Let's face it. Straw Polls are not statistically significant.

I remember the days when I would search the internet news sources for hours looking for any mention of Ron Paul. When mainstream did comment, it was almost always in a negative, demeaning fashion. Did that discourage us? Nope. We hung in there, donated to the cause, joined meet-up groups, brainstormed for ways to get his name out there, did what we could to defend him, and through the thick and thin of it, stuck by him.

Nowadays, he is everywhere. We did that. We are proud of that. The CPAC Straw Poll win IS a positive affirmation. Even if the deck was stacked...he won! I still get excited when he wins - a straw poll, a debate,
a point - no matter.

If you have just recently discovered Ron Paul, I understand your excitement - not only do you want him to win, you want him to win big. You want the mainstream media to portray him as YOU see him, not as how they spin it.

Don't be impatient...small steps. We are winning this war. Spread his ideas by talking to your families, friends, and co-workers. Defend him when you encounter negitive spin. That part is fairly easy as the man has few flaws, his policies make sense, and his actions are honorable.

Most of all, be excited when his ideas gain momentum. This is what it is all about.

Frankly I see nonsense like this as being nothing more and dishonest and dis-genuine.

You claim that Going to a rock fest and gauging the reaction of the crowd to the band performing is not statistically relevant in determining how well those bands will be received by a larger segment within the same group of rock lovers.

I think you need to rethink your stance or reexamine the definition of logic.

"People go to straw polls to vote"
......People go to concerts to see their favorite bands, if more show up for one band than another it doesn't take much sense to understand they have more fans.

what are you some kind of genius at calling water wet?

STRAW POLL

there's a reason why it's called that, and it's relevance and significance is probably better understood by the regulars here at the Daily Paul, then any other forum.

I rated you down for being obvious, uninsightful, uninteresting and there wasn't even any comedic relief.

...was worth about $10 million and it establishes Ron, if not a front-runner, than at least a force to be reckoned with.

Welcome jocean!

13 hour newbie trying to push propaganda...

It seems you are confusing "statistically significant" with "extremely precise realtime measurements".

The whole point of statistics is to identify trends. And the CPAC straw-poll reveals a very significant trend of Ron Paul's growing support and activist networks.

The Liberty movement is incredibly more entrenched in the Republican apparatus and growing rapidly this time around and they are not going away. And that is significant. Very significant.

aren't ya? I say some people acting like news reporters trying to marginalize somebody at the same time they were building up others for recieveng the same acknowledgement in the past. Not to mention pretending that the other ones in the polls supporters somehow would have had to go to a lot of trouble or may not have even known they could vote. Get over yourself.
Most Ron Paul supporters are smarter than that. Which is what the stupid faux news reporters were saying thinking they could somehow word it so we sound bad. And for the average neo con I'm sure it worked beautifully.
The signifigance of the poll seemed to be news worthy enough for your so called responsible reporters to report on. Oh and even so important they had to downplay the winner. At least this time. Read between the liars.

of the straw poll! If it weren`t for the newbees that chime in here after every news event I just would not know how to interperent current events.
Adios troll.

Delegates choose the nominees, and delegates are politically active. CPAC is attended by politically active people (though not all in the GOP).

Of course it has no statistical validity re the voting public! But the voting public does not choose the nominees.

The main reason to have a straw poll is to be able to issue a press release, and that's the main reason to win one.

"By any reasonable standard, winning the CPAC straw poll means only slightly less than nothing. Except for that Romney has spent a whole lotta time trying to win it."

--Josh Marshall

then why did they make such asses out of themselves as to boo him and get all pissy? its an electability booster, romney or palin wanted that win bad. losing to ron paul was an embarrassment and a huge slap in the face to thier supposed front runner status.

It's called "advocacy reporting".
There hasn't been any real "news" in the media for at least 40 years.
It's all essentially "current events with their slanted opinion" slathered all over it.

Everybody who hasn't been under a flat rock since then knows that if some big establishment name had won, it would be heralded as their stepping-stone to the Presidency.

When somebody who they don't like, such as Ron Paul, wins, then it's a "statistically insignificant event" for "bragging rights" , etc.

People aren't mad about the fact that they are pointing out that straw polls are meaningless. People are mad about the fact that if Romney won the straw poll, that would never have been mentioned.

If Palin won the straw poll, they would have said that she was expected to win because she is clearly the voice of conservatism today. They would have said this is a launching pad for a presidential run.

Why would Romney spend so much time trying to win the straw poll if he knew the media would be saying it is meaningless the entire time?

.

but when did it hit you that the CPAC poll was insignificant? Because journalists will vie for the winner when interviews are being planned. That's all that matters in the CPAC poll.

And, "journalists", were forced to say his name.
I can't remember the last time I heard Ron Paul's name mentioned on a Top-Of-The-Hour news brief on the radio.
Maybe NEVER before?
It brought quite a smile to my face, to hear that.

The Iowa caucuses are a joke; but, between them and the
New Hampshire primary, they pretty much determine who's going'
to be the GOP nominee.

...

They are as significant as the media makes them.

In 2007 and 2008, the media ignored all the Ron Paul wins, and played up the ones he didn't.

It's all about perception.

Hmmmmmmm.... one hour and 51 minutes? That's not enough time here to be statistically significant. You are way out of your league here buddy. Go back to your psyops handbook and see if you can do better... we are bored with you.