michaelr

Well thats nice footage, now they need to run it on TV. They have been talking up Huckleberry all day. That would make sense, as he is for liberal causes and loves open borders.

Advertising

last4ever

"Instead of 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."

freckles

He has been featured in every major news outlet, participated in every debate, been interviewed on major shows including non political shows like The View, been a member of Congress for over a decade, has had his name spammed on every major roadway, has stuck signs at every intersection within 500 miles from here yet people still claim they don't know who he is? I see his name more often than I see McCain and, until the last two weeks, Huckabee. And I see it way more often than Richardson, Biden, or Tancredo, yet people seem to know who they are.

last4ever

Exactly! What are the poll results after those debates? And why does MSM try to degrade them?

Even when MSM talks about him they always put him in a negative light (when do you throw in the towel, are you going to run as an independent etc…). When ignoring 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.

And don't even try to compare the press coverage of Paul to the other candidates, if Romney or Huckabee mentions religion it's an all day affair. If McCain gets a democrat endorsement MSM makes sure it gets more coverage then Ron having a record fundraising day, even though nobody really cares. If Rudi says something about Clinton it's breaking news. Give me a break with the fair coverage bit.

I’m not really worried though, because the money bombs are going to turn into vote bombs and MSM isn’t going to have the luxury of ignoring him much longer.

freckles

Internet polls? Polls where someone seeks out to get their opinion heard? We have already established he has a rock star like internet following. And you can't compare McCain/Lieberman endorsement unless someone with a somewhat celebrity like name has come out and endorsed Paul. Has someone that the MSM ignored? And the record fundraising day has been mentioned on every MSM site.

last4ever

"Polls where someone seeks out to get their opinion heard?" Hmmm, isn't that what voting is all about?

I don't remember hearing anything in the MSM when Goldwater Jr, endorsed Paul.

As I said, msm can't ignore him after a $6mil day, but he still did not get the coverage that Romney, Huckabee, McCain or Rudy would have received.

You go ahead and believe the phone polls if you want, imo they are totally inaccurate.

freckles

Turn on Fox News. They have been talking about it all day. Then get back to your whining. Phone polls are statistically more accurate than polls where a person seeks out a poll. That's proven. It's like a study sponsored by a company versus an independent peer reviewed one.

last4ever

Yes I've seen the news, and I'm glad he's finally getting some real attention.

Today, telephone polls have become a standard part of news reporting. Every scandal, major news event, or change in direction is heralded by an “instant analyses” of who is up, who is down and “What America thinks”. Often, the findings from these polls take on a life of their own, framing what people think about an event and shaping their response to it.

Yet by social scientific standards these findings are often of poor quality.

The American public has been trained to assume that a national poll of thousands with a small margin of error accurately represents the opinions of the whole society, but is that true? In fact, the sample size and margin of error give no indication as to the more important information about whether the results accurately reflect the population it has surveyed. The margin of error simply reflects how well the responses cluster around an average score.

It makes you wonder, whose opinions do these polls really reflect? While not all telephone polls are equally unreliable one rule of thumb is that those who do not report a response rate should be treated with a high degree of skepticism. Yet until the public stops believing in them, telephone polls will be tempting to those who, for a few thousand dollars, wish to see themselves as knowledge brokers.

freethinkr

And that's one of the reasons I really was turned on to him. I've never heard him come out and attack any person. He attacks their ideas and policies, without giving names.

freethinkr

He might be in the poll, but that doesn't mean the wording of the poll question included him. Oftentimes they only list 5-6 of the candidates and leave Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter out. You cannot say this doesn't have an impact on the results. And then they use these results to justify leaving his name off the question in the first place. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.