PDA

View Full Version : CNBC's explanation for pulling the poll




undergroundrr
10-11-2007, 05:57 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

Poor guy. He still can't explain why other campaigns aren't "spamming."

goldstandard
10-11-2007, 06:01 PM
We are the rulers of the internets!

csen
10-11-2007, 06:02 PM
These guys have no idea how much blowback they're creating. They're only helping our cause.

kylejack
10-11-2007, 06:04 PM
Haha, he sure is sassy. When his network gives Brownback 40% more talk time than a candidate who raised 5 million dollars last quarter, and uses a moderator who once said "Oh God" while Ron Paul was responding to a question, he's hardly one to talk about what is fair, and right, and just. Besides, Giuliani won some categories. ;)

progrock
10-11-2007, 06:04 PM
if we can spam so can they. myth busted

BW4Paul
10-11-2007, 06:05 PM
Phrases like this one just make me want to cry:

Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign.
Hacking and targeting by a campaign are both top-down approaches. But RP is a bottom-up kinda guy with bottom-up support. Is it really so hard to imagine that there's a third possibility; one of spontaneous grassroots support (from private sites, might I add) for our favorite candidate?

Sigh.

Jordan
10-11-2007, 06:07 PM
Haha.

He just proves how big we are.

We win.

werdd
10-11-2007, 06:08 PM
http://digg.com/business_finance/An_Open_Letter_to_the_Ron_Paul_Faithful_CNBC_s_rea son_for_removing_poll heres the digg i just made.

Magsec
10-11-2007, 06:08 PM
Should've gone with an old-fashioned text poll then....

ghemminger
10-11-2007, 06:08 PM
He's the Hack!

margomaps
10-11-2007, 06:10 PM
To summarize his main points:

- We put a poll up
- The purpose of the poll was to measure how well the candidates did
- Ron Paul supporters outnumbered everyone else by an absurd margin
- We took the poll down because Ron's numbers were a lot higher than they should be
- You guys cheated by being organized and passionate

Did I capture that OK? :rolleyes:

Johnnybags
10-11-2007, 06:10 PM
1,200 poeple in the debate, 2,500 outside voting for Ron. All things being equal it was 67 percent.

speciallyblend
10-11-2007, 06:11 PM
Should we write back? i cant believe i just read that,almost laughable

V4Vendetta
10-11-2007, 06:13 PM
Here is a copy of what I sent to their email, after reading that article.
=========================
Subject: Poor guy.. I wonder why no one else is "HACKING" The polls? RON PAUL 4 PRES!


Poor guy,

Media says... Ron Paul has no support.

Ron Paul... is a "Dark Horse" "Fringe Candidate" has no real support

Ron Paul doesn't even have that much money.

I wonder how the heck Ron Paul supporters are able to hack into your poll and the BIG money candidates aren't?! I mean heck, they more backing and more money right?

Oh Yeah, Forget about Cookies and IP Address. LMAO, Hacked!!!!!!!! WHAT A POOR MAN YOU ARE.

I wonder if other candidate "CHAT ROOM'S" told their people to go vote in the poll? LMAO the argument you have given, has no credibility!

Tip My hat to you for making such a lame excuse.

goldstandard
10-11-2007, 06:13 PM
To summarize his main points:

- We put a poll up
- The purpose of the poll was to measure how well the candidates did
- Ron Paul supporters outnumbered everyone else by an absurd margin
- We took the poll down because Ron's numbers were a lot higher than they should be
- You guys cheated by being organized and passionate

Did I capture that OK? :rolleyes:

That's exactly what he said.

Sematary
10-11-2007, 06:15 PM
My letter to them (because it deserves one):

I can't believe, after all this time, that the MSM is STILL pushing the "spamming" thing and calling Ron Paul supporters the "few". In vote after vote, even the ones that only allow ONE vote - as happened after the MSNBC post debate text message poll, Ron Paul supporters PROVED a point and none of you get it. We are not "spamming" the polls. We are proving a point. We ARE mobilized, we ARE energetic, we ARE organized and WE will get out the vote. The supposed "scientific polls" ignore an entire generation of voters who make up the majority of Ron Paul's supporters. Why? Because they don't have land lines. Many of them have NEVER VOTED BEFORE! So they don't get called. Has anyone done a study on how many people have switched to the Republican party this year? I'm willing to bet that you will find that the Republican party has been "spammed" as well. While the rest of the Republican party sits at home and laments the fact that all of their "top teir" candidates are liberals in conservative clothing, WE will be out and voting in the primaries. The ranks of the Ron Paul supporters grow by the day and no candidate who has a "few" diehard fans could raise 5 million dollars and is already well on the way to his firt million THIS quarter. The results of your own poll reflect reality. The reality is that Ron Paul is popular and his message is even MORE popular. The reality is that while all the other GOP candidates go on and on and on - ad nauseum, about war and more war, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Independents and old school Republicans are converting to Ron Paul. Most importantly, the internet generation is hearing the message and taking it to heart and all that youthful energy is being used to promote Ron Paul and they WILL be out to vote! Perhaps, instead of claiming that your poll was "spammed" you should consider that your results reflect the feelings of those who are actually involved in the process at this point.

mannycp
10-11-2007, 06:15 PM
Dear folks,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.

Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.

So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.

The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

Sincerely,

Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com


Questions? Comments? Write to politicalcapital@cnbc.com.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

ghemminger
10-11-2007, 06:15 PM
The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages.

This guy is an editor - he can't even spell

steph3n
10-11-2007, 06:15 PM
and what is the need for this? It serves no purpose.


Here is a copy of what I sent to their email, after reading that article.
=========================
Subject: Poor guy.. I wonder why no one else is "HACKING" The polls? RON PAUL 4 PRES!


Poor guy,

Media says... Ron Paul has no support.

Ron Paul... is a "Dark Horse" "Fringe Candidate" has no real support

Ron Paul doesn't even have that much money.

I wonder how the heck Ron Paul supporters are able to hack into your poll and the BIG money candidates aren't?! I mean heck, they more backing and more money right?

Oh Yeah, Forget about Cookies and IP Address. LMAO, Hacked!!!!!!!! WHAT A POOR MAN YOU ARE.

I wonder if other candidate "CHAT ROOM'S" told their people to go vote in the poll? LMAO the argument you have given, has no credibility!

Tip My hat to you for making such a lame excuse.

Sematary
10-11-2007, 06:15 PM
To summarize his main points:

- We put a poll up
- The purpose of the poll was to measure how well the candidates did
- Ron Paul supporters outnumbered everyone else by an absurd margin
- We took the poll down because Ron's numbers were a lot higher than they should be
- You guys cheated by being organized and passionate

Did I capture that OK? :rolleyes:

Sounds about right to me.

hard@work
10-11-2007, 06:17 PM
Let's not forget they gave Dr. Paul the least speaking time of all the candidates. The comment on the "few" affecting the "majority" was beyond insulting.

steph3n
10-11-2007, 06:17 PM
Ah much better, good example of how to get the message across much more politely.



My letter to them (because it deserves one):

I can't believe, after all this time, that the MSM is STILL pushing the "spamming" thing and calling Ron Paul supporters the "few". In vote after vote, even the ones that only allow ONE vote - as happened after the MSNBC post debate text message poll, Ron Paul supporters PROVED a point and none of you get it. We are not "spamming" the polls. We are proving a point. We ARE mobilized, we ARE energetic, we ARE organized and WE will get out the vote. The supposed "scientific polls" ignore an entire generation of voters who make up the majority of Ron Paul's supporters. Why? Because they don't have land lines. Many of them have NEVER VOTED BEFORE! So they don't get called. Has anyone done a study on how many people have switched to the Republican party this year? I'm willing to bet that you will find that the Republican party has been "spammed" as well. While the rest of the Republican party sits at home and laments the fact that all of their "top teir" candidates are liberals in conservative clothing, WE will be out and voting in the primaries. The ranks of the Ron Paul supporters grow by the day and no candidate who has a "few" diehard fans could raise 5 million dollars and is already well on the way to his firt million THIS quarter. The results of your own poll reflect reality. The reality is that Ron Paul is popular and his message is even MORE popular. The reality is that while all the other GOP candidates go on and on and on - ad nauseum, about war and more war, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Independents and old school Republicans are converting to Ron Paul. Most importantly, the internet generation is hearing the message and taking it to heart and all that youthful energy is being used to promote Ron Paul and they WILL be out to vote! Perhaps, instead of claiming that your poll was "spammed" you should consider that your results reflect the feelings of those who are actually involved in the process at this point.

LibertyEagle
10-11-2007, 06:17 PM
How are OUR votes any less worthy than anyone else's? That's what I want to know.

LibertyEagle
10-11-2007, 06:18 PM
To summarize his main points:

- We put a poll up
- The purpose of the poll was to measure how well the candidates did
- Ron Paul supporters outnumbered everyone else by an absurd margin
- We took the poll down because Ron's numbers were a lot higher than they should be
- You guys cheated by being organized and passionate

Did I capture that OK? :rolleyes:

Exactly. Well said.

qsecofr
10-11-2007, 06:18 PM
I just sent this email to Mr. Allen.



Hello Mr. Allen,

First I must admit that I am a Ron Paul supporter so if you wish to keep reading good for you ;)

I don't have much to say beyond the incredible irony your last paragraph invokes.

When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

This is exactly the reason you will find the great multitude of us are willing to part with our money and time supporting our candidate. We are being stripped of our liberties and wealth in the name of safety for the betterment of who exactly? What percentage of the "top-tier" candidates donations are the maximum and who are they going to owe when elected? I think this quote from Samuel Adams sums it up better then I could ever hope to manage.

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

We want our government back, the one that used to represent us.

Regards,
XXXXXX

njandrewg
10-11-2007, 06:20 PM
someone email that fool and tell him that Ron Paul won the post-debate straw poll

V4Vendetta
10-11-2007, 06:21 PM
I just sent this email to Mr. Allen.



Hello Mr. Allen,

First I must admit that I am a Ron Paul supporter so if you wish to keep reading good for you ;)

I don't have much to say beyond the incredible irony your last paragraph invokes.

When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

This is exactly the reason you will find the great multitude of us are willing to part with our money and time supporting our candidate. We are being stripped of our liberties and wealth in the name of safety for the betterment of who exactly? What percentage of the "top-tier" candidates donations are the maximum and who are they going to owe when elected? I think this quote from Samuel Adams sums it up better then I could ever hope to manage.

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

We want our government back, the one that used to represent us.

Regards,
XXXXXX

Very nice!

Hey man, wish you lived by me, I'd take you out for a beer!

Ann Kobialka
10-11-2007, 06:21 PM
E mail I sent
You state
when a well organized and committed "few" can throw off a system meant to reflect the sentiments of the "many" I got a little worried. Id do it again.
I read
When VOTERS for some reason are not falling in lockstep with what we are telling them to do we THE OLD MEDIA will hide this while we figure out what's going on Ann

G-khan
10-11-2007, 06:21 PM
You put up a poll on the Internet and ask for input..

We come in and win the poll..

Rudy, Fred, Mitt and the others don't have an equal chance to vote for their candidate..

Give me a break...........

steph3n
10-11-2007, 06:21 PM
another nice one :)

so long as we a mobilized, POLITE and get the word our this primary CAN be won for Dr Paul.

I am starting to see some changes in that direction and hope it can continue.


I just sent this email to Mr. Allen.



Hello Mr. Allen,

First I must admit that I am a Ron Paul supporter so if you wish to keep reading good for you ;)

I don't have much to say beyond the incredible irony your last paragraph invokes.

When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

This is exactly the reason you will find the great multitude of us are willing to part with our money and time supporting our candidate. We are being stripped of our liberties and wealth in the name of safety for the betterment of who exactly? What percentage of the "top-tier" candidates donations are the maximum and who are they going to owe when elected? I think this quote from Samuel Adams sums it up better then I could ever hope to manage.

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

We want our government back, the one that used to represent us.

Regards,
XXXXXX

Sematary
10-11-2007, 06:23 PM
I just sent this email to Mr. Allen.



Hello Mr. Allen,

First I must admit that I am a Ron Paul supporter so if you wish to keep reading good for you ;)

I don't have much to say beyond the incredible irony your last paragraph invokes.

When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

This is exactly the reason you will find the great multitude of us are willing to part with our money and time supporting our candidate. We are being stripped of our liberties and wealth in the name of safety for the betterment of who exactly? What percentage of the "top-tier" candidates donations are the maximum and who are they going to owe when elected? I think this quote from Samuel Adams sums it up better then I could ever hope to manage.

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

We want our government back, the one that used to represent us.

Regards,
XXXXXX

Great quote from Sam Adams

American
10-11-2007, 06:23 PM
We need to keep this one going, I cant believe that fool actually wrote that. If we stay on this and send him as many emails as was in the poll then he will have to realize this isnt a few people.

But be nice, just a bit.

steph3n
10-11-2007, 06:23 PM
they don't have a chance because last I saw 77% of their voters are apathetic where Dr Paul's supports are only 29%, then add organization and it is profound.

However we have to remember to keep getting the word out until the last moment.


You put up a poll on the Internet and ask for input..

We come in and win the poll..

Rudy, Fred, Mitt and the others don't have an equal chance to vote for their candidate..

Give me a break...........

drednot
10-11-2007, 06:25 PM
...
Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. ....

Huh? What does he mean "either"? Was it hacked or not?? Does he not know? Can people revote or not? In the absence of the Paul vote, how do you know the 2nd place candidate's supporters didn't "target" the poll with a "campaign" as well? Might as well reward the best "campaign".

How does he know that 7000 distinct people didn't vote for Paul in that Poll?

Ron Paul Fan
10-11-2007, 06:25 PM
Bastard. He says that his poll isn't scientific and then he justifies pulling the poll because Ron Paul hasn't gotten that % in any legitimate poll. There are probably a couple straw polls where he got 60%. We win all of these post debate polls so it shouldn't be any surprise. If you want to get back at him, donate! We're up to $656,000 and going strong. Let's get as close to a $100k day as we can! Why should we donate again? Because of people like this guy who don't think we can win and in the name of liberty!!!!!

JoshLowry
10-11-2007, 06:25 PM
Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.What about the straw polls where he pulled in greater than 70%?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Do those not count either?

These guys have no idea what is going on.

Tyler19
10-11-2007, 06:25 PM
most of us watched the debate... but we still cant vote for Ron Paul?

TechnoGuyRob
10-11-2007, 06:25 PM
What's his e-mail?

literatim
10-11-2007, 06:26 PM
"Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down."

http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07415/orly.jpg

CWA New Jersey GOP Straw Poll
Date - 9/29/2007
Rank - 1
Percentage - 77.0%

West Alabama
Date - 8/18/2007
Rank - 1
Percentage - 81.2%

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Sematary
10-11-2007, 06:27 PM
What's his e-mail?

right at the bottom of the article.

nbhadja
10-11-2007, 06:28 PM
I gave him an earful about how those "legit" polls that give Ron Paul low numbers often times don't even have his name as a choice, and how his name is subtly dropped into the "other candidates" or "press this number for more candidates" choices category.

fedup100
10-11-2007, 06:29 PM
"When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried".

Holy crap, he has just let the cat out of the bag as to their, the MSM's dirty tricks.

cswake
10-11-2007, 06:30 PM
Dear NBC,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force in politics and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding your CNBC Republican candidate debate. During the debate, you put up a poll on your Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys didn't like the results.

Now these debates are admittedly unscientific and subject to bias. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the voter and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The real world equivalent of explaining a candidate's stance on a certain question.

So there were the candidates speaking. The numbers grew ... 728 words Thompson, 781 words McCain, 1091 words Giuliani, and 1357 words Romney after two hours ... and Ron Paul, the most articulate speaker of the debate, with 343 words.

Now NBC is a fine news organization with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen even Fox News bias debates to that degree. Either your debate was biased or run by a group of idiots. So we give Paul the chance to make an impact with the American people.

The next day, our email basked was flooded with debate articles. And the article showed Thompson this, Romney that, and Giuliani blah blah blah. I learned other news organizations that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about every other candidate and I can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the debate. It was no longer an honest chance for a candidate to communicate with the American people -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the war propaganda drum. That certainly wasn't the intention and certainly doesn't serve the voters ... at least those who aren't already in the "top-tier" camp.

Some of you sell-outs take issue with our decision to voice our support in the poll. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd flood the poll again.

Sincerely,

American Voter

Sematary
10-11-2007, 06:30 PM
"When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried".

Holy crap, he has just let the cat out of the bag as to their, the MSM's dirty tricks.

That statement also neglects the supposed reality of America - which is that we are a REPUBLIC - which means that the government exists to protect the few FROM the many.

stevedasbach
10-11-2007, 06:35 PM
Mr. Wastler,

You wrote:

"So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down."

Sorry, but your poll was neither "hacked" nor "the target of a campaign."

I assume that at least 500,000 people watched the debate. According to "scientific polls", Ron Paul's support is 2% or greater.

2% of 500,000 is 10,000. More than enough to account for 75% of 7000+ votes. And that assumes that Ron Paul supporters didn't watch the debate in greater proportions than the general public (which I suspect they did.)

Instead of asking why so many Ron Paul supporters chose to demonstrate that support by voting in your poll, perhaps you should be asking why so few "supporters" of other candidates chose to invest the tiny effort required to vote.

Steve Dasbach

Buzz
10-11-2007, 06:36 PM
This is why people say not to vote for Ron Paul in net polls where he's already winning by a decent margin. Always check the results first.

peacemonger
10-11-2007, 06:37 PM
In Iran, the top clerics pick who gets to be a nominee for President. In the U.S., the government media complex picks who gets to be the nominee for President. So what's the difference? I think our top media driven candidates are more easily bought.

Perry
10-11-2007, 06:38 PM
If i was in a raft braving the pacific ocean with you guys I wouldn't say it because you would throw me out of the boat. But alas I am not in that boat.

He has a good point guys. Let's be realistic. Polls like this one, and straw polls, simply show the level of motivation of those particular supporters.
Does this mean we should stop voting on the online polls? Heck no! But let no one be mistaken that we are as of yet still the minority. At one point the winning of online polls got us some attention. We are long past that phase. Time to get to work in the real world.

Ann Kobialka
10-11-2007, 06:38 PM
cswake Really, really nice lol Ann

JoshLowry
10-11-2007, 06:39 PM
Dear NBC,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force in politics and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding your CNBC Republican candidate debate. During the debate, you put up a poll on your Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys didn't like the results.

Now these debates are admittedly unscientific and subject to bias. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the voter and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The real world equivalent of explaining a candidate's stance on a certain question.

So there were the candidates speaking. The numbers grew ... 728 words Thompson, 781 words McCain, 1091 words Giuliani, and 1357 words Romney after two hours ... and Ron Paul, the most articulate speaker of the debate, with 343 words.

Now NBC is a fine news organization with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen even Fox News bias debates to that degree. Either your debate was biased or run by a group of idiots. So we give Paul the chance to make an impact with the American people.

The next day, our email basked was flooded with debate articles. And the article showed Thompson this, Romney that, and Giuliani blah blah blah. I learned other news organizations that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about every other candidate and I can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the debate. It was no longer an honest chance for a candidate to communicate with the American people -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the war propaganda drum. That certainly wasn't the intention and certainly doesn't serve the voters ... at least those who aren't already in the "top-tier" camp.

Some of you sell-outs take issue with our decision to voice our support in the poll. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd flood the poll again.

Sincerely,

American Voter


http://www.emoticonzone.com/msn-emotions/animated/clap.gif (http://www.emoticonzone.com)


:D

speciallyblend
10-11-2007, 06:40 PM
We all should send the straw poll totals and the online ones ,there are a few at 70%, and they were republican straw polls;)

me3
10-11-2007, 06:40 PM
Sir,

I take some exception to this.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

I'm sorry sir, the obligatory cheers for our passion do not cover up for the fact that you didn't mention any specific impropriety, merely taking issue with the fact that an internet poll was dominated by the largest group of online supporters for the candidate. It does a disservice to the thousands of supporters Dr. Paul has, and has been able to rally around a message of Freedom, Liberty and Peace. You've painted a negative picture of us, without any specific evidence except where the traffic came from. Traffic directed to your site, to read, vote and watch the debate. As an internet marketer of the last 5 years, traffic such has been socially directed to CNBC is normally considered a boon or windfall.

"And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion."

Either the polls were hacked with repeated votes from the same user agents and IP addresses, or they were not. It would have been nice for you to make it clear which it was, not leave it open to speculation and likely negative backlash. A large organized group voting for a candidate is how elections work. Isn't that the purpose of a poll? Were you or were you not polling the internet?

"When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried."

Nothing was stopping the Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee online crowds from posting. The reality is that these candidates have very weak online campaigns, and you are punishing the Ron Paul support for being strong.

"but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll"

Perhaps you should be paying attention to the enormous fund raising we do online (not hacked) or the # of YouTube, Facebook and MeetUp groups we have (not hacked). Perhaps it's time to tune into the massive grassroots movement putting up signs and rallying across America, with two of the largest rallies in Tennessee (1400+) and Michigan (est. 2,000). Refer to TechPresident (http://techpresident.com/) for the size of our online campaign amongst Republicans, as well as the numerous reports of our online fundraising in recent major media coverage including ABC World News, CNN and MSNBC. This has all been openly reported for months, with Paul the absolute leader in Republican online activism.

It is disingenuous to claim that you haven't seen this with any legit polls. Apparently you are unaware of Ron Paul's showings in the Utah Straw Poll (2nd), Michigan Republican Leadership Conference (3rd), Texas GOP Straw Poll (3rd) etc.

Not to mention that Ron Paul dominated the Fox debate text message poll, which I would be most interested to hear your theory on how that could have been hacked.

The question is, if Ron Paul is the 5th biggest fund raiser in Q3, consistently wins or places high in straw polls, wins online polls, and has more money on hand than all but 3 of the Republican candidates, why is he stationed to the far left of the stage, and given the least amount of speaking time?

This sort of drive by dismissal will continue to fuel the activism of the grassroots, and at one point Sir, I hope you have the pleasure and opportunity to question whether you made the right decision when we hit the ballot boxes. I'm anticipating some surprise on your behalf.

Have a nice day.

stevedasbach
10-11-2007, 06:43 PM
Mr. Wastler,

You wrote:

"So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down."

Sorry, but your poll was neither "hacked" nor "the target of a campaign."

I assume that at least 500,000 people watched the debate. According to "scientific polls", Ron Paul's support is 2% or greater.

2% of 500,000 is 10,000. More than enough to account for 75% of 7000+ votes. And that assumes that Ron Paul supporters didn't watch the debate in greater proportions than the general public (which I suspect they did.)

Instead of asking why so many Ron Paul supporters chose to demonstrate that support by voting in your poll, perhaps you should be asking why so few "supporters" of other candidates chose to invest the tiny effort required to vote.

Steve Dasbach

undergroundrr
10-11-2007, 06:46 PM
I hope enough people send him the Sam Adams brushfires quote that it resounds in his head for eternity.

libertarianguy
10-11-2007, 06:46 PM
test

1000-points-of-fright
10-11-2007, 06:51 PM
I understand why you guys are mad at this guy, but take it easy on him and if you must respond don't be snarky or rude. It's childish.

Even though he is more wrong than he is right, I can see his point too. If you're gonna email him, simply point out that it wasn't hackers or spammers, just enthusiastic supporters. Then suggest that maybe he should try and find out why none of the other candidates' supporters are as enthusiastic.

The real story is not Ron Paul supporters flooding polls. It's all the other supporters NOT flooding polls.

Broadlighter
10-11-2007, 06:51 PM
Dear Mr. Wastler,

So our votes don't count? We don't matter because our numbers don't register on any 'legit' poll?

What you don't seem to get about us is that we, Ron Paul Faithful, are paying attention, we're watching the debates on your network and we're responding to your network's call for a 'show of hands' to gauge who won the debate. In spite of the fact that CNBC gave Dr. Paul the least amount of talk time in the debate, he still registers higher than any other GOP candidate.

What you are essentially telling us is that your network's poll doesn't really count and nothing meaningful can be gleaned from it. Your ratings, no matter how high they go, don't matter.

Ron Paul's campaign message of freedom and constitutionality is arguably the most vital and substantive of all candidates in the major parties. That's why we are flooding your polls with our support for him. Just about every online poll that he's won so far does not allow for more than one vote per IP address. If we're to 'spam' the vote, we'd need to have a several distinct internet connections available to each person so we could go from one machine to another to cast our votes. I seriously doubt that is happening.

Yes, we are passionate about our candidate and his message. Yes, we're engaged in watching the debates. Yes, we want our candidate to win. And no, we reject the message the networks are sending the audience when they disproportionately give certain candidates more time than Ron Paul and others.

The other GOP candidates don't have the kind of support Ron Paul has and that's the story unfolding before you.

Sincerely,

John Houlgate

RP4ME
10-11-2007, 06:52 PM
can you really hack these polls?

bbachtung
10-11-2007, 06:52 PM
Dugg.

Jordan
10-11-2007, 06:53 PM
can you really hack these polls?

Not really. I mean you could brute force it, but you're looking at maybe 4 votes a minute by hand, and thats really moving.

Vote clear everything, new browser vote. Rinse and repeat.

We outvoted every other candidate, plain and simple.

literatim
10-11-2007, 06:55 PM
Not really. I mean you could brute force it, but you're looking at maybe 4 votes a minute by hand, and thats really moving.

Vote clear everything, new browser vote. Rinse and repeat.

We outvoted every other candidate, plain and simple.

These polls generally log ip, one would have had to disconnect and reconnect their internet, that is if they have a dynamic ip.

RP4ME
10-11-2007, 06:57 PM
These polls generally log ip, one would have had to disconnect and reconnect their internet, that is if they have a dynamic ip.

well please write an open letter to CNBC to splain things

DrNoZone
10-11-2007, 06:57 PM
My response:

Dear Mr. Wastler,

You said: "It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum."

So, the Ron Paul supporters showed up in droves so that they would be counted when you asked for a "show of hands" and you took down the poll in protest when you realized the room was overflowing with Ron Paul supporters? I'm confused. Was it the results you were unhappy with? Because it seems to me that the Ron Paul fans played fairly by showing up and raising their virtual hands in larger numbers than any other candidate's supporters did.

In freedom,

Jeremy

wolv275
10-11-2007, 06:59 PM
"When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again".

Sounds like they are getting a little taste of their own medicine. And maybe they should take themselves down.; :rolleyes:

me3
10-11-2007, 06:59 PM
Sir,

I take some exception to this.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

I'm sorry sir, the obligatory cheers for our passion do not cover up for the fact that you didn't mention any specific impropriety, merely taking issue with the fact that an internet poll was dominated by the largest group of online supporters for the candidate. It does a disservice to the thousands of supporters Dr. Paul has, and has been able to rally around a message of Freedom, Liberty and Peace. You've painted a negative picture of us, without any specific evidence except where the traffic came from. Traffic directed to your site, to read, vote and watch the debate. As an internet marketer of the last 5 years, traffic such has been socially directed to CNBC is normally considered a boon or windfall.

"And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion."

Either the polls were hacked with repeated votes from the same user agents and IP addresses, or they were not. It would have been nice for you to make it clear which it was, not leave it open to speculation and likely negative backlash. A large organized group voting for a candidate is how elections work. Isn't that the purpose of a poll? Were you or were you not polling the internet?

"When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried."

Nothing was stopping the Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee online crowds from posting. The reality is that these candidates have very weak online campaigns, and you are punishing the Ron Paul support for being strong (see below)

"but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll"

Perhaps you should be paying attention to the enormous fund raising we do online (not hacked, ask the FEC) or the # of YouTube, Facebook and MeetUp groups we have (not hacked, real people). Perhaps it's time to tune into the massive grassroots movement putting up signs and rallying across America, with two of the largest rallies in Tennessee (1400+) and Michigan (est. 2,000) in the last week. Refer to TechPresident (http://techpresident.com/) for the size of our online campaign amongst Republicans, as well as the numerous reports of our online fund raising in recent major media coverage including ABC World News, CNN and MSNBC. This has all been openly reported for months, with Paul the absolute leader in Republican online activism and grassroots support.

It is disingenuous to claim that you haven't seen this with any legit polls. Apparently you are unaware of Ron Paul's showings in the Utah Straw Poll (2nd), Michigan Republican Leadership Conference (3rd), Texas GOP Straw Poll (3rd) as well as numerous first places finishes. We also have boots on the ground, unless you would like to chalk this up to our hacking technique of traveling the country to vote.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Not to mention that Ron Paul dominated the Fox post-debate text message poll, which I would be most interested to hear your theory on how that could have been hacked.

The question is, if Ron Paul is the 5th biggest fund raiser in Q3, consistently wins or places high in straw polls, wins online polls, and has more money on hand than all but 3 of the Republican candidates, why is he stationed to the far left of the stage, and given the least amount of speaking time?

This sort of drive by dismissal will continue to fuel the activism of the grassroots, and at one point Sir, I hope you have the pleasure and opportunity to question whether you made the right decision when we hit the ballot boxes. I'm anticipating some surprise on your behalf.

Have a nice day.

DrNoZone
10-11-2007, 06:59 PM
My letter:

Dear Mr. Wastler,

You said: "It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum."

So, the Ron Paul supporters showed up in droves so that they would be counted when you asked for a "show of hands" and you took down the poll in protest when you realized the room was overflowing with Ron Paul supporters? I'm confused. Was it the results you were unhappy with? Because it seems to me that the Ron Paul fans played fairly by showing up and raising their virtual hands in larger numbers than any other candidate's supporters did.

In freedom,

Jeremy

V4Vendetta
10-11-2007, 06:59 PM
can you really hack these polls?

no, they put cookies in your browser and then log your IP address

Akus
10-11-2007, 06:59 PM
but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll.

That's probably because the only "legit polls" will be early next year, around February and March.

DrNoZone
10-11-2007, 07:06 PM
Dear NBC,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force in politics and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding your CNBC Republican candidate debate. During the debate, you put up a poll on your Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys didn't like the results.

Now these debates are admittedly unscientific and subject to bias. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the voter and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The real world equivalent of explaining a candidate's stance on a certain question.

So there were the candidates speaking. The numbers grew ... 728 words Thompson, 781 words McCain, 1091 words Giuliani, and 1357 words Romney after two hours ... and Ron Paul, the most articulate speaker of the debate, with 343 words.

Now NBC is a fine news organization with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen even Fox News bias debates to that degree. Either your debate was biased or run by a group of idiots. So we give Paul the chance to make an impact with the American people.

The next day, our email basked was flooded with debate articles. And the article showed Thompson this, Romney that, and Giuliani blah blah blah. I learned other news organizations that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about every other candidate and I can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the debate. It was no longer an honest chance for a candidate to communicate with the American people -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the war propaganda drum. That certainly wasn't the intention and certainly doesn't serve the voters ... at least those who aren't already in the "top-tier" camp.

Some of you sell-outs take issue with our decision to voice our support in the poll. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd flood the poll again.

Sincerely,

American Voter

That, was fookin' hilarious! :D

Nefertiti
10-11-2007, 07:09 PM
"Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign."

They need some better tech people at MSNBC. If they aren't sure whether they were hacked or not, then they need some better security on their server!

OptionsTrader
10-11-2007, 07:09 PM
When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many", I get a little worried.
Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com


Versus:


Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

LizF
10-11-2007, 07:11 PM
Great letter me3! :)

terlinguatx
10-11-2007, 07:12 PM
...

0zzy
10-11-2007, 07:13 PM
you guys
complain
sooooooo
much.

it makes us look like bad losers.
I know these online polls suck,
we dominant too much.

However the guy ignores straw polls,
and text-in-polls.

Bluedevil
10-11-2007, 07:14 PM
"Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again."

tyranny of the minority?

DahuiHeeNalu
10-11-2007, 07:15 PM
Donations go up and more signs are hanged everytime they lie and everytime they block us out!

Mom4Ron
10-11-2007, 07:17 PM
Too bad they won't be able to take the primaries down once this well organized few starts 'spamming' those 'polls'.

1000-points-of-fright
10-11-2007, 07:22 PM
my email


John,

By now I'm sure you've been deluged with emails from Ron Paul supporters ranging from the eloquent to the incoherent. Yes, we are an obsessive bunch. While I understand your point about an already unscientific poll being further skewed and thus useless, I would suggest there's a bigger story that has yet to be reported: Why aren't supporters of the other candidates organizing and voting on every internet and text poll that they can find? Surely, they're not so technologically impaired that they can't use the internet or a cell phone. Nor can it be out of a sense of honor and fair play.

unconsious767
10-11-2007, 07:23 PM
I wrote a nice letter of protest initially, but I cannot do so as a reply to this bullshit so I will bite my tongue.

No doubt when we 'spam' the voting booth, they'll claim we cloned supporters or changed the laws of physics or whatever. Dolts.

Electrostatic
10-11-2007, 07:23 PM
My Response:

Attn: Allen Wastler

I read your atricle,"An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful" - http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762 and it gave me cause for concern.

I can sympathize with you wanting to have fair and legitimate polls after your debates, and I thank you for giving people an opportunity to vote. I can not, however, agree with your sentiment that we were somehow being dishonest or disruptive. We outnumber the supporters of other campaigns on the internet for a very simple reason. People on the internet who actually take the time to get involved and study the current political process in this country overwhelmingly support Ron Paul.

There are ample sites on the internet that document the dramatic crash of the dollar as a global reserve currency. Here is one, for example: http://www.x-rates.com/d/CAD/USD/graph120.html (We've lost 20% against our nearest neighbor in the last 4 months alone!). Everyone on the internet who cares about the future of our economy enough to ever check this is supporting Ron Paul.

On the foreign relations issue, our past decisions regarding how to handle our affairs have proved disastrous on every level, and it is well known why this is. If you have a few minutes, I suggest you google cia blowback. http://www.google.com/search?q=cia+blowback Once again, everyone who cares enough to find out this information on their own is supporting Ron Paul. No one, that I know of (with the exception of a few political hacks), has really studied the effects of our long term foreign policies and defended them.

There are other issues also: Why is our tax money being wasted so enthusiastically? Why is the moral of our troops dropping like a rock? Is it morally acceptable to implement macro-economic systems that ensure our children will grow up in debt, and never realistically be able to clear that debt from their shoulders in their lifetime?

And then we have you, Mr. Wastler, the "Media"... It used to be "Journalists" and "Reporters", but now it's just "Media". "Media" of Brittany Spears having a breakdown, followed by "Media" of her supporters having breakdowns, followed by "Media" of what O.J. Simpson did wrong this decade, followed by "Media" endorsed by the "Top Tier" candidates which shows our nominating process as a popularity contest with a completely scripted and rehearsed set of "Issues" and "Solutions". (Which, please note, relate nothing to the actual problems I was mentioning above.)

And you wonder why 80+ percent of those interested enough in politics to watch a Republican Debate on basic cable support the only candidate who even mentions the problems we are actually facing?

I have news for you, Sir. If you're network actually took the time to inform it's viewers in regards to our tenuous currency, failed 50+ years of foreign policy, ungodly wasteful government departments, and the affect that these practices are going to have on their children, and your children, and my children, then the biased land-line "Scientific Polls" would be 80% Ron Paul also.

But you aren't willing to stand up and make that happen, are you? If your producers tell you to run a story painting so-and-so scripted candidate in a good light, and ignore the fact that our status as holding the worlds de-facto reserve currency is in real jeopardy, you will, won't you.

If Well, good for you... You'll get to keep your job, I suppose. And Ron Paul will continue to only receive 80% from groups of people with the drive and intellect to do their own research. And hey, who really cares about the children, anyway?

And then you wonder why we want to set the record straight every time you have a poll after a stilted, unfair, biased debate.

Classic, Really Classic.

Sincerely,
Chris Welton
Seattle, Wa

thomj76
10-11-2007, 07:24 PM
Some1 email him the straw poll results....

jgmaynard
10-11-2007, 07:25 PM
No doubt when we 'spam' the voting booth, they'll claim we cloned supporters or changed the laws of physics or whatever. Dolts.

They'll claim we hacked the Diebold machines... LOL.

JM

PaleoForPaul
10-11-2007, 07:25 PM
Dear folks,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.

Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking.


Honestly, with the budget that CNBC has, Hacking shouldn't be too much of an issue. As for being unscientific, there are several ways you can make sure people aren't repeating votes. I get the impression from your letter that you don't know much about IT, but I seriously doubt anyone in your IT department would put up an online poll and not take measures to make sure that the same people aren't voting over and over again.

This isn't difficult work.



In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.


So, do you think we weren't watching the debate? We ARE your audience, and it would behoove you to realize that. Or didn't you notice how many of us were watching the debate live, online instead of the reply?



So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.


Any poll you put up online is going to be skewed for Dr. Paul. This isn't the result of 'hacking', it's simply demographics. Most of Paul's supporters are online, and they care enough to come vote in an internet poll. No other Republican candidate has close to the backing Ron Paul has online. Your poll wasn't hacked. It wasn't the target of the 'campaign' either. It just happens that most of Paul's support is online, and they are active online.



The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.


It's about as well organized as someone saying, "Hey here is a link to the online post debate poll!" and other people clicking that link. That isn't 'hacking'. I suggest you talk to your IT department about what is and isn't hacking before you accuse a portion of your viewers of such things.


But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.


It was an honest show of hands. I'm not sure if this is an honest letter or you are purposely misrepresenting things.



Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many,"


Once again, you are assuming we are the few, but take a look at the statistics. Ron Paul IS the most popular Republican candidate online, and probably has the largest amount of small donations of any Republican candidate.



I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.


Which shows how out of touch you are with the internet.

Nefertiti
10-11-2007, 07:27 PM
I have never written one of these complaint letters before, but this was so silly I couldn't resist:

Dear Mr. Wastler:

In your explanation why you removed the debate poll from your Web site, you claim that, "Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign." If I were you, I would be very concerned about the competency of your IT staff. If they cannot tell you whether your site has been hacked or not, then how can you be sure it is secure? How do we know that someone won't hack it tomorrow and falsely post on your front page that we have begun bombing Tehran, or that terrorists have attacked the White House?

As for being the target of a campaign, well there's something else you should be aware of, and that is that is how presidential elections are won. Candidates and their supporters CAMPAIGN. They encourage supporters to get out and vote. Considering that several million watched your debate, but perhaps no more than 1% of those bothered to take the effort to go to their computers afterward and vote in your poll, I'd have to say that Ron Paul's campaign is doing a very good job of achieving their goal-and that is getting out the vote. Your poll may not be "legit" (if you think that, I cannot fathom why you put it on your site in the first place) but it is a lot closer to the real primary than a telephone poll is. With the real election, people actually have to be proactive to vote. "Legit" telephone polls take the hard work out it, making them less reflective of reality than an online poll.

Believe me, this is the first time I have ever written to anyone to complain about Ron Paul coverage, but your post was so over-the-top I couldn't resist but point out the fallacies of your arguments.

xxxx xxxxxx
(voted once in your poll)

bobmurph
10-11-2007, 07:29 PM
My Response:

Mr. Wastler-

You and your media brethren just don't get it when it comes to the growing grassroots following that Ron Paul is generating. It's bigger than you imagine and is growing larger, quite literally, every minute. Ron Paul's message is inspiring people all over this country. The internet is just the only way access unbiased information about Dr. Paul's policies & platform. You state that Ron Paul's supporters are a "force on the world wide web". You must consider that since Dr. Paul's only unbiased outlet IS the internet. It is quite possible that if Dr. Paul we're afforded the type of unbiased media coverage that the "top-tier" candidates receive, that his message would be just as inspiring to people who access information through more traditional outlets.

Also, to suggest that your poll was hacked is a rather bold accusation which you provide no proof of. It is underhanded accusations like this which contribute to your lack of credibility as an unbiased news source.

I ask you to consider affording Congressman Paul the same amount of media coverage that you give to the other GOP candidates in an unbiased fashion.

Sincerely,

Robert Murphy
Atlanta, GA

0zzy
10-11-2007, 07:30 PM
Tell them why he received the less time and less questions at the debate.

pcosmar
10-11-2007, 07:37 PM
To Mr. Allen Wastler

I watched the debate. I voted one time. I voted just a few minutes after the debate ended.
Yes I do visit a Forum and sometimes post there. It is a place to gather news and information.
Many eyes can watch many places. I am sure some linked to your poll from there, but the debate had been the topic of discussion for many days. It was advertised, and watched by many. We had just made news by raising funds,and hoped it would translate into some fair treatment, in stage placement , time given to speak, and general respect.
You were being watched.
My mother call me that night to ask how he was doing in the polls. I had to tell her that you removed the poll, But that I had some screen shots recorded. My Mother is 82, and though she has a Computer she only uses it a little. She asks me to find stuff for her.
She watched the debate also, and on her own, for her own reasons came to the same conclusion about the debate. Ron Paul was the only man on that stage that told the truth and made sense.
And before you think that I am some kid in my mothers basement,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I am 50 and own my own home. I live aprox. 15 miles from my mother.
There are many that come to me for information. Few folks up here use a computer. So you could add that behind my one vote there are at least 10 more.
BTW, msnbc had a poll up for much longer, and had the same results.
Ron Paul went from the debate to a rally of over 2000 people, but that isn't news that you want to tell. Every where he goes large crowds come to her him. That is not reported either.
At the Mackinac Island Conference, the largest group of supporters was for Ron Paul.
All the others got air time, but nothing about the only man with any real support.
Sir, We are disappointed in you.
We are watching
Peter Osmar

Eli
10-11-2007, 07:41 PM
email sent. He's going to have to hire both shawn hannity and bill o'reilly to help clean up that inbox in the morning! Only they have enough power to effectively cleanse the world of freedom loving scum.

werdd
10-11-2007, 07:43 PM
http://digg.com/business_finance/An_Open_Letter_to_the_Ron_Paul_Faithful_CNBC_s_rea son_for_removing_poll

digg it ! :D

paulitics
10-11-2007, 07:49 PM
Libertarians are the most decentralized people I know. We are the last bunch to organize anything. No, the reason why he is 75% (always) after the debate is because no-one else cares enough about Frudy McRomson to take 30 seconds to do a poll. End of story.

me3
10-11-2007, 07:49 PM
The irony here, is that their referrer stats probably reflected people checking the poll every couple of minutes to see if RP was winning. I feel like sending a second letter now.

Mortikhi
10-11-2007, 07:53 PM
Dear Allen Wastler,
As a person with a degree in computer science and over 12 years of web development experience, I would like to see your poll code and your database. If your poll only allows one vote per IP, then you're lying. If your poll logs IP address, I would like to cross reference them with proxy servers. If your poll lets a person from the same IP address vote an unlimited number of times, then you're a dumbass for hiring a half-wit web developer.

Wilkero
10-11-2007, 07:56 PM
Here's my email. I mostly focused on his statement that he didn't like the few skewing the results.



Dear Mr. Wastler:

I notice that you take exception "when a well-organized and committed
'few' can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments
of 'the many.'" Why not apply this same standard to your own network?

For example, in your debate on Oct. 9, you gave both Mayor Giuliani and
Sen. Thompson approximately triple the amount of speaking time given to
either Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul. In fact, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson
and McCain had 60% of the speaking time out of nine candidates. That
means that the other five candidates had to split the remaining 40%.
Isn't this an example of the few skewing the results of the system?

If you disagree, I challenge you to publish a rational explanation on
CNBC's website, so that you may prove to me and all the other Ron Paul
supporters that you are not a hypocrite.

Very truly yours,
Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx

OptionsTrader
10-11-2007, 07:59 PM
CNBC, defend this:

http://i24.tinypic.com/vyplqh.jpg (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-silenced-at-cnbc-debate-transcript.html)

enjerth
10-11-2007, 08:16 PM
Dear Mr. Wastler,

I echo your sentiments. I get worried when a "few" presidential candidates are given all the favor and attention by the media, who end up throwing the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," who were not given any amount of time comparable to their peers whom you favor more.

Yes, we are a part of a campaign. Dr. Paul has given us a reason to fight, because he reminds us that it's not too late to take back the government and there is hope for the future. We have all joined his campaign because it is our campaign, it's our future.

Your actions remind us that we have to work harder, push harder and give harder for this campaign. Every time we face such criticism we realize that we are struggling against a system that has already doomed us to failure. This does not keep us down but makes us stronger and makes us fight harder, because we believe.

I would also like to remind you that Ron Paul is hugely popular on the internet and his supporters are highly active both online and offline. They are some of the most politically active supporters of any candidate in history. I believe I read an article yesterday boasting of the new record you reached in online viewers at that debate. Do you really think that the debate audience was not largely Ron Paul supporters?

75% is too much? In the following straw poll, Paul got 49 percent. Romney came in a distant second with 13 percent.

Ok, so maybe 75% is a bit high.

Regards,

An energized voter.

Mortikhi
10-11-2007, 08:18 PM
Names and addresses of the people at CNBC...

Great them at home with a camera.

Ask them for proof of any of the bs they keep spouting

Falseflagop
10-11-2007, 08:19 PM
screw him and his crooked friends!

torchbearer
10-11-2007, 08:23 PM
Will he even read these letters?

tiffanyras
10-11-2007, 08:25 PM
Asinine open letter by Allen Wastler of CNBC.com
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

I like how he's the senior editor yet he can't edit his own message.

"The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages."

Nice. :D hahaha

Send them an email: politicalcapital@cnbc.com
Please tell Allen that we wouldn't be "flooding the polls" if his crappy company didn't intentionally censor Ron Paul in the first place! Ron Paul spoke 5.8% of the total time while Rudy McFredRomney spoke almost 70%!

DJ RP
10-11-2007, 08:25 PM
already a thread on this but nice spotting the error lol :D

Question_Authority
10-11-2007, 08:27 PM
If we were "spamming" maybe that was BLOWBACK for their moderators being so goddamned UNFAIR by ignoring RON PAUL! Don't they all pay a fee to enter these debates? Did Ron Paul pay the same as all the others??? Then he should get equal time!

tiffanyras
10-11-2007, 08:29 PM
already a thread on this but nice spotting the error lol :D

Sorry; Search is disabled. :(

netmasta10bt
10-11-2007, 08:30 PM
An Open Letter to the Old Media:

The "Mainstream Media" are good folks.

Although the vast amounts of trustworthy and in depth information widely available on the Internet has made the corporations that offer the lack luster alternatives obsolete.

I hope their share holders understand why the people have decided to not pay any attention to them anymore.

Please send comments to:

The Internet.

OptionsTrader
10-11-2007, 08:36 PM
This kind of crap makes me want to start a PAC and raise even more money.

Keep this up CNBC.

Mortikhi
10-11-2007, 08:37 PM
This kind of crap makes me want to start a PAC and raise even more money.

Keep this up CNBC.
I'll help.

Or a 527. Whichever. I'm ready.

Grandson of Liberty
10-11-2007, 08:51 PM
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008

"My fellow Americans, over the course of the past year, it is obvious that a few computer wizards have been spamming poll after poll, then primary after primary. And sadly, last night, they spammed the ballot boxes of all 50 states. My administration will investigate how this occured, and will bring those terrorists responsible to justice. In the meantime, I will coordinate with Congress to allow them to select the next President of the United States, since it's unfortunately impossible to trust the voting machines."

Pres. Bush

torchbearer
10-11-2007, 08:53 PM
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008

"My fellow Americans, over the course of the past year, it is obvious that a few computer wizards have been spamming poll after poll, then primary after primary. And sadly, last night, they spammed the ballot boxes of all 50 states." My administration will investigate how this occured, and will bring those terrorists responsible to justice." In the meantime, I will coordinate with Congress to allow them to select the next President of the United States, since it's unfortunately impossible to trust the voting machines."

Pres. Bush

+1

kenc9
10-11-2007, 08:53 PM
They use to talk about and ridicule this guy http://www.time.com/time/time100/images/r_thumb2.jpg

Because of the crowds and following this guy had they called him a communist http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king.jpg

By the time they figured out this guy that ran, had no punch with a glass jaw was the World Champion. http://img.timeinc.net/time/time100/images/main_ali.jpg

And because they have never seen the likes of this guy they laugh and call him names, with no support and has low polls, that must be a nut...the Constitution! Indeed!!!!!!!!!!
Meet the next President of the United States Of America http://thelibertarian.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/n18402350_31478775_450.jpg

OptionsTrader
10-11-2007, 08:55 PM
Here's the the crazy ones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvn_Ied9t4M

jjschless
10-11-2007, 09:09 PM
***

kylejack
10-11-2007, 09:14 PM
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008

"My fellow Americans, over the course of the past year, it is obvious that a few computer wizards have been spamming poll after poll, then primary after primary. And sadly, last night, they spammed the ballot boxes of all 50 states. My administration will investigate how this occured, and will bring those terrorists responsible to justice. In the meantime, I will coordinate with Congress to allow them to select the next President of the United States, since it's unfortunately impossible to trust the voting machines."

Pres. Bush

The bombing begins in 5 minutes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv13ZnkpWos)

Original_Intent
10-11-2007, 09:17 PM
Awesome response James!

Seth M.
10-11-2007, 09:29 PM
Look here:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/24/commentary/wastler/wastler/

quote:
"Yeah, 4,997 of us get spammed because three people believe in pixie dust.

The obvious answer is to change the equation and tax e-mail. Or put some sort of limiting fee on e-mail. Virtual stamps. Anything to put a cost on e-mail and thereby alter the economics of spam. After all, the reason we aren't choked with junk mail at home is that there is a cost associated with using the U.S. postal service, even at bulk rates."


Ron Paul is firmly against any federal regulation of the internet which would include emails. So it is obvious... The Ron Paul supporters ruined his poll because his candidate did not win it. He made an emotional response. Human? yes. Though in my opinion it is more part of an agenda. basically he is a commy :mad:

kylejack
10-11-2007, 09:34 PM
Heh, he looks like such a douche.

Ninja Homer
10-11-2007, 09:51 PM
This is the response I wanted to send, but decided to wait a couple hours to cool off. (I'm not sending it)

Welcome to the revolution bitch!

TV is dead.

The web has taken over.

Ron Paul Revolution owns the web.

Deal with it.

I suggest you embrace the revolution now, or you'll suffer the blowback for many years to come.

jjschless
10-11-2007, 10:17 PM
An Open Letter to Mr. Allen Wastler





I must comment on your Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful Mr. Wastler. You see, this isn’t the first time supporters of Dr. Ron Paul have been accused, wrongly I might add, of cheating, hacking, multiple voting and general fraud involving polls. There are a couple amusing clips of Sean Hannity’s response to Ron Paul winning the Fox News text-in poll after the last debate they hosted. His claim that Paul supporters were voting multiple times was laughable. Fox hosted the poll and their technology prevented multiple voting from the same telephone number.


The results of the poll were told and then apparently deleted with extreme prejudice. The same has happened with CNN and now CNBC – uncanny how history repeats its’ self again and again, eh?


Now in your letter you stated that 7500 votes were cast and that 75% were for Ron Paul. This is not a large number by any stretch considering the scope and availability of the internet. Add to this thought the fact that about 70% of Paul’s $5.1 million dollar haul came from the internet in the 3rd quarter as well as having 40,000+ Meetup members; we can see that 5500+ votes is actually a very small number.


In case you are not fully familiar with the concept of Meetup it is basically a decentralized, individual driven, volunteer force. The members are not getting paid or receiving instructions from the campaign yet they are extremely efficient in spreading name recognition and the message of Dr. Paul. Save for Paul and his message, the impetus for such activity is a direct result of our candidate being slandered, ignored, attacked, libeled, ridiculed, lied about and insulted by you, the Main Stream Media, otherwise known as the old media. It is interesting how Newton 's Third Law of Motion can be applied metaphorically in the sense of this Pro-Ron Paul movement and the anti-movement created by the old media.


Consider an alternative result for the poll. Rudy Giuliani is winning by 75%. This would be heralded by the old media as a proclamation tantamount to Moses and the 10 Commandments. Every news outlet in the country would feature this story and the front page of nearly every newspaper would contain at least a blurb if not the headline dedicated to it. The poll would remain on the front page of your website for weeks. As is stands now if any of the “anointed ones” sneezes it makes at least page 3. To deny this figurative example would be folly.


If any of the Republican “front-runners” were not chasing Paul and instead enjoyed the successes he has had with straw polls, grassroots, doubling donations from quarter to quarter, internet polls and post debate polls, the news would waste no time informing the masses. Alas, this is not the case. Each of the Republican Warmongers is floundering in his own way and the old media is on continuous damage control; trying to salvage the precious image of the status quo candidates.


Chew on this for a moment: Who has effected a change in discourse? Who has forced the other candidates to adopt similar rhetoric? And whose supporters have forced the old media to change tactics in order to make up lost ground in an effort to maintain the status quo?


The answer to that question will reveal who is winning the political strategy game.


Ron Paul.


Call us crazy, moon bats, potheads, hippies, parent’s basement dwellers, fringe, spammers, ect., ect. Just be ready to call President Ron Paul and apologize.


To quote you, “You guys flooded it.”


Indeed, but this was just practice – for the ballot box.



James B Schlessinger Jr.

Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Organizer, Ex-Military, 1 vote spammer

jacmicwag
10-11-2007, 10:17 PM
My letter to Allen:

Dear Allen:

Thank you for your "Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters." Concerning your rationale for taking down the poll, I strongly doubt that your server could be hacked but I'm sure your IT people can answer that question definitively. I myself am amazed by the level of support and would like to know if there is some trickery involved. If possible, could you please have IT do a forensic analysis and report back to us one way or the other?

Your second reason for taking down the poll was that it involved an organized campaign by Ron Paul supporters to vote for their candidate. I'm a little baffled by your reasoning here. Of course we remind each other when debates are coming up and encourage all of Ron's supporters to vote in the polls afterward. We'll be doing the same thing on election day because this is what it takes to win elections. Is there something wrong with this?

Assuming there is no hack, I really feel you owe us an apology and, even more important, some air time publicizing the fact that Ron totally dominated the competition in your poll. As they say, better late than never.

Many in the media are starting to realize the Ron Paul phenomena is a great story. No need to fight or deny it - enjoy it for what it is and let's see where it ends up.

Jack Wagner
Houston, Texas

tekkierich
10-11-2007, 10:29 PM
Mr. Wastler,

I have just read your explanation for taking down the post debate poll. Let me say that taking down a unscientific poll intended for self selected response when that response did not self select itself in the manner that you figure it should is disappointing.

If you think that a significant showing of organized support for a candidate does not correlate to strong support in the general public, then I challenge your creditably to be reporting on political issues.

Please keep you attention on the primary voting this season when I can assure you the ballot box will be "the target of a campaign."

I challenge CNBC to properly conduct a scientific poll among likely Republican voters in the early primary states. Please make sure you do the following:

1. List as verbal options in random order all Republican candidates for President that have received more than one million dollars in campaign contributions this season.
2. Call mobile numbers as well as land lines. Paul is very popular among young folks who do not often have land lines that the current polls call.

Common sense says that a poll run in this manner would be the most equitable way of receiving accurate sentiments of the American people.

Thank you for your time.

Tina
10-11-2007, 10:31 PM
I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

This sounds like a threat. Don't vote for Paul or I'll take the poll down.

Great response letters btw

Tin_Foil_Hat
10-11-2007, 10:32 PM
Dear folks,

You guys are good. Real good.

He should have stopped there.

Spirit of '76
10-11-2007, 10:39 PM
An Open Letter to Mr. Allen Wastler





I must comment on your Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful Mr. Wastler. You see, this isn’t the first time supporters of Dr. Ron Paul have been accused, wrongly I might add, of cheating, hacking, multiple voting and general fraud involving polls. There are a couple amusing clips of Sean Hannity’s response to Ron Paul winning the Fox News text-in poll after the last debate they hosted. His claim that Paul supporters were voting multiple times was laughable. Fox hosted the poll and their technology prevented multiple voting from the same telephone number.


The results of the poll were told and then apparently deleted with extreme prejudice. The same has happened with CNN and now CNBC – uncanny how history repeats its’ self again and again, eh?


Now in your letter you stated that 7500 votes were cast and that 75% were for Ron Paul. This is not a large number by any stretch considering the scope and availability of the internet. Add to this thought the fact that about 70% of Paul’s $5.1 million dollar haul came from the internet in the 3rd quarter as well as having 40,000+ Meetup members; we can see that 5500+ votes is actually a very small number.


In case you are not fully familiar with the concept of Meetup it is basically a decentralized, individual driven, volunteer force. The members are not getting paid or receiving instructions from the campaign yet they are extremely efficient in spreading name recognition and the message of Dr. Paul. Save for Paul and his message, the impetus for such activity is a direct result of our candidate being slandered, ignored, attacked, libeled, ridiculed, lied about and insulted by you, the Main Stream Media, otherwise known as the old media. It is interesting how Newton 's Third Law of Motion can be applied metaphorically in the sense of this Pro-Ron Paul movement and the anti-movement created by the old media.


Consider an alternative result for the poll. Rudy Giuliani is winning by 75%. This would be heralded by the old media as a proclamation tantamount to Moses and the 10 Commandments. Every news outlet in the country would feature this story and the front page of nearly every newspaper would contain at least a blurb if not the headline dedicated to it. The poll would remain on the front page of your website for weeks. As is stands now if any of the “anointed ones” sneezes it makes at least page 3. To deny this figurative example would be folly.


If any of the Republican “front-runners” were not chasing Paul and instead enjoyed the successes he has had with straw polls, grassroots, doubling donations from quarter to quarter, internet polls and post debate polls, the news would waste no time informing the masses. Alas, this is not the case. Each of the Republican Warmongers is floundering in his own way and the old media is on continuous damage control; trying to salvage the precious image of the status quo candidates.


Chew on this for a moment: Who has effected a change in discourse? Who has forced the other candidates to adopt similar rhetoric? And whose supporters have forced the old media to change tactics in order to make up lost ground in an effort to maintain the status quo?


The answer to that question will reveal who is winning the political strategy game.


Ron Paul.


Call us crazy, moon bats, potheads, hippies, parent’s basement dwellers, fringe, spammers, ect., ect. Just be ready to call President Ron Paul and apologize.


To quote you, “You guys flooded it.”


Indeed, but this was just practice – for the ballot box.



James B Schlessinger Jr.

Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Organizer, Ex-Military, 1 vote spammer

Hats off to you, sir.

AdamT
10-11-2007, 10:40 PM
An Open Letter to Mr. Allen Wastler

To quote you, “You guys flooded it.”

Indeed, but this was just practice – for the ballot box.

Great letter!

Paulitician
10-11-2007, 10:53 PM
Heh, my explanation for this is: They really didn't have that many people actually watching their pathetic "debate" except us. We were willing to watch the whole thing and stick around to vote on their online poll. So go ahead, cry and pull down the polls. The Ron Paul message still got out, and no matter what you say, he still won the debate. Thank you, you're no longer relevant anymore.

TechnoGuyRob
10-11-2007, 11:09 PM
http://digg.com/business_finance/An_Open_Letter_to_the_Ron_Paul_Faithful_CNBC_s_rea son_for_removing_poll

Let's get four Ron Paul stories in the top 10 for today! It looks like the bury brigade is on a break. :)

TVMH
10-11-2007, 11:16 PM
Dear NBC,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force in politics and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding your CNBC Republican candidate debate. During the debate, you put up a poll on your Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys didn't like the results.

Now these debates are admittedly unscientific and subject to bias. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the voter and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The real world equivalent of explaining a candidate's stance on a certain question.

So there were the candidates speaking. The numbers grew ... 728 words Thompson, 781 words McCain, 1091 words Giuliani, and 1357 words Romney after two hours ... and Ron Paul, the most articulate speaker of the debate, with 343 words.

Now NBC is a fine news organization with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen even Fox News bias debates to that degree. Either your debate was biased or run by a group of idiots. So we give Paul the chance to make an impact with the American people.

The next day, our email basked was flooded with debate articles. And the article showed Thompson this, Romney that, and Giuliani blah blah blah. I learned other news organizations that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about every other candidate and I can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the debate. It was no longer an honest chance for a candidate to communicate with the American people -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the war propaganda drum. That certainly wasn't the intention and certainly doesn't serve the voters ... at least those who aren't already in the "top-tier" camp.

Some of you sell-outs take issue with our decision to voice our support in the poll. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd flood the poll again.

Sincerely,

American Voter

OSSUM!

Badger Paul
10-11-2007, 11:16 PM
I have just finished reading this letter and never I read such self-serving BS in my life. It is not the fault of Ron Paul supporters that we are organized. Where are the other candidates? Why can they not do the same thing? No one is stopping them from "spamming" the same polls? So what's wrong if we dedicated supporters do the same thing so long as we vote once?

What this moron fomr CNBC doesn't apparently understand is that compared to RP, the other GOP candidates have miniscule online presence and suppot. That's why RP does so well. He rules the internet. Deal with it. If you don't like the way Ron Paul supporters vote in large numbers in your polls because the other candidates supporters are either too old, too lazy or too stupid to vote, that is not our problem. Don't post a poll then.

If this condescending garbage doesn't motivate you to vote for Ron Paul then nothing will.:mad:

Tidewise
10-11-2007, 11:31 PM
Try this email also:
Allen.Wastler@CNBC.com

Razmear
10-11-2007, 11:32 PM
email I just sent:

Subject: Huge Rally After the Debate, Video of 2500+ Ron Paul Supporters

Hello,
I'm replying via the contact link on your message about pulling down the post debate poll because Ron Paul was winning.
I do not think that it is unreasonable that 75% of active internet users who watched your debate support Ron Paul, but that is not why I am writing you.
After the debate, Ron was greeted by a crowd of over 2500 supporters at the University of Michigan.
This of course received no mainstream media coverage. If you doubt such an event took place, please check out the entry at http://RP4.US which has a video of Ron's speech with many shots of the huge crowd that was there to hear his message.
If you are interested in presenting a balanced viewpoint of the 2008 Presidential race, then why not mention these huge rallies, or Ron's economic solutions to this country's problems?
But of course you are not interested in presenting a balanced viewpoint. It is obvious that the most friendly candidate to NBC and General Electric would be Fred Thompson, so you will continue to pump up his candidacy while ignoring those who can truly save this nation.

In the hopes that integrity and honesty will prevail,
Eric Burke
Anderson, SC

joshdvm
10-11-2007, 11:39 PM
--An Open Letter to Mr. Allen Wastler, Managing Editor, CNBC.com --

Mr. Wastler,

You wrote:

"When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried."

I wholeheartedly agree, Mr. Wastler.

You must mean when CNBC intentionally places the most economically informed candidate, (with top-tier grassroots financial support), the farthest from center stage, intentionally gives that candidate the least amount of speaking time, and intentionally asks that candidate the fewest questions--in a debate on the ECONOMY, no less.

Mr. Wastler, I think I'm beginning to understand, so let me get this straight: CNBC invites individual viewers to participate in a post-debate internet straw poll, yet when they do exactly that--i.e., legitimately vote for a particular candidate--you find this 'worrying.'

Yet, when a well-organized and committed 'few' (CNBC) throws the results of a system (debate) meant to reflect the sentiments of 'the many' (voters), that is somehow not.

Worrying, indeed.

specsaregood
10-11-2007, 11:43 PM
My email



I just read your comments Re: "An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful" and would like to point out something important that deserves to be known to you and your sponsors.

Thousands of Ron Paul supporters tuned into your channel to watch the debate for ONE REASON, to watch Ron Paul. It really is as simple as that. No other candidate has thousands of supporters that tune in just for the opportunity to see their candidate on t.v. This is something that would be a positive to your sponsors.

Yes we are devoted, Yes we know how to use the internet to communicate. Yes we are willing to make a couple clicks and vote in a poll.

At the same time. Our candidate got the least amount of time in the debate.

Candidate mm:ss mm:ss% Q
Giuliani 14:43 16.71 18
Thompson 14:00 15.90 18
Romney 12:24 14.08 13
McCain 11:45 13.34 14
Huckabee 8:28 9.62 8
Brownback 8:03 9.14 11
Tancredo 7:05 8.04 8
Hunter 5:51 6.54 7
Paul 5:44 6.51 7

Ron Paul is polling above Hunter, Tancredo and Brownback. Has more cash and donations than those three plus Huckabee, but Ron Paul was at the bottom of talk time. I realize that you might not have any control over this; but you must admit that is an interesting fact.

So the candidate that has the ability to draw thousands of dedicated viewers to CNBC gets the least amount of talking time. That in itself might be worth US pointing out to your sponsors.

Sincerely,

Grandson of Liberty
10-11-2007, 11:49 PM
Flood the polls? We sure did. . .funny things happen when a candidate gives you a reason to be excited. But none of the other candidates know anything about that. I guess Ron Paul supporters are the only ones with computers. I had no idea.

Why bother posting the poll in the first place? Oh that's right, on the off chance that Fred Thompson won by 75%; and they could proceed to plaster it all over the place and declare him the golden boy of the party.

Benhogan
10-12-2007, 12:17 AM
I just sent this email to Mr. Allen.



Hello Mr. Allen,

First I must admit that I am a Ron Paul supporter so if you wish to keep reading good for you ;)

I don't have much to say beyond the incredible irony your last paragraph invokes.

When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

This is exactly the reason you will find the great multitude of us are willing to part with our money and time supporting our candidate. We are being stripped of our liberties and wealth in the name of safety for the betterment of who exactly? What percentage of the "top-tier" candidates donations are the maximum and who are they going to owe when elected? I think this quote from Samuel Adams sums it up better then I could ever hope to manage.

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

We want our government back, the one that used to represent us.

Regards,
XXXXXX

Funny.....that's what I was thinking!

michaelwise
10-12-2007, 12:32 AM
All your base are belong to us.

Taco John
10-12-2007, 12:34 AM
politics is a participatory process. I'm going to vote for Dr. Paul until I can no lnonger vote for him.

CNBC can suck it.

OptionsTrader
10-12-2007, 12:37 AM
14 pages of irate patriots. I so love this.

I'm going to donate again tonight and there's not a damn thing CNBC can do about it!

Richandler
10-12-2007, 01:15 AM
One thing I would say he's right on is that most of the traffic for a poll is coming from Ron Paul chat sites or forums. I think it is crucial that we make sure that direct linking to websites stops. I would ask the administrator of the forum to take down the auto links for the sake of anonymity for any site we visit.

steph3n
10-12-2007, 01:16 AM
One thing I would say he's right on is that most of the traffic for a poll is coming from Ron Paul chat sites or forums. I think it is crucial that we make sure that direct linking to websites stops. I would ask the administrator of the forum to take down the auto links for the sake of anonymity for any site we visit.

quick reply ALWAYS auto links, quick edit too, you have to go to advanced and remove ALL tags to prevent linkage....

kylebrotherton
10-12-2007, 01:43 AM
Just drop this.

It's their website, they can pull it if they want. They were completely honest about the reasons, even admitting that Ron Paul won the poll. Just drop it, and move on. Not every incident deserves a coordinated digg effort.

Also it's kind of ironic- they say we gamed the poll, and we're protesting by gaming digg.com. It's a bit ironic, isn't it? Just a bit?

TheIndependent
10-12-2007, 01:48 AM
I already dugg it because I actually understand CNBC's reasoning for taking down the poll. If they see an inordinate amount of us running to their poll, it's their right to take it down. Pushing it into the realm of conspiracy theory only makes us look like uncontrollable loons to everyone and frankly I can't blame them to an extent. We're screaming how we're all 'innocent' victims, after all.

Not _everyone_ is out to get us. Stop and think rationally for a second. Ron Paul doesn't represent knee-jerk reactions we may not agree with. He thinks rationally and soundly about the various perspectives at play and then formulates the logical conclusion to the issue.

I highy doubt CNBC had any "neocon" or "fascist" leanings in deciding the poll should be brought down like a lot of 'supporters' are claiming. Let's get over it and move on, already. How the hell can we represent 'Hope for America' when all we do is bitch and moan about how everyone treats this campaign, after all?

I'm beginning to think we're our own worst enemy, and somehow still we're also our our greatest asset in this campaign other than Ron Paul himself. Let's think pragmatically from here on out instead of playing the victim which only feeds the opposition with that much ammunition.

Taco John
10-12-2007, 01:55 AM
Dear Allen,

I’m sure you’re getting plenty of emails attacking your character and judgment after your latest admission of tampering with the polls due to activism that favored Ron Paul. I apologize for my fellow Americans who have foolishly clung to the oddball notion that politics is a participatory process and that by getting active and supporting their candidate, they are exercising the democratic imperative. As we both know, real election-day polling doesn’t rely on the activism of a voting base. I, like everyone else, am required to hand over my voters’ registration card to Zogby and wait for my phone call.

As a Ron Paul supporter, it’s embarrassing to see my fellow Americans taking steps to organize themselves in order to make a good showing in these online polls for their candidate, when it’s clear that the voting bases of these other, more popular candidates are not willing to match the efforts with the same kind of activist enthusiasm. As the saying goes: the nail that sticks out gets hammered down. America is truly being serviced by your hammer.

In Sincere Apology,
(me)

TheIndependent
10-12-2007, 01:56 AM
I already dugg the Digg submission because I actually understand CNBC's reasoning for taking down the poll. If they see an inordinate amount of us running to their poll, it's their right to take it down. Pushing it into the realm of conspiracy theory only makes us look like uncontrollable loons to everyone and frankly I can't blame them to an extent. We're screaming how we're all 'innocent' victims, after all.

Not _everyone_ is out to get us. Stop and think rationally for a second. Ron Paul doesn't represent knee-jerk reactions we may not agree with. He thinks rationally and soundly about the various perspectives at play and then formulates the logical conclusion to the issue.

I highy doubt CNBC had any "neocon" or "fascist" leanings in deciding the poll should be brought down like a lot of 'supporters' are claiming. Let's get over it and move on, already. How the hell can we represent 'Hope for America' when all we do is bitch and moan about how everyone treats this campaign, after all?

I'm beginning to think we're our own worst enemy, and somehow still we're also our our greatest asset in this campaign other than Ron Paul himself. Let's think pragmatically from here on out instead of playing the victim which only feeds the opposition with that much more ammunition.

Taco John
10-12-2007, 02:00 AM
I already dugg the Digg submission because I actually understand CNBC's reasoning for taking down the poll. If they see an inordinate amount of us running to their poll, it's their right to take it down. Pushing it into the realm of conspiracy theory only makes us look like uncontrollable loons to everyone and frankly I can't blame them to an extent. We're screaming how we're all 'innocent' victims, after all.

Not _everyone_ is out to get us. Stop and think rationally for a second. Ron Paul doesn't represent knee-jerk reactions we may not agree with. He thinks rationally and soundly about the various perspectives at play and then formulates the logical conclusion to the issue.

I highy doubt CNBC had any "neocon" or "fascist" leanings in deciding the poll should be brought down like a lot of 'supporters' are claiming. Let's get over it and move on, already. How the hell can we represent 'Hope for America' when all we do is bitch and moan about how everyone treats this campaign, after all?

I'm beginning to think we're our own worst enemy, and somehow still we're also our our greatest asset in this campaign other than Ron Paul himself. Let's think pragmatically from here on out instead of playing the victim which only feeds the opposition with that much more ammunition.


It's my opinion that you are being suckered by the siren song of "rationality."

There's nothing rational about what Mr. Harwood did. Nothing at all.

davidhperry
10-12-2007, 02:00 AM
Not _everyone_ is out to get us. Stop and think rationally for a second. Ron Paul doesn't represent knee-jerk reactions we may not agree with. He thinks rationally and soundly about the various perspectives at play and then formulates the logical conclusion to the issue.

I highy doubt CNBC had any "neocon" or "fascist" leanings in deciding the poll should be brought down. Get over it.

I'm beginning to think were our own worst enemy, and somehow still our greatest asset in this campaign other than Ron Paul himself. Let's think pragmatically from here on out instead of playing the victim which only feeds the opposition with that much ammunition.

Man, I can't agree with you more. This whole business of playing the victim is going to be our undoing. Playing the victim is a tactic of a losing campaign - winners don't need to do that. Why can't we just let this stuff go?

yaz
10-12-2007, 02:17 AM
it wouldnt have gotten taken down if romney or giuliani had 7000 votes and a vote is a vote.

jointhefightforfreedom
10-12-2007, 02:31 AM
"An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful" OPEN MY ASS !!!!!

Open up comments on that page you chicken shit !!

Cindy
10-12-2007, 03:21 AM
Man, I can't agree with you more. This whole business of playing the victim is going to be our undoing. Playing the victim is a tactic of a losing campaign - winners don't need to do that. Why can't we just let this stuff go?


This is America baby and we are still free to do such things.

No one here wants a nanny state government nor a nanny forum member.

This man went out of his way, to make our support for Paul dissapear by removing their Poll. I see no problem with Wastly being reminded of that fact that we are still here, and watching.

It's because Americans have been so passive, apathetic, quiet and inactive about the controlled media and government corruption for so long, that we are in the mess we are today, hoping Paul can help fix it. Paul can not fix what we as Americans should have been doing all along- speaking up about injustices, and foul play in this nations political process when we see it.

I was an apathetic American, showing up for the general elections to vote for the green party candidate, doing nothing else partcipating in the governing of my country. Now, I see what that collective apathy has done, and I can't stand it any more, sitting idlely by, watching the media continue misleading my fellow Americans with smoke and mirror tactics, watching my fellow Americans regurgitate the smoke as if it were real, all the while my country is being hijacked by unscrupulous thugs.

No one is going to convince me that Paul would do nothing. When Rudy in the debate tried to make Paul look like an idiot for saying he wasn't around on 9/11, Paul didn't take that false misleading crap from him. He spoke BACK, and corrected Rudy's error of beleiving 19 thugs were somehow the country of Iraq.

When Paul in another debate was asked of what mistakes he thought he had made in his life, he said, " I think the biggest mistake I have made has been not defending the Constitution hard enough."

Please do not compare Ron Paul with someone who niether corrects scum when they are out to mislead the public, or someone who doesn't beleive strongly in defending what is right and the truth.

Have you not seen any of the videos where he tirelessly pressed Greenspan and Bernake about their mistakes, to the point they both became impatient with him, and further to the point of making them nervous and sweat?

Don't forget his interview with Downey in '88 where he came under attack by a pro drug war audience member. Paul basically insulted the kid for his weight, suggesting the government should put him on a diet if he beleives in nanny states. Paul has slung his fair share of counter not so nice defence responces.

That's the reality to a side of Ron Paul. If you do not agree with that side of him and think it has hurt his electibility then fine. Please don't paint a misleading picture of who he is, in an attempt to manipulate us to be like you and who you want Paul and his supporters to be more like.

I can not elucidate, the amount of awe and humility I felt, when i first learned there was an Honest politician left , who had been dedicating his life in congress for ten years, working to protect all of our bank accounts and wallets, from the thieves taking from it through gross interest rates, gross over taxation, and gross over inflation.

After all these years, he FINALLY starts getting some national recognition for those efforts. Those poll results are a part of his time in the spot light that he has earned, and deserves from all of us. I will make NO apologies for wanting to see him get his well deserved time in the spot light, nor for wanting to defend him, from the thieves trying to steal what he has rightfully earned " those votes" away from him.

Thanks for hearing me out.:)

Here's the e-mail I sent with a different short and simple take on it and I'm glad I sent it.-



Dear Allen,

Last Tuesday evening, tens of thousands of us spent over two hours, watching numerous commercial ads from your sponsors and listening to candidates we find highly offensive and objectionable, just to get 5 minutes of wisdom from Ron Paul. I think the least you could have done in appreciation of our patronage to your station, is let our votes in your debate poll remain.

Sincerely,

Cindy Shannon

wsc321
10-12-2007, 04:17 AM
Dear Allen,

I’m sure you’re getting plenty of emails attacking your character and judgment after your latest admission of tampering with the polls due to activism that favored Ron Paul. I apologize for my fellow Americans who have foolishly clung to the oddball notion that politics is a participatory process and that by getting active and supporting their candidate, they are exercising the democratic imperative. As we both know, real election-day polling doesn’t rely on the activism of a voting base. I, like everyone else, am required to hand over my voters’ registration card to Zogby and wait for my phone call.

As a Ron Paul supporter, it’s embarrassing to see my fellow Americans taking steps to organize themselves in order to make a good showing in these online polls for their candidate, when it’s clear that the voting bases of these other, more popular candidates are not willing to match the efforts with the same kind of activist enthusiasm. As the saying goes: the nail that sticks out gets hammered down. America is truly being serviced by your hammer.

In Sincere Apology,
(me)

;)

itsnobody
10-12-2007, 04:41 AM
All other fans of presidential candidates can also vote on these polls...what's the difference? Just because Ron Paul runs the internet? If it had been Giuliani supporters doing it NBC wouldn't have had any problem, what a bunch of bitches

You can't spam $5 million the 3rd Quarter
You can't spam winning straw polls
You can't spam "scientific" telephone polls which place Ron Paul in 5% or above

speciallyblend
10-12-2007, 04:45 AM
People who wrote this guy apologizing ,are suckers,look nothing wrong with us voting,just the other candidates cant get people to vote on these polls,so now we supporting Ron paul are to blame for the other candidate having no support,hmmm very interesting.We are to blame ,since romney and rudolf cant get supporters to vote for them ,WOW and you guys fell for that crap,suckers i say.

OceanMachine7
10-12-2007, 05:07 AM
I sent them an e-mail with a link to the Ron Smith story I posted yesterday, to show them that they're receiving unfavorable media attention because of this.

angelatc
10-12-2007, 05:58 AM
I am going to send a snail mail letter.

speciallyblend
10-12-2007, 06:02 AM
People who wrote this guy apologizing ,are suckers,look nothing wrong with us voting,just the other candidates cant get people to vote on these polls,so now we supporting Ron paul are to blame for the other candidate having no support,hmmm very interesting.We are to blame ,since romney and rudolf cant get supporters to vote for them ,WOW and you guys fell for that crap,suckers i say.

CAN ANYONE SAY BAAAAAAA BAAAAAABAAAAAAAA

jumpyg1258
10-12-2007, 06:09 AM
So from reading what he said, they pulled it down because a democratically run voting system is bad?

ConstitutionGal
10-12-2007, 06:50 AM
I just sent the following:

My letter:

Dear Sir,

I must say that I am disappointed in your “reasons” for removing your after debate poll simply because it didn’t turn out to reflect what you thought it would. I admit that my support is 100% behind Congressman Ron Paul, however, I didn’t vote in your poll because I had just had a minor surgery and didn’t feel like walking to where my computer is located just to cast a vote. It’s obvious that other Ron Paul supporters did, in fact, take the time to vote and therein seems to be the rub (as far an CNBC is concerned).

Something neither your station nor most of the remaining main-stream “news” media seem to want to consider is that Ron Paul has a HUGH following and that ALL of his donations have come in from Americans like my own family who are working two jobs just to make ends meet. We have given up pizza night around our home just to donate that money to Ron Paul’s campaign in the hopes of seeing our Country put back on what we consider to be the ‘right track’.

If the other candidates, especially those that you consider ‘top tier’, had the support that Ron Paul does, these polls all across the country might be turning out differently. The fact that they are not, even when the other candidate’s supporters are afforded the same voting opportunities as are we, should simply tell you that we are active and engaged in the political process.

I’m wondering how the ‘news’ media is going to handle it when us Ron Paul supporters show up at the polls during the primaries and the results turn out the same way the local polls and the on-line polls are going. Are you going to try and get those thrown as ‘spammed’ too?

Mrs. ******.
Mt. Juliet, TN

Henry
10-12-2007, 08:47 AM
Here is a guy in the media that supports our arguments. Please support him with your comment. I did!!

http://www.thedavidallenshow.com/website/shownotes/Entries/2007/10/12_Major_network_admits_to_having_sub-standard_network_security.html#

speciallyblend
10-12-2007, 09:24 AM
I just sent the following:

My letter:

Dear Sir,

I must say that I am disappointed in your “reasons” for removing your after debate poll simply because it didn’t turn out to reflect what you thought it would. I admit that my support is 100% behind Congressman Ron Paul, however, I didn’t vote in your poll because I had just had a minor surgery and didn’t feel like walking to where my computer is located just to cast a vote. It’s obvious that other Ron Paul supporters did, in fact, take the time to vote and therein seems to be the rub (as far an CNBC is concerned).

Something neither your station nor most of the remaining main-stream “news” media seem to want to consider is that Ron Paul has a HUGH following and that ALL of his donations have come in from Americans like my own family who are working two jobs just to make ends meet. We have given up pizza night around our home just to donate that money to Ron Paul’s campaign in the hopes of seeing our Country put back on what we consider to be the ‘right track’.

If the other candidates, especially those that you consider ‘top tier’, had the support that Ron Paul does, these polls all across the country might be turning out differently. The fact that they are not, even when the other candidate’s supporters are afforded the same voting opportunities as are we, should simply tell you that we are active and engaged in the political process.

I’m wondering how the ‘news’ media is going to handle it when us Ron Paul supporters show up at the polls during the primaries and the results turn out the same way the local polls and the on-line polls are going. Are you going to try and get those thrown as ‘spammed’ too?

Mrs. ******.
Mt. Juliet, TN

AWESOME LETTER,couldnt of said it better myself:)

speciallyblend
10-12-2007, 09:28 AM
Is there a phone number we can call.I just want them to know me and my wife voted and there was no spamming.I think they know there was no spamming or multiple voting.So we need to really call them out and not let this die down.WE NEED TO HOLD ALL MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR LIES AND DOWN RIGHT BIAS

speciallyblend
10-12-2007, 09:39 AM
I wrote a nice letter of protest initially, but I cannot do so as a reply to this bullshit so I will bite my tongue.

No doubt when we 'spam' the voting booth, they'll claim we cloned supporters or changed the laws of physics or whatever. Dolts.

HMM ATTACK OF THE CLONES PART 2 cloning RON PAUL SUPPORTERS to freakin funny. We should design a parody with star wars and of course have the characters planned well.

ronpaulitician
10-12-2007, 09:46 AM
Don't you think people working in the field of providing information should've been able to find out that this has been happening to all the online polls?

The reason they put up these polls is NOT that they want an "honest show of hands". They believe it will increase traffic to their website and number of viewers of their TV programming. If they wanted an "honest show of hands", they'd conduct a proper scientific poll.

FrankRep
10-12-2007, 10:50 AM
[Video] Ron Paul Landslide Victory Censored by CNBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mmY7giY4s&NR=1

Tidewise
10-12-2007, 11:11 AM
Is there a phone number we can call?

Contact Information:
900 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
United States
201-735-2622

CNBC Viewer Services:
1-877-251-5685

PollM
10-12-2007, 11:20 AM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

Poor guy. He still can't explain why other campaigns aren't "spamming."


Take a look at the results of yesterday's poll about why CNBC took the results down.

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=685



Did he also have an explanation why Ron raised $5.1 million!

speciallyblend
10-12-2007, 11:31 AM
I made my phone call and let them know ,im not rich and cant fly over the country to vote in straw polls and mentioned ,i watched your debate and voted just like you asked me and my wife todo.then i mentioned no one spammed or hacked their poll,this is real and gave them my phone number and told them if they have any questions to give me a call.We are voters and you asked us to vote and we did across american and Ron Paul Won their poll. and thanked them

AlabamaWildMan
10-12-2007, 11:52 AM
Mr. Wastler

To be frank…as to your letter/article…what a complete load of guano!
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

If the I.T. Department at CNBC is so poorly staffed that anything they allow to be published to the World Wide Web isn’t as “Hacker Proof” as possible…then the entire lot should be sacked and the powers-that-be should raid the closest “Geek Squad” and Hire Them as your new I.T. Staff !

Personally, I have never been so insulted!

Yes – I was ONE of those who took the time to Vote -- ONCE on your bloody Poll.
…and then you took it upon yourself to…assume that beloved score-sheet of yours was “…either hacked or the target of a campaign…”. Of all the unmitigated gall to (one) waste your brain power thinking about such things and (two) attempting to pull-the-wool over the eyes of each-and-every supporter of Congressman Paul with such tripe!

I had, actually, began to think after hearing such nice things about Dr. Paul from Chris Mathews that CNBC just might be crossing over to a Real, Trustworthy News Source. Then, this morning my Wife sends me the link to your patronizing, pandering, attempt to ‘smooth things over’ with what might have been one of your largest readership base-groups.

Now, please, shuffle back to the closest coffeepot, then stick your brain into the first Sudoku puzzle you can locate on Google…
…that might the best use known for your gray matter!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Alabama_Wild_Man/RP_Banner_Edge.jpg (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)

speciallyblend
10-12-2007, 12:34 PM
Mr. Wastler

To be frank…as to your letter/article…what a complete load of guano!
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

If the I.T. Department at CNBC is so poorly staffed that anything they allow to be published to the World Wide Web isn’t as “Hacker Proof” as possible…then the entire lot should be sacked and the powers-that-be should raid the closest “Geek Squad” and Hire Them as your new I.T. Staff !

Personally, I have never been so insulted!

Yes – I was ONE of those who took the time to Vote -- ONCE on your bloody Poll.
…and then you took it upon yourself to…assume that beloved score-sheet of yours was “…either hacked or the target of a campaign…”. Of all the unmitigated gall to (one) waste your brain power thinking about such things and (two) attempting to pull-the-wool over the eyes of each-and-every supporter of Congressman Paul with such tripe!

I had, actually, began to think after hearing such nice things about Dr. Paul from Chris Mathews that CNBC just might be crossing over to a Real, Trustworthy News Source. Then, this morning my Wife sends me the link to your patronizing, pandering, attempt to ‘smooth things over’ with what might have been one of your largest readership base-groups.

Now, please, shuffle back to the closest coffeepot, then stick your brain into the first Sudoku puzzle you can locate on Google…
…that might the best use known for your gray matter!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Alabama_Wild_Man/RP_Banner_Edge.jpg (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)

True to the point without being rude ,but very firm in words:)

CurtisLow
10-12-2007, 01:00 PM
And no comment log on CNBC page..wonder why?...lol

BlCkDeAtH
10-12-2007, 03:09 PM
Here is his Reply:



My Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters
Posted By:John Harwood


I have been reading e-mailed complaints from dozens and dozens of you about CNBC.com's decision to take down our online poll gauging results of the CNBC-MSNBC-Wall Street Journal presidential debate.

I agree with the complaints. I do not believe our poll was "hacked." Nor do I agree with my colleagues' decision to take it down, though I know they were acting in good faith.

My reasoning is simple: Political dialogue on the Internet, like democracy itself, ought to be open and participatory. If you sponsor an online poll as we did, you accept the results unless you have very good reason to believe something corrupt has occurred--just as democracies accept results on Election Day at the ballot box without compelling evidence of corruption. I have no reason to believe anything corrupt occurred with respect to our poll.

To the contrary, I believe the results we measured showing an impressive 75% naming Paul reflect the organization and motivation of Paul's adherents. This is precisely what unscientific surveys of this kind are created to measure. Another indication: the impressive $5-million raised by Paul's campaign in the third quarter of the year.

To be clear: I believe that Ron Paul's chances of winning the presidency are no greater than my own, which is to say zero. When he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988, he drew fewer than a half-million votes. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll of Republican primary voters--which IS a scientific poll with a four percentage point margin for error--Paul drew two percent.

He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because Paul's views--respectable, well-articulated and sincerely held as they are--are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in.

The difference we are discussing--breadth of views vs intensity of views--is a staple of political discussion and always has been in democracies. Highly motivated minorities can and do exert influence out of proportion to their numbers in legislative debates and even in some elections. They most certainly can dominate unscientific online polls. And when they do, we should neither be surprised nor censor the results.

--John Harwood
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546

torchbearer
10-12-2007, 03:19 PM
Our presidential elections aren't conducted in the same manner as a scientific survey, so how could their results correlate?

fiddler1
10-12-2007, 03:21 PM
Check it out.. He admits the poll should not have been taken down!


http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546

We almost won this round....

speciallyblend
10-12-2007, 03:29 PM
I'm glad he can predict the future,wow ask him who is gonna win the rockies game on sunday? That letter was ok until halfway thru ,then it resorted back to BS

FrankRep
10-12-2007, 03:31 PM
To be clear: I believe that Ron Paul's chances of winning the presidency are no greater than my own, which is to say zero.

politicalcapital@cnbc.com

DrNoZone
10-12-2007, 03:33 PM
Check it out.. He admits the poll should not have been taken down!


http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546

We almost won this round....

It's a different guy, not the same guy who took the thing down.

Tidewise
10-12-2007, 03:41 PM
http://img.timeinc.net/fortune/information/presscenter/cnnmoney/images/photos/Wastler.jpgSmug looking bastard, ain't he?