Here We Go Again: FOX NEWS Reports GOP Presidental Poll 8/15, Take A Guess Who's Missing

[HOLLYWOOD]

Rand Paul removed, imagine that... plenty of video coverage of Jeb Bush and Fatso Goering Chris Christie... honorable mention to all, even Progressive Paul Ryan as the GOP VP stand-in stooge for sham of the 2012 presidential election. Everyone on screen got a mentioned and FOX's Shannon Bream and Carl Cameron pumped the establishment ringers Jeb & Christie... of course complete blackout of Rand Paul.

Here's the screen shot from FOX NEWS Corp, Friday, August 15th, 2014

=


HERE WE GO AGAIN... Rogers Ailes-Rupert Murdoch's Presidential Election rigging 2016

[William Tell]

Isn't that the poll that had Rand at 7%?

[MelissaWV]

Bush and Christie are tied at 13 percent among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in the Marist survey; Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas came in at 10 percent; Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, both at 9 percent; Paul and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, 7 percent each; Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, 4 percent; former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, 3 percent; and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, 2 percent.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/1...#storylink=cpy

He was not left out of the poll. He placed tied with Rick Perry at 7% and did not make the graphic.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I am getting tired of these polls. How does Rand Paul go from first-place nationally to fifth, to seventh, to second, to eighth to first to etc., etc., etc. every week?

I really don't believe for one second that Cruz, Ryan or Rubio is ahead of him nationally.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/1...#storylink=cpy

He was not left out of the poll. He placed tied with Rick Perry at 7% and did not make the graphic.

FOX NEWS mentioned Perry, but zero mentioning of Rand. Transmitting in HDTV yet they can't put Perry and Rand in the graphic too? How convenient... twice.

[MelissaWV]

I am getting tired of these polls. How does Rand Paul go from first-place nationally to fifth, to seventh, to second, to eighth to first to etc., etc., etc. every week?

I really don't believe for one second that Cruz, Ryan or Rubio is ahead of him nationally.

Because of the methodology, which people (even the OP) will not take the time to read.

People 18 and older who live in the continental U.S. were interviewed by telephone using live interviewers. Landline numbers were randomly selected based on a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation from ASDE Survey Sampler Inc. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. This sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of cellphone numbers from Survey Sampling International. The two samples were then combined and balanced to reflect the 2010 census results for age, gender, income, race and region. Respondents in the household were selected by asking for the youngest male. Results are statistically significant within plus or minus 3 percentage points. There are 806 registered voters. The results for this subset are statistically significant within plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. There are 342 Republicans and Republican leaning independents. The error margin for this subset is plus or minus 5.3 percentage points. The error margin increases for cross-tabulations.

Weighted per the 2010 census, asking for you to choose a favored candidate based on predetermined choices.

Page 10 of the McClatchy-Marist Poll:

If the 2016 presidential election were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are:

Hillary Clinton (48%)
Rand Paul (42%)

That number looks kind of bad, except:

April 2014
54% Hillary
40% Rand

February 2014
58% Hillary
38% Rand

December 2013
55% Hillary
40% Rand

July 2013
50% Hillary
38% Rand

I know the methods are flawed, but there's a trend there. Hillary's support is not going in the right direction while Rand is holding steady (if anything, slightly up over time).

[MelissaWV]

FOX NEWS mentioned Perry, but zero mentioning of Rand. Transmitting in HDTV yet they can't put Perry and Rand in the graphic too? How convenient... twice.

They left out Jindal, too.

[Lindsey]

Uhm. I think the lack of coverage of Rand in this case, has to do with his results. Rand is not being blacked out in this instance.

[invisible]

Sounds just like their reporting of the NV results from 2008.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Hey, Mellisa... this thread was posted for what FOX NEW TV reported about a poll... which was not all the data in the McClatchy-Marist results.

The incomplete polling data is feed to millions of FOX NEWS viewers see and narrated to the viewing audiences. It was to point out how FOX NEWS presents the information they only want you to see/hear, or should I say a lack of information? Either way, they can always use a multitude of excuse to not include the other candidates or cover them. There was zero mentioning/coverage about GOP candidates polling against Hillary or any other Democrat.

Once again, it's just showing how FOX NEWS provides only the data they want you to see and hear, from a poll, as oppose to the complete polling data results provided. I find it quite suspicious FOX NEWS, which loves to play the left vs. right games 24/7, failed to mention any of the other data results of GOP candidates vs the anything on the left. I wonder why, since it's their rallying cry against the left.

That's all

Because of the methodology, which people (even the OP) will not take the time to read.



Weighted per the 2010 census, asking for you to choose a favored candidate based on predetermined choices.

Page 10 of the McClatchy-Marist Poll:

If the 2016 presidential election were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are:

Hillary Clinton (48%)
Rand Paul (42%)

That number looks kind of bad, except:

April 2014
54% Hillary
40% Rand

February 2014
58% Hillary
38% Rand

December 2013
55% Hillary
40% Rand

July 2013
50% Hillary
38% Rand

I know the methods are flawed, but there's a trend there. Hillary's support is not going in the right direction while Rand is holding steady (if anything, slightly up over time).

[MelissaWV]

Hey HOLLYWOOD, the thread title is "Here We Go Again..." which implies this is just like what happened when Ron was left out of reporting. Except, per what I posted (and what William Tell and Lindsey posted), it's not like that at all.

For this to be the same thing, Rand would have to be listed in the poll at, say, 10% but Fox just didn't list him and skipped right over him, lending focus instead to others who got lower numbers.

Sorry I actually read the source material and realized it didn't happen that way, and that I actually found something interesting as a part of the poll that you mentioned in the thread title AND the OP. How off-topic of me?

[HOLLYWOOD]

Hey HOLLYWOOD, the thread title is "Here We Go Again..." which implies this is just like what happened when Ron was left out of reporting. Except, per what I posted (and what William Tell and Lindsey posted), it's not like that at all.

For this to be the same thing, Rand would have to be listed in the poll at, say, 10% but Fox just didn't list him and skipped right over him, lending focus instead to others who got lower numbers.

Sorry I actually read the source material and realized it didn't happen that way, and that I actually found something interesting as a part of the poll that you mentioned in the thread title AND the OP. How off-topic of me?

Check this out from coincidentally, today... Senator Tom Coburn's comments about media start at the 23:40 mark in the video at the link.


Here's One Republican Senator Who Isn't Exactly A Fan Of Fox News
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5681430.html


Here's One Republican Senator Who Isn't Exactly A Fan Of Fox News

[fr33]

Would you participate in these polls? I wouldn't. It was 9 months ago when I last had a land line. Not that I would have participated then either.

[dannno]

2016 election and we are still dealing with the landline issue..

[dannno]

It sounds like the real headline should be "Fox News Had to Revert to a 9 Month Old Landline Poll to Find a Way to Blackout Rand Paul"

[MelissaWV]

Would you participate in these polls? I wouldn't. It was 9 months ago when I last had a land line. Not that I would have participated then either.

Weirdly enough, though the methodology I posted talks about landlines, the results include cell results. I have to think those are the fluke cell numbers that people list as home numbers publicly, so the idiotic sampling firm picked them up as "random landlines."

[acptulsa]

..

[Brett85]

It sounds like the real headline should be "Fox News Had to Revert to a 9 Month Old Landline Poll to Find a Way to Blackout Rand Paul"

What do you mean "9 Month Old Landline Poll?" The poll is from a couple of weeks ago, August 4-7.

[69360]

That poll is an outlier. Rand hasn't polled that low in over 2 years. I wouldn't get your panties in a bunch over it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand Paul removed, imagine that... plenty of video coverage of Jeb Bush and Fatso Goering Chris Christie... honorable mention to all, even Progressive Paul Ryan as the GOP VP stand-in stooge for sham of the 2012 presidential election. Everyone on screen got a mentioned and FOX's Shannon Bream and Carl Cameron pumped the establishment ringers Jeb & Christie... of course complete blackout of Rand Paul.

Here's the screen shot from FOX NEWS Corp, Friday, August 15th, 2014

=


HERE WE GO AGAIN... Rogers Ailes-Rupert Murdoch's Presidential Election rigging 2016

If Rand had 12 percent in that poll the graphic would feature Jeb and Christie being tied in a dead heat for GOP nominee.

[jkr]

NUMBERS
can be
used to
LIE

---

do da!
do da!

NUMBERS
can be
used to
LIE
AaallLLll Do Da DaY!

[erowe1]

Hey, Mellisa... this thread was posted for what FOX NEW TV reported about a poll... which was not all the data in the McClatchy-Marist results.

So did you know when you wrote the OP that Rand was in the poll and didn't place in the top 5?

Because if so, then the way you wrote the OP is really deceptive.

On the other hand, if you didn't know, then your proper response to Melissa is to say, "Oh, sorry. My mistake. Thanks for clarifying that."

[Foreigner]

That poll is an outlier. Rand hasn't polled that low in over 2 years. I wouldn't get your panties in a bunch over it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html

I think he will recover eventually. I can't imagine his drop being so dramatic. (if anything at all) The real concern with this poll though, is that he's dropped from 20 to 7 percent with tea party supporters. That kind of drop gotta have some root in reality even if the poll exaggerates it. While I think his liberal outreach is golden in terms of the general and passing libertarian legislation, he's gotta be careful not to lose his "tea party mojo". It's mostly a issue of rhetoric, not policy-direction in my mind. While it's not an issue of the media being unfair to him right now, it's easy for a casual tea-partier that don't follow politics closely to misunderstand liberal praise as a sell out of conservative principles lately. It's just one poll though, I would not worry unless others confirm the trend.

Also, Rand is a political prodigy. I think he will own the debates in the run up to the primaries, gaining major traction regardless of the polling beforehand. Anything he does now shouldn't just be measured in % support, but rather as building a resume of both having principles and having accomplished something. If he had just towed the "tea party line" like Cruz, he'd have higher support, but also would have been much more vulnerable to the "extremist" and "obstructionist, do nothing" - line of attacks later on - making him poison to the mainstream GOP.

And this poll isn't just bad news either. Hes the best polling republican against Hillary (though only by 1 point)