Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: RE: Flooding online polls...

  1. #1

    Lightbulb RE: Flooding online polls...

    If we were smart we would just have Ron Paul win them by a small margin...



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I think the important thing to know here is that no matter what margin Paul wins by, they will always block a Paul win. The way we win this particular battle is to show that the support is real.

  4. #3
    Where are all the "caniacs" at when it comes to the polls? If they're so organized and enthused then why doesn't that show up in these onlie polls? The media seems to think that we Ron Paul supporters have some magical control of the Internet.

  5. #4

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Reason View Post
    If we were smart we would just have Ron Paul win them by a small margin...
    No way...eventually they will realize that Ron really does have that many supporters.

    Sorry MSM if some "sample" group of 1,000 voters (poll) doesn't agree...

    Mapping Where GOP Candidates Raise Their Campaign Donations
    How have you helped spread the message of Liberty, Peace, & Prosperity today?
    "Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." -George Washington

  7. #6
    So what do you propose we do? Half of us not to vote? This is ridiculous, if they dont want to poll the internet than dont set up an internet poll!

  8. #7
    OPEN LETTER

    CNBC: Real Cool Poll Math


    Uploaded with ImageShack.us


    Uploaded with 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_r...c=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/iow...-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-de...111-money-bomb

    Ron Paul Campaign Site for the Event
    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/pages/mbp....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
    Blue Republican, changed from No Party Affiliation to Republican to vote for Ron Paul in Florida.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by constitutionstory View Post
    OPEN LETTER

    CNBC: Real Cool Poll Math


    Uploaded with ImageShack.us


    Uploaded with 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_r...c=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/iow...-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-de...111-money-bomb

    Ron Paul Campaign Site for the Event
    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/pages/mbp....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
    send to jon stewart!



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    I say, for the lulz, we all vote for Frothy (after we get Ron a smidge above everyone else) after the next debate just to see what happens.

  12. #10
    It's stupid. It was stupid last time, it still is this time. Does nothing but reinforce the media narrative. Yet we still have folks posting "poll... You know what to do" threads as if it has some bearing, or even positive effect, on the campaign. I say we ignore them entirely. Theyve brought us nothing but a label and ridicule this far.

  13. #11
    cnbc has a new poll up

    hxxp://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/09/8726049-which-candidate-won-the-gop-debate

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by PastaRocket848 View Post
    It's stupid. It was stupid last time, it still is this time. Does nothing but reinforce the media narrative. Yet we still have folks posting "poll... You know what to do" threads as if it has some bearing, or even positive effect, on the campaign. I say we ignore them entirely. Theyve brought us nothing but a label and ridicule this far.
    You're right! Let's stop voting in them, so we can provide them the new narrative that Ron Paul's support has faded away and even his most ardent supporters have lost hope in his election chances

    /sarcasm

  15. #13
    Seriously, who cares. Let's just keep winning all of the online polls by a landslide. It's quick and easy. It prevents the msm from using them to push other candidates. Let's stop whining about the msm taking them down. It makes us look like sore loser and not frontrunners.

  16. #14
    I don't understand... What should I be looking for in those two photos that shows that there's tampering?

  17. #15
    Never ignore a poll. Letting another candidate wins just props them up.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by PastaRocket848 View Post
    It's stupid. It was stupid last time, it still is this time. Does nothing but reinforce the media narrative. Yet we still have folks posting "poll... You know what to do" threads as if it has some bearing, or even positive effect, on the campaign. I say we ignore them entirely. Theyve brought us nothing but a label and ridicule this far.
    And then what? They see that no one voted for Ron Paul so they can say "Ron Paul's support is waning"? Is there anyone here who believes that if Ron Paul didn't place near the top of an internet poll that it wouldn't make the news?


    There was another thought that I initially wanted to comment on though before I hit the send key. This is an absolutely amazing breakdown and indictment of the media tricks. It should be sent EVERYWHERE and often. Save it in your files and send it to EVERYONE in your contacts list, your social network base and every other source you can think of. Make it go viral. Maybe we can start to combine our efforts to fabricate videos and other materials to spread all over the place to anyone who will listen but they should ALL include out pledge to vote for NO ONE BUT PAUL
    Last edited by Captain Shays; 11-10-2011 at 07:33 AM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    I vote in these polls. I only vote one time. Perhaps, and it should be considered by these talking heads, Paul supporters simply outnumber by a large margin other supporters when it comes to the use of the internet.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Reason View Post
    If we were smart we would just have Ron Paul win them by a small margin...
    I don't think it makes a difference at this point. Cain's folks organize and sometimes beat us. Palin's folks used to organize and sometimes beat us. But they are never called out (nor are the Santorum folks who organize but never beat us, but I digress.....) The point is, they don't want to give Ron air time and this is an excuse they use. I am absolutely certain if Ron wins Iowa there will be pundits saying caucuses are just glorified straw polls, and it doesn't mean anything. You might think it would make them pay more attention to how Ron is doing in straw polls, but no....
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    I don't think it makes a difference at this point. Cain's folks organize and sometimes beat us. Palin's folks used to organize and sometimes beat us. But they are never called out (nor are the Santorum folks who organize but never beat us, but I digress.....) The point is, they don't want to give Ron air time and this is an excuse they use. I am absolutely certain if Ron wins Iowa there will be pundits saying caucuses are just glorified straw polls, and it doesn't mean anything. You might think it would make them pay more attention to how Ron is doing in straw polls, but no....
    We can probably expect that Sailing. It's what they did with CPAC and with AIMES and with Ohio, California and we all know how they touted Cain in Florida. As Jerry Garcia used to say "And get that trucking on". Just keep going. Keep fighting. Keep doing EVERYTHING we can to WIN

  23. #20
    I say blow them all up. They'll complain and take them down, but they'll still put up more expecting different results.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by ShaneEnochs View Post
    I say blow them all up. They'll complain and take them down, but they'll still put up more expecting different results.
    Yep, just keep at it and quit the complaining.

  25. #22
    For those of you who think online polls are useless:

    http://www.king5.com/news/politics/Poll-Ron-Paul-has-best-chance-to-defeat-Obama-133617503.html

    W
    ould you rather that article be about Cain? That's pure earned media courtesy of us.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by TexMac View Post
    For those of you who think online polls are useless:

    http://www.king5.com/news/politics/Poll-Ron-Paul-has-best-chance-to-defeat-Obama-133617503.html

    W
    ould you rather that article be about Cain? That's pure earned media courtesy of us.
    Nice. I'm all for winning them. We just need to quit with the whining when they take them down. It doesn't make us look like frontrunners, just let it go and move on.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by TexMac View Post
    For those of you who think online polls are useless:

    http://www.king5.com/news/politics/Poll-Ron-Paul-has-best-chance-to-defeat-Obama-133617503.html

    W
    ould you rather that article be about Cain? That's pure earned media courtesy of us.
    That's great work there:


    SEATTLE – A nonscientific KING5.com - NWCN.com poll finds 40 percent of people think Ron Paul has the best chance among the remaining Republican presidential candidates to defeat Pres. Barack Obama next year.
    Coming in second among the 5,775 who voted? Nobody. 26 percent of respondents said nobody in the field could stop Obama from winning a second term.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Why don't they use phone banks for people to call in and vote? This would make the poll available to people that do not use computers.

    They know what would happen...the same thing! Ron Paul would dominate.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by mortepa View Post
    Why don't they use phone banks for people to call in and vote? This would make the poll available to people that do not use computers.

    They know what would happen...the same thing! Ron Paul would dominate.
    Same thing would happen and it's still an opt in unscientific poll.

  31. #27
    I am not sure who "WE" is. I do not vote in on-line polls. RP is already the President of the Internet. Online polls mean well .... almost nothing. IMO
    Life is not a movie & liberty will not be delivered on a bed of feathers.

  32. #28
    The reality is Ron Paul's grassroot supporters and organization online are probably 1-2 elections ahead of anyone else so this allows us to disproportionally show up in these polls. We're not rigging or slamming anything. It's just the organization and dedication just isn't there for any of the other candidates. So RP winning all these polls is the result.



Similar Threads

  1. Online Polls
    By chickensguys in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2012, 04:13 PM
  2. Online polls
    By taotree in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-25-2008, 06:01 PM
  3. Lot of Online Polls, i mean LOT!
    By qwerty in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-26-2007, 06:10 AM
  4. Online polls...
    By moostraks in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-21-2007, 10:29 PM
  5. Lot of Online polls...
    By qwerty in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-26-2007, 11:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •