CNN poll, Dr. Paul up to 2%

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

Rudy Giuliani 30
Fred Thompson 19
John McCain 18
Mitt Romney 9
Newt Gingrich 8
Mike Huckabee 2 down from 3
Ron Paul 2 up from 1
Sam Brownback 1 down from 2
Tom Tancredo 1 down from 2
Tommy Thompson always 1
Jim Gilmore - down from 2
Duncan Hunter - down from 1

[Highmesa]

If Dr. Paul can continue to double his support every month, he'll be up to 256% by the end of the year.:)

[Zydeco]

I think we're going to start seeing some 3% and 4%'s in coming weeks, and then after the Q2 numbers come out in mid-July it's going to start really rising.

Think of these past weeks and months as RP supporters priming the pump, getting the word out online, winning passionate converts to constitutionalism, honing our arguments. When the breakout comes, we're going to be ready, and the soft support of the paid suits will begin to crumble. ;)

[Shink]

That's obviously not a poll indicative of the actual voting population's opinion, but it shows a bit of growth, nonetheless.

[PatriotOne]

I have GOT to look into the details of how they are doing these polls. 99.5% of the remarks I see on the internet about Rudy are negative at best and usually venomous. He literally has no significant support anywhere that I look. So who the hell are they polling? People living under rocks or what?

Personally, I think these polls are fixed.

[SeanEdwards]

That's obviously not a poll indicative of the actual voting population's opinion, but it shows a bit of growth, nonetheless.

It shows a 100% growth rate. :D

[mikelovesgod]

I really believe polls are fixed. My best friend used to work for a polling corporation. He told me that they purposely push you into a category or answer by when they give you the answers hoping you don't hear all your choices. They know what they are doing to influence the poll and create false public popularity.

I mean, who wants a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on their car? People want to be with the winner so they don't seem like a flip-flopper.

[Zydeco]

I think the polls aren't quite "fixed" but are often "slanted." Keep in mind also that a poll's value increases in direct proportion to proximity of the election -- we are still 6 months + from the Iowa caucus, several candidates haven't even entered the race yet, only about 6% of those who respond to these polls say they have definitely made up their mind. And these polls don't find the people who are going to vote very well in this specific case. I suspect RP is really polling around 5% right now. Support for Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Romney is especially soft.

Ron's numbers are different from any other candidates in that his support is solid.

We're doing real well. :)

[thuja]

I have GOT to look into the details of how they are doing these polls. 99.5% of the remarks I see on the internet about Rudy are negative at best and usually venomous. He literally has no significant support anywhere that I look. So who the hell are they polling? People living under rocks or what?

Personally, I think these polls are fixed.

yes, they must be. wierd that people are voting for him.mister data base ID card

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Many things surprise me about this poll:

1) that Benito Giuliani does so well among likely Republican voters. They really must not know what he stands for.
2) that McCain is doing as well as it appears considering Ron Paul is at least on par with him for fundraising.
3) that Newt is still being included in the polling. I haven't heard a thing about him in at least a month.

But the main story I'm getting from this poll is that there are two Americas: one that is online, has access to ALL information that can possibly be had, and does not answer telephone polls, and one America that only gets the information that is handed to it, that which is spoon fed. These people apparently answer their phones.

[wecandoit]

That's obviously not a poll indicative of the actual voting population's opinion, but it shows a bit of growth, nonetheless.


agreed, but maybe it shows they are having more trouble fudging him down below 1%

[PatriotOne]

I think the polls aren't quite "fixed" but are often "slanted."



The devil is always in the details with polls. I see none of them published the details on how they chose who/where to poll, what the pre-qualifications were to take the poll, etc., etc. They can somewhat effectively cage people from phone surveys these days because of so many resources on the internet to find preferences, etc.

And if we think they won't do it, well, we would be fools. MSM and polls are nothing more than manipulation tools to sell the next Presidential American Idol to the masses.

[Zydeco]

Many things surprise me about this poll:

1) that Benito Giuliani does so well among likely Republican voters. They really must not know what he stands for.

Sheer name recognition and the 9/11 effect. Giuliani is not going to get the Republican nomination, it is just not going to happen, and we're going to look back and wonder why anyone ever thought he would.

[Zydeco]

MSM and polls are nothing more than manipulation tools to sell the next Presidential American Idol to the masses.

Yes.

[Zydeco]

but maybe it shows they are having more trouble fudging him down below 1%

Agreed, and very important. 1% or lower is not good PR, but once you hit 3% (in what is becoming an 11- or 12- or even 13-man race) you're separating yourself from Those Who Will Drop Out Soon.

[Man from La Mancha]

Obviously there are many more major think tanks, and we shall come to most of them in this book. One of the most important areas of cooperation between what think tanks turn out and what becomes government and public policy are the “pollsters.” It is the job of the polling companies to mold and shape public opinion in the way that suits the conspirators. Polls are constantly being taken by CBS-NBC-ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post. Most of these efforts are coordinated at the National Opinion Research Center where, as much as it will amaze most of us, a psychological profile was developed for the entire nation.


Findings are fed into the computers of Gallup Poll and Yankelovich, Skelley and White for comparative evaluation. Much of what we read in our newspapers or see on television has first been cleared by the polling companies. WHAT WE SEE IS WHAT THE POLLSTERS THINK WE SHOULD SEE.


This is called “public opinion making.” The whole idea behind this bit of social conditioning is to find out how responsive the public is to POLICY DIRECTIVES handed down by the Committee of 300. We are called “targeted population groups” and what is measured by the pollsters is how much resistance is generated to what appears in the “Nightly News.” Later, we shall learn exactly how this deceptive practice got started and who is responsible for it.


It is all part of the elaborate opinion-making process created at, Tavistock. Today our people believe they are well-informed but what they do not realize is that the opinions they believe are their own were in fact created in the research institutions and think tanks of America and that none of us are free to form our own opinions because of the information we are provided with by the media and the pollsters.


Polling was brought to a fine art just before the United States entered the Second World War. Americans, unbeknown to themselves, were conditioned to look upon Germany and Japan as dangerous enemies who had to be stopped. In a sense, this was true, and that makes conditioned thinking all the more dangerous, because based on the INFORMATlON fed to them, the enemy did indeed appear to be Germany and Japan. Just recently we saw how well Tavistock’s conditioning process works when Americans were conditioned to perceive Iraq as a threat and Saddam Hussein as a personal enemy of the United States.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_committee300_03.htm

[PatriotOne]

Many things surprise me about this poll:

1) that Benito Giuliani does so well among likely Republican voters. They really must not know what he stands for.

Sheer name recognition and the 9/11 effect. Giuliani is not going to get the Republican nomination, it is just not going to happen, and we're going to look back and wonder why anyone ever thought he would.

I agree with that. Rudy is burnt toast already and the GOP knows it. That's why they are promo'ing Thompson and trying to see if they can sell that pig with lipstick. All that manufactured buzz about him is nothing more than a commercial (coming to a theater near you soon!) to see if the public bites.

[Zydeco]

Rudy is burnt toast already and the GOP knows it. That's why they are promo'ing Thompson

Yep, but Thompson I don't find very threatening no matter how they prop him up. He's spent 20 years as a lobbyist around his Senate stint, RP spent 20 years delivering babies, often for free because he wouldn't accept Medicare on principle. If it comes down to Paul vs. Fred Thompson we should all grab that matchup with both hands!

[PatriotOne]

Man From Le Mancha

Good article. We should keep that handy.

I was just looking at your signature about Vote Fraud. Did you see this article from today? It's not pretty:

Court: Protecting trade secrets takes priority over election transparency

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070625-florida-appeals-court-says-trade-secret-protection-takes-priority-over-election-transparency.html

[angrydragon]

Good article. We should keep that handy.

I was just looking at your signature about Vote Fraud. Did you see this article from today? It's not pretty:

Court: Protecting trade secrets takes priority over election transparency

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...nsparency.html

That link doesn't work.

[PatriotOne]

Hmmm....try this one:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070625-florida-appeals-court-says-trade-secret-protection-takes-priority-over-election-transparency.html

[joenaab]

These polls are rigged. Absolutely positively 100% rigged. They gave RP an extra point to throw us a bone. They may not have been rigged ten years ago, but then neither were our elections.

[kylejack]

Amazing to see Romney fading so fast.

[wecandoit]

polls are there to manipulate public opinon, not reflect it.

that's why we have to put blinders on

[Man from La Mancha]

Patriot-One
How sad that ruling in Florida, I think if this voter fraud is not corrected we will have another puppet dictatorship again for 2008. A lot of the 100 millions of dollars Ron could raise will have to go after the establishment of paper voting. Remember all the congress could be impeached in about 2 months once started from what I have been told. They either do what we say or they are out of there. And with the numbers in each state that will be for Ron this could be doable. He will need to have congress willing to work with him.

[angelatc]

I have GOT to look into the details of how they are doing these polls. 99.5% of the remarks I see on the internet about Rudy are negative at best and usually venomous. He literally has no significant support anywhere that I look. So who the hell are the.

I use Google's Blog search, and I'm always surprised that the pro-Ron Paul posts far outnumber the anti-Ron Paul posts.

[kylejack]

Those factors are both easily explained. Giuliani has little support from people informed on politics, but a great deal from the uninformed ("Oh hey, he's that 9/11 guy!") With regard to Ron Paul, his biggest problem is name recognition, not people hating him, so the alternative to loving him on a blog is not even mentioning him on a blog.

[Starlight]

So, hmmm, McCain is sinking fast, Romney´s not going anywhere, Giuliani won't hold on........this could get interesting! ;)

By the way, I just read a blog (written by a self-proclaimed libertarian!) where Bill Richardson was described as "charismatic" and "a good speaker" - and in the writer´s opinion he would go on to win the Democratic nomination! Richardson - a good speaker?? Richardson - charismatic??

Not to mention another article I came across the other day where Mitt Romney was described as "smart as paint", "formidable", and "brilliant" - what are these people smoking??:confused:

[PatriotOne]

Patriot-One
How sad that ruling in Florida, I think if this voter fraud is not corrected we will have another puppet dictatorship again for 2008. A lot of the 100 millions of dollars Ron could raise will have to go after the establishment of paper voting. Remember all the congress could be impeached in about 2 months once started from what I have been told. They either do what we say or they are out of there. And with the numbers in each state that will be for Ron this could be doable. He will need to have congress willing to work with him.

I hear you. After a person researches those voting machines, it's really hard to come to any other conclusion that their whole purpose is be able to rig elections. A person doesn't even have to go in depth into it. It's just transparent after a day's worth of research.

You may know the answer to this question:

Do those who research the new electronic voting machines in depth think that the whole hanging chad debacle was done on purpose so "they" had an excuse to introduce the electronic voting machines? It would certainly be their MO to do so (they create the problem, get a strong reaction from public, then provide the solution that "they" created the problem for in the first place). Have you seen that in any of your Voter Fraud travels? It just crossesd my mind some times but so many crimes, so little time to research them all :mad: .

[PatriotOne]

I use Google's Blog search, and I'm always surprised that the pro-Ron Paul posts far outnumber the anti-Ron Paul posts.

I'm always surprised that even if the subject is about another candidate, the blogs and news comment sections are mostly about Ron Paul.

[joenaab]

I believe that the powers that be have already selected Hillary to be the next president and that everything else is but a sideshow (this is me when I put on my tin foil hat). So the selection of a GOP candidate is only to determine who will lose by the smallest margin to make the election look "real". Romney and Thompson will become the frontrunners. Mark my words. Giuliani (remember, I'm wearing my hat as I type this) is being rewarded for his complicity in the "unmentionable event", which is why they alway put him way out in front in the polls when everyone hates him (ask yourselves, why is an unpopular mayor leading in the race for the presidential nomination?) So they have to convince Giuliani that they are "doing everything they can" to make him president.

This is what the polls reflect. It's all hand-crafted. Don't be foolianied.

[Bradley in DC]

So, hmmm, McCain is sinking fast, Romney´s not going anywhere, Giuliani won't hold on........this could get interesting! ;)

Yes, exactly. Most polls at this point reflect name identification (few know about Dr. Paul). If we can all open our wallets and show more cash on hand at the end of the month than McCain, we will have the resources to get our message out and be taken seriously. There will be a shake out this summer: another presidential debate (Dr. Paul has already accepted an invitation to appear--no conspiracy rumors, ok?); 2nd Q reporting numbers out mid-July, Iowa straw poll, etc.

If you're a second tier candidate who isn't moving up, doesn't have resources (or even a "buzz"), and need to make a decision (House for Tancredo, Senate for Gilmore, etc.), then the field is going to halve. At that point, as "blowback" enters the common lexicon, Dr. Paul is going to be in a good position to get his message out. And we all know what happens then!

[Starlight]

I believe that the powers that be have already selected Hillary to be the next president and that everything else is but a sideshow (this is me when I put on my tin foil hat). So the selection of a GOP candidate is only to determine who will lose by the smallest margin to make the election look "real". Romney and Thompson will become the frontrunners. Mark my words. Giuliani (remember, I'm wearing my hat as I type this) is being rewarded for his complicity in the "unmentionable event", which is why they alway put him way out in front in the polls when everyone hates him (ask yourselves, why is an unpopular mayor leading in the race for the presidential nomination?) So they have to convince Giuliani that they are "doing everything they can" to make him president.

This is what the polls reflect. It's all hand-crafted. Don't be foolianied.

Things don´t always go according to plan, however......for instance, what would the powers-that-be do if Hillary was caught in some sort of a scandal (the kind that would turn voters away)? And then there´s the case of Ron Paul.......they surely didn´t see that one coming, did they?! :p

[dude58677]

Things don´t always go according to plan, however......for instance, what would the powers-that-be do if Hillary was caught in some sort of a scandal (the kind that would turn voters away)? And then there´s the case of Ron Paul.......they surely didn´t see that one coming, did they?! :p

Actually, Hilliary was caught in a scandal. She violated campaign finance laws where she recieved 2 million dollars for her campaign when the law only permitted $2,300:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56305

I sent the tape to the Obama campaign because that is hilliary's bitter rival and because there has been no media attention on this.

[DjLoTi]

2nd Q reporting numbers out mid-July, Iowa straw poll, etc.

If you're a second tier candidate who isn't moving up, doesn't have resources (or even a "buzz"), and need to make a decision (House for Tancredo, Senate for Gilmore, etc.), then the field is going to halve. Dr. Paul is going to be in a good position to get his message out. And we all know what happens then!

I can't wait for the field to halve. I also can't wait for the 2Q reporting. Brad, around what time do the 2nd tier candidates start to fallout?

[Bradley in DC]

I can't wait for the field to halve. I also can't wait for the 2Q reporting. Brad, around what time do the 2nd tier candidates start to fallout?

[wondering how he has so many more posts than I ...]

It's going to be a long hot summer for the candidates and their staffs (well, a McCain staffer is always on a hot seat, but some just blow it off). Traditionally, this is all still "pre-planning" and the campaigns begin Labor Day (which is when most people would start paying attention anyway).

[joenaab]

Things don´t always go according to plan, however......for instance, what would the powers-that-be do if Hillary was caught in some sort of a scandal (the kind that would turn voters away)? And then there´s the case of Ron Paul.......they surely didn´t see that one coming, did they?! :p

Hey, I'm right there with ya. I wrote about how they'd like it to go. I think they've had their way with little opposition until now. There is such an "awakening" going on around us. They didn't count on this.

[LibertyCzar]

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

Rudy Giuliani 30
Fred Thompson 19
John McCain 18
Mitt Romney 9
Newt Gingrich 8
Mike Huckabee 2 down from 3
Ron Paul 2 up from 1
Sam Brownback 1 down from 2
Tom Tancredo 1 down from 2
Tommy Thompson always 1
Jim Gilmore - down from 2
Duncan Hunter - down from 1

I see Ron Paul getting most of Newt Gingrich's 8%.

I think Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, and John McCain are going to drop out by the end of the 3rd Quarter. At that point, Fred Thompson will really be in the race, and Rudy Giuliani will be in trouble, perhaps not even a frontrunner anymore.

Of the other candidates, I only see Mike Huckabee going back up in the polls. By the end of the 4th Quarter, I see either Tancredo or Hunter tossing in the towel as well.

By the end of the year, these are my picks for the top four candidates:
1) Ron Paul (of course), with at least 15% :D
2) Mitt Romney, with as much support as he can buy
3) Fred Thompson, this is an unknown, but probably with 20%
4) Mike Huckabee, with as much as 10%

Brownback, Tancredo or Hunter, and Giuliani (if he hasn't dropped out due to the increasing bad press) will round out the lingering candidates. Newt Gingrich will be not be a candidate, and will have endorsed Ron Paul (here's to hoping, anyway).

[Bradley in DC]

I see Ron Paul getting most of Newt Gingrich's 8%.

I think Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, and John McCain are going to drop out by the end of the 3rd Quarter. At that point, Fred Thompson will really be in the race, and Rudy Giuliani will be in trouble, perhaps not even a frontrunner anymore.

Of the other candidates, I only see Mike Huckabee going back up in the polls. By the end of the 4th Quarter, I see either Tancredo or Hunter tossing in the towel as well.

By the end of the year, these are my picks for the top four candidates:
1) Ron Paul (of course), with at least 15% :D
2) Mitt Romney, with as much support as he can buy
3) Fred Thompson, this is an unknown, but probably with 20%
4) Mike Huckabee, with as much as 10%

Brownback, Tancredo or Hunter, and Giuliani (if he hasn't dropped out due to the increasing bad press) will round out the lingering candidates. Newt Gingrich will be not be a candidate, and will have endorsed Ron Paul (here's to hoping, anyway).

I'm pretty much in agreement with some changes in the lineup: Tancredo announces run for House re-election this summer (later endorses Paul), Gilmore for Senate (later endorses either Fred or Mitt). Hunter may stay in until California to help his son (running for Dad's seat in Congress) and possibly pick up his district's three delegates to the convention, but no one will notice. Brownback is definitely out after Iowa, if not after the straw poll. McCain will be out before the first vote is cast, but his ego may keep him in until SC.

Because the primary schedule is so early and compressed this year, it's possible we may even have a brokered convention: Rudy with winner-take-all in NY, Paul, Romney, Fred and, to a lesser degree, Huckabee all with some votes but no majority.

[Trance Dance Master]

MSM and polls are nothing more than manipulation tools to sell the next Presidential American Idol to the masses.

Yes.
The also make big $$$ off the race itself. When CNN deleted the list of nearly 181 comments in 2 hours and 6 minutes following the June 5th debate, they did so in their own best interests. Presidential candidates make them lots of money. Anyone who saw those comments already knows who our next president is, so why would they bother watching the debates? Keeping Paul's official poll results low will result in more ad revenue for them, but they've already learned that the internet had more influence over the voting public than they do.

If you haven't seen the deleted comments yet, here they are:

http://www.drawball.com/cnn-removed-this.html

Here's an old FMNN article from 2005 that's no longer on their site, but was posted in a different forum:

Prophet Talk: Internet, Pols' Worst Nightmare?

August 17, 2005

You might think the title of this piece is a little redundant - what with worst and nightmare on the same line -but the point I am trying to make is that pols REALLY hate the Internet. It is probably the worst thing to happen to certain powerful businesspeople and politicians worldwide (those who are interested in exercising more rather than less control over society) since the Reformation and subsequent establishment of the American Confederacy well before the Revolutionary War. Since people only hate what they fear, the argument (according to those who would defend the communication's technology in place) is that the enemies of the 'Net will do whatever it takes to control it. There are a variety of scenarios floating around the "Net on how this might happen, and they can be summarized as those which hold that the 'Net will be taxed to death, propagandized into irrelevance or brought under control through technological adjustments. In this article, I will deal with each of these hypotheses to show why I believe we may have already reached a "tipping point" in which case there is not so much to be done to the 'Net as its enemies hope and its allies fear.

The Internet is not well liked by many in power because it functions as a kind of vaccine, inoculating users against many arguments made by the powerful that rely on a certain level of ignorance to take effect. The Internet is such a powerful purveyor of knowledge because it is a solitary communications that invites leisurely research; viewers can choose what they like and examine the information for so long as they wish. In this, the Internet has much in common with one kind of previous, more primitive technology - books and book printing. Here at FMNN we repeat the same thing over and over again, the Internet is no more nor less than an electronic version of Gutenberg's printing press and will have the same kind of explosive and hopefully bloodless results. Post Gutenberg's this included the Reformation, the collapse of the Catholic church's corrupt religious elite and, finally, the diminishment of the credibility of the Divine Right of Kings which the church had endorsed and subsequent diminishment of monarchial authority. So what do we expect from the Internet? Why much of the same - and in fewer years. (Gutenberg's press took about a century to bite).

The process is well under way. Don't believe me? There is very obviously a movement among certain powerful private and public leaders to create international institutions that can be consolidated into some sort of global governance. Yet the very institutions that are to provide the bedrock foundation for these efforts have, most of them, come under attack in the last few years, and the attacks have not ceased and in fact seem to be having more rather than less effect as time goes on. The United Nations, for instance, is facing a grave scandal that has now implicated Secretary General Kofi Annan's son and brother; the European Union continues to reel from its Constitutional rejection; the Bush Administration, long able to disguise the contradictions of its leader - that apparently he is neither religious nor a small-government conservative - is watching its base peel swiftly away. Something is shaking the pillars of power - something called the Internet. Communication is power. People get on the 'Net and the information they absorb translates into political action, donations and other kinds of activism. It also can result, quite quickly, in the erosion of support for a specific candidate or legislative activity.

Now combine the information on the 'Net with a way of gaining access to it such as the one provided by Google and you have a communication's technology of incredible power, one that makes the pre-Internet information and article databases of a decade or two ago (to which it cost easily $10,000-$100,000 to subscribe per annum) look laughingly primitive. Perhaps worst of all, the Internet provides incriminating linkages in one or two swift keystrokes - linkages that can blow apart years of well-laid plans. If you are interested in who is backing a certain bill or funding certain legislation, a quick trip to the Internet will probably yield the information along with what appear to be certain conflicts-of-interest. Chances are you can find the source and even better you can find out who is behind because of the all-too-human weakness of accepting credit in return for providing funding and services. This has resulted in honorary titles, encomiums and gracious acceptances for well-deserved honors that reveal a carefully branded money trail.

How long can this go on? The more optimistic might predict that such a powerful trend implies longevity. Pessimists believe otherwise and point to such 'Net negatives as the recently created Child Protection Act, just introduced into the Senate in July. "The purpose," reads the Act's language, "is to set tighter age verification standards to block minors from entering Internet pornography sites; and provide funding and support to law enforcement efforts [via a "pornography tax"] to combat Internet and pornography-related crimes against children." Yet, the legislation, once posted on the 'Net, received the following after-chat analysis: "Taxation will require enforcement. Enforcement will require surveillance. Surveillance will lead to avoidance activities (encryption etc). Avoidance will lead to ever more intrusive and complete surveillance [and] surveillance of one type of content is readily transferable to the others. …"

It would seem in this case anyway, that an alert 'Netizen had already analyzed what sounds like responsible legislation and generated a plausible universe of potential ramifications. This person is not alone. A web column at Kentroversy.com recently elevated this approach to an art form, presenting no less than four separate indicators of possible peril or as the writer (one Kent Daniel Bentkowski) puts it, "self sanitization." Four points follow:

(1) "United Nations or U.S. Control of Domain Name Servers." He notes that with the impending release of Internet 2, the "sanitization" of the medium is upon us, and cites a July article from the London Guardian website reporting that the Bush administration was taking control of the thirteen root servers, which control the domain-name servers, thereby regulating Internet traffic. Although the Guardian holds with the conventional view that controlling the internet is beyond even the grasp of the empire-builders, Bentkowski concludes, "While I would like to believe that [this is true], my intuition tells me that all mainstream papers have more to gain by lying than they do by telling the truth.

(2) The Internet will be used as part of a terror attack against the USA. Bentkowski points to recent (and not so recent) TV show plots (Fox's "24" among others), as blueprints for "conditioning the public to expect both terrorist attacks and anti-constitutional infringements of liberty."

(3) "Passage of hate-crime and hate-speech laws. It is important to note that the real reason why hate-crime laws are passed is NOT to protect anyone's religious beliefs, ethnic heritage, or racial identity. This does not mean, however, that religious beliefs, ethnicity, and race are NOT used to enflame such issues. … Most people cannot see these laws for what they really are -- which is to stifle debate or silence a large group of people on a particular subject that has been deemed 'off limits' by the globalists."

(4) "Taxation of Bandwidth and E-Mail" … Bentkowski predicts the imposition of so many taxes on Internet usage that it will become financially difficult for anyone to reach a large audience. … The taxation of either or both bandwidth and e-mail will affect the underlying operation of the Internet.

Sounds convincing - but I'm not quite sure. The Internet is not a stationary device in terms of technological progress and despite Bentkowki's skepticism that the Internet is indeed a controllable medium, the advent of wireless Internet and technological advances may make it difficult in the short term for the Internet to be brought under control of any one faction. (In fact FMNN was perhaps the first to research the big "Internet 2" projects now underway and to sound the alarm about the potential - but not in any way certain - ramifications of these efforts.) Even if a terrorist attack is blamed on the 'Net, authorities' attempts to pass laws to crack down on the 'Net may well be greeted with a good deal of "push back" - one that will only increase viewers' certainty that it is not the 'Net itself which is at fault but other outside circumstances. Worst case (or best), those who seek to manipulate the 'Net by blaming it for terrorism, nuclear or otherwise will probably push more viewers into the skeptics' camp. Finally, taxation is a method of slowing the progress of the 'Net but one that lacks swiftness and surety.

When I look at the history of great communications revolutions, it seems to me that they are not so much "brought under control" as, inevitably, run their course. They leave behind great socio-political change and add much to human progress. We will see if the Internet conforms to this model.

[Lord Xar]

I have GOT to look into the details of how they are doing these polls. 99.5% of the remarks I see on the internet about Rudy are negative at best and usually venomous. He literally has no significant support anywhere that I look. So who the hell are they polling? People living under rocks or what?

Personally, I think these polls are fixed.

hahahha.... I am starting to think we are GIVEN the choices based on "what they want us to choose"... so of course they will say Guilani is up there.. He supports North America Union and amnest etc... (he will fold just like Bush).

[Tim724]

Amazing to see Romney fading so fast.

I remember in the CNN debate when Romney was asked why he ran ads in spanish if he thinks english should be the official language of the US. He got really flustered and went off on some half-baked pseudo-inspirational speech about making America great that had absolutely nothing to do with the question asked.

After seeing that, I had a feeling Mr Slickster was going to crash and burn before 2008.

[kalami]

I didn't follow the race early one, but why was Romney such hot stuff? The guy polls really high, but I've never heard of him before he ran for president. I could understand Giuliani and McCain because of their name recognition, but what's the deal with Romney?

[Harald]

Check http://mittromney.permissiontv.com/index.html.
Especially "Ask Mitt Anything" sections. The guys is very very slick

[torchbearer]

I didn't follow the race early one, but why was Romney such hot stuff? The guy polls really high, but I've never heard of him before he ran for president. I could understand Giuliani and McCain because of their name recognition, but what's the deal with Romney?

He got MSM recognition as a 'top tier' candidate, so people followed the blessing of the MSM to research the 'top tier' candidates, and not bother looking at the other 'second tier' candidates because 'that would be a waste of your time because they can't win' et al.

[Tighe]

For those who say they will support Guiliani, McCain or Hiliary, I would like to see how many of those same people have ever even heard of the Federalist papers or how many of them could even find Iraq or Iran on a map. I think you'll find most of them know very little about either and he lies the problem with mass demoCRAZY. This is what we're up against, a mob of uninformed voters and a controlled media that tells the mob what to think.

[torchbearer]

Don't you pawn mobs in WOW?
(if you can understand the above statements, you might be a gamer)

[Bradley in DC]

I didn't follow the race early one, but why was Romney such hot stuff? The guy polls really high, but I've never heard of him before he ran for president. I could understand Giuliani and McCain because of their name recognition, but what's the deal with Romney?

Romney is a good businessman from a solid, Republican family. He "saved" the Salt Lake City Olympics after the scandals, lost a Senate race against Ted Kennedy then won the governorship there.

People we should ALWAYS try to be positive and polite. Think and ask yourself, "What would Ron Paul do?" We need to win over friends and make allies.

[PatriotOne]

I didn't follow the race early one, but why was Romney such hot stuff? The guy polls really high, but I've never heard of him before he ran for president. I could understand Giuliani and McCain because of their name recognition, but what's the deal with Romney?

Because the polls are done in Utah maybe? Who knows! Since I'm a firm believer that the polls are fixed, it's kind of a moot question for me anyways. I only worry about the so-called scientific polls because many people still believe they are a true reflection of popularity and will choose amongst and vote for one of the candidates they think actually has a chance according to the damn things.

[Bradley in DC]

Because the polls are done in Utah maybe? Who knows! Since I'm a firm believer that the polls are fixed, it's kind of a moot question for me anyways. I only worry about the so-called scientific polls because many people still believe they are a true reflection of popularity and will choose amongst and vote for one of the candidates they think actually has a chance according to the damn things.

There are polls, and then there are polls. They are not "fixed" but can be skewed. Polling has come a long way. One thing to look for is who commissioned a poll and see if you can look at the actual polling questions. One, internal polls commissioned by a campaign (think Richardson in Iowa now) can be written to show what you want them to show. Which brings us to, two, lead in questions (would you be more or less likely to support Dr. Paul if you knew he were racist) which is why if you can see the polling questions then you know what's up. Lead in questions are fine, for what they're worth, and are used to test messages before buying ads, etc. Three, "push" polls aren't really polls at all but aim to steer opinion (inappropriate lead in questions).

[Aeschylus]

I don't know if Ron Paul will win the primary or not but these polls are not legit. Pollsters only being able to call land-lines is a huge deal. There is a recent poll (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/250607Saddam.htm) that shows that the American people's belief that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 has increased. Think about what could cause this. The land-line is a dinosaur.

[PatriotOne]

There are polls, and then there are polls. They are not "fixed" but can be skewed. Polling has come a long way. One thing to look for is who commissioned a poll and see if you can look at the actual polling questions. One, internal polls commissioned by a campaign (think Richardson in Iowa now) can be written to show what you want them to show. Which brings us to, two, lead in questions (would you be more or less likely to support Dr. Paul if you knew he were racist) which is why if you can see the polling questions then you know what's up. Lead in questions are fine, for what they're worth, and are used to test messages before buying ads, etc. Three, "push" polls aren't really polls at all but aim to steer opinion (inappropriate lead in questions).

Yeah..I agree. It's just out of lazyness that I use the term "fixed".
They aren't that blatant about it because they can get the desired answers through manipulation using the questions themselves or a sort of caging technique prior to making the phone calls.

Then there are the polls that are so bold as to not even include RP in the list of candidates!

So many battles to fight, so little time........sigh

[Bradley in DC]

Pollsters only being able to call land-lines is a huge deal.

No one knows how big a deal it is--that is the point. The pollsters are aware of the issue. The important thing is reaching the appropriate number of selected demographics (gender, geography, age, party affiliation, etc.). Whether one is land line or mobile is irrelevant if the demographics in the sample match the general population.

The more questions on a poll and the longer the questions, the more money it costs. When you pay for your own poll, you can add as many names as you like.

[hells_unicorn]

No one knows how big a deal it is--that is the point. The pollsters are aware of the issue. The important thing is reaching the appropriate number of selected demographics (gender, geography, age, party affiliation, etc.). Whether one is land line or mobile is irrelevant if the demographics in the sample match the general population.

The more questions on a poll and the longer the questions, the more money it costs. When you pay for your own poll, you can add as many names as you like.

The entire philosophy behind public polling is quite suspect, if it measures the opinion of the same public that it informs, it puts the poller in a state of power that makes me uneasy. The entire concept is based on the concept that human beings rely on group think rather than function as individuals, it is it's own end in addition to the means to an end.

I am one of several individuals who has openly refused to be polled because I don't support what it perpetuates, and that is group think.

[Bradley in DC]

The entire philosophy behind public polling is quite suspect, if it measures the opinion of the same public that it informs, it puts the poller in a state of power that makes me uneasy. The entire concept is based on the concept that human beings rely on group think rather than function as individuals, it is it's own end in addition to the means to an end.

I am one of several individuals who has openly refused to be polled because I don't support what it perpetuates, and that is group think.

As I explained previously, there are polls, and then there are polls. For example, I worked for the Tarance Group, a Republican polling company (on a side note, it was through a consultant on a campaign of theirs that I got my connection with Ron Paul's campaign). They team up with Celinda Lake's (Democratic) group for the "Battleground" poll which does an excellent job reflecting public opinion. For example, rather than just ask if someone is a "likely voter" they ask a series of questions (are you registered to vote, do you know where your voting place is, did you vote in the last election, etc) and determine if you are one based on how many of the questions one answers (no, they don't check to see if you got them right).

Since there are some intensely interested in polling, a little trivia: The Republican polling and media companies are clusted in Old Town, Alexandria (VA) and the Democratic counterparts are concentrated in Georgetown (DC).

[LibertyCzar]

Taking these numbers at face value, do you realize that five candidates polled lower than Ron Paul, and are going to be at the Forum on Saturday? And they claim Ron Paul is not viable. Geez! And this is before CNN even knows about the fundraising for the quarter.

[FSP-Rebel]

I tend to look at poll #'s this way: media says Pauls at 2-3% of republicans, what about all the anti-war dems, constitutionalists, libertarians, independents, non-voters that we are picking up; plus I'd say that most meetup groups consist of maybe ten percent republicans, so in reality the support could be anywhere from five to ten times higher than the bullshit poll numbers, thus ten to twenty percent already. Does anyone else feel me on this?

[kylejack]

I tend to look at poll #'s this way: media says Pauls at 2-3% of republicans, what about all the anti-war dems, constitutionalists, libertarians, independents, non-voters that we are picking up; plus I'd say that most meetup groups consist of maybe ten percent republicans, so in reality the support could be anywhere from five to ten times higher than the bullshit poll numbers, thus ten to twenty percent already. Does anyone else feel me on this?

No. Almost all of these polls ask for likely Republican primary voters rather than currently registered Republicans, which could include all of those people.