If Ron Paul is so popular, why is he still so low in the polls?

Any online poll conducted show s Ron Paul leading by a landslide. Where are these supporters when it comes time to caucus?

Public Comments

1. well according to the most recent ramussen poll he is in 3rd place in NH-and that is the state which counts most right now hey divine shadow you have it wrong - Ron Paul himself campaigned less than Giuliani in Iowa - the 10% came from the grassroots/volunteer effort alone -he is campaigning and spending money in NH whereas in Iowa he did not get your facts straight
2. Giuliani was a front runner until people started voting. How accurate are those polls?
3. Edge Caliber is making a huge mistake, he is comparing national polls to statewide polls. Giuliani was never favoured to win Iowa because he never even tried campaigning in that state. I think he got a pretty good turnout considering. Compare that to Ron Paul who only got 10% after his brainwashed lemmings were out in full force in that state. Fact is, internet polls are easily stacked. The cultists of the Church of Pope Ron Paul flock to any type of online forum, such as this one, like moths to a flame so they can vote multiple times and try to make their candidate look more popular than he really is - essentially living out their fantasy. But when real Americans start voting, the truth shows up. Iowa polls had Paul finishing fifth and guess what - he finished fifth. So much for the idea that polls don't work.
4. i think alot of people don't know about paul, simply because the media has made blatant attempts to exclude and or discredit him. this coupled with the fact that most people get their information from this biased media, equals a huge loss of numbers for paul. nobody wants to hear the truth.
5. - Paul - 27 Appearances, 11,598 votes - Giuliani - 35 Appearances, 4,013 votes Giuliani appeared in Iowa more than Paul, but got less than half the support. Tells you something doesn't it? Oh, and it's BS that Giuliani didn't campaign in IA, he knew he would lose there, the media knew he would lose there, and ran with the story that he didn't campaign there. While the online polls may not be accurate (I concede that as a Ron Paul supporter), doesn't everyone have the ability to "stack" the online polls? Why is there little evidence of others doing it for their candidates? Don't tell me that the others are somehow more honorable. The stacked polls are in fact, an indicator of ample support, even if it ruins the point of the poll. I vote once, I don't have time to sit there and vote more than once at every poll I see, it requires quite a bit of effort, and I don't like to cheat. I think the grassroots and especially netroots campaign of Paul's is much more robust and coordinated than any other candidate, but the supporters who are often younger, and more apt to be disenfranchised with politics, are inexperienced in politics and don't know all the real world tricks about caucusing and primary voting/delegate positioning on the ground. As the primaries start happening, I'm sure they will start to learn quick, and the Paul campaign has a modest amount of money to get far, even perhaps win.
6. Ron Paul has the most supporters online since he is the most "tech savy" and recieves a lot of his donations online. So I guess his supporters are mostly online, and are too occupied to go to the caucuses and primaries.
7. online polls are about as reliable as phrenology...
8. Ron Paul has his "ronbots" that are voting a billion times in all of the polls. That's why we can't rely on them.
9. Because media give him barely any coverage. This week's TIME shows all candidates in Iowa except Paul. Media is aware that Paul stands for people rather than corporations (the advertisers) and so they systematically ignore him. I still run into many people who never heard of him. On the other hand any time Huckabee or McCain raises a child in their arms - it is a front page news. There is your answer. We don't have democracy (rule of people) but rather mediocracy (rule of media)
10. I don't know of any Ron Paul supporter who believed he had a chance in Iowa. Not with 60% of the republican base being made up of Evangelical Christians. Huckabee had that primary sewed up before it ever began. RP started out polling in Iowa in the low single digits, and the final polls had him at about 8% maxium. Despite this and little spending or campaigning in that state he managed to gain 10% of the vote and pretty much came in a 3 way tie for 3rd with Thompson and McCain.
11. 11,000+ showed up to vote in Iowa for him. That's a pretty significant number for what the mainstream media was calling an insignificant candidate with a few supporters that were hacking the internet.