PDA

View Full Version : CNBC has changed their tune!




Richard in Austin
10-12-2007, 03:54 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546

23 minutes ago
My Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters
Posted By:John Harwood
Topics:Presidential Politics (2008) | Print Media | Politics & Government | White House

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

0zzy
10-12-2007, 04:55 PM
He lost me when he stated that he as as much chance as Ron Paul. Do these people learn?

Bob Cochran
10-12-2007, 05:01 PM
...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...
Harwood correctly brings up the point that Ron Paul is out of step with the Republican party. We know this party was hijacked by neocons a while ago, and Ron Paul is the ANTI-neocon.

Knowing this -- that the Republican powers-that-be will resist Ron Paul every step of the way -- under what scenario would he become their nominee?

Are the election rules and laws such that overwhelming primary votes for Ron Paul will FORCE the Republicans to choose him as their nominee?

[ Please -- no punters...I would like as authoritative an answer as possible from a political science savvy person :o ]

thompsonisland
10-12-2007, 06:29 PM
I am also curious about whether the party could block his nomination.

I was interested in those two idiotic comments from Harwood as well. (I have been thinking lately that, if they really wanted to sink Paul, they should just damn him with faint praise. Now look! Here we go.)

Mr. Harwood, you are not running for President. You are correct that you have no chance of winning.

And yes, his ideas are totally out of step with the party elite and the ruling class (of which the Old Media fancy themselves a part). That puts him in step with just about everyone else, I'd say.

Richard in Austin
10-12-2007, 09:17 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546

...Nor do I agree with my colleagues' decision to take it down, though I know they were acting in good faith.
...
--John Harwood

Right. And I am totally going to believe this because CNBC has been acting in good faith towards Ron Paul the whole time, right?

galenrog
10-14-2007, 10:28 PM
The CNBC folks cite "scientific polls" that have a margin of error of, what was that, 4%. Yeah, whoopee and all that knid of stuff. The big thing that the pollsters do not openly admit, but do tell us when we ask is what the phrase "margin of error" actually means. It means that if the same people are asked the same questions, the same way, again, that the results will be the same, within the stated "margin of error". The pollsters have a scientific method of choosing those whom they question, and I admittedly have no idea what that method is. However, until I get a call from a pollster, I will simply believe that they do not want my opinion, and continue to vote the online polls and wear out the shoe leather in my town spreading the good news of "Less Government and more Individual Responsibility through Obedience to the Constitution".

yaz
10-15-2007, 12:05 AM
So check out Rassmussen's "scientific" methodology... Here's a paraphrase of his script:


"For Rudy Giuliani Press 1
For Fred Thompson Press 2
For Mitt Romney, Press 3
For John McCain, Press 4
For Mike Huckabee, Press 5
For a list of other candidates, Press 6"

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/


Yeah, that's really a fair poll.

Crunchy
10-15-2007, 05:15 AM
I was polled and RP's name wasn't one of the choices. Go figure how accurate their polls are. These SOB are the ones controlling the who you should like.

partypooper
10-15-2007, 05:38 AM
The big thing that the pollsters do not openly admit, but do tell us when we ask is what the phrase "margin of error" actually means. It means that if the same people are asked the same questions, the same way, again, that the results will be the same, within the stated "margin of error".

No. It means that if they choose a random sample of the same size over and over again the distribution of answers from those repeated samples will have a standard deviation that equals standard error. Thus, standard error measures how much results would vary from sample to sample - but those samples do not include the same people (there might be a very slight overlap, which is very unlikely in these polls which have a target population in millions).

Bradley in DC
10-15-2007, 06:22 AM
I was polled and RP's name wasn't one of the choices. Go figure how accurate their polls are. These SOB are the ones controlling the who you should like.

The polls accurately reflect what they poll. If yours didn't include Dr. Paul, then they are not claiming to measure his support. That's it. There is no "control" over you or anyone else. Your conspiracy-tinged insecurities, and those of others, is the main hurdle for the campaign. :(

partypooper
10-15-2007, 06:43 AM
The polls accurately reflect what they poll. If yours didn't include Dr. Paul, then they are not claiming to measure his support. That's it. There is no "control" over you or anyone else. Your conspiracy-tinged insecurities, and those of others, is the main hurdle for the campaign. :(

i have the same impression. dr paul already has an aura of "unrealistic" surrounding him and the last thing he needs are supporters that will boost this impression with their conspiracy theories about, of all things, polling companies. besides, that runs contrary to the free market logic that all of us cherish: the market wants accurate information and such polling company would eventually prevail.

if you have any questions about polling and what various terms mean i will be happy to answer them. but i can tell you right at the beggining that polls by major companies are largely accurate. i very much wish they weren't (at least in this particular circumstance) but they are.

Johnnybags
10-15-2007, 06:51 AM
i have the same impression. dr paul already has an aura of "unrealistic" surrounding him and the last thing he needs are supporters that will boost this impression with their conspiracy theories about, of all things, polling companies. besides, that runs contrary to the free market logic that all of us cherish: the market wants accurate information and such polling company would eventually prevail.

if you have any questions about polling and what various terms mean i will be happy to answer them. but i can tell you right at the beggining that polls by major companies are largely accurate. i very much wish they weren't (at least in this particular circumstance) but they are.

In this case, older Republicans and Chamber of Commerce members. No doubt the Republican party is seeing a far decreased interest this time around. The polls cannot measure the fact the virtually all Pauls supporters will show up and judging from the competitions lack of interest, few of the target market for pollsters will. This grass roots effort can only increase Pauls support and the others have seen the highest numbers they will see. Its downhill for them. Do not forget the attack ads that will appear soon enough from the frontrunners aimed at eachother. A negative effect. NH is primed for a Paul top three finish.