(A) MSM polls purposefully excludes Paul's name from most polling questionnaires
(B) They are polling the same registered Republicans who voted in the 2004 elections...
(C) Many of Paul's supporters are newcomers in politics or they're independents, so they're not polled.
(D) MSM still uses landline phones for polling - Most of Paul's supporters have cellphones. Read what the Centers for Disease Control had to say about polls, they're frustrated because everyone has cell phones and they have a hard time gathering polling data for their statistics because of it.
(E) Who determines what makes a poll "scientific" anyway? So internet & text-message polls are not objective but the ones that call people during dinner with loaded questions are? Do you know that on Internet polls you can only vote once per ISP address, and that Paul has always been ahead in these polls?
Even before I address your points ... I’ve got to say these are pretty weak justifications for calling Ron Paul a “frontrunner”. You disbelieve polling data ... but have brought no actual evidence that Ron Paul’s popularity rivals the true frontrunners.
>> (A) MSM polls purposefully excludes Paul’s name from most polling questionnaires.
Not according to the questionnaires I saw. He’s on there ... nobody’s choosing him.
>> (B) They are polling the same registered Republicans who voted in the 2004 elections...
Actually ... they call randomly and ask whether the person answering the phone is likely to vote in the 2008 primary. It has nothing to do with who voted in the 2004 elections. My father was polled by Rasmussen just a couple of weeks ago.
>> (C) Many of Paul’s supporters are newcomers in politics or they’re independents, so they’re not polled.
They’re polled to the extent that the (1) own a telephone, and (2) answer that they’re likely to vote in the 2008 Republican Primary.
>> (D) MSM still uses landline phones for polling - Most of Paul’s supporters have cellphones. Read what the Centers for Disease Control had to say about polls, they’re frustrated because everyone has cell phones and they have a hard time gathering polling data for their statistics because of it.
This is nothing more than a wild-ass-guess on your part. Ron Paul supporters wouldn’t be particularly more likely than non-Paul supporters to be phoneless. Everybody has a cellular phone these days ... Paul and non-Paul supporters alike. I’ve seen no evidence that this has had any effect on these polls.
>> (E) Who determines what makes a poll “scientific” anyway?
Statisticians. Statistics determine the reliablility of polling data. You may disbelieve polling data if you choose, though you’ve offered no partiuclar evidence outside of random guesses that these polls are inaccurate.
Additionally - you’ve got no actual evidence that Ron Paul’s support exceeds that which is suggested by the data. You merely surmise that since you sense imperfections in the polls, those imperfections MUST be hurting Paul’s numbers. Truthfully, however, if you are ENTIRELY right about the imperfections of the data ... it remains likely that Ron Paul’s support is virtually imperceptible.
>> So internet & text-message polls are not objective but the ones that call people during dinner with loaded questions are?
Yes. Unless you can actually show me loaded questions that are biasing responses against Paul - I’ve got no reason to disbelieve scientific polling and rely on unscientific polling (actually, I’d still have no reason to rely on unscientific polling).
>> Do you know that on Internet polls you can only vote once per ISP address, and that Paul has always been ahead in these polls?
Assuming you are correct (though I am unconvinced that you are), and multiple votes are not recorded in online polls ... you’ve still got a HUGE problem with sample randomness. Paul supporters can crash an online/text poll in enormous numbers, and still be statistically insignificant with regard to the overall electorate. Most voters don’t participate in online or text polls, and it appears that Paul supporters participate at a heavier pace than non-Paul supporters ... thus, Paul comes out WAY ahead when the poll isn’t randomized, but still remains at 2% when polls are truly random.
It seems odd that you believe online polling, but not actual statistically significant polling. A convenient position considering that your candidate of choice does well in unscientific polling, but HORRIBLY once the polling sample is randomized. That’s comparable to those that believed John Kerry’s exit poll numbers over the actual vote counts in 2004. Its wishful thinking, and entirely nonsensical.
H