harwood at it again - new cnbc poll - vote!

[theprolific]

harwood at it again - new cnbc poll -

vote! (http://anonym.to/?http://www.cnbc.com/id/19293283/)

[Adamsa]

Harwood was pretty good to us when he went on Morning Joe, he is merely pointing out the polls, even though to any normal person by now, they should know that all these polls are complete bull.

[Ozwest]

Man, payback will be a motherf#&%#r!

[r3volution]

online polls are as useless as the scientific polls .

[llepard]

Harwood is gonna eat his words. This country is full of angry people. The elites are about to get a lesson in democracy.

[Noog]

You should anonymize that link...

[Taco John]

when are people going to learn not to direct link these things...

[thegearbox]

My email to him

To whom this may concern,
I just did a scientific poll, it says that one out of every 2 people are Chinese, yet I look around and seen none! If you think that the polls are correct and the supporters are small, then by all means part your ways and let the voting do the talking. Posting articles discrediting a man’s run for President and his supporters (especially those as passionate as Ron Paul’s) is just adding fuel to the fire. If you want some advise, I would show the views of the Candidates, some of their highlights to their campaign, and keep all personal bias opinions out of it. Plus, what’s the point of writing about Paul’s small fan base when all you’re doing is giving him free advertising?

Sincerely,

Shane Gerhartz
Kansas City, Ks

[terlinguatx]

...

[drain]

man that dumb mf'er is quickly climbing my list of people who need to get punched in the face.

[Anti-Donkey]

man that dumb mf'er is quickly climbing my list of people who need to get punched in the face.

What Would Ron Paul Do? (http://www.wwrpd.org)

[drain]

haha touche`

[Severius]

when are people going to learn not to direct link these things...

We need to sticky instructions on anoymising links.

Here, it's easy. Just put "http://anonym.to/?" in front of the url you want to link to!

Example:

http://anonym.to/?http://www.xkcd.com

[LinuxUser269]

man that dumb mf'er is quickly climbing my list of people who need to get punched in the face.

Twice!

[GHoeberX]

Do you think Ron Paul has any chance to be president? * 999 responses
Yes
89%
No
9.2%
Could get GOP nomination but never win White House
1.3%

[Naraku]

Here's the e-mail I sent him on this:


I find your willingness to trust a random questioning of 1500 people for determining the value of an individual's candidacy very unbecoming. While I agree polls do have some importance I think it is also quite wrong to accept everything they say as fact.

As you specifically pointed out a Wall Street Journal poll giving Paul 4% first I'd like you to know that Rasmussen has given him 6% in their daily poll here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll while CNN gave him 5%. Even RealClear Politics, traditionally leaving out anyone considered a longshot has begun including Ron Paul in their rankings for the nomination.

I also think you're focusing far too much on a quite possibly flawed aspect of the poll over more reliable areas. Determining likely primary voters is a very difficult procedure and I don't believe any poll can be considered adept at this matter and there's very little science to determining this crucial figure. If those Ron Paul supporters churn out two times as many people for the primaries your 4% grows to 8%. This is also excluding his showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, where his support is growing. There are reports coming from the Iowa GOP that Paul has met a 5% threshold in polls there to be included in the Fox Debate and if you've seen the data for Iowa you'd know that having 5% or more in that state is actually substantial.

Zogby's recent poll for Iowa showed Giuliani with 11%, Thompson with 10%, and McCain with 8%. If Ron Paul can turn out more people to vote for him he could beat all three of them, making him third place at least. This is assuming he doesn't build any momentum from now until the primaries. Apply this same standard to Paul in New Hampshire, where St. Anselm has him at 7% and you're talking about another potential third place position or higher.

There's also one very crucial factor in this poll that makes it inaccurate. It does not include self-proclaimed Democrats in a possible Republican Primary. With Michigan having only Hillary, Gravel and Kucinich on the ballot and being one of the first crucial primaries as well as an open primary this could be an important factor. There are groups out there called, "Democrats for Paul" who would probably identify themselves as Democrats in a poll, but intend to vote for Paul in a primary.


I understand how people tend to look at the polls, but they are not to be used to determine who gets media coverage and who is considered a frontrunner. The real truth is that Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain are only frontrunners because the media treated them as such. The fact Ron Paul has done so well without the ridiculous media coverage other candidates get must show you how capable Paul is right now. All he really needs is the media coverage and he can quickly make up for any low poll numbers in the past.

I also can't help but feel you're spinning the poll as it only mentions 11% with a negative view as well as 11% with positive view. Even more the polls shows more than half of that was only somewhat negative. Then there's the 19% that are neutral and, even more important, the 59% who don't know his name or don't know what they think about him. That goes hand in hand with his lack of media coverage and I find it disgusting that you'd say Paul doesn't stand a chance because he's viewed favorably among less people than Clinton when nearly two-thirds of the people polled didn't even know who he is! I don't think there's a single Republican who doesn't know Hillary, but there are quite a few who don't know Ron Paul and the media is partly responsible for that.

If you're going to argue that he won't win be reasonable and give some explanation that doesn't rely whole-heartedly on polls that have never proved to be reliable indicators of election results.

I also pointed out something very crucial that he ignores.

According to the poll he cites 59% of the people polled don't know Paul's name or don't know how they feel about him and another 19% are neutral. The idea that Paul's favorability can then be compared to Hillary is just insane.

[bootstrap]

Just for fun, here is a scientific pole I performed many years ago (to make a point).

We went to a few places where lots of people walk past, sat down with our clipboards and watched for people walking past drinking CocaCola products. We ignored everyone else.

For everyone drinking a CocaCola product, we categorized them as relatively fat, medium, thin.

The final [scientific] conclusion was very strongly evident. Diet Coke makes people fat, and regular Coke makes people thin.

Case closed.

[Richandler]

I'm surprised that they have an article that even says "Can Ron Paul Win?" on the front page. However I think we should and the campaign should ask the media to stop the negative casting of light. The article should read "Ron Paul Can Win!" The article could be almost exactly the same but the title changes the entire preception.

[Cowlesy]

I sent him a nice email that quietly voice my frustration with his portrayal. I work in the primary industry he covers, and he does typically stick up for RP on principle.


John - Honestly, are you a glutton for inbox punishment?

I read your stuff in the WSJ all the time because it is extremely good, but I am pretty turned off by your snarkyness in your Ron Paul post.

I voted for Bush twice, was a hardcore Giuliani advocate because like 99% of voters, I had only been passively paying attention. Life is good, work is good -- I'm just not feeling any pain.

But guess what, when conservatives really boil down the candidates, and if you truly are about a sound monetary policy, Ron Paul is the only choice.

Whether or not he has the time/money to deliver the message professionally with to the general public is the main question.

His campaign has invigorated me about the political process like no other candidate has in my 26 years on this little planet.

Here is a cheesy, but profound quote. John I am sure things are going well for you personally now as a bigtime journalist, but sometimes we all need to take our civic duty to the next level as Americans. See below

"Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has" --- Margaret Mead

Have a good weekend!
Cowlesy

[Bob Cochran]

The housing market fiasco will add to the anger of many. This should help Ron Paul's bid for the presidency.

[Mark]

.


Subject: Gee Whiz.. Give the Man a Chance Will Ya..



Re: "Ron Paul Will Have A Hard Time Winning Anything"

I appreciate your opinion Mr Harwood,

However, veiled attempt at insults won't win you any support
in ANY endeaver.

This is the first time I've written to you, but with 'snide remarks' like that,
I'd give you a 'what's for' too, even if it was in the grocery line
talking about the weather.

Dr Paul hasn't even BEEN in polls, and the 'main stream media'
'forgets' to mention that, while saying he got 0% in the poll.
(Katie Couric on CBS news for one)

Give the good Doctor a chance will ya?

How about a 'level playing field' for a chance?

How about some HONEST reporting from some pundits?

"We The People" are not FOOLED anymore by your type of 'spin' anymore.

You're ONLY fooling yourself, and FUELING the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign
the MORE you write and report this drivel.

I guess I should thank you, because the more you try to make Dr Paul
and his supporters 'look bad', the more people wake up to the scam
your trying to pull off.

Thanks.. SO much..
Sincerely,

Rev Mark Cahall
Raleigh, NC

--
http://www.RonPaul2008.com ~ Join the Revolution


eh.. my spelling/punctuation/sentence structure.. could be better.. but.. I think he 'got the point'

.

.

[terlinguatx]

...

[conner_condor]

Ignore him,he is lacking attention compared to all the other media and wants some affection.
He is not worth our time and when vote,don't click on his sponsors to give them traffic. That's the only reason for that article is attention..Vote and get out.. I am sure they come to this sight and troll.
So let him read our replys on here...

[kylejack]

John,
You seem like a hell of a guy. I'm one of those Ron Paul sycophants
and I've thoroughly enjoyed your banter with the Ron Paul community.
The thing that I'd like to explain to you is that to many of us, its
not even about viability. If you were so disgusted with
politics-as-usual and you found a candidate that really motivated you
more than anyone else ever has, but he only had say a 1% chance of
getting elected, what would you do? If you'd been sentenced to death
unjustly and only had a 2% chance of escape, what would you do?

And that's really the question that the Ron Paul movement asks of its
supporters. Are things really that dire? We believe they are.
Inflation is out of control, the war is costing us a fortune in
dollars and blood...I don't need to go on, because you know our policy
positions. The bottom line is that we feel like we're in an end-game
and that something's about to break. We don't believe Ron Paul is a
shoo-in, despite our overwhelming presence in that poll....We believe
he's our last and only hope.

How much money would you spend to save your country? How much time
would you spend on the corner with a sign? How much of your free time
would you sacrifice?

That's what we ask ourselves every day, and most of us would give
everything we have to see Ron Paul in the White House, because we
believe this scary world is going to get downright chaotic without Ron
Paul at the helm. That's why we support Ron Paul so fervently.

Regards,
Kyle

And PS Hope springs eternal. Rasmussen now has Ron Paul at 6%, and
who knows what $8 million raised this quarter and $5 million last
quarter could do to spread Ron Paul's message.

[shepburn]

We need to sticky instructions on anoymising links.

Here, it's easy. Just put "http://anonym.to/?" in front of the url you want to link to!

Example:

http://anonym.to/?http://www.xkcd.com

I'm not tech savvy. Can you explain exactly what you mean again? Then give me step by step instruction on how to follow this.

Be patient guys, most people do not share the same skill sets as you do. :)

[Severius]

I'm not tech savvy. Can you explain exactly what you mean again? Then give me step by step instruction on how to follow this.

Be patient guys, most people do not share the same skill sets as you do. :)

Ok, step by step:
1. Copy the link you want to post ("http://www.homestarrunner.com" for example)
2. Paste the link into your post as normal
3. Before submitting your post copy and paste "http://anonym.to/?" directly behind the link you are posting

Like this http://anonym.to/?http://www.homestarrunner.com

I hope I made that a little clearer :)

[ladyliberty]

punch him out with your paycheck! donate an extra $10 with his name on it - in your face Hannity and Harwood!