reply to post by The Axeman
We can keep going back and forth like this until Ragnarök. With respect to Paul, my point remains that the fact that a newsletter like this could be
published for ten years without him realizing what is in it is critically irresponsible, and I don't think he has addressed that particular issue.
I'm not accusing him of being a racist because he hasn't said anything to that end.
With respect to the polling, Luntz' groups are heavily influenced by instrument error; by virtue of being subject to such close, televised scrutiny
they think about things differently than they would if they were watching the debate in their own homes. I have done political polling so I am
familiar with their methods and techniques. I can say that the focus groups on television need to be taken with a grain of salt. But do I think
they're intentionally trying to sabotage anything? You'd have to prove that.
With respect to the text message polls, I have addressed those on this site in the past. They are not scientifically valid because there is no
control over the sampled population. All those polls show is that Paul's supporters are more likely to answer phone text message polls. You can’t
draw any scientifically valid conclusions about the greater universe.
With respect to the debate, I thought Paul's answer to the 9/11 truth question was pretty poor. His answer to the electability question, on the
other hand, was really good. I didn't come away thinking that he was a big loser. But I didn't think he was the big winner. In a sense, it is hard
to pick a winner because Paul has such different ideas; of course his supporters are going to think he won and those supporting others are going to
think he lost. They're predisposed to their opinions.