Paul Beats McCain in Iowa; MSNBC/NW Censors Own Poll
Posted December 7th, 2007 by antiwar
The new MSNBC/Newsweek poll on Iowa puts Ron Paul at 8% of likely GOP caucus-goers, 2 points above McCain.
But both MSNBC and Newsweek, who commissioned the poll, have omitted Ron Paul from the analyses.
Newsweek's article on the poll analyzes it with regard to the top candidates, including McCain, but omits any mention of Ron Paul, who beats McCain in their own numbers.
Chris Matthews, who was the first to announce the results on MSNBC, displayed a chart:
Huckabee: 39%
Romney: 17%
Thompson: 10%
Giuliani: 9%
McCain: 6%
and then proceeded to talk about those five candidates, never mentioning Ron Paul's 8%.
If Ron wins in Iowa, I wonder if they will leave his total off the results?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- antiwar's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I certainly do object to
I certainly do object to your way of thinking. Media is simply suppose to report the news. But that is not true any more. They choose what and how to report and they are making decisions, for sure. They know most of the country will not get behind a candidate that won't win. Most of the country does not have that kind of integrity like Dr. Paul does. So, the media keeps reporting that he won't get the nomination, which is wrong. He will.
Does this take into account Independents?
I want to know if this takes into account the HUGE numbers of Independent voters in Iowa?We have to Push Hard on them....
2nd Line was "Likely Rep Caucus Go" and 1st Line was Rep Voters
They technically did not cheat (after they stopped cheating during the poll-taking itself) because RP did come after McCain in the preference of Republican registered voters called on landlines. They were cheating if they did not tell us that the people who were called were not from a list of newly registered voters instead of 2004 voters. They were cheating if there is any way a scientist could say this does not reflect the likely outcome of the caucus.
They should have chosen the results from the "Likely Caucus Goer Column". If this had happened we would see for Iowa:
Huckabee (who is going to crash tomorrow because his AIDS slur in 1992 will torpedo his momentum)
Romney (who has no chance outside of the Bible Belt and Utah)
Paul
If the rest of the country's Republicans see RP crush Giuliani and Thompson and McCain...they won't care about the two religious holy rollers who beat him.
It will be devastating to the national frontrunner Giuliani if RP beats him in Iowa and New Hampshire.
If not censorship then what is it?
I compared the Newsweek poll data to the text of the article and the article was clearly discussing likely GOP caucus-goers, among whom Paul had higher numbers than McCain. A good analysis would have discussed Paul before McCain. This is either bias or really bad journalism. We need to remember this article when we are called on to defend our charge of media censorship.
here's the link
http://www.newsweek.com/m...
This IS true
Cameron davis, you are wrong. Paul got 8% of likely republican caucus goers. This was reported on the situation room last night. Where did you get your numbers??
This Isn't True
If you read the poll, it has Ron Paul at 5% and 8% for people LEANING TOWARDS Ron Paul.
So, if you are looking at the percentage of people who are committed to a candidate, McCain is ahead. If you look at the percentage of people who say they are leaning, Paul is ahead.
There is no censorship, you just read the chart wrong.
Your argument is irrelevant
Either way they didn't discuss him. That = censurship and biased reporting.
No offense, but you're the one reading it wrong
For the first chart, labeled "1a/c", all numbers are for "supporting candidate X or leaning towards candidate X". All numbers include leaners.
That first column is the percentage of all respondents. The second column is the percentage of respondents who are likely to go to the caucus.
If they wanted to focus on the first column, that's their prerogative, but they didn't. They ranked everyone based on the first number (in which Paul trailed McCain), but then cited the second number (in which Paul had the lead).
Just Read the Poll
"If you were attending a Republican caucus TODAY, which ONE of the following eight presidential candidates are
you most likely to support? IF DO NOT NAME A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: As of TODAY, to which of these eight Republican presidential candidates do you lean MOST?"
So, the first column is who they definitely support. This is where Ron got 5%.
The second column is who do they LEAN towards if they haven't chosen anyone. This is where Ron got 8%.
I'm not making this up, I'm just reading straight off the survey.
You guys are inventing boogeymen where there are none. If a media outlet chooses to use the column of people who have definitely decided on their candidate, Ron finished behind McCain.
No wrong table
look at the the table headers
Total Likely Rep Caucus-Goer1
The second column is Likely Rep Caucus-Goer not lean.
This is how it works...
You see, they can write stories about Ron Paul and start off with, 'although he barely registers in the polls', blah blah blah. Well, he barely registers has to be kept that way and what better way to make sure than to leave him out altogether?
Keyword: CFR-controlled media.
You tell 'em Jane
This has to be the most sordid treatment of a Presidential candidate in the history of the US............I'm sure glad the blowback is blowing support to Ron Paul in droves! People don't like holding someone down out of meanness.
Can
we do a mass boycott of msnbc's sponcers, and tell the sponcers why?
Not the media's job
It is not the media's job to get the word out about Ron Paul.
Lets not rely too heavily on them. We already know who they are and what they do. Yet look how far Ron Paul has come without them.
I was just thinking today of how many people I have helped to convert. Quite a few. And they have all said they have never heard of him before.
People are way turned off by politics. But we are not selling politics. We are offering liberty. Those who oppose us oppose our liberty. They oppose our right to think on our own. Our right to be left alone. Our right to choice. Our right to raise our voice. Our right to peace. Our right to be at peace with ourselves and each other. And the world.
No one would ever to go to war expecting their enemy to provide them with bullets.
It's not the media's job to spread the word about Ron Paul.
It's our job.
Go Ron Paul!
Absolutely WRONG!
IT IS the medias job to get the NEWS out to people on WHO is running for president and WHAT THEIR PLATFORM IS..
Damn straights it is... They have NO "RIGHT" to PURPOSELY distort facts ignore facts and IGNORE NEWS..
they OWE it to AMERICANS to identify WHO is running and WHAT their message is.... and let the viewer decide...
THAT IS WHAT REPORTING THE NEWS IS ALL ABOUT...
AND THEY ARE ON MY AIRWAVES... OWNED BY MY GOVERNMENT....
Until that CHANGES.... well then... THEY OWE ME BALANCED NEWS
don't kid yourself for a minute that these guyz don't decide with the help of the powerful.... who the candidates are... WHAT THE ISSUES ARE... and who will be presented fairly..
I've seen election after election... Even when Buchanan ran in 96 and 2000 he got WAY MORE MEDIA ATTENTION... and the media was way against him...
It's Not the People Who Vote that Count;
It's the People Who Count the Votes'
-Stalin
What's interesting in this
What's interesting in this poll is that
BASED ON REPUBLICAN VOTERS
20% Definitely attend
29% Probably attend
26% Probably NOT attend
23% Definitely not attend
2 % Don’t know
if we have 100% turnout in Iowa we can get a good result.
The censorship knows no
The censorship knows no bounds
There's somethin' happenin' here...
Nah, governments do censorship
(Like stealing $400 worth of my time-sensitive RP Liberty medallion-speech!)
What we're seeing here is the media-BIAS which knows no bounds.
JMR
Lou Dobbs Show - CNN omits Ron Paul
Has the same thing, showing charts on this latest poll results and OMITS Ron Paul!!!!!
Lou Dobbs is not on, its a Lady and political specialists. Incredible.
Our meetup will be in Iowa.
We have Ron Paul volunteers going to the Iowa Caucus. Ron Paul will win on the ground in Iowa.
http://ronpaulsupportsour...
Ron Paul in Statistical Dead Heat
Excellent News!
If we examine the recent Newsweek Poll Listing RON PAUL at 8% of likely Republican Caucus goers, we must pay close attention to the margin of accuracy/error in the poll. It's +/- 7%
This places Ron Paul in a statistical dead heat with everyone except Huck. GO RON!
In Liberty!
Well, yeah, but be realistic
When you look at the margin for error and declare a "statistical dead heat", you're claiming that your candidate's support may have been significantly understated due to the low sample size.
I'm gonna emphasize that again: due to the low sample size. Yes, I know he's understated due to the methodology, but that's a whole different matter.
Paul has been consistently polling between 4% and 9% for the past few weeks. Iowa, being one of the states receiving a lot of money and attention, is understandably at the higher end of the range.
But my point is you can call every "likely caucus goer" right now and there's no way he's going to pull 15%. That's just not realistic and we need to avoid setting such expectations for ourselves.
Remember, everyone: low expectations are GOOD at this point. We'll get that much more media when we prove everyone wrong with strong, dedicated turnouts from people who aren't considered "likely voters".
The expectations for our campaign are already drifting up naturally. There's already talk among pundits that we might come in third in Iowa and New Hampshire. It doesn't do us any good to set the bar higher.
Treason
There has been TREASON in this Country for SIX YEARS NOW
six years?
I'd say more like 94 years...
YUP 94
“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” -Joseph Goebbels-
Hmmm... let me check that math just to be sure...
From the CFR website:
"the Council has promoted understanding of foreign policy and America’s role in the world since its founding in 1921..."
1921-2007.
2007
-1921
--------
86
Hmmm maybe you were figuring from 1913, the founding of the income tax and the federal reserve?
2007
-1913
---------
94
Yep. That must be it. In either case, it's been far too long to not have any ropes/necks being stretched for the treason plainly evident all around us (provided the traitors are given a fair trial first of course as is called for in the 6th amendment).
Paul.
if he wins iowa then they
if he wins iowa then they could not ignore him ...that would equal treason in my eyes