New GOP Straw Poll
Time for the latest GOP presidential straw poll - good luck finding someone worthy of your vote… (BTW - note the GOP Bloggers‘ afterword regarding the Ron Paul campaign)
Some of you may be wondering about the absence of Ron Paul from this months straw poll. Let me explain. After my decision to include Ron Paul in the previous poll, I monitored (to the best of my ability) the efforts by Paul’s online supporters. With the help of other bloggers, we discovered a sophisticated coordinated effort to spam the poll, obfuscate their actions, and even cheat the poll.
Shortly after the launch of the previous poll, I received an email from Jesse Benton, the communications director for Ron Paul’s campaign. He was interested in getting information about what safeguards are used in the straw poll in order to protect it from spammers/cheaters. I made it clear that I was not about to share the details of what protections are place. His response was a bit less than amicable.
I found it very curious that someone from Ron Paul’s campaign would have such an active interest in the GOP Straw Poll and specifically request such guarded details about it. This high suspect request, combined with the efforts of Paul’s online supporters to spam/cheat the poll. Ron Paul has been removed from this months poll in order to provide usable data on the acceptability/unacceptability of the candidates in the race. As you may have noticed in the previous poll, people who voted for Ron Paul as their number one choice also only put Ron Paul as the only acceptable candidate — a voting behavior not mimicked by supporters of other candidates. This made the data severely flawed and useless as a barometer — even for an unscientific one.
So, that’s all there is to say about it now.
wendell,
thought you might like to let your PITOB folks know that there is a nasty rumor about that alledges that the requisite number of signatures had been collected but PITOB cut a deal at the last minute and did not submit them for a count. I don’t believe it, but there is an element out there that does. regards, mike
Thanks Mike for the info - I can tell you that it is patently false. I’ll pass it on to the folks in the know.
That certainly is a nasty rumor; it’s a good thing we don’t take things personally–we’d have to go out and rent a plane to counteract it.
First of all, there were too many “principals” involved–16 people, by my count–to allow any deal cutting. We had checks and balances, and all was done by consensus. It was a pretty good process, and I’m looking forward to continuing to work with this group–they were exceptional. The decision not to submit was an all-cards-on-the-table group decision.
Second, if we had had the requisite number, we would have submitted to a count just because of the power of 46,000 in less than 30 days to definitively “punk” the two commissioners, the Lesic progaganda shop, the sorely compromised PD, and that nebulous thing called the GCP. Although we did “punk” them pretty well, it was a nebulous punking, not the definitive punking we strove for. We still hear them squealing and trying to re-create reality, like over at that medicalmart/ShotInTheShorts site, for instance; they know they lost on every count but the number of signatures, and they’re trying to reassure themselves they’ve vanquished the voices and the vote.
But, we’re certainly not done, and thanks for keeping an eye on this for all of us. We had a lot of fun making them commit assets–a lot of time and money–to doing dishonest things. Now, we showcase the after-action reports, and let the public decide for themselves where this goes next. We’re entering a new era, that Third Wave thing. Some shift sooner. Some can’t because they have entrenched interests.
no question about your last point. can you imagine being a local democrat for the past 40 years and realize that your party has left you? what would you do? would you walk into the enemy camp and admit to 25 years of having been wrong and throwing better candidates to the wolves in the name of partisan politics based on an ideology that is completely reversed from the one that caused you to sign on originally 40 years ago? a tough nut to crack to be certain.