Mark Levin has a new poll up Ron is not in it

[ScrambleLight]

There is no Paul option... so I thought it would be funny if Santorum came in a strong second for comedic purposes.

hxxp://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2318085&spid=32364&pollid=32424&iframe=

[BattleFlag1776]

There is no Paul option... so I thought it would be funny if Santorum came in a strong second for comedic purposes.

hxxp://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2318085&spid=32364&pollid=32424&iframe=

It would be even funnier if Santorum won.

[IterTemporis]

Voted.

[Maximilian American]

This is what Hannity doesn't get. Levin is even more of a statist hack for not even including RP in the poll. Shame.

[PastaRocket848]

he doesn't include ron in the polls because every time he does you people spam them. go figure. i wouldn't either...

look i understand the point of wanting our man to have a good showing.. but when you completely leave the realm of reality and have someone who polls 8% nationally taking 85% in every poll on the internet.. it accomplishes nothing but to make sure ron doesn't even get included in the next one.

seriously.. you're the guy responsible for the content on a site and your boss expects valid results, what are you going to do? you know damn well ron doesn't have anywhere near the support the pollspam indicates. you'd have to pull his name or risk your own (or your company's) credibility.

it's called blowback.

[sailingaway]

I'd vote for 'other' if they had it because that would be true, but I don't want to just go around spoiling other people's polls, and we are driving traffic to Levin's site. Why on earth would we want to benefit this man even when he doesn't put Ron in his poll?

[sailingaway]

he doesn't include ron in the polls because every time he does you people spam them. go figure. i wouldn't either...

look i understand the point of wanting our man to have a good showing.. but when you completely leave the realm of reality and have someone who polls 8% nationally taking 85% in every poll on the internet.. it accomplishes nothing but to make sure ron doesn't even get included in the next one.

seriously.. you're the guy responsible for the content on a site and your boss expects valid results, what are you going to do? you know damn well ron doesn't have anywhere near the support the pollspam indicates. you'd have to pull his name or risk your own (or your company's) credibility.

it's called blowback.

We vote once each. That is not spamming. Cain's people are organized, so are Palin's. In fact, everyone who HAS 'people' has some of them self organized. There is a 'Daily Santorum', did you know? Our votes are as valid's as anyone, we are just better organized and more needy of googling our candidate because MSM doesn't cover him, so more of us see the polls.

I really don't appreciate it when people try to paint Ron Paul supporters as people who cheat on polls.

[PastaRocket848]

you get the point. the numbers don't represent reality... and that is why he gets excluded. call it spam or "organization", even "enthusiasm". regardless.. it doesn't help anything.

[sailingaway]

you get the point. the numbers don't represent reality... and that is why he gets excluded. call it spam or "organization", even "enthusiasm". regardless.. it doesn't help anything.

NO online polls represent reality and all represent enthusiasm, chance and organization. So what is your point?

[fisharmor]

There is a 'Daily Santorum', did you know?

I thought that kind of frequency would cause problems with continence.

[HeyArchie]

you get the point. the numbers don't represent reality... and that is why he gets excluded. call it spam or "organization", even "enthusiasm". regardless.. it doesn't help anything.
If this represents reality, I don't want to live on this planet anymore


Cain
57%
Gingrich
18%
Perry
10%
Bachmann
6%
Romney
5%
Santorum
5%

Should Cain be excluded too?

[The Free Hornet]

you get the point. the numbers don't represent reality... and that is why he gets excluded. call it spam or "organization", even "enthusiasm". regardless.. it doesn't help anything.

And the straw polls where he wins with 30-50% or more? Where a physical body and money is required to vote? How is that trick getting pulled off... *gasp* Penn & Teller! That explains everything.

[pacelli]

he doesn't include ron in the polls because every time he does you people spam them. go figure. i wouldn't either...


Care to explain how it is possible to "spam" text polls that prevent you from making 2 votes from the same phone number?

Or how it is possible to "spam" straw vote polls where 1 person = 1 vote in person?

[Lucille]

There is no Paul option... so I thought it would be funny if Santorum came in a strong second for comedic purposes.

hxxp://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2318085&spid=32364&pollid=32424&iframe=

LOL... Voted!

[wstrucke]

seriously.. you're the guy responsible for the content on a site and your boss expects valid results, what are you going to do? you know damn well ron doesn't have anywhere near the support the pollspam indicates. you'd have to pull his name or risk your own (or your company's) credibility.

it's called blowback.

It's called incompetence. If you are responsible for setting up the poll then it's your job to set it up correctly to prevent "SPAM". All you have to do is ensure people can vote approximately once. You are polling the internet -- not your "readers" and that is all you will ever get with an online poll. To tell anyone otherwise is either blatant delusion or lying. The only way to restrict the poll to your known viewers is to require a site login.

Leaving out Ron Paul to prevent him from winning the poll is the equivalent of not selling milk at your store because people are buying it. This has to be one of the stupidest excuses I've ever read and if you are truly responsible for setting up a poll like this I sincerely hope you don't pretend you are any type of professional.

[chudrockz]

Care to explain how it is possible to "spam" text polls that prevent you from making 2 votes from the same phone number?

Or how it is possible to "spam" straw vote polls where 1 person = 1 vote in person?

The three RP supporting, pimply-faced nerds living in their parents' basements are VERY clever.

They also own 14,000 cell phones each, I think.

[chudrockz]

Oh yeah, and VOTED.

For Santorum.

<shudder>

[francisco]

Levin is an ass. Voted for Santorum.

[lucent]

Voted for Santorum.

[unknown]

you get the point. the numbers don't represent reality... and that is why he gets excluded. call it spam or "organization", even "enthusiasm". regardless.. it doesn't help anything.

I doubt people are spamming polls. These polls do reflect reality. The reality is that Ron Paul has a lot of support from the online community.

Furthermore, I question the "reality" of national polls. Rick Perry shot up to first place days after he announced he was running. Cain overtook first within days after a straw poll victory...

[Tod]

voted (for Santorum lol ), but w/ Cain having such a lead and there being so many votes cast.....

[Brett85]

he doesn't include ron in the polls because every time he does you people spam them. go figure. i wouldn't either...

look i understand the point of wanting our man to have a good showing.. but when you completely leave the realm of reality and have someone who polls 8% nationally taking 85% in every poll on the internet.. it accomplishes nothing but to make sure ron doesn't even get included in the next one.

seriously.. you're the guy responsible for the content on a site and your boss expects valid results, what are you going to do? you know damn well ron doesn't have anywhere near the support the pollspam indicates. you'd have to pull his name or risk your own (or your company's) credibility.

it's called blowback.

So you just expect people not to vote? I agree that these online polls don't mean anything, but I don't see the point of trying to lose online polls in order to make them look more "realistic."

[Occam's Banana]

NO online polls represent reality and all represent enthusiasm, chance and organization. So what is your point?
This. ALL online polls/surveys - indeed, ANY poll or survey whose participants are self-selected - are statistically invalid as an indicator of ANYTHING other than the views of those who are aware of the poll/survey & actively choose to participate.

[PastaRocket848]

anyone who thinks that our showing in online polls is not disproportionate to our actual, scientifically poll-tested support is willfully ignorant. i'm simply stating that this is why he isn't included. maybe "spam" was the wrong word. "flood" i guess would be better. either way we create a false representation of broad support that discredits the polls by wildly over-representing ron's support.

and no, as a website administrator, there isn't much you can do to keep people from posting "everyone go here and vote in this poll" on every ron paul site/facebook page. so it's not technically "spam", it's ballot-stuffing.

anyway... that's why ron isn't in the poll, which iirc is the point of this thread.

[green73]

dirtbag

[MJU1983]

No Ron? Hello frothy.

[Verrater]

voted santorum

[Give me liberty]

Mark Levin I Assume supports Cain then?

[LibertasPraesidium]

Santorum or bust on that poll. The problem I have is that it seems that we are being blamed for rigging polls in RP's favor when in reality it is Cain, who paid the basement nerds.

[Anti Federalist]

he doesn't include ron in the polls because every time he does you people spam them. go figure. i wouldn't either...

look i understand the point of wanting our man to have a good showing.. but when you completely leave the realm of reality and have someone who polls 8% nationally taking 85% in every poll on the internet.. it accomplishes nothing but to make sure ron doesn't even get included in the next one.

seriously.. you're the guy responsible for the content on a site and your boss expects valid results, what are you going to do? you know damn well ron doesn't have anywhere near the support the pollspam indicates. you'd have to pull his name or risk your own (or your company's) credibility.

it's called blowback.

I've heard everything we do, from the clothes we wear to our haircuts to our manner of speech, shit, I heard it all, that everything we do as supporters, is all wrong and fucked up and doing more harm than good.

This is the first time I've heard that showing up and voting is all wrong too...

[GeorgiaAvenger]

LOL at Levin's facebook page

I don't even want to comment to that fool

[wstrucke]

anyone who thinks that our showing in online polls is not disproportionate to our actual, scientifically poll-tested support is willfully ignorant. i'm simply stating that this is why he isn't included. maybe "spam" was the wrong word. "flood" i guess would be better. either way we create a false representation of broad support that discredits the polls by wildly over-representing ron's support.

and no, as a website administrator, there isn't much you can do to keep people from posting "everyone go here and vote in this poll" on every ron paul site/facebook page. so it's not technically "spam", it's ballot-stuffing.

anyway... that's why ron isn't in the poll, which iirc is the point of this thread.

The only people who have ever claimed online polls are accurate are those who host them and then publish articles about them and air them on television. Those people (and I infer your employer as well) are misrepresenting the online community -- you can not honestly believe taking Ron Paul out of the poll makes it more accurate. The only way you could possibly judge that would be to compare your results to what the real scientific polls find, in which case you might as well just use them instead of pretending you've accomplished something with your sampling.

In the end all you are doing is making people aware of your bias and turning off viewers. Today maybe that's 8% of your readers -- tomorrow -- who knows? Either way that would be significant to me. I would argue that the "flood" of traffic to your site to participate in the poll should be exactly what you are looking for if you value your business. If 0.01% of the new visitors says "Hey, this is a neat and fair site I think I'll bookmark it" then you have accomplished something tangible.

To my other point -- we need to participate *fairly* in all online polls if for no other reason then to prevent the media from pretending they are real and ensure everyone else knows there are a lot of us around -- and I believe that constitutes fair use.

[ShaneEnochs]

Voted Santorum for the lulz.

[NeoconTea]

Please vote Frothy. PLEASE

[AlexG]

voted for santorum

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Paul supporters just got banned from his facebook page

[chudrockz]

Ron Paul will get the Republican nomination.

And on election day next November, I'll be 110% ready to spam the FUCK out of the polls by driving every God-fearing (or not) Ron Paul supporter I can find to their polling location.

[RIPLEYMOM]

Voted. I also searched 'No One But Paul!' on the site's search engine! :D

[eduardo89]

voted frothy

[hillertexas]

voted frothy
If the GOP primary were held today in your state, who would you vote for?
Cain
56%
Gingrich
18%
Perry
10%
Bachmann
6%
Santorum
6%
Romney
5%

Total Votes: 10292

[John F Kennedy III]

Gingrich in 2nd? Yeah there's nothing fishy about that at all :rolleyes:

If the GOP primary were held today in your state, who would you vote for?
Cain
56%
Gingrich
18%
Perry
10%
Bachmann
6%
Santorum
6%
Romney
5%

Total Votes: 10296

[MJU1983]

LOL at Levin's facebook page

I don't even want to comment to that fool

A a very big waste of our time...we need to focus on gaining new voters, not arguing with ignorant sheeple.

[The Free Hornet]

anyway... that's why ron isn't in the poll, which iirc is the point of this thread.

That is why Ron Paul is dismissed by the media? This is why CNN politics has articles discussing Bachmann, Perry, and Newt but nothing (on the front page of Politics) about Ron Paul? This is why pollsters will talk about EVERYONE listed in a poll except Ron Paul? And the same thing is done on different shows regarding the same poll? This is why Bachmann was "top tier" and Ron Paul never was?

Santorum is at about 6% despite the valient efforts of this forum. That means you are talking out your ass. Ron Paul doesn't win every online poll. He has the strongest support which is one of the few concessions granted to him by the media on the rare occasion they actually discuss him. I met a lifelong, newspaper-reading Republican at dinner the other night. Naturally, I had some Ron Paul gear on. He asks, "oh is Ron Paul still running"? Totall clueless with no malice. The mainstream media has blacked him out and now you want to besmirch his supporers online?


anyone who thinks that our showing in online polls is not disproportionate to our actual, scientifically poll-tested support is willfully ignorant.

Ron Paul has the broadest doner base. That is an FEC fact and not an online fiction. Explain that away...

Bring back the poll tax I say! It would keep more clueless idiots and the willfully apathetic away from the polls. Charge it directly to their IRS bill so it is harder to buy someone off.

[Occam's Banana]

i'm simply stating that this is why he isn't included. maybe "spam" was the wrong word. "flood" i guess would be better. either way we create a false representation of broad support that discredits the polls by wildly over-representing ron's support.
We do not create a "false representation of broad support" because these polls do not & can not measure broad support (falsely or otherwise). Online polls do not represent ANYTHING other than the views of those who happen to know about & participate in them. Period. Anyone who thinks that they do (such as site admins who use that as a justification for omitting a poll entry) are being ignorant - wilfully or otherwise.


anyway... that's why ron isn't in the poll, which iirc is the point of this thread.
These polls are conducted for myriad reasons - to add "interactivity" to a site, to draw traffic, for PR/propaganda purposes, etc. It is for one of these other reasons that RP is being omitted from this particular poll. (Speculation as to what that reason might be I will leave as an exercise.) Any site admin who claims that the "accuracy" or "integrity" of his site's poll has been or could be "discredited" or "tainted" by heavy participation by one or another segment of participants is either a fool or a liar.

[wstrucke]

what's interesting here is that anyone paying attention would say we're not capable of organizing to raise Santorum's polling, yet the same people would claim we all go nuts and organize to artificially inflate Ron Paul's polling...

[rideurlightning]

Voted for Santorum <3

[milo10]

The vote for Santorum idea is brilliant!

If we aren't even going to be represented, then we will throw off their polling results.

They could have had who we really wanted, but no. Now, don't expect your poll results to represent reality either way.


We do not create a "false representation of broad support" because these polls do not & can not measure broad support (falsely or otherwise). Online polls do not represent ANYTHING other than the views of those who happen to know about & participate in them. Period. Anyone who thinks that they do (such as site admins who use that as a justification for omitting a poll entry) are being ignorant - wilfully or otherwise.

Absolutely! An internet poll, where fellow supporters can tell others on message board and social networks, is not a measure of how well a candidate will do. It is some balance between how many supporters you have, how enthusiastic the supporters are, how organized they are online, and how soon your poll will appear on their radar (e.g., if Janeane Garofolo had a site with a poll on it, would any Ron Paul supporter ever stumble across it? LOL).

That is the nature of these internet polls. If we don't do it, others will, as witness Herman Cain's numbers.

[Join The Paul Side]

anyone who thinks that our showing in online polls is not disproportionate to our actual, scientifically poll-tested support is willfully ignorant. i'm simply stating that this is why he isn't included. maybe "spam" was the wrong word. "flood" i guess would be better. either way we create a false representation of broad support that discredits the polls by wildly over-representing ron's support.

and no, as a website administrator, there isn't much you can do to keep people from posting "everyone go here and vote in this poll" on every ron paul site/facebook page. so it's not technically "spam", it's ballot-stuffing.

anyway... that's why ron isn't in the poll, which iirc is the point of this thread.

All these polls are bullshit. Scientific or not. Did science predict a McChump win last time in early polling? Hell no. McGrump came outta nowhere to win NH and it was pretty much over after that.

[Join The Paul Side]

Voted for Frothy. Wouldn't it be funny if we can pull him to the top? :D

[maxoutco]

VOTED FOR SANTORUM. SANTORUM FOR THE WIN.

[FA.Hayek]

frothy got my vote!

[puppetmaster]

he doesn't include ron in the polls because every time he does you people spam them. go figure. i wouldn't either...

look i understand the point of wanting our man to have a good showing.. but when you completely leave the realm of reality and have someone who polls 8% nationally taking 85% in every poll on the internet.. it accomplishes nothing but to make sure ron doesn't even get included in the next one.

seriously.. you're the guy responsible for the content on a site and your boss expects valid results, what are you going to do? you know damn well ron doesn't have anywhere near the support the pollspam indicates. you'd have to pull his name or risk your own (or your company's) credibility.

it's called blowback.


since when is a vote in a poll spam?? what BS

[chudrockz]

Bump for a check of the results, be back in a minute!

[chudrockz]

Looks like Santorum got 6%, dunno for sure if the poll is over or not?

On a side note, can someone explain to me the origin of referring to Santorum as "Frothy"? It has an amusing ring to it, but other than that, I don't get it. :)

[KEEF]

I doubt people are spamming polls. These polls do reflect reality. The reality is that Ron Paul has a lot of support from the online community.

Furthermore, I question the "reality" of national polls. Rick Perry shot up to first place days after he announced he was running. Cain overtook first within days after a straw poll victory...

True that/\

[heavenlyboy34]

frothy got my vote!
I'm out of the loop...who's frothy?

[sunghoko]

I'm out of the loop...who's frothy?

google santorum

http://i.imgur.com/Ca4K2.jpg

[RIPLEYMOM]

Originally Posted by PastaRocket848
he doesn't include ron in the polls because every time he does you people spam them. go figure. i wouldn't either...

look i understand the point of wanting our man to have a good showing.. but when you completely leave the realm of reality and have someone who polls 8% nationally taking 85% in every poll on the internet.. it accomplishes nothing but to make sure ron doesn't even get included in the next one.

seriously.. you're the guy responsible for the content on a site and your boss expects valid results, what are you going to do? you know damn well ron doesn't have anywhere near the support the pollspam indicates. you'd have to pull his name or risk your own (or your company's) credibility.

it's called blowback.


Sorry, but, are you kidding me? We have to take what we can get, buddy! This is the real thing, and if organizing the crap out of ourselves to get our Ron's name out there is what we have to do, then, so be it!

[pacelli]

Mark Levin hates Ron Paul. So I wonder how he would respond if a bunch of "Santorum" supporters called into his show, and espoused every single Ron Paul value, but instead of saying the name "Ron Paul" they substituted the name "Rick Santorum".

Example-- "Mark, what do you think about Rick Santorum's proposal to cut 1 trillion from the budget in the first year?"

Now that would be hilarious.

[123tim]

Mark Levin hates Ron Paul. So I wonder how he would respond if a bunch of "Santorum" supporters called into his show, and espoused every single Ron Paul value, but instead of saying the name "Ron Paul" they substituted the name "Rick Santorum".

Example-- "Mark, what do you think about Rick Santorum's proposal to cut 1 trillion from the budget in the first year?"

Now that would be hilarious.

Now that would be a good idea.

[TNforPaul45]

he doesn't include ron in the polls because every time he does you people spam them. go figure. i wouldn't either...

look i understand the point of wanting our man to have a good showing.. but when you completely leave the realm of reality and have someone who polls 8% nationally taking 85% in every poll on the internet.. it accomplishes nothing but to make sure ron doesn't even get included in the next one.

seriously.. you're the guy responsible for the content on a site and your boss expects valid results, what are you going to do? you know damn well ron doesn't have anywhere near the support the pollspam indicates. you'd have to pull his name or risk your own (or your company's) credibility.

it's called blowback.

"You People"......so who, then, are you?

[freejack]

"You People"......so who, then, are you?

Guys, please give pastarocket a break. It's not fair to doubt his convictions when he was the first person to commit a significant amount of time building the initial version of the BTO site. He makes a valid point regarding the disparity between the online and phone polls. On the other hand, the people running the online polls often don't realize that because it's ONLINE, they are targeting a wholly different audience hence the disparity. It's stupid but that's how it is.

[Omnica]

Best way to destroy the opposition is to demoralize it from within...

Pastarocket calls Paul voters- "you people's pollspam"
Fishy wording, to say the least.

[freejack]

Best way to destroy the opposition is to demoralize it from within...

Pastarocket calls Paul voters- "you people's pollspam"
Fishy wording, to say the least.

Please read my post above. He's a true supporter. He's just more of a realist than most.

Welcome to the forums.

[Omnica]

I read your post, and do not mean disrespect to any poster.

Thanks for your welcome!

Time will eventually show us the confidence men in the Paul camp.