Polls | The Ron Paul Beacon

Here we go again. I’m sure there are tons of discussions going on across the Internet about last night’s Fox News broadcast of the Republican Debate in Orlando. Here’s my own little observation of the shenanigans of the post-debate special edition of “Hannity and Colmes.” My comments are in italics.

First, the lead-in, as best I could transcribe it:

Alan Colmes: Welcome back to this special edition of Hannity and Colmes and we are coming to you live tonight from the spin room at the GOP Presidential Debate in Orlando Florida and now it is time to reveal the results from our text messaging poll…as of now in first place Ron Paul 39%…

Sean Hannity: (talking over Colmes): and by the ah…they’re stacking the deck

Alan Colmes: (continuing in spite of Hannity’s interruption): …Mike Huckabee getting 19%…

Sean Hannity: can I say something

Alan Colmes: and ah you want…

Sean Hannity: yea, they’re stacking the deck…that’s the way they have at every campaign…he did not win this debate, period, end of sentence.

Alan Colmes: all right, well let’s, I’m just telling you what the results say…

Sean Hannity: (talking over Colmes): well, that’s my opinion

Alan Colmes: …we don’t have any further information other than what the results say. Third spot, Rudy Guiliani getting 12% of the vote…

This is all quite predictable, but soon it gets interesting as they move to the “room next door.”

Alan Colmes: …and we check back in with Frank Luntz who is in the…ah… right next to the spin room here he’s been following a focus group throughout the evening and some rather interesting results from the people who he has been trailing throughout the proceedings here tonight. Frank…

Frank Luntz “pollster”: Yes we’re here at the University of Central Florida and I have to show you something…How many of you thought Ron Paul won the debate?

Camera pans across the room of approximately twenty people, none of whose hands go up.

(why I am not surprised?)

Frank Luntz: No hands going up.

I do, however, count four smiles as he says this - silly me to think that the text messaging poll meant something - these are real people they are polling here and why would there be even one Ron Paul supporter in a room of twenty? Or maybe there is one, just one, and he or she doesn’t think Ron Paul won the debate. Despite such rational thinking on my part I remain perplexed by the 39 to zero percent spread.

Frank Luntz continues: I think that says an awful lot about that text polling. But I didn’t really ask the right question earlier. Since the focus of the debate was Hillary Clinton, how many of you, based on what you saw, think that Rudy Guiliani is the best Republican specifically to defeat Hillary Clinton? How many of you believe that?

A majority of hands go up.

Frank Luntz: look at these hands going up (he seems pleased) and a lot of these people don’t necessarily support Hillar ah Rudy Guiliani (Freudian slip alert: does this mean Hil and Rudy are interchangeable?) but Bob why’s he the one to defeat Hillary Clinton?

Bob: He stood up, he can withstand the Clinton Machine, and in kind.

Frank Luntz: Greg, why Rudy?

Greg: I think he’s demonstrated very good leadership over the years he probably managed a budget that’s larger than many small country’s so I think he’s got the experience.

Frank Luntz, turning to another participant: Do you also think it’s Rudy, or not?

Man in blue tie: No, I do not.

Frank Luntz: Who’d you pick?

Man with blue tie: I thought Huckabee came on strong tonight. I’m a Thompson fan but I thought Huckabee’s momentum’s going forward and I think he’s…ah…he’s gonna come up…

Frank Luntz (interrupting): and you’re nodding your head also…

Man in black shirt: if you woulda told me that I was gonna come in here tonight and think that Huckabee would win this debate I would have said that you are a liar (Freudian slip alert: he would call Frank Luntz “pollster” a liar? Why not just “I would have said you were wrong?”) but I too, along with him, I as a Thompson fan Huckabee won me over tonight.

Frank Luntz: you’re nodding your head also

Man with glasses: Clinton was an unknown governor when he won the presidency. Huckabee is that type man. He came in today strong. He came in as a man with ideas…if they give him time he’s one of those candidates who’s out there who they ask him one question and ask Rudy three…they need to give that man some time.

Man in black shirt: Bill Clinton came in as a sleeper like Huckabee and we have the Arkansas factor as well playing into effect.

Wait…I thought the subject here was who won the debate..this is getting way too analytical for me. In fact it’s sounding more like a campaign strategy meeting for a Rudy-Huckabee ticket than an objective opinion poll.

Frank Luntz: you know it’s interesting that there’s always some sleeper…there’s a surprise in this…this is the second time in these debates that we’ve done that Mike Huckabee has been the surprise. Looks like he had a good night also.

So, Huckabee (2nd in the txt msg poll) and Rudy (3rd) both had great nights…but Ron Paul who just happened to be way ahead in first place in that poll did not, not in a room full of “real” people anyway.

P.S. For an analysis of who is actually in a position to beat Hillary click here. Hint: it’s the fellow who came in first in the text messaging poll.

P.P.S. and for some comic relief check out this short video: “Faux News Debate: Hitler vs Mother Theresa” … hilarious!

Sphere: Related Content

from: Pete Nowicki <peter.christopher@gmail.com>
to: politicalcapital@cnbc.com
date: Oct 12, 2007 12:39 PM
subject: Response to “An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful”
mailed-by: gmail.com

Dear Mr. Wastler,

I appreciate your response to the concerns that Ron Paul supporters had after the CNBC poll was taken down on Wednesday. Your words struck me as quite sincere and I understand why you did what you did.

However, I do feel that there could be an underlying bias at CNBC and other media outlets that I’d like you to consider (and I’ve never met a human being without a bias, myself included, so please don’t take this personally). You say that “a well-organized and committed ‘few’ can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of ‘the many.’” It’s a valid point, but I feel that this statement rests on an incorrect assumption, that the sentiments of “the many” are a better predictor of which candidate has a better chance of winning the primaries.

Generally speaking, it is preferable to have a broad sample than a narrow one. However, “the many” are not necessarily a good predictor in this case because they represent the sentiment of the population as a whole, only 20% of which vote in the primaries. Most people don’t pay any attention to politics this early in the game and primarily rely on name recognition, which in turn is determined by the amount of exposure the candidates get on TV. Thus you have as much as 80% of your data reflecting what essentially amounts to media bias (which is inevitable, since everyone has a bias). And since Ron Paul did not start receiving a proportionate share of media attention until earlier this month when he announced his Q3 fund raising numbers, it was unfair to rely on “the many” to determine whether it was appropriate to take down that poll.

You also say that your “poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign” and then rule out the first possibility in the following paragraph. But the poll was not the target of a campaign, at least not in the traditional sense. There was no order coming down from the top saying “let’s have a good showing in this poll.” In fact, the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign has never sent such a request to its supporters. These kinds of turnouts are truly self-organized. These are people from all walks of life and all parts of the country spontaneously acting in unison, something that would not be possible today without the internet.

I wish I could say otherwise, but Ron Paul is not a master of internet campaigning (in fact, neither he nor his supporters are very SEO-savvy, as this post from SEOmoz.org suggests). To the contrary, it is his words that are creating this bone fide grassroots movement (one that is presently very close to “tipping” in the Gladwellian sense), and he will tell you this himself. He knows better than anyone that he owes his success not to Ron Paul the man but but to “the message” he has been speaking about for 30 years. Americans today are hungry for the truth, and he is the only one (at least on the Republican side) willing to speak it.

So I ask you to re-examine what you really want from your “show of hand” poll. Is it better for it to reflect the unsolicited opinion of the general public, 80% of whom are not really interested in politics and haven’t taken the time to examine the candidates and issues in any significant detail, or for it to reflect the opinion of those who actually care enough about the issues we face as a country to actually do something about it?

When pondering this question, it might be wise to remember that as late as July 1776, a mere 21% of Philadelphians were in favor of declaring independence from England. It doesn’t take a majority to start a revolution.

Sincerely,

Peter Nowicki
Founder & Contributor
www.RonPaulNewEngland.com

Sphere: Related Content