The Ron Paul Beacon

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