LA Times: Ron Paul supporters: Do NOT read this. Please!

[PatriotOne]

Awwww.....what other supporters garner this much drama ;)?


READERS' WARNING: Supporters of Ron Paul should not read this item. Perusing the following paragraphs may cause dizziness, nausea, vomiting, disappointment and renewed anger at political polls, the mainstream media, all institutions holding financial power and anyone not terribly concerned about that mysterious planned highway across Texas that somehow threatens national security.

Rest here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/ron-paulites-do.html

[Man from La Mancha]

ok I won't read it

.

[JeffersonThomas]

for those who don't read it, it basically claims that people who don't believe in polls are mental and then it goes on to say Dr. Paul's support is shrinking (which I think it only cites one poll, CNN) in the last couple months. In short, the author is an idiot

[rollingpig]

2 more weeks

[jasonoliver]

Yeah same polls that put Alan Keyes tied with Ron Paul.....

Bullshit.

Move on.

[saahmed]

Tom Tancredo is dropping out?!

[itsnobody]

The same bullshit with polls again...the LA times should really look into something called "history" and how the polls are always inaccurate, historically speaking

[me3]

Andrew Malcolm loves tweaking the Paulunteers. I still think we need the LA MeetUps, to send 50 or so folks to Andrew's office, present him with a Ron Paul hat, some Slim Jim's and a DVD.

And to tell him to keep up the good work. Blogging about Dr. Paul, even if done in jest, helps name recognition.

[ewizacft]

http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/dewey_defeats_truman1.jpg

[PRIEST]

That author is an idiot. He's using RP's name to get traffic.

[CelestialRender]

Not reading it. They don't want viewership, I won't give it to em.

[sasha_2008]

I don't buy it, the smear campaign today was politically coordinated. It would not have been done if he didn't have the numbers to scare them.

[bcmiller]

fuck you frank

[ChristopherBearkat]

The polls moved just once percent, with all the candidates only ahead or behind by the margin of error. Translation: Any candidates game

[susano]

I posted this as a reply at the blog. Comments are moderated, so we'll see.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

National Presidential Caucus Announces Results From First-Ever National Caucus

-- Barack Obama Wins Democrat Caucuses; Ron Paul Dominates Both GOP And "Open" Caucuses --

Washington, DC (December 12, 2007) -- On December 7, 2007 in cities and small towns across the country, Democrat, Republican and "Open" Caucus groups formed independently online and Caucused face-to-face on National Caucus Day. The first-ever National Presidential Caucus is now history and the results are in.

Barack Obama wins over Democrat voters generating 40% of Democrat Caucus voter preferences. Obama was followed by a three-way tie for second, with John Edwards, Bill Richardson and "Undecided" each generating 20% of Democratic Caucus preferences.

On the Republican side, Ron Paul obliterated the field for the GOP generating the preference of 50% of GOP Caucuses. Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson follow, generating 33.3% and 16.6% of Republican Caucus preferences, respectively.

Among votes in Open Caucuses, Ron Paul wins with 62.5% of Open Caucus votes, followed by Barack Obama (18.75%), Fred Thompson (12.5%), and Hilary Clinton (6.25%).

Results were tallied from 19 independently formed Caucus groups (Republican, Democrat, and Open) that met on Friday, December 7th, 2007 in Dallas, TX (2D); Sarcoxie, MO (O); Boise, ID (R); Needham, MA (D); Carthage, MO (O); Manhattan, KS (D & R); Pineville, MO (O); Richmond, MO (O); Costa Mesa, CA (O); Springfield MO (R); Winston-Salem, NC (O); Overland Park, KS (R); New York City, NY (O); and Joplin, MO (R), Warrensburg, MO (R), Roselle Park, NK (D), and Philadelphia, PA (O).

http://www.nationalcaucus.com/120707_results_announcement

[expatinireland]

This response by xtrabiggg to Andrew Malcolm's piece on polling is the best
refutation I have read of polling as currently conducted by the Old Media's polling operations.

This missive needs to be posted where all Paul supporters can read it as is it provides the background as to why we need to not be discouraged by the polls and redouble our efforts. We need to disregard the agents of the Oligarch's who try to beat us down every chance they get.

Well done extrabiggg!




Andrew. You Plagiarized that headline partially from an old 'Abdominizer' Advertisement. But I'll forgive you for that. What is not unforgiveable is the miopic obsession that you and most reporters seem to have with polling and poll numbers. I worked in communications for years and used poll numbers, surveys and other data to make million-dollar decisions regarding media buying, ad placement and strength of message within specific demographic groups.

I found that over the years, the data was getting less and less accurate, as the companies I relied on failed to keep up with technological advances and demographic trends. Land-line telephone polls are among the worst offenders in this regard. The pollsters seem to rely on a methodology that still clings to 20th-century ideas about demographics and sampling groups. In particular, regarding Presidential Politics, with the advances in communications, both interpersonal and mass media (including internet) the choices of media and equipment and sources for information have become so vast and decentralized that any poll relying on such a small sample as most 'scientific' polls (200-1000 people) will inherently contain a much wider margin of error than the pollsters are willing to admit (generally +/- 5%).

In addition, the polls increasingly seem to be unable to shield themselves from self-bias, as their bread and butter comes from major media corporations and large political groups that 'expect' certain results. Digging into the metrics of the polls and the questions actually asked, this becomes more obvious. The Ron Paul campaign has complained about being excluded from even being included in some polls (other than in the 'other' category). It has also been pointed out how 'compound' or 'bundled' national polls don't just rely on raw data, but apply 'formulae' to add or subtract points based on performance in previous polls- a clear violation of the statistical model which says you should NOT manipulate the data using sources outside of the original data set.

Lastly, the sampling group, in particular regarding Ron paul's numbers, seems to be biased from the outset, yet this fact is hidden by the misleading use of the term. 'Likely Republican Primary Voters' for the sample group. This is a vague description of what specifically is (according to the surveys' own disclosure data) voters who voted in the last Republican Primary. Taken on the face of it, you are relying on a sample of people based on a set of data that is FOUR YEARS OLD!. In addition, this sample does not accurately reflect the dynamics of the present set of 'likely voters', as this year's electorate is much more fluid than in many, many years. In addition, four years ago in the Republican primary, voters had only one choice in an uncontested primary- the Incumbent president. All statistics show that a large number of voters do not vote in a primary election when there is no challenger. Therefore, your sampling pool for this election consists primarily of ardent supporters of President Bush who voted for him in 2004. Is that an accurate representation of the fluid and growing pool of voters who are likely to vote in the 2008 primary? There is no way you can logically or truthfully say that is so.

One final note. in the last three presidential elections, the polls were increasingly divergent with the actual voter tallies, with the networks scrambling to cover their butts as their 'projections' from shortly before the election were wa-a-a-a-y off. DO you really want to continue to rely so much on what is essentially 20th-century technology and metrics in measureing a 21st century election?

xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++++++++=

(Partial plagiarizing? Is that like being sort of pregnant?)

Posted by: xtrabiggg | December 20, 2007 at 12:40 AM

[Thundercloud]

Warning!!!!

DO NOT POST THERE!
They edit your posts, then they don't allow a response to the edit that they made.

It's just bad news.
Us Paul people are the only ones that read it anyway. Don't even go there anymore.

[partypooper]

is that andrew malcom again? i keep getting his crap every day when i google ron paul. just ignore him and he will stop.

[Give me liberty]

That author is an idiot. He's using RP's name to get traffic.

Yup the best thing to do, is to

DONT GIVE THEM traffic......;)

[chudrockz]

Sadly, I gave 'em a hit. I fell for it.

And the REALLY pathetic thing is, I *knew* who he was from I think two previous blog entries regarding Dr. Paul. Must be a lack of coffee.

Last mistake (like this anyhow) that I'll ever make!

[chudrockz]

Sadly this Andrew whatsisname character is a pathetic, sarcastic little twerp, but gotta give it to him. He knows darn well that with a title like "Please RP supporters don't read this," his reads will go up from probably twenty a day to hundreds of thousands.


And yet he'll continue to believe those "polls," at least until Iowa and NH. I can't WAIT to hear about what he'll eat after that.