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.
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 basked 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.
Allen Wastler Managing Editor,
Your letter was appalling and disrespectful to all Americans and you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading lies.
You say: "Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking." Guess what? Electronic voting machines can be hacked!!! And has been proven so! And they'll be used this election! Why don't you write a letter about that!?!
You also say: "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."
How "legit" is a poll that only targets the uninformed? Since the mainstream media is deliberately censoring Ron Paul, how do you expect anyone to know about him? How "legit" is a poll that excludes candidates? Here's an example by Rasmussen Reports Poll:
Their current poll results...
Where is Ron Paul in this poll? Who are these people calling to interview? Mexico? They're not calling me or any one I know. Would you get a straight answer from Rasmussen if you asked them who they contact? I seriously doubt it.
Now let's look at Gallup Polls where Ron Paul was an option.
Their current poll shows Ron Paul at 2%. How do we know GP is contacting informed Americans? Their own poll shows 71% have never heard of Ron Paul. They could be calling people in small towns that are known to have low voting turnouts. Or they can target the elderly, or even known illegal immigrants for their poll results! We just have to take their word for it? Bull! These polls are fixed, plain and simple. If Diebold machines can be used in national elections (which have been proven hackable) then all the internet and phone text polls that Ron Paul has won (by a landslide mind you) are"legit". At least these polls allow the people to vote their mind, and don't allow others to speak for them, like these illegitimate surveys.
Results for this report are based on telephone interviews with 1,010 national adults, and 409 Republicans and Republican leaners, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 4-7, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. For results based on the sample of Republicans, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls."
It's pretty simple, Rudy is high in the polls because he's been "Mr. 911" for 6+ years. Billary was the wife of a President, of course people have heard of her. Fred Thompson is an actor (so he thinks), its obvious pollers have heard of him as well. All the other candidates who are high on the polls are given more media coverage than Ron Paul.
Now, you go on to say that we are "obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate"... that's the point you ignoramus!!! That's what supporters do for their candidate, moron!! The fact is, the other candidates don't have this kind of support, because nobody is buying into the lies any longer!
Then you go on to say: "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." So the purpose of your poll was to allow anyone but Ron Paul supporters to show their hand? That must be how we ruined your lame little poll? Again, you show zero proof of any hacking of your poll.
What would you have done if Rudy's or Billary's supporters had the same poll results? I'll tell you what your pathetic news station would have done... nothing!! As a matter of fact, their supporters, would use these polls to their advantage.
The reality of this election is that the establishment is not counting on a republican to win. This is why they changed the voting laws to not allow anyone that is not a registered republican to vote in the primaries.
Due date to change your status -10/16/07.