JerzieJennie
Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
- Messages
- 152
I think this is an important argument to push with media.
Notice, there is no mention of conspiracy or of Dr. Paul.
Its trying to be factual and all inclusive - as Dr.P is not the only candidate being damaged by this. But the front runners certainly are benefiting.
I sent this to Cafferty and also to the Situation Room.
-------------------------------------------------------
Since, yet again tonight, we were subjected to the typical, "*Enter candidate here* is low in the polls..."
This is what I would like to know:
AT WHAT POINT, does the media acknowledge that the technology of today is changing? Why does ANYONE refer to these bogus "scientific" polls for presidential polling when NONE of the following points are considered?
1. America is turning into a cel phone nation. These polls are conducted via land lines. The only person I know with a land line is my 87 year old grandmother.
2. Most of these polls only include former primary election participants of that party. (When you get fresh new candidates that inspire fresh new voters or inspire party change, they will not even be asked for whom they are voting.)
3. Phone polls are generally given choices of names. Of course people could be left out of the list - which is another problem - but even if all candidates are mentioned, if someone is uninformed and simply has to pick a name out of a list - that is not representative of whether or not that person will get out and vote for them.
It is my hope that CNN and other big media STOP denying the prospects of candidates based on this antiquated polling system.
We must ask ourselves - (Much like, the chicken/egg argument) Do candidates lack media coverage because they are lacking in these ridiculous skewed polls (polls that do not consider our advances in technology over the last DECADE) or do the candidates lag in the polls because the media refuses to cover them?
Can we not agree that at some point these polls will be COMPLETELY obsolete?
At what point could we conclusively come to that decision?
Can we admit that these polls are at least MODERATELY out of date at PRESENT?
If so, why does the media refer to them like they are fact?
I appreciate your time, and hope you raise this very important question.
Jennifer
Ewing, NJ
Notice, there is no mention of conspiracy or of Dr. Paul.
Its trying to be factual and all inclusive - as Dr.P is not the only candidate being damaged by this. But the front runners certainly are benefiting.
I sent this to Cafferty and also to the Situation Room.
-------------------------------------------------------
Since, yet again tonight, we were subjected to the typical, "*Enter candidate here* is low in the polls..."
This is what I would like to know:
AT WHAT POINT, does the media acknowledge that the technology of today is changing? Why does ANYONE refer to these bogus "scientific" polls for presidential polling when NONE of the following points are considered?
1. America is turning into a cel phone nation. These polls are conducted via land lines. The only person I know with a land line is my 87 year old grandmother.
2. Most of these polls only include former primary election participants of that party. (When you get fresh new candidates that inspire fresh new voters or inspire party change, they will not even be asked for whom they are voting.)
3. Phone polls are generally given choices of names. Of course people could be left out of the list - which is another problem - but even if all candidates are mentioned, if someone is uninformed and simply has to pick a name out of a list - that is not representative of whether or not that person will get out and vote for them.
It is my hope that CNN and other big media STOP denying the prospects of candidates based on this antiquated polling system.
We must ask ourselves - (Much like, the chicken/egg argument) Do candidates lack media coverage because they are lacking in these ridiculous skewed polls (polls that do not consider our advances in technology over the last DECADE) or do the candidates lag in the polls because the media refuses to cover them?
Can we not agree that at some point these polls will be COMPLETELY obsolete?
At what point could we conclusively come to that decision?
Can we admit that these polls are at least MODERATELY out of date at PRESENT?
If so, why does the media refer to them like they are fact?
I appreciate your time, and hope you raise this very important question.
Jennifer
Ewing, NJ
