Is our media (American) really this messed up?

Question

I was looking at the 08 polls at cnn.com and it puts Clinton at the top at nearly 46% and Ron Paul at only 1%. I did a lot of internet research on independent internet polls and they put Clinton at roughly 5% with Paul leading at 32%.
I realize that internet polls allow for all voters foreign and domestic but that can't account for the HUMONGOUS difference.
Are we being lied to? If so how far up does this lie go?

Answer 1

Of course we being lied to! Don't forget, most of our media are owned by the same people, so we'll just know what they want, which is what benefit them!

Answer 2

Ron Paul's actual polling numbers in the "scientific" polls are at 5% or so (it is about 7 and a half in New Hampshire and probably going to go up now that he is running ads there).

However, there are massive errors in "scientific" polls. They are easily manipulated just by asking the question in a specific way (Penn & Teller did a segment on polling a few years ago with Frank Luntz, currently, Fox News's "Focus Group" guy which featured a guy giving 2 contradictory answers about illegal immigration). They can be "weighted" if the pollster believes the results are inaccurate. They simply are heavily flawed and are an example of psuedoscience.

As for the Republican primary polls, they only poll people who voted in the 2004 Republican presidential primary (George W. Bush ran basically unopposed). Traditionally, primaries draw a 25% turnout (of course, the 04 Democratic Primary drew a regular turnout, so Hillary's results can be presumed to be fairly accurate), but the 04 GOP primary only drew about 6% (therefore, the polls are heavily inaccurate and only represent the most hardcore Bush supporters, or at least those who were hardcore Bush supporters 4 years ago). It is safe to assume that this group is far less likely than the average 2008 Republican primary voter to support Ron Paul (and is likely to be far more supportive of the Iraq War), which makes the poll results not credible. Even if we assume that the people polled were honest and nobody refused to answer (it is common for people to lie to the pollsters or to refuse to answer since the pollsters start off by asking personal questions that most people would not answer), we still must conclude that Ron Paul's support is deflated in "scientific" polls. However, it is just as improper to say that he is the frontrunner and has more support than anybody else (though his support is greater than what the "polls" say).

There is no conspiracy. It is just that the media and alot of people foolishly believe these psuedoscientific polls to be scientific and credible.

Answer 3

There are good, respectable scientific polls and there are baloney polls. Informal poll on the Internet, often the samples they use are self-selecting. People who care passionately are over-represented in these polls, and Dr. Paul's followers care passionately! Polls with a random sample are better. Naturally Ron Paul's numbers will come out lower in those.

Did you see the poll last week that showed that nearly half of all Americans couldn't name a single one of the Republican candidates? I don't know if I believe that. But I think it shows, for one thing, that it's way too early to be taking these polls. And also it shows that NAME RECOGNITION is the most important thing for a candidate. If people know only the name of one candidate, they will name him or her in a poll as their 'favorite', rather than say they don't know enough to have a preference.

Look at 2000. GW Bush was coronated by both party and media as The Next President at a time when 90% of people outside of Texas would not have recognized him if he showed up on their doorstep. He is president today only because (1) he came into the race with the most money and (2) he had a name everyone already knew, the name of a man who had already been president!

And who has the greatest name recognition today? Hillary, of course. Ron Paul's followers are trying to get his name out, get a 'buzz' going through the internet and media about him. But it doesn't matter because the party leaders hate him. If he rises too high in the polls, they will shoot him down. They will slime him like they did with McCain in 2000.

Answer 4

This is a scary time when the mainstream media no longer look after the people's interests but big corporations and the central bankers which own them and the government. I can verify your comment by the straw polls alone. Ron Paul has beaten every candidate and yet gets no respect from the media. If any other candidate that was following their agenda had won the amount of straw polls Ron Paul has the media would be in a frenzy. Write and send emails to your local paper and media outlets demanding more Ron Paul. It will only help confirm what we already know that the majority want Ron Paul. If there is any Justice left in the land he will be our next president. Support, donate especially on nov 5 donate for freedom of speech and to make history with the largest one day donation for a presidential candidate ever. Help show the elite and their propaganda spewing media our voices count.

Answer 5

The media is also covering Ron Paul far less than any other candidate, he is hardly mentioned on CNN and ABC's political updates. If they are having bias in their coverage I certainly believe that there is bias in their polls. The media has never treated libertarians well if you have ever seen the small coverage they have received in the past. Ron Paul has a lot of Libertarian views so I feel the media is treating him as one.

Answer 6

Ron Paul also won the text vote after the debate last Sunday night. When I looked to see who won on Monday on the Fox News website the results were nowhere to be found!! I found out FINALLY on Answers that he won with 35% of the vote!

Answer 7

Polls only sample a small portion of the population. As such their accuracy can be highly inaccurate. When you look at a poll, you should see how they poll their data.

I would trust the CNN poll more than independent internet ones. The internet ones usually allow for anyone who visits the site to vote multiple times, and can lead to more inaccurate results. I think CNN usually uses a random poll by phone, so each person polled only votes once.

Answer 8

It's notoriously easy for one group of people to hit internet polls en masse and give a ridiculously unrepresentative result. This is known as 'freeping' after a right wing sight that was famous for it.

There are very few people who put less faith in the media than I do. But even I will trust a media poll over an internet poll, every single time.

Answer 9

they are that messed up. why aren't they asking any of the candidates hard questions , why don't they probe into the misstatements made by the candidates , in fact why don't they go after the big corporations anymore , because they are owned by the big corporations.

Answer 10

yep the media is as dishonest as the politicians they want you to support
the polls are slanted to only show what the pollsters want them to show