Look On Hannity's Face . . . Priceless
This is just a 25 second clip, so have no fear. Worth every second.
posted by Scribbler de Stebbing | 5/16/2007 07:26:00 AM
John Adams Blog
The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org
Contributors
- Open thread for Ron Paul Debate discussion
- Why Fred Thompson will be the next President (if h...
- Londanistan
- Spam
- I can't make this stuff up.
- Our government.
- Milestone Reached: "Petabyte" Read
- Debate Discussion
- JAS DEBATE MAY 9
- Lileks and The Strib
Blogs of People We Know
Other Conservative Blogs
Minnesota Organization of Blogs
Buttons
The look is not shock. It's likely his attempt to control his disdain for polls like this that are a part of the bread and butter of news networks like his when they show results like this.
All this 'poll' showed is that the Paulites are extrodinarily enthusiastic about their candidate and are able to organize. They ought to spend their time working on finding an electable candidate who shares their views. Ron Paul ain't it.
Some commentator said that Ron Paul supporters were just very organized, and I fell to the floor laughing. No one would use the words "libertarian" and "organized" in the same sentence. We're notoriously independent and won't do what we're told. But we are passionate, and there's no one else speaking for us but Ron Paul. And we do have cell phones. But we don't answer outdated landline polls, so the spillover into so-called "scientific polling" will take some time.
Watch the clip of Hannity and Ron Paul in my comment below. The neocons still don't get it, and may never get it. But the majority of the general population understands. I'm afraid the GOP is set up for another loss in '08. I don't want that, but they refuse to open their eyes.
Scribbler,
This is getting tiresome. Yes, all polls have problems in selecting a truly random sample of likely voters due to things like cell phones and people's unwillingness to respond to pollsters. And, yes, if not having a cell phone or refusing to answer a pollster's question is correlated with support for a given candidate, then this will skew the poll results against that candidate. But these things are quantifiable.
In order for a random sample poll to have Paul at 1%, but his support in reality to be anything above, say, 3%, these correlations would have to be unbelievably huge. I know Paul supporters are different than the rest of us, but they are not that different. If you actually believe that Paul's true support is higher than 2% then I truly worry about your sanity. Thus I choose to believe this is an act.
As for Republicans setting up for a loss, you are correct. Contributions are higher for Democrats, ratings for their debates are higher. As I read recently, Republicans could run the Risen Christ (and believe, Paul ain't him) and we would still probably lose.
Check out this from John Podhoretz at NRO.
I'm not sure it works, since we insult Ron Paul all the time here, and our traffic doesn't budge.
From your link, ""Win a Dream Date With Ron Paul" contests." Where?
Where? I can enter contests faster and more times than anyone on the 'net!
There is still 500 days until the election. I wouldn't count anyone out.
One more time, Pencil.
Ron Paul supporters are not going to register on old-fashioned landline polls. And they don't have the formula to find the Ron Paul support. For one thing, many Ron Paul supporters, who WILL be voting for him in primaries, will not be considered "likely Republican voters" by the pollsters. Many are not Republicans. A lopsided college crowd, many have never voted before. And the vast majority of them are on the internet, don't have or don't answer their landlines, or have only cell phones. We're the "tech" crowd. These anomalies don't apply to historical candidates, or any other existing candidate. They con't have an existing formula to quanitify the very unique base of Ron Paul support.
And check your "scientific" polls in another week or two. True, the MSM reporting of RP is lopsidedly negative, though the online buzz is still lopsidedly positive, but the papers and cable are now forced to at least mention his name if they want to report on their darling, Giuliani. You're not going to see a huge leap, but Paul will have seen at least a small bump among the "scientific" voters.
The debate couldn't have worked out better for Ron Paul if he had choreographed it himself.
Ok Scribbler, a question:
Suppose it were possible to get everyone who is actually going to vote in a Republican primary to state who their current favorite candidate is. What percentage, today, do you think would answer "Ron Paul"?
I cannot answer that. The only way to answer that question is to change polling techniques. How? A more accurate kind of sampling, ensured through census data (?), integrating the internet and other methods. The two problems I see with what we consider "scientific polling" are 1) reliance on landlines, and 2) formulas on who is a "likely Republican voter."
A schooled pollster or economist should be able to work out a better method. But what they ARE currently using is inaccurate with regard to Ron Paul's unusual demographic. It probably registers just fine for most candidates.
Read this old Salon piece about Jesse Ventura's victory in '98. The very day before the election, the polls showed him losing to Coleman 29% to 36%. He was barely registering a few weeks before. The pollsters couldn't predict the unique demographic of unlikely and new voters.
And that was back when people were still answering their landline phones and weren't on the internet.
Post a Comment