Example: media distorts reality subliminally - Ron Paul MSNBC poll results.

page: 2
36
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Glad you posted that link, I hadn't visited that one yet


I really wish that the numbers were different.

My vote will be for Ron Paul if I am given him as a choice or a write in option.

nationalpolls.com...

Only a massive change in the opinions of the majority of the responders will change the average when all of the polls are considered.

Even the smallest of handicapping can affect the outcome of a long race.




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


So what is your opinion of all these polls on this site?

www.realclearpolitics.com...


Are they all fixed? Are all those organizations working together to make it look like Ron Paul is doing very poorly in the nomination race???

What do you think of all these polls that don't back up the results of "internet polls"???



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



I have been doing some off line research about all these polling comments and 'preferred sources' and allegations of 'bots' and whatnot, and you know what? I don't believe any of it.

Not the good, not the bad, not the Pro or Con of any political side... I wish that were not so, but when I see media personalities and high-rollers starting organizations like "truth of this or that" or "Unbiased XYZ" etc. I find myself wanting to understand how people using the same principles of mathematics and statistics come to such radically different results.

I'm not poo-pooing your preferences... just saying that, for example; RealClearPolitics was founded by ABC's declared "must read" blogger John McIntyre, and the Chicago-Sun Tribune's Tom Bevan; both strongly aligned with a particular party, I can't help but wonder what ingredients are in their soup they are not telling us about.

Please, please, PLEASE don't take this personally; I simply don't trust pollsters anymore. It's too much like the electoral college to be legit.

One of the principle reasons I don't trust polls is that the two most important factors which must take preeminent position in their value is 1 - Who paid for it?, and 2 - Who published it?.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


YES!

I was just looking into some of the history of the companies conducting the polls on realpolitics.

This was done quickly, using wikipedia so check it out for yourselves.

-ABC is owned by disney.
-The Washington Post was bought by a member of the Federal Reserve in 1933 and his grandson is now the chairman. The company's vice-chairman is a director of the associated press.
-Fox news and the Wall St Journal are BOTH owned by newscorp (mr. murdoch anyone???)
-CNN is of course owned by ted turner
-NBC universal is owned by comcast.
-PPP is affiliated with the democratic party and uses an automated questionaire (fun!)
-Rasmussen also uses automated polling (doesn't necessarily make it bs, I know)

On top of all that, they all show Perry leading, garnering between 1/4 and 1/3 of the votes........he was AWFUL at the debate!

Now who do you think is the ONE candidate none of those conglomerates wants anything to do with?

No, I can't say I trust any of them.
edit on 9-9-2011 by greenWeenie because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-9-2011 by greenWeenie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by greenWeenie
 


Control of most US media is in 5-6 corporations:
link 1
link 2
link 3

When you then look at what else they control you start to get a clearer view of what is going on. GE is the largest military contractor, period. They own 80% of NBC etc... And you wonder why they push these wars as good?

The CFR took control of the media a long time ago.... source, Congressional Record:

Every president since JFK has almost exclusively appointed ALL POSITIONS with CFR members. We have been taken over, Democrat or Republican is a joke - an illusion. They all do the CFR's bidding.

Here is Hillary Clinton stating the CFR tells her what to think:


Hillary Clinton, at the CFR on July 15, 2009.
"We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future."

Hard to believe? Here is her saying it:

So no, OKS. I do not believe the Propaganda Casts. I turn to the internet, the only place left (for now) you can get real news.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


realclearpolitics doesn't conduct any polls themselves...they just take all the polls from other pollsters and average them out. They take polls that are party affiliated on both sides and they take party neutral polls to try to get a realistic picture.

For example...I don't think Perry is out ahead as much as he appears right now. He got a huge boost by declaring late due to the fact that people weren't really excited about the current candidates. But I think as they here more and more from him and about him, he will slowly sink to a dead heat between him and Romney. Romney has been in the public eye for long enough...I don't think he will take a major hit at anytime.

I don't "trust" any single poll...but I think all polls taken together can give you a good look at what is trending. In the past elections...these polls have been pretty dead on. Granted that the primaries are still pretty far off...but Ron Paul has consistently, this year and past years, have polled almost exactly where he is at right now.

Ron Paul has also been on the radar for a long time...and the fact is that he just isn't getting the traction he needs to become a serious contender. He is in a race for 3rd right now with Bachman...if Palin declares...then Paul/Bachman will be in a race for 4th. But I don't think he has a chance to climb higher than 3rd...and he will have to fight hard to get that high.


I don't take any offense...because all I have to do is wait and see the outcome. I don't have a horse in this race...I'm just a spectator. But as any spectator...I still like to see an acurate reflection of the current race...and not a skewed picture.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 



We have been taken over, Democrat or Republican is a joke


And Ron Paul is a....REPUBLICAN.


I'm betting you have some sort of an excuse for that though.

And you still didn't answer my question.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I've very clearly answered your question. All those media sources are controlled. They all have been caught deliberately lying and deliberately underreporting and ignoring Ron Paul.

My OP shows yet another example of how they are misrepresenting data. Ron Paul keeps winning polls yet, in at least one poll i'm aware of (and ATS proved), they do a bait and switch and in their reporting they don't even use their own polls... they find obscure polls online that says what they want.

So I do not trust that data. Also when I go in and examine many polls they are as close to lying as you can come. I have time and again pointed these out in my posts, you can search through my post history if you want examples.

As to real poll results, ATS has shown poll after poll from many many sources (CNN, MSNBC, etc...) where Paul decimates all other candidates yet these polls mysteriously don't show up on those results from your website.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Step back and examine what you are saying.

You are saying they purposely want to misrepresnt Ron Paul...and yet they allow him to win an internet poll ON THEIR WEBSITE.

What easier way is there to manipulate data than to fudge the numbers on a poll on YOUR website? It's really easy...because you control the coding.

I'm sorry...but your logic falls flat on it's face...you don't trust ANY official scientific poll because of who conducts them...but you trust an internet poll from the EXACT SAME SOURCE.

Here's the deal...you only trust sources that back up YOUR point of view. And that is a poor standard.


As to real poll results, ATS has shown poll after poll from many many sources (CNN, MSNBC, etc...) where Paul decimates all other candidates yet these polls mysteriously don't show up on those results from your website.


Please provide ONE example. If it has been poll after poll....PLEASE give just one example.

And you do understand the difference between an unscientific internet poll and the polls I am talking about....right?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I trust you to twist and misrepresent what I'm saying. And I don't have a website.

The polls on that website are not scientific polls, many are online.

Every "scientific" poll I have examined lately has been a farce and I have pointed it out in my other threads.

Sorry, your the one twisting here


Since you want an example here is one of the polls from your chosen website:

HART/McINTURFF AUGUST 2011
Interviews: 1000 adults, including 200 reached by cell phone
Study #11382 NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey
Please note: all results are shown as percentages unless otherwise stated.
(ASK ONLY OF SAMPLE TYPE 2--CELL PHONE ONLY RESPONDENTS.)
Study #11382--page 1 NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey
Date: August 27-31, 2011
48 Male 52 Female
The margin of error for 1000 interviews is ±3.10%


Where to start,

First of all this is a REDICULOUSLY small sample. They claim that 1000 adults, can predict the real belief of the US population of 312,177,491 - less than one percent of the population. The OP shows the results of a poll taken with 214,ooo people as of 7pm est.

Two they say it accurately reflex the real belief of 312,177,491 people within +-3.10% - an outright lie.

Three they use people with ONLY CELLPHONES, and have several criteria for disqualifying people...

I could go on and on, but these polls they take over and over until they get the results they want to publish.

It is a farce.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Jepic
 



You couldn't vote over and over and over on that poll. Neither on the Fox News one.

Once you voted it said something like "Thank you but we have already counted in your vote."


Haha...yes...you can...you just have to know how.


Why do you deny that Ron Paul really isn't popular? Why do you only look at unscientific internet polls and ignore the scientifically conducted credible polls???


Uhhhh no you can't.


I believe he is very popular as of now. His message of liberty and peace resonates with most of your population. Is he very well known though? That might not be the case, but as he surely would agree, all it takes is an idea to set ablaze the brushfires of liberty. An idea will spread, and sooner than later it will represent the majority which I think it even does right now.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 



The polls on that website are not scientific polls, many are online.


None of the polls on realclearpolitics are "internet" polls.


First of all this is a REDICULOUSLY small sample. They claim that 1000 adults, can predict the real belief of the US population of 312,177,491 - less than one percent of the population. The OP shows the results of a poll taken with 214,ooo people as of 7pm est.


And the whole idea about a POLL is to take a small random sample to get the representation of the ENTIRE population....that IS what a poll does.

And poll after poll...they are staying consistant...do you think they call the same people over and over??? NOOOOO...they don't.

The poll in the OP shows VOTES...not people...you have no way of knowing how many times someone voted or who is voting. It could be 10 year old kids voting...it could be non-US citizens voting, it could be ANYONE...hence it is a POOR poll.


Three they use people with ONLY CELLPHONES, and have several criteria for disqualifying people


And honestly...you do not know how to read poll results. They asked ONE QUESTION to the cell phone participants that they didn't ask others...that was "Do you have a landline in addition to your cell phone, or is your cell phone the only telephone you have?". WOW...what a conspiracy.

They polled 1000 people...200 had cell phones...where did you get that they only contacted people with cell phones? You lack of knowledge is really having me question your seriousness.

And where do you see that they disqualified people in the poll??? Now you are just making things up. :shk:



Deny it all you want...live a fantasy...but when Ron Paul loses like the polls are suggesting he will...don't come back and cry about election fraud.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 



Uhhhh no you can't


Why can't I?

If I clear all cookies and history, grab a new IP...why can't I vote again?

Why can't I vote from multiple computers?

Do you really think it is that hard?


I believe he is very popular as of now. His message of liberty and peace resonates with most of your population. Is he very well known though? That might not be the case, but as he surely would agree, all it takes is an idea to set ablaze the brushfires of liberty. An idea will spread, and sooner than later it will represent the majority which I think it even does right now.


He is well known...and the majority think he is a crazy old man who is way too extreme.


Here is how extreme he is...the Tea Party backs other moderate candidates.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by davespanners
 


Yes, that is what it should look like, but it doesn't

firstread.msnbc.msn.com... 5#short%20comment_nav

Can you provide a link as to where you got your graph? Was that on the MSNBC website?
edit on 9-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


Not quite. Either the 12.4% for Romney should be bigger, or everything below it should be smaller. Because you know, 6 is half of 12 and that bar dave's drawn seems to be subliminally telling us that Rick Perry got nearly as many votes as Romney. Additionally, (in the actual graph) the 1.1% difference between Huntsman and Gingrich compared to the 1.1% difference between Gingrich and Cain is not the same length. Using either of these as a legend will further show that the 1% difference between the bottom two as well as the difference between Cain and Bachmann are also out of whack.

Funny that you all are going crazy over one out of proportion bar and seem to be completely ignoring the rest, which as it happens, is all of them. I agree with a previous poster when he/she says it's so that the graph fits on the page in an easy to read manner.
edit on 9-9-2011 by hypervalentiodine because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by pianopraze
 


So you didn't answer my question.

What will be your excuse when Ron Paul finishes 4th or worse in the primary...just like he did last time???


And please please please don't get all your information from the internet...good lord.


I think the problem is that most Americans are easily swayed by the media, so they won't even THINK of voting for him in the primary. I also think that a HUGE majority of Americans are sleepwalking through the whole process. If the DO vote in the primary, it will be for the "chosen candidate."

When they hear over and over that "Ron Paul is nuts" from everyone in the media, and also that "-----insert name here----- is the frontrunner", they go along with it. My sister, for example, made some comment about Ron Paul that was clearly incorrect...even someone who disagrees with him would know it isn't true, had they been listening and reading his positions. People don't take him seriously unless they are plugged in enough to LISTEN to the message. When people hear what he has to say, it resonates with many of them. Unfortunately, I think most voters don't take the time to LISTEN. They just go with what they hear in the media (or on other entertainment shows that make fun of politicians), snippet after snippet.

People who don't like Ron Paul can't really tell you why, other than "he's Kooky", or "he's nuts", or "he's senile", or "he's an isolationist", or "he wants kids to starve because he hates school lunches", or "he thinks we need to get rid of FEMA so no one helps anyone when there is an emergency, and people die." None of those things are true.

To me, Ron Paul is refreshingly honest. He's not going to spin what he has to say to make it sound popular. He is one of the most intelligent candidates out there, in my opinion. I also think he is one of the only politicians who has remained consistent with his position over DECADES.

He may not be mainstream in all of his opinions, but when he is in doubt, he checks the CONSTITUTION, not the POLLS or the LOBBYISTS.

I am a firm believer that if the media got behind Ron Paul and decided to "spin" his candidacy in a positive way, he would win, hands down.

But we know they won't.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
And the whole idea about a POLL is to take a small random sample to get the representation of the ENTIRE population....that IS what a poll does.

And where do you see that they disqualified people in the poll??? Now you are just making things up. :shk:


Because I read:


Have a landline ................................. - TERMINATE
Cell phone is only telephone ............. 100 CONTINUE
Not sure .......................................... - TERMINATE

Looks like simple coding on a programed computer call in system, if they have a cell phone only they continue the call, if they answer any other way TERMINATE the call. I could be wrong on that *shrug*

But I took a statistics class in college and understand what is and is not a scientific poll. These polls use far to few people to be deemed scientific by any metric. Even if they use the full 1000 not only those with Cell phones. Also they repeat these polls until they get the results they want. I know they try to pretend to make these scientific all the time, and use small groups often on the news, but that does not make it right... or scientific.

Only one person on here is twisting. And you purpose seems to be derailing not discussing the OP.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 



Hey!

Good to see you


You are correct, and in my original graph I put them all in correctly... but it seemed irrelevant and overkill and make the graph too tall to fit all on the screen for those with smaller screens. So I deleted them, then added the percentage of all the candidates except Ron Paul in one line to show that all of them put together are still far behind Ron Paul in this poll.

Dave's post was a joke on another posters post... he doesn't accurately represent the numbers. My OP shows the numbers accurately represented.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
still though, RP slaughtered them!

Now if all those computer voters would turn up at the polls!



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


You read...but apparently you don't comprehend.

Let's step through this.

200 people had cell phones...they asked THIS question to those 200 people.

100 percent said the cell phone is their ONLY phone...they continue...those that have other lines could not participate. Why??? Because it introduces the possibility that they could participate TWICE.

I see that as a fine condition.

But for this poll...NO ONE was disqualified since they all had only cell phones.

Do I have to continue to illustrate how little you understand???
edit on 9-9-2011 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 



Hey!

Good to see you


You are correct, and in my original graph I put them all in correctly... but it seemed irrelevant and overkill and make the graph too tall to fit all on the screen for those with smaller screens. So I deleted them, then added the percentage of all the candidates except Ron Paul in one line to show that all of them put together are still far behind Ron Paul in this poll.


I meant the green bar graph. If you have a look at the bottom numbers, you'll see that they are all out of whack.



Dave's post was a joke on another posters post... he doesn't accurately represent the numbers. My OP shows the numbers accurately represented.


I know





new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join