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
Please explain why Paul has won most straw polls and Internet polls but somehow continually places at the bottom in traditional polls? Also explain why there is always a large percentage that vote "undecided" in these polls. I don't know what polls you're looking at, but Paul's name (and the same for Hunter & Tancredo) isn't even on these polls.
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.
Actually....my ass. The big polling firms such as Gallup & the networks/newspapers only poll registered or likely voters. Since Paul's supporters are NOT registered and never voted, they're not going to get polled. Your father was a rare exception.
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.
They're not calling the cellphones there buddy. They are only calling landline phones and most people do not answer or use their landline phone. Paul's supporters are affluent yuppies and suburban types who only use their cellphones. So the poll results are flawed to the point of inaccuracy.
This is nothing more than a wild-ass-guess on your part.
POLLSTERS BEGINNING TO COUNT CELL PHONE USERS
CELLPHONES AND POLITICAL SURVEYS, PART I
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.
Can statisticians determine why one set of polls wrong but the other is right? You would get a more accurate poll if more people participated in an open internet poll rather than a poll that calls people and half the time get hung up on or doesn't get an answer.
So that $5.3 million Paul raised last quarter? The volunteers donating their time and money to Paul? (The other GOP candidates do not have this type of grassroots support) So how is Paul staying in the race then?