Ron Paul: History Shows Low Poll Numbers Not Insurmountable.

LewRockwell.com has a story that shows how Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, and others were polling (1%-3% range)at around this same time in their respective election cycles:

A recent Gallup poll finds Paul at the head of the so-called second-tier candidates (i.e., the candidates the establishment hasn’t anointed), though still with a ways to go. Yet Justin Ptak recently made the important point that at this stage in the election cycle, national polls reflect only name recognition, not respondents’ assessments of the candidates. Consider the statistics, drawn from the LewRockwell.com blog:

In early 1975, Jimmy Carter was polling at 1% (he went on to win the presidency).
In early 1987, Michael Dukakis was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Democratic nomination).
In early 1991, Bill Clinton was at 2% (he went on to win the presidency).
In the spring of 1999, John McCain was polling at 3% (he went on to win the New Hampshire primary).
In early 2003, Joe Lieberman was leading the field for the Democratic presidential nomination (he failed to win any primary).

So Paul is doing well and reaching more and more people. But just as interesting is the recent news that fully 50 percent of all the money donated to Republican candidates in the second quarter by employees of the United States military went to – wait for it – Ron Paul!

So while Paul is still a longshot, there is some historical evidence that it is possible to make up lot of ground before all is said and done (and maybe even get the nomination). The rest of the article discusses Paul's blowback comments concerning 9/11 and the Giuliani confrontation at the 2nd Republican Debate.

More historical perspective at the Lew Rockwell site compares the current GOP climate to that of 1964 and the campaign of Barry Goldwater. I details how Goldwater rose up with grassroots support and remade the GOP. That election had a Romney in it as well, Mitt's father, George.

This Ron Paul article started off normally enough, but veers into his astrological chart at the back end. I can't really decipher it, but it's at least a different perspective.