Ron Paul Wins Polls, Gets Repeatedly Disrespected by CNBC
| Tue Oct. 16, 2007 7:54 AM PDT
Another debate, another post-debate poll won by an underdog candidate and then hidden by the media outlet commissioning the poll. Sounds outrageous, but it's almost becoming routine, particularly with Kucinich on the left and Ron Paul on the right.
It happened again after the recent Republican debate on CNBC. Ron Paul's supporters pounced on the post-debate online poll and gave their man a hefty lead, only to find the poll removed. CNBC.com managing editor Allen Wastler eventually "explained" himself—by saying, petulantly, that he'd do it again.
An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful
You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.
That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.
So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.
Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.
The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.
But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.
Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.
There's a number of things to point out.
(1) Why commission an admittedly unscientific poll if you are going to get upset by the unscientific results? If you are aware the poll may get caught by the whimsy (or the plotting) of the crowd, why not just see where it takes you?
(2) Wastler must be incredibly naive if he can say, with a straight face, "When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried." That's American democracy, buddy.
(3) Isn't there something interesting, and newsworthy, in letting the Ron Paul internet phenomenon play out in plain view? A better approach might be to let the poll stand, because it was voted on without corruption or hacking, and then write an article on what CNBC.com's internal metrics say about who voted. That is to say, as part of CNBC.com's post-debate coverage, they could have written about the poll and Ron Paul's unique advantage in the web. It is, after all, news.
One person who agrees with me is CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood. He rebutted Wastler and responded to the complaints about the hidden poll.
My Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters
...I agree with the complaints. I do not believe our poll was "hacked." Nor do I agree with my colleagues' decision to take it down, though I know they were acting in good faith.
My reasoning is simple: Political dialogue on the Internet, like democracy itself, ought to be open and participatory. If you sponsor an online poll as we did, you accept the results unless you have very good reason to believe something corrupt has occurred--just as democracies accept results on Election Day at the ballot box without compelling evidence of corruption. I have no reason to believe anything corrupt occurred with respect to our poll.
To the contrary, I believe the results we measured showing an impressive 75% naming Paul reflect the organization and motivation of Paul's adherents. This is precisely what unscientific surveys of this kind are created to measure. Another indication: the impressive $5-million raised by Paul's campaign in the third quarter of the year.
To be clear: I believe that Ron Paul's chances of winning the presidency are no greater than my own, which is to say zero. When he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988, he drew fewer than a half-million votes. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll of Republican primary voters--which IS a scientific poll with a four percentage point margin for error--Paul drew two percent.
He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because Paul's views--respectable, well-articulated and sincerely held as they are--are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in.
The difference we are discussing--breadth of views vs intensity of views--is a staple of political discussion and always has been in democracies. Highly motivated minorities can and do exert influence out of proportion to their numbers in legislative debates and even in some elections. They most certainly can dominate unscientific online polls. And when they do, we should neither be surprised nor censor the results.
In the end, Harwood's reasoning adds another reason why the poll should be left up: What's the harm?
Comments
The Haywood response was encouraging, but I still had some issues with two things he said:
Here was my response to him...
You have to forgive us for our skepticism about your intentions Mr Harwood. Your organization now seems like it is trying to appease us since your strategy of ignoring and then ridiculing has failed to stymie Ron Paul's support.
You state:
1."He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. "
There is no way to know the truth of your statement, since you admit you intentionally promote Guiliani and other statist-corporate favorites of your organization and you'll refuse to do otherwise. It is well known to many of us that the anti-individualist propaganda you spew is much appreciated by David Rockefeller, the CFR, the UN and Socialist everywhere?.Rockefeller admits it!
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
CFR Leader: David Rockefeller Baden-Baden, Germany 1991-
2."Nor do I agree with my colleagues' decision to take it down, though I know they were acting in good faith. "
Well given the huge number of your former colleagues who are guilty of associating with the open conspiracy to spew propaganda at americans, it impossible for us to take you at your word that they "were acting in good faith" this time. In your own letter you admit to having no intention of finding out how things would change if you made a effort to neutralize your swaying of public opinion! A simple web search shows the level of infiltration that your organization has had in the past by CFR members who help them move their agenda forward. There is no doubt that ANYONE who aspires to a big career at your organization, must adhere to the ground rules that these past criminal have gone by. All of these guys were CFR members. The public is waking up to the fact that you guys are as honest as Joseph Goebbels.
Crystal, Lester M. - former president of NBC News (1977-1979)
Kalb, Marvin - retired CBS and NBC propagandist; former host of NBC"s Meet the Press; professor at Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
Mitchell, Andrea - NBC Propagandist; Alan Greenspan's wife
Mosettig, Michael David - former producer of PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, NBC Nightly News and NBC Today Show;
Murray, Alan S. - co-host of "Capital Report'on CNBC; contributing editor to Wall Street Journal
Schlosser, Herbert S. - former President of NBC; former RCA executive
Trainor, Bernard E. (Gen., USMC) - military correspondent and propagandist for the New York Times and NBC
Utley, Garrick - correspondent and propagandist for CNN; former NBC propagandist
Williams, Brian D. - NBC Propagandist
Brokaw, Tom - former NBC Propagandist; a Director of CFR
Thank you for your time,
Gabe Harris
The Haywood response was encouraging, but I still had some issues with two things he said:
Here was my response to him...
You have to forgive us for our skepticism about your intentions Mr Harwood. Your organization now seems like it is trying to appease us since your strategy of ignoring and then ridiculing has failed to stymie Ron Paul's support.
You state:
1."He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. "
There is no way to know the truth of your statement, since you admit you intentionally promote Guiliani and other statist-corporate favorites of your organization and you'll refuse to do otherwise. It is well known to many of us that the anti-individualist propaganda you spew is much appreciated by David Rockefeller, the CFR, the UN and Socialist everywhere?.Rockefeller admits it!
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
CFR Leader: David Rockefeller Baden-Baden, Germany 1991-
2."Nor do I agree with my colleagues' decision to take it down, though I know they were acting in good faith. "
Well given the huge number of your former colleagues who are guilty of associating with the open conspiracy to spew propaganda at americans, it impossible for us to take you at your word that they "were acting in good faith" this time. In your own letter you admit to having no intention of finding out how things would change if you made a effort to neutralize your swaying of public opinion! A simple web search shows the level of infiltration that your organization has had in the past by CFR members who help them move their agenda forward. There is no doubt that ANYONE who aspires to a big career at your organization, must adhere to the ground rules that these past criminal have gone by. All of these guys were CFR members. The public is waking up to the fact that you guys are as honest as Joseph Goebbels.
Crystal, Lester M. - former president of NBC News (1977-1979)
Kalb, Marvin - retired CBS and NBC propagandist; former host of NBC"s Meet the Press; professor at Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
Mitchell, Andrea - NBC Propagandist; Alan Greenspan's wife
Mosettig, Michael David - former producer of PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, NBC Nightly News and NBC Today Show;
Murray, Alan S. - co-host of "Capital Report'on CNBC; contributing editor to Wall Street Journal
Schlosser, Herbert S. - former President of NBC; former RCA executive
Trainor, Bernard E. (Gen., USMC) - military correspondent and propagandist for the New York Times and NBC
Utley, Garrick - correspondent and propagandist for CNN; former NBC propagandist
Williams, Brian D. - NBC Propagandist
Brokaw, Tom - former NBC Propagandist; a Director of CFR
Thank you for your time,
Gabe Harris
right TSH.
'it's just the internet'
that's the refrain O'Reilly and Hannity keep singing...
hey..., wait a minute! do those initials stand for Thomas Sean Hannity?!?!
well the internet ponied up a million-two in hard cash campaign contributions against an initially stated goal of $500k, and did it in a weeks time.
his quarterly fund raising more than doubled over the previous quarter to $5 million, while his challengers all saw their totals go down
pretty non-serious people
let's just laugh them off
funny thing is, i was keeping track of the polls over at MSNBC, and after each of the three debates where they held a poll, Paul not only won it going away, his positive % improved each time and stood at 66% in the last poll, while his neg % kept going down
the more people hear from him, the more they seem to identify with what he's saying
i've heard of quite a few people who are planning to vote in the repub primaries just to cast a vote for him even if they have to change registration status to do it
i'm one of them
TSH You can take your rhetoric and stuff it up your dirty little ass. Ron Paul WILL be the next president of the United States and people like you ( I mean dogs like you) will be taken out with the trash.
Commentary like yours is a waste of space coming from a waste of cells that you call your brain.
Ron Paul is the most respectable candidate to grace this country in ages.
Now go back to your little room and take your medication
TSH.
Furthermore........Mother Jones would you please consider removing that first post from TSH??
It is an OBVIOUS TROLL!! who's only purpose is to make sure that his lame and unworthy comment is seen first by your good readers.
Its your site dammit.....put an end to posts like that.
Its not even on topic for petes sake.
RTMAN - Afraid one little comment from TSH is going to unhinge Paul's chances? If your attitude [people like you will be taken out with the trash] reflects Paul's fan base, I think we've already had seven years so far of that kind of crazy. This isn't about knocking Paul; just think your reacction is so explosivethat it resembles trollery, as well.
Paul Miller, it sure does smack of trollery! it doesn't sound anything at all like someone who believes in Ron Paul's staunch support of the 1st amendment and the right of every American to exercise free political speech, even when we think they're full of it
it reminds me very much of 'Latasha', who has the feel of an imposter coming here to 'act black', and inflame anti-black sentiments by outrageous comments
When somebody says something we don't like we call them a troll. Who is to say who is a troll and who isn't? Why it must be Jet. In the interest of harmony, please don't post anything that is negative about Ron Paul. His supporters rule the Internet, hear that TSH.
You folks are still not paying attention.
Have you taken a look at offline straw polls? Straw polls are real people getting off the couch, driving to the event and sometimes paying a fee to vote.
So what happens when they have a straw poll? Well 17 times out of 36 Ron Paul wins, sometimes with percentages as high as 82%. Since Sept 26 Ron Paul has won 7 of the 8 straw polls held, so his win rate is accelerating.
And name me one other candidate of either party with the solid brass "dangling anatomy" to put his fund raising online in real time. Since Oct 1 he has raised ANOTHER million.
Also, which candidate has over 1025 groups on MeetUp with over 50,000 members? Yeah, Ron Paul has more meetup groups and members than ALL of the other candidates of both parties COMBINED.
This is getting interesting.
Yes Ron Paul has a lot of supporters on the internet. Yes some of his supporters are very very enthusiastic, it is a diverse crowd, many of whom are bothered by the conduct of our federal government and this behavior should be expected to some extent.
Having a great presence on the internet is a good start but we have to keep focus. We are fighting for that Presidential podium so we can give up power and break up the consolidation of money that resides in Washington. We should go to the states and tell them to govern, the people or the individual states can decide what programs are best for them and which are not. We are so partisan and so divided because we now have a Federal Democracy instead of the Limited Republic we were supposed to keep.
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority OF VOTERS, this or that for 312 million people. All these decisions should not be made on a Federal level, this perverted experiment with consolidation has turned the leviathan into a an imperialist monster. Who are we as individuals to impose our will on people living in the other 49 states. Let the States govern and make the Federal Government fix this mess with Foreign Policy, take care of our veterans, follow the fourth amendment, and declare all future wars from here on out, which hopefully won't be necessary when we adhere to a non-interventionist policy and stop antagonizing the world. Then we can actually eliminate Al Qaeda instead of "everyone but".
"...Internet polls...subject to hacking" - notice he doesn't come out and say the poll was hacked, because he knows it wasn't. Anyway, I think he is referring more to "flooding", not "hacking." Hacking the poll would be someone bypassing the site's security and manipulating the numbers. Flooding it would be people voting more than once. I write web based software for a living and let me say, it is child's play to create an online poll that is virtually flood proof. In fact, most online polls exclude valid voters in order to prevent this. If you have broadband internet, try using 2 computers behind your connection to vote in one of these polls. Most of them will disallow the 2nd because they log IP addresses and with most services, your IP address is controlled by your cable/DSL modem.
I think if Paul's got the better message, then he should
get support. Gobs of money
is just business, the real
concept is to get someone
in the Big Chair who A)
understands the Constitutioner, and B) respects it enough to base
their decisions on lessons
gleaned from its' study, and
C) sees the perils of government gone runaway.
From what little I've read
and heard about Paul, it
sounds like he might be in
the right zip code, time will
tell if he shows up at the white house...
My favorite part is this.. Dr. Paul has a message that we all were taught to uphold.
Luckily, very luckily, we have a doctor that wants to heal this nation. Give us our freedoms back and quit bombing the world.
Its that simple.
If you dont vote for him.. I PROMISE YOU. We will have more of the same until 2013 (her words not mine). Obama too.
(please dr. paul win.. please)
The Haywood response was encouraging, but I still had some issues with two things he said:
Here was my response to him...
You have to forgive us for our skepticism about your intentions Mr Harwood. Your organization now seems like it is trying to appease us since your strategy of ignoring and then ridiculing has failed to stymie Ron Paul's support.
You state:
1."He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. "
There is no way to know the truth of your statement, since you admit you intentionally promote Guiliani and other statist-corporate favorites of your organization and you'll refuse to do otherwise. It is well known to many of us that the anti-individualist propaganda you spew is much appreciated by David Rockefeller, the CFR, the UN and Socialist everywhere .Rockefeller admits it!
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
CFR Leader: David Rockefeller Baden-Baden, Germany 1991-
2."Nor do I agree with my colleagues' decision to take it down, though I know they were acting in good faith. "
Well given the huge number of your former colleagues who are guilty of associating with the open conspiracy to spew propaganda at americans, it impossible for us to take you at your word that they "were acting in good faith" this time. In your own letter you admit to having no intention of finding out how things would change if you made a effort to neutralize your swaying of public opinion! A simple web search shows the level of infiltration that your organization has had in the past by CFR members who help them move their agenda forward. There is no doubt that ANYONE who aspires to a big career at your organization, must adhere to the ground rules that these past criminal have gone by. All of these guys were CFR members. The public is waking up to the fact that you guys are as honest as Joseph Goebbels.
Crystal, Lester M. - former president of NBC News (1977-1979)
Kalb, Marvin - retired CBS and NBC propagandist; former host of NBC"s Meet the Press; professor at Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
Mitchell, Andrea - NBC Propagandist; Alan Greenspan's wife
Mosettig, Michael David - former producer of PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, NBC Nightly News and NBC Today Show;
Murray, Alan S. - co-host of "Capital Report'on CNBC; contributing editor to Wall Street Journal
Schlosser, Herbert S. - former President of NBC; former RCA executive
Trainor, Bernard E. (Gen., USMC) - military correspondent and propagandist for the New York Times and NBC
Utley, Garrick - correspondent and propagandist for CNN; former NBC propagandist
Williams, Brian D. - NBC Propagandist
Brokaw, Tom - former NBC Propagandist; a Director of CFR
Thank you for your time,
Gabe Harris
Free Speech Rules; jet voiced an opinion about how another person's postings read and feel to jet, which in one case at least is the same reaction Paul Miller had
is voicing an opinion still permitted under your 'Free Speech Rules', or do you want to be given editing privileges of other people's postings?
The clear inference from these two letters is that Ron Paul's supporters are a small hard core cadre and don't represent the average republican. Let me give you an alternative theory that is at least as plausible. Ron Paul supports are broad based and not just in the Republican Party but in the conservative wing of the Democract Party and Constitutionalists because he wants to return to the Constitution and won't vote for anything not permitted in it. He appeals to the anti-war independants because of his views on the unfolding disaster that is Iraq and he appeals to Libertarians because he wants to shrink the size and power of the federal government. Put all of those people together and you have a number of people who is far larger than the people who call themselves Republicans.
Jet, you have my approval. But that Miller character, sometimes I wonder about him. But you are OK . I hope that this makes you feel better. By the way, "Free Speech Rules", the word "Rules", means domination, not like a list of laws. I believe in free speech more than just about anybody.
I am extremely disappointed to Mother Jones for this article - I expected more. This article only shows that Mother Jones is in the same class MSN...I have a subscription and plan on canceling - if I wanted censored news, I would subscribe to the Times. By the way, Ron Paul supporters -we can and DO get out to vote; We are everywhere! We are Ivy League grads, doctors, nurses, and scientists - we are your car mechanics, teachers, policeman, soldiers and even grocery store clerks -- We run the gamut of every type of person you can possibly think of. We are the PEOPLE -and we deserve more than distorted news/reporting.
Not going to vote and not legally able to? When a candidate raises over four million dollars in 24 hours, you would think those that will reach into their wallets will vote. What is whith not being able to legally vote? are you trying to say that all Ron Paul supporters are illegal immigrants or felons? Both do not make any sense!
"My favorite part is this.. Dr. Paul has a message that we all were taught to uphold."
"Luckily, very luckily, we have a doctor that wants to heal this nation. Give us our freedoms back and quit bombing the world.... "
"Its that simple."
I see in your list of Paul supporters, Lawyers went missing, any particular reason why, other than that the Majority of both houses consist of these ambulance chasers and that is as close as they ever get to the healing process?
Apparently, the Netizens have read and taken to heart Tom Paines "Common Sense" Then, 95% of this British Colony's Citizen considered him a pampthleteering troll. 5%percentage of toay's population pretty much guarantees a Paul win.IMO. What is an increasing discerned fact today is the reality that Ron Paul actually mirrors those founder's concepts of how a democratic Republic should operate.
I am watching Meet The Press this morning, right now in fact, and was disgusted to see that Ron Paul is never mentioned when they show poll numbers onscreen for the Republicans..then when I visited the Meet the Press website and noticed that the program is sponsored by Boeing....guess that fact says it all. Tim Russsert and MSNBC have a zero trust factor with me anymore. They can no longer be trusted. But perhaps they never could be trusted and I just never noticed until I became a Ron Paul supporter. Lord those corporate toads must be terrified of this man. I wont be watching that fake news program anymore as they are just like FOX news in my book.
Funny story, I never believed in the voting system. I was a registered Democrat but never excercised my right to vote. Now thanks to Ron Paul I've changed my registration to Republican so I can vote in the Primary's for Oklahoma, I've been to one of RP's rallys, I've convinced my non-voting friends to unite and give it a shot, and I've even convinced my parents to NOT vote Giuliani (you know that shady guy that cleaned up the 9/11 crime scene before any independent investigation could take place) and to vote for RP. So TSH one question: where do you think all those "too young to vote" people come from? That's right! Human beings that CAN vote! Go RP!
And you -- the author of this blog -- are a faithful servant of the New World Order that you so unwaveringly serve. The New World Order will stop at nothing to discredit Ron Paul. We will see what happens on January 5th. I have a feeling that the murdering bastards that you support (N.W.O.) and yourself will be very afraid. The Bilderberger's and the Neo-Cons are already contemplating an assassination attempt on Dr.Paul. I know how the slime you call your master operates! I encourage all Dr.Paul supporters to investigate what I am saying. Go to infowars.com and see for yourself.
