PDA

View Full Version : Open Letter (about debate and poll) Featuring 11-11-11 Promotion Links




constitutionstory
11-10-2011, 03:27 AM
In light of two major poll shutdowns, and the growing internet Ron Paul Revolution, the time has come for me to make an Open Letter to Allen Wastler... and to of course link to the 11^3 Support Them Now Money Bomb.

Featuring: The all-important connection between overseas unconstitutional militarism spending in undeclared wars...and the economy. Not that the moderators asked about the military or overseas interventionism when discussing the economy in the debate. Ron Paul can make the connections that other candidates won't mention publicly. And he knows that our military ought to be at home, defending America, and stimulating our domestic economy.

I hope this helps. I've released it to creative commons, so perhaps this can spread the message in the last day before the money bomb.

Like with Black This Out, we need to promote this ourselves and largely bypass the traditional media to get maximum online exposure in minimum time.


Spread the message!

CNBC: Real Cool Poll Math
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/299/iseewhatyoudidtherezoom.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/iseewhatyoudidtherezoom.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/4055/msnbc2.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/190/msnbc2.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

“Hey, where'd that poll go?”

(see: Reasons for tabbed browsing, multiple windows, and screenshots)


Published: Wednesday, 9 Nov 2011 | 10:23 PM ET
Text Size
By: Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com

We had a poll up from our Republican Presidential Debate asking readers who they thought won. One candidate was leading by such a margin that it became obvious the polling wasn't so much a reading of our audience, but of the Internet prowess of this particular candidate's political organization. We have therefore taken the poll down.

(End quote of Allen Wastler) (Begin my response)

Please repost or send this anywhere you like, email, forums, facebook, google plus, CNBC's comments on their articles, CNBC's email inboxes, to Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, or media bias/watchdog groups. And don't forget advertisers for CNBC, parent/associated companies, plus their competitors. Maybe we can brainstorm creative ways to try and reach Allen Wastler for a response. I'd like help this letter reach as many voters as possible, and you can help by sending it your friends or posting it elsewhere on the internet. Have fun!

I release this open letter to the Creative Commons under Attribution-NoDerivs CC BY-ND.


This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to me.

Dear Mr. Allen Wastler,

I would like to respectfully inform you that your audience consists of people who freely decide to watch your CNBC debate. It's an audience which is clearly self-selected. In true random sampling statistical technique, American voters (perhaps limited to Republicans or Independents in select open primary states), would be selected and forced to be a part of your audience. Each possible subset of voters of a particular sample size would need to have the same probability of being chosen. All of the members in the sample would be required to vote in your poll. Such are the constraints required for random sampling and scientific polls. That's not even remotely close to how the US political process works. Some Americans may watch the debates for entertainment, but are not registered voters. Some registered voters watch the debate(s) and fail to turn out on election day. Reasons can include lack of political organization, being busy with errands, or apathy about a mainstream candidate. "Oh, the media says (favored candidate) is a front runner, in the top tier. That person will do well anyway, and one vote won't change that. I can stay home." In the case of "top-tier" candidates who have received this amorphous credential from mainstream media television personalities (see: Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and last time Rudy Giuliani), the expectation that a certain candidate will do well anyway can discourage fair-weather supporters from reaching high turnout levels.

I found your objection to the future of American political campaigning to be poorly stated and indefensible in the context of history. "Internet prowess" in political organization? Oh, does that really matter? It matters more every day. Writing prowess formed an essential foundation for political organization and early governments. Surprisingly, carving a Code of Laws into tablets gave a real advantage over word of mouth and verbal disputes over what a law was. Just ask Hammurabi, who is still known to people around the world thousands of years later. Moving into handwritten books, having scribe power enabled the extension of knowledge and ideas. Advancing further, printing press power, or perhaps the pamphlet effect from Thomas Paine (see: Common Sense), demonstrated the ability of newer media to reach more individuals in less time with less oversight by authority. Going further in the history of political participation and information distribution, what's the point of speedy telegraph delivery of messages or radio listeners? It's not like that would be the same as a good old established gazette, magazine, or newspaper. Who could suggest such a thing?

Until you consider what the Fireside Chats did for FDR's ability to reach ordinary Americans who might not have been paying for a newspaper subscription. Or the Literary Digest, for that matter. "Landon, 1,293,669; Roosevelt, 972,897 Final Returns in the Digest’s Poll of Ten Million Voters. ... Republican presidential candidate Alfred Landon would win 57 percent of the popular vote and 370 electoral votes." primary source, Literary Digest 31 October 1936, retrieved from http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5168/ History Matters at George Mason University. Just look at how many votes were in that poll. Clearly, an established publication commanded the respect and participation of many American voters across the country in a landmark poll. Radio, not so much. Later, in the next episode of “Traditional Media Knows Best”:

"the Democratic party won in a landslide--27,751,612 popular votes for fdr to only 16,681,913 for Landon. The Republicans carried two states--Maine and Vermont--for 8 electoral votes; Roosevelt received the remaining 523. " http://www.history.com/topics/elections-1936 (History.com) Clearly, polls designed and run by established organizations using the most reputable and esteemed media format don't capture the influence of new forms of media. At all. "They didn't have a scientific poll, or random sample," you might say? Of course not. But let's get real on the scientific polling issue. Voters who turn out on the day of the polls are not random samples. They're people who go out of their way to register to vote, and then choose to show up to support their candidate on election day. Others take the time to mail an absentee ballot in. The samples of American adults who vote, and of registered Republicans (plus independents, in some cases) voting for a certain primary candidate on election day are self-selected, too. That's how the process works.

And then, you know, televised debates were the newest thing out there... in, let's see, 1960. A half century ago. Consider that the latest, most free, and fastest form of media dissemination through society generally manages to outpace the older, more regulated, and slower media with each fundamental paradigm shift. TV and newspapers? How quaint, how 20th century. When a classmate mentioned to me four years ago that "Ron Paul's base is the internet", I wondered what that would mean for the future of freedom, peace, and the US Constitution. It's become clear that the media can't shut down a poll... (Hacking or robo-voting? Got any clearly defined IP/program evidence? The silence here is interesting.) ...for sheer efficacy of online campaigning and then actually get away with it. Trying to pass the netroots off as "slamming" (Bill O'Reilly) or as online "prowess" that did not receive a stamp of approval from traditional media ignores the root cause of online campaigning and activism. The netroots developed to address a disproportionate lack of traditional coverage (see: Pew Research Center, nonpartisan fact tank, full report on journalism.org, "Amount of News Coverage of GOP Candidates" graph, Paul's relative amount. http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/cr?src=prc-headline) as well as poor representation of what “sound money,” “real cuts,” and “constitutional foreign policy” actually mean for the country.

Mr. Wastler, please take note: your TV and online streaming audience is actually self-selected to begin with, as are the online voters. As are US-registered voters, and those who choose to turn out in American polls, primaries, or general elections. America does not enforce mandatory turnout in elections, unlike Australia and some other countries. As long as this remains the case, political organization and degree of support for a favored candidate (as seen in turnout percentages) does matter. A lot. Consider the Iowa Independent's panel analysis of the candidates and their potential to take on the Iowa caucuses. http://iowaindependent.com/63503/iowa-2012-gop-presidential-power-rankings-time-is-not-on-their-side

Mr. Wastler, I am also deeply concerned by your convenient omission of the skewed bars in the poll. As a National AP Scholar, National Merit Finalist, and public high school graduate who scored a 5 on the AP Statistics Exam (and AP United States History, plus AP US Government and Politics), I would like to politely point out that your poll was patently distorted. Apparently, for support above 30%, the difference between that level of support and 21-23% support is next to nothing. It looks just like the difference between 21.1% and 22.2%. The remaining bars couldn't possibly form a graph with relatively accurate proportions, since you've already got a serious problem with more than 70% of votes being shown in ridiculously inaccurate relative frequency among Paul-Romney-Cain. And as for the (former) "top-tier" candidates- Bachmann after winning the Ames straw poll where Paul placed second, and Perry's high initial telephone poll results, it looks like some media picks aren't doing so hot after all. Weren't there once some front-runners capturing serious Republican support according to experts I saw on TV? Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, and, uh, let's see, uh, the third one is, I forget. Oops!

I am sorry to see that when Bill O'Reilly of FOX News and CNBC.com's Managing Editor can agree on something, it's not a fact or piece of common knowledge. Rather, this consensus is in creating a FOX More Spin Zone about who will "never win" and distorting poll graphics on CNBC to the disadvantage of the same winning candidate. When competing TV networks can unite in the attempt to discredit the internet's leading candidate, it's on. It is so on. The various media forms and outlets must compete for reader, viewer, and listener share in an economy of choice. In America, individuals are free to gather their news, poll results, and election information from the sources of their choice. Hey, I remember now, the third one is Rick Perry. And regardless of your political views, seeing polls abruptly distorted and retracted by their very creators and designers when the champion of the constitution is winning them is a sign of the times.

You can't keep this up. I see what you did there. Really. And everyone reading this right now sees it too. United States primary and general Presedential elections are not random samples or scientific polls. Mr. Wastler, when it comes to recognizing the changing times, the choice is yours. Embrace the new political reality of the internet, or cling to the established, reputable, and increasingly obsolete way of gauging a political movement. Either way, you'll be in historically significant company. CNBC can follow in the footsteps of the Literary Review, or walk bravely into the new era of the online campaign, the netroots, and perhaps even fair coverage of the Ron Paul Revolution. Well, so could O' Reilly, hypothetically, but I have little hope left for him. He's pretty good at saying “not a chance in the world” and “because... we told you not to do it you did it so he's disqualfied”. Americans who believe in freedom don't take kindly to obeying orders from a certain media personality who has “told” us we're not supposed to... be able to, let's see, post an internet notice about a poll and talk to other supporters to encourage them to vote in it. That's what campaigns consist of, citizens discussing a candidate, various issues that someone stands for, and promoting participation in the polls. Whether it's “IRL” or on “the internets,” the desire of liberty-minded individuals to organize and vote for a candidate they believe in is the same. The principle of exercising freedom and not taking orders from influential public figures to refrain from political organization and activity in support of a certain candidate is the same. But with fundraising and the phenomenon of high voter turnout, the words used are quite different in “real life” as compared to the internet.

In-person fundraisers continue to become increasingly old-fashioned. The internet has something new and different to offer, known as a money bomb. This Veterans' Day, 11.11.11, supporters from around the country are organizing online to support the candidate who receives more in donations from members of the US military than all other GOP candidates combined, not to mention the current President. Ron Paul's non-interventionist approach to defending America and his recognition of the Constitution's delegation of powers is a stark difference from the Bush-Obama consensus, and this message is not fairly represented in the traditional media. CNBC's economy debate completely left out the issue of militarism spending, and Congressman Paul dares to distinguish between this and true defense spending in explaining the connection between the economy and foreign policy. But this Veterans' Day, the online campaign and fundraising continues to support the military's leading choice for President.

Decentralized Approach, make your own Facebook group to promote it!
http://www.dailypaul.com/185970/a-decentralized-approach-to-the-111111-money-bomb

Ron Paul Campaign Site for the Event
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/pages/mbpledge_veteransday.html?pid=1105

Support Them Now Site
http://supportthemnow.com/

This is what "internet prowess" in political organization and campaigning looks like. Thanks for complimenting all who have helped to promote the champion of the Constitution using the internets. We're glad to have earned the recognition from no less than the Managing Editor of CNBC.com himself. From Dictionary.com,

prow·ess
   [prou-is] Show IPA
noun
1.
exceptional valor, bravery, or ability, especially in combat or battle.
2.
exceptional or superior ability, skill, or strength: his prowess as a public speaker.
3.
a valiant or daring deed.

The difference in connotation from "slamming" (to quote Bill O'Reilly, FOX News, earlier this same week) to describe the exact same internet phenomenon, while taking the identical action of disqualifying the winner just goes to show the serendipity that ensues from employing an erudite lexicon. As with Black This Out in October, the continued bias in representing Congressman Paul's campaign and devoted supporters only serves to increase the netroots support for the Ron Paul Revolution.

To Allen Wastler, thank you for being just like Bill O'Reilly with a better use of vocabulary. Your services to the campaign are greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Constitution Story

Blue Republican for Ron Paul

P.S.: Obligatory link to my favorite Ron Paul video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhyaiOZhpSg

leglock
11-10-2011, 03:58 AM
I'm sorry, but you completely missed his point. It's clear when the author said "the reading of our audience," he meant users that usually frequent the CNBC website. Their website didn't even stream the debate. Here is his "Open Letter" from 2007 says the same thing:


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 basket 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

If we can't win an internet legitimately, what does that say about us? I've never understood the reasoning behind spamming polls on websites that we won't ever visit again (unless it's to vote for another RP poll). It's completely puzzling to me. It doesn't make me feel good to win a poll online by an overwhelming majority when we're doing about 10-12% nationwide. Our priorities are in the wrong places.

constitutionstory
11-10-2011, 04:31 AM
"If we can't win an internet legitimately, what does that say about us?"

I understand where this argument is coming from- if we don't get high internet poll results in the absence of mentioning that the poll is there to fellow supporters, then that implies that we don't have a high enough level of "general support". That's a valid consideration. (by the way, I saw users here posting links to what they mentioned as online debate streams in the debate thread.) But a major challenge for this campaign is to help build general support when the media narrative doesn't mention Ron Paul (FOX News article on Who won) or resorts to telling us what not to do (Bill O'Reilly)

My question to you is, with all due respect, what does it mean to win an internet poll "legitimately"? Who certifies that a poll is or is not legitimately won? There's isn't the same framework of laws governing real elections to apply to online voting. For physical election day events, people campaign door to door, or in cities or neighborhoods. For influencing voters by phone, there's phone banking and volunteer calling. Then, these same lists of registered vote phone numbers can be called upon in telephone polls. And as for magazine polls of subscribers (a specific audience), I wanted to illustrate that was once the mainstream way of generating a "legitimate" poll win. Even on Halloween before a general presidential election. Some consolation to Alfred Landon. Whether an online poll is "legitimate" or not, with self-selected voters, IMO depends on whether the creators of the poll, who get to design how it responds to cookies/IPs/emails/etc. precisely as their programmers/web designers wish, end up retracting their own poll. But I don't claim to have a universal understanding of what makes an online poll truly legitimate, as it's an evolving medium.

As the media used in campaigns trends towards more online content and online coordination, a successful campaign needs to be able to adapt.

"It doesn't make me feel good to win a poll online by an overwhelming majority when we're doing about 10-12% nationwide. Our priorities are in the wrong places. "

It's hard to change the nationwide sentiment when FOX News names 7/8 of candidates in the article
"Opinion
Who Won The Latest GOP Debate?

By John LeBoutillier

Published November 09, 2011

| FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/09/who-won-latest-gop-debate/#content#ixzz1dIM3p4Ha
"

I really respect your comment and thank you for having the first reply here. But it's become clear that we can't count on "legitimate" Fair & Balanced coverage to even name Ron Paul in their article.

"Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum got less air time than the other candidates – and it raises a fairness issue: why isn’t the same question asked of all eight candidates and each accorded the same time to answer? Why specific questions for the so-called front-runners – and different questions and less time for the so-called lesser candidates? It just doesn’t seem fair."

And when this article doesn't name Ron Paul, I think a major priority is to cover the candidate (at the very least, in FOX News comments) so that the audience reading the article gets some coverage of him, rather than no mention at all.

constitutionstory
11-10-2011, 04:31 AM
"If we can't win an internet legitimately, what does that say about us?"

I understand where this argument is coming from- if we don't get high internet poll results in the absence of mentioning that the poll is there to fellow supporters, then that implies that we don't have a high enough level of "general support". That's a valid consideration. (by the way, I saw users here posting links to what they mentioned as online debate streams in the debate thread.) But a major challenge for this campaign is to help build general support when the media narrative doesn't mention Ron Paul (FOX News article on Who won) or resorts to telling us what not to do (Bill O'Reilly)

My question to you is, with all due respect, what does it mean to win an internet poll "legitimately"? Who certifies that a poll is or is not legitimately won? There's isn't the same framework of laws governing real elections to apply to online voting. For physical election day events, people campaign door to door, or in cities or neighborhoods. For influencing voters by phone, there's phone banking and volunteer calling. Then, these same lists of registered vote phone numbers can be called upon in telephone polls. And as for magazine polls of subscribers (a specific audience), I wanted to illustrate that was once the mainstream way of generating a "legitimate" poll win. Even on Halloween before a general presidential election. Some consolation to Alfred Landon. Whether an online poll is "legitimate" or not, with self-selected voters, IMO depends on whether the creators of the poll, who get to design how it responds to cookies/IPs/emails/etc. precisely as their programmers/web designers wish, end up retracting their own poll. But I don't claim to have a universal understanding of what makes an online poll truly legitimate, as it's an evolving medium.

As the media used in campaigns trends towards more online content and online coordination, a successful campaign needs to be able to adapt.

"It doesn't make me feel good to win a poll online by an overwhelming majority when we're doing about 10-12% nationwide. Our priorities are in the wrong places. "

It's hard to change the nationwide sentiment when FOX News names 7/8 of candidates in the article
"Opinion
Who Won The Latest GOP Debate?

By John LeBoutillier

Published November 09, 2011

| FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/09/who-won-latest-gop-debate/#content#ixzz1dIM3p4Ha
"

I really respect your comment and thank you for having the first reply here. But it's become clear that we can't count on "legitimate" Fair & Balanced coverage to even name Ron Paul in their article.

"Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum got less air time than the other candidates – and it raises a fairness issue: why isn’t the same question asked of all eight candidates and each accorded the same time to answer? Why specific questions for the so-called front-runners – and different questions and less time for the so-called lesser candidates? It just doesn’t seem fair."

And when this article doesn't name Ron Paul, I think a major priority is to cover the candidate (at the very least, in FOX News comments) so that the audience reading the article gets some coverage of him, rather than no mention at all.

leglock
11-10-2011, 04:50 AM
I don't think the media is fair to Paul, at all. I would hazard to guess that a lot of it has to do with blowback from the 2007 campaign where we spammed a lot of members of the media with emails, letters, and phonecalls. People, like us, are vindictive and petty and they most likely don't feel it would be in their best interests if Paul got attention.

What does it mean to win an internet poll legitimately? Well, our members actively talk about "slamming" polls when posting broken links to polls. If a poll on this forum was for the name of the next Money Bomb was "slammed" by Cain supporters and we knew it was, would we run with the name that was picked? I wouldn't think so.

Fort Lauderdale
11-10-2011, 05:08 AM
Spread the message!

CNBC: Real Cool Poll Math
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/299/iseewhatyoudidtherezoom.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/iseewhatyoudidtherezoom.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/4055/msnbc2.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/190/msnbc2.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

“Hey, where'd that poll go?”

Why the hell was this page taken down? Because Ron Paul is winning!!

http://www.thelastword.msnbc.msn..com/news/2011/11/09/8726049-which-candidate-won-the-gop-debate

V3n
11-10-2011, 10:18 AM
I am fired up after the debate last night!! Hard to wait for midnight... then... BOOM!!!!

Butchie
11-10-2011, 10:35 AM
In some ways I see what they mean, I know Ron is popular but still I doubt he has 70% or more of the vote, but at the same time what do they want us to do, not vote? I fail to see how it could ever really be fair, how do you determine a "real" vote, how do you tell someone, well, Ron has to many votes, you can't vote?