CNN Poll

[JaylieWoW]

Apparently now polls are coming with a disclaimer. I went and voted other (we should still do this since they don't put our candidate up) and the following appeared below the poll. I got a good laugh out of it even though it seems telling about the general perceived IQ of those they expect to vote in the poll.

"This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein."

CNN Poll

 

[LibertyOrDie]

Hillary Clinton
18%
839 votes

John Edwards
8%
349 votes

Rudy Giuliani
10%
463 votes

John McCain
6%
257 votes

Barack Obama
24%
1081 votes

Mitt Romney
7%
313 votes

Other
27%
1236 votes


Hahahahaha! I love how they take off RP and then "other" beats all of the "Top-Tier" candidates. I am sure we'll see some spin of the "lower-tier" candidates combined make higher votes than the "Top-Tier".

 

[lucky]

Lol

Reminds me of that Richard Pryor movie where the "None of the above" won.

 

[wwycher]

Voted other. MSM is so bought and paid for.

 

[IrrigatedPancake]

Very funny.

Although, I don't mean to bring anyone down, but there is some legitimate confusion to be had about RP not doing well in offline polls while killing online. Ron Paul has not been included in many of the offline polls, though, so I don't think most polls that do include him are completely representative of his popularity. Also, he has exploded on the internet because of his message. If that is communicated in the real world, the explosion there will be slower, but just as affective with much of the 70% of people worried about where the US is going.

 

[kylejack]

Very funny.

Although, I don't mean to bring anyone down, but there is some legitimate confusion to be had about RP not doing well in offline polls while killing online. Ron Paul has not been included in many of the offline polls, though, so I don't think most polls that do include him are completely representative of his popularity. Also, he has exploded on the internet because of his message. If that is communicated in the real world, the explosion there will be slower, but just as affective with much of the 70% of people worried about where the US is going.

He polls low even when he is included. We need to be realistic and realize we have a long way to go, and legitimate support is probably at about 2-4%. When I talk to people in my personal life, none of them know who Paul is, and I'm in Houston. All of them know McCain, though, and many know Romney.

 

[Shmuel Spade]

In the polls that Rep. Paul has been included in they're usually recent, and people haven't had any time to learn about him. Give it about 2 more months. With Thompson in the race, that should bring Rep. Paul's numbers up some.

 

[Sakimoto]

I think the one-two punch of the "Daily Show" and the New Hampshire debates will elevate Ron's recognition in the next few days. I think NH has a lot of liberty activists who will be there to make some noise for Ron Paul. It will take time but the movement is gaining momentum. We just need to keep it going. Have you seen the Ron Paul meetups site? The participation is growing daily and even accelerating. I think it is a decent indicator of off-the-web support. This is the very definition of grassroots.

 

[CurtisLow]

Voted other. MSM is so bought and paid for.

My exact thought too!

 

[dude58677]

The people that watch the debates are the only people that care about the Presidential campaign and these are the people who are going to be voting in the primaries.

There are problems with the "scientific" polls:

1) The organizations have a conflict of interest as they are financed by the media, lobbyists, and government. A research group with a conflict of interest would never get their research published in a peer review journal. These poll organizations have failed to have their research published in peer review journals.

2) The telephone polls do not resemble elections in which elections are self-selected.

3) They do not consider swing voters or voters swithing parties.

4) The people that watch the debates are the only people that care about the Presidential campaign and these are the people who are going to be voting in the primaries.

 

[AgentSmith]

Yeah but the low poll numbers are fantastic cover for election fraud...

 

[Andrew76]

As to his popularity being lopsided on the internet, I think there's a sociological aspect as well. Though I'm pretty sure this has been addressed before, it's my feeling that Libertarians in general are more tech savvy than the average joe. Libertarian or "liberty" focused information, websites, hell even those ancient BBS's back in the day (can anyone say Apple IIGS plugged into a phone line?) had a lot of similar minded content. Let's not pat each other on the back here, but, clearly the people who at this point are supporting Ron Paul tend to be well read on the issues he addresses, so it resonates lightning fast, at least it did with me. I guess what I'm saying is that the kind of person most likely to agree with his views initially, seems to me to be internet savvy, maybe a little geeky (hey I'm talkin' about myself here! ), harcore liberty types. The average American, I guess in their defense, has yet to recieve a full dose of the good Dr. Paul. But his views cover so many many important areas of our life and liberty, arguably some of the most central to our liberty and happiness, that if/when his ideas get out there, his numbers will grow in the offline sphere. If the message does not get across, I fear our cause is doomed, and we'll all be remembered as the spammers that we are so clearly NOT.
That is at least what I must keep reminding myself: that there is quite likely, an issue that someone holds dear to their head and heart, on which they're likely to agree with Ron Paul. The ideas just need to get out there! Ok then, so here's the assignment, everyone today, find just one person who you know has no clue about Ron Paul and do your best to clue them in, ideally this will be in person and face to face. Gently, politely and intelligently of course.
Just some thoughts anyway.

 

[joenaab]

My concern stemming from this CNN pole is that this could be a sign of things to come for the June 5th debate. Do you think CNN would have the balls to do this in the post-debate polling (i.e. exclude Ron Paul's name and have an "other" catagory)?

This survey on their site could be the trial balloon. Maybe we should all have CNN e-mail addresses and phone numbers handy just in case?