|
Ron Paul Supporters Prove
CNBC's Ratings Stink
Mark Anderson
Op
Ed News
Saturday October 13, 2007
After the most recent Republican Party debate
on CNBC, the network ran a post-debate poll, which was promptly
removed after too many Ron Paul supporters voted. In all seriousness,
the explanation for removal is that Ron Paul supporters voted.
In other words: CNBC didn't like the results, so then removed
their own poll.
This prompts the question: if poll results are to be discarded
because you don't like the results, then why even run a poll?
This almost causes me to wonder if the "scientific"
and "legitimate" polls are also designed to achieve
a pre-ordained outcome. If a polling company gets something other
than a desired result, do they change the results, or throw the
poll out altogether?
In the CNBC editor's explanation, he writes: "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."
You see? Pursuant to this calculus, all polls must show the same
results - which makes them something other than real polls. If
there is a disparity between two polls, then the one showing Ron
Paul in the lead must be wrong, and then discarded. If, on the
other hand, say, Rudy Giuliani had won the poll by a hefty margin,
would they have discarded those results as well?
(Article continues below)
Which prompts the question: if Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred
Thompson, and John McCain are the true front-runners, with legions
of fans everywhere, why can't they replicate the same thing Ron
Paul supporters are doing? Where are the supporters for the other
candidates?
What exactly makes the offline polls so much more scientific?
In those polls, the polling companies get to choose the respondents.
In online polls, people can choose to respond. Let's not forget
that elections are not conducted the same way polls are. The media
and the polling companies do not get to choose who they want to
vote.
Ron Paul has dominated virtually every single post-debate poll,
causing the media to ignore and conceal the results of their own
polls. The media has ignored so many Ron Paul debate poll victories
that I have lost count. After Ron Paul does well in a poll, there
is always some status quo conspiracy theorist to come along and
accuse Ron Paul supporters of "spamming" or "hacking"
polls, albeit without offering any evidence.
Many people who have researched this issue more than I have concluded
that "spamming" polls isn't as easy as pretended. For
example: polling software will prevent a single Internet Protocol
address (i.e., I.P. address, which is unique for every computer)
from voting more than once.
Okay. So it is possible to vote a plurality of times in a single
poll. Although I have never attempted to vote more than once in
any poll, theoretically, I could have pulled off such a feat by
voting once on my computer, and then, I suppose, drive to a friend's
house to vote from their computer as well. But so could any other
candidate's supporter do the same thing.
If we are to assume that if Ron Paul does well in a poll, it
must have been due to a certain percentage of spam votes, then
it would only be fair to assume the same trend for all of the
candidates. Do Ron Paul supporters have super-secret poll spamming
technology that nobody else knows of? Are only Ron Paul supporters
motivated enough to attempt this?
Or, what about Sean Hannity explaining away the results of FOX
News' own poll by saying that Ron Paul supporters were "re-dialing"
in text messages? That one was done via cellular phone text messaging,
and it was impossible to vote more than once from one cell phone.
Well, I suppose I could own more than one cell phone. But then
so could any of the other candidate's supporters. Only Ron Paul
supporters "cheat" now? Is that it?
BTW, I only have one cellular phone, as I can barely afford to pay
my only cellular phone bill.
If Ron Paul supporters are so technologically savvy, are so willing
to cheat, and possess such secretive technology that seems to
escape everybody else, then I must say I feel much more re-assured
about the future of U.S. elections. We should have no problem
stopping Diebold from tampering with the real election results,
right?
It shouldn't be so hard to believe Ron Paul could do well in
polls for those who pay careful attention to the news. Albeit,
one has to look hard for the news coverage. Ron Paul has been
doing very well at straw polls. "Spamming" a straw poll
in which the person must show up and vote in the flesh would be
a fairly difficult feat to pull off.
When I looked at the results of the CNBC poll which was removed,
the first thought that came to my mind was that CNBC may be trying
to conceal more than just another Ron Paul victory.
There were just over 7,000 votes cast in their poll. Ron Paul
garnered 75% of the vote. This means approximately 5,250 votes
were cast for Ron Paul, leaving the other 8 candidates with a
combined total of approximately 1,750 votes.
If we are compelled to abide by the mainstream media's "scientific"
curve, then we are allowed to give Ron Paul no more than, say,
2% of the total. This means we can add approximately 36 votes
for Ron Paul onto the 1,750, throwing out 5,214 Ron Paul votes.
This leaves us with a grand total of 1,786 votes cast on CNBC's
post-debate poll.
What do I see in this? Either a)There was no spamming, in which
case Ron Paul supporters outnumber CNBC viewers by far, or b)As
CNBC claims, Ron Paul's total has to match the "scientific"
polls, making everything else "spam," meaning CNBC had
only 1,786 viewers who voted in the poll.
From what I can tell, CNBC should be very concerned about its
own ratings. The old media is dead. If polls showed that more
than .05% of the population watches CNBC, I couldn't believe it.
I would have to discard those poll results. Maybe CNBC is trying
to conceal its piss poor ratings.
How else do you explain the supporters of a man garnering "2%"
in the "scientific" polls organizing so effectively
that they are able to skew poll results of a network television
station 3-to-1 in their favor, against 8 other candidates?
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
