Your View-Who Won The Michigan (R) Debate?

[SpamSandwich]

Who won in your view?

Here's the vote at MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21209617/).

[SDW2001]

Who won in your view?

Here's the vote at MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21209617/).

I only saw part of it. I actually really see Thompson as standing out, but I want to hear more specifics, which I haven't heard.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21209617/

The poll is a joke. Ron Paul wins with 50% of the vote. He wins basically every category and the frontrunners all have "the most rehearsed answers." Righto. I wonder if they'll have that poll question for a dem debate, or if Chris Matthews will say "you should have stopped at no" to a dem candidate.

[sammi jo]

Some thoughts off the top of my tinfoil hat. re. support for Ron Paul:

There's something very un-kosher going on, without a doubt. All the straw polls put RP consistently way ahead of the rest of the pack, as do all the internet polls... often by a huge margin. But according to the regular polls, he is the longest of the long shots, with a consistent <1% share. For sure, the polls in which Paul achieves such spectacular numbers are not scientific, but the statistical differences between these polls and the regular ones (where his showing is "miniscule") are consistently and anomalously huge... this suggests shenanigans.

I realize that the libertarian-conservative oriented alternative media sites (Alex Jones for example) are very active in directing Ron Paul supporters to various pollsites to cast their net votes.. but that does not mean that the other candidates don't do likewise. It is weird, however, that Ron Paul supporters can so consistently and overwhelmingly manage to put their man on top with such regularity, when his "actual share" is allegedly so tiny, ie <1%! Many of the polls where Paul is so far in the lead are on mainstream news sites, where all the candidates (presumably) have equal access re. garnering votes from their supporters, for example this current MSNBC poll, where once again, Dr. Paul is way ahead of the pack. Furthermore, do Ron Paul supporters cheat in these polls more than the other candidates, by a huge factor, such as voting more than once, and other dishonest tactics? If so, what are the qualities that set Ron Paul supporters apart from those of the other candidates, and why would Ron Paul be the only one affected thus? I do understand that he is an apparent underdog (or being casted as such), and that he has some ideas which set him apart from the rest of the pack, but does that explain his supporters' apparent rabid support, compared to that of the other contenders? I have my doubts.

One thing in which there can be no doubt whatsoever, however, is that the mainstream media has actively marginalized Ron Paul. He has been excluded from debates, his name has been omitted from numerous polls, whenever he gets TV appearances (which is rare compared to the darlings of the mainstream media) he is allocated far less talk-time than his media-favored opposite numbers. The attitude of the mainstream media so far, is as almost as if Ron Paul doesn't exist. Has 'statistical massaging' been applied to the national polls, in order to reduce his poll numbers, thus lessening his status, in order to give the impression that a vote for Ron Paul is a waste of a vote? These kinds of shenanigans re. polls are becoming commonplace, and are not only easy to pull off, but also conceal, or erase the evidence.

What is this all about? In my short experience at watching US politics, I have never seen a conservative Republican candidate so actively sidelined as what is happening re. Paul's campaign. Could it be that some of RP's platform is striking a raw nerve with parties within corporate America (redundant question perhaps?). The issue that's probably pissing off some of the power-goons is Paul's stance re. the Federal Reserve Bank...and to bring that gnarly issue to the fore means stepping on the toes of some of the most power crazed people around. Is it folk such as these who view Paul as a loose cannon, and who must be actively marginalized?. If that sounds a tad "conspiratorial", put it down to human nature, which hasn't changed in millennia, and isn't likely to do so before 2008. (!!!)

I don't like Dr. Paul's stand on social issues. However, as far as the Fed is concerned, I agree with him 100%, and likewise his positive attitude towards an investigation into the 9/11 attacks, which has NOT happened. Yet. As for his anti-war position, promoting America's need for a more mature, workable foreign policy than the (barking mad) NeoConservative doctrine of "shooting at men with beards", bravo!!.

[Flounder]

For sure, the polls in which Paul achieves such spectacular numbers are not scientific, but the statistical differences between these polls and the regular ones (where his showing is "miniscule") are consistently and anomalously huge... this suggests shenanigans.

It really does not suggest shenanigans at all. It suggests that all self-selecting internet polls mean exactly nothing. They always have and they always will.

[@_@ Artman]

Some thoughts off the top of my tinfoil hat. re. support for Ron Paul: There's something very un-kosher going on, without a doubt.

Look at CNN's Election Center 2008 page (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/). Might take a few clicks because it is a high traffic site. It shows and says it all.

"Top" candidates smiling, "lower" candidates frowning - What a disgusting use of pictures CNN chooses to show current poll rankings (much less the rankings themselves).

What I think...Ron Paul has (or will) become the Ross Perot for Hillary Clinton. As his popularity increases, votes that would go for a Republican candidate will shift over to him. Thereby guaranteeing Hillary the win. The Republicans won't mind. She'll pretty much carry the line of policy they want (Global Domination).

Anyone got more tin foil? I ran out...:smokey:

[southside grabowski]

Sorry, I don't trust anthing that any of theses people say. This is all about massaging the made for TV image.

[sammi jo]

It really does not suggest shenanigans at all. It suggests that all self-selecting internet polls mean exactly nothing. They always have and they always will.

Not true. Internet polls reflect the balance of opinions of those who visit the websites in question, and cast their vote. Nothing more, nothing less.

So having said that, let ma ask you this: If Ron Paul is such an "insignificant runt of a candidate", with just a poxy 1% share of the GOP support, then why has the mainstream media expended such a huge amount of energy in actively sidelining him? What is it about "Mr. 1% Ron Paul" that they find so infernally bothersome?

[SpamSandwich]

Look at CNN's Election Center 2008 page (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/). Might take a few clicks because it is a high traffic site. It shows and says it all.

"Top" candidates smiling, "lower" candidates frowning - What a disgusting use of pictures CNN chooses to show current poll rankings (much less the rankings themselves).

What I think...Ron Paul has (or will) become the Ross Perot for Hillary Clinton. As his popularity increases, votes that would go for a Republican candidate will shift over to him. Thereby guaranteeing Hillary the win. The Republicans won't mind. She'll pretty much carry the line of policy they want (Global Domination).

Anyone got more tin foil? I ran out...:smokey:

I love CNN's little disclaimer: "The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation rankings for Republicans are based on 379 registered voters who describe themselves as Republicans or as Independents who lean Republican, conducted by telephone on September 7-9, 200. Sampling error: +/-5 percentage points. The percentages may not total 100 percent because of respondents who chose "No opinion" or "Others." ** Indicates less than one-half of one percent"

This narrow slice of opinion is about as worthless as it gets.

[SpamSandwich]

Not true. Internet polls reflect the balance of opinions of those who visit the websites in question, and cast their vote. Nothing more, nothing less.

So having said that, let ma ask you this: If Ron Paul is such an "insignificant runt of a candidate", with just a poxy 1% share of the GOP support, then why has the mainstream media expended such a huge amount of energy in actively sidelining him? What is it about "Mr. 1% Ron Paul" that they find so infernally bothersome?

Simply that his presidency would guarantee the disassembly of their power structure, as well as the Democrats'. The enemy of the most powerful Republicans and Democrats is a friend to all average Americans.

[Flounder]

Not true. Internet polls reflect the balance of opinions of those who visit the websites in question, and cast their vote.

Yes, and that reflects absolutely zero about the general population.

Let's examine your qualifiers.

People who visit the website: which induces all sort of biases

Cast their vote: here we have the self-selection of people who feel compelled enough to vote. It's like looking at an AI message board and concluding that apple computers are crap because there are so many threads of people complaining about a broken computer.

I don't think you realized that your statement agrees with mine 100%.

Saying "the poll reflects who visited and who voted" Well no duh! It's just that those results aren't generalizable to anything else, even the population that visits the website.

[SpamSandwich]

Flounder, make sure you cast a vote!

[tonton]

Yes, and that reflects absolutely zero about the general population.

Let's examine your qualifiers.

People who visit the website: which induces all sort of biases

Cast their vote: here we have the self-selection of people who feel compelled enough to vote. It's like looking at an AI message board and concluding that apple computers are crap because there are so many threads of people complaining about a broken computer.

I don't think you realized that your statement agrees with mine 100%.

Saying "the poll reflects who visited and who voted" Well no duh! It's just that those results aren't generalizable to anything else, even the population that visits the website.

Except that if you're internet savvy enough, you can vote twice. Or five times. Or if you're super savvy, you can vote 100 times. Obviously more "super savvy" (and dishonest) people support Ron Paul.

[@_@ Artman]

Except that if you're internet savvy enough, you can vote twice. Or five times. Or if you're super savvy, you can vote 100 times. Obviously more "super savvy" (and dishonest) people support Ron Paul.

Seems the "super-dooper savvy" have made their presence known on this poll. ;)

[sammi jo]

Yes, and that reflects absolutely zero about the general population.

Let's examine your qualifiers.

People who visit the website: which induces all sort of biases

Cast their vote: here we have the self-selection of people who feel compelled enough to vote. It's like looking at an AI message board and concluding that apple computers are crap because there are so many threads of people complaining about a broken computer.

I don't think you realized that your statement agrees with mine 100%.

Saying "the poll reflects who visited and who voted" Well no duh! It's just that those results aren't generalizable to anything else, even the population that visits the website.

In which case, some organization should conduct a series of polls to find out a little more about the political leanings of those with internet access, and then examine those peoples' browsing habits to see what correlations come to light re. sites visited and political leanings etc. I find it hard to acknowledge that the huge majority of people who bother voting on internet polls are virtually all Ron Paul supporters! That makes little sense. It would be peculiar if the anomalous (and enormous) disparity between Pauls internet showing and the "regular" polls happened happened even once... but this is now pattern has been repetitive for over 6 months now, over dozens and dozens of polls. I cannot believe that all the other candidates' supporters can't be bothered with the internet as a support medium; that makes no sense at all either (it was net activism that launched Howard Dean's mercurial campaign back in 2004). But if Ron Paul has a rabid internet following, this is not translating to any correlation in normal national polls. There are many unknowns here... but something isn't right about this.

Have a look at this straw poll (http://www.gopstrawpolls.com/) Where's Ron Paul?
How about this one (http://pajamasmedia.com/strawpoll2008/results.php?precinctid=d7b93ad39dd2b3ab00924ee074a abdd3a) .... oh look, here's one where Ron Paul isn't winning! They omitted his name, because in a previous poll by the same organization, he trounced his opponents. (http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/ron-paul-wins-straw-poll-again-pajamas-media-removes-his-name/)

I do agree with you that internet/straw polls are not a scientific arbiter re. who is going to vote for whom, across the board. But if they are so useless, and have no value as an indicator, then why all the energy and expense in (a) conducting them in the first place, and (b) removing the probable winner from the poll, thereby making the poll of even lesser value?

[SpamSandwich]

Except that if you're internet savvy enough, you can vote twice. Or five times. Or if you're super savvy, you can vote 100 times. Obviously more "super savvy" (and dishonest) people support Ron Paul.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that if you were really 'savvy' and anti-Ron Paul, you would use those unsavory tactics against him?

Sounds like you're really running out of explanations for Ron Paul's appeal.

[SpamSandwich]

Sammi, my answer is... because Ron Paul (being effectively a member of a 3rd party insulated by the sheepskin of the Republican party) reduces the power and influence of the status quo.

[SpamSandwich]

Seems the "super-dooper savvy" have made their presence known on this poll. ;)

:lol: :D :smokey:

[Flounder]

Wouldn't it stand to reason that if you were really 'savvy' and anti-Ron Paul, you would use those unsavory tactics against him?

I think that makes the possibly unrealistic assumption that an anti-Ron Paul faction thinks it would be worth the bother. Based on actual, methodologically rigorous survey methods, he wouldn't seem to be.

I'll say it again: any convenience survey tells somewhere between not a whole lot and bupkiss (leaning heavily towards bupkiss for a survey on any news website). You can talk to any statistician you like.

[Flounder]

I do agree with you that internet/straw polls are not a scientific arbiter re. who is going to vote for whom, across the board. But if they are so useless, and have no value as an indicator, then why all the energy and expense in (a) conducting them in the first place, and (b) removing the probable winner from the poll, thereby making the poll of even lesser value?

As to point a, because conducting a poll on a website requires hardly any energy/expense at all. Websites have polls because they're easy, cheap, and it gives them something to blab about/people to look at.

as to point b, I can't really comment, because I'm simply uninformed. That's awfully silly but I suppose they can make up any poll they care to.

[spindler]

Ron Paul won 9% of that first state straw poll, and I think he would be even more popular with Republicans in big cities as they are less pro-war. So it would be odd for him to be polling at 1%. There's only one REAL way to tell who America supports - we've got to start counting bumper stickers.

[SpamSandwich]

Ron Paul won 9% of that first state straw poll, and I think he would be even more popular with Republicans in big cities as they are less pro-war. So it would be odd for him to be polling at 1%. There's only one REAL way to tell who America supports - we've got to start counting bumper stickers.

:lol: Just see how much he's been raising recently (there's a 'live' update of the latest contributions on his web page). He has some decent momentum right now.

www.ronpaul2008.com

[@_@ Artman]

Ahem...
(http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/)
"I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."

Even read the bill itself? (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-300) This legislation mentioned would actually strip the Federal Courts of all power to rule on or overturn any state laws.

Not just ones pertaining to abortion either. Yet Ron Paul is willing...and trying...to fundamentally restructure our entire government's power scheme just for the sake of making sure women cannot control their own bodies.

The Paul supporters also seem to gloss over the fact that it took the federal government to end segregation in schools and to force businesses to treat African Americans the same as whites because the various states were unwilling to do it themselves. It also took the federal government to keep the states from performing illegal searches and seizures. There was a time when the 4th Amendment was considered to only apply to the federal government.

If they think the police are bad now....:no:

[Northgate]

My father is a Republican, lifelong. I asked him his thoughts on the debate. He's a McCain man, but he's depressed about his lousy campaign. I then asked him about Ron Paul. He barked back, "I don't vote for racists!"

[sammi jo]

My father is a Republican, lifelong. I asked him his thoughts on the debate. He's a McCain man, but he's depressed about his lousy campaign. I then asked him about Ron Paul. He barked back, "I don't vote for racists!"

Oh dear.... hmmmmm (http://www.stopjohnmccain2008.com/category/racism/).... ouch (http://www.commondreams.org/views/030200-104.htm)

[SpamSandwich]

My father is a Republican, lifelong. I asked him his thoughts on the debate. He's a McCain man, but he's depressed about his lousy campaign. I then asked him about Ron Paul. He barked back, "I don't vote for racists!"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, brother. Sounds like your dad has been getting his news from Fox again. :rolleyes:

[SpamSandwich]

Ahem...
(http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/)


Even read the bill itself? (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-300) This legislation mentioned would actually strip the Federal Courts of all power to rule on or overturn any state laws.

Not just ones pertaining to abortion either. Yet Ron Paul is willing...and trying...to fundamentally restructure our entire government's power scheme just for the sake of making sure women cannot control their own bodies.

The Paul supporters also seem to gloss over the fact that it took the federal government to end segregation in schools and to force businesses to treat African Americans the same as whites because the various states were unwilling to do it themselves. It also took the federal government to keep the states from performing illegal searches and seizures. There was a time when the 4th Amendment was considered to only apply to the federal government.

If they think the police are bad now....:no:

That's right Artie, Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and pro-individual rights, he's 'surprisingly' Libertarian. :rolleyes: Anything other than what is called for constitutionally, must be decided by the states.

[@_@ Artman]

That's right Artie, Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and pro-individual rights, he's 'surprisingly' Libertarian. :rolleyes: Anything other than what is called for constitutionally, must be decided by the states.

Do you really think the Ron-bots really care? Their world view is shaped by such a deep-seated and irrational distrust of social contracts that they will put their own personal freedom above all else.

They seem to think that they have very little to lose by states reinstating or continuing racist or misogynist laws. They are more likely to be young, white, male and wealthy than any other group (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/17/in-search-of-ideologues-in-america).

[SDW2001]

It really does not suggest shenanigans at all. It suggests that all self-selecting internet polls mean exactly nothing. They always have and they always will.

Not true. Internet polls reflect the balance of opinions of those who visit the websites in question, and cast their vote. Nothing more, nothing less.

So having said that, let ma ask you this: If Ron Paul is such an "insignificant runt of a candidate", with just a poxy 1% share of the GOP support, then why has the mainstream media expended such a huge amount of energy in actively sidelining him? What is it about "Mr. 1% Ron Paul" that they find so infernally bothersome?

Some thoughts off the top of my tinfoil hat. re. support for Ron Paul:

There's something very un-kosher going on, without a doubt. All the straw polls put RP consistently way ahead of the rest of the pack, as do all the internet polls... often by a huge margin. But according to the regular polls, he is the longest of the long shots, with a consistent <1% share. For sure, the polls in which Paul achieves such spectacular numbers are not scientific, but the statistical differences between these polls and the regular ones (where his showing is "miniscule") are consistently and anomalously huge... this suggests shenanigans.

I realize that the libertarian-conservative oriented alternative media sites (Alex Jones for example) are very active in directing Ron Paul supporters to various pollsites to cast their net votes.. but that does not mean that the other candidates don't do likewise. It is weird, however, that Ron Paul supporters can so consistently and overwhelmingly manage to put their man on top with such regularity, when his "actual share" is allegedly so tiny, ie <1%! Many of the polls where Paul is so far in the lead are on mainstream news sites, where all the candidates (presumably) have equal access re. garnering votes from their supporters, for example this current MSNBC poll, where once again, Dr. Paul is way ahead of the pack. Furthermore, do Ron Paul supporters cheat in these polls more than the other candidates, by a huge factor, such as voting more than once, and other dishonest tactics? If so, what are the qualities that set Ron Paul supporters apart from those of the other candidates, and why would Ron Paul be the only one affected thus? I do understand that he is an apparent underdog (or being casted as such), and that he has some ideas which set him apart from the rest of the pack, but does that explain his supporters' apparent rabid support, compared to that of the other contenders? I have my doubts.

One thing in which there can be no doubt whatsoever, however, is that the mainstream media has actively marginalized Ron Paul. He has been excluded from debates, his name has been omitted from numerous polls, whenever he gets TV appearances (which is rare compared to the darlings of the mainstream media) he is allocated far less talk-time than his media-favored opposite numbers. The attitude of the mainstream media so far, is as almost as if Ron Paul doesn't exist. Has 'statistical massaging' been applied to the national polls, in order to reduce his poll numbers, thus lessening his status, in order to give the impression that a vote for Ron Paul is a waste of a vote? These kinds of shenanigans re. polls are becoming commonplace, and are not only easy to pull off, but also conceal, or erase the evidence.

What is this all about? In my short experience at watching US politics, I have never seen a conservative Republican candidate so actively sidelined as what is happening re. Paul's campaign. Could it be that some of RP's platform is striking a raw nerve with parties within corporate America (redundant question perhaps?). The issue that's probably pissing off some of the power-goons is Paul's stance re. the Federal Reserve Bank...and to bring that gnarly issue to the fore means stepping on the toes of some of the most power crazed people around. Is it folk such as these who view Paul as a loose cannon, and who must be actively marginalized?. If that sounds a tad "conspiratorial", put it down to human nature, which hasn't changed in millennia, and isn't likely to do so before 2008. (!!!)

I don't like Dr. Paul's stand on social issues. However, as far as the Fed is concerned, I agree with him 100%, and likewise his positive attitude towards an investigation into the 9/11 attacks, which has NOT happened. Yet. As for his anti-war position, promoting America's need for a more mature, workable foreign policy than the (barking mad) NeoConservative doctrine of "shooting at men with beards", bravo!!.

First, internet polls are not generally reliable. It's clear that, as mentioned above, they can include all sorts of biases and inaccuracies.

Secondly, I see no conspiracy. You just have the fact that Ron Paul supporters are so enthusiastic about him. They tend to vote in these internet polls, but when it comes to scientifically/statistically valid polling, he doesn't register. That's to be expected.

Third, I don't the MSM has marginalized him. The reason for that is that his actually nationwide support is not all that high. They are going to give the time to the mainstream top tier candidates. Also, Ron Paul does often come off as kind of a maverick nut....he sort of marginalizes himself in that regard, just as Mike Gravel does on the other side of aisle.

Last...Ron Paul is not a conservative Republican exactly. He's a libertarian. I agree with much of what he says, but I also think he goes too far as I've outlined before. He takes valid points and takes them to an extreme, such as when he talks about us bombing Iraq being the reason for 9/11. His point is of course that our foreign policy contributes to ME anger and what not, which I agree with. But then he goes off the deep end. It's the same with reducing government. Getting rid of the IRS? Excellent. Getting rid of the CIA? Not so excellent.

So again...no conspiracy. I'm much more interested in the fact that no one is allowed to ask Hillary an actual question for fear of having his balls cut off.

[SpamSandwich]

Do you really think the Ron-bots really care? Their world view is shaped by such a deep-seated and irrational distrust of social contracts that they will put their own personal freedom above all else.

They seem to think that they have very little to lose by states reinstating or continuing racist or misogynist laws. They are more likely to be young, white, male and wealthy than any other group (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/17/in-search-of-ideologues-in-america).


Truer words (below) have not been used on these boards in a while...

Judging by their opinions on a number of issues, many Americans simply do not fit well within either the conservative or the liberal ideological camps, instead falling into one of the two other important U.S. political traditions - libertarian and populist - or defying attempts to pigeon-hole them.

[franksargent]

... The Alex Jones Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alan_Parsons_Project)!

Irony is truly defined when the AJ types construct their very own conspiracy plot to distort the truth.

If you want to talk about potential voter fraud in '08 you might start with these types because they've become very good at SPAMMING these Faux polls from the get go.

So while every national poll shows RP at ~1 to 2 percent for the R's candidates, the first 3 questions on the MSNBC poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21209617/) show RP with ~88 percent, MH with ~3 percent, RG with ~2 percent, and MR with ~3 persent.

RP:MH ~ RP:MR = 29:1

RP:RG = 44:1 (where in fact national polls show RG:RP = 30:1

Finally, google the following: "Ron Paul" "Alex Jones" and you will get 352,000 hits! :rolleyes:

So when next the R's debate, expect the AJ crowd to be working overtime making Ron Paul SPAM sandwiches to be served up to the next MSM site hosting an online poll! :lol:

[SpamSandwich]

...making Ron Paul SPAM sandwiches to be served up to the next MSM site hosting an online poll! :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: Wish I could take credit... but I didn't do it all, I swear! :p

[SpamSandwich]

...I suppose you could just call this Alex Jones guy the "Ann Coulter" of conspiracy theorists.

[@_@ Artman]

...I suppose you could just call this Alex Jones guy the "Ann Coulter" of conspiracy theorists.

http://www.infowars.net/pictures/Nov06/231106scanner.jpg

More like the Rush Limbaugh of conspiracy theorists. :smokey:

[@_@ Artman]

Editor's Note: (http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS)

Dear folks,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.

Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.

So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.

The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

Sincerely,

Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com

[Northgate]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, brother. Sounds like your dad has been getting his news from Fox again. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, yes. He and my brother. Political discussions have been banned from the dinner table during family get-togethers. LOL!

[SDW2001]

Editor's Note: (http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS)

Discussion over.