Letter to the Jerk who BANNED the poll results and forbid it to be seen in public

As many of you know there was a poll following the CNBC debate where Ron Paul was leading by 80% which later fell to 74% and later stayed between the 75-80% range.

This was pulled from the web by CNBC. Until there was a video post documenting the poll results, and following hundreds of thousands watching that video, along with hundreds (perhaps thousands) of emails sent, there was no mention about the poll at all.
You can see his response titled "An Open Letter to Ron Paul Faithful" here

Feel free to email him politicalcapital@cnbc.com

Here's my message sent to him

Subject: Thank you Allen
Allen Wastler,

Thank you for the comedic value you provided in one of your articles.

There is a certain candidate, whom you have received tons of emails about. I wouldn't doubt that you've already been flooded with emails, so it wouldn't suprize me if you set your email to filter out his name, which seems to be a common theme among pos as well... For now we'll this candidate "Pon Raul". First of all, of course 'Pon Raul' is going to have better results on a financial network than usual due to his involvement with the federal reserve and his knowledge and views on the monetary policy. He also had been on Kudlow and company, and looked very strong there, and showed conidence and faith in his ideas. A marketer would say he did a good job of "preselling" himself.



Anyways, the following is regarding "An Open Letter to the 'Pon Raul' Faithful".

First you question the scientific validity of the poll, which you obviously were well aware of before you put it up. Well there are many possibles errors and biases in any poll For example, calling by phone is biased because of people who don't have a phone, don't answer their phone or who avoid phone calls.

In addition, people that are interruped by phone calls, might be motivated to pick up a phone and randomly pick a name in the po, but that certainly does not mean they're motivated enough to register and go vote. Certainly any result is subject to "cheating" and bias, either by the person conducting the poll or in some cases those taking the po, but there's really nothing to say that the error can be reduced completely. So percautions are taken. And to that, I am well aware of the fact that there is only one vote allowed per IP address, and your servers did not crash... There was no evidence reported as to anything that might even be considered "hacking" other than the results themselves. I sincerely doubt they were hacked without you knowing about it.

Your response in a few things of that article is flat out comical... What exactly do you consider a "legit" poll? Obviously you can't trust the media's results, as you have personal intimate proof that certain polls are taken down. The polls had to start somewhere didn't they? So to me that implies that because the resuts of one poll at one particular time from a "news leader" happened to show one way means it can't ever show an aternative view or people can't change their minds, or else it's not "legit"? I guess that means both Bush and Congress still have a fantastic approval rating using that logic? Unfortunately for those who live by that form of logic, you know that's incorrect.

But as to the serious polls, what about the $traw pols that he's actually listed as a choice in that he consistantly leads?

What about the fact that he's raised more money than anyone, has more support from the military than anyone?

Yet he's mysteriously consistantly taken off several polls

You say we're "well orginized". That couldnt be further from the truth. The truth is we aren't well orginized at all. We are just many working towards one common goal... E plurbus unum. From many comes one. One goal... freedom.

I want to thank you for what is by far the funniest thing about that article:

"But you also ruined the purpose of the po. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Pon Rau drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Pon Rau camp."

You mean to try to imply that we "ruined" your polls? By doing what.... voting?! By asking others to vote? I'm sorry if there happens to be more people willing to say, "hey I want to show my support for this guy, I REALLY like him" and a few others might say "hey, have you seen this guy? he knows what he's talking about, see for yourself (insert link), he's leading the cnbc polls if you want to go vote" for one candidate than another... I would think that's more telling of what type of results you'll see than any other "poll" you could present...

Because when it comes down to it, people can say they like one candidate or another all they want, but it doesn't matter if they aren't passionate enough to register ahead of time, and actually go out and vote... and if they get others to vote, more power to them.

But no, you actually want to try to instigate the idea that because the results seem so strongly one way that they're not "legit"? Excuse me! Just because people that use the internet take the time to research and get educated enough to make a decision, and are actually passionate about what the founding fathers stood for (freedom and NO taxes), and that they're able to formulate an opinion that isn't heavily biased by the repetative propaganda you hear in the old media? Just because the people are passionate enough to encourage others to "show their hands" as well rather than stand aside?

How do you think he became popular enough for tens of thousands of people to donate small amounts that add up to more than anyone else? By people rallying others, providing information to others about the candidate, perhaps? And while most candidates are more and more disliked the more you see of them, 'Pon Raul's' base of supporters is growing, not shrinking.

And if you think people aren't going to rally others in the same way, and the people that were passionate enough to raise money, aren't passionate enough to encourage others to vote, and actually go out and vote themselves, you must be crazy.



I thought the poll was not supposed to be a represenation of what the entire population is going to be, but rather what the actual RESULTS would be, had the caucuses be held today.

A "show of hands"? Wait, so you mean that people don't actually have to go out and vote, and aren't allowed to rally others in the actual caucuses? (or carcuses, as I have heard them called -- as often it seems to be a more accurate representation of the lame, dull, same old, brainwashed-by-a-preconceived-set-of-ideas-and-"group think" candidates).

Oh ok, so chatrooms rally to get people to vote in a po... You mean the same people thing might do on election day? Oh you mean the casual observer who happens to not be passionate enough about a candidate to encourage others to vote for their candidate

So phone calls that interrupt people that are likely uneducated to FORCE them to pick someone as their candidate.

And then you insult us by concluding saying a "few" swung the results over the many? Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize a CLEAR majority WELL within the standard deviation, and margin of any type of possible error you could give representing 75-80% would be considered few.

Give him a 10% margin of error, heck give him a 20% margin of error and he still dominates the poll. The poll proves that based on the results. IF the results were held online, you can be 95% confident that Pon Raul would not only win, but well over half the voters would vote for him. I could understand why you are afraid to accept that.

But continue to recognize the growing support that the media continues to ignore, continues to laugh at, and continues to hide.

But everyone else doesn't care, they're just "one vote" and you already told them your views on who would win, you've already hand selected the polls that show your view, so why would they vote, you've already told them who won. Most of them don't really care because of you. But in spite of you, those who crave freedom will find it, because it's just too important to them. We've been told of Patrick Henry who said "give me liberty or give me death", we've been told of Benjamin Franklin who said those who sacrifice a little liberty for security deserve neither and lose both. So of course if there's a candidate that raises enough awareness and shows that he's passionate about restoring the rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we're going to do everything we can...

But because you and the rest of the old media ignores us, laughs at us, and fighst us, and because in doing so they've already said the result for all the other people that MIGHT have cared had you not told them the results... we will show up and vote

So Thank you.

-Mike

"First They Ignore You, Then They Laugh At You, Then They Fight You, And Then You Win" -Ghandi