Zeal For Truth

According to a Fox News online poll [It was actually a cellphone poll. - Ed.] earlier this month, Representative Ron Paul won the New Hampshire Republican debate by a significant margin (Ron Paul wins by a landslide). Unfortunately for Ron Paul enthusiasts, that support has not translated into big numbers on the offline polls. A September 7-8 Gallup poll put Ron Paul at the bottom of the field with 1% support. Subsequent polls show a similar level of insignificance.

Why does Ron Paul poll so well online but not elsewhere? Rush Limbaugh says it’s because of small number of his supporters are spamming the online polls (May 16 transcript) and that Paul’s buzz isn’t real.

But it’s not just Ron Paul. Other candidates are seeing the same pattern: huge online support, but dismal showings in scientific polls. In a New York Times op-ed piece (The Center Holds) David Brooks reports:

In the various polls on the Daily Kos Web site, John Edwards, Barack Obama and even Al Gore crush Hillary Clinton, who limps in with 2 percent to 10 percent of the vote.

But in the scientific polls, Hillary Clinton is polling nearly double the numbers of her nearest competitor. Gallup has her support at 47% compared to Obama’s 25% (Sept. 14-16 poll). Unless every candidate except for Clinton has supporters spamming the online polls, we can’t chalk this phenomenon up to online chicanery. Something else is happening.

David Brooks offers one explanation in his New York Times piece:

As the journalist Ron Brownstein and others have noted, Democratic primary contests follow a general pattern. There are a few candidates who represent the affluent, educated intelligentsia (Eugene McCarthy, Bill Bradley) and they usually end up getting beaten by the candidate of the less educated, lower middle class.

That’s what’s happening again. Obama and Edwards get most of their support from the educated, affluent liberals. According to Gallup polls, Obama garners 33 percent support from Democratic college graduates, 28 percent from those with some college and only 19 percent with a high school degree or less. Hillary Clinton’s core support, on the other hand, comes from those with less education and less income — more Harry Truman than Howard Dean.

Brooks’s unsaid assumption is that the internet activists are better educated and wealthier than the general public. If we assume this is true, then the skewed online polls are just another manifestation of an ongoing class divide in America. The real divide is between the wealthy and the lower middle class. Ron Paul’s online dominance is not due to libertarian crackpots stuffing the internet ballots. It is an effect of the fact that internet users are not a representative cross-section of America. It’s only the wealthier folks who support Ron Paul.

Or so Brooks’s article leads you to believe. But does his unsaid assumption fit the facts? Do internet users in America represent the “affluent, educated intelligentsia?” A 2006 Pew report shows that 73% of American adults are online. (Internet Penetration and Impact) The report shows that income and education did play a factor–53% of adults making less than $30,000 were online compared to 86% of adults making $50,000 to $75,000. But the report also shows that age is an even greater indicator: 88% of 18-29 year-olds are online compared to 32% for those 65 and older. It’s possible that the overrepresentation of Ron Paul supporters on the internet is a result of a new generation with new values. If that is the case–and I caution that it is by no means proved–then we can expect political shifts in the next few decades as this young generation matures.

But for now, the internet is irrelevant.