RON PAUL Smokes US News & World Report Poll at 61%

Statistics can be altered. Frankly, at this point I don't trust any polls the media shoves in our faces. This country has been bought and sold by crooks. MSM obviously doesn't want Dr. Paul. So perhaps we should, as one poster advised, start looking on the last page of any google searches for accurate information.

I hope and pray Dr. Paul gets the nomination. I believe he is the only one that has a shot at turning this mess of a government around.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by schuyler

 

What do you mean clueless statement? Do they not gather data from land-line phone polls conducted from those companies you mentioned? Do they not poll 800-1000 participants in each poll? Be sure before you answer because I have done the research and that's exactly what those polls do.

EDIT: there, I edited my original to say "conducted by other companies" since that's what you seem to be so anal about.

edit on 7-12-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

Isn't that an important point? You said this company was conducting polls implying it has an agenda. It flat out does not. I don't call it being anal, but being accurate. You completely mis-rerpresented what they do. Thank you for fixing it, but your basic point is completely invalid.

Scientific Poll
If that's not an oxymoron, I don't know what is.

On the West Coast, in making 100 calls, you might typically get 35 answering machines, 20 busy tones, 5 non-English speakers, 5 grumpy immediate hang-ups, 5 undoubtedly sweet old grandmas & grandpas with very little connection to the world of current politics, and 2 or 3 whackos of indeterminate age and background with absolutely no connection to the world of reality. That’s over 70% of your calls wasted, and if you got 20 or 25% of your calls to a competent adult who allowed you to give your message, that’s pretty good.

Why Opinion Polls Aren't As Scientific As Claimed

reply to post by schuyler

but your basic point is completely invalid.

Please explain how it's invalid. I'm sorry but I don't consider 800-1000 votes from a poll/polls conducted to LAND-LINES valid at all. Especially when we consider that there are over 300 million people in the country and most people don't even have land-lines anymore. Invalid point?

You guys can say the official polls are innacurate all you want...but when they end up matching the election results fairly closely...don't come here and cry about the election being rigged.

It's amazing that you guys put more credibility on an open internet poll than a scientificly conducted poll.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

It's amazing that you guys put more credibility on an open internet poll than a scientificly conducted poll.

'Scientificly conducted" ???
What, do they use test tubes and wear white lab coats while making the phone calls ??

reply to post by Raelsatu


Check the date...Anonymous made the whole thing up...

Originally posted by Trustme333
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

It's amazing that you guys put more credibility on an open internet poll than a scientificly conducted poll.

'Scientificly conducted" ???
What, do they use test tubes and wear white lab coats while making the phone calls ??

If you don't know what a scientific poll is...then you are beyond my help.

Go take some statistics classes and come back educated.

reply to post by eLPresidente

Why do you only bother posting in the online poll and survey poll threads where Ron gets below a certain percentage? Why didn't you ever post in my threads or other ATS members when Ron showed a clear top tier status in Iowa and New Hampshire?

I have acknowledged he is doing decent in Iowa...but by no means "good"

www.realclearpolitics.com...



New Hampshire...eh...Romney has pretty much dominated here...even Gingrich with his current rise can't top him here.

www.realclearpolitics.com...



How about South Carolina??? Yeah...not so great.

www.realclearpolitics.com...



Florida? Yeah...not good either.

www.realclearpolitics.com...


Colorado? Same story....he is at 6%

www.realclearpolitics.com...


Do I have to continue???

At his very best and where he is spending a ton of money...he is miles away....tied for second and 12 points away.



So please show me where he is doing good and a serious challenger. Better yet...show me ANY credible poll where he wins by the margins you guys brag about him winning in these internet polls.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Excuse me, but those POLLS YOU SHOW ARE ALL FROM 2008!!!! What is wrong with that PICTURE!!!

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Excuse me, but those POLLS YOU SHOW ARE ALL FROM 2008!!!! What is wrong with that PICTURE!!!

No, they aren't...those are links that will take you to the polling data for 2007 or 2008.

I'll add links to the actual pages...this isn't rocket science.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


The point is this...if they cannot change the headings for the poll dates, then what makes you trust the other information present? I do not...IRRESPONSIBLE UPKEEP OF THEIR SITE AND INFORMATION!!!

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

The point is this...if they cannot change the headings for the poll dates, then what makes you trust the other information present? I do not...IRRESPONSIBLE UPKEEP OF THEIR SITE AND INFORMATION!!!

edit on 12/7/2011 by jeichelberg because: Further content

OMG...pay attention.

Those are LINKS that will take you to the 2007 and 2008 polling so you can COMPARE to the current polling.

You can even click on the individual polls they are getting the data from to see the raw polling data.

Clearly you are new at this...but PLEASE....educate yourself because you look silly.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Was Gingrich a candidate in 2008? How about Bachmann? Or Huntsman or Cain? Why is Cain still included in the poll? He is not even campaigning anymore...The information upkeep is shoddy and misleading...

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


has that ever happened? ya know, where the polls actually are right and pick the winner. well i guess maybe they have since at one time or another every candidate is on top for a brief period. so in that sense they are always right.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Oh, and one more thing...I am not the one who looks silly...realclear looks silly because they cannot change the headers on their spreadsheets and graphs...So, please refrain from the Dick Morris, Donald Trump style crapola when writing or replying to me in this forum...

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Why does that say 2008 at the bottom?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


And where in the polls was McCain this time four years ago? He wasn't in the lead, yet he won the nomination.

But...but...the scientific polls said....

But nothing, Herman Cain was owning the polls last month and he is now out of the race completely, did the scientific polls predict that too?


I asked you, if the Iowa Caucus were to take place TODAY. Who would win?

The people polled with Gingrich as their choice haven't even made their decision yet, they're waiting for the media to tell them what to do next. Ron Paul has over 20,000 hard pledges in Iowa, TODAY. Yes, that means today, tomorrow, next week or next month, Ron Paul's voter base will NOT change and will go out to vote. Can you say the same for Gingrich? no, you can't.

Does that mean Ron Paul is doing decently in Iowa? No, it means he is doing great.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
You guys can say the official polls are innacurate all you want...but when they end up matching the election results fairly closely...don't come here and cry about the election being rigged.

It's amazing that you guys put more credibility on an open internet poll than a scientificly conducted poll.

Scientific Poll? If that isn't the oxymoron of the century!

Any Poll Can Be Manipulated To Support An Agenda

'The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes the Truth About Polls'

Ask yourself if the following two statements mean the same to you.

1. Kerry leads Bush by 51% to 45% among likely voters in a two-way contest, and by 48% to 43% in a three-way matchup that includes independent Ralph Nader.

2.Ohio -- In a survey of 636 likely voters Kerry leads Bush by 51% to 45% voters in a two-way contest, and by 48% to 43% in a three-way matchup that includes independent Ralph Nader.

Obviously most Americans would draw a different conclussion from the second statement. Why then does the broadcast media omit the sample size number. Why is it so harmful?
Truth About Polls

When Mr. Joe Simpleton watches the news and hears Newt is flying high at 25% in Iowa while Ron Paul is 18%. He's most likely to go with the winner! Hey, he's the winner, I'm voing for him!
These are the kind of people who listen to these polls. They are the same type who live in New York but will route for Dallas...just because they were winners at one point!

But where's the science in that poll? I want to see who they called. I want to see how many they called, etc. Nope! they'll say, "600 registered Republican voters." Pretty vauge.

I don't take too much credence with the on-line polls either. But they do prove that RP has support...and a lot of it! You should do the same with your scientific news polls.

btw...Who do you support and why? Or are you just another troll posting the same meaningless arguments we hear over and over?

These last few replies have proved to me why Ron Paul supporters believe he is "winning".

None of you understand how polling or elections work.