Well, maybe you could make that argument in Ron Paul’s case. But it doesn’t explain Obama’s numbers. The Zogby and Gallup polls aren’t trying to torpedo Obama. In fact, the whole Democratic establishment seems enchanted with Obama.

taylor said: young supporters of his [Ron Paul] do not have land-line phones.

Actually that doesn’t influence a well-conducted scientific poll. Some young people do have landline phones, and Gallup will poll those people. All the polls are then adjusted for demographics. So even if young people are underrepresented in the raw numbers, Gallup can see that, and the final numbers will be adjusted to make up for that underrepresentation. Polling isn’t as simple as “call 1000 people and tally up the numbers on a blackboard.” It involves a lot of statistics, and requires adjusting for known demographics.

I haven’t seen that particular poll, but I’ll go look for it. I picked the Sept. 7-8 poll because it was the poll conducted right after the New Hampshire debate, and I thought that would make the best comparison to the Fox News poll.

GOP Update: McCain Gains While Romney Fades

Anyone accusing Paul supporters of spamming should offer proof of this. Sean Hannity said that was the reason Ron Paul won the Fox debate poll following the last debate. However, it was a complete fabrication since the poll was done using cell phones, and it was impossible to vote more than once. And even if that were possible, would there be any reason to suggest that Paul’s supporters would engage in this type of behavior while supporters of other candidates would not?

Ron Paul is raising money and winning straw-polls. He has a good chance of winning the primaries in spite of the fact that the networks and cable news won’t talk about him and in spite of the low “scientific” polls that are published (constantly) in an attempt to sway people’s opinions.

I addressed this in one of my comments; the cellphone gap doesn’t have an effect on a well-conducted poll. The polls are adjusted for demographics.

But I must thank Chris Austere for pointing out that the post-debate Fox News poll was a cellphone poll, not an online poll. If young people really are more supportive of Ron Paul (which is what I suggested in my article) then the Fox News poll results make sense. Young people with cellphones voted for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, young people with cellphones are not a big part of the voting demographic, and they won’t swing the election. The Fox News poll wasn’t scientific (i.e., it wasn’t adjusted for demographics) so it doesn’t reflect reality.

Will said: Why not mention that many “scientific” phone polls do not include Ron Paul’s name?

Which polls are you referring to? The Gallup polls do include Ron Paul’s name.

Because most of them don’t have any reasonable rules for entry and are more about bringing people to the fair to buy stuff than about conducting a scientific poll.

In the 3rd call that was identified as being from the RNC I was asked who I supported from the following list of Candidates, I did not wait for her to list them and stated that Ron Paul was my choice. I was then subjected to a brief pause of dead air, a terse thank you and a dial tone as they hung up.

In my view the phone polls are a joke and in no way truly represent anything other than what the people paying for the polls want them to. They are no more scientific than any online poll, and no self respecting person would give any weight to them in deciding who to vote for.

I certainly hope not. Nobody should look to a poll to decide how to vote.

Laurie said: In the 3rd call that was identified as being from the RNC

Has anybody here been polled by Gallup? Gallup polls are generally respected, and they don’t have an agenda like the RNC might.

Wow.

How about straw polls? Ron Paul has the best record on the ground of any candidate. Are they irrelevant too?

What about signage, tables at fairs, etc? How many candidates have an army of voluteers putting signs all over America? Is that irrelevant, too?

What about money? The Paul campaign is raising hundreds of thousands per day, and hardly spending any of it because of the immense volunteer effort. Is that irrelevant?

And then there’s the crowds. How many candidates can get a thousand people to a rally anywhere in the US with a few days notice? Ever get the feeling you were missing the boat? Does anyone really believe that all those people who will show up and cheer themselves hoarse over fiscal policy are too dumb to register republican and vote in the primaries?

As far as I can see, the only metric where Ron Paul isn’t doing well is landline polls of handpicked samples. The major media put all their statistical eggs in that basket.
One of the criteria put forth for most of these samples is that all of these people had to have voted in the last Republican primary in 2004.

George W. Bush was running unopposed in the 2004 primaries, so only Bush idealogues voted in that election. Turnout for that was pathetic. Are you sure you want to call this based on that sample, which also excludes Democrats, Libertarians, Constitution Party and Independents who will cross party lines in the primaries?

60-70% of America opposes the War in Iraq. Is it that surprising that a traditional Republican foreign policy might gain popularity? What percentage do you think can win a primary with the pro-war vote split 10 candidates to one?

For scientific barometers of overall support. Yes.

How about straw polls? Ron Paul has the best record on the ground of any candidate. Are they irrelevant too?

Yes.

What about signage, tables at fairs, etc? How many candidates have an army of voluteers putting signs all over America? Is that irrelevant, too?

Yes.

What about money? The Paul campaign is raising hundreds of thousands per day, and hardly spending any of it because of the immense volunteer effort. Is that irrelevant?

That would put them at about $59 million by now. I think you may be exadurating a little.

And then there’s the crowds. How many candidates can get a thousand people to a rally anywhere in the US with a few days notice? Ever get the feeling you were missing the boat? Does anyone really believe that all those people who will show up and cheer themselves hoarse over fiscal policy are too dumb to register republican and vote in the primaries?

Irrelevant. This shows the Quality of Ron Paul’s supporters are higher than any other candidate - but elections are won on quantity.

As far as I can see, the only metric where Ron Paul isn’t doing well is landline polls of handpicked samples. The major media put all their statistical eggs in that basket.
One of the criteria put forth for most of these samples is that all of these people had to have voted in the last Republican primary in 2004.

George W. Bush was running unopposed in the 2004 primaries, so only Bush idealogues voted in that election. Turnout for that was pathetic. Are you sure you want to call this based on that sample, which also excludes Democrats, Libertarians, Constitution Party and Independents who will cross party lines in the primaries?

This is a fair point.

60-70% of America opposes the War in Iraq. Is it that surprising that a traditional Republican foreign policy might gain popularity? What percentage do you think can win a primary with the pro-war vote split 10 candidates to one?

I agree that this helps Paul, but enough to win?

I just think Ron Paul supporters are more likely to vote in such polls - perhaps in an (likely vain) attempt to make him a front line candidate. Supporters of the leading candidates don’t feel like they need to prove anything by voting in a meaningless poll. And none of the other minor candidates have Ron Paul’s rabid base.

I think a voluntary cell phone poll, while not of the traditional “scientific” approach, can better indicate not just agreement with a candidate but willingness to actually vote. Don’t underestimate this under 30 crowd’s willingness to take action when captivated by a good idea. Texting may be easier than actual voting but it is still more proactive than sitting in a lazyboy and picking up a random phone call. (Which makes me think, why do we base polls on the opinions of those who don’t have the good sense to screen their calls?)

If the polls are much more skewed than suspected, then their disproportionate amount of influence serves to perpetuate their skewed conclusions. The front-runners capitalize on this: they don’t care that the polls speak from the people but to the people.

Rising above the destructive power of groupthink is but one element of the Ron Paul revolution.

If enough of these ridiculous antics we’re seeing at the debates continue, Ron Paul might win inspite of their best efforts to discount him.

Of course, that’s fine with me, since I fear the majority of the other candidates.

Why are the candidates not presented all in alphabetical order in a single menu?

The answer is that the organizations conducting the polls want answers that support whatever interests are buttering their bread.

No “adjustment for demographics” will fix data that is so fundamentally flawed as these telephone polls.

While clearly possible (those 40% non-voters in 2000 would have made a winning plurality), I think it highly unlikely that ANY candidate will be able to mobilize that kind of unexpected demographic. There are a lot of people who will do a straw poll or cell phone poll who can’t even be bothered to register, let alone vote. What is worse, while those polled “scientifically” represent many other “non-polled” members of their demographic, 100% of the activist supporters will vote in self-selected polls. Someone as extreme as Ron Paul generally only has “activist” supporters.

While I support many of his policies, he really doesn’t have the slightest chance of winning (that said, he MIGHT influence future party platforms, which would be a very good thing).

Hillary Clinton probably gets a lot of votes from people who aren’t excited about anybody, but if they’re called and asked, they’ll vote for her from name recognition if nothing else. That is a big help in actual elections, but if Obama or Edwards can beat her in Iowa and/or New Hampshire she could be in big trouble.

National polls aren’t that meaningful for the primaries anyways. Money and support in the early states is what counts.

There isn’t any evidence of that yet. When we start getting primary results, we’ll see whether he’s actually bringing out the non-voters. I’m skeptical; remember back in 2004 when the online buzz was “young people are going to turn out in record numbers and swing the election to Kerry?” Never happened. Young people showed up at the polls in the same dismal numbers as always.

And again, this isn’t just a Ron Paul issue. Barack Obama polls much better online than in the traditional polls. He’s a mainstream candidate, a darling of the Democratic party. His name recognition is high. Are we to believe that he is also “bringing out the non-voters?” Of course not.

It’s pretty hard to underestimate it considering the historical evidence shows that young people simply don’t vote in large numbers. The Democrats on the internet were all whipped into a frenzy in 2004, proclaiming that young people were going to vote in massive numbers and turn the election. It didn’t happen. Young people do have a lot of energy and passion, but that hasn’t influenced any recent national election.

I agree. Money is probably a better indicator than online buzz. The buzz means little or nothing unless a candidate has enough money to run his campaign.

Maybe I should back up a bit, and explain my background. I am a Ron Paul supporter. I intend to vote for him, and I hope he wins. His success so far has exceeded my expectations, and I want him to continue succeeding. So when I say the online buzz is irrelevant, I’m not intending this as a knock on Ron Paul’s supporters, because I am one. I’m making a larger point, of which Paul is only one example. The point is that online buzz and unscientific polls are great, but they have not historically translated into election results, and there is no evidence that this election is any different.

You don’t seem to remember very well since he was an Independant (Humprey was the dem candidate) and was basically elected by college students. Hey, maybe you live in a different Minnesota then I did, but you’re mistaken in any regard.

I’m with you on this. I too am a Paul supporter, but am cautiously optimistic. I think he could definitely win against Hillary, and perhaps he could beat Obama or Edwards. The only way I could vote for him is if he gets the nomination, since I’m not a registered Republican (I’m Independent).

However, as far as buzz translating into results, I don’t think we’ve seen the potential of this because there’s no precedent. We could look at Howard “Hoowah!” Dean, but he ruined himself by the whole hoowah! fiasco, or rather he was ruined because of it and the ensuing media exposure. So although I’m cautious, I think history will record the Ron Paul phenomenon as a precedent event where online support is concerned. We’ll see, I guess.

I also lived in MN during Ventura’s election (and was running for Congress as a Libertarian, so I was paying particularly close attention.)

What I remember most, was the way Ventura’s “Scientific” polling numbers were well below both Coleman’s and Humphrey’s.

What “Shocked the world” was the fact that Ventura beat the polling expectations.

The fact that your friend even asked you who Ron Paul is, proves that internet buzz isn’t irrelevant - It drove your friend to seek more information. Lot’s of people are starting to ask “Who is Ron Paul?” — This being the ICE age (Internet Changes Everything), people are going online to find out.

The Plain Old Telephone Surveys (POTS) are subject to many hidden biases.

1) Tightly screened sample group. From cell-phones, to 2004 GOP Primary voter (i.e. Bush Kool-Aid drinkers) to being part of the “leave me alone” coalition, many natural Ron Paul supporters are being excluded (justly and unjustly)

2) Various demographic adjustments mean that the poll can be biased after the fact. Or not released if it doesn’t show the proper person winning.

3) Polls don’t measure what people think they measure. People think they measure likely primary votes, or even candidate acceptability. But in reality, they only measure name recognition and vague feelings of good or ill.

POTS have a terrible track record:
Consider McCain and Huckabee prior to Iowa Straw poll - both had 8% according to ABC poll, but in the actual straw poll, McCain got 1%, and Huckabee got 18%

Consider Tx Straw poll - Duncan Hunter got 41%, while he gets POTS numbers that are lower than Dr. Paul’s. TX straw poll _was_ limited to past GOP delegates. Paul got 16% in that poll. This should have been at least somewhat similar to POTS polling, since the sample group was nominally the same. But in fact, Paul has *never* been included in a TX state POTS. That number (0 - cuz no one ever asks) get averaged into RCP numbers, and leads to the erroneous conclusion that RP has no support. MI straw poll was similarly restricted, and Ron Paul got similar numbers.

Consider John Kerry’s POTS numbers in Dec 2003 (4%) versus the results just one month later, after he won the Iowa primary (53%) These numbers can change with the wind, and by themselves indicate nothing.

Enthusiasm *does* mean something when a person has to be motivated enough go vote. Primary voting isn’t like general election voting. Since the dates are all different state-to-state, there is no national reminder leading up to the election to push people into voting. Most GOP Bushites are very dismotivated (for a whole host of reasons) and will probably not even vote.

People might prefer Giuliani over Paul, but unless they are enthusiastic enough, they might not care, or vote.

Right now, POTS show the only pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, anti-gun, pro-illegal-immgrantion, cross-dressing candidate in the lead among GOP faithful. How is that possible?

I am not certain that the POTS are being conducted fairly either. Consider the comments from this Miami Herald poll: http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/244648.html Note the comment from the guy who says he tried to answer Ron Paul in this survey, and was told he would be listed as “undecided” and then the poll was terminated. Same as
Chris Austere’s experience.

Later.

POTS numbers don’t translate into votes either.

Witness John Kerry 2003/2004.

Later.

I admit that perplexes even me. I’ll be watching to see how this all pans out.

Comparing Ron Paul and Howard Dean is ridicule in my opinion. Both from a candidate stand point and the growth of the internet since Dean’s run. The media obviously had it out for him and “miked him up” real good. He was a minor nuisance to deal with, not a good candidate, and not a threat to the establishment. Ron Paul is benefiting as a good candidate that’s winning trust, drawing support across party lines and benefitting from the internet to its much greater potential.

RP supporters are much more savvy to the tricks of the trade the establishment employ to stifle a threat. So far, just dirty tricks by co-opting with a compliant media. It’ll get much nastier from here on out. The supporters are well aware, and much more intelligent and creative in overcoming the obstacles.

I think there are two main types of people who “are online”.

1. There are those who just play games, shop!, visit sites they hear about on tv, check their email, shop!!, watch paris hilton videos and other poppish crap, shop!!!; hmm there’s the myspace crowd… those that live in their own little bubbles and only take the power of the internet as far as their little bubbles will go. lol. These types of people are slow to acquire the tools that make surfing the web a breeze. For example, few of these people will use ctrl click, ctrl-C, ctrl V, shift click, alt esc, my fav: middle mouse click, etc

2. That small minority who have an insatiable appetite for knowledge. Those who frequently find themselves visiting new websites. Those who have been to literally hundreds of different webistes in just the span of a few weeks. Those who quickly acquire new and improved learning tools. These types of people will easily find themselves opening a dozen web pages, and often will read one while the other is loading. Multitaskers.

Group #2 is generally more informed. Not because of any particular views or income or class or even intellect. They just learn faster and/or can think independently.(Even people with an IQ of 82 can seem very smart just because they have good learning skills.)

I suspect group #1 are the Hillary/McRomney types. Group #2 are more the Paul/Kucinich type. I would guess that Obama/Edwards types are part of group #1 that are on their way toward group #2. One thing for sure is group #2 is growing, and people like Limbaugh and the establishment really hate that! They have total and utter contempt for group #2 and do a poor job hiding it.

Well, I am loath to suggest something I wouldn’t do myself.

The Old Media can’t seem to handle two things about this election cycle.

One is that the Internet allows anyone at all to run a poll. Heck, there are sites where you can customize a poll and embed it in whatever page you want. With the Old Media monopoly on polls broken, they have to resort to the tired and true BS arguments about their polls are the only ones “scientific” and “accurate” when the covers are being ripped off of that myth, exposing the illicit relationship between the sheets or Big Media and Big Buisness. Let’s face it, demographically-skewed polls are rigged, period. That may be okay for regional product marketing, but not in politics, and expecially not in Presidential races. The online polls, while random, don’t filter people, and even more now they can prevent spamming (as Sean Hannity found out to his dismay!). Therefore they are actually becoming accurate.

The second one is that the Internet had broken the Old Media hold on campaign advertising. No longer can Old Media censor campaign ads from what they consider “undesirable” candidates or groups, because now they simply go to YouTube, Myspace, etc. and post them there instead after filming them on their digital cameras, laptops, or cell phones and spread the word over the blogs and BBS’s. The Internet has allowed an end-run around the Old Media blocks. This election cycle is the first one where YouTube will play a major role in (allegedly) electing the next President. That is not only unprecedented, but revolutionary. Dr. Paul’s success online is just the tip of the ICEberg on this, and that drives the Old Media nuts!

What we are seeing here is an e-revolution politically. What eBay did to the marketplace YouTube is doing to politics. The old brick-and-mortar orgaizations fell to eBay and e-commerce (think Montgomery Wards, who only recently came back as online-only). YouTube, along with camera cell phones and the wireless communication technology we have and are improving, is making the wired Old Media obsolete. It’s only a matter of time before land lines go the way of the telegraph and phonograph–great inventions in their time but surpassed by better technology. The Old Media is still stuck in the wired age, and we’re in the wireless age now.

That’s the technological signifcance of the Internet on this campaign. Dr. Paul is merely riding the wave generated by his technological support from the Paul-unteers. The rest of the candidates haven’t quite figured it all out yet.

http://www.RonPaulin08.com

Go Ron Go!

In addition, Ron Paul has significant support across party lines. So if the polls look at Republicans, they are missing out on a lot of Ron Paul supporters.

Here is my prediction.

Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus where the vote can’t be corrupted. Ron Paul does well in NH but loses to Mitt Romney due to shenanigans with the vote counting. And Ron Paul does not win any more primaries not because he lacks support but rather because the fix is in and all of the electronic voting will fudged to select a candidate that the powers that be prefer.

The Gallup polls are not restricted to “likely primary voters.” Gallup actually reports two sets of numbers: one for “likely primary voters” and one that includes everybody. The Sept. 14-16 Gallup poll puts Ron Paul at 4% in the everybody numbers and 3% in the likely primary voters numbers.

Eeek! No. The problem with online polls and cellphone polls is that the participants are self-selected. Only the people who want to participate will vote in the polls. That’s a horrible way to get a random sample.

I know, calling people on the phone is a bad way to get a random sample too. But it’s miles better than just letting people browse to a website on their own initiative. And the pollsters work really hard to make sure their sample is representative of the national demographics–that’s why they do the adjustments for demographics and so forth. That’s designed to eliminate sample selection bias as much as possible.

I don’t know about obsolete, but I do acknowledge that the internet cannot be ignored. The online folks will influence elections. In fact they already have: it was bloggers who turned the CBS-Dan Rather National Guard memo story on its head by casting doubt on the veracity of the documents.

That is where the power of the internet comes in. Millions of eager amateur investigators (and some not-so-amateur) who will seize on any little story and beat it to death. And occasionally, they’ll unearth something that the mainstream media cannot ignore.

But we’ve seen how that works in an election already. Despite all the influence the bloggers had in 2004, they couldn’t affect the turnout at the polls. The throngs of young voters that left-wing bloggers promised never showed up to vote. So yeah, the internet had an effect on the mainstream news reporting (by shooting down some stories and turning others around) but it didn’t go beyond that.

Yeah, 4% with ±3% margin of error. Statistically he hasn’t improved his position at all.

Jeff said: No one in their right mind even really reads blogs to judge candidates.

That’s my point. The internet buzz isn’t relevant. The bloggers don’t count.

Jeff said: It’s interesting how [Dean’s] scream was so dawming and well aired

People keep talking about that, but you know something? He lost the Iowa caucus before he screamed. It’s not like he had the nomination locked up or anything.

“Comparing Ron Paul and Howard Dean is ridicule in my opinion. Both from a candidate stand point and the growth of the internet since Dean’s run. The media obviously had it out for him and ‘miked him up’ real good.”

I admit that its not a good comparison, and that was sort of the point I was making. I was saying that there is no real precedent for gauging the potential success of a strong Web-based campaign. However, Dean’s campaign is the closest thing to the Ron Paul online phenomenon to date.

And Jasen, I know that many people want to chalk up Paul supporters as conspiracy theorists and “tin-foil hat” people, etc. That seems to be the easiest way to discredit people in today’s political climate - just call them names. Even the word “liberal” is used in a derogatory context by the Right. Or the word “fascist” is often used on the Left.

The truth of the matter is that everyone believes conspiracy theories, to some extent. If someone believes the official government account of 9/11, (yeah, I said it) they believe a theory. Rather they believe a theory designed for public consumption. I don’t think the Bush administration coordinated the attacks, but I don’t think they have been completely forthcoming about the matter either. To me, it comes down to an issue of evidence and credibility. Does that make me part of the “tin-foil hat” crowd or an “extreme Leftist” or an “extreme Right-winger”? Call me what you will, but I’m no “kool-aid drinker.”

OF THE FOLLOWING, WHICH IS MOST LIKELY TO RESTORE AMERICA TO HER CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF A LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

H. Clinton
B. Obama
R. Giuliani
F. Thompson
R. Paul
J. McCain
M. Romney

I’m asking for 100 responses, quickly and without comment.

Sept 24 2005
http://www.economist.com/images/20050924/TAB3.gif

It was 100 in the year 2000.

Ron Paul has been vocal about this horrible inflation since at least 1983:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hMeNnbSqkk

You are being paid in an inflating currency. Please think about how that impacts you.

Yeah, your right.

The only way I could vote for him is if he gets the nomination, since I’m not a registered Republican (I’m Independent).

So why not register Republican and vote for him in the primary, so you have a chance to vote for him in the general election?

I hate political parties. I agree with George Washington in his farewell address. They are a stupid label that divides the people arbitrarily. Yet if there’s a candidate out there that needs a fair hearing, why not take on the arbitrary stupid label to accomplish the goal?

Now is the time for people to give up their egos and do what’s necessary to create real change in our country’s political process.

I totally disagree with this statement. Terrorists aren’t arbitrary in who they attack. Our foreign policy motivates them. Ron Paul proposes a foreign policy that takes away most of the motivation… and ultimately, as I see it, makes us -much- safer from terrorism. It is the war on terror that makes us less safe.

Why is it that people think it is normal and desirable to have US troops in 130 countries? The alternative seems “crazy” to some because they’ve never known it any other way. The same is true with many of the other ideas Ron Paul is promoting… dismantling the Federal Reserve and the IRS, returning to a money system that is actually backed by -something-, greatly reducing the beaurocracy of the federal government… all crazy ideas. Just because what we have now is all people have ever known. Are we just to assume that because something is established as the norm, that it is in our best interest (or even constitutional)? Slavery and segragation used to be the norm. It used to be normal that women could not vote. These and many other things were considered normal, but eventually changed when some crazy people decided to try and do something about it. Most people who discount Ron Paul are simply afraid of uncharted waters. I bet people were at least that afraid when confronting England in 1776.

I wonder the same thing. I honestly don’t understand why any voter would put party before candidate. If you support Ron Paul (or anyone else), you should register with that party and help your candidate from the start.

That’s assuming it would have any real impact. I know all the arguments about every vote counting and so forth, but I would only consider such a move if I was certain it would make a real impact.

At this point, there is a possibility that I won’t vote at all. The guys I like in either party are not “top tier” candidates, and if it comes down to Hillary vs. Giuliani or Romney I’m staying home. I don’t care what anyone says about it, either. Voter apathy is just as strong a force as anything, and one to be reckoned with; sooner or later someone’s going to come along and capitalize on it. Hopefully Paul will be that someone.

“At this point, there is a possibility that I won’t vote at all.”

“Voter apathy is just as strong a force as anything, and one to be reckoned with; sooner or later someone’s going to come along and capitalize on it. Hopefully Paul will be that someone.”

So… how does Paul capitalize on voter apathy unless people like yourself support him in a primary? Are you just hoping other people will do it?

Chris Austere, I suggest that instead of not voting at all, you go cast a blank ballot. That sends a stronger message than staying home.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton, but neither am I a fan of Giuliani either. They both represent two factions of the same party, in my book.

And you got me pegged right on that Islamic-fascism thing. I’m not ignoring it as a potential threat, but I don’t see it as being a significant threat to the security of our republic. If America is destroyed, it will be destroyed from within.