Paul Leads in Polls of People Who Have Heard Him Speak
by Jennifer Haman
After the first
three debates on National television, three mainstream news channels
featured polls asking the American people who won. After the first
debate on May 3rd,
MSNBC ran a poll obtaining over 72,000 responses showing Ron Paul
was the most convincing candidate receiving 45% of the vote.
His nearest competitor was Mitt Romney who received 18%. Fox news
ran its own poll after the second debates on May 15, and
with over 40,000 votes Ron Paul came in second with 25% of the vote.
Watching Sean Hannity's face was priceless as while he was saying
that Ron Paul's chances were over in this election, Fox's polling
numbers flashed across the screen and had Ron Paul in the lead.
He immediately did his best spin to claim the polls had been rigged.
MSNBC also ran a poll about that debate and discovered Ron Paul
was, again, the most convincing candidate with
64% of the over 25,000 responses. After the third debate on
June 5, CNN's
poll of over 25,000 respondents showed Ron Paul won with 60% of
One would think
with such a strong showing on the online polls for a "second tier"
candidate that the mainstream media (MSM) would have discussed this
phenomenon at length and on the front page. However, no such stories
appeared. In fact, MSM pundits did their best to ignore these figures
and instead focused mainly on who they deemed to be the top three
choices; effectively, taking control of the election and deciding
quite undemocratically who was a "real" candidate.
the MSM is largely ignoring him, Ron Paul is taking the Internet
by storm. His name leads in searched terms ahead of even Paris Hilton,
his YouTube videos have been viewed over one million times and he
has more Meetup groups than all other GOP candidates combined. Poll
after poll conducted on the Internet shows Ron Paul winning or at
least in the top three. Yet, these polls are completely discounted
and Ron Paul's tremendous Internet support is sloughed off by the
MSM. Occasionally, the MSM will grant some notice of the huge grassroots
support online but then discount it by saying "he may be doing well
online but he is only polling at 1 or 2 percent." Doesn't anyone
see a disconnect between those two clauses? Who do they think is
on the Internet? Pet mice running around in tubes? The Internet,
for those who seem confused, is a link of people who write
things and have ideas and OPINIONS. The 300-plus Meetup groups he
has across the country are also attended by people. The MSM
is trying to get us to believe that Ron Paul is only polling at
1% because that is what was said on a few polls and the fact that
he is polling much higher on the Internet does not count. It is
as if they believe that the people on the Internet are not real,
their opinions do not count, and the Internet polls could not possibly
be correct. The argument is absurd, insulting and designed to keep
Ron Paul out of the mainstream public's eye. The MSM ignores his
success because of the misguided concept that people do not want
to "waste" a vote. It is never a waste to vote for what you want:
indeed, nothing could be more wasteful than voting for what you
do not want because you think it the lesser of two evils. Voting
for evil is always a bad idea.
Not only is
the MSM staying mum to keep you from seeing Ron Paul as a legitimate
candidate but there have been active attempts to hide information
about his successes. After the third debate CNN not only ran a poll,
but also asked viewers to voice their opinions about the debates.
Comments started pouring in supporting Ron Paul, along with all
the votes. The next day CNN removed the comments from their webpage.
Clever supporters found these lost comments through Google's cache
(a technology that takes a virtual picture of a webpage on a certain
date, so you can see if it has changed).
does not work, biased pundits accuse Ron Paul supporters of "spamming"
the votes (that is voting over and over for their candidate) and
claim that this huge show of support is really being done by a few
campaigners. This claim is specious for several reasons. First,
if it was so easy to spam the polls, all the candidates would do
it and online polling numbers would look more like an American Idol
session with tens of millions of votes cast. Second, anyone, who
understands that the Internet is not a series of tubes, knows that
it is easy for a web designer to develop a poll that prohibits more
than one vote per person. In fact, most of the online polls do
restrict you to voting only once and if you attempt to vote again,
even weeks later, you get a polite message that your vote will not
count. Finally, along with the polls themselves, people leave comments,
thousands of individual comments.
So let's look
at these polls and their methodologies.
polls have tens of thousands of responses, especially the ones done
by the MSM immediately after the debates, while old-fashioned telephone
pollsters only get responses from hundreds. Yet, only the old telephone
polls are reported on by the MSM. We are asked to accept that a
poll with 600 persons responding is more accurate than a poll with
70,000 respondents. For example, a much-cited Zogby
poll admits that they only targeted 500 interviews and drew
their samples randomly from telephone CD's of a national listed
sample. (In that poll Ron Paul has a 3% lead). A recent Washington
Post article cited its own
telephone poll that only reached 1205 adults, and that was used
to say Ron Paul is only receiving 1% support.
citing polls that have 70 to 100 times more respondents, the MSM
still sticks to old-fashioned telephone-polling methods. The world
has changed. We no longer need to depend on poor polls that only
call a few hundred people, nor should we be relying on them to tell
the whole story. Some say random telephone sampling is more effective
just because of its randomness and therefore there is no self-selection
bias as in the online polls in which one chooses to partake. However,
elections are also based on self-selection and are only won and
lost by those who choose to go to the polls: so shouldn't
the self-selected polling methods be more accurate? The good
news is that of those who have heard Ron Paul speak (if only for
the 5 minutes or so he gets in the debates) he is leading by a landslide;
unfortunately, not enough people are getting to hear about him.
This race would
look much different if the leading headlines the days following
the GOP debates were (in order of the debates): 1. Ron Paul takes
GOP by surprise and WINS the debate. 2. Ron Paul once again a leading
contender in second debate, comes in second. 3. Ron Paul wins third
debate hands down: other candidates struggling to keep up. If the
people were told Ron Paul won the debates, more would learn about
him and his support would grow exponentially.
In all fairness,
the polls that show that Ron Paul is ahead with 98% of the vote
are just as inaccurate as the polls that show he is only polling
at 1% and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But the largest
online polls, the ones taken after the debates, have him receiving
somewhere between 45% and 60% of the votes. So, why the big disparity
in polling numbers? Some have suggested that Ron Paul has a lot
of young supporters who do not own landlines and thus are not being
polled. Other explanations come to mind as well: 1. Typical polls
will only call a certain type of voter e.g. people who voted Republican
in the last election and this will leave out a lot of Ron Paul supporters.
Ron Paul's message of liberty and freedom reaches across the aisle
and a lot of previously registered Democrats are switching parties
to vote for him in this election. For the same reason, many Libertarians
and Independents are also going to be voting as Republicans this
election. Much of his support also comes from young people who are
voting in their first Presidential election and thus would have
no previous voting record. 2. Ron Paul's message of freedom and
liberty is so exciting that people who have decided not to vote
in past elections have decided that finally they have someone for
whom to vote. 3. Some polls are so biased they do not even list
Ron Paul as a choice (coincidentally, in a few of those "other"
is leading the pack): Hard to win a poll when your name is not on
the list. 4. Ron Paul fights for the individual, not the government,
and his message appeals to those who like to be left alone. During
this election many individuals have caller ID and often choose to
avoid telemarketers and callers they do not know. 5. Some of these
polls begin with intrusive questions about a person's gender, religious
affiliation, annual income, and other information some see as none
of anyone's business. If you refuse to answer the initial questions
they will not continue with the questions. The type of person that
likes Ron Paul, also tends to like privacy. 6. Sadly, not enough
people are getting to hear about his policies.
Once they hear
him, Ron Paul's supporters are very passionate about his message.
A search of Internet "blogs" shows people writing zealously about
him. Nothing could be more thrilling than to see an 18-year-old
excited about the election process, shouting out support for Ron
Paul, begging to hear more information about the Federal Reserve
and its implications for the country. Through his campaign, Ron
Paul is teaching many the benefits of limited government. There
should be no surprise that his message is so well received; it is
the one taught to us by Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and
other founding fathers. It is the message of liberty, freedom, with
the basis of a republic, not a democracy. We have been lied to so
often, and our Constitution ripped apart at the seams, that when
a person comes along speaking basic truths and principles, it awakens
a part of us buried for so long.
Ron Paul does not work, and removing messages about him receives
backlash, the next stage is to call his supporters rabid, nuts,
crazy, unstable. If you cannot attack the man, attack his supporters.
Yet who can blame people who get upset when a life-saving message
comes along and the MSM tries to keep it from the public. Ron Paul's
message is life-saving. He wants to end the war, he wants to help
ease poverty by eliminating the Federal Reserve and its ability
to steal through monetary inflation. He wants to end the Income
Tax and give those who need it most their entire salaries. The anger
you hear is frustration by his supporters at being marginalized,
just as they are by so many government actions these days, and fury
when all this support is discounted. Of course people are getting
upset. They do not like being manipulated and they especially do
not like it when a Presidential campaign is being hijacked.
The worst part
about the MSM treatment of Ron Paul, is that finally the people
have a candidate they really love, and a man who would get this
country back on the proper course. They have a man who will follow
the Constitutional course that served this country so well for so
long. Instead of rejoicing and helping the country and the people
find their way, corporate media giants are trying to silence his
message by ignoring him completely or reporting on only the most
obscure, misleading and slanderous articles (could this be because
Ron Paul is also against corporate welfare?). Most recently, even
the Associated Press got into the "let's lead with misleading statements"
game. In reporting on how Dr. Paul decided to hold his own rally
after being the only candidate in the debates to not be invited
to a Presidential Forum in Iowa, the AP's first line in the article
was that Ron Paul has added "party crashing" to his debate tactics.
As any ten-year-old knows, to crash a party you have to attend the
party. Ron Paul had not announced he would attend the Presidential
forum. Instead, he decided to hold a completely separate event immediately
following the forum in the same venue. That is not party crashing,
that is called campaigning. The article went on to tell the truth
about the situation, but that catch phrase was repeated as a headline
across the country impugning Dr. Paul's character. See for example
this ABC News headline: Republican
Ron Paul to Crash Iowa Forum.
Just as Ron
Paul spoke of blowback in the context of military interference in
foreign affairs, unless the mainstream media ends the Ron Paul blackout
and misinformation drive, they will lose the next generation who
is seeing it as a biased, manipulating, election-fixing force not
to be trusted.
When Ron Paul
gets heard or seen, he is liked. As soon as people who do not own
computers are able to see him or read his message his numbers in
the national polls will rise just as they have done on the Internet.
In general, the American people are saying they want liberty and
freedom: Now, if only the MSM would listen.
vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish
the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." ~ John
Haman [send her mail] is
a 44-year-old attorney. She grew up in NYC, dropped out of high
school, and then moved to Las Vegas to become a croupier in craps
working at the Desert Inn for seven years. She obtained a GED and
later attended Arizona State University receiving numerous awards
and graduating Summa Cum Laude in 1996. She then went on to attend
and graduate from Harvard Law in 1999. She is licensed in both CA
and AZ. She practiced complex civil litigation and appellate work
for 6 years. She is currently on sabbatical, living with her husband
Adam in Mesa, Arizona.
© 2007 LewRockwell.com