Pajamas Media Exposed
Vox Day, in his World Net Daily Commentary, pulls the pants off Pajamas Media for dropping Ron Paul from their Micky Mouse poll the week after Paul trounced Giuliani and Company. I understand their fear: when people know about Paul and understand his positions, they support his candicacy for President. Such unauthorized support threatens to capsize the kingmakers' docile constituency, to wrest control from the MSM and their wannabes (such as Pajamas Media).
Both of our faithful blog readers will recall my outrage over the anti-democratic tactics of the silly little basement-dwellers. But I have been vindicated. Of the polls that do include Dr. Paul, he is winning many overwhelmingly.
Both of our faithful blog readers will recall my outrage over the anti-democratic tactics of the silly little basement-dwellers. But I have been vindicated. Of the polls that do include Dr. Paul, he is winning many overwhelmingly.
posted by Scribbler de Stebbing | 3/19/2007 11:52:00 AM
I think that what this mostly shows is the stupidity of internet "polls." They are easily manipulated. There is
no evidence of a poll of randomly selected people where Paul gets more than 2%.
From American Research Group
March 8, 2007 - National Presidential Preferences
The races for the Democratic and Republican nominations are close among likely Democratic and Republican primary voters (those saying they will definitely vote in a primary or participate in a caucus in 2008).
The following results are based on nationwide samples of 600 likely Democratic primary voters and 600 likely Republican primary voters conducted March 2-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error for each sample is plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time.
Brownback 1%
Gilmore 1%
Giuliani 34%
Gingrich 12%
Hagel 1%
Huckabee 1%
Hunter -
McCain 30%
Pataki 1%
Paul 1%
Romney 7%
Tancredo 1%
Thompson 1%
Undecided 9%
Paul, 1%. That means out of 600 people they called, between 4 and 8 said Paul. The idea that Ron Paul could be elected is fantasy.
So this poll is of people who answer their phones? Does anyone on this blog answer their phone if they don't know who is calling? If you even still have a landline, that is, and it's not unlisted.
Telephone polls have been seeing increasing troubles and decreasing reliability for the above reasons. I doubt their formulas work anymore.
It's true that on the 'net, the pollees seek out the polls. The pollees are going to be relatively educated about the candidates and actually interested in voting a year in advance of the first primary.
So we're not talking apples and oranges here.
Paul is hot on the 'net, including MySpace, YouTube and certain sectors of the blogosphere. Wasn't this how Howard Dean got going?
To be a problem, it's not enough that lots of people don't answer their phone, or if they do, refuse to talk to pollsters. You need that the class of people who do talk to pollsters answer differently, as a group, than those who don't.
So you are telling me that these multitudes of Ron Paulites are more unwilling to talk to pollsters than the population as a whole?
Paulites are more intelligent, more affluent than the general population at the moment. They are the hardcore, more likely to take advantage of newer technology, the internet, and, yes, screen their calls.
The people sitting at home answering their phones are the ones watching television and the only names they know are Giuliani and Gingrich.
If we do our job correctly and get Paul's message out, neighbor to neighbor, MySpace friend to MySpace friend, blogger to blogger, his name recognition will improve. Paul can only go up, where Giuliani, McCain and Newt can only go down.
We are a frickin' year away from the first primary!
I don't answer my phone. But, if I did, I would not vote for Paul. Count me as one who doesn't answer their phone and isn't voting for Paul.
Maybe Fred Thompson will get in. What do people think of Fred?
Didn't someone imply at the last debate that Chuck Hagel, being an infantryman, was a real soldier, while John McCain, being a pilot, was not.
I am still pondering that one. Maybe I should watch Midway again.
Scribbler, I thought the same thing about telephone polls before the last election... before we got crushed by the great blue wave. All the "conservatives" who decided to stay home should be happy now as the state legislature proposes one tax increase after another.
John McCain has trampled on the Constitution and the very First Amendment, specifically free speech. Were he a war hero, or even Winston Churchill, he'd still be an enemy of freedom.
And S'aurus, my dear nattering nabob of negativism, I did not stay home, in fact. Pawlenty did just fine without me. Kiffmeyer, Johnson and Awada, despite my vote for them, did not.
That Thompson's name has come up does indicate that the GOP faithful are not happy with the "big names" already before them. BUT, he does not have my support. Ron Paul or bust!
National Journal Rankings
The most conservative member of Congress seeking the Republican nomination - based on lifetime voting records - is Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, with a score of 82.5. The most conservative score possible was 99.
Lifetime scores for the other Republicans:
-Sen. Sam Brownback, 81
-Rep. Tom Tancredo, 75.9
-Sen. John McCain, 71.8
-Sen. Chuck Hagel, 71.5
-Rep. Ron Paul, 51.7
Surprisingly, Barack Obama was the most liberal of Deomcrats seeking the Presidency at 84.3, beating out Dennis Kucinich at 79.4
I wouldn't give the National Journal much credence. They say Paul's fundraising projection is $500k. He raised $500k in the month before he announced. I wouldn't be surprised if that's doubled within a month from now, and so forth.
I can't find how they base their conservative index score. If they base it on how often someone votes with the GOP, it's bunk. If they throw the war in there, that's not very conservative of them. I can say that Paul has NEVER voted for a tax increase and votes against spending more often than any other GOP congressmen, sometimes as a solitary nay vote.
Paul sounds like a great candidate... if he only supported the offensive against the terrorists and radical islam, I might consider voting for him. Without that, he is not a legitimate candidate.
Well, that ain't gonna happen. There are candidates out there for those who approve of spending of epic proportions for irretractable boondoggles, but Paul believes in lower taxes and less spending. There are many of us who subscribe to his view, and I dare say, we outnumber the big spending fans, at least within the liberty wing of the GOP.
I also believe in less spending and less taxes. But, I also support going on the offensive against radical Islam.
My views are similar to those of Jason Lewis.
Even Wellington, who tended to win his battles while on defense, still had to get himself to the battlefield.
Ron Paul would rather have us sit here doing nothing.
The Danes always had a hard time staying at home minding their own business too. Always itching to conquer England and those misguided Christians.
Why merely mind the homefront when we can be out killing people and breaking things on the taxpayer's dime? Hell, all we've got here to worry about is a porous border, if you can even call it a border. But that's so BORING. War, now that's fun, sexy.
My Space friends as of today:
Republicans +/- % #
Paul rising +13.0% 4,250
Romney rising +17.1% 2,455
McCain rising +278.5% 1,885
Giuliani rising +24.1% 1,349
Tancredo rising +1.6% 1,177
Huckabee rising +15.3% 737
Hunter — 562
Brownback rising +11.8% 266
Does Freddie Tom have a MySpace page? Or is he not a hip cat like "Dr. No" Paul?
Tommy Thompson or Bust!! I'd even accept Ed Thompson (his bro) as a Libertarian candidate for President in comparison to the other options out there.. I'd vote for Ed before I could bring myself to vote for Giuliani or McCain.. At least with the Thompson boys we know what to expect!
Alas, if only Tommy could get some more support on the national stage I think he'd make a great President..
Post a Comment