New Zogby Poll Details

[0zzy]

1009 people were asked which candidate they would support in a blind test between Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul, and Fred Thompson.

Each person was given a brief bio on each of the candidates and were asked to pick which one they would support.

32.8 per cent chose the description matching Ron Paul, while just 18.6 percent chose the description matching Rudy Giuliani. Just 12.6 per cent went for Fred Thompson's description while 15.1 per cent went for Mitt Romney.

More info here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/191107_zogby_poll.htm)

The same poll asked the question, Which candidate are you more likely to vote for - a candidate who is opposed to the Iraq War and wants to begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a candidate who wants to stay the course in Iraq?

Over 49% said they were more likely to vote for a candidate who would begin immediate withdrawal, compared to just under 41% who said they would vote for staying the course and around 10% who were not sure.

More info on that poll here. (http://www.infowars.net/articles/november2007/191107Withdrawal.htm)

Personal Conclusion
When people where Ron Paul stands on the issues and knows he can win, Ron Paul is able to get over 30%+ of the vote. We can win New Hampshire with 30%+ and the name recognition will boost his candidacy significantly.

[FrankRep]

stop.

We need official data

[0zzy]

stop.

We need official data

...stop?
ok daddy.

[kylejack]

Candidate A is a 10-term US Congressman from a large Southern state who is an advocate for a smaller government and individual liberty. This candidate believes in strictly following the Constitution and has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted in favor of the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act, and wants to bring troops home as soon as possible. As a former doctor, this candidate has delivered more than 4,000 babies. One of this candidate's goals is to return America to the gold standard, and he believes that the current monetary policy needs to be drastically overhauled because of the dollar's decline.

Candidate B is a former governor from a Democratic state in the Northeast. Before that, he was credited for essentially saving the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is a Mormon and family man who is considered a moderate-to-conservative member of the GOP. While Governor, he signed the first state laws in the nation requiring all citizens of this state to obtain health insurance. He is a strong supporter of keeping troops in Iraq although he has been critical of how the war has been handled.

Candidate C is a former two-term senator from a Southern state who was a long-time lobbyist before running for public office. He was chief Republican council for the Congressional committee that investigated Watergate in the early 1970s. He was an actor playing supporting roles in several major motion pictures before entering the Senate, and returned to a prominent role as a New York City prosecutor in a popular network television series after leaving office. He has mostly supported the war in Iraq, but has said he would have managed it differently.

Candidate D is a former two-term mayor of a major city in the Northeast, and is considered a moderate member of the party on social issues. As Mayor, he presided over a dramatic drop in crime in his city, and is best known for his leadership in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He established a worldwide security consulting business after leaving public office at the end of 2001 He has been a supporter of President Bush since leaving office and supports the war in Iraq.

[FrankRep]

...stop?
ok daddy.

We don't need multiple posts of unreliable data

[0zzy]

We don't need multiple posts of unreliable data

Well we had one post when I posted this and that was whatever page long with half of it not talking about the released data.

[DjLoTi]

it's a zogby poll. that's what everyone uses. how is it unreliable?

[Bradley in DC]

The "blind" descriptions are uneven in bias (lobbyist, Democratic state, etc.), they did not say they rotate the order (a statistically significant number just pick the first person), the poll does not determine if voters are registered much less eligible to vote much less likely to vote....

[Micahyah]

I think this shows that if we keep the message simple, Paul can win based on his positions.

Bringing troops home. Lowering taxes and spending. No national ID card or other invasions of privacy. Securing our borders.

[0zzy]

The "blind" descriptions are uneven in bias (lobbyist, Democratic state, etc.), they did not say they rotate the order (a statistically significant number just pick the first person), the poll does not determine if voters are registered much less eligible to vote much less likely to vote....

Agreed biased.
Not sure about rotation (if they did it or not)
Though I think it was registered republicans.

Btw, did Alex Jones write them up or Zogby?

[FrankRep]

it's a zogby poll. that's what everyone uses. how is it unreliable?

Alex Jones is unreliable or at least the public doesn't give him credibility.

[kylejack]

Agreed biased.
Not sure about rotation (if they did it or not)
Though I think it was registered republicans.

Btw, did Alex Jones write them up or Zogby?

I doubt Zogby would have written it with a spelling error, so I'm going to guess it was Alex Jones' people that wrote the bios.

[0zzy]

I doubt Zogby would have written it with a spelling error, so I'm going to guess it was Alex Jones' people that wrote the bios.

Well I was listening Alex today and he said that Zogby wrote the Romney one too nicely and he told them to rewrite it or something. So I think some of it had to be approved since he paid for it>? i dono

[Energy]

I think this shows that if we keep the message simple, Paul can win based on his positions.

Bringing troops home. Lowering taxes and spending. No national ID card or other invasions of privacy. Securing our borders.

Good point. A "Coke vs Pepsi" style (as unbiased as possible) can knock people out of their blissful stupor.

[ghemminger]

Why not just fund a normal poll with names - I think you would be surprised witht he results...

[Pete Kay]

Why not just fund a normal poll with names - I think you would be surprised witht he results...

I think a poll like this is important. It shows that there is a bias based on name recognition. Polls have shown for years that the majority of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, yet the MSM focuses on status quo candidates that would offer little change for this country. Most people have really no idea what positions a candidate holds and make decisions based on popularity. When presented with the positions, the majority picked Ron Paul, even thouh anybody that has any clue about politics would know which candidates are being described. This shows a general lack of knowledge about Ron Paul's stances. If more people would learn more about Ron Paul, then more people would choose him.

[acstichter]

http://truthseeds.org/2007/11/19/ron-paul-wins-latest-zogby-poll

This seems to have more details:

$4,500 dollars was paid by the sponsor for the Zogby poll. Zogby requires an additional fee for a press release, which the sponsor, Jones Productions is considering in addition to its own reporting. They are considering paying for another poll through Mason-Dixon or Rasmussen to demonstrate that Ron Paul can win polls when they aren’t bias.

The predominant group targeted by the phone polling was hard-line Republicans. The biographies of the candidates were attribute , political platform and issue-substantiated and provided by Zogby.

[Proemio]

Some of the reactions are... well, I'm "shocked & flabbergasted".

Small story: Someone called me with this. I immediately came to the forum (that was about 1 hour ago). No thread. WTF. Then it dawned on me - Alex Jones (not a fan of his, but...). So, I checked Hot Topics - sure enough, there it was. Ubelievable. I hope it won't be a person un-good for the greater purpose, announcing Ron Paul's victory next November. We'd never know...

It appears that:
The poll is meaningless because the wrong person paid for it.
The poll is meaningless because we know largely how they got the results.
vs
The official polls "ofr record" are absolutely, one hundred percent creadible and reliable, because Corporate Media is paying for it, and because we don't know the secret 'science' behind the methodology.

Got it.

There is of course the possibility or even probability, that the 30+ for Paul could be real, and that the so desperately wished for 'sheep' are not nearly as numerous, as is continuously promoted by the dark-agers, in order to make those more or less awake feel alone, helpless, hopeless, out-numbered...

[Jodi]

Some of the reactions are... well, I'm "shocked & flabbergasted".

Small story: Someone called me with this. I immediately came to the forum (that was about 1 hour ago). No thread. WTF. Then it dawned on me - Alex Jones (not a fan of his, but...). So, I checked Hot Topics - sure enough, there it was. Ubelievable. I hope it won't be a person un-good for the greater purpose, announcing Ron Paul's victory next November. We'd never know...

It appears that:
The poll is meaningless because the wrong person paid for it.
The poll is meaningless because we know largely how they got the results.
vs
The official polls "ofr record" are absolutely, one hundred percent creadible and reliable, because Corporate Media is paying for it, and because we don't know the secret 'science' behind the methodology.

Got it.

There is of course the possibility or even probability, that the 30+ for Paul could be real, and that the so desperately wished for 'sheep' are not nearly as numerous, as is continuously promoted by the dark-agers, in order to make those more or less awake feel alone, helpless, hopeless, out-numbered...

Excellent post!!!

[Hope]

Some of the reactions are... well, I'm "shocked & flabbergasted".

Small story: Someone called me with this. I immediately came to the forum (that was about 1 hour ago). No thread. WTF. Then it dawned on me - Alex Jones (not a fan of his, but...). So, I checked Hot Topics - sure enough, there it was. Ubelievable. I hope it won't be a person un-good for the greater purpose, announcing Ron Paul's victory next November. We'd never know...

It appears that:
The poll is meaningless because the wrong person paid for it.
The poll is meaningless because we know largely how they got the results.
vs
The official polls "ofr record" are absolutely, one hundred percent creadible and reliable, because Corporate Media is paying for it, and because we don't know the secret 'science' behind the methodology.

Got it.

There is of course the possibility or even probability, that the 30+ for Paul could be real, and that the so desperately wished for 'sheep' are not nearly as numerous, as is continuously promoted by the dark-agers, in order to make those more or less awake feel alone, helpless, hopeless, out-numbered...

I don't think you've been listening. The real sentiment is:

The poll is meaningless because it's a life bio that was specifically written in RP's favor.
The poll is meaningless because it's Zogby ("Fuck you, Frank!").
and
RP's numbers probably are much higher than the other landline polls, however, this poll does not prove it so.
We won't accept numbers that have been bought, even if we like the results.

[Bigboyen]

Frank would have been proud with the questions in this "poll". It's a cool idea, but then they should have done it fair.

[Mark]

Alex Jones is unreliable or at least the public doesn't give him credibility.

Which "public" is that?

I know a LOT of "public" that appreciate the risks he's taken.

At least say.. "I".. instead of public

I'm part of the "public"..

and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth..

speak for yourself.. not me..

[Wyurm]

Which "public" is that?

I know a LOT of "public" that appreciate the risks he's taken.

At least say.. "I".. instead of public

I'm part of the "public"..

and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth..

speak for yourself.. not me..

What I find sad is that Alex talks highly of this forum when he mentions it on his show, yet some here insist on bashing him. Why they can't just ignore posts about him and move on if they don't agree with him, I don't know. He is partly responsible for alot of the successes we've had with various projects here, including Nov. 5th.

[megasooner]

So this doesn't turn into the Hot Topic thread, can we discontinue discussion on Alex Jones. Exception: Only mention him in specific reference to the Zogby poll and the possible press release by Zogby.

[literatim]

The "blind" descriptions are uneven in bias (lobbyist, Democratic state, etc.), they did not say they rotate the order (a statistically significant number just pick the first person), the poll does not determine if voters are registered much less eligible to vote much less likely to vote....

When these mainstream polls are against Ron Paul, you talk about how great and accurate they are while deriding any criticism. Yet when it is in favor of Ron Paul, you outright bash it and attack its credibility despite it coming from a prominent national polling company.

Wth is your agenda?

[0zzy]

When these mainstream polls are against Ron Paul, you talk about how great and accurate they are while deriding any criticism. Yet when it is in favor of Ron Paul, you outright bash it and attack its credibility despite it coming from a prominent national polling company.

Wth is your agenda?

He's the devil's advocate with political experience.

I'll wait till the full report comes out from Zogby to judge anything.

[megasooner]

When these mainstream polls are against Ron Paul, you talk about how great and accurate they are while deriding any criticism. Yet when it is in favor of Ron Paul, you outright bash it and attack its credibility despite it coming from a prominent national polling company.

Wth is your agenda?

I agree with this sentiment.

[Danny Molina]

This needs to be digged all the way to the front page of the drudge report.

[adpierce]

Interesting, however it would be automatically chided by the MSM as being crap due to the fact that it was commissioned by Jones. However looking over the questions, each seem to put forward basic biographical information presented in a positive light for each candidate. There was no apparent bias in the way the questions were worded, the poll seems to be perfectly legitimate if you match it up to what is considered good statistical methodology. The only problem it seems to me is the sample size is somewhat small, but from what I'd guess the margin of error would not be large enough to discredit the claim that if you just present the candidate's positions more Americans support Dr. Paul's positions than any other ones. That seems like very significant data.

[justinc.1089]

The poll seemed fine to me. It didn't seemed very biased towards Paul to me. It made Romney and Giuliani look really good mentioning september 11th and the olympics I thought.

[Proemio]

I don't think you've been listening. The real sentiment is:

The poll is meaningless because it's a life bio that was specifically written in RP's favor.
The poll is meaningless because it's Zogby ("Fuck you, Frank!").
and
RP's numbers probably are much higher than the other landline polls, however, this poll does not prove it so.
We won't accept numbers that have been bought, even if we like the results.

My point was, that the same people who poo-poo this result, are the ones normally defending the bonafides of the Corporate Media's polls.

All numbers are bought, except on the odd occasion when they can be validated, and more importantly, when the pollsters can "fill up" with credibility, i.e. verifyable election/referenda counts. At least that was the case before the election computers told them the exact result they were programmed to come up with. Don't believe it? Research the last election in Switzerland. The polls 'predicted' the outcome to an impossible < 0.1% in some districts. The geniuses even bragged about their 'advanced' science for a few hours, and then immediately tried to bury the story. Too long for the internet caches though...

The buyer of the poll, usually has access to normally quite accurate numbers, but what is released to the public is often quite another story; as in my favorite case:
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=122&sortorder=issue
where a whole nation was conned into war, largely through fraudulent polls. Guess the nation...

I don't believe in any results - except the rare verifyable ones - unless I pay for the survey and have access to the whole kit. Polls are way too powerful an instrument for creating facts-on-the-ground to be left to the fickleness of actual public opinion. Raison d'Etat alone would not permit it.

[Pharoah]

There's a few guys here that can't stand AJ, so they have a hard time focusing on the positive - Ron Paul's policies are clear winners with the people.