Why is CNN stepping on Ron Paul?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Why is CNN using old data to show Ron Paul at 1% of the voter pick? Does anyone think this is manipulation?

I just passed by the CNN news today at noon, and noticed that they are still posting a poll they took two weeks ago, as if it were relevant after the latest debates.

And when you notice that the scores are plus and minus 4.5-5% anyway, the thing is useless.

But, here's the point. It seems like they're wanting to hang on to this image of him being the most minor candidate, long after it is old.

And there was no other news about him at all that I could find. Are they trying to influence the casual website user into thinking he has no chance, so don't pay any attention to him?




posted on May, 26 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I think CNN is ignoring the spam! That is the only manipulation going on here.

Without the internet spamming, Ron Paul is a 1% candidate. The 1% he is getting now is 1/2% more than he got when he ran for president as a libertarian in 1998.

If he keeps picking up 1/2% every 8 years he could be a legitimate candidate by the year 2200....nevermind he'll be dead by then.



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
RR, I know it's hard, what with the old helmet screwed on so tight, but this was about CNN not keeping current on the stir Ron Paul is making.

I for one have not decided to vote for the man, so my questions were not about Ron Paul as a candidate, but about CNN as a news agency.

And what do you have to back up this 'spamming' claim?

Undo the chin strap, take a deep breath and actually contribute instead of starting in with BS.



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
RR, I know it's hard, what with the old helmet screwed on so tight, but this was about CNN not keeping current on the stir Ron Paul is making.

I for one have not decided to vote for the man, so my questions were not about Ron Paul as a candidate, but about CNN as a news agency.

And what do you have to back up this 'spamming' claim?

Undo the chin strap, take a deep breath and actually contribute instead of starting in with BS.


i believe rush and hannity said it was spamming. there you have it. case closed.



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Oh, now I feel better, knowing it was from such reliable sources.


Since I seldom pay attention to the news, I was mildly surprised at such a transparent display of manipulation. I had read, here, of people who thought the news was slanted, but this was my first "in your face" encounter.

I wonder just how prevalent this is across the board?



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Online poll spamming is nothing new.

Go to any left-wing website, and you will see several posts urging members to spam online polls. Democratic Underground is famous for this, as is Move-On.org.

When you have a so-called Republican candidate, being propped up by Prisonplanet and Alex Jones. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

That, and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity believe the polls are being spammed. That is enough for me!


[edit on 26-5-2007 by RRconservative]



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Simple- Ron Paul is not running from within either major party, which are financed by the same folks who own the major news networks.

If you're not on our team, we will squash you.



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
RR, I'm not arguing that spamming never happens. But logic tells me that it's not confined to one party, so in effect, they cancel each other out on that issue.

And you might have had me going there till you threw in Limbaugh and Hannity. But if they do your thinking for you, I rest my case.

So just screw the old helmet back down tight, cause with the mental resources you have to rely on in these people, you don't need to get any blood flow to the old noggin.



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Big X, he's listed as a Republican. If he's not being pre-selected for exclusion, then his stats ought to be as valid to a Republican leaning news organization as any.

See, that's where the conspiracy part rears it's ugly head. Because if pressure is put on to dump him this early in the sorting out process, then that means that some powerful people have a candidate selected already.



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
See, that's where the conspiracy part rears it's ugly head. Because if pressure is put on to dump him this early in the sorting out process, then that means that some powerful people have a candidate selected already.

Candidate? I'm sure they have the winner all picked out and groomed already.
When that much money and power are at stake, you don't leave anything to chance.

That's why Ron gets dumped on. He's not part of the plan, but people still know who he is.

That's what scares the PTB. The minute possibility that it could all get away from them.
If Ron gets far up enough in the polls, don't be surprised when he has a "sudden death experience".



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
Why is CNN stepping on Ron Paul?


Because, from everything I have seen, CNN's candidate of choice is Hillary. So naturally, CNN is bashing anyone who isn't her. Ron Paul is a viable, and GOOD, choice for America. Therefore he's a threat to Hillary.

IMHO

Edited to add - I also agree with the posters who brought up spamming. Democratic Underground is notorious for it.

[edit on 5/26/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Flyer, so your take on it is that it's just pro-Democrat all the way by CNN? But then, by logic, if they thought that Ron Paul didn't stand much of a chance, as in low appeal to the general undecided voters, there would be no reason to low-ball him. And if CNN really thought that, seems they would want him higher in the Republican standings, as that would show the Republicans to be 'wackos'.

Conversely, if they were scared of him, you would play him down. So this could be seen as a left hand acknowledgment that Ron Paul poses a threat to the Clinton ticket.

Spin, spin, spin.

[Edit for clarity.]

[edit on 26-5-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Sorry, but without a strong showing in any poll, Ron Paul is heading nowhere fast. I tend to agree that he has an organization that is built upon spamming and has no forward momentum. He has consistently remained at 1% in Fox, CNN, and other polls. If five polls showed him at 1, 5, and 12%, then I might be inclined to sense funny business. But I honestly just suspect stagnation and a slate of issues that appeals to less than 5% of the population.



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Togetic, then the other threads here at ATS that show Ron Paul getting some increases are in error? You see, that's what is confusing. Either he picked up some percentages, or he didn't. Now if he did not, then why do we have this thread showing that Fox says he did? And no one, at least the last time I looked, said that these facts were false.

It can't be both ways.

So, is there some source that is approved, that most everyone could accept? Or is it a case of the next President is picked for both parties, and this is all a sham?

I started this thread because I'm confused. And if I'm confused, after spending a good amount of time trying to sort out facts, what about the average working Joe down the street?



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
My measure is the polling. The polling doesn't show any movement. If he does have growing momentum, it most likely is among non-Republicans who probably won't vote in the primary and therefore such support is of little practical consequence.

[edit on 5/26/2007 by Togetic]



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Polls taken among the members of ATS probably aren't going to look anything like a poll taken among a more general universe (say, all Americans who are eligible to vote, or all Americans who are likely to vote, or all Americans as a whole), simply because the demographics are different. Any time you restrict a statistical universe, you're going to skew the poll.

If Ron Paul is more popular here than he is with the American population as a whole, that's not evidence of a cover-up or a conspiracy, just confirmation of the fact that the membership of ATS isn't like the population at large.

As for the poll spamming, it's probably true that 'everybody does it'. However, I do know that a poll taken on Little Green Footballs had to be closed because of a flood of posted votes for Ron Paul. Oddly enough, they all seemed to trace back to a few IP addresses. Make of it what you will. This does have a bearing on the topic, by the way...the poll that CNN is currently showing may be the last set of numbers that they have for Ron Paul that aren't skewed by obvious spamming. Or, it might be a conspiracy.



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Why would people, I mean Sheeple, listen to Hannity or Rush anyway??? I listen to there shows and its nothing but brow beating anyone who disagrees with them. When you make a statement, "If Hannity and Rush say so than it must be" is amazing to me. Just like they believe EVERYTHING Bush spouts from his lying mouth.

All Hannity and Rush do is FOLLOW what Bush, Cheny, Rumsfield, and Wolfowitz say. They dont have an OPINION. An opinion is just that, your thoughts on a certain subject. If you BLINDLY follow what someone else says and take it as fact than your a FOLLOWER.

Let call a spade a spade.

My question would be, WHY WOULDNT YOU VOTE FOR RON PAUL??? Anyone can see that he is one of the only honest people in Government now a days. Anyone who cant have a thought of there own and blindly follows the Party line for reasons I still cant comprehend is amazing to me. What I find interesting is that Hannity and Rush spout the same information over and over again on why we went to war with Iraq, even though that information for GOING TO WAR WAS A LIE!!!!! I hear over and over again by Hannity and Rush that we went to war because they had WMD's. THEY DID NOT HAVE THEM. WE CANT FIND THEM. THEY NEVER EXISTED. The only WMD's that existed were GIVEN TO THEM BY US.....specifically Donald Rumsfield. DENY IGNORANCE and QUIT FOLLOWING. We need to be leaders, especially for our kids.

There is a REASON why Ron Paul is not polling well, ITS BECAUSE HE ISNT INCLUDED IN ANY POLLS FOR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES IN 90% OF THE STATES. Even worse, they dont include him in any polls in the States he's SUPPOSED TO BE DOING WELL IN. How can you even believe the polls when they dont even include all the candidates.

[edit on 26-5-2007 by hoochymama]



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Well since Ron Pauls appearance in the debates, he has only been included in 2 polls. Thats not very much. His highest poll was at 3 percent, on the day of the debate.

Ron Paul is also not included in well over half the polls taken. Not to mention the fact that before the recent presidential debates, hardly anyone has even HEARD of Ron Paul.

I don't think its too late for Paul or anything like that. I do believe that his name will start to pick up momentum in the media in the coming months. Maybe that will prompt these "public polls" to put Ron Pauls name in the polls rather than exclude him from it completely.



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   
This is more fun than milking rattlesnakes.

So which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Is Ron Paul down in the polls because that's how the voters feel, or do the voters feel he can't win because he's down in the polls?

It would seem, IMO, that all the ruckus caused by his comments in the debate would have moved him one way or the other, not left him right where he started. I mean he was important enough to have a lot of comment made after the debate.

Now if I put up a website saying that the reason Pluto got kicked out of the 'planet club' was because Scientist have too much macho image to allow a dwarf rock to be in our 'family', at least two people out of a hundred would agree. If Carl Sagan's ghost came back and took me to task on that, on live TV, it would get enough extra attention to make at least two more people jump in to defend me. So my approval rating would go up.

What's the old saying, "Bad publicity is better than no publicity"? Well, Ron Paul got publicity. And since he was on the bottom of the pile, he could only go up. So it makes no sense that he didn't change at all.

And I'm not pushing to say he should have went up by 20% or something foolish. Just seems he would have moved a percent or two out of pure recognition for his name, if nothing else.

I can't put my finger on it, but it just looks 'fishy'. And contrary to popular belief, I think coming out looking for answers to a question is just as valid on this forum as being one of those with all the answers.



posted on May, 26 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
NGC, you can't go up if you aren't on the poll to begin with. Most polls don't have him included. They don't feel he is strong enough to have any standing. They don't really feel there is any reason to include him because they don't expect him to make it to the primaries
hell, I saw George Patakis name more than Ron Pauls.





 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join