't vote in a primary, and fewer than that will go to the trouble of participating in caucuses, but they respond to surveys anyway.  Why not?  It doesn't cost them any effort to answer a question over the telephone.  

     No, Google Trends measures only two things: how much news coverage a person or topic gets during a given period, and how much Internet interest a topic or person generates during that same period.  People answer surveys whether they're interested in a candidate or not.  They search a candidate on the Internet only if their interested in him or her.

     Internet interest doesn't necessarily mean support, but there can be no support without interest.  Use discretion in reading these charts.  If there are fewer searches on Barack Obama than on Ron Paul, for example, Obama already generates enough reading material via the newspapers.

     Below, in order of the dates for Republican primaries from January 3 until Super Tuesday on March 6, are charts revealing Internet interest (over the last 30 days) in Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich in each of the primary and caucus states through Super Tuesday.  Sorry.  Google Trends measures only five entries at a time.  The first chart is for the United States as a whole.  The rest are for individual states.  The upper sets of lines are for Internet searches.  The lower sets are for news reports.

     Ron Paul should make an impressive showing in New Hampshire, but I'm not prepared to predict a win.

     I'm from South Carolina.  South Carolina is definitely Ron Paul country.
  

     Because Maine is a caucus state, and Ron Paul tends to do well in caucuses, I think he'll do well in Maine.

Colorado

Minnesota

     Michele Bachmann will probably do well in Minnesota, but I'm confident that Ron Paul will win.

     The Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses are not winner-take-all contests.  Delegates will be assigned in proportion to the percentage of the votes each candidate receives.

     Because there was not enough Internet traffic for Alaska, I'm putting it on the same page as the results for Georgia.  The chart refers only to Georgia.  Alaska is a caucus state.  Ron Paul will win.  He'll also win in Idaho (below).

     Chalk up a win for Ron Paul in North Dakota.  The chart below is for Ohio.

     Unless the political climate in Vermont (below) has changed over the past four years, Vermont is not Ron Paul country.  Paul has the added disadvantage of Vermont being a primary state.  

     On the surface, Virginia looks very good for him, in spite of the big support for Romney in the Arlington area.  Since Romney and Paul are the only candidates on the ballot for Virginia, we can expect that Romney will pick up the Establishment vote (such as Gingrich's supporters), while Paul will garner the anti-establishment vote.  It should be interesting.

          I chose not to look at traffic for states after Super Tuesday because the primaries and caucuses prior to (and including) March 6 will heavily influence the dynamics of the remaining primaries.  Draw your own conclusions.
  

   How do you account for the stunning lack of interest in Romney, Perry, and Gingrich, even as opinion surveys show major support for these three candidates?  It appears that their "support" is mainly due to voter desire to find an alternative to Barack Obama, and that the corporate-owned media have these shallow "supporters" convinced that Ron Paul can't win.  If this is the case, then Google Trends is a far more reliable measure of Ron Paul's popularity than the opinion polls could ever be.

     Just ask yourself, when was the last time you heard an average voter say that he's voting for Romney, Gingrich, or Perry because he thinks that person will be good for the country?  Chances are, you never have.  That would explain why so few people seek information about them on the Internet.

     To secure the nomination, Ron Paul has only one further need.  People who say, "I like Ron Paul, but..." should get off their "buts" and place their votes where their hearts are.

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.