Well, the universe is finally a lot more as it should be. You may recall that after the last Republican Presidential debate on Fox, Hannity and Colmes - who disagree about just about everything - were as one in their certainty that Ron Paul's first place finish in Fox's after-debate phone-in text poll was some kind of fix - multiple dialing by the same people, to be exact, even though Fox had wisely made that option not possible.
Hannity was up to his same tricks tonight - braying that Ron Paul's first place finish was "stacked". Whereas Colmes, to his credit, calmly said he was reporting the results. As was the case last time, Hannity didn't bother to offer any evidence.
You can see this all in the YouTube clip that follows. Also sweet about this is the way Hannity has the gall to complain to Ron Paul that Hannity gets booed by Ron Paul supporters when Hannity gives speeches.
Booed? Hannity should count his lucky stars that he continues to have a microphone. I certainly would never hire anyone with such a poor standard of truth and evidence to teach courses in a department in which I was Chair...
3 comments:
I thought Ron Paul nailed the debate with his last question. Finally talking about defending our nation and not building or invading others. I also liked that in the post debate interview, he explained why he wasn't in the major polls, because they don't those people about him. I'm still VERY interested in how he's going to come out in the primary and if someone is going to call rat if he's at the top.
One thing that disturbed me about this debate is all of the candidates saying they're all for equality and rights, but when it comes to gays, forget it. What a joke. OH, and does it REALLY matter who the most conservative person is? That drives me nuts.
I think these on-line and text-messaging polls are obviously stacked in the sense that they don't represent public opinion, but the intense passions of a small number of people.
When Ron Paul points to these types of polls as "evidence" of his widespread support, he is being disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. All it proves is that his tiny group of supporters are enthusiastic and well organized, and nobody denies that fact.
Paul has been in all the major debates, and has done countless TV interviews. Considering his 3% standing in the polls, it's hard to argue that his voice has been marginalized in any meaningful way. People just don't agree with his extreme libertarian views, plain and simple.
Roddy, while I agree with you about what the polls measure, I think you need to look at the field that makes up those respondents to the scientific polls.
Typically, they use "Likely republican primary voters", which means "registered republicans who say they intend to vote in this primary and voted in the last one." While this group is almost certainly going to vote in this primary, there're two problems with this limitation.
First, in several states, primaries are open. Any independents who vote in the primary will not be considered, and in states where they constitute a large percentage (as in New Hampshire), this can make a huge difference.
Second, the last Republican presidential primary was for the 2004 election, with an incumbent president. Less than 7% of registered republicans turned out, with more than 90% voting for Bush. Comparing this sample population to the full gamut of registered republicans, how would you expect it to skew with regards to Ron Paul?
I'm in no way claiming that he'll win outright, or that the text-in polls are representative. I do claim, however, that what the polls lead you to believe may be just as far from the truth - and this holds true with regards to candidates other than Ron Paul, as well.
Post a Comment